Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182

Archimedes787

Archimedes787 has been involved in changing the result field to Yugoslav/Bosnian Serb/VRS victory on military events related to wars in the Balkans. All done against consensus or without sources or misusing sources that do not support the changed result. For example:

1. Air Battle of Valjevo article, here
2. 1994 Goražde air strikes here
3. Dibran Wars (1912–1921) here
4. Operation Amanda here, and
5. Operation Echo here.

This is very similar editing behaviour to that of the socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hungarianhistorian97/Archive, for example (these are all from separate sock accounts):

1. [1]
2. [2] and [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]

Now, I understand from the sock investigation that Archimedes787 is not a sock of Hungarianhistorian97, but the editing behaviour is very similar, and it seems highly likely to me that in addition to the socking there is also some intensive meat puppetry occurring around these accounts and in this subject area. Short of semi-protecting hundreds of articles, what can be done about this? It is pretty disruptive in a controversial editing area. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Arknights12

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I would like to raise a concern regarding a Wikipedia administrator's handling of edits on Mohammad A. Arafat. It appears that the admin is selectively adding information while opposing valid contributions that provide necessary context. Specifically, the ORCHR report has been included as relevant to the page, yet the response from the concerned party has been deemed irrelevant. This creates an imbalance and contradicts Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

I believe that if a report is considered important enough to be included, then the response addressing it should also be part of the article to ensure fairness and neutrality. However, attempts to discuss this have been met with resistance.

I kindly request an independent review of this issue to determine whether the admin’s approach aligns with Wikipedia’s core policies. Transparency and fairness are essential to maintaining Wikipedia’s credibility.

I have been contributing to this discussion with explanations and without bias. However, I have noticed repeated warnings directed at me without valid justification. At the same time, edits are being made to the page that appear to reflect bias. Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize neutrality, and I believe all contributions should be evaluated fairly based on these principles.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Admin id: Arknights12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TahiHasan (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

One, we have no idea what article you're talking about. Two, this is a content dispute, not an administrative action, and thus should be discussed on the talk page of...whatever article this is supposed to be about, not ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Also User:Arknights12 is not even an admin. In addition you have not notified them of this discussion, which is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, all that. However, the article in question is pretty obviously Mohammad A. Arafat. Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC).

Moreover: as for TahiHasan's "I believe that if a report is considered important enough to be included, then the response addressing it should also be part of the article to ensure fairness and neutrality" and request for independent review above, here's my independent review of the matter: WP:MANDY. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC).

TahiHasan, I can't help noticing that nearly all of your edits have been to this one article. Have you got any conflict of interest to declare? And remember that Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is to include all significant viewpoints that have been expressed by independent reliable sources. If such sources don't exist then the viewpoint might as well not exist. Anyway, you have done the right thing by posting on the talk page (but it would be even better if you hadn't used an LLM) as this seems to be a content dispute, but you should wait longer for a reply. Editing Wikipedia is not compulsory. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat in edit summary from User:Legalnewsbench

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.

---

• Legalnewsbench (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Murder of Vandana Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Legalnewsbench is joining in with edit warring at the Murder of Vandana Das article, where they have left the following edit summary in this diff. This strikes me as being a legal threat, and I am bringing it here as such. Whether or not this qualifies as a blockable or sanctionable offense is obviously at the discretion of an administrator, but I did want to bring it to get eyes on it. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• @JeffSpaceman: Please desist from edit warring on an admin notice board, it is the height of bad taste. Many thanks! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Trout for edit warring over templates at ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have reverted to proper formatting. Don't claim others are edit-warring when you are. It is a clear legal threat. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 8 March 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.

Hoax creation by user Dwud

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:Dwud continues to create unverifiable articles despite the previous ones being deleted or being up for deletion. They already were blocked for 72 hours last month for "persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content". They have never posted on talk pages, and all their articles are either redirected, draftified, deleted or up for deletion. Can they please be indef blocked until they communicate and explain their dubious creations? Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Hmm let's cite one in full: "The Arab-Jewish wars are a historical war that began in 627 after the Jews betrayed the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench. Since that time, the war between them has not ended" (Draft:Arab-Jewish Wars). Serious competence issues. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Fram (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fram: I nominated Draft:Shammar attacks on Iranian pilgrims for speedy deletion as a hoax. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Drmies indeffed them. Polygnotus (talk) 15:15, 7 March 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 ON MARC MYSTERIO 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.

---

I recently joined Wiki and spent time to imporve the Marc Mysterio article including sourced details about his Boxing Career from Irish Daily Star and UK Daily Express national newspapers.

The vandal removed all of the edits calling them "trash". The abusive username is Drmies.

The sources for my edits and quotes from WBC Boxing executives are directly from the Star and Express: https://www.the-express.com/sport/boxing/124448/jake-paul-st-patricks-day-fight-irish https://www.irishstar.com/sport/boxing/jake-paul-challenged-st-patricks-31897522

The vandal has also removed references to Marc Mysterio as a Producer, Singer, Actor, Boxer as well as his associated acts from his infobox.

I made these edits in good faith and now this editor Drmies blocked me. It seems like wiki is a closed society save for these editors. Thsi editor prives himself on blocks and deleted articles so much so that he lists his blocked #s on his editor page and this dwarfs his positive impact on article inclusion.

With vandalism such as this, it's no surprise that wiki is being abondoned by users in favour of AI tools for being more reliable and without an agenda.

I am asking the wiki community to undo the latest edit from Drmies on Marc Mysterio page and to unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaer00787 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

(non sysop comment) He blocked you from editing Marc Mysterio, just that page, for a week. Not giving any input on the decision, just making sure the block is clear to you. ✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 05:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You have not notified @Drmies: as required. Also both the the Daily Star and Daily Express are considered deprecated sources and the use of them are prohibited on Wikipedia- see WP:DAILYSTAR and WP:DAILYEXPRESS. You have only been blocked from that specific article for a week, and other editors have also reverted your edits due to them relying on said deprecated sources. You have also used a sock (User:Pwbumpedm) to circumvent said block. Needless to say that's probably not happening. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 05:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

When you provide unencyclopedic, promotionally-toned material that is sourced to depreciated, unreliable sources, and then sockpuppet to continue to push it after it's rightfully reverted, don't be surprised if editors refer to it as "trash". It is not vandalism, you are fortunate to remain blocked only from the one article instead of fully blocked for sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia has been being abandoned by its users since 2005 (at least). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

it's no surprise that wiki is being abondoned by users in favour of AI tools for being more reliable and without an agenda. AI reliable? That's the most hilariously false thing I have heard since a recent speech by the world's most famous politician. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that while the Express has been depreciated as a source, the Irish Daily Star appears to be a different newspaper than the British Daily Star (which has also been deprecated), although it owned by the same company - it isn't clear to me whether the deprecation covers the Dublin-based paper as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The question was asked at RSN last month. There wasn't any firm agreement on how independent it was of the UK version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

There was no agreement on that point, but there seemed to be agreement that it is an unreliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse block And reverts. we do not concern ourselves with content disputes, so struck that. ---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  To editor Nbaer00787: I would like to point out that calling edits you disagree with vandalism is a personal attack. Please discuss content and sourcing on the talk page instead of making wild and inappropriate accusations. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse block: Likewise, and it seems like the OP is jonesing for a longer block than that. Ravenswing 10:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Drmies p-blocked that editor, but they also sock-blocked User talk:Pwbumpedm, who is also that editor. Drmies (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• If Drmies calls something "trash", I'm betting it's trash. *Checks this article's edit history* Suspicions confirmed... Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Even the great Drmies is not infallible, but he is nearly always right, as here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
    • I have yet to witness this fallibility, and I hope I never do. It would be like learning Santa Claus isn't real again. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
      • User:Bgsu98, you're being way too generous, and while I appreciate it, I have made plenty of mistakes. I shouldn't have called that content "trash", really--I could have used a better word. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse block - You failed to read WP:RSPS before adding sources. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Block - I concur with the above users, Nbaer did not add content based on reliable sources, he then made a sock to get around the temp topic ban. He has not recognized his mistake on sources, just continues to bother other people. Nbaer should at least get a indef topic ban. ✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 14:46, 7 March 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: Big Thumpus is limited to article space

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.

---

As a result of an ANI thread, Big_Thumpus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned from AP2. BT has continued to skirt that ban (User_talk:Big_Thumpus#Topic_banned_from_Post-1992_American_politics_(AP2)_and_current_events) despite warnings from @Rosguill: User_talk:Big_Thumpus#Topic_ban_violation. They claim they want to be no part of the community, which is their right, but their subsequent conduct is unproductive and blockable per their T-Ban. Therefore, I propose that BT is limited to editing articles and article talks outside of their topic ban and nowhere else on the project. I propose that in lieu of a project space block since I'm not positive the disruption won't move to user talks, which it did this weekend. This way BT can show they're able to edit productively and eventually have their restrictions limited while limiting further disruption. If they don't wish to edit article space, that's also fine. Courtesy ping Femke as closer of prior thread. Star Mississippi 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is plainly retaliatory and poor behavior for an administrator. I expect absolutely zero fairness from The Community at this point. I have not received the assumption of good faith required by policy from the moment I began editing.

Discussing how another editor was being treated, on their own talk page, has absolutely nothing to do with American politics. Pointing that out feels absurd. Just as absurd as editors who spend a great deal of time at ANI trying to get me banned from it.

I fully expect that same group of editors to pile into this thread. Congratulations - you all get your way, every time. This is a dirty way to run an encyclopedia and I think many of you actually know that, deep in your hearts. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think what is being said..... is are you here to help facilitate knowledge for our readers or just chat? Moxy🍁 02:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've already stated publicly that I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia because of the treatment I have received here. This retaliatory ANI thread is just another example of why I have zero confidence in the administrative system. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not retaliatory. You said you were no longer interested, yet have continued to use User Talk spaces and not in a productive manner. Wikipedia is for improving content, it is not a place to chat if you have no interest in communicatingcontributing. Star Mississippi 03:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have edited a grand total of 2 talk pages - my own and Lincoln's. I'm free to briefly pause my self imposed break from editing to reach out to someone who I feel is being treated unfairly by the community, am I not? Talk pages all over Wikipedia, indeed probably even your own, contain a broad range of casual conversation. I don't believe what you're referencing should be held to a different standard. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia So what I am hearing is that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors with a topic ban will naturally be treated to a different standard than editors without one since editors with a topic ban need to abide by their topic ban. If I had an AP topic ban there's maybe 5-10 edits of my last 100 that would be okay. I would not be posting in this thread, I would not have posted on your talk page. I wouldn't even have give the two CTOP alerts I gave for the Arab-Israel conflict since while this is a different CTOP area the article editing that gave rise to my CTOP alerts were definitely American politics related. Heck I would not even have commented in the ANI thread to give a simple reminder that ARBECR applied due to the A-I focus so maybe someone might want to deal with that. If it had been a few days and no one had said anything about ARBECR I might have approached some administrator involved explaining my concern and why I didn't say anything but that would be my one post. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

BT, you know I argued against your original sanction so please listen to what I'm saying. Violating the sanction, even if for arguments sake we accept it was wrong, is counterproductive. It's going to convince those who supported it that they were right and didn't go far enough. Violating a sanction is like violating a court order. Perhaps a higher court will tell the lower court that the original order was wrong. However, they are going to expect that you follow the lower order until such time as it is overturned. In this case editors don't have to say the original sanction was just. Instead, they can say you can't follow the rules by pointing to your violations of your sanctions. No AP2 talk means nothing (absent an appeal or clarification) on any part of Wikipedia. Nothing on AP2 articles. Nothing AP2 on articles that are otherwise not AP2 content (say an article about Disney). Nothing about AP2 related topics on user talk pages. That includes talking to others about complaints they might have related to AP2 issues. I would suggest you either state (and mean it) that you understand the restriction and stop defending any violations, stop accusing others of trying to get you, and go off and edit articles that are no where near AP2 or close shop. I don't see any other way to avoid a site ban, if that's even possible now, and the shop will be closed for you. Springee (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully but very strongly disagree with the concept that my comment in Lincoln's ANI thread had anything at all to do with post-1992 American Politics, and therefore violated any sanction. That thread was explicitly about the conduct of another user - who even in this very thread admits that their behavior was perhaps inappropriate.

And I don't think this is some coordinated effort to get me specifically - it's just human beings acting within a system that currently incentivizes unequal standards in the application of policy within a certain topic area, because the unequal standards currently happen to align with their views. What I'm hoping people realize is that running a system that way works great for you until it doesn't; either you have actual fairness and neutrality where the rules are applied the same regardless of topic, or you create a system that inevitably ends up favoring the viewpoints of one persuasion over another. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Once again, anyone with an AP topic ban who tried to comment in that thread would have been told to stop it because they had a topic ban. No one would care about their views. This isn't new or unusual. What's unusual is your inability to understand it as well as the area you're editing. Even when other editors test the limits of their topic ban, it's generally in article edits. One related area it does come up with is ARBECR, and in that case, everyone who tries to edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict even when discussing user behaviour related to the Arab-Israeli conflict but is not extended confirmed is told to stop it when someone realises be they pro-Palestine or pro-Israeli or anything else. Heck I think I've done it to editors from both sides myself despite very limited involvement. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Also since I'm now not on mobile so can easily find the diffs, this is what I'm saying would be inappropriate for me if I had a post-1992 American Politics topic ban [10] [11]. To be clear I don't just mean my follow up explanation. Even the basics of me giving a CTOP alert template for the Arab-Israeli conflict would not be appropriate. While these are different CTOP areas and are simple templates arbcom has authorised to be used to alert editors, and in general it would be fine for someone with a post-1992 American politics topic ban to give an Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP alert, since this comes about mostly due to editing in an area clearly within the post-1992 American politics, it's not something I should be doing if I had such a topic ban no matter that I didn't mention the precise edits involved or anything else. Not does it matter if my view points are generally in line with other editors, I would not expect special treatment and would fully expect to be called out for it if anyone noticed I'd done it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

All I see from this user is constant aspersions and bad advice to a new user before and after that user was site banned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just indef Big Thumpus already. We don't need any more half measures. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, after a very, very long discussion closed with the outcome of a topic ban, I think the discussion participants wanted to see if these sanctions would be sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Support site ban I feel bad for BT, but they clearly don't have a positive outlook on working on this collaborative project anymore and refuse to accept any wrongdoing. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Support site ban - BT has said that they're no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Let's grant them that wish. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• You win, everyone! Wow, what a show - you got your way twice in a week! Man, if only it was this easy to gang up with your friends and literally delete the people in real life that you disagree with, huh? Wait I think we actually have laws out here about that kind of stuff... Oh well, lol!
• You're bullies, plain and simple. The rules don't apply to you the same way that you apply them to others, and you couldn't care less because right now, it works in your favor. Either you don't understand how that system can inevitably be used against you in the future if the tides shift, or you don't care because for now, you have whatever feeling of power being bullies on Wikipedia gives you.
• I would say that Wikipedia deserves better than this, but obviously the ~15 of you must accurately represent the 100,000+ regular editors on the English Wikipedia so everything is perfectly reasonable :)

I mean, come on. Site banning someone indefinitely [forever] who already said they didn't want to be here because of the way they've been treated? Talk about vindictive. I sincerely hope that no one ever treats any of you this way online or in real life, it's such a failure of humanity. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I suggested a temporary block for Lincoln2020 instead of a siteban was because of Big Thumpus's comments on their page. BT was clearly goading Lincoln2020 on, perhaps beyond where they would have gone on their own. If anything, instead of a TBan, BT ought to be sitebanned, with consideration to downgrading Lincoln2020 to a temporary, 2-week block. BT was clearly either trolling maliciously or meatpuppeting Lincoln2020. King Lobclaw (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes BT was goading Lincoln2020. But Lincoln2020 was community sanctioned. I would not reduce this without realization of the problem, indication it will end, and acceptance by the community. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the unblock requests Lincoln2020 has made, reducing the block to 2 weeks would not solve the problem. Lincoln2020 is still claiming his block is a conspiracy to shut him up. He has gone so far as to request that arbcom get involved in the second request. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support site-ban BT openly admits to being not here to build an encyclopedia. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, another participant from the other ban thread - right on time, welcome back. Calling for the indefinite site banning of someone who has only edited their own talk page and the talk page of one other user since being topic banned is ridiculous. The encyclopedia is not suffering some great agony because of my existence, and if my discussion with an editor on their talk page bothers you I recommend closing the tab.

The Community [of editors who spend an incredible amount of time pushing for bans at ANI against editors they perceive as politically disagreeable] just doesn't like me, I get it. You all probably think I'm some MAGA asshole because I dared to remove content that maligned Elon Musk, but you couldn't be more wrong. You have no idea who I am, but judging by the way I've been treated since day 1, you never cared to find out. Most, if not all, of you are guilty of WP:BITE, at the very least, but I fully expect my feelings about that to be immediately invalidated.

And like I've already said - I expect absolutely zero actual consideration from The Community here. Liz is on Arb Com and clearly has taken a side (which is, of course, inappropriate for someone with those privileges and responsibilities - but hey, who cares!). Big Thumpus (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

First, being on ARBCOM doesn't mean you can't have opinions. If I couldn't form opinions, I couldn't do my work as an administrator. Secondly I didn't participate in the previous ANI discussion about you so I'm not sure what side you think I'm on. My only remark to or about you, ever, is that I said on Lincoln2020's User talk page that I thought you were somewhat responsible for their indefinite block. This was because of your discussions on their User talk page which seemed to cause them to dig themselves into an even bigger hole instead of dropping the stick and moving on. But that was a comment about Lincoln2020's ban, not what might happen to you. And until now, I aside from a brief comment to Pppery, I haven't said anything in this discussion or what should happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes but being on the Arbitration Committee means you've volunteered to be held to a higher standard of behavior than everyone else. It would look horrible for a court judge to go around openly maligning defendants in their conversations with prosecutors, for example. And I mean, it's not true at all that you haven't talked about me outside of Lincoln's talk page so do you want to correct your statement? Big Thumpus (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, on Star's User talk page I stated I advised them to drop the stick and move on and it looks like between them and Thumpus, they doubled down on their complaining and mischaracterizing the project. I mention your username. But I wasn't talking about your status on the project, I was talking about Lincoln's situation and have never weighed in on whether or not you should have a topic ban or be blocked. I mention that you two had a discussion that I didn't think was helpful. But, go ahead, search for other "Gotcha" moments. You seem absolutely convinced everyone is against you and so you seek out information to confirm that belief. As for your future on this project, I am uninvolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Feel like I nailed this one, honestly; the only change is that 11 out of just more than 200 is now 11 out of just more than 250 (oh and also you got an ideological ally blocked by giving incredibly dumb advice -- bravo). What happened to this, by the way? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Blatantly uncivil, actual trolling that I'm sure will go completely overlooked. You win! Big Thumpus (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban BT is either using Lincoln2020 as a meat puppet or winding them up as some sort of troll. Either way, they're in the wrong. The hair-shirt victimization act isn't working. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I won't try to contend that my comportment on the Gulf of Mexico discussion was above reproach. I didn't live up to my own standards and have said as much to a few other people. I was upset about American politics, largely over expansionist threats made towards Canada, where I live, and was thus more emotionally involved in the material than is best. I try to do better most of the time and fully intend to redouble my efforts to keep my cool, avoid political spice and to continue to be guided by Wikipedia policy in my decision making. However, at this point, I have been made something of a spectacle first at WP:AN then at WP:ANI. All I want, at this point is for these two editors to leave me alone. I would have been content to say nothing at all if I had much faith that they would agree to leave this in the past and move on productively. However, based on some of their commentary, I am afraid they will continue pursuing this dispute. I am not asking for any specific sanction and, if they can agree to leave this dispute in the past I hope additional sanctions, beyond those the community has already placed, will be unnecessary.

I do want to make it very clear that I canvassed nobody. I said my piece, said I would answer questions if needed and then went back to productive editing. I didn't enjoy seeing my own name pop up on my watchlist repeatedly over the last ten days and certainly did not want to inflame or extend this dispute that I sincerely want to leave behind. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban read the talk page logs and Big Thumpus is clearly goading Lincoln on, though since they’re both relatively new users I’d say it’s more like tag-teaming mixed with incompetence and POV-warring as opposed to “experienced user leads newbie astray”. Lincoln is not in the right and can stay blocked indefinitely until they show genuine understanding of the rules. Dronebogus (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support the restriction of Big Thumpus to article space. But before I offer an opinion on the Site Ban, I have a question. If User:Big Thumpus has stated: I've already stated publicly that I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia, what is their purpose in wanting to post to talk pages? If they are not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, known as being not here to contribute, what is their reason for wanting to post to talk pages? What do they want to do in that way? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do not "want to do" anything specific on talk pages - I suspect SM's desire to bring me here to ban me from user talk pages and noticeboards stems from my use of Lincoln's talk page to voice my disapproval of his site ban.

  Frankly I'm disgusted and insulted by the way I've been treated here from the very beginning - that's why I stated my lack of interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. I sincerely have no confidence that I will be treated fairly. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I can't speak for Star Mississippi, who can speak for themselves, but the issue that I see is not that you disapproved of their site ban, but that you encouraged them to argue in the WP:ANI thread that resulted in their ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thumpus, if you don't want to contribute here anymore (as you said, plus with the fact only 11 of your 250 edits are to mainspace), nor do you plan on anything specific on talk pages, then what are you trying to do and why are you still here? Do you just plan on complaining until The Consensus™ reaches a decision? That's not what talk pages are for. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, my desire was to get you to be a productive editor. I think you can be, but tilting at windmills instead of writing content was heading towards a block. Lincoln egging you on to break your topic ban wasn't helping, but I had no ulterior motives with either of you. Star Mississippi 01:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Big Thumpus: Wikipedia is not a freeze peach platform. Edit constructively or go somewhere else. Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support a ban outright, no hairsplitting about article-space. This clown car was unfunny a few weeks ago, and its running on fumes now. Zaathras (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support a site ban, after considering the non-responsive response. It appears that Big Thumpus wants freedom of the press to criticize Wikipedia, but freedom of the press applies to those who own a press. The WMF owns the servers, and has delegated their control of the press to the ENWP community, not to individual malcontented editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Their reaction to the topic-ban makes it clear that they haven't taken any of the issues that lead to it to heart and will, therefore, just keep doubling down; and their outright statement that they don't want to work on building an encyclopedia makes it seem like they're WP:NOTHERE. Beyond that, their reaction to the topic-ban and their interactions with other users since makes it clear that they're treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND (as, I think I said in the topic ban discussion, seemed like it was clearly their intent from the start) and show no sign of ceasing to do so. Their comments to Lincoln2020 in particular stand out because they come across as not just engaging in battlefield behavior but goading another editor into viewing it that way as well. A more narrow restriction doesn't make sense at this point - there's no real indication that the problem is confined to one area; and when someone would have that many restrictions layered on them it's time to consider a siteban anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban - BT's "you win everyone" post convinced me this editor will not or can not understand Wikipedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support full site-ban - Using "free speech" to criticize Wikipedia only harms the development of the project. Yapping about the A-I area is detrimental to the neutrality of the topic. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Not that it matters but I assume you mean AP2? I don't think Big Thumpus has involved themselves much with A-I. I did mention A-I above in the context of an example of how I would need to adjust my editing if I had an AP2 topic ban and also because it's probably the area where we're most commonly asking editors to stay out of administrative and conduct matter's given ARBECR. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support restriction to article space. After looking through the discussions, I believe a site-ban is pretty overkill. They can be a good editor, if they just stop blasting talk pages. If the disruption continues regardless, then a site ban would be fairly appropriate. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban: In their own words, they are not interested in contributing to this project. That makes them WP:NOTHERE, so lets grant them their wish and formalise it with a site ban. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 6 March 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.

ErrorCorrection1 and upcoming Canadian election, redux

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 a previous discussion, user ErrorCorrection1 was reported for edit warring and personal attacks on 2025 Canadian federal election and its talk page. ErrorCorrection1 had proposed to add text regarding media speculation about an early election call, and lashed out when their suggestion was widely rejected per WP:CRYSTAL. I asked for them to be banned from the topic, but the result of the thread was that they were partially blocked from the article only, with blocking admin Beeblebrox noting that any admin was free to unblock them once the date of the election is confirmed. The date is not confirmed, and won't be at least until Parliament reconvenes later this month.

They waited a whole week before demanding to be unblocked (see User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 52#Time to end it) in a request with more personal attacks and a curious statement about not embarrassing Beeblebrox if the admin would not comply. They didn't.

Another whole week later they tried the same thing again, this time at voorts' talk page. They again repeated their personal attacks and threatened the admin with embarrassment, and this time they earned a block. (By the way voorts, your talk page archive box doesn't seem to be picking up your Jan/Feb 2025 archive links)

When that block expired, HouseBlaster restored the original page block, which led ErrorCorrection1 to complain on that talk page. This time they did not refer to GoodDay and myself by name, but still complained extensively about "2 editors who edit aggressively" and referring to our block logs (see Special:Permalink/1278475890#pblock and Special:Permalink/1278475890#Further guidance). HouseBlaster unblocked them on February 28.

Meanwhile, a consensus developed by about January 30 for the material about the election date (Talk:2025 Canadian federal election#Lede's emphasis could be improved). On March 1, one day after their block being lifted, ErrorCorrection1 returned to the talk page and restarted the old thread, with the same previously rejected suggestion to speculate about the election date, and again sparring with GoodDay who objected. I thought since they had repeatedly committed to respect consensus in their many appeals that it might work to appeal to consensus, but instead they just told me I was wrong and then added what they wanted to the article anyway.

Owing to the now-established history of ignoring consensus and the past month they spent personally attacking GoodDay and myself in their appeals, I am now requesting that they be banned from the topic of the 2025 Canadian federal election, and also banned from interacting with the two of us. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Noting Beeblebrox has not edited since 2025-02-20T15:54:49 .-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I believe Beeblebrox is on a Wikibreak. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the 2025 Canadian federal election and IBAN from interacting with Ivanvector and GoodDay. And perhaps this is the minimum measure to stop the disruption.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  @ErrorCorrection1:, when you write things like "let them win," that is the sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that is not compatible with building an encyclopedia. I therefore endorse the block imposed by Cullen328. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Dif's for the harassment continuing after the current block would be helpful. Having said that, I think the IBANs of Ivanvector and GoodDay are still a good idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: "A problem is that Ivanvector, the ANI complainer, is extremely bitter, complaining for more punishment." ([12]) Also pretty much everything they wrote in their "editor's response" below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  We still clearly need the topic ban and the interpersonal ban for when the block expires. I predict they will quickly be blocked indefinitely after the current block expires anyway. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions on Ivanvector or ErrorCorrection1. It's a learning experience for both. Let this pass. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Nobody's suggested sanctions for Ivanvector. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• It appears I was too gentle. ErrorCorrection1, I advised you to drop the stick in my earlier conversations. You have shown a rigid mentality, insisting that others are being disruptive for disagreeing with you. I am going to say this in bold text: disagreeing with your opinion is not evidence of disruptive editing in any way, shape, or form. This battleground editing and edit warring is disruptive. WP:BATTLEGROUND editing is extremely harmful. Saying you understand the consensus process but utterly failing to put it into practice is also extremely harmful. I am not quite at "let's indefinite, sitewide block" yet, but the thought really crossed my mind. At a minimum, support the topic ban and one-way ibans.
  To the community: I tried to guide them on the right path, but I failed. My sincere apologies to the community that my unblock turned out to be misjudged and led to a greater time sink. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have ceased saying others are disruptive for any editorial opinion for at least several days and have ceased any kind of edit warring for 5 weeks but another editor continues to edit war. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  A couple of days ago, you said

  The article talks about a scenario that happens about 20% of the time, but then adds that it's possible of the 80% scenario. I think it is better to say the 80% scenario but then add that it's possible of the 20% scenario. Though still in discussion, there is an editor who wants the 20% scenario first. That editor has been sanctioned by ArbCom and been blocked about 9 times in the past. That is in the record and not a personal attack. However, it might reflect combativeness. I hope that there is not combativeness anymore but we'll see. I might have to let them win.

  That sounds an awful lot like "they might be combative because they disagree with me". HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  You said to not bring up the block record so I ceased doing that after your advice. Ivanvector wrote in the talk page to ignore that user's opinion.ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Editor's Response

I am very sorry that Ivanvector is engaging in WP:BATTLEFIELD.

Ivanvector is misleading ANI. For that, he/she should be blocked for a period of time. He/she notes: I asked for them to be banned from the topic, but the result of the thread was that they were partially blocked from the article only, with blocking admin Beeblebrox noting that any admin was free to unblock them once the date of the election is confirmed. The date is not confirmed, and won't be at least until Parliament reconvenes later this month.

but this is very deceptive and asked for punishment on the basis of violation of terms. No, the conditions for p-unblock was

or this user shows a willingness to respect consensus-based decision-making

This condition was fulfilled after one month of discussion by me with two admins.

See this diff, which represents the entire talk page discussion after Ivanvector commented and which he/she calls for my blocking...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_Canadian_federal_election&diff=1278673100&oldid=1278643066

Specifically, note where Ivanvector writes "I'm making the edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)" I then SUPPORTED Ivanvector's unilateral edit but said, based on the lack of opposition after a month of talk page discussion, that the second sentence should have the 2 phrases of the sentence reversed. Another editor did not object and had no strong opinion. Based on that, any type of block is totally wrong. Instead, if there is a block, it should be against Ivanvector to call for a block based on that diff. Ivanvector is supposed to be an expert because he is an admin, yet to call on a block based on the diff, which represents the entire recent discussion is completely wrong. Anyone who is thinking of blocking me should discuss with me why this diff, which is the ENTIRETY of the talk page discussion should result in block. It should not.

TLDR summary: Ivanvector wrongly calls for my block because of this edit.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Canadian_federal_election&diff=prev&oldid=1278647105

despite the fact that the talk page discussion had one editor say either was ok and other editors did not object (except Ivanvector dismisses GoodDay's opinion as wanting nothing done until after the election). If Wikipedia blocks based on this not huge edit (reversing the order of 2 phrases in one sentence along with discussion in the talk page and no opposition until sudden ANI objection), something is really wrong.

I support a two way IBAN on Ivanvector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErrorCorrection1 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. ErrorCorrection1, why do you keep citing this one edit as the reason for this complaint when Ivanvector never mentioned it in their report? You are misrepresenting their complaint against you. You'd have more success here if you actually discussed the content that they said was problematic rather than inventing your own narrative.

Also, FWIW, drop your allegations against Ivanvector, they may not be perfect (none of us are) but they are not going to be sanctioned in this complaint. No one but you has suggested that happen and it's clear that you are doing so as a defense against their complaint against you. It's distracting from the substance of their legitimate complaint against your battleground approach and no one is buying it. Work on explaining your own behavior and presenting an argument for why you are a net positive to this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I am very sorry that Ivanvector is engaging in WP:BATTLEFIELD is epic. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That is indeed one word for it. Wow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked ErrorCorrection1 until 21 October 2025, when the Canadian election will certainly be over. When HouseBlaster unblocked ErrorCorrection1, that adminstrator wrote "Any admin has my preemptive blessing to reimpose the block if there are further problems". The problems have continued, as can be seen in this ANI discussion. I have advised ErrorCorrection1 that when their block expires, they must be on their best behavior, because the next block may well be indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, did you mean to pblock them from the article or complete block from the site? Just checking because the previous block undone by HouseBlaster was a pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I meant to block them sitewide. In addition to the pageblock, they have previously been blocked sitewide for personal attacks and harassment, and their disruptive behavior has continued, and was not limited only to the election article. As HouseBlaster wrote above, I am not quite at "let's indefinite, sitewide block" yet, but the thought really crossed my mind. I did not block indefinitely. I blocked until this election is over. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

All good, just thought I'd ask, since we all know about assuming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick action here, but we've landed on another time-limited block. Even after that action they are still attacking me and blaming me specifically on their talk page, following a month of doing the same in every one of their block appeals (which also earned them a prior block). What of the iban that I suggested and has gained support above? Do I need to ask a third time in October? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Ivanvector, if they personally attack you on their talk page while blocked, I will revoke their talk page access. If they return to the same sort of disruption after their block expires in October, I will block them indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: fine, I'll ping you in October. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I endorse removing TPA.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Why ErrorCorrection1 didn't use the standard unblock request, but instead went to multiple administrators' talkpages to get unblocked, is something that bewilders me. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

He's still choosing to not use the standard unblock request. Either he doesn't want to or doesn't know how to. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328 is still explaining things to them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I still support the topic ban and one-way interaction bans for when they are unblocked. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• EC1 has had talk page access revoked for endless Wikilawyering about their block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest when their block is over, they go into business because they could easily be hired as an (unsuccessful) WikiLawyer for blocked editors. Just a constant, "Show me where! Show me where!" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 March 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 170.231.85.193

170.231.85.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding mass unsourced claims of death to biographies, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. IP was blocked for 31h on March 4th, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for one week. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

False death reports are among the most pernicious types of vandalism that can seriously damage Wikipedia's credibility and deeply hurt people's feelings. This IP, who appears to be a sock of User:Lauraherme Gava, vandalized 46 biographies of living people in a couple of days. Extremely concerning. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

IPs from Brazil have been making these rapid fake-death edits for months, and AIV is very responsive to blocking them when reported. I figured Lauraherme Gava was their attempt to avoid being reverted as an IP. Schazjmd (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Raoul mishima and Kelvintjy - slow edit warring and non-communicativeness

This is an update on the issue raised [13] here previously. I tried to intervene at that time because Buddhism is something I have a lot of knowledge about. However things have not been going well. After the archiving of this thread the two editors continued their slow edit war at Soka School System [14][15][16] I then restored the article to its pre-edit war condition [17] and asked both of them to stop edit warring and come to article talk [18] [19]. I also created an article talk section [20]. However instead of talking to each other, each of these editors turned to argue to me about how the other one is the disruptive editor. They also continued editing without any prior discussion [21] - appears a reasonable inclusion but still no communication on it [22] - is a clear resumption of the edit war. I don't know how to get through to these two that they are both being highly disruptive by engaging in this slow-edit war, by engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality toward each other and by refusing to actually talk directly to each other about even basic edits. Honestly, at this point, I'd suggest that both should be topic banned from Japanese New Religious Movements. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk Page of Soka School System, you will notice I tried to talk with @Kelvintjy many times, but he never answered. I'm not into edit warring, just trying to make this page more informative and less prommotionnal, and I'd like to do it with this user if he's ready for collaborating. I noticed this user has already been banned from at least one page last summer because of the same thing, reverting edits without using the talk page. Raoul mishima (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked you to stop the mass reversions and discuss at article talk and you just reverted to your preferred version anyway. Also you have made statements previously that indicate you may have multiple accounts. Could you please confirm whether this is your only Wikipedia account? Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Raoul meant Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, whose shortcut is "WP:SPA" (while socks are socks). Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It was that the way they put it seemed to intimate they were maintaining this account for a specific purpose which necessarily raises the question: do they maintain other accounts for similar purposes? I'm not the only one who has asked this question of Raoul mishima but they have never provided an answer when asked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's usually not what SPA implies, but I would also appreciate an answer. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This is my only account today. And once again : I'm willing to collaborate with @Kelvintjy and any user. I reverted the Soka School System once again because the last revert by the other user was made without any discussion. @Aaron Liu do you know Kelvintjy or have you collaborated with him on WP pages ? Raoul mishima (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, just asking because on the Soka School System talk page today, he tagged you and other users "Daveler166, Daveler16,Augmented Seventh, Tacktician, Aaron Liu, QuotidianAl Kelvintjy (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)". Raoul mishima (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be a list of people who have opposed your edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It also seems they all belong to the Soka Gakkai... Btw is it your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's another aspersion casted baselessly. Please stop assuming that all those who agree with you have a COI. And I've already answered long ago that I'm not. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Raoul mishima, it is inappropriate to ask editors about their religious affiliations so please do not make assumptions or do that again. And This is my only account today is ambiguous (what about accounts yesterday?), please list your previous accounts on your User page. Also, edit-warring is edit-warring, it doesn't matter what your reasons for doing it are unless you are removing vandalism or BLP violations which is not the case here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, Soka Gakkai is not a religion. It is an worldwide, powerful and wealthy organization, that created Japan's third political party. Being a member of this organization and editing pages related to it seems like a COI to me. Raoul mishima (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if your description is accurate that is out of keeping with Wikipedia policy. We allow members of the Republican party to edit about Donald Trump. We allow members of the LPC edit about Justin Trudeau. We allow scientologists to edit about scientology. You wanting to ban members of Soka Gakkai from editing about Soka Gakkai is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy and is, frankly, highly inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Raoul mishima, it's also inappropriate to ask an editor what political party they are affiliated with or where they work or any personal information that has not been self-disclosed. Editors are anonymous on Wikipedia and outing has gotten editors who have made many, many more contributions than you have made indefinitely blocked. It's a bright-line rule. Don't ask again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Support: I found this whole fiasco after the recent deaths nomination of Daisaku Ikeda (and thus the splitting of the badly-sourced Honors section into List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda), and part of me wishes I didn't. Now, I take a look at that article, and it's now a great mess: among other frivolous changes such as removed the "International Honors" paragraph since there is an entire page dedicated to it., we have but has also been described as a cult by medias ("Soka Gakkai has many of the markings of a cult"[3]) and politicians (the French parliamentary commission in 1995) put at the end of the first lede paragraph. A few editors also objected to such language on the talk page when they were added in late November. Despite that, Raoul continued to revert to their preferred version multiple times, even ironically mentioning talk section tx once. And when Raoul finally responded, it was January 7, and Raoul had effectively waited out the other editors' interest in editing. Trying to find consensus with Raoul means dealing with their constant deflections, as you can see in the discussion Talk:Daisaku Ikeda#Philosopher ?. Raoul clearly has an axe to grind, and their contributions would take a considerable time to comb through. But what we can do is stop them from any more edits in their area of disruption.

I also support a topic ban on Kelvin since it's clear he also has issues—both from the non-responses and interactions reported here and from the ANI thread in which he was partially blocked, including the COI concerns. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I also support a ban on Raoul mishima from pages related to Japanese new religious movements, because they appear to be a biased Wikipedia editor with an axe to grind against Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and anything related to them. It is important and necessary to provide an objective account of an influential historical figure like Daisaku Ikeda, but this is impossible if an editor is so biased against them. Nuanced and balanced Wikipedia pages are the need of the hour (something I have pointed to in the talk pages too), and I support anything that helps bring that about. QuotidianAl (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well @QuotidianAl I totally agree, but before my edits on the pages you mention, do you really think the content provided an objective account ? This is the Daisaku Ikeda page a year ago, do you really find it objective ? Same with the Soka Gakkai page a year ago, it just looks like an advertisment. Another question : do you think people belonging to the Soka Gakkai have no biased view and can provide a 100% objective content about it on WP ? Raoul mishima (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

In fact, days before you made any edits to this article, the article passed quality standards to be featured on the main page under the Recent deaths row, whose only substantial criteria is quality. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I find more complaints in the talk page archives; see e.g. Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 4#Irresponsible Editing Without Prior Discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this means that you want me to be banned in more than 30 related articles that are related to Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda? Kelvintjy (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This will be my last answer @Kelvintjy : I want to collaborate,. If you don't, gfy. Raoul mishima (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who asked you? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As I've explained to you here, in reply to your comment on an unrelated thread, pretty much yes, though that ban will be enforced by humans and not software. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Please look at Soka Gakkai International where Raoul mishima had removed a big chuck on information. He is trying bait me to go to edit war. If he is not stop, all article related to Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda will be edited purely by him and those who don't agree with him and are weak in providing a proper reasoning with him will get banned by Wikipedia moderator who will agree with him. This is what happened to me when I get topic banned in Soka Gakkai while the other editor is left the hook after he made the appeal as he know how to argue. Below are some the article he had made recent to mass edit according to his version

• Humanistic Buddhism
• Lèse-majesté in Japan
• Min-On Concert Association
• Taiseki-ji
• Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan
• Mass media in Japan
• Soka School System
• Soka Gakkai International
• Religion in Singapore
• Jimon Ogasawara (Updated)
• Gohonzon (Updated)
• Omamori (Updated) Kelvintjy (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Kelvintjy (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Kelvintjy, what do you mean by those who don't agree with him and are weak in providing a proper reasoning with him will get banned by Wikipedia moderator who will agree with him. Do you have so little faith in our administrators (that's admins, not mods) that you think they will just side with an editor and impose bans on innocent editors for no good reason at all? That's a bad faith sentiment in our admin corps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  What I meant is that editors like us who are not very good in giving a good reason in the talk page.

  I was banned by Bbb23 from Soka Gakkai as I cannot explain properly. When I appeal against the ban, it was rejected by 331dot.

  Below are some of the past incidents involved me.

  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]

  Kelvintjy (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  I can explain if you wish, or you can just have a look at the talk page of your own account.

  You were banned from that page because you were engaged in an edit war, against my edits and then again another users'. You kept reverting without any discussion. And the administrator noticed that you had been adding to many pages to the Soka Gakkai, primary sources, and irrelevant links. He concluded : "Kelvintjy does not generally discuss content but prefers to simply revert edits or manually roll things back without explanation. It should be noted that Kelvintjy is an SGI member." Raoul mishima (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Can you named the administrator whom you quote said about me? Kelvintjy (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have not removed information but promotional content, it's way different. You have been using your WP account to add promotional/propaganda content to a lot of pages related or not to Soka Gakkai.

The Soka Gakkai page itself, which you have heavily modified last summer. It was built by multiple editors which you rolled back on the 13th of August.

"He is trying bait me to go to edit war" : not at all, and it looks like you need me to go on edit war : last August you were banned from a page for that reason, remember ?

According to your list,

Humanistic buddhism -> -539

Lèse-majesté : -133

Min-On : -958

It's not "mass edit" or you have a problem with proportions. Raoul mishima (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You were partially blocked from Soka Gakkai (not WP:topic banned) because you kept rapidly reverting nearly all edits to that article. (Also, note that Raoul has never been blocked; Kelvintjy has confused Raoul for User:wound theology, who replaced their own block with the exact same voluntary WP:Restriction so that they could access the Wikipedia Library.) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there are slightly different problems here. In the case of Kelvintjy I think we have a WP:CIR issue caused by weak English skills. Kelvin regularly complains they feel out of their depth at article talk pages - that their words are twisted or they are unable to effectively counter statements made by interlocutors. This may be compounded by a WP:COI.

Raoul mishima, meanwhile, seems motivated by some sort of WP:RGW desire to make articles more "neutral." However because they seem to have a personal animosity toward this specific new religious movement they don't exercise good discretion in their edits, frequently removing academic sources such as text book chapters because they feel these sources are overly promotional of the subject religion. They seem not to be aware that this is making the articles less neutral rather than more.

This would be problem enough on its own to suggest neither of these editors should be working in this topic space. However this is made worse by the fact that both are committed to continuing this slow edit war. When they come to article talk, or this noticeboard, all they do is point fingers at each other. Neither editor shows any willingness to truly collaborate with the other. Rm calls Kelvin various aspersions regularly. Kelvin goes to article talk and all they say is that they intend to revert Rm's edits without any discussion of what should be kept or why. I think these two tangling is likely driving off other editors and is highly disruptive to the topic space. They have continued apace at Talk:Soka School System even after I filed this report. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Kelvin reverted your edit on the School System page, I didn't. I stopped reverting and proposed to discuss on the talk page, as I've been doing for months, and I'm willing to make better pages that way, but it depends on Kelvin. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes you did. In chronological order (earlier to latest): Simonm223 +1069 to the version after Folly Mox's edit on 16 June 2024, Kelvintjy +172 to add back a previous edit correcting a Singapore school's name, Raoul mishima -7944 back to their preferred version. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually asked you at article talk to discuss Kelvin's +172 edit and whether you felt it was appropriate. This, I thought, would be an easy way to get the two of you talking as the edit was a very basic factual correction. Instead you reverted the whole article to your preferred form and did not address the edit in question at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Concerning that same School System page @Simonm223, how objective do you think it is now ? That version is the one Kelvin fought for, and I think it's highly problematic because it just looks like an advertising. Some paragraphs are laudatory, facts are unsourced, it's disappointing. It's not objective at all, and that is the issue. @Kelvintjy has constantly been manipulating / censoring the pages related to the organization he belongs to. @Wound theology noticed at least a dozen of incidents (see Aug. 16th 2024) before Kelvin was banned. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I already said what I think - your cuts were indiscriminate and included the removal of reliable academic sources that you thought treated the new religious movement too favorably. Neither your nor Kelvin's preferred page is particularly neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Since the last comment here Kelvintjy has not edited but Raoul mishima has made another major edit to a Soka Gakkai related page, deleting reliable sources on the grounds that he doesn’t have access to the books to personally verify thwir contents. A book being offline is not grounds to treat it as unreliable. This is an ongoing problem that still needs resolving. [23] Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not just that, when he cannot argue his case, he will just keep quiet for a few day to a few weeks before making the edits quietly. Kelvintjy (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to talk and argue with your on Talk pages for month @Kelvintjy... I just hope you're now ready to collaborate towards better, reliable and objective pages ! Raoul mishima (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that you are not willing to listen when all other editors tried to talk to you and you just went MIA for days. After that, you made your edit and disregard other people opinion. Kelvintjy (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Just look at the talk pages @Kelvintjy, it's amazing how you keep repeating I "disregard other people opinion" but never try to talk or collaborate. Raoul mishima (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I think that some attention should be drawn to this comment that Raoul mishima most recently made. Telling another editor to go fuck themselves hardly seems indicative of an actual willingness to collaborate or contribute constructively. Taffer😊 💬_(she/they) 20:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, and as for me gfy stands for "good for you". Raoul mishima (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

In this English-language context, both expressions share the appearance of seeming dismissive and inflammatory. The reply immediately above (at 11:34, 27 Feb) seems trollish. As a non-native English user, User:Raoul mishima might take my comments as constructive criticism. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima: if you think “go fuck yourself” can ever have a positive connotation when used in a semi-formal context with an acquaintance I don’t think you understand English well enough to edit English Wikipedia. Please stick to editing a Wikipedia edition in a language you are fluent in. Dronebogus (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I think they meant that they thought "gfy" stood for just "good for you". Aaron Liu (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That is certainly what they wrote here and submitted under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GDFL. BusterD (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisting; this still needs admin assessment. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fully protected Soka School System for one week. If you folks want to argue, please do it in the appropriate place (on the talk page). So long as disruption continues, I can keep it protected as long as I like. That takes care of content issues for a bit. Sysops will now have time to examine behaviors. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank You very much! Is is also possible to fully protect all the articles that are related with Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda? Kelvintjy (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Full protection is considered an extreme solution to edit warring and is generally done for very limited time periods because it prevents all editors from working on an article. Rather than extend full protection to more and more articles, can we request editors to not edit war? Just because two editors don't get along doesn't mean all editors on the project should be prevented from editing a dozen articles. Understand the alternative to full protection is to block the editors involved in edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps a topic ban? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

My full protection duration was overbold (and perhaps even a bit pointy). I believe I was trying to demonstrate the edit war was over, one way or the other, to everybody not just a few. I await some response from User:Raoul mishima before I reduce the duration (my choice isn't six hours old yet). This disagreement has been going on for much longer than one week, and if I'm in error, I'll accept my part. Further, my protection statement above specifically calls for other uninvolved administrators to evaluate to-date behaviors. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, unprotect the article - or drop it to semi - and just pblock the two editors from it ... and personally I would make that block a month to give them plenty of time to hash the issue out on the TP. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I posed some very specific questions about the sourced statements that the edit war was over. I sincerely hope that they will respond to those. Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

BusterD, my comment wasn't directed to your full protection of this article but to the suggestion that we extend full protection to all of these other, related articles just because these two editors can't agree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

A major information is removed in Jōsei Toda by the Raoul mishima today. Kelvintjy (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears, based on the -18K edit mentioned above by Kelvintjy at 03:03, 5 March, the BOLD blanking behavior by User:Raoul mishima continues. So by my full protection, I have unfortunately not made the point sufficiently with that user. In order to keep the editor able to make a case, I'm going to temporarily block them from editing any live pagespace. I'm going to request User:Kelvintjy demonstrate patience given this discussion and not edit any of the affected page spaces for the same month. My change does have the positive side effect of my unprotecting Soka School System, since protection doesn't help solve the problem, which is looking behavioral. BusterD (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Noted. Thank You very much. I can really wait and be patience. Please revert back the article made by him in Jōsei Toda.

  In the meanwhile, can you also unblock me from editing Soka Gakkai page? Kelvintjy (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  We have an unblock process, and I'm not going to intervene where other admins have already made good faith assessments. It is enough for me that you agree to restrain yourself from editing this page under discussion. Thank you. Please continue to act in good faith. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, so this month could be the time to discuss about the pages @Kelvintjy.

  Before asking to revert back the changes about Jôsei Tôda, can you please look at the Talk page and begin a discussion ? Thanks very much. Raoul mishima (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Daveler166, Daveler16,Augmented Seventh, Tacktician, Aaron Liu, QuotidianAl, Ltdan43, BrandenburgG, Sandalwood33

  Can you all help in the Jôsei Tôda page article. I am not as well verse with all the technical part on the resources. My main strength is on the education and cultural part of Soka Gakkai. Kelvintjy (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have significant past association with Nichiren Shōshū of America that precludes my participation in any capacity save vandal patrol and occasional copy editing.

  I find the articles to be mostly accurate as written, the edit conflicts to be tiresome.

  have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  While in that edit there's a ton of problematic patterns of Raoul that have already been pointed out in other places, you are expected to say what is wrong with the edit in an edit summary or the talk page, even though the principle of the status quo means you can already revert massive changes made without consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

NoCults and CIR

I've come into conflict with the user NoCults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems inexperienced and has made relatively few edits. They've admitted that English is not their first language [24] Their userpage is very bizarre [25]. They have repeatedly in my opinion baselessly, accused me of attempting to defame Kjersti Flaa, accusing me of not properly citing sources when I had clearly done so [26] and of disruptive editing [27], including a rather aggressive warning on my talkpage [28] when I was clearly trying to have a reasonable conversation with them. I think NoCults need to be firmly told by an admin to knock it off and failing that, some kind of block for WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that no one is accusing anyone of anything until you started ranting in my discussion thread where I asked everyone editing the page to weigh their references & add archived links to their references in order to avoid any link rot [WP:LR] but of course you chose to revert my edit, criticized my English skills since your way of using the language seems to be the only right way to use a language utilised by billions of people with different grammatical rules and linguistics. I warned you because of the revisions from yourself on Kjersti Flaa's article but also behavior [1] [2] that may harm the subject reputation (again, WP:NPOV) NC. (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I just went over that talk page, NoCults, and what not so much jumped out at me as whacked me between the ears with a 2x4 is how shrill and strident you were. Not every second sentence has to be bold faced. Not every fifth word needs to be capitalized. Stop shouting, please. Beyond that, Fortuna has a definite point: this is coming off as a COI in spades. Ravenswing 10:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise if the capitalisations or the bold-faced lettering within my comments are seen as aggressive since I'm only trying to emphasise given my lengthy comments. Rest assured that I learned my lesson in regards to this matter and I won't do this in the future in any discussions in Wikipedia. My apologies again. NC. (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• A question if I may. User:NoCults, do you have a personal, business or intellectual relationship with Ms Flaa? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have no affiliations to any parties or individual/groups in any form or whatsoever. Furthermore, I was upset at the redo (diff) from @Hemiauchenia since my edit contained more than nine verified references providing a distinct background on the two entirely different topics and why they intertwined; a.) How Ms. Flaa increased in virality due to the footage being referenced and; b.) The controversy involving Lively and Baldoni in their film.

  These topics are entirely different and the diff was meant to provide a link that has a neural POV with the references within Wikipedia guidelines as per the WP:BLP and WP:V policy. While I understand that I have overreacted by creating a discussion describing the behavior, it is also not fair for them to conduct such practices without discussing these via the discussion thread. NC. (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see any experience editor failing to understand that these are two different but related issues, so it's not clear to me why you felt the need to make a big deal over it and especially with Hemiauchenia who seemed to understand this from the beginning. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I would add that Hemiauchenia does seem to have tried to discuss the content issues on the talk page but it seems to have been difficult because it's really unclear what you're trying to say, or change in the article. Editors are not required to discuss changes before they make them if they reasonably believe their changes are supported by our policies and guidelines. If an editor disputes their changes, they welcome to revert per WP:BRD and these editors should then discuss these changes on the talk page. Assuming this was Hemiauchenia changing something and you reverting, This would involve Hemiauchenia explaining why they feel their changes were beneficial and you clearly explaining why you felt they weren't. As noted, a lot of the comments you left are fairly unclear on precisely what's wrong with Hemiauchenia's changes. BTW, ensuring links are archived is good practice but isn't required and the addition of archives links when the link is not dead (which is distinct from just ensuring the link is archived) can be controversial at times given the added page size for large pages. This isn't a large page so it's no matter here but I'm sure some editors don't do it for that reason. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't have a problem with the archiving per se, but I did have issues with NC's insinuation that what reliable sources had said about the interview was defamatory and their wording changes regarding Lively's attitude towards Flaa and NC's vehement insistence that the controversy surrounding the It Ends With Us and the interview re-upload had nothing to do with each other, and the archiving was swept up in the wording revert. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  My first thread within the talk page was a general post and is not directed to anyone but the editors to double-check any references. Apparently, this is seen as scaremongering since we are talking about a living person and their credibility, apologies for that.

  Second, insinuating phrases such as 'hostility' using a reference from Business Insider [29] can be seen as biased since a. the article referenced is a WP:GRAPEVINE taken from Daily Mail and Flaa's YouTube upload plus the article is entirely one-sided from Flaa's POV without giving any weight to Lively.

  Now, I understand that I was unable to properly explain the relationship between Ms. Flaa's popularity on the internet and the It Ends with Us fiasco. Given that Flaa is a WP:BLP I was merely stating that we must mention only the facts of our citations that (a. there is a controversy surrounding Lively; b. there are footages of Lively where behaviors including the one from Ms. Flaa are seen by others and some are documented in paper or electronic/internet form, this shows a pattern of behavior) At this point, I will even agree to the article deletion request given the articles' history and the highlighted context. NC. (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly advise against against forewarning editors about policies and guidelines apropos of nothing. It changes the focus from the content to the rules themselves, which is both a poor way of establishing consensus and is generally associated with disruptive editing. I suspect that is why the editor who brought you to ANI mentioned your English: it might appear like you are being purposefully hard to understand, frustrating editors out of any discussion before it can even begin. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Understood and I greatly appreciate your input. From now on, I will reflect and use proper etiquette for my discussions as well as refrain from using any policies without the due diligence and discussion with other editors.

  I'd also like to put for the record that there could be a much better way to criticise other editors without discrimination to our intellect and questions on our ability to comprehend the English language, according to the 5P4 one must not attack the editor and WP:AGF I can't help but feel attacked when my use of English is criticised as 'terrible' without providing any logical merit or standing as to why it is 'terrible', nor any discourse asking me to further clarify.

  I know that I'm a WP:NOOB to the community and I don't edit a lot of articles unless I have verifiable sources. If you notice my userpage, I do not communicate with other editors via discussion threads unless this is necessary and in regards to your decision about the ANI, I will respect your decision in regards to that. NC. (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  The 5,000 byte edit that I reverted wasn't actually that bad in terms of English, and I was getting it confused with some of your previous edits to the article (e.g. [30]) that clearly show that you do not have a firm grasp of how many English words are used, and also contained factual inaccuracies like suggesting that Flaa sparked the controversy surrounding It Ends With Us when this was already ongoing by the time Flaa reuploaded the interview. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  The article was further updated without any conflicts on my end. I won't be challenging edits if they're valid, even without any explanation as to why they updated it. I want the same respect and civility that you'd give to any editor without using the 'terrible English' lingo or even using my words of sincere honesty ('English is not my first language') to strengthen your ANI case.

  I hope you pass this civility and kindness forward just like I pass them over to you. I understand my shortcomings and I've acknowledged and will work on them, I hope you do too. NC. (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion was taking place, but I want to highlight the following:

• Kjersti Flaa made a YouTube video (~250,000 views) in which she said, "And now everyone knows about it, or at least you guys know about it. I encourage everyone who uses Wikipedia to try and change it back to the way it was" (13:52). This is stealth canvassing.
• Some of the article's contributors have this article as their sole focus, including User:NoCults, who began editing the article on the same day 2 days after Flaa's YouTube video was published. Of the article's 325 revisions, 227 were in the days following Flaa's video.
• I nominated the article for deletion after searching for more sources to confirm my suspicion that Flaa doesn't meet the GNG. I stand by this reading.
• The article's creator, User:PaulPachad, was banned for COI and promotional editing. PaulPachad's content remains in the article. They have carefully manipulated what sources say. Take, for instance, the statement that Flaa's unsuccessful lawsuit led to them cancelling the 2022 Golden Globes. This is not what the source says. Flaa's lawsuit led LA Times reporters to begin their own investigation of the HFPA's racial record: A judge dismissed the suit in March, calling its claims “hopelessly muddled.” But her allegations triggered a Los Angeles Times investigation that also noted the HFPA has no Black members. That led much of Hollywood to boycott the HFPA, which responded by pledging to reform its admission process, expand its membership and add a significant number of Black journalists.

I have not investigated NoCults' conduct but wanted to provide the context for the article itself, which is beset by issues. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Having now reviewed the Talk page and this ANI discussion, I am relatively confident that the pattern depicted by NoCults' editing involves scaremongering by loosely stringing together Wikipedia policies. There is no specific content being contested: their communication style is disruptive by design, preventing the formation of consensus by nondescriptly complaining about bias and defamation. The all-caps DO NOT DEFAME on the Talk page is pretty clear. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption on disambiguation page

201.164.177.154 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly changing content at Amame to include content that was deleted at Amame (album) in mid-February. This editor out of Mexico is also likely 201.122.44.60 (talk · contribs) (blocked three months on March 2, 2025) and 189.203.56.102 (talk · contribs) (blocked two weeks on February 23 for block evasion of 201.122.44.60).

Referred to AIV. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The latest IP, 201.164.177.154, has now been blocked for 1-month by User:Widr. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Promotional 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.

---

F1WDC2021 is a WP:SPA that solely exists to promote their opinion that the results of the 2021 Formula One World Championship are invalid. MB2437 15:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You are reverting them based on them being a single purpose account, haven't provided any other reason to revert them. Further, you've not attempted to start any discussion with them on their user talk page nor on Talk:Max Verstappen. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There's no grounds on which to block User:F1WDC2021 here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Their edits were a comprehensive attempt to downplay the subject's career.[31][32] They have made edits at four articles specifically to promote the opinion above.[33][34][35] MB2437 16:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Then discuss it with them. This appears to be a content dispute. Please read WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. WP:AN/I isn't the first step in dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It appears that F1WDC2021 has taken a correct step, and has posted at the Teahouse, getting a suggestion to take this to the article talk page. Which both editors here should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has been taken to the article talk page. MB2437 17:59, 8 March 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 was improperly blocked by Star Mississippi and they refused give a block reason

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 think their account was hacked or something similarly tragic, but they refused to provide a reason when I requested to know why I was blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistletoe-alert (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you provided your signature so we knew who you were and also stated which administrator blocked you. If you were "banned", you wouldn't be able to edit this page at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mistletoe-alert, sign your posts by typing ~~~~ so we can identify you.

You've haven't been blocked/banned in the recent days unless we count your 31 hour block (not ban!) on Feb 2nd.

To the spectators, see Mistletoe's pre-blanked talk page for possible context.Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

A quick look through this editor's edit history shows there was also a previous ANI thread about them. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You play the clarinet? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mistletoe-alert, can you explain what you mean by "play the clarinet"? Is this what you are alluding to? TarnishedPath^talk 07:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That briefly confused me as well. Turns out Tarlby has a “plays the clarinet” userbox on their user page. Still, that comment is a non-sequitur in this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

UD has an outrageous secret meaning for every ordinary term you can think of. For instance. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason for your 31-hour block is clearly explained here. I recommend you read the discussion carefully and act upon the advice you were given. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You failed to read that. Nothing there about the block reason. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You were blocked due to your conduct, both in previous editing and in that discussion. The fact that you can't see that lends credence to a WP:BOOMERANG. You have also not notified @Star Mississippi:, as required. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 06:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Where is the articulated conduct that deserved a block? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That was discussed extensively in the ANI report that resulted in your block, in which you contributed extensively. Obviously you don't care for the result, and your frequent blanking of your talk page obscures a number of issues, but it's damn disingenuous to claim now that you're ignorant of what's gone on. I strongly recommend you stop trying to pick a fight over a long-expired block. Ravenswing 06:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• From that thread, people raised the following concerns:

• Mistletoe-alert has been acting in a rather uncivil manner
• They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and their narrow interest in org articles screams UPE to me
• It's easy to jump to the UPE conclusion based on their actions around CompoSecure, where they (1) created the article, (2) accused the editor who moved the page to Draft space of "edit farming", (3) re-created the article in main space after the original was moved to draft, and (4) added the company without citation to J.P. Morgan Reserve Card and Centurion Card.
• The immediate behavioural concern I have is their refusal to accept constructive criticism, based on their branding of editors who provide critique of their work as edit farmers or vandals. If the uncivil and almost combative behaviour continues, a block or other sanction will be necessary sooner rather than later.

You disagreed with those assertions but obviously that alone isn't enough to avoid a block; and you replied to the last one with the difference lies in the two individuals clearly mixing their duty to Wikipedia with personal agendas, which is WP:ASPERSIONs and therefore further WP:UNCIVIL behavior, so it's unsurprising you'd get blocked after that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is actually helpful. It’s not so much disagreeing versus there categorically being zero evidence of these things. The ANI started with me editing a page about black churches, so this whole UPE thing is a complete joke. I never attacked anyone personally. Maybe someone could argue ACI. But even assuming I was uncivil, how would this result in such an arbitrary amount of blockage? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

“ The block notice you receive will contain the reason why an administrator has blocked you from editing, usually with a link to the relevant policy or guideline that was broken; read it carefully and try to understand how your behavior did not follow the given policy.”

This never happened Mistletoe-alert (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to this block notice on 2025-02-02. I don't know, but if this had happened to me, I might think that it could be partly because of the WP:ARBECR violations at Nerdeen Kiswani in the preceding days that appear to have been part of a sequence that resulted in the page being EC protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This never happened - yes, it did. It said you were blocked for disruptive editing. That is, in fact, the reason you were blocked, and contained a link to the guideline. And as for The ANI started with me editing a page about black churches, so this whole UPE thing is a complete joke - once you're at ANI, your behavior, all of it, is open to scrutiny. The reason the ANI thread started is not especially relevant to the outcome. Now if you are, as you argue (at length and strenuously...which, to be honest, is in my experience on ANI usually a sign, increasingly strong with the amount of argument provided, that the editor arguing is in fact guilty of the conduct being argued against) not disruptive, UPE, or anything else, then prove that through editing in a policy-compliant, noncontroversial way. Either way, I strongly suggest you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking by a literal reading of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, Star Mississippi should have ideally said something like "per this ANI thread" when they alerted you that you were blocked here, but since you'd already been informed of the ANI thread and were participating in it, meaning you were clearly already aware of it, the block can hardly be called improper; even their basic "Disruptive editing" rationale in the block message itself should have been clear to you in that context. The main reason to include a reference to the ANI thread in the block message or notification would be as a courtesy to later people reviewing the block so they don't need to go over your discussion history to understand it. But the discussion ANI did include discussion of your conduct, with relevant diffs, which you're clearly aware of because you *replied to it; the fact that you weren't convinced by it doesn't change anything - WP:SATISFY applies to blocks, too. Obviously it would be hard to block anyone if it was necessary to satisfy them as to the evidence of their own misconduct. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Mistletoe-alert why did you suddenly decide to complain about this 31 hour block? I mean the block itself is over 1 month and it's not like you've been inactive since then, far from it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Before I file an SPI, are you the same person who created the user:Rob Roilen account? You created this account at the time that account was blocked, and your behaviors are quite similar. Thanks, 173.22.12.194 (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Mmm, they are quite similar, but Rob Roilen was blocked as a checkuser-block which, I would have thought, have coughed up any other socks around at the time. Interesting, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that, but there are, of course, ways around a CU. The behavioral similarities are overwhelming. Including a retaliatory filing that drags a blocking admin to the notice boards. I’ll need to get to a desktop later today to file the report. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Carl Sandberg said it best: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” Also, it might be helpful to read WP:SATISFY; Mistletoe-alert doesn't get to set terms under which they will be satisfied, those are set by the community. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't believe there's anything for me to add here. I apologize for missing their ping, but was in a discussion with them subsequent to the block where it was clear @Mistletoe-alert understood the UPE. Will be sure to add ANI link in all blocks. I typically do but as it was a month ago I don't recall why I didn't or whether there was a copy paste link error. Star Mississippi 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Site ban Mistletoe-alert

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 propose a site block. This is definitely one editor that will never get the message until we boot his %$# off site, and until that happens all he’ll do is complain and whine, in the process becoming the eternal time sink for admins and drawing us away from issues that we should be handling. 2600:1011:B119:EBD:7C17:7112:124E:6E22 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban This has devolved into pure trolling. King Lobclaw (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban They gotta be trolling. What relevance does my pretty clarinet userbox have here? See also. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Maybe I was a little more grumpy/irritable earlier today. I've been convinced a site ban may not be necessary, but a big warning should be issued. Re @FeydHuxtable, I didn't consider it to be an icebreaker because such an interaction felt incredibly random. The Banker and Quant didn't start arguing because they had no urgent business to be discussing. If Mr. Banker asked Quant about his hat in the middle of a court case against each other, that'd be really weird. If Mistletoe asked me about my clarinet on my talk page assuming this thread never existed, I would've been happy to answer. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It was a friendly gesture, an attempted icebreaker, which is quite common in the milieu someone like Mistletoe is from. Picture this: A banker & a quant have been vexing each other for weeks as forced to work together on a project despite being on the opposite sides of the political divide. One day they happen to meet outside the office as arrive for work at the same time. The quant has his Mets hat on, the banker says "You support the Mets?" , quant say 'yes', and Boom!, suddenly they're friends over the common interest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. A site ban proposed by an IP? "drawing us away from issues that we should be handling" - and "we" must include whoever this IP is.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  An IP is entitled to propose a site ban, but shouldn't make any statements that link them with an account, admin or not. We have no means of checking. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Block/Sanctions While I would usually err when an IP with no immediately obvious history is proposing something like this, their WP:IDHT tendencies (as repeatedly shown in this discussion) support sanctions. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Striking, I still support some sort of sanctions over this behavior but in retrospect it's too early for a site ban. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. A perma is too harsh, and too soon. Clearly Mistletoe doesn't know the wiki-way yet, but they've not even got 500 edits. A good proportion of their early edits seem useful, they're quite stylish and funny too. On the other hand, no objection to a 3 month block. They might benefit from a firm message that the community doesnt appreciate time wasting and unnecessary litigation like the attempted thread again Mississippi. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I really, really suggest that Mistletoe drop this and find something else to do. But a site ban at this point seems a bit much. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. Suggest this thread be closed with trout. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose It's too soon for a site ban. The whole clarinet thing seemed like a genuine friendly gesture and was twisted into... whatever TarnishedPath linked. E_F⁵ 19:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Site bans are for more serious problems. Polygnotus (talk) 03:14, 7 March 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Niknam

I´m on mobile and in a hurry, so a very rudimentary post only: the editor who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Niknam (dubious close anyway) then made a whole bunch of edits, including the creation of completely unrelated redirects, from that close. Can some people please check this, inform that editor, and cleanup or undo everything if necessary? Fram (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The closer (User:United Blasters) did apologize at DRV, but seriously: there ought to be an automatic trout slap for ANY non-admin attempting ANY non-SNOW AfD close, and editors with barely a thousand edits shouldn't be doing even that much. Ravenswing 13:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The close has been overturned at DRV, and I've just closed the DRV. The AfD has been reopened. I haven't checked whether any cleanup still needs to be done.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• This has been closed thrice, and twice at DRV. No one but an experienced admin should touch it and even they may not want to. Star Mississippi 14:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you all, but the main issue for this Ani was the series of edits and creation of redirects supposedly in the wake if the Afd close, but completely unrelated. E.g. these 4 redirects have nothing to do with the Afd or the target afaik: [36]. Still on mobile here, so tough editing... Fram (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  I notified the editor in question, though they've stated multiple times that it was a tool error. Given they were all tagged as XFDCloser edits within the same minute, I'm inclined to believe them. There are still some redirects to Bunq hanging around that seem to be brand new pages. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 8 § Middle School Public Debate Program and speedied the other 3. If there are others left that were clearly created by a tool glitch, they should be G6'd as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Fram, I noticed that nine years ago we had problems with non admin AfD closures. Are we so short of admins closing AfDs that we need non-admins to do them? Often when I go to the backlog of AfDs to close, it's either empty or has a few really difficult ones everyone else is shying away from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, periodically, we'll get some very eager NACs looking for AFDs to close and relist. That interest typically lasts a few months and then they move on to other pursuits. Or they will make some error, always from inexperience, not ill intentions, they'll face unwanted negative attention and stop their participation at AFD.

Over the past few years, the number of editors participating in AFDs (except for the hot topic subjects) has declined and we also go through highs and lows of admin participation as closers. Right now, we lost Beeblebrox who was very busy closing AFDs, because of life changes. We could always use a few more admin closers who could rotate in and close a few on a regular basis. But, you're right, the easy closure decisions are generally closed on time, leaving the more murkier discussions for Owen to sort through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the multiple, unrelated redirects that were created after I closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Niknam discussion. I believe this was due to an error with the XFDcloser tool. I was attempting to close the discussion as Redirect to Bunq;, and I'm not sure why these other redirects were created. I was on mobile at the time, which may have contributed to the problem.

I have already acknowledged at the Deletion Review that my close of the AfD itself was premature and incorrect, and I have self-reverted that close. I understand that I should not have closed that discussion, given the lack of clear consensus, the BLP concerns, and my status as a non-administrator.

I appreciate Tamzin deleting the unrelated redirects. If any others remain, please let me know, and I will request their deletion, or feel free to G6 them.

I am committed to learning from these mistakes and being a more responsible contributor to Wikipedia. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@United Blasters: Just to confirm a suspicion on the technical side: When you closed the discussion, did you do so from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 28 daily log page? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I believe I closed it from the individual AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Niknam). I'm not entirely sure how the other redirects were created; it may have been a glitch with the XFDcloser tool, or I may have made a mistake while using it on mobile. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+ closes

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.

---

TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs) has closed several discussions recently, including ones on controversial topics (such as a close on Elon Musk's recent "gesture") or in areas where Turbo has limited experience (such as a CfD close, which Turbo called an "RfC" and then said I was being "semantic" when I pointed out that it was in fact a CfD), with one of them affecting a major aspect of policy (on the use of AI-generated images). Several editors have come to Turbo's talk page to complain about those closes, but Turbo has not really engaged with other editors' criticisms, instead claiming that those editors don't make sense and insisting that the closes are proper. Turbo has continued closing discussions notwithstanding several active (and some recently archived) discussions on their talk page criticizing their recent closes.

Relevant closes / user talk discussions:

• VPP RfC on AI-generated images / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Recent VP closure & Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#AI-generated imagery close
• Prayagraj RfC / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Eh!
• RfC on Elon Musk's gesture on the Nazi salute article / Special:PermanentLink/1278010215#Recent Nazi salute close
• CfD close / Special:PermanentLink/1277954773#Feb 25 CfD closure

I am hoping that Turbo will voluntarily stop closing discussions, but if a TBAN is needed, so be it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Putting this at the top so that it can be seen. I have agreed not to close any more discussions and I have left a message on Voorts's Talk page asking that this matter be resolved without having someone read through the discussion, check all the links/diffs and make a decision. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Another close here: Special:PermanentLink/1278007349#RFC: Tornado Talk. This one declares a source GUNREL but then, based on one editor's sort of incoherent comment, says that it shouldn't be listed at RSPS. More of Turbo's closes are listed here: Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I came to this thread because I was pinged by User:Cinderella157 about another RFC close: [37] at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I haven't looked at the closes in depth, but I think that an editor with 1200 edits would be wise to avoid closing RFCs about policy at VPP or about contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I stand by that close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning that close. I was reporting that I was requested to look at that close, and I saw a lot of other closes that were questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Nobody complained about the Tornado Talk close. I'm sure if you look at any close, you can find something to nitpick, nobody is perfect. Do you think the outcome of the Tornado Talk close was wrong? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The overall GUNREL outcome isn't necessarily wrong, but the closing statement is not an accurate summary and the "note" about not adding to RSP is based on a single comment, not consensus.
Editors also pointed out that Tornado Talk doesn't seem to put much care when sourcing content, giving an example of several images taken from Wikipedia where the given attribution is "Wikipedia". While this could only pertain to images, editors were unable to investigate since at least some of the website's content is behind a paywall with archiving protections. This suggests you did not read the comments by WeatherWriter or me in the responses to my !vote, since we both linked to instances where the site sources written content from Wikipedia. And only one editor brought up issues with paywalls, which obviously wasn't shared by others. JoelleJay (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You !voted to classify Tornado Talk as GUNREL, so we're clear.

"This suggests you did not read the comments by WeatherWriter or me"

Except I did. In every discussion I have closed I have read every single comment. Your comment also said "Generally unreliable. This is an SPS, and none of the authors have PhDs in relevant areas."

The first sentence of my close says: "Editors have noted that Tornado Talk is a self-published resource, that the authors published on the website do not have any relevant credentials".

Again, I think if you look at any close you will find something was missed or left out or not perfectly written. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I am quoting While this could only pertain to images, editors were unable to investigate since at least some of the website's content is behind a paywall with archiving protections. This is patently untrue: two of us provided evidence that the Wikipedia citations extended to prose content, which was visible outside of the paywall. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"the "note" about not adding to RSP is based on a single comment, not consensus."

"two of us provided evidence that the Wikipedia citations extended to prose content"

I'd just like to say that this is valid criticism. It seems to me that a most of the complaints on the closes are not so much about the outcome, but that I left out or added something that shouldn't be there, like the examples above. These are simple edits to do and had someone said those to me on my Talk page before this ANI, I would have just done it, it's not a big deal. One complaint was on the actual outcome of the close and the editor could have started a review of it.

But as I wrote to BugGhost, TBAN or not, I don't think I'll ever do another close. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to point out that none of my closes were brought to review before this ANI was started.

"Several editors have come to Turbo's talk page to complain about those closes,"

An involved editor who isn't happy the discussion wasn't closed their way. Is that how it works? Make a close, one editor complains, don't revert -> ANI?

"Turbo has not really engaged with other editors' criticisms"

That is a mischaracterisation, I engaged with all criticism. For example, I reverted this close[38], following this discussion[39]. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Closing contentious issues, while technically something that can be done by anybody, is generally best left to users with deep experience, if only because any such closes are likely to be overturned, wasting time. An account with hardly over 1k edits should not be closing such contentious issues, and it shows. This [40] close, for example, is plainly poorly articulated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. It's not that NAC closures aren't allowed but they are more likely to be contested, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that close, but I hope the review goes ahead. Because there are two complaints regarding that close: 1) there wasn't a consensus to ban medical-related AI-imagery, 2) there was a consensus to ban AI-generated images site wide. The two complaints are at odds with each other. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• I am entirely unimpressed by the way that TurboSuperA+ is responding here, with a mixture of stubbornness, belligerence, and evasion ("I stand by my close." - "Other closes are bad too." - "People didn't complain enough, so what's your problem?"), and demonstration of insufficient experience in both subject areas and closing procedures. Participating in high-senitivity mechanisms like centralized discussion closures requires first and foremost a constant awareness that you might be doing it wrong and a willingness to improve. I don't want to see anyone active there who treats it like a perk or a right that has to be defended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  - "Other closes are bad too." - "People didn't complain enough, so what's your problem?")

  Why did you put that in quotation marks when I never said those things?

  "I stand by my close."

  Rather than focus on word choice, can you tell me what's wrong with the close in question? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(If I was quoting you, you would be seeing talk-quote formatting - the above is paraphrasing.) My point is that when a discussion on a contentious issue is closed, I want to be able to depend on that close and the judgement behind it, not feel forced to dig through the entire discussion to double-check if the closer misinterpreted or misapplied something. Unless you are some kind of wunderkind, as a 3 month-old account you will not have the experience and judgement to reliable perform these closures. Multiple people have told you that, and expressed their preference that you develop a good deal more tenure on this site before you tangle in the area. Your response is to tell us, in as many words, that you personally like your closes (not suprising) and that other closes are not perfect either (duh). You are more interested in doing what you enjoy rather than in applying the expected caution and self-reflection that ensures that the project receives reliable service; and that is problematic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"the above is paraphrasing."

Not the first one. Also, adding "so what's your problem?" when I didn't say it is not fair, especially on an ANI topic, because it can bias people against me based on something I never actually said.

"My point is that when a discussion on a contentious issue is closed, I want to be able to depend on that close and the judgement behind it, not feel forced to dig through the entire discussion to double-check if the closer misinterpreted or misapplied something."

I reopened that RfC. If you look at the new close, the closer (an admin) also didn't give a summary of arguments. I am interested to see if @Voorts is happy with that close.

"as a 3 month-old account you will not have the experience and judgement to reliable perform these closures"

I don't think there is an account age requirement for closing. None of my closes went up for review (before this ANI), so how can you make the conclusion that they are bad/inadequate?

"Multiple people have told you that"

Rather than look at the existence of complaints, why haven't the complaints been evaluated? For example, on a close listed in the OP of this ANI thread[41] I received one complaint, but three public thanks. Another close[42] the complaint was from a participant in the discussion who argued for the opposite outcome of my close, they pinged[43] an editor, but they didn't come to my Talk page or start a close review.

"You are more interested in doing what you enjoy rather than in applying the expected caution and self-reflection"

That isn't true, because before this ANI was started, I had already reverted a close[44] following a discussion with an editor on my Talk page.[45]

"Your response is to tell us, in as many words, that you personally like your closes"

That's an unfair paraphrasing, because I have engaged with the arguments of every editor that mentions/responds to me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I am happy with Tamzin's close. Tamzin laid out what editors' arguments were, noted some areas of agreement and that the discussion needed more advertising across wiki, and then reopened it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN unless Turbo voluntarily steps back for the time being. I really cannot understand why someone would voluntarily choose to close their first RfC on a highly contentious topic like Prayagraj (and then to quickly close several more discussions without heeding feedback, showing a clear disregard for other editors). Regardless, the incoherence of the Prayagraj close and subsequent discussions is unacceptable for discussion transparency; Turbo's clear unfamiliarity with which arguments should be considered stronger or weaker is also clearly shown at this close. As knowledge of strength of arguments is the essential foundation for any close, it is necessary for them to withdraw from closing until they gain sufficient experience. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  "like Prayagraj"

  Three editors have thanked me for that close, while one complained (now two, including you). Why haven't any of my closes been brought up for review? There was ample time. I think it is unfair to lump together separate complaints from single, involved editors in an attempt to present a "problematic" pattern of behaviour.

  My responses have been civil and I tried to argue for my position. If there is disagreement, why not open a close review? Why jump to ANI and demand a TBAN as if my edits are disruptive or I'm vandalising RfCs? When all I did was clear the backlog on the WP:CR page because I saw no one else was doing it. Even now, an RfC I reopened a few days ago hasn't been closed yet.

  If any editor uninvolved in the RfC came to my Talk page and said "hey, I think I can close that RfC better" I would have reverted in a heartbeat. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  The problems with your closes are present no matter who complains. People have jumped to ANI because you jumped to poorly closing several RfCs in the last few days; there is no point opening several close reviews when the common denominator is clear. Why is there a backlog at WP:CR? Because properly closing lengthy discussions is hard, and doing discussions justice requires serious thought. I'd recommend less impatience in your future endeavours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"CfD close / Special:PermanentLink/1277954773#Feb 25 CfD closure"

Why is this in the OP when I self-reverted that close two days ago (two days before this ANI)?[46] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from IPA & PIA. These actions are clearly unacceptable WP:BADNAC. I agree with AirshipJungleman29, whether done in good or bad faith, one thing is clear: Turbo is inexperienced and not familiar with the policies. NXcrypto Message 12:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from closing anything. I think that at this point even a voluntary commitment to stop wouldn't be enough to avoid a TBAN - it'd be hard to lend it credence given the degree of refusal to accept criticism in the replies on their talk page and above, combined with the way they've aggressively sought out things to close despite their obvious inexperience. BADNAC point 1 says that a non-admin closure is inappropriate when The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. Several of these either fall under contentious topics or are obviously controversial; the AI one in particular would have made even an experienced admin hesitate given the topic's history here. --Aquillion (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could avoid issuing a formal TBAN. Turbo, I know it's never pleasant to be told that you don't have enough experience to do something, but as a user with less than four months of experience, your best course of action is to listen to the various veteran editors in this thread who are urging you to get more experience before making further closes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think we can avoid a TBAN if editor volunteers to stay away from closes for awhile until they have a better understanding. I'm not familiar with all the closes, but a few should be reviewed and reclosed by an editor who is more experienced. The no consensus close on the Nazi Salute RFC still doesn't make sense and the closer's responses showed a clear lack of basic understanding of policy. The result of that RFC doesn't really matter, but the close is still very poor. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agree that all the closes should be overturned. There's too many issues to tackle them one by one. Nemov (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  "reclosed by an editor who is more experienced"

  But in the SPI investigation you started on me you said: "it's odd an editor that just started editing a few weeks ago seems so experienced."

  I take that as a compliment, btw. :) Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  An editor disagreed with your assessment of the close and said no consensus might be appropriate[47] citing a previous RfC on the topic that also ended in no consensus. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban unless they overturn all of their closures and even after that, they need to clarify and make sure this will never happen in any future. But so far their responses have been entirely unimpressive. Mr.Hanes Talk 13:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why did you revert my edit where I added @Garudam's signature to his comment restarting the RfC? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. I closed a lot of discussions as a non-admin, including some consequential RfCs, so I don't buy into the line of argument that non-admins shouldn't close discussions just because they might be controversial or contested. That said, editors closing such discussions must show that they have a solid grasp of not just relevant policies and guidelines, but also norms of closing discussions. If you don't have those competences, your closes will always be suspect to the community. The issue here is not just the outcome of Turbo's closes, but their lack of understanding of relevant PAGs, their failure to adequately explain the reason for their close, and seeming super-votes. Turbo: I don't doubt you're acting in good faith here, but you just don't have the chops to be closing the kinds of discussions you're closing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also support overturning all of Turbo's closes so that we don't need to figure out which of them to bring to a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  RE the proposals for 6 months, I think the TBAN should be indefinite. Turbo clearly doesn't understand what went wrong here and should have to come back to the community and show that they can be trusted closing discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  The close you originally complained about was reverted. I said I won't close any more discussions.

  You ignore the fact that an editor disagrees with Nemov and says my close might be appropriate.

  Garuda complains about a close that otuer editors have thanked me for. So I don't think the cases are as clear cut as you try to present them.

  I also find it quite frustrating that rather than examine the merits of the two complaints or starting a close review, you think I should be sanctioned based on the mere existence of complaints. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban; dissatisfied with their reply [48], we don't need determine a good or bad NAC by your thanks log [49]. This really means nothing as all of 3 were heavily involved in the Prayagraj RfC and that too the "winning side".Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support minimum TBAN. This isn't new behavior from Turbo. This is an ongoing trend of refusal to listen, that has long since passed the point where it's become a competence to edit issue. It's not even an issue strictly limited to NAC anymore -- the sheer unwillingness to listen to anyone, the Dunning-Kruger issues with their understanding of policy, and the fightiness on every single issue indicates that we're likely just going to be here again in the future. A TBAN from any kind of discussion closure AND a TBAN from all CTOPS and GS areas is the absolute minimum here. IMO we should be asking whether this editor is ever going to be capable of participating on this project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  You need to back up your claims with diffs, particularly when suggesting such an extreme sanction as a ban from all CTOPs. In any event, maybe a TBAN from closing discussions will prompt Turbo to change their ways. Let's give people a chance before throwing the whole library at them. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't believe the claims I'm making are any different than those made by others here which are already well satisfied with diffs, as well as the existence of this very thread in which all of this behavior is demonstrated, to support my assertion that Turbo is unwilling to listen and lacks understanding of policy. Perhaps I just have a lower tolerance level for this behavior than some other admins do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't reviewed their other edits. They might be making perfectly fine edits in mainspace and adequately participating in discussions, other than the ones they've closed. I wouldn't want to impose such a harsh sanction or consider whether someone shouldn't be here at all without more evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am disappointed in @Swatjester's response here. In a previous dispute we had I acquiesced to their demands a sign of good faith (something they didn't acknowledge, that should have given me a hint). It seems that even after I have shown that I am here in good faith and that I am willing to listen to others, I am still not given the slightest benefit of a doubt.

  It is not a very welcoming environment and I do not think my edits/behaviour justify the response seen in this thread. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from closures considering both their behavior here (continuously refusing to see a problem with their editing) and some interactions at WP:ITNC that lead me to believe they should gain some more experience around the project before delving into more sensitive/controversial areas and actions. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  At this point, weak support WP:CIR CBAN in the face of their ongoing refusal to accept criticism, as demonstrated below. Agree that at a minimum, past closures should be reopened. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Topic-Ban from all closures for six months. Part of the problem is the number of closures in contentious topic areas and on policy questions. It is not enough to close discussions correctly. It is also necessary to be seen as closing the discussions correctly. The closes in question were not brought to close review because no one of them had been seen as clearly wrong, although some of them were being discussed, but then the number of closes that required a very experienced editor (which Turbo is not) was seen as excessive. Also, although they did discuss their closures, they only addressed the closures individually, and sometimes but not always defensively, and did not address the issue of whether they were qualified to be making each closure or so many closures. This seems to be an editor who doesn't know that they aren't ready to make controversial closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support T-ban and overturn or re-open all of their problematic closures. That said we must not discourage any newcomer volunteers, because we need them to close the backlog gaps. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support t-ban at a minimum. The response to feedback is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Star Mississippi 02:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• I would like to pose that this is not only a closures related issue. See this archived discussion about an RfC that TurboSuper tried to open barely a week after there was a clear lack of a consensus to add the US into that infobox. They did withdraw the RfC eventually... but they didn't even follow WP:BEFORE for starting it, did not even begin to address the reasons for the opposition in the prior RfC, did not make any attempt to notify people who had participated in the prior discussion (or that talkpage that discussion was held on), and ultimately said It doesn't matter to me whether US is listed as an ally or a co-belligerent when opening the RfC - implying "as long as they're listed". I'm hesitant to call this intentional POV pushing - because it could just as easily be an over-eager editor. But I agree with others that there is a big issue of competence with respect to contentious topics - and with dropping the stick when something did not go their way (rather than trying to rehash the issue barely a week later). I don't think there's any precedent from a topic ban from all contentious topics... but I'd honestly really like to see a voluntary committment from the editor that they will spend time working on articles outside of contentious topics to become more experienced at discussing, accepting that consensus will not always be in their desired outcome, etc. before they return to contentious topics.
  Like others who have commented here, I do not see their responses here as giving any indication that they actually understand what they have been doing wrong, much less that they have any intent on trying to slow down. They first tried to defend their actions based on being right, and I see at best a cursory agreement that they don't mind their closes being reverted. That does not address the problem, much less show that the editor understands it. All of this considered... I do not think a topic ban from closing discussions goes far enough. If the editor is not willing to make a voluntary commitment to stay away from contentious topics until they are more experienced, in addition to either a voluntary or mandated ban from closing discussions, I would support indefinite block under competence is required. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  For clarity, oppose a time limited topic ban from closing discussions. There is no harm in it being an indefinite ban, with the user required to demonstrate to the community that they understand how to edit and discuss in compliance with policies and guideline before they close another discussion in the future. That all said, I still believe this is not solely a problem with over-eager closing. There is a problem with this editor being able to contribute to contentious topics (especially) without trying to push their own POV into articles. That's evidenced by the situation I point out - they disagreed with an RfC outcome, so rather than accepting it and moving on, they tried to create a new RfC with a slightly different question, on a different page, to get their desired outcome. If a topic ban from any contentious topic is not in the question, then an indefinite ban on closing discussions will protect editors from having to deal with this in the future until they show they understand how to constructively contribute to contentious discussions on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• I just want to say any suggestion for a CIR indef is completely over the top and not required here. I also think that we can avoid a TBAN here if TurboSuperA+ goes on the record saying they won't close any discussions for a long time. We need people who are willing to close discussions, and making mistakes isn't a crime. Looking at the closes, personally I think these are just the hallmarks of someone who means well and is putting in effort to help, but lacks experience. However, closing discussions is not the right place to learn-through-mistakes - so really Turbo I'd urge you to take the criticism here seriously and publicly commit to not closing anything for a good long time (at least a couple of years) - I think this would be the only route for you avoiding a TBAN here. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  TBAN or not, I don't think I am closing another discussion ever again. I haven't closed any since people started complaining on my Talk page. I mean, sure I made some mistakes, but that could have been handled through a close review.

  Some editors are even calling for me to be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. And for what? Did I vandalise pages? No. I genuinely tried to help.

  I'm gonna log off from Wikipedia for a while. Sorry for the trouble I caused. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the TBan that there's a clear consensus to impose, here, should be for a specific fixed period such as six months.—S Marshall T/C 10:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the topic ban should be for six months, and have added for six months to my statement above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support T-ban and overturn or re-open all of their closures. Their closure of this RfC is also problematic. Dympies (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  @TurboSuperA+: Can you self-revert your cited closure on Talk:Kshatriya as well? Thanks. Dympies (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Dympies, you started the RFC , what is problematic in the closure? Did TS not summarize it properly? @TurboSuperA+:, this closure was perfectly fine. There was nothing new being added and most comments were completely ignoring the opposing views. Well summarized by you as WP:NPOV.LukeEmily (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban, and please re-open all of their closures so we can save time from requesting a review. I have been waiting for their response [50], but it seems like they are determined to stick to their stance and don't want to heed others' suggestions. I don't want them to get Tban'd, but unfortunately, their WP:IDHT behavior has left us with no other way to handle this. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• I came here because i was following a discussion in Prayagraj where consensus was not likely for supporting the proposal. He did it anyway and now i found this discussion of him being topic banned. I request admins to please revert that close and undo the edit made by him in Prayagraj article. 2402:8100:29C4:8550:1AFB:3F2C:228B:8256 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN I think as they've said they are not going to do any more closures then we don't need to topic ban them. You need a large amount of experience to close some of the most contentious areas in the project - and I don't think a non-admin should have touched a lot of those. However I think they know that now. Secretlondon (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

To make things easier for the person who has to read this thread.

• For two of the mentioned closes in the OP (AI images and CfD close) I have reverted my close (CfD close was reverted two days before the ANI).
• For the Elon Musk Nazi salute close, it seems that an editor disagrees with Nemov and thinks the close might be appropriate.
• For the Prayagraj close I received one complaint from an involved editor.

As I said, I'm not going to be doing any more closes, I don't want to go through this when someone disagrees with a close. But I think most of the closes I did so far are actually not controversial. Regarding the closes that are disputed, why not a close review? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact you keep attempting to defend yourself here after all this feedback makes me wonder if @Swatjester is correct about WP:CIR. In light of multiple editors pointing out your closes are consistently poor, why not rescind the closes and let another editor who is more experienced deal with it? If your closes are perfectly fine then a more experienced closer will find the same and do a better job of rationalizing it. Nemov (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought --- it won't take much time for them to overturn their closures and then assure everyone here that they won't be closing controversial RfCs anymore, at least not for now, with fewer than 1,000 edits. If they stop defending themselves and stop simply asking, "Why not a close review?" when their closure is already being questioned for being poorly executed, they might not face any sanctions at all. I don't think anyone would want to squander their time and energy --- and everyone else's --- reviewing their poor closures. We don't want WP:SNOW to keep getting invoked just to review their closures at this venue. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"Why not a close review?" when their closure is already being questioned for being poorly executed,

You should disclose you were a participant in the RfC and you disagree with the close. I don't think it's fair that you're trying to avoid the close review process (Again, why?) by claiming it is a waste of time when I think the reality is that you might be concerned the close could be endorsed, therefore an ANI is more sure-fire way of overturning a close you don't like/disagree with. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I already addressed that in my first comment, as did Airship. Avoiding a bureaucratic discussion over your poor reviews is probably the best approach --- see above, where other users are also proposing to overturn all your closures. You're quick with presumptions, but unfortunately, your closures are far from being endorsed, especially since they've already been questioned here. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"where other users are also proposing to overturn all your closures."

On what basis though? Why weren't any of the closes taken to AN for close review before this ANI? One participating editor who complains about the RfC close (x2) shouldn't be enough to take someone to ANI before a close review was carried out. One of the editors didn't actually complain about the outcome, but said it shouldn't have been "no consensus"; on the topic of that RfC another editor disagreed with Nemov, and thought that "no consensus" might be appropriate citing the close of an earlier RfC. I think that disagreement puts that particular complaint into question. The editor was welcome to start a close review. They had the time to start an SPI investigation and go through my edit history to find coinciding topic areas with another user, but didn't have time to make a close review.

I apologise if this is too defensive but I can't help but feel attacked. An editor who has a problem with an RfC close I made "started an SPI investigation into me and then asks that I be banned on ANI, but hasn't initiated a close review. I don't think I have been given the assumption of good faith, but I have been immediately judged as either a sock puppet or a disruptive editor. Honestly, it really hurts.

Strikethrough edit: The SPI investigation was started 5 days before he said something about the RfC on my Talk page. I just checked. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Garuda I have reverted my close. I hope this puts the matter to rest. I am tired of defending myself in this thread, it's pointless it seems. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

""In light of multiple editors pointing out your closes are consistently poor"

An editor disagreed with your assessment of the Elon Musk close and said they think my close could be appropriate. I don't think it's fair to characterise it as "consistently poor" when that hasn't been shown at all.

Rather than assess the complaints or the issues, you and others seem to think that the mere existence of complaints is enough for a ban.

I'm sorry, but that's a bit Kafkaesque. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this concern. I don’t treat CIR lightly, but that they’re still resorting to stubborn defensiveness in the face of significant criticism isn’t a great sign regarding their general attitude on the project. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

On the brighter side, they have reopened and essentially stepped out from their recent closures, and they won't be closing any RfCs for now. So, I guess we might avoid a Tban, and maybe only a slightly lighter sanction should be imposed, considering their stubborn defensiveness. – Garuda ^Talk! 08:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to sign your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prayagraj&diff=prev&oldid=1278849059

You have 22 replies on that RfC, and you have instructed other editors to participate. You should be careful as your actions might be interpreted as WP:BLUDGEON. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That is more like a generic hatnote comment, which doesn't need to be signed. I don't know why you have linked this discussion here -- it's completely irrelevant. That was for a different context, so don't mistake it for WP:CANVASS. Where do you see EducatedRedneck being invited by me to participate in the discussion? You don't seem to understand, and now you're falsely accusing me of bludgeoning the process, uh. – Garuda ^Talk! 10:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to sign your name as a matter of transparency, as you were both a participant in the RfC, you complained on my Talk page about the close, and you participated in this ANI in the hopes of reopening it. I don't think it is a good look not to sign your name after all that. But what do I know, I'm apparently the worst person to join this site. lmao TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I confirm the message on my talkpage was not about the RFC (which was closed at the time). My subsequent participation in the RFC was because because I saw this edit on my watchlist. I'm glad Turbo reverted their close, which did appear to be bad. I'll also note the {{unsigned}} template exists so folks like Turbo can add a signature if they feel it's appropriate. This is typically quicker and causes less strife than demanding another editor sign a particular post. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nemov had started a SPI process against me on 22 February 2024. I was not notified of this investigation. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one is obliged to notify a user under investigation for SPI. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's common courtesy, especially when Nemov linked the ANI at the SPI, saying "The way things are going, I suspect this won't be an issue much longer."

Do you think that's WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUMSHOP? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No to either of those, and it makes me raise my eyebrow a little that you'd consider it either. As for a lack of notification - it may be common courtesy, but it is not required, and I can think of reasons why it would be considered better not to (not saying they do or do not apply here, just that they exist). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tban at minimum The behaviour on display here, particularly the inability to take responsibility and accept wrongdoing, instead stubbornly insisting being right and deflecting is precisely what I have been seeing in another CT article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, where they have also been applying WP:TENDENTIOUS double standards, taking part in edit warring and violating policies like WP:DUE. I do not think this is an editor that should be closing discussions, and if they don't want to anyway after this, well let it serve as a reminder and appeal it if you gain the confidence of the community. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  "particularly the inability to take responsibility and accept wrongdoing,"

  This is incorrect, as I have reverted my closes and accepted a self-imposed restriction from closing. Please stop trying to shoehorn other content disputes into this.

  "precisely what I have been seeing in another CT article"

  On that Talk page I have been editing collaboratively and in good faith, as others have recognised.

  "where they have also been applying WP:TENDENTIOUS double standards, taking part in edit warring and violating policies like WP:DUE"

  You haven't provided any diffs. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I have asked you this before, but you removed my comment from your talk page. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I have learned some things in the course of this ANI, it has been a very educational few days. Is it inappropriate to say I ran the gauntlet? Because ^{it sure feels that way.}

First of all, I realised I was wrong. I acted stubbornly and this situation is all my fault. Among other things I learned that even though the outcome of a close might be correct, there are other things that require doing that I wasn't aware off. And yes, these things come with experience, I apologise for not acknowledging that sooner.

Regarding the four closes in the OP, I think I have some context to share and I hope this isn't construed as combative or retaliatory. I am providing diffs and these are the facts as I see them, and I am open to being wrong.

Airport CfD. I self-reverted that close following a discussion on my Talk page two days before this ANI Was started. I don't know why it is listed in the OP as an example against me.

Prayagraj RfC.

I think there's very good reason to doubt @Garuda's motivations, because they seem to be working hard to get the RfC to one outcome:

• They made 21 out of the 88 comments on the RfC in question.
• When the close didn't go their way, despite them being the only editor with a complaint against the close, they threatened the closer (which in this case happens to be me) with a TBAN unless they got their way.
• 1 minute after I let them know I had reverted my close they removed a Template:Disrupted discussion from the RfC. They also did not sign their comment when they restarted the discussion 15 minutes after the close was reverted.
• They seem very invested in the "tally" of votes in the RfC and update it, like after an editor commented. An editor whom, coincidentally, Garuda encouraged @EducatedRedneck to make edits to disputed content under RfC discussion and ANI consideration.
• When I added a signature template to their comment on the RfC, @Mr.Hanes removed it and then proceeded to make a comment in support of Garudam's "side" in the RfC. When I mentioned the lack of signature to Garuda, @EducatedRedneck was quick to "confirm there was no WP:CANVASS" (as their edit summary says). All three of the mentioned editors voted for the same outcome of the RfC.

This at the very least should cast doubt on why they're in this thread. Personally, I don't think they're here because they think that me receiving a TBAN will make Wikipedia better. I don't think they are going to be happy with the RfC close unless it is the result they want.

Despite all this, I recognise that I should not have closed the discussion. A more experienced editor would have seen that the discussion was controversial, anticipated potential problems and stayed away. I also should have dropped it earlier and not allowed it to get this far. A lesson learned and a mistake I will certainly not repeat.

Elon Musk nazi salute.

• An editor disagreed with @Nemov's assessment of the close and suggested "no consensus" might be appropriate. I don't think the only next available course of action for Nemov was to take me to ANI. And then Nemov requested that the ANI be "promptly" closed only 3 days after it was started. It feels like trying to rush a process because on the face of it there seems to be a lot of legitimate support for a TBAN.
• I wondered "why is Nemov advocating so hard against me?" I think Nemov's problem with me started when I commented on a close review where I voted to overturn the RfC close, Nemov said "I'm baffled by the arguments for overturning this close." in his comment on the close review where only mine and another editor's comments were in favour of overturning. He was so baffled in fact, that 37 minutes after making the comment, he initiated a sockpuppet investigation into me. I don't think it was a good faith SPI report.
• SPI over a comment, ANI over a close that is only disputed by them. It is very hard to assume good faith here.

AI image BLP. Not much to say here except that I admit I was fully in the wrong. I should have reverted it when @Voorts said something on my talk page. I shouldn't have disagreed. I guess it was a mix of stubborness and defensiveness; I should have stepped back and looked at the issue with fresh eyes. It is another lesson learned.

Various.

@Dympies, who voted that I be TBAN-ed, asked me to overturn an RfC close. Another editor pointed out that Dympies started that RfC and that my close was in fact appropriate. I think that should put into question that editor's motivations behind the vote in this ANI discussion. Do they think a TBAN on me will make Wikipedia better or do they just disagree with my close? If the latter, then there are avenues other than asking I be sanctioned right off the bat.

Conclusion. That is it from me. I think I have said everything that I possibly could have and I have said I will stay away from closing discussions. This ANI was an eye-opening experience for me in more ways than one. I thank everyone who participated in good faith. I apologise for the length of this post and whoever made it this far I doubly thank you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Responding again because I was pinged. Yes, I was quick to respond, because I was pinged. And I was pinged, and thus drawn to this discussion, because you accused Garuda of canvassing me. My participation here is not of Garuda's doing, except insofar as they were notifying me that you had brought me up in the discussion. In short, I'm here because you brought me up. If there's a conspiracy, nobody told me about it.
Consider that there's no cabal of editors out to defend their side, but a bunch of unrelated editors who saw that you made a bad close, said or perhaps !voted so, and sought sanction to prevent further damage. I can't see you collaborating with your fellow editors if you tend to see enemies instead of attempts to help you improve. (c.f., I thank everyone who participated in good faith., emphasis mine.) I would be happy if you proved me wrong, collaborated well, and took the advice of editors (ones far more experienced than you or me) as an attempt to lift everyone up, not pull you down. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@ TurboSuperA+, your closure was not correct on Talk:Kshatriya, but it was a mere super vote. Yes you deserve a topic ban or a bigger sanction because you still don't understand where you are wrong. Dympies (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read about the laws of holes. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please close this. There seems to be consensus for a TBAN, and they've said they won't close any discussions anyway - this has gone on for a week. The dogpile on Turbo has led to them feeling the need to re-explain their actions which is now furthering this dogpile and backing them into a corner, where they are digging themselves more holes, solely because this discussion has not been closed and put to bed yet. This is generating more heat than light. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes please. I don't understand why this is still open. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

References

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 at Randall Miller

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.

---

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

• Randall Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems pretty clear cut [51]: Any one who adds this to his wikipedia page can be sued for libelous action against Miller. Note that the IP has a long history of making similar edits to the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 10 March 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:Cergun62

Cergun62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing a series of undiscussed moves based on the official name used by the government (see user's contribs). I've warned them on their talk but they still did it again. Now, in Asir, one of the pages they moved, I did a ce on the lead section to clarify the location within the Arabian Peninsula. Apparently, they didn't appreciate this and changed what I wrote [52] to a version with really poor grammar, without providing a reason. I reverted their changes, but then they rewrote the same section (removing the geographic region again) with even worse grammar and still gave no explanation for their actions, so I reverted their edits again [53]. They continue to use that strange wording and avoid including the geographic region.

Now, their last edit summary was very uncalled for and really hurt [54]. They started by accusing me of having a political motive: "I'm sensing political motives." and as if that wasn’t enough of a personal attack, they continued by saying: "I know you don't have a country to be proud of, but please, stop trying to win a political fight in Wikipedia of all places." Excuse me?? What does my country have to do with this?? We were on the topic of geography. How does mentioning that I live in a failed state relate to this?

Cergun did this edit here where he removed his govt's killing of Ethiopian refugees from the Najran Province article that could only be interpreted as whitewashing their govt's actions. This isn't their first doing so as they did it before on Asir previously here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be some edit warring going on at Asir. There does not appear to be any discussion about it at Talk:Asir. Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I would've loved to start a discussion if there were something to discuss. They accused me of having political motives when I asked them why don't they want "South Arabia" in the lead [55] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

There's clearly something to discuss. Stop reverting, use the talk page, talk to the editor politely. Understand their concerns, and try to agree a wording that addresses them. Come back if that fails.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen: To put this in a different way, if two of you are edit warring over something there's clearly something to discuss. You clearly feel your version is better, the other editor feels theirs is better. While you've left some commentary in the edit summary, edit summaries aren't the place for discussion so if there remains dispute you both need to discuss it on the talk page. A lot of the time it's best to ignore WP:BURDEN etc when it comes to deciding who should start the discussion. One of you needs to and most of the time it's better if every editor thinks it might as well be me. Note that I agree Cergun62's edit summary was unacceptable and as said as much to them, but you still have to put that aside and try to come to an agreement to them on the content issue and if you can't try some form of WP:Dispute resolution which it looks like you're now doing. Also the edit summary came quite late in the edit war so it doesn't explain why you didn't try to discuss earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Harassment and attempted outing by User:CoalsCollective.

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

Harassment in the form of repeated demands from CoalsCollective not to edit certain pages.[56] Veiled threats of attempted outing if I do not agree to this.[57]

This situation began when I contacted User:Belbury for a third opinion on recent edits to the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie [58] and Society of Authors [59] pages. Belbury shared my concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and edited the pages.

CoalsCollective reverted these edits several times against consensus, and when I commented on the Talk pages, told me not to edit the pages (at the time I had not yet done so), claiming that I had an unspecified COI around Joanne Harris).[60]

Coals seems to have concluded that a comment I made on User talk: Belbury about my late father being bullied on Wiki as being about a discussion that happened on the Talk: Joanne Harris page 12 months ago. They also assumed that one of the editors involved in this discussion was my father. They asked me for confirmation of this, but I did not answer, as per WP:OUTING.Coals seemed to believe that I had accused them of something.

I apologized for any distress caused and explained that I had no intention of suggesting that Coals was linked to the situation I had mentioned to Belbury. I also asked Coals to refrain from stating on the Talk pages of articles that I have a COI.[61] I assured Coals once again that I had no connection with any of the authors or organizations whose articles I had edited.

Having lodged a COI case against me, then withdrawn it, then having submitted a COVRT e-mail and apparently withdrawn that too, Coals is still making the same claim of COI, including on article Talk pages. [62], as well as making references to certain unfortunate revelations they mean to draw attention to if I do not accept their WP:NOEDIT demands. I can only interpret these as threats of attempted WP:OUTING.[63]

This has been going on for far too long, defying all attempts at talk, resolution or mediation via User Talk:Richard Yin [64]. I really would like an end to this WP:DRAMA: it's exhausting. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Because it might be relevant, the COIN discussion is here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 218#User:ArthurTheGardener. All of CoalsCollective's communication on User talk and Talk pages relies on the assumption that you have a COI. If you don't have a COI with these article subjects, then this is clear harrassment. But, ArthurTheGardener, I understand from this complaint that you state that you have no COI and their assumption is false, is that correct? I don't want to rehash the COIN discussion but this dispute and unwanted messages all seem to rely on the existence of a COI. Although, even if you did have a COI, some of these messages seem inappropriately personal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Coals has made a lot of baseless assumptions about my motives for editing, my imagined feelings about my father and my supposed 'special interest' in Harris, but I have no relationship with Joanne Harris, or interest in her beyond her work. In spite of what Coals has said, the Joanne Harris page isn't even in my top 10 most edited pages. And yes, I'm troubled by the personal tone of a lot of these messages, and the implication that my editing has somehow been 'clouded by grief'. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth drawing attention to this comment on Belbury's talk as well. Also, since we're talking about it anyway, the WP:BEANS reason I closed the COIN thread was because I was worried it might escalate into an outing attempt. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That talk page comment is like a short story about anonymous editors that clearly ties together names and behavior in an unfortunately creative way, not based on evidence. It is all based on assumptions by Coals, reading into edits of the past and coming up with their own narrative of personal connections and individual motivations. I'd be interested in hearing from User:Belbury but I'm not sure how much he wants to get involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It is a strange comment and I still don't really understand what CoalsCollective was trying to say. They're assuming that I believe them to be a sockpuppet of NoorStores, and seem to be asking me to stop upsetting them and harassing them and making accusations against them on those grounds. But I've never said anything about NoorStores or sockpuppetry in relation to CoalsCollective's edits.

No, it didn't take long for me to conclude that this dense and Twitter-sourced subsection was undue synthesis in the Rushdie article, and that a "recent controversies" heading merited a simple {{criticism section}} template. I did not have to read all 50,000 words of the sources and think for more than 15 minutes about that, as CoalsCollective suggests that I should have done. Belbury (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Having looked into this here's what I'll say. There seems to be no question that FirstInAFieldOfOne (formerly known as Keyserzozie) had a conflict of interest with regards to Joanne Harris per User talk:FirstInAFieldOfOne#Possible conflict of interest and Talk:Joanne Harris as they were helping her set up pages on MySpace and maybe elsewhere and were in sufficient contact to obtain photos and other stuff. While FirstInAFieldOfOne considered themselves more of a fan than a friend, and says they were never paid, there was enough there that the community reasonably considered it a clear COI. With regards to ArthurTheGardener, if ArthurTheGardener does have some sort of close personal connection to FirstInAFieldOfOne then I think there's also enough there that they too have a COI with Joanne Harris even if they don't personally know Harris and never never been on contact with her. All this grief talk etc is unnecessary, a close personal connection to someone with a clear COI is enough that we can reasonable say the other editor has a COI too. Even if this is true, ArthurTheGardener doesn't need to acknowledge any connection to FirstInAFieldOfOne, however they should make an appropriate COI declaration or stop editing about Harris. I don't think it was wrong for CoalsCollective to mention something like this to ArthurTheGardener but the way they've word a lot of their comments it definitely not on coming across as threats rather than just a simple explanation of the situation. Also it's time for CoalsCollective to put up or shut up. If they have sufficient evidence of a COI or connection that relies solely on stuff these editors have voluntarily declared, they can open a COIN thread. I'd strongly suggest they think very carefully and ensure they're only relying on stuff voluntarily declared and if there's any doubt do not follow this route. If they're uncertain or need to rely on private evidence they can continue along COVRT. I'm sure the team there will direct them to COIN if they conclude it doesn't have to be private because everything was already voluntarily disclosed. Until and unless the community has accepted there is a COI, CoalsCollective needs to stop talking about it except on COIN. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

My read on the situation is entirely different. CoalsCollective has been passive-aggressive in their interactions with Arthur to the point it is now harassment to keep on badgering Arthur about an imagined COI. The COIN thread was closed with no action, and CoalsCollective said they have written to WP:COIVRT to withdraw the case. CoalsCollective has no business telling Arthur what articles and/or talk pages they can and can't edit, and if they continue to make unfounded accusations of a COI against Arthur, I would support a block for CoalsCollective. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if what I said really disagrees with much of what you said except to emphasise different aspects. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Where I disagree with you is where you said - if ArthurTheGardener does have some sort of close personal connection to FirstInAFieldOfOne then I think there's also enough there that they too have a COI with Joanne Harris ... a close personal connection to someone with a clear COI is enough that we can reasonable say the other editor has a COI too. I disagree with the idea that you inherit a COI because you have a close personal connection to another editor who had a COI. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I hope its helpful if I simply tell the story from my point of view. I was edting on the area of the Royal Society of Literature which has a crossover with the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie when I block of my editing was suddenly erased. I did not revert the edits, but I did, over several days, seek out the cause. This appeared to be a notice from Arthur to Belbury in which Arthur referenced his 'elderly father pootling about on Wikipedia' who had then been harassed by unpleasant editors and helped by Belbury. Looking at Arthur's profile, I could see his father had died in real life. From Belbury's reaction on wiki - 'I'll see what I can do' followed 10 minutes later by the removal of a large amount of my work- I inferred that I was being associated with the editor who had harassed this poor gentleman in the last year of his life. I was perturbed, as I believe is natural, and tried to do a little digging. This proved surprisingly easy: it seemed very clear, as @Nil EinneNil has confirmed, that Arthur's father was @FirstInAFieldOfOne,an editor who had for some years, in all innocence, acted as SPA for the writer Joanne Harris. When he was discovered, he was so distressed he invented sockpuppets. The entire event must have been very distressing for him and his son. I was very sorry for Arthur, but it was also clear, looking at his pages, that he had inherited his father's interest, devoting much of his time to creating book pages for Harris and to editing her page, and that Harris, a famous Chair of the Society of Authors, was the connection with my edits. I tried to speak tactfully about this to Arthur, but was rebuffed. Then I tried, very badly, to open a COIN investigation. At this point,@Richard Yin intervened and suggested a COIVRT investigation. I was happy to agree for the sake of Arthur's privacy. Unfortunately, Arthur didn't understand that there is a queue for COIVRT and continued to hound me and to say that the COI investigation had been 'closed ages ago'. I explained that was not the case. Then, with Richard Yin's consent, I closed the COIVRT investigation and will open a COIN one when I have time. The alternative, as I have repeatedly explained to Arthur, would be for him to simply avoid Joanne Harris pages.

I don't see how there can be any question of OUTING. I have no information about Arthur. I objected, rather, to his INNING - to his bringing outside family relationships into his wikipedia editing. It really is very difficult to deal with and to strike the right tone as Isaidnoway is perhaps pointing out above - I really don't intend to be passive aggressive. . As for harassing, I can only say that all the interactions start with Arthur. I have only ever asked him to remember the very unfortunate personal connection that he brought to Wikipedia and COI that he himself declared. CoalsCollective (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

But I have not declared a COI. And I have not given any details about my father, except that he used to be an editor here, once interacted with User:Belbury a year ago, and is now dead. And none of my edits reflect the claim that grief has affected my editing. In fact, this whole debate has never touched on my edits, but only on my right to edit, as determined by Coals. She has consistently attacked, not the edits, but the man. As I understand it, the principle of COI is to avoid off-wiki relationships inadvertently impacting on editing. But at the time Coals first asked me not to edit the Society of Authors or the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie pages, I hadn't edited either of them. So where was the justification for this? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Up above, Arthur says he told you he had no connection with any of the authors or organizations whose articles I had edited. Do you have any evidence that Arthur has an external relationship to Joanne Harris; do you have any evidence that Arthur has an external relationship with the Royal Society of Literature? Just because someone may have had a relative who had a COI, doesn't automatically mean that person inherits the same COI. What you seem to be saying is, for instance, if I had a relative who edited WP and declared a COI in a certain topic area, then I am forbidden from editing in that same topic area as well, just because I am related to them. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be determined on whether you announced that your relative was your relative IRL, wouldn't it, @Isaidnoway?

That is the aspect that makes everything so difficult - that Arthur has declared that his late father was a wikipedia editor distressed by another editor. Thus Arthur's real bereavement, and Arthur's fathers real pain, are brought into this arena where we all working hard to be neutral and to leave our feelings outside. I really don't know how to deal with this, and probably, as you have thoughtfully pointed out, I am getting the tone wrong, using too many words, and seeming passive aggressive. None of this is my intention. CoalsCollective (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I disagree. So what if I announce I have a relative editing WP who has a COI with John Doe, that doesn't automatically mean I have the same COI with John Doe. You seem to be assuming that if my relative has an external relationship with John Doe, then I automatically have the same external relationship with John Doe, and I can't edit any articles related to John Doe. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Coals, it would be helpful if you stopped making these dramatic assumptions about how I feel, and concentrated on the editing situation, which is this. User:Belbury reverted some of your edits to the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie page - edits that you had worked hard on, but which contained WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and primary sources. You were upset that your hard work had been undone, intercepted a comment that was not directed to, or about you, and decided I was to blame. You then sought to stop me from commenting on the Talk page in order to give yourself the right to revert Belbury's edits. You did this more than once. You then claimed consensus on the basis that no other visitors to the page had commented. That isn't how consensus works. And until COI is declared, or decided by consensus, that's not how COI works, either.(see Talk: Stabbing of Salman Rushdie. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I looked at that talk page for Rushdie, and it looked like to me Coals was just trying to get you out of the discussion altogether, as seen here in the following exchanges. And I would also point out to CoalsCollective, generally speaking, that editors with a COI are not forbidden from commenting on talk pages, unless that editor has a topic ban in place. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That really isn't my assumption, @Isaidnoway. Everyone has interests on wiki, and I wouldn't dream of telling you not to edit. ( I didn't tell Arthur not to edit either. I asked him to remember he had a case on COIVRT. He did.) My point is that Arthur has brought a personal interest into wiki. So not: 'my father John Doe also edits on the topic of Ronald Reagan', which would be fine, but ' my late father John Doe was harassed in the last year of his life on wikipedia by nasty editors editing on the topic of Ronald Reagan like that one over there' . That's not fine. Wikipedia just isn't set up for that and its very hard to handle. CoalsCollective (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it's very easy to handle, comment on the contributions, not the contributor. As far as I can see, you have not pointed to a single edit by Arthur to any article that is problematic, you just keep droning on and on about the person. Please stop doing that. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Coals, I've already established through diffs, that you have asked me not to edit, and have done so repeatedly. A quick look at my archived Talk page will give more examples of this. But this denial is part of a pattern in which you have systematically refused to accept any criticism from anyone, and rejected all attempts to point out the problems in your edits, but have instead made personal attacks on the editors involved, including User:Richard Yin, who was trying to help you. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

CoalsCollective, editors aren't expected to be robots and are allowed to share reasonable details of their personal lives on Wikipedia. If you aren't happy with what an editor is sharing with you, you can tell them to stop and they should, but this wasn't even something shared with you so there's zero reason for you to care about it. If an editor has voluntarily shared something onwiki, it's generally okay for another editor to bring it up when it's relevant to some discussion but you need to be sure it's relevant and not just something you're using to embarrass them or to try and win a dispute. Even if you think it's okay if an editor asks you to stop bring it up, you need to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for further clarity, editors have shared that they are terminal and a variety of other situations which results in us feeling sympathy for them. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that these editors aren't allow to share such details because their fellow editors are unable to handle the revelations. Most of us can. Yes we feel sympathy for these editors and okay if they show signs of stress etc, we might cut them more slack then we normally would. To be clear, this means we might let slide some poor behaviour and stuff like that. We don't let poor edits stand just because of sympathy for an editor's personal life nor take their sides in disputes just because of sympathy towards them. I mean we're all human so I guess it's impossible to say it has no influence but we do our best to put all that aside. A community where editors are forbidden from sharing anything about themselves because it might affect how editors deal with them isn't a place we want. (And considering how concerned you are about CoIs makes no sense even for you.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The way I see it, and as I have tried at length to communicate to CoalsCollective, their position is only tenable if three things are true:

1. ArthurTheGardener has a COI with respect to the Society of Authors and related topics, to such a degree that it is difficult for him to edit neutrally.
2. Belbury's actions on Feb 7 and afterward were partly or wholly motivated by sympathy toward ArthurTheGardener's circumstances.
3. The resulting article changes were detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Without commenting on claim #1, CoalsCollective has in my opinion failed so far to show that #2 and #3 are true. They don't seem to have tried very hard to support #3 by demonstrating that Belbury's changes were inappropriate, focusing rather on the claim that the edits were inappropriately motivated. As for claim #2, I concur with Liz when it comes to to assumptions and narratives about motivations. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to partly apologise for my original reply. When I looked into this above, I was mostly interested in what was public about this alleged COI, and what had come from the attempts to deal with it via the proper channels. I didn't look a great deal at anything else. I did see some comments from CoalsCollective that I found concerning which I sort of indicated in my original reply, but I decided to AGF that it was just a very poor attempt by CoalsCollective to explain that they felt ArthurTheGardener needed to either declare their CoI or stop editing and if they didn't declare it the community would likely find they did have a CoI anyway based on the available onwiki evidence. I had strong concerns CoalsCollective didn't actually have the onwiki evidence and misunderstood what they were allowed to share hence my strong caution about them reopening COIN.

However it looked to me like the closure had been partly voluntary because it was feared the evidence wasn't all onwiki with the complaint being directed to COIVRT. I also assumed, perhaps incorrectly that when CoalsCollective asked for the COIVRT to be closed they explained that they planned to open a COIN thread and that whoever was involved would have reminded them about what they could and could not mention on wiki. Given all that, I felt it acceptable for CoalsCollective to open a new COIN thread provided they ensured they did not engage in any form of WP:OUTING but tried to emphasise that this was the only place it was acceptable for them to continue talk about a COI until and unless there had been a public finding of a CoI (whether via COIN or someone from COIVRT noting something onwiki).

Having looked more now at CoalsCollective's actions I do agree it looks a lot like they've been trying to weaponise the COI allegation, while also making unsupported allegations about other editors who they don't claim have a CoI; in an effort to get their way in some article disputes. Frankly I've seen enough that I'm inclined to suggest not only does CoalsCollective need to stop all this but they should voluntarily stay away from all articles where this has been going on for a period. They also need to drop the COI stuff completely, not even open a new COIN thread. If anyone else sees something worth taking to COIN, they're welcome to do so. And even if there is community consensus that there is a COI, CoalCollective still needs to stay out of it, not talking about this COI or taking or suggesting any action because of it. And they definitely need to drop the part about grief etc, that's definitely not on whatever was shared before as I said even in my first reply it's irrelevant to anything.

One more comment, I take a fairly expansive via of CoI and IMO it would be better if editors are more open about possible CoIs and more readily declare them. While it can create complexities in a largely pseudonymous world, there is always the option to refrain from editing and frankly there's also the option to just start a talk page discussion and say something like "for reasons I won't go into I'm not willing to edit the article directly but....." or something of that sort. To be clear, if I was editing an article about someone I knew a close family member was friends or close colleagues with, I would declare this as a CoI even if I personally had no connection to the person myself. It might not be the strongest CoI but enough of one that it's something I feel should be declared. It's apparent from the above and also a comment of that others disagree and this isn't the place to discuss it further, I'm only mentioning it to explain my comments above.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that in principle this makes sense. However, the language Coals has used around some of the subjects of her edits ('controversial', 'contentious' [65] etc.) suggests that she herself may be finding it difficult to be objective. The edits I originally commented on all seemed to be attempts to give undue weight to social-media driven controversies and culture wars-related topics, drawing these into a narrative not supported by reliable sources. Since the creation of this account, Coals has made nearly all of her edits within a very narrow field - that of literary societies and a few of their prominent members. In such a case I don't know whether a voluntary topic ban would work. I know this isn't really the place to discuss COI, but this seems to me to be an account with a limited range of interests, and very strong opinions. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been editing for more than year on several topics related to my field of academic study, especially some author pages. I have never at any time edited any text whatever without citations from reliable sources at the highest level of relevance as you may see hereas you may see here. I am not a tendentious editor When corrected by other editors I have taken great care to respond as perhaps @Theroadislong might acknowledge.

I have not harrassed anyone, nor attempted to out anyone, nor given the slightest indication that I would do so, and I would like to have some examples of when I am alleged to have done so. Arthur chose to pursue me, by his own statement, in order to pursue his late father's aims. I'm afraid that seems wrong to me.

Arthur has WP:Aspersions and hounded me . All the interactions begin with him, I have only ever responded. I have never asked him not to edit. I simply asked him, as a matter of courtesy, to refrain from comment while his COIVRT case, convened as a matter of courtesy and kindness to him, was decided. His response was that it was 'closed ages ago' which was untrue.

I decided to close the COIVRT because of this, and also because @Richard Yin had closed his email access. This seem inappropriate to me in the circumstances. I was clear and careful about what I was doing and invited Arthur to email for a more private discussion. CoalsCollective (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In the ongoing discussion, I missed this, but I can't let it pass. Arthur chose to pursue me, by his own statement, in order to pursue his late father's aims. Excuse me, User:CoalsCollective. What evidence do you have for this claim? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• In trying to consider how to resolve this complaint, I'd like to propose a voluntary IBan be adopted by CoalsCollective about the editor ArthurTheGardener. This is an interaction ban which, you can see at WP:IBAN, means no discussion with or about ArthurTheGardener, no editing pages right after they have done so, basically editing this project as if they aren't a fellow editor here and keeping your distance from them. It's clear that ArthurTheGardener wants nothing to do with CoalsCollective and wants to be left alone and CoalsCollective shouldn't be a COI investigator into other editors. There is so much more important editing that needs to be done here and I don't see an overriding reason why these two editors need to be in contact with each other. If there exist problems with CoalsCollective's edits, those can be discussed separately from this complaint.

I'm suggesting this be voluntary because if CoalsCollective and ArthurTheGardener agree to adopt this resolution, then this complaint can be closed without involving additional editors and we can all move forward. And if CoalsCollective dislikes having an editing restiction, I'd remind them that I'm sure you came to Wikipedia to work on articles on subjects that interest you, not to investigate other editors and the existence or non-existence of their off-wikipedia relationships. If you want to be a constructive editor here, then consider "drama" to be a distraction from the actual work that goes into building an encyclopedia. It sounds like there is some tension between Coals and Belbury but that is about article editing which is the purpose of the project and can be discussed on article talk pages and which is governed by policies and guidelines, not sleuthing into personal relationships. How does this sound? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have never started any interaction with @ArthurTheGardener. All the interactions start with him. I'd be very happy to agree a mutual interaction ban and have already asked him for this. However, I also think that @ArthurTheGardener should stay away from the topic of Joanne Harris, simply because of the declared family connection. It would make everyone's life easier. CoalsCollective (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a diff to support your assertion about a "declared family connection". Claims of this nature require evidence in the form of a diff. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"last year, my elderly father, who had been happily pootling about on Wiki for years, got involved in his first dispute with an editor on a related topic, and it really upset him". Arthur

Here we have @FirstInAFieldOfOne 'I also set up pages on some of my favourite books of hers when I opened this account in (I think) 2012. She didn't ask me to do it, nor did she ever send me any content (except for the photo that is now on the page, which I asked for, and which replaces an old one that she said she hated). I did ask her once if she'd mind my adapting some of the stuff on her website to improve some of the pages here, and she said yes, but any editing I've done has been off my own bat. I'm concerned that Noorstores has repeated on the COIN page and elsewhere that she "outed Harris" for "using a SPA", and has made other disparaging remarks about her. I'd like to restate once and for all that no one ever asked me to set up any pages No one has "used" me for anything. I once sold Joanne Harris a laptop, and set it up for her. Conversations between us have been limited to small talk: "Have you got any new books out?" and so on. I've added details on wiki as and when they've come my way, but that's all.

These descriptions appeared to match for me, and Arthur has never disagreed. I find them poignant and would imagine that Arthur does too. This is why I think he should avoid Joanne Harris pages. CoalsCollective (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:ArthurTheGardener: ' I got interested in editing while caring for my elderly father, who died last year.' CoalsCollective (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. What does this conversation about Joanne Harris from a year ago have to do with a conversation I had with User:Belbury about The Stabbing of Salman Rushdie? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

But the "declared family connection" does not say the family member is FirstInAFieldOfOne. Quite frankly, Arthur has been more patient and tolerant of your antics than I would have been. Why don't you just accept Liz's proposal of a voluntary I-ban, and get on with your editing, and stop suggesting and/or worrying about what topics Arthur can or cannot edit. There are gobs of other editors who can handle any potential issues that may or may not arise with Arthur. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I really wish I could believe in this solution. But as you can see, Coals is using the same DARVO tactics as before, posting walls of text and making connections between unrelated situations. I have already provided evidence to back up my points. I have already stated that I have not declared a family connection. And even here, on this notice board, Coals is still making personal attacks in the form of accusations and repeating her demands for me not to edit. I have tried very hard to find a resolution. But nothing has worked. Coals refuses to take any responsibility for her actions, refuses any criticism and just keeps repeating the same accusations, whatever anyone tells her. And given her editing choices, and the fact that of her 457 edits since the creation of her account, 228 have been devoted to the drama of the past 30 days, [66], I wonder whether constructive editing is really her priority. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

None of the information provided by CoalsCollective convinces me that ArthurTheGardener needs to avoid the topic of Joanne Harris article. If CoalsCollective won't simply accept the voluntary IBAN and get back to constructive editing, I think an involuntary IBAN is in order. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add a diff that opens up a previous edited to be reedited, CoalsCollective. The appropriate link would be User talk:Belbury#Advice, please?, not this. But you made the assumption that FirstInAFieldOfOne was the editor that ArthurTheGardener was referring to and then you just ran with that assumption. I do NOT want you to go through your "evidence" that this assumption is or isn't true, that's what COIN thread is for. This is ANI and if you are willing to agree with it, I'd like you to accept a one way IBan with ArthurTheGardener and stop talking about them or telling them what pages they can or can not edit. If you don't agree, then I'll formulate a proposal and ask other editors to weigh in. But you have to drop this stick, stop hounding ArthurTheGardener and go back to regular editing. If a COI ever appears to be an issue, other editors can follow up on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been regular editing. There is nothing at all wrong with the edits to the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie or the Society of Authors pages. They are very careful, very detailed, very balanced and very well cited. The only objection to them comes from Arthur. If Arthur wishes to deny to the connection to his father here then of course I will accept that and it involves no information outside of wiki. I can't accept a one way ban because of the problem that all the interactions are started by Arthur. You would then be allowing any amount of WP:ASPERSIONS WP:HOUND of me without a right to reply. No one has even looked at this problem, or my actual edits. CoalsCollective (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you show me a single interaction with Arthur started by me?

Or an example of a single edit which is not cited to a WP:REL WP:REL? CoalsCollective (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Nor have I ever told Arthur what he can and can't edit. I asked him to refrain, from kindness and courtesy, from commenting on pages while his case was being discussed at COIVRT. CoalsCollective (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope, that assertion is directly contradicted by this diff, the first one offered in this section. Blocked indefinitely, where "indefinite" means "until discussion hashes out a lesser restriction that will prevent ongoing disruption". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:CoalsCollective, you are mistaken in believing that I am the only person who objects to your edits. The conversation on the Talk:Stabbing of Salman Rushdie page and the Talk:Society of Authors page show otherwise. You are also mistaken in believing that I have started all our interactions, as your many posts on my Talk pages show.[67][68] And no one is denying you the right to reply: simply the right to decide where other people edit. As I have already pointed out to you, a WP:NOEDIT order is a WP:NOEDIT order, whether or not you feel you asked politely, or otherwise. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Reopening, as I specifically indicated that discussion should attempt to reach a lesser restriction than an indef block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, SarekOfVulcan, I missed that request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz, your attempt to close this thread is showing up as gobbledygook wiki syntax at the top of this section, I was going to try and fix it, but thought you might want to give it a go. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Not her fault, I nowiki-ed it so it would be clear that she had attempted to close the discussion, but that I had re-opened it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

To avoid people misunderstanding the broken {{atop}} and trying to fix it, I'm moving Liz's original closing statement below: --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Original closing statement: I guess this discussion has been rendered moot as SarekOfVulcan has indefinitely blocked CoalsCollective for disruptive editing. ArthurTheGardener, I'm sorry that you faced so many unwarranted personal comments about your family and life situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for one-way interaction ban

CoalsCollective should be subject to a one-way interaction ban with ArthurTheGardener I have examined the discussions in multiple locations (user talk pages, noticeboards, article talk pages) and in particular CoalsCollective's comments. This wide-ranging furor all seems to come down to Belbury's removal of some of CC's edits and then CC misinterpreting a comment by ArthurTheGardener as an accusation that she is the editor that his father had an issue with. That misinterpretation drove CC to investigate and accuse ATG of COI in multiple locations, and repeatedly tried to get ATG to reveal the name that his father edited under. CC's edits prior to this misunderstanding that became a crusade are constructive and helpful to the project; she should be encouraged to refocus her efforts on article improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Long version with diffs

I've gone through CoalsCollective's edit history. The issue appears to begin when ArthurTheGardener asks Belbury's advice about controversies added to two articles. Belbury said he'd look into it and removed some text that CC had written. CC joined the conversation on Belbury's talk page[69] and seems to have somehow read criticism of her into ATG's comment. CC posted on ATG's talk page to ask about COI and seems determined not to take "no" for an answer.[70] Despite ATG disavowing any COI with Harris, CC posts at Talk:Society of Authors: I suggest you refrain from commenting any further on issues to do with Joanne Harris or the Society of Authors as you seem to have a conflict of interest[71] (even though COI concerns do not preclude an editor from participating on the talk page, and even though ATG had already told CC that he had no COI). CC then opened a sockpuppet investigation accusing ATG of being a sock of FirstInAFieldOfOne, and a few hours later opened a discussion against ATG at COIN. The COIN discussion was closed by Richard Yin. Several comments CC has made indicate that at some point she inferred that she was the editor who ATG's father had had problems with,[72][73] and I can't find where that reading came from. (Related discussion on CC's talk page.) CC goes back to User talk:Belbury to criticize his conduct in the matter; this lengthy post makes clear that CC believes that she has been wrongly accused of upsetting ATG's father.[74] (I can find no evidence that any editor other than CC thinks that.) She then asks Richard Yin to look at what she wrote to Belbury.[75] (Richard Yin tries unsuccessfully to talk her down off the ledge.[76]]) There's a whole COIVRT email bitUser_talk:CoalsCollective#WP:COIVRT_email_sent which CC then withdraws. As for "outing", CC made numerous comments in various places that attempted to make ATG acknowledge the name of his father's account, which ATG ignored.[77][78][79][80]

Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Heads up @Schazjmd: you forgot to add the collapse bottom template. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it was there, it just didn't get picked up for some reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh, I stand corrected. There's a stray {{abot}} above, by the way. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You weren't seeing things, it wasn't showing up for me either, all the threads below were collapsed into it as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban with ArthurTheGardener to stop the ongoing disruption. If Schazjmd's comment is not a formal proposal, then please consider my reply as a formal proposal. I also endorse Schazjmd's analysis of this unfortunate incident, particularly this passage – COI concerns do not preclude an editor from participating on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I have written many words trying to convince CoalsCollective to focus on improving article content rather than making unsupported judgments about editor motivations. Perhaps I could've been more persuasive, but at this point I think a formal sanction is necessary. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support One-way interaction ban. I've been reading pages about this dispute for two days now and I just didn't understand this case, the lengths that CoalsCollective went to to bother ArthurTheGardener, down to starting up COIN cases about them, opening SPIs about them, letters to COIVRT, plus numerous, numerous talk page messages on several editor's pages for over a month. It finally sunk in that they hold him indirectly responsible for some work of theirs getting reverted all built upon assumptions about them. Such misplaced effort. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  This seems a good solution, if Coals can be persuaded to accept it, and to take responsibility for her actions: so far she seems convinced that she has been the victim in all this. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  This entire matter appears to be based on Coals' misinterpretation of COI. From the section above: If Arthur wishes to deny to the connection to his father confirms (to me at least) that Coals believes Arthur is editing on behalf of his deceased father, and that itself is somehow a conflict of interest. I will not speculate if this COI claim is simple misunderstanding, or a deliberate misuse in order to remove someone who disagrees with Coals' edits. Everything else spills out from that, the wild assumptions as to the Wiki identity of Arthur's father, etc. is all based on this one bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support I don't think this is the only problem with CoalCollective's editing but it should prevent the current disruption. If it moves to other areas we can deal with it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for my signature error, just want to re-iterate despite CoalCollective's concerning comments, I still feel the one way iban could be enough. CoalCollective attacking these other editors isn't new, part of why I said it isn't the only problem. But my hope was and still is that since the iban will effectively force them out of their current disputes, it would also force them out of disputes with other editors in that area. It's possible given the history they will follow these editors to other areas where ArthurTheGardener is not involved, or they will get into dispute with other editors, and a quick an indef or cban will be needed by hope was and still is that if they decide to stick around this won't happen. About the sock, like others I did wonder from early on about this but a quick look suggested minimal overlap in articles even if the overall interest seemed similar. The SPI is interesting though and I do think it would have been better if someone evaluated it. Perhaps it's moot though if CoalCollective has talked themselves out of a relaxation. In that case, since it's already too late for any CU, there's probably no issue since if a future case is needed it can just re-use the existing evidence and add new evidence for whatever future account we need to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I've already voiced my support for an IBAN above, but then I followed up on a hunch and started an SPI. If my suspicion is correct then there is a chronic BLP issue here that one IBAN won't be enough to solve. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

There were suspicions of this but I'm surprised to see the SPI. You clearly put a lot of work into this request for investigation. I'll be interested in hearing about the results. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have just finished going through this thread and the many links within it. I want to draw some attention to their their most recent comment that caused me some concern. In particular: My opinion is that Richard Lin and Belbury are probably sock puppets, but also that entering their psychodrama is degrading. seems entirely uncivil and doesn't indicate to me that an IBAN is sufficient. They don't seem to want to edit any more, so this might not matter, but it wouldn't be the first time that an editor changes their mind, so it might also be worth addressing CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 01:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with CambrianCrab; i had just visited the talk page and was concerned about the quote given above; so much so, in fact, that i considered removing it and replacing it with {{RPA}}, but decided against as the editor says they have finished with us, so perhaps the talk page will not get any further visibility. Nevertheless, in case it turns out that they decide to return and are able to put together a convincing unblock request, it is good we have taken notice of this, at the least, incivility ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, retain Indefinite Block - Per CambrianCrab, the editor's most recent comment on their Talk page is just continuing to cast aspersions, even while blocked. I have no confidence Coals will abide by an IBAN, assuming she hasn't actually scrambled her password. I fully expect Coals will return with another account, and am disappointed the SPI was procedurally closed due to the current block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer to allow them to do some editing but this dispute has gone on so long that I'm becoming doubtful they could let this whole matter ebb away and return to productive editing. In my time on this project, it's unfortunate that I've repeatedly seen otherwise well-intentioned editor be blocked because of a "feud" that they couldn't let go of. Someone feels like the injured party and doesn't let go of it. But that's why we have IBans. They seem to have mixed results though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support reduction to Iban, as that seems to be the locus of the dispute; it's certainly what personalizes it. Personally don't find the SPI that convincing. If it boils down to 'begins editing at 8AM' and 'is interested in authors', then, well; I can think of at least one other editor with a similar editing pattern, who also writes about authors, as well as their books, plays, poems and characters. But I'd echo Liz that I appreciate the sheer amount of work that went into researching the SPI. However, I think an IB should be sufficient for the time being. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, I think you might have typo'd, the proposal is for an interaction ban, not a topic ban. Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  Oops. Corrected, cheers. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent POV Editing on Kashmir Related Article

I am reporting user Saandd for repeatedly making politically motivated edits on multiple Wikipedia articles related to Kashmir. The edits include:

1. Kashmir Stag (Hangul) The user falsely changed the classification of the Kashmir stag from being a subspecies of the Central Asian red deer (Cervus hanglu hanglu) to the Tarim red deer. They also reworded content in a way that introduces bias.

•Diff: Last stable version vs. their edit

2. Shab Deg Multiple edits removing references to Kashmir as a broader region and instead framing it as an exclusively Indian dish.

•Before: Version before edits

•After: 1 2 3

3. Kulcha Changed the region from Punjab to India, removing Pakistan and Punjab from the associated cuisine section.

•Before: Version with Punjab and Pakistan

•After: Their edit removing Punjab and Pakistan

4. Other Kashmir-related articles The user has consistently replaced “Kashmir” with “Kashmir, India”, despite , despite Wikipedia’s policy to maintain neutrality due to Kashmir’s disputed status.

I request administrators to review this user’s editing history and take appropriate action to prevent further disruptive and tendentious editing.

Thank you. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you are required to alert the user of this report on their talk page, I've done it for you. I also gave them a notice about the relevant contentious topic, as they might not be knowledgeable about it before. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User PvPvE Boosting breaching WP:PROMOTION policy

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.

---

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

This user has edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boosting_(video_games) to advertise a game boosting service. I have notified this user on their talk page. Speedyblupi (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You did not notify the user of this ANI discussion, which is what the process requires. I don't think this ANI post was necessary. You should have removed the promotional material, left a message telling them it is not allowed (as you did), and then waited for a response. ANI is for urgent, chronic and intractable behavioural problems only. I don't see evidence of that. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

(ec) @Speedyblupi, that editor hasn't edited since last September. The promotion has been reverted. Nothing needs to be done. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Speedyblupi (talk) 17:09, 9 March 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.

Edit warring with possible meat- and/or 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.

---

• NewGuy2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]
• Bear3424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [86] [87] [88]
• 80.229.13.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [89]
• 80.43.61.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [90]

These four accounts have been involved in edit warring at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, all of them removing the same content under the same arguments (when they actually use the edit summary to explain them, which is not always the case) within a very short timeframe. The thing is: most of these accounts just appear to conduct that revert, then vanish into thin air just in time to avoid breaching WP:3RR independently. NewGuy2024 is an exception as they also regularly post in the talk page, but their contribution history shows that they are a single-purpose account with a very narrow set of articles (just that one and the one for the 2024 election). The Editor Interaction Utility shows a very strong correlation between these four accounts' edits, and very particularly between NewGuy2024 and Bear3424, a behaviour which sounds like a duck quacking in terms of WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK. Impru20^talk 21:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

From the talk page it's a dispute over including polls from companies that are not part of the BPC. Secretlondon (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

That’s the gist. There are several/many/lots? of very keen and singular editors who are really keen on a BPC only page, even though it has to ignore wiki's general view on reliable sources. One of the phrases was, "WP:whoknowshwat", which I rather like.Halbared (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have added a new edit by NewGuy2024, as they keep edit warring. Impru20^talk 22:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for a week. The edit warring that has been happening on this article is absurd. It ends now. Warning posted on the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Good call. I can’t believe how so much fuss is being made over such a relatively trivial matter. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 9 March 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.

SPA IP 75.143.218.14 harassing users in relation to Yasuke

75.143.218.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account in question has two edits so far harassing myself and Coresly on our talk pages in relation to Yasuke.

• [91]
• [92]

Given they started twenty minutes ago, they may continue posting on other pages after this is posted. Relm (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

After posting I noticed that Coresly has been blocked already as WP:NOTHERE with only two edits to Yasuke. Fun. Relm (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

IP blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Long history of copyright infringement

Our relevant policy underlines that copyright infringement "should be treated seriously," as such cases "not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". Consequently, persistent copyright violations by an editor indicate a general pattern of disruptive behavior and demonstrate that the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

• Norfolkbigfish's copyright violation was detected by myself ([93]) and by AirshipJungleman29 ([94]) during the review of Crusading movement already in April 2022. As my linked remarks show, in a case Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book, thus making the detection of copyright infringement very difficult.
• During the FAC review of the same article in April 2024, I detected several cases of copyright violations, and opposed the article's promotion. In response, Norfolkbigfish took me to ANI proposing an IBAN. The case was closed without action and Norfolkbigfish sent me the following message: "Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete" on 9 April ([95]).
• I opened a GAR, and emphasised the dangers of copyright infringement in the opening section on 8 April. On 10 April, Norfolkbigfish stated that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." On 19 April, I closed the review and delisted the article, because it still contained several cases of copyvio ([96]). He again took me to ANI, stating that I "have a blind spot when it comes to working in a consensual way". During the process, Star Mississippi proposed a block of Norfolkbigfish "for on going copyright issues which remain an issue despite their ongoing promises", this proposal was supported by Serial Number 54129, but the process was closed without any formal decision.
• The GAR was reopened on procedural basis (I am really stupid when procedural rules are to be followed). Norfolkbigfish proposed that the article should still be listed, stating that "all issues identified have been addressed" ([97]). On 26 April, I mentioned that Norfolkbigfish obviously did not take copyright violation seriously ([98]), and AirshipJungleman29 mentioned that they are "increasingly concerned about" Norfolkbigfish's "perception of the issue" ([99]). I returned to the review on 29 April, and still detected several cases of copyvio, including two cases when Norfolkbigfish copied text from books but verified them with a reference to other books. On this occasion, it was me who took Norfolkbigfish to ANI. During the process, Star Mississippi and Serial Number 54129 confirmed their previous indef block proposal, and it was supported by Ravenswing, but the case was again closed without any action.
• A couple of days ago, Norfolkbigfish requested a peer review. They began to edit the article and their new edits again contain copyright infringement.

I think the long history of repeated copyright infringement proves that Norfolkbigfish is not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked After reading the evidence, with multiple admins and experienced editors expressing concerns, I have indefinitely blocked Norfolkbigfish from mainspace, pending an explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Careless rather than intentional @Ritchie333, always clearly sourced (although subsequent editing may have moved the text from the cite) and quickly remediated when pointed out. Always happy to have my errors highlighted so I can fix, hence the current Peer Review and the many other reviews this article has been through. I was hoping that knowledgeable editors would join in and kick it along but it hasn't happened. Worth noting that the OP has been trying to get me banned for years. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't appear that Borsoka has being trying to get you banned, rather they have been trying to stop the encyclopedia containing copyright violations. Looking through the ANI threads, I see multiple call for a block, or for some sort of serious course correction to avoid copyright violations, with several people remaking that has been several years since it was first suggested. It's a standard procedure to block from mainspace when large amounts of copyvios are encountered, so editors can take a step back and evaluate the situation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to evaluate the situation @Ritchie333, what do you suggest the next steps are? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  You always seem to try to explain away copyright violation by saying things like that the content is uncontentious or that everything is sourced. Those things don't matter: copying phrases is still copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I know it is wrong @Phil Bridger, the point I was making was that there is no attempt to do this by subterfuge and that in future I will be more careful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  there is no attempt to do this by subterfuge

  Well, that's worse. It means you're intentionally doing this, which means you should never be editing Wikipedia t all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Something I note in going through the long slog in this matter is that you're just dandy at genial replies: you're "happy to evaluate," willing to fix, admitting fault, will be more careful, etc etc. And then you go and keep on making copyvios. This is a situation going back years, it keeps recurring, and it's very hard not to conclude that you're either incapable of or unwilling to change. Ravenswing 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Well politeness goes a long way and it is always good to engage with constructive editors @Ravenswing. Most of the sources on Crusading movement are available on Wayback machine so it is unlikely that any deliberate attempt to plagarise would remain unidentified for very long as the recent incident demonstrated. That said the root of that was the use of LLM/AI rather than the copying of sources. It didn't know the tools I was using would act this way, but do now and won't do that again should I get my editing rights back. See, I may be incapable, but I am not unwilling. The challenge is making the text close enough to the source that the OP doesn't flag verification failed, but far enough away that it isn't flagged copyvio. I forget the exact incident but on one occasion I had something like will of God flagged as close paraphrsaing. Now, I am not sure what to do about that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you quickly remediate when pointed out? You took me ANI twice instead of fixing the problems. You have also failed to clear "your" other articles. For instance, I found two cases of obvious copyvio at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Angevin kings of England/1 after a very short review, and you have not edited that article for three months. By the way, when discussing the reassessment with an other editor I clearly stated that "Yes, I am close to take [Norfolkbigfish] to ANI but instead I give them (again) a last chance. I do not want to get rid of them, but to persuade them to start to improve WP instead of disrupting it with plagiarism, unverified statements and typos." This contradicts your statement about myself. Borsoka (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this entirely restricted to the Cruasding movement article or should we look at a potential CCI (possibly added to our backlog of cases to open because of the block) for all of their edits? Seeing Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book has me inclined to presumptively remove all of their additions to Crusading movement. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I can learn something here. It is a good example. The OP writes Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book. Now the sources (Asbridge, Jotiscky) are writing about different events 20 years apart. Asbridge and my edit were explicitly about Gregory VII, whereas Jotischky was talking about precursors to the First Crusade. Close but different. Now the line in question is In 1074, Gregory VII planned a display of military power to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty. This pretty much matches Asbridge's meaning as I read it and is pretty straight forward in terms of wording. Jotischky writes A display of military might in the eastern Mediterranean, such as had been proposed by Gregory VII as early as 1074, would also bring the opportunity to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty. So now we are talking about an overlap of 2 fragments and 10 words talking about subjects 20 years apart (ignoring names and dates that I presume arn't going to be called out). So clumsy I admit, but what could I have done differently, short of deploying a list of sysnoyms? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Your above comment clearly demonstrates why you represented a constant risk for our community before your block. First of all, you try to present your blatant plagiarism as an issue between "the OP" and yourself. Several editors are cited above who have detected your plagiarism and informed you about the risks of such a behaviour several times. You have ignored all of us. Secondly, you should have read our basic policies about copyright violations and close paraphrasing soon after the first warnings because you should have understood and applied them. After several warnings by several editors, you cannot demand explanations on specific issues. By the way, your above text is a clear example of copyright violation. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to answer the question, I attributed the statement to yourself because it was you who wrote it? I am genuinely interested in where the line between 4/6 word fragments, using general terms, about different but related topics is. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Not general terms, but specific words describing a specific event (Gregory's 1074 plan) were copied without any change into the article without any reference to the copy and paste method. Sorry, I do not have time to continue this discussion, because there were nearly a hundred examples of close paraphrasing and copyvio in the article. (Not to mention your other GAs and FAs. They should also be examined, as I suggested you nearly a year ago, but as usual, you ignored my advice.) I wish you every success in real life. Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the question again @Borsoka, you misunderstand. The two sources were writing about two different themes 20 years apart, one was was writing about Gregory, one was using it as simile for the upcoming First Crusade. Appreciate English is you second language so this may be difficult for you, but you could at least try to understand. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I do not misunderstand. We understand the texts in the same way. That is why you chose the same wording. Actually, we share some weaknesses: sometimes both of us need external support to write English sentences that make sense ([100]), and none of us is always able to understand unusual technical terms, in your case especially in the field of history ([101]) Please, do not ping me again. Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is just incredibly condescending, Norfolk. You should really stop digging. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Why do we waste so much time on people who obviously either can't or won't follow the most fundamental, simple rules? EEng 14:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  • They've been going on about "being careless" for years now. Their modus operandi is a very convincing blend of absolute indifference covered by a thin mask of humility. The current peer review for Crusading movement shows the true colours: despite comprehensive sourcing problems identified shortly before, they say "despite all the noise there hasn't really been a detail objective list of issues in some time". What can you say to that nonsense? When Norfolkbigfish states "I was planning to combine sourcing with any comments with the review in one hit" what they really mean is "I was planning to do sweet FA about the sourcing because I'm so careless! Oh, woe is me!"
    But no, we should focus on how quickly they fix their errors when other editors do the donkey work of finding them. How gracious. God forbid they work on their perennial problem before asking for others' assistance. Support block, in case that was unclear. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:JustAChurchMouse: edit-war, use of sources considered as unreliable by community consensus

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

User:JustAChurchMouse has been edit-warring at the page Sedevacantism, reverting me numerous time, along with once @Pbritti:. See: [102], [103], [104]; [105]

JustAChurchMouse has also added sources that are unreliable, along with sources declared unreliable by the community (WP:CESNUR).

The user has ignored the consensusus on their sources at Talk:Sedevacantism#Reliable sources.

The user has been imposing their changes, despite other users objecting to them. JustAChurchMouse has disregarded all opposition to their changes in a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT way, and has repeateadly added their changes back.

The user has been made aware of WP:BRD twice ([106], [107]).

The user was warned of the lack of reliable sources they provided for their claims (User talk:JustAChurchMouse#February 2025), and for their edit-warring behaviour (User talk:JustAChurchMouse#March 2025). They have chosen to ignore those.

Therefore, I believe sanctions need to be taken against the user. Veverve (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, just stop edit-warring. You did the right thing by starting a talk page discussion, but absolutely the wrong thing by reinstating your edits before the discussion has completed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I am frustrated with this JustAChurchMouse, mostly due to the name-calling they engaged in, which was followed by peculiar comments about my nationality after I warned them about on their talk page. They also engaged in apologetic POV edit warring on the Catholic Church article back in January ([108], [109], [110]). My appraisal of their editing is that they are a staunchly Catholic editor (as I am) who is unable to understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a tool for evangelization or apologetics. While Phil Bridger's advice is sound, I think there's more going on here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

They have resumed edit warring: [111]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried reporting them to WP:ANEW? But I see multiple editors edit-warring here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

They haven't broken 3RR (24h limit passed) and ANEW is a tad fickle if that specific rule isn't broken. I'm assuming Veverve reported here for that reason. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I requested that they come here to discuss the situation but when I post these messages, I only have about 50/50 success. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If they haven't replied by the time I wake up, I'll also encourage them to respond here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti and Liz unfortunately no reply but they've resumed editing. I don't know if the recent changes are the same as before but they're still using the same sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I'm now involved as I just reverted JustAChurchMouse. Having looked at their changes I agree they seem to be problematic and until there's at least a partial block or maybe page protection (especially if it's not their preferred version being the wrong version that wins) it seems they're just going to continue to largely ignore concerns and give some minimal replies which include personal attacks. Perhaps seeing multiple editors will convince them to talk more before some administrative action, perhaps not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold out too much hope. They are conspicuous here by their absense. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I now add to my complaint personnal attack, refusal of WP:FAITH:

• calls me a "non-content contributor deliberately trying to frustrate article development in bad faith" ([112])
• says: You are deliberately trying to obstruct the development of this article because you have a bias or bee in your bonet against the subject matter and are trying to hide behind obscurantist Wikilawyering. This is not in the interests of spirit of what Wikipedia is for at all and does not aid in any constructive way in developing a quality article here ([113])

On top of this, a new WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: You are not proposing any serious constructive content additions to this article at all, so I am just going to carry on developing the article. ([114]) Veverve (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from article space entirely as they need to communicate. I am not against a larger block if the communication doesn't indicate an understanding of the issues raised here. Star Mississippi 15:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

So I am mostly interested in researching and building underdeveloped articles on religious topics. At present, I am attempting to take the rather sorry state the sedevacantism article is in and gradually drag it up to a decent level. I don’t check my talk very often, not interested in using this as an avenue for socialising and am just interested in researching and building articles in the little spare time I have, so forgive me if I am not monitoring my talkpage 24/7.

I was working on the article sedevacantism, when Veverve wholesale reverted all of the work added, with the vague editor summary “not RSs”, with no message on the talkpage whatsoever. So I started a Talk:Sedevacantism#Reliable_sources questioning why these had been removed.

One source was from the journal of an organisation associated with this movement, which plots out a comprehensive international history of the earliest individuals involved in it. There is no suggestion that the material it is being used to reference is contentious or somehow disputed. I pointed out according to WP:Secondary such sources do not even require to completely independent. I tried to tease out of Veverve, how this was supposedly an unreliable source, what evidence we have of their unreliability or why he thinks we could not use a source from a group within this movement for non-contentious mundane content, but couldn’t get a solid definitive answer from him. Its basically just his subjective opinion. It just devolved into circular deep Wikilawyering and there was basically nowhere further go to with the discussion as he wasn’t challenging any actual content, just mass reverting based on his subjective opinion of this source.

The second source which be brought into question is Center for Studies on New Religions, a group which published studies on academic works on new religious movements. I have since added another source from an unrelated academic work anyway. But this literally was, again, used in a completely uncontentious manner to reference that an organisation exists in Japan and what year it was founded. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say we cannot use this organisation as a reference, some people do not like the group because they don’t actively lobby against new religious movements, just describe their beliefs. But again, used for completely uncontentious material.

Within the initial post here, Veverve claims to have a "consensus" on the question of the sources, this is simply not true. Nobody other than him has actually addressed the reliability sources themselves on the talkpage that I opened. My main irritation is Veverve rather than merely tagging these two specific references he has a problem with in the article with an appropriate tag, requesting they be augmented with supplementary source, starting a talkpage entry and inviting scrutiny of a source by a non-involved parties in a collaborative project mindset (all of which I would be more than willing to participate and collaborate in) but simply wholesale reverting, frustrating and apparently delierately obstructing any real effort to actually push forward and development of the progress of the article itself. How does this actually benefit Wikipedia or aid in developing it at all? I am willing to collaborate on content, of course, but the other person has to be as well. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe you have objectively described the situation; this can be seen when checking the article's talk page, and in looking at your behaviour in this article (edit-war, shifting the burden of proof, personnal attacks against me, etc.) of which you have said nothing and instead focused on me (despite the admin on your talk page previously advising you to WP:NOTTHEM). Furthermore, from what you wrote here and on the article's talk page, I do not believe you have properly understood what a RS is and how primary sources can be used. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, no one is seeking to socialize with you, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing platform that requires editors to communicate with each other, especially when differences arise, often over the quality of sources. No editor can work in isolation. This is an interactive platform that requires editors to be responsive when other editors question their work. Hence, your article-space block. I'm glad you decided to show up here and participate in this discussion even though it doesn't look like there is a resolution here yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

As Liz pointed out, Wikipedia is not a social network. Your talk page is there for communication, not socializing, and communication is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If the community has said a source is not reliable point blank, as they seem to have done for CENSUR then you should not be using it as a source for anything except perhaps presenting this sources views on something which is very rare. It doesn't mater if it's uncontentious. If you later found a different source that's great but it doesn't change that their are legitimate concerns about your understanding of WP:RS in general if you used this source in the first place, and even greater concerns if you continue to assert it's okay. This being a collaborative project we accept sometimes we need to correct the mistakes of other editors, but editors should still try not to make such mistakes in the first place and using CENSUR was a major mistake on your part and one you should ensure you don't repeat. Anyway if this was just about that single source, that's one thing but besides that you keep adding material with other poor sources, primarily primary sources and other such extremely problematic sources. As noted on the talk page by multiple other editors including me, you need to find better sources before adding most of it. You cannot expect editors to tag each source especially when you are adding so much of it in such a short space of time and almost completely ignoring concerns over your sources. I'm sure our article Sedevacantism can be improved a lot but not the way you're going about it and you have to accept that just because you're adding content does not mean you're improving the article from En.Wikipedia's PoV. It's possible some of the material you're trying to add simply doesn't belong if better sources cannot be found, this isn't a bad thing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:CESNUR. It's not a case of some people do not like the group because they don’t actively lobby against new religious movements - which is treading awfully close to WP:ASPERSIONS, I'll note - but a case of consensus being that they are an unreliable source, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

On the question of WP:CESNUR, the page this is on states at the top that this is not policy as such but a guideline. Which made me think we could use it for mundane non-contentious information. Our own article CESNUR presents a far less contentious overview of the organisation than this internal guideline would suggest. Regardless, this source isn't really a hill-to-die on for me anyway with this, because it was only used in the article for a reference to say that a group in Japan exists and when it was founded (nothing beyond that) and I have subsequently provided another source for this. So there is no need for that to be used anyway now.

The main issue is Ververe contends that another source, which lays out more extensively the early history and figures involved in the aforementioned movement, is inherently unreliable to use as a reference (even for non-contentious information) because the journal was written by a priest who belongs to an order which is broadly part of said movement. We have no community guidelines and no existing consensus to say that this specific Catholic journal cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia for this kind of content. In any case, I am happy to re-engage and collaborate on the talkpage of the article and not restore that aspect if unblocked, until a consensus has been found on that. What I do ask is that somebody who is not involved takes a look in regard to that specific reference and casts some scrutiny on its suitability, because at the moment its just Ververe's opinion vs. my opinion on that one. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, you are currently not blocked from engaging on the article talk page. You should engage there prior to seeking an unblock from the mainspace (articles). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP range

IP range 2600:1011:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been disrupting many B-52s articles such as Love Shack, Roam, and Good Stuff by removing the apostrophe from the band's name, which they did not do until 2008; therefore, the range is introducing historical inaccuracies. This range changes their IP address with nearly every single edit they make, so I think we need a rangeblock. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A /32 is a huge range. Do you have a smaller one? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that technologically inclined. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they're more specifically in 2600:1011:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40. Still quite a wide range, although pretty far from a /32. For context, a /64 is usually assigned to a single device, and the range doubles in size each time the number goes down by one, although most addresses are not assigned. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sofia Evangelidou -- edit warring over creation of an article; not discussing

• Sofia Evangelidou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Mindvalley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mindvalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor has created the article Mindvalley. It was redirected by Padgriffin ([115]) as promo. Sofia Evangelidou then reverted the redirection ([116]). After another redirection, she reverted again ([117]). I then draftified the article and notified her. She proceeded to recreate the article in mainspace again ([118]). I redirected it ([119]), and she reverted that ([120]). I see no attempts from her to communicate, even though she has been notified of the draftification. Janhrach (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be some COI here, the editor's refusal to communicate despite repeated attempts at doing so are pretty concerning- I feel like an AFD would just result in it reverting to a redirect anyways, the article in its current state is not fit for main. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

AS an interim step, I have p-blocked from article space as they need to communicate Star Mississippi 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have found online some good evidence online that this is UPE. I don't know how much can I reveal per WP:OUTING, but Mindvalley is listed as a client at https://growthgirls.com. Janhrach (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach: perhaps you could bring this to WP:COIN (if you haven't already?) Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that if there are any concerns regarding WP:OUTING, the information can be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably not helpful Ms. Evangelidou's case that she even stated in the deletion discussion for mindvalley that she was an employee of a marketing firm. Insanityclown1 (talk) Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that's just a coincidence... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Surely, per BRD, the correct thing to do would have been to start a discussion after Sofia Evangelidou reverted the first time? She may be wrong here on the content, but it seems pretty poor to re-revert. I note that the article talk page is still a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As I have pointed out at AfD, I was not aware that the recreations were not identical to each other. I interpreted the lack of edit summaries as a refusal to discuss, so I though a more than just requesting her to discuss was needed. That is why I draftified the article. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

They appear to have disclosed here and said they'll make the appropriate templated ones. Star Mississippi 00:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, POV-pushing, personal attacks and incivility from M.Bitton

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behaviour at the WP:NPOVN#Geography_map_dispute is what brought me here. I'll note that this user was warned about casting aspersions and reminded to be civil a couple of months ago.

In terms of bludgeoning, M.Bitton's over 80 edits to the discussion yield plenty of repetitious arguments, such as "The US isn't the center of the universe" [121][122][123][124][125], or assertions about, or exhortations to read NPOV, without ever specifying what in NPOV is being referred to: [126] [127] [128][129] [130]

There is also plenty of casting aspersions [131][132][133] [134] and just general rudeness: [135] [136] [137]

M.Bitton is pushing a POV. The POV itself is not objectionable to me - I have no bones to pick with, for or against Western Sahara. However, when I wrote what I think was a gentle reproach on their talk page about the above behaviour, my comment was deleted and M.Bitton accused me of harassment on my talk page. When another user cautioned them about bludgeoning, they deleted that too with the edit summary: Thanks, but like I said, I won't let anyne get away with repeating false claims. M.Bitton also templated at least one other user in this dispute for "personal attacks" and then refused to specify (when asked) what the offence was.

This kind of behaviour is incredibly off-putting, is part of a pattern, and hasn't abated since the user was warned about it recently. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Note: this discussion with Samuelshraga leaves no doubt in my mind about the OP's intention with this hollow report. My response to their last comment in that discussion says it all.

Samuelshraga, who thinks that As long as it's sourced, there is no WP:NPOV concern, clearly doesn't understand what NPOV stands for. We have an article about the policy that editors should read and understand, especially if they intend to "share their views" (assuming that's what their comment was, and not simply an attempt to undermine mine).

I stand by what I said: I won't let anyone get away with repeating false claims about me and what I did (repeatedly correcting them is a byproduct of their repetition of the false claims). I'm not going to waste time addressing the rest, but if someone (other than the OP) wishes me to explain any of my comments, then I will happily do so (in context). M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Question: I asked repeatedly for you to explain the template message about personal attacks on my talk page, and on Talk:Geography. You responded "I will do so when this goes to ANI (which it will if you continue to cast aspersions)." What exactly was my personal attack? As I said, I am happy to strike anything I said that was a personal attack, or explain anything that I believe was misinterpreted. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that the OP left this odd message on your talk page. No comment necessary.

Your personal attacks include, but are not limited, to accusing me of being a POV pusher and, despite being reminded to comment on the content, you continued to do so deliberately and even insinuated that I have an agenda (after deciding all by yourself what "I like" and "don't like"). So my rhetorical question is rather simple: if the editor who is enforcing the NPOV policy is a POV pusher (according to you), then what does that make you? M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finally telling me what lead to your accusations. I apologize if I was uncivil in discussion with you, and I do see where you're coming from in that choosing a source for a map showing international boundaries is going to be controversial. I particularly apologize for use of the word "agenda," as that can certainly have very negative connotations. I have struck through that part of my reply. My response about what you "like" was to your comment "You are yet to even try to give a valid reason for publishing something that is factually incorrect," to which I replied "It isn't factually incorrect, you just don't like it." My reason for publishing the new U.S. map was stated very early on in this years annual discussion on the topic, "Regardless of opinions on this, if the source for 2023 was legitimate then, and has changed the borders, we should use the updated map." I believe that your reason for blocking the updated version is your POV on the update and/or the person who made the decision to change the border. That's fair, that person makes me struggle with NPOV at times as well, but I try to approach changes to maps under him in the same way as a change to a map under any president.

To elaborate on my argument that you are pushing a POV, based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I do think you are pushing a POV, and that your argument is grounded in political views and trying to Right great wrongs. My view isn't just from the discussion this year, but built on an observed pattern I've seen since 2024. I believe you stated your own opinions as facts, and stated seriously contested assertions as facts. I don't believe you have a NPOV on this and are quite passionate about the Western Sahara issue for whatever reason. It is okay to have a strong opinion on a topic, but my opinion on updating the boundary has nothing to do with the reasons those boundaries were updated. Your accusations, word choice, and manner of arguing has made me believe you are not neutral on the issue of Western Sahara, with an interest in using the most accurate and up to date sources. I've generally felt belittled, and that there has been little assumption of good faith from you in addressing my reason for wanting an up to date map. Since stating it, that my opinion has grown. Your edits and comments on the talk page feel like strategies listed in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, including "Accusing others of malice," "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources," "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors," and "Righting great wrongs.""

Some evidence of you stating your facts or seriously contested assertions as facts:

• During our discussion on maps, you have declared the U.S map is inaccurate, and repeatedly stated it is inaccurate because "a whole country missing."
• You have asserted that the derived map you created using 2016 boundaries is "more accurate" then the 2021 boundaries from the same source.
• You have literally called U.S. government maps "inaccurate" because of their official stance on an issue, and asserted your preferred boundaries are "more accurate" (if the U.S. government is contesting something on it's official map, I think that is fair to call it "seriously contested.")
• You stated: "What the US stands for is irrelevant to the fact that its view on WS is super fringe. That's an undisputed fact!" (if the U.S. government is contesting something on it's official map, I think that is fair to call it "seriously contested." I don't believe a countries official recognized borders are "fringe," much less one of the members of the U.N. security council.)

Evidence of your accusations/word choice that make me think you're not neutral from this year:

• You've accused me of trying to "impose Trump's POV because, according to you, the US is a superpower (to which we must bow)" on the discussion, after quoting my statement "The United States is a Superpower" 7 times in a way to dismiss me. This felt like a False narrative, and I said I never mentioned Trump, but stated:

"The United States is a Superpower, which "are states so influential that no significant action can be taken by the global community without first considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue." The opinions of the US government in international politics are not "fringe." I read what you wrote, it doesn't change the US opinion, just that you think it was a better opinion in the past so we should not update maps to reflect changes to it."

• You've accused me of wanting to "inject US politics into geography," when all I want is to use the most up to date set of boundaries that are in line with our source.
• In a comment that you have since revised (although you ignored my request to strike through rather then delete it entirely), you called my opinion "irrelevant."
• You've accused me of trying to publish inaccurate information.
• You've accused me of casting aspirations.
• You've accused me of bludgeoning. (In retrospect, this might be fair and I will work to improve. I tend to want to discuss and have a back and forth with people who disagree with me, and that is not the best approach I guess. However, you have commented more then me on those threads, so the accusation feels a bit "do as I say, not as I do.")
• You templated me, but didn't explain it when asked, until now. This felt like a threat to get me to end discussion with you, and seemed to be
• You stated "That's right, unlike those who, for reasons that reason cannot explain, have a very strong POV for non compliance with NPOV." when referring to others who disagree with you.

Evidence of your accusations/word choice that make me think you're not neutral from last year:

• You accused me of "trying to promote a fringe POV".
• You accused me of "making baseless claims."

Additionally:

• Other editors have noted on the NPOV Noticeboard that this is not the only place you've been involved in heated discussions involving Western Sahara.
• You've repeatedly turned conversations away from addressing how we handle other disputed borders and focused on Western Sahara. The 2016 map has multiple highly disputed borders. The insistence we only talk about Western Sahara when looking at alternative map options seems particularly odd to me.

You've framed yourself as an arbiter of NPOV, but it does not appear to me that you are at all neutral on this topic. It is entirely possible I don't understand what it means to push a POV, but based on my understanding of the relevant essays and policy, it is my conclusion. Again, I apologize for not being as civil as I should/could be. On my talk page, you threatened to try and get me blocked from editing by reporting me, well here. That is never a fun thing to hear, and I don't appreciate that or the fact you refused to elaborate. That said, I don't want you banned, or punished, and definitely didn't want to end up commenting here. Just chill out a bit so we can pick a good version of the UN map or something historic to include and move on. I really just want to have some set of guideline so I don't have to have this discussion with anyone again, so I hope we can find a set of boundaries that are more universally accepted, from a source that we can take updates from without needing to think about the broader implications of the content within the update. Everyone basically agrees on the UN map, with some theoretical issues surrounding the "there is no neutral map" problem inherit in the traditional one map solution. This has been a multiyear tedious discussion on a page I care a lot about and have invested a lot of time in, over an issue I consider to be routine maintenance of figures, that I thought was resolved last year by swapping in a UN map. I started the conversation with my experience from last years discussion framing my view, which was not the best way to restart this conversation, and I've definitely replied to you a few times while frustrated, which is not the best. In the future will try to step away from the computer and shut the hell up for a bit and take my dog for a walk or grade papers. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You've accused me of casting aspirations. you have (from the get go) and you are literally doubling down on them.

I do think you are pushing a POV since you're the one who has been trying to impose a fringe view, then you fit perfectly the definition of the label that you're projecting onto me.

I don't believe you have a NPOV that doesn't make any sense, and frankly, just reading it gives me a headache as it reminds me why I ended up correcting you (in vain) more times than I care to remember.

I have no idea whether you really don't understand the NPOV policy or are simply pretending not to. Either way, the RfC will settle the dispute. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I have explained my opinion, that you are pushing your POV on the international border, cited which parts of relevant policy/essays I believe apply, and presented what I believe to be evidence. I noted I might not understand the essays on POV, if I'm wrong then I'd likely need to have the policy explained. If that isn't adequate for you, then I don't think anything would be. I'm sorry if I've been uncivil or given you a headache. I'm trying to give benefit of the doubt regarding your tone on this and previous messages, but it is really hard. As said above, I don't want to see you penalized or punished, and definitely wouldn't have started this conversation here, but do wish you'd be less hostile to people. Regardless of POV, your tone consistently comes off as pretty aggressive and threatening in my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Despite your continued uncalled for personal attacks, I don't want to see you blocked (for reasons that I don't expect you to understand). M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait: I was the other user offering the feedback about approaching bludgeoning. Beyond a gentle trout whack, I do not recommend further action at this time. I or others will open an RfC soon on the NPOV issue in question and that will be a good opportunity for @M.Bitton to demonstrate discussion consistent with our community guidelines. I think there have been mitigating circumstances in the discussion so far among a limited number of editors. I think imprecise language has been misconstrued, I’m optimistic that the quality of the discussion will be improved. Dw31415 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415, while I see @M.Bitton started litigating the map issue here, I'm reporting them here for their behaviour, which is part of a pattern that clearly extends well before this discussion. The future course of the map discussion won't address this. I'm not asking for anything dramatic, but a recognition from M.Bitton that the behaviour is problematic and an undertaking to do better would be something. Their response so far has been to accuse me of bad faith and undertake to continue the same behaviour, so I think something needs to change.

Also, this report includes behaviours well beyond bludgeoning. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion sums you up. Please refrain from pinging me from this board. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Since you've now linked to that incident twice, let me address it.

Yes, I inadvertently broke the 1RR rule on that page, and you quite reasonably noted me on it. I undid one of my reverts. In the other, as I explained, the content had already been re-added in the correct section. The fact that you proceeded to bring an admin to threaten me so that I had to duplicate the content (with it now appearing once in the wrong section) was classic Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The content I had re-added then had to be taken down by the editor who had originally added it to the wrong section. You were clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE, and it was yet another instance of the Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND and bullying behaviour that in this instance you've shown towards @GeogSage. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you planning to continue targeting this editor or any other editors active in the PIA topic area? Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There's an accusation here that I reject. I'm not sure why you get to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith in such a specific way here, but that's your prerogative. For clarity, I don't intend to target anyone at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe a conversation on the Char Bouba war page I had a few months ago [138] ties into the POV pushing mentioned above. I was asked to attribute the claim despite no other statements on the page needing attribution with the dispute not being resolved until I did [139]. Given Oumar Kane was a respected historian and Senegalese professor [140] I fail to see why this had to be done, although given the accusations above it seems this text did not favour his POV (this being of Moroccan involvement in modern-day Western Sahara or Mauritania) and was thus inclined to oppose its inclusion.

This unrelated conversation from October also contains behavior similar [141] [142] to what Samuelshraga has identified above. I agree that this kind of behavior is off-putting, it is discouraging when someone is treated like this. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Question: for @Asilvering and any other experience people here: All of this aside, the problem on the geography page persists, and I'd rather fix the problem (including having the NPOV template removed) sooner rather then later as it is a high volume page. I think addressing the issue should include a summary of M.Bitton's perspective for leaving the current map (which is their work), at the very least. Is there any way we can get an statement or input from them if it goes to RfC before block is up without violating rules, maybe by requesting on their talk page and verbatim copy pasting the quote? As frustrating as it might be, maps are extraordinarily controversial, and while I'm not super thrilled with their method of communication, I do appreciate that they ware trying to make what they thought was the best choice. They represent a view that is (highly) likely more widespread then a single editor, and even though I disagree with their solution to the problem (In my understanding, selectively updating a 2016 map with content from the 2021 map, rather then just using the 2021 map in its entirety), they identified a problem (that the U.S. official stance on borders is not really any more universal then the Chinese or Russian). I just want a good map for the geography page (as well as other pages using the same figure) and a way forward that allows us to update other maps without having this problem every time, and don't want to have that solution be biased by an editor representing a POV being blocked. Thank you for your help and advice. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I considered the effect a block would have on the RfC before I made it, and determined that a) participants really need a break from the back-and-forth, and b) at this point, every participant is quite aware of M.Bitton's views on the subject. If the editors who have been involved so far can't write an accurate, good-faith summary of M.Bitton's position, well, there's a much bigger problem there than I thought. But if the folks who are preparing the RfC agree they want a newly M.Bitton-written statement for the purposes of making a neutral RfC, I will not personally try to stop this. Please keep in mind, though, that this puts M.Bitton in a really tight situation. They've already been dinged for block evasion once (and someone else tried to joe-job them for it, too), and their behaviour will be under a microscope. And for your own sake, given your involvement thus far, I think you personally should avoid direct contact with M.Bitton, and avoid directly referring to their position to the maximum extent possible while stating your own. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and advice! I don't think I am a good person to write the summary (because I don't think I would view that summary as non-bias coming from another editor in my position), so if it goes to RfC I'll ask if anyone else can, and I won't reach out to M.Bitton myself. I wanted to make sure anything I did involving this question was said in the open to avoid any perception of back channel discussion (I just learned the term joe-job from reading talk pages discussing this). I'll link this reply in a request for others to summarize if it is needed. Sorry for the trouble. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with M.Bitton at Battle of Algiers (1956–1957) see [143] and Algerian War see changes. Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm amazed to see you link to a discussion that highlights your deliberate violations of the WP:OR and WP:NPA policies in order to whitewash a war criminal. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

And there you go once again pushing your POV, just proving everything that forms the basis of this complaint about you. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion that you linked to speaks for itself: it exposes your deliberate policy violations (WP:NPA and WP:OR) (in order to whitewash a war criminal). M.Bitton (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Vague accusations are not proof, meanwhile you accusing me of "whitewashing a war criminal" is a clear breach of WP:NPA. Mztourist (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Your entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam. You should be reported and banned. Orocairion (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that is an accurate statement about @Mztourist. I didn't go through their entire edit history, as it is quite extensive with 72,888 edits since 24 December 2009. I struggle to believe that they have made it 16 years "whitewashing and denying war crimes," although it might be theoretically possible. I don't see any strong evidence that they have engaged in such behavior, and see that their talk page has not flown under the radar in a way that might disguise such blatant POV, and see their behavior has likely been assessed by several admin/editors. I personally think you should strike that text and apologize, but that is only my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage There are instances of his edits revolving around removing any mentions of war crimes or massacres carried out in Korea and Vietnam by ROK or US forces, using the argument that if the US/ROK didn't admit to them, they really didn't happen and are hoaxes. They are on record for trying to delete the Tây Vinh massacre article, his whole argument basically being "US sources good, non-US sources are propaganda always and bad". Imagine going as far as trying to dispute My Lai.

If that kind of argument was made with regards the Ukranian war, people wouldn't hesitate to ban any such editor. It wouldn't take much effort to hide what basically amounts to vandalism and denialism in a mountain of inoquous edits, either. Orocairion (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Issues around military history and massacres are extremely hard to sort out. I'm not sure about any specifics, but disagreement on what makes a reliable source and interpretation of historic events is something we deal with across academia. Different interpretations of source material, or opinions about what constitutes a reliable source, are not a moral failing. I don't know what exact disputes they've been a part of, but it does not look like their "entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes," and while that might be hyperbole, accusing someone who you disagree with of trying to cover up war crimes does not really seem like assuming good faith. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Orocairion, I agree that making this kind of statement really does not seem like assuming good faith. Please do not make further statements like Your entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes unless you are prepared to back them up with evidence that is much better than what has so far been brought up in this thread. If you do have such evidence, though, please start a new ANI thread (or a WP:AE thread if relevant) about it, since it shouldn't be ignored. I strongly recommend that you avoid hyperbole like "entire edit history" if you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Its interesting that User:Orocairion, who has made a total of 30 edits and who I have had no interactions with, has such a strong opinion of my edits and chosen to join this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Had the misfortune of bumping into a Twitter thread documenting your edits and your efforts to whitewash and deny mass murder and war crimes. It is people like you who give Wikipedia a bad rep of being a gamed website and I'm trying to make sure your user account gets noticed by the powers that be.

@Asilvering @GeogSage

Stuff like this would get anyone outright banned if it was done on articles related to the Ukraine war. Why should it be tolerated in this instance?.

(threat redacted) asilvering (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

https://x.com/jorfolle/status/1897417554630729843 Orocairivon (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Orocairion, please start including diffs with your accusations or you could be blocked for casting aspersions. And we don't care much about Tweets here. Link to edits on this platform. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I care about them when they contain implied death threats. I care about them kind of a lot. @Orocairion: you've been told to take your evidence to a new ANI thread if you have anything further to say about Mztourist. Again, I hope you have better evidence than talk page comments that appear to show Mztourist behaving perfectly normally. If you post more links to threats against specific Wikipedia editors, I personally will eject you from this website. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Orocairion: don't let involved editors intimidate you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Gaslighting is part and parcel of your modus operandi, so no surprises there.

The absence of any mention in the RS means it is sourced only an incompetent editor or a system gamer would say such nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of gaslighting? Once again such accusations are a personal attack. You keep digging your hole deeper. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I closed a content dispute at DRN about Western Sahara on the map at the Geography article, because this conduct dispute is also pending here about the same article and subtopic. When this conduct dispute is closed, survivors should discuss the draft RFC on the article talk page, and then take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The content being spread across so many pages was hard to manage and moving faster then I could keep up with. Really looking forward to read the RfC, I'm a bit exhausted on this topic and hope we can have an answer so we can have a consistent path forward for how to handle updates and such. The discussion has gotten way out of hand and I'm not thrilled it ended up here, and hope it can be resolved with a Minnow wack if anything, as @Dw31415 said. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The self-victimisation is just unbelievable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

How am I self-victimizing, exactly? The two lines I think could match this are: "The content being spread across so many pages was hard to manage and moving faster then I could keep up with," and "I'm a bit exhausted on this topic." I'm just tired of talking about this at this point, and having it spread across 3 or 4 talk pages was not easy to keep track of. I can't see how this is any different from where you said "just reading it gives me a headache as it reminds me why I ended up correcting you (in vain) more times than I care to remember" above, except I'm not trying to direct the cause of my exhaustion at you, but at the discussion. There are more editors involved then just you on this, and even if it was an entirely civil and positive experience, I don't have that much energy or time in my schedule for Wikipedia now a days, and this has eaten into that time. I just want it resolved at this point so I can focus on other things. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• For Pete's sake. I'd gotten about 2/3 of the way through looking at these diffs, but in the time it's taken an admin to respond here the personal attacks and general incivility continue in this thread, even after a logged AE warning about aspersions and failure to be WP:CIVIL. Gaslighting is part and parcel of your modus operandi, The self-victimisation is just unbelievable, etc, and, just as the editors bringing the complaint have noted, and refusing to specify when asked (I rest my case.) I will set a tempblock, but I'm not at all convinced there isn't grounds for further community action here. The idea that Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956–1957)#Teitgen's_claims shows MzTourist deliberately violating OR and NPOV is astonishing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I find it very interesting that the moment Mztourist commented on M.Bitton's history, Orocairion - somebody who has never edited Wikipedia: space before, who has never edited articles on Korea and Vietnam, who has as the closest thing to "war crimes" previously only made two edits to Talk:Augusto Pinochet, and who had not edited since 25 February - suddenly appeared to personally attack them and declare they should be banned for whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding @Asilvering. In terms of further community action, I didn't bring this here looking for a specific remedy, just for M.Bitton (who has asked me not to tag them) to change the behaviours in the complaint. They were able to recognise that trying to evade the block was wrong and apologise. I don't care about an apology (maybe others do), but just recognising the problematic behaviours and committing to change them would be the minimum I'd hope for to not end up straight back here when this user is editing again.

  I'd also note that just the act of filing this report led to some kind of evidence being compiled against me that I am a sock of IceWhiz. I raise this here for two reasons:

  1. I'd like some acknowledgement that opening this thread was a reasonable and appropriate thing to do. I know that I'm not a prolific editor, and M.Bitton is, but the standards apply equally.

  2. I'd ideally like for that evidence to be turned into an official investigation (rather than a dossier circulated amongst people who evidently have taken me as an enemy), so that I can be cleared. I don't know how one proves their innocence in an SPI, but I'm not a sock and I assume that it's possible to demonstrate this to neutral observers' satisfaction. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  On 1: yes, it was a reasonable and appropriate thing to do. If it wasn't, M.Bitton wouldn't have been blocked, and you'd have been told to knock it off.

  On 2: on this I'm afraid I can't be as reassuring. It's tough to prove a negative. However, it's also tough to prove someone is a sock of IceWhiz, so you've got that going for you. All I can really say is that, if you're not a sock, the more constructive edits you make, the less likely people are to believe you are one. It looks like you have that conversation under control, but if people keep making vague insinuations now that you've explicitly told them to put up or shut up, that's aspersions/harassment territory. -- asilvering (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering given this: [144] I believe that a longer block is warranted. Mztourist (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what that would achieve, apart from merely punishing the editor in question for this... especially since in that diff you yourself linked, the admin mentioned they thought of extending the block, but specifically decided not to unless they give them a reason to. M.Bitton has acknowledged that this particular action they did was wrong, and apologized for it (which, if we WP:AGF, and unless they have a history of doing this that I'm not aware of, at least should indicate they won't try a stunt like that again).

I think it's reasonable to question, based on an editor's behavior - in this case, what we have in this thread on top of what seems to be their block evasion - whether said editor is compatible with the project overall. But I don't know if I agree that it's reasonable to extend blocks for arbitrary amounts of time as more wrongdoings come out, as though we're in court and trying to add up prison sentences based on a punitive logic.

M.Bitton has been blocked with email access revoked for now, and have stated themself that they wish to take a break, which might presumably be a good opportunity to reflect on their attitude and their actions (including this latest block evasion attempt they have already been confronted with). If they resume this behavior when they come back, or keep up at it while they're blocked, then a more severe sanction should definitely be on the table; but right now, unless someone can explain to me what extending this block does, it does not seem constructive or productive to me. NewBorders (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @NewBorders, you've saved me from typing that all out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton was blocked here, then immediately set out to evade the block and was promptly caught out. Sure M.Bitton apologised, but block evasion should have consequences. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

So, just confirming that this reported "block evasion" happened through emailing editors, not through the creation of a sockpuppet or editing logged out via an IP account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Apparently some kind of meatpuppetry/canvassing. User:Orocairion with 31 edits turned up above to attack me. Another example may be User:Descartes16 with 39 edits turning up to edit a page they have never editted before: [145]. Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have further evidence of block evasion, take it to WP:SPI rather than spreading innuendo. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would but unfortunately the evidentiary threshold and onus for getting a CU is too high for Users with so few edits. Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocks ideally aren't made with an infraction/punishment framework, they're made to prevent problems. Email use was revoked, as a preventative measure against further such block evasion/canvassing. The wider question raised by NewBorders, "whether said editor is compatible with the project overall", is also about prevention. The issues that directly led to the incivility prompting this thread and the subsequent blockevasion/canvassing, from Talk:Geography#February 2024 through to WP:NPOVN#Geography map dispute, as well as other similar instances mentioned here such as Talk:Char Bouba war#October 2024 and Talk:Battle of Algiers (1956–1957)#Teitgen's claims, all directly related to the Algeria/Mauritania/Morocco/Western Sahara area. That suggests the problem lies directly in that topic area, and could be addressed with action there without extending something to "the project overall". The one exception is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive346#M.Bitton, which relates to WP:ARBPIA, however that is an established CTOP where any administrator can take action if needed. CMD (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Chronic vandalism from 82.112.90.81

This IP has been vandalizing for years, albeit at a slow pace. They left a message on their talk page:

This is an IP for a middle/high school. You're probably better off blocking it from editing permanently.
— User:82.112.90.81 09:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that. They've been more hassle than it's worth: practically all of their contribs for the past few years have been reverted.

I checked the IP range too, 82.112.90.0/23 (82.112.90.0 - 82.112.91.255), and there's plenty more vandalism. So it's probably best to just block the whole range.

P.S. do I need to notify an IP user with {{subst:ANI-notice}}? (Edit: Done.)

For easy access:

• 82.112.90.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.112.90.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • 82.112.90.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 82.112.90.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— W.andrea (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC) edited 15:47, 15:54, 16:01

(non admin comment) You do need to inform a "anon IP". I would support indefinite block, the contributions show that these users are not to here to contribute to wikipedia. ✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 03:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Aren't IPs generally not banned or indef blocked? Just blocks that can be long (sometimes years) and renewable? 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocks do exist/happen, but they're extremely rare. Usually indef blocks for IPs are handed out because maybe it's known to be permanently leased to an open proxy service, an IT administrator behind the IP has requested so, or because of a seemingly endless long record (e.g. 20 years) of a pattern of disruption, with no constructive edits inbetween (which might imply that it's a static IP).

The general everyday practice used by admins when blocking IPs is to set a temporary block of a reasonable length (e.g. 1 week, 1 month, 1 year) taking into account the prior history of disruption from the IP, any previous blocks, and the severity of the disruption. A "one-time vandal" IP with no prior history of unconstructive edits may be only given a 31-hour block, while someone who's been at it for nearly a year with four previous blocks will be handed out a considerably longer block (e.g. 1 year).

The expectation of a temporary IP block is that the vandal will eventually get bored and find something else to do after enough increasingly lengthy blocks (a lot of times, a 31-hr block is all that's needed to stop the "casual" type of vandals).

For the 82.112.90.0/23 range, I'm going to guess that it'll receive a block of 1 year's time or more. Several of the individual IPs in that range such as 82.112.90.101 and 82.112.90.161 have received blocks that are 3+ years. It's worth noting that we could narrow the range further down to 82.112.90.0/24, as there are pretty much zero edits from 82.112.91.x in the /23 wide range. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that we could narrow the range further down to 82.112.90.0/24, as there are pretty much zero edits from 82.112.91.x in the /23 wide range.

Thanks for noticing that. That range is 82.112.91.0/24 and the last contrib was in 2009, so we don't need to worry about it. We can focus on blocking 82.112.90.0/24. — W.andrea (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Several of the individual IPs in that range such as 82.112.90.101 and 82.112.90.161 have received blocks that are 3+ years.

Good find. 161 is currently blocked for 5 years. So, I would support a 5-year block on the whole range 82.112.90.0/24. — W.andrea (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

MD Edit 123 is trying to create a local account here

MD Edit 123 is trying to create a local account here despite an IP block. They say that have tried the procedure at Wikipedia:Request an account but got no response. It is possible they are trying to evade a block/ban but if that's not the case, an administrator should try to help. Thank you.

Here is the discussion: simple:Special:PermanentLink/10125657#Central_Auth. TagUser (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:ACC recommends several steps when a response isn't received, including checking spam folder, etc. Their not getting a response at all is implausible. They can also try WP:UTRS. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A local account can be created on the user's behalf but it needs to be vetted by a checkuser first. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2601AC47

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:2601AC47 seems to be causing issues wherever they edit. They are a nuisance at User talk:Jimbo Wales (where I encountered them when they tried to recruit me as a supporter for their obnoxiousness, see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mark is the PM of Canada now and previous edits they made there), they created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jlwoodwa without bothering to consult the nominee beforehand, and this lead me to check their "normal" edits, which is mainly vandalism fighting. Well, that's what it looks like at first glance, but in reality, I see things like:

• Reverting this as a non-constructive edit, with a warning to the IP editor (User talk:2A01:CB0C:8A2:FE00:90D6:5E59:F17:7BC8) for "Introducing deliberate factual errors"?
• Is this really a factual error? It seems to match what reliable sources say[146], but the IP editor got a warning for "Introducing deliberate factual errors"
• Is this a "non-constructive edit" which again deserves a "Introducing deliberate factual errors" warning? Well, the plot says "Vanya hires Ani for several sexual encounters and offers her $15,000 to stay with him for a week.", so not sure what the "deliberate factual error" is.
• This got reverted as a good faith edit, but again got the editor an "Introducing deliberate factual errors" warning[147], despite matching the source[148] (perhaps too closely, but no factual errors)
• No idea why this helpful edit, with a relevant factual source, was reverted: it seems to be WP:ROLLBACK abuse as it doesn't even have an edit summary
• Factual errors? No idea what this claim is based on, the claim seems to be correct[149]. But of course once again an "Introducing deliberate factual errors " warning

These are just from looking at their latest 21 mainspace edits, and skip other edits where they also were wrong (e.g. see User talk:2601AC47#Revert on Sugar)

I have no idea what they are trying to achieve by their Wikipedia editing, but at the moment they are a net negative. At the very least their rollback right and pending changes reviewer right should be removed, as they clearly are not to be trusted to judge edits correctly or to use the tool correctly. Fram (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that I've been using Ultraviolet to do most of that. But I guess that will take the consequence into stride - and remind thyself to learn from this. Thanks. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Already fixed one mistake I made in which I didn't realize that it was RS. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Using a tool in no way excuses an editor from making bad edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

"My mistake. Just so many pending changes I had to look through this time around." is a concerning approach to monitoring the pending changes queue. I too have noticed them excessively on Jimbo's talk page in my watchlist, more frequently than I expect to see it pop up, and doesn't ever seem to be constructive to the encyclopedia, more of a forum for trying to start conversations with Jimbo. Note Jimbo's comment "I'm getting very close to asking 2601AC47 to go away from my talk page permanently for wasting people's time." If user rights are reviewed, I also wonder if a page block to User talk:Jimbo Wales may be in order. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

While I have never interacted with them, nearly every edit I see at Jimbo's talk page on my Watchlist is from them; they have made 75 edits to his talk page from November 2024 to now. I'd support some kind of page block. — E_F⁵ 20:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll accept being p-blocked from Jimbo's talk page. I also accept responsibility for not being more thoroughly careful with my powers like I promised. However, there are legitimate concerns I have about him and his responses, and I have been watching it for a very long time; first from a distance as a IP, than as the controversy surrounding WMF's legal fight against ANI, tried to give Jimbo information and... Well, I gradually went from reasonably asking him to respond to a threat of a blackout in November, to more bluntly asking him to respond, to saying that I still trust him but things have gone by the wayside, and lastly, to using Gemini to warn him of possible consequences from the Wikipedia community (which I know is a terrible idea, and I also know fully well about that one).

So, yeah, p-block from him. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but to me Jimbo, at least on his talk page, should be treated like just another editor. Pressing someone to the point where they nearly want you to leave is the point where you should disengage. E_F⁵ 20:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've revoked their pending changes reviewer and rollback rights per the evidence presented here, as well as a review of their other edits (noting I'm the person who originally granted pending changes). @2601AC47:, I strongly suggest you slow down here and generally be more careful; your behavior has gotten you very close to a block. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have deleted the RfA page that was created before any consultation with the nominee. I also am highly unimpressed with the comments on Jimbotalk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

What even is that conversation at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mark is the PM of Canada now (previously linked by Fram); most specifically this garbage. How is this person still editing here?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

About that dream I had recently... Yeah, I got nothing to actually think so. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 21:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a sock of someone. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So you noticed Elder Pleasure, my Fandom user account... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Nor would I. But it doesn't matter because they've done more than enough under this name to be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm finished... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely from Jimbo's talk page. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've been chiding 2601AC47 for inappropriately clerking Jimbo's page. But this looks much more like trolling intended to solicit a specific meta outcome. Thank you to the OP. Fram and I disagree on lots of stuff, but we are agreed here. I have zero idea what 2601AC47 is trying to accomplish (inside the UCOC) on Jimbo's talk. BusterD (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Trolling? From the one that also said I'm rude. UGH!! I've been accused of trolling by several people across websites for a long time. It makes me angry when someone suggests that. Please stop that, now. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you don't get to decide what people can say about you on a public noticeboard. I happen to agree that you are trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, can someone please block this user for rather blatant trolling? C F A 22:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

(Third)ing a block, given they’ve openly threatened block evasion below (assuming that’s them.) E_F⁵ 22:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Fourthing a block. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:16, 11 March 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.

Ganix978 and SCIRP

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.

---

• Ganix978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be solely here to whitewash an academic predatory publisher known as SCIRP. They have ignored warnings and repeatedly edit warred, and have inserted their own original research into the article in order to downplay what reliable sources have said about the publisher ([150], [151]). I think they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. This is part of a longer term pattern of SPAs attempting to whitewash the article, so implementing some kind of long term semi-protection may be warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll @David Eppstein @Headbomb Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've reported them at WP:AIV a few hours ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, can you provide some relevant diffs? You need to point out the problem and if there have been any previous discussions on this. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Previous examples of SPA whitewashing include [152], [153], [154] Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Their entire edit history is whitewashing on behalf of SCIRP. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

But the article does seem to have problems. 8 out of 21 cited sources were published by Jeffrey Beal (the author of the list of predatory publishers). Given that the biggest part of the Wiki article seems to revolve around the statement that SCIRP is a predatory publisher, it might be problematic to mostly source that statement to a single author. So, while the whitewashing is problematic, it might be that Beal's opinion is getting a bit too much "screen time" in the article and that might trigger whitewashing attempts as a form of counter balancing.

The section "Potential owner" in the article seems also to be entirely based on primary sources (which in itself might be ok, but in combination with that header it looks like borderline OR / SYNTH that is further trying to make SCIRP look like a shady publisher without any secondary sources painting the ownership situation of the publisher as problematic, it seems). Nakonana (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The statement that SCIRP is a predatory publisher is sourced to multiple sources, including Cabells' Predatory Reports, one of the foremost authorities on predatory journals. I can easily find other sources supporting SCIRP's predatory status [155] [156]. The problem is that they refuse to communicate and just edit war. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have not questioned SCIRP's status as a predatory publisher. What I have questioned is whether we need 8 (!) publications by Jeffrey Beal to establish that SCIRP is a predatory publisher. This was my first time reading the SCIRP article. My impression was that I learned very little about SCIRP itself, but a whole lot about Beal's opinion on SCIRP. There isn't even a basic history section on the company covering things like the time and place when the company was founded (which might well rely on primary sources). There's hardly any mention of any particular (or potentially notable) journals that are published by SCIRP. There's hardly any info on the publisher itself. However, there are several paragraphs detailing Beal's opinion on SCIRP. Why? Why is Cabell's opinion not getting as much screen time as Beal's (or the other way around)? I didn't count how often Beal's name is mentioned in the article body but I wouldn't be surprised if his name mentioned more often than the name of the publisher itself.

The underlying issue of (at least part of) the whitewashing attempts appears to be a content dispute in the context of WP:DUE. I also have to disagree with your statement that they refuse to communicate. If we're talking about Ganix978, then yes, your statement is true, they did not try to communicate. However, this report is not limited to Ganix978. Instead, this report points out a long term pattern of the same behavior by several different users. And in this context, your statement is not true, as the article talk page is full of multiple attempts to communicate issues with the article. I'm not saying that those attempts were all good. There may well have been made by company representatives and some affiliates. But that doesn't mean that their input is invalid per se. In fact, there's one section on the article talk page from 2016, that pretty much made the same observation as I did regarding the omnipresence of Beal in that article. That other user (cynically) suggested to move the article to the more descriptive title "Jeffrey Beall's comments on Scientific Research Publishing" or that the article be split in "SCIRP" and "Jeffrey Beall on SCIRP". That user was most likely also associated with SCIRP, judging by their edit history. But I am certainly not, and I can't help but agree with them regarding the screen time that Beal is receiving in the article. I got the same impression after reading the article (and before even checking out the article talk page). Addressing some of the due weight issues might resolve (or at least reduce) the whitewashing attempts. I'm not saying that the article should be censored or that Beal should be removed from the article, but I think that, let's say, maybe 2 publications by Beal and a single paragraph on Beal's opinion might actually perfectly suffice to convey that Beal, who's a subject matter expert, is of the opinion that SCIRP is a predatory publisher? Nakonana (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Ganix978 as NOTHERE, for POV pushing / whitewashing. I've not protected for now, as there may be a genuine content dispute here as well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and incivility by Adamant1

Moved to c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Useddenim (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

History Of Yoruba's continued disruption, edit warring, and Yoruba POV pushing after temporary block expired

• History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A detailed history of this user's behaviour before their initial 60-hour block in October 2024 by Ad Orientem is recorded in this archived thread by Watercheetah99.

What is "Yoruba POV pushing"? In their first edit, they added to the Oyo Empire article that Despite its drawbacks, Oyo managed to amass one hundred thousand cavalry horsemen, earning the fear of many kingdoms and empires across West Africa, improperly citing a work Dahomey And The Dahomans without expanding the citation. You will find, in these diffs, their attempt to praise the Yoruba nation, while sort of defaming Kingdom of Benin: this – this, disrupting a paragraph that once During post-classical times, glass and glass beads were also produced in the kingdom of Benin with a proper citation to Oliver, Roland, and Fagan, Brian M. Africa in the Iron Age, c500 B.C. to A.D. 1400. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 187. ISBN 0-521-20598-0 to become something like During post-classical times, glass and glass beads were produced in the Ife Empire and traded to the kingdom of Benin,Mali Empire and other Sub Sahara African Kingdoms History of glass in sub-Saharan Africa which was not only unsourced but changing the narrative of that paragraph to something else. I don't want to mention the account YorubaHistorian7 which you will find if you go through these diffs, because I am not here to report a sockpuppet account; I know where to go for that if reporting them as a sock was my interest. Their edits so far, being POV pushing and disruption was correctly reverted in this diff but what was their next move? it was to remove the citation and change the Kingdom of Benin to Ife Empire in this diff.

As a cross reference, you might be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Researcherofgreatness/Archive because the next edit to that article was by a now-blocked Wiisstlo who edited exactly that same section by adding an image of "Glass beads of different colors and shapes from Ile-Ife".

Their diruption came to by notice when they moved on to Ehengbuda, an article which I wrote from scratch and took to GA status, see this history of the article. They tried bring the Yoruba POV pushing here too and also attempted to tag the article as using unreliable source, why? well, clearly because it isn't fitting into their narrative. For those following the sock part, you will see the Wiisstlo user here too, but that is not why I am here.

Even though there are over 40 Kings of Benin bearing the Oba title, this user thinks "Oba" is only a Yoruba word (see here too), while making sure they falsify sources as seen here.

Recently, they brought the same behaviour to the Igodomigodo and List of the Ogiso articles, particularly, the Igodomigodo one, changing the narrative again as usual (see this diff), stating that a Kingdom which operated on a monarchical government type was chiefdom, changing the start and end date of the kingdom, and entirely changing the narrative of the article. See the history of the page for further disruptions. Recently, I and two other valuable editors (Kowal2701 and Oramfe) started a conversation (or rather engaged in a conversation originally and disruptively started by this user) on the article's talk page; the user never contributed to the discussion, and even after we achieve consensus on the talk page, this user is still diruptively making the POV pushing edits.

I have other valuable contributions I have to make and I will likely be unable to continue to follow this user up. Warnings have been issues to them, as can be seen on their talk page. I also tried reporting them to AIV but was advised to check WP:ANI out by Izno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderwaalforces (talk • contribs) 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• My initial thoughts would be a topic ban from Edo/Benin history articles, as this where they are most disruptive. Elsewhere their contributions seem minimal but constructive. Don’t know what people think regarding WP:Rope, but the learning curve is very steep on Wikipedia and they might prove to be a good editor in time (that is if they’re not a sock) Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

In November 2024 they also removed Igodomigodo and Benin from List of kingdoms and empires in African history (when they could’ve just changed the date) Kowal2701 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello , I see that you have concerns about my edits, but I would like to clarify a few things:

• Oba as a Yoruba Word

The word "Oba" originates from Yoruba and was later borrowed into Benin. This is documented in linguistic sources, including :

Samuel Crowther (1843). Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language: Part I. English and Yoruba. p. 206. ỌBA, s. king, monarch, lord, prince, liege, master.

Society, Church Missionary; Staff, Church Missionary Society (March 2009). Dictionary Of The Yoruba Language: English-Yoruba, Yoruba-English (1913). Kessinger Publishing. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-104-17000-4. Ọba, n. king; monarch; lord; prince; liege; master; sovereign.

With a breakdown of its etymology in the Yoruba Language. If you claim otherwise, please provide a linguistic source proving its independent Benin origin.

• Ife was a major center of glass bead production, as documented in [ blier, suzanne (2014). art and risk in ancient yoruba: ife history, power, and identity, c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139128872. ISBN 9781107021662. Archived from the original on 2022-08-27. Retrieved 2021-11-06.] and [Magnavita, Sonja; MacDonald, Brandi L.; Magnavita, Carlos; Oga, April (20 June 2023). "LA-ICP-MS analysis of glass beads from Tié (12th–14th centuries), Kanem, Chad: Evidence of trans-Sudanic exchanges". Archaeometry.].

The edit simply reflects historical facts, not a biased agenda.

• Benin vs. Oyo Conflict on Oba Ehenguda page.

Please provide a verifiable source proving that Benin fought Oyo and took Oyo's territory. If none exists, then that claim should not be on Wikipedia.

• Ogiso and Ife

If the source used in the Igodomigodo article mentions Ife origins for the first Ogisos, then removing that part while keeping other claims from the same source is selective editing, which violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

• Oyo Edit

Unless there was a citation error, the Oyo 100 thousand calvary edit, like the rest of my edits have solid backings and citations. Here is the full citation here: Dahomey And The Dahomans: Being The Journals of Two Missions to The King of Dahomey, And Residence at His Capital, in the Years 1849 and 1850, by Frederick E. Forbes, Part 5, Page 87.

You can confirm this as i highly await your feedback.

I respect Wikipedia’s policies and am open to discussion, but history should not be edited to favor one side. Let’s focus on verifiable academic sources rather than personal opinions. Thank you History Of Yoruba (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Please @History Of Yoruba, unless you are making super-obvious statements of fact i.e "The sun shines only during the day", most statements on Wikipedia require references (Which I see that you have been sometimes providing). Also, if the topic or segment you are having an issue with is backed up by at least some sourced reference, please try to meet up first on the Article's talk page and reach a consensus by tagging the contributor of the edit and maybe other editors/users, especially if there are two differing or intersecting views on the particular subject matter, otherwise it might lead to a back and forth that won't get resolved or an edit war, which goes against Wikipedia's rules of usage. I see some of the points you are making because of the nature of some of the topics being discussed, for example the word "Oba" and how it became a shared heritage of two ethnic groups. However, like I mentioned earlier, always meet on the talk page to reach an agreement on wording. Also, please populate/develop your userpage so that you can be pinged and you can also get the notifications necessary to keep up to date. Oramfe (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and guidance @Oramfe. I appreciate the clarification on Wikipedia’s sourcing and consensus-building approach, especially regarding discussions on historical and cultural topics. I understand the importance of referencing claims and using the talk page to resolve differing viewpoints before making edits.

I will make sure to follow these best practices moving forward to maintain constructive discussions and avoid unnecessary disputes. I also acknowledge your point about updating my user page for better communication and will work on that as well.

Thanks again for your patience and advice! I look forward to contributing more effectively. History Of Yoruba (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

History Of Yoruba did you use an LLM (such as ChatGPT) or other AI tools to generate this comment? BugGhost 🦗👻 10:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oramfe: pings are received even if the editor does not have a user page. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

None of this hides the fact that pretty much all of his edits to Edo/Bini history is from a single POV, and an outsider's POV as well. On Igodomigodo, after we'd reached a consensus on the talk page, he misrepresented consensus by again edit warring his preferred version, in which he calls Igodomigodo a "supra chiefdom" rather than a monarchy. The sources above are from 1843 and 1913, I've already explained to him why we don't use old sources per WP:AGEMATTERS and yet he still used sources from 1936, 1927, and 1937 at Igodomigodo which he again edit warred on (and is still in place). Might be WP:CIR (bit ironic me saying that ik) and his replies here look AI generated to me. I would've thought he'd be more interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Yoruba history rather than disrupting coverage of Edo/Bini history, and hopefully a topic ban would guide him towards that to be more constructive to the project. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Legal threats by Aravanoswami Nayar

Aravanoswami Nayar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be removing and adding content based on his own research which comes down to WP:OR. I have warned him twice on his talk page. But looks like he doesn't seem to listen. See this [157], here he is threatening other editors on the relevant page to not change content which he deems correct. His involvement and removal of content from Dayanand Bandodkar itself speaks about his quality as an editor. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The ES "Origin of the word Padye: Correction & improvisation from source material" doesn't fill me with confidence. Narky Blert (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Incidents caused by the lack of a modern kingship consensus between Edo and Yoruba people, who once had a united consensus

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.

---

Wikipedia guidelines state that it is best to reach a consensus in the talk section before making changes about ongoing disputed issues to avoid edit wars, and I believe the same spirit should be applied in-regards to the diverging political positions between Edo and Yoruba people that as lead to a lot of edit warring on related pages.

There was a consensus at some point in Edo and Yoruba history on their shared kingship origin. Namely that the mythical Ife figure of Oduduwa, through his descendants, founded the Ogiso and Oba dynasties in the Edo kingdom and most Yoruba kingdoms. Despite the individual flavour of many accounts, The first oral histories collected from the most reliable Benin sources by Jacob Egbareva aligned with this, The oral history from Ife aligned with this, and most importantly, the archaeological evidence also aligned with this narrative.

I generally believe that both communities should be left to their own devices in documenting their own history with sources, and as someone mainly interested in documenting Yoruba history, I tend to avoid editing any Edo related pages. When it comes to articles that involve both parties though, it becomes difficult to avoid. One such an issue is the newer contradictory Edo tale of 'Lost Prince Ekaladerhan, son of the last Ogiso' who, somehow, unknown to Yoruba people, is said to have become the Oduduwa that both groups previously agreed fathered the first Ogiso. I believe it only makes sense to use this newer Edo Ekaladerhan story on Wikipedia if there is a new consensus between both groups agreeing to this impossible cyclical tale, but there has never been any such new consensus. This is even more glaring in light of the Egharevba narrative where 'Ekaladerhan' died at Ughoton, with no mention of him going to Ife. Without sticking to the previously established consensus, we may continue seeing edit wars with newer 'sources' being created without any concrete historical or archaeological evidence.

Seasoned and neutral historians such as Dmitri Bondarenko recognised this problem, he was alerted at first by the new stories popping up in Benin, with people on one hand claiming Ekaladerhan was Oranmiyan, and others on another hand claiming Ekaladerhan was Oduduwa. He out rightly dismissed these new narratives as apocryphal tales spun by the "nationalistic minded Benin intellegencia". Likewise I believe any Wiki articles founded on these "apocryphal" stories of Ekaladerhan being Oduduwa, break WP:SCHOLARSHIP rules, one such example would be the Eweka I page created by Vanderwaalforces (talk) and the revisions they made to reinforce this "apocryphal" narrative. I also believe that this political desire for kingship primacy is the root cause of the friction between Edo and Yoruba articles, most especially the Miyanky445 sock accounts frequently disrupting the Ada and Abere, Oduduwa, and Oranyan pages. I feel it necessary to tag some of the parties I've seen near this issue.

@Vanderwaalforces @Oramfe @Kowal2701 @Girth Summit @Dolpina @TornadoLGS @Favonian

My view is that recognising the only consensus ever reached between these two groups on kingship foundation, is the best approach to minimising the frequent incidents of disruption, vandalism, and contradictions across these pages and their like. The narrative that once had a consensus between these two groups just so happens to be the only narrative supported by the archaeological evidence, namely Ife primacy. Sohvyan (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

References

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 85.134.229.147

85.134.229.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content & categories (see WP:CATVER) about cancelled ports of video games to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't seem like much of a content dispute so much as it is disruptive. Especially considering that the OP warned them of their actions four times. Conyo14 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that persistent addition of unsourced content with no communication/response to warnings is disruptive and a matter befitting ANI. IP is continuing to add unsourced content to articles: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  There are a bunch of warnings that includes four "final" warnings, combined with zero communication. I say it's time for a block. 2600:1012:A023:426A:FD23:4BD8:7369:B7B (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  User continues to make edits that have been reverted. 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  Still happening. May warrant a provisional block until the user participates in a talk page or here. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism on Freedom Mobile

I am bringing to your attention a problematic user (@Bugaboo lasagne 0z) who continues to vandalize Freedom Mobile, removing a large amount of content and acting without any particular criteria. This could be a COI since the user only and exclusively edits this page (in fact, he just edited another entry after I pointed this out to him on the talk page). Palledidinosauro (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I want to clarify my actions and address the concerns raised.

  My edit on the Minister’s page was just a coincidence. I happened to hover over the link, checked the page out of curiosity regarding the leadership race, and noticed a small typo. It originally stated that he did enter the race when it should have said he did not, so I corrected it. There was no ulterior motive behind this edit.

  Regarding Freedom Mobile, I am simply a customer who appreciates what the company is doing. I have no conflict of interest. My contributions are based on a personal interest in maintaining accuracy and clarity on the page. I am active in the subreddit too.

  I believe the article should have:

  • Correct information.
  • Sources that are accessible.
  • A structured timeline, with one capitalized subheading per year for better readability.
  • An infobox that follows Wikipedia guidelines, including proper parent company attribution.

  Could you clarify why you prefer an approach that results in disorganized headings, incorrect information, and sources that are not accessible, while disregarding the infobox guidelines? I am open to discussion, but I believe my edits improve the page. Bugaboo lasagne 0z (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

How did you come to personally create Freedom Mobile's logo and personally own the copyright to their logo? See File:Freedom_Mobile_Logo.png. --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That picture is not in the article. I don't know how to get rid of it. Bugaboo lasagne 0z (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact it's not in the article is irrelvant to your claim that it is your "own work", which it very clearly is not. This is copyright violation and we take that very seriously. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I now realize that I mistakenly uploaded the Freedom Mobile logo as my "own work." That was an error, and I did not intend to claim copyright over it. I will be more careful in the future. Please delete the image.

However, I’m wondering, how are you supposed to upload a company’s logo if you didn’t create it? Does each company have to give explicit permission? Bugaboo lasagne 0z (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You don't upload them to Commons at all. For local use on en.wiki, you're looking for information at WP:NFCC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mistletoe-alert

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.

---

• Mistletoe-alert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since this was closed four days ago, we have the following contributions:

• this trolling (followed by this and this)
• this edit actually preceded the close but was not discussed at the previous ANI; since the close, there's edit-warring accompanied by this charming message.

Since a couple of these followed this final warning from Doug Weller, I propose we jump right to where this is headed and do the NOTHERE block before anyone else has to put up with their trolling. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This diff gives User:MidAtlanticBaby (I haven't digged any further so that comment could have been a result of something else), although that's just an observation and is probably unrelated. — E_F⁵ 19:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:NOTHERE block was long overdue for this editor. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In the last discussion I opposed a site ban as it seemed all rather small-potatoes. But this seems substantially worse than the behaviour identified in the previous discussion. This does seem like sufficient evidence for WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 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.

• FWIW they're almost certainly not MidAtlanticBaby, though I think an indefinite block was still the right call. C F A 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• MidAtlanticBaby's m.o. is vicious attacks on that user in random places, not quoting their userboxes in direct response to being reverted by them. Y'know, like Mistletoe-Alert did in the last discussion here. If we're going to ban this person, let's at least do it for their own behavior. —Cryptic 23:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite While I think this editor should stay indefinitely blocked, checkuser and behavioral evidence makes it unlikely that this is MAB, so maybe it's worth changing the block rationale. Seems more like someone burning their account because they know they'll be blocked otherwise or something. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Somehow “I told you so” just doesn’t quite say it: this account was always going to end up indefinitely blocked. It was only a matter of time, and if we had blocked when he last brought his BS to this board we wouldn’t have had to have dealt with this post at all. That admin 6th sense needs to be more respected, even accounting for agf sometimes people (editors, observers, admins, etc) just know it’s going to end with a block. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistently disruptive IP range

• 2603:6010:AB00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As described by the title of this section, this IP range has been editing disruptively persistently, through multiple articles. I've already reported the IP range/related IP range twice at AIV:

• 16:10, 4 March 2025 report of 2603:6010:AB00:9EF0:0:0:0:0/64
• 15:30, 6 March 2025 report of 2603:6010:AB00:0:0:0:0:0/40

After the first report (the /64 range), I was directed to the /40 range, and after the second report (the /40 range), I was directed to instead report this here at ANI.

As noted in my two reports, the IP range is persistent with disruptive and/or vandalism edits. In addition, they seem to want to add completely irrelevant/unrelated information regarding other topics into random articles, primarily seemingly with an intent of adding/relating Evil Con Carne in random/unrelated articles, such as:

• Buddy Games ([158], [159], [160], [161])
• Preschool (South Park) ([162])

Now going further through their edits, even besides their Evil Con Carne edits into other articles, they are also changing others things to mention something random/incorrect as well, such as adding random mention of Franny's Feet into Disappearance of Maureen Kelly, adding random mention of ToddWorld into The CW, and also a whole bunch of other random edits/vandalism on other articles such as:

• Random/incorrect word changes on AEW World Trios Championship: [163]
• Random/incorrect word change on A&E (TV network): [164]
• Completely random/incorrect redirect change on Stark naked: [165]
• Random/incorrect changes of 'Layla' to 'Leela' on WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010): [166]
• Entirely random/incorrect plot changes on Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings: [167]
• Random/incorrect change of 'moniker' to 'monkey' on Worlds Collide (2022): [168]

...just to name a few select of their disruptive editing/vandalism. In addition, in their recent reverts of Buddy Games, they are continuing to mention me, laughing with their continuing vandalism/disruptive editing on that article ([169] [170]) It seems like this is just going to continue on, but it's quite clear that there is a lot of disruptive editing/vandalism going on here, and a block is likely needed to stop this from continuing on any further. Thank you, and I hope this can get resolved. Magitroopa (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Some more problematic edits from within the past month...:

• [171]
• [172]
• [173]
• [174]
• [175]
• [176]
• [177]

If these edits don't show how disruptive/problematic this range has been and will continue to be, then I don't know. Magitroopa (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Vic Park

Since 2022, editors have been asking Vic Park (talk · contribs) to address chronic patterns of disruption in their editing, which mainly consist of (1) purely cosmetic edits, and (2) intentional violations of WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN. They have, in short, flatly refused the idea they are doing anything "against the rules" despite being told in several instances spanning several years that this just is not the case, and that their personal theories as to why they're right and policy is wrong—or that this is "just my personal editing style"—are non-starters. They actually already received a final warning from Randykitty back in November, which went unacknowledged and did not affect their behavior at all as far as I can tell. I bumped into their personal editing style for the first time today, saw what was up, and made my own final attempt to get them to acknowledge the validity of anything they've been told, but no luck.[178][179][180][181] Remsense ‥ 论 06:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't do WP:Overlinkings anymore, I have accepted the good advice other people gave me. If you check my edit history, I sometimes delete excessive links too. Vic Park (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't really move me that you've adopted individual arguments from others that you happened to be personally compelled by, while still totally disregarding any and all guidelines you happen to dislike or disagree with. Remsense ‥ 论 06:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honestly with you, I still don't know what the problem is. I am a perfectionist with OCD. I like to keep things in order. For example, if I see the {{Short description}} template not being placed on top, I put them on top. I like to keep the source codes in sentence case so they don't look messy. I like to arrange templates in the order as stated by WP:MOS. I like to arrange entries in the "See Also" section by alphabetical order. As far as I know, I am making positive contributions here and I didn't break any rules. If someone gives me a good advice, I will accept it. What else I should do to make people like you happy? I have been editing in Wikipedia for a long time, if I am harming the project, then I would get banned a long time ago. If a few of you are not happy with me, just tell me the exact cause, I will make a change if it is rational. Vic Park (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't do WP:Overlinkings anymore. Proceeds to overlink in the above comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I only added three links, which one is an WP:Overlink? I can remove it if you want. Vic Park (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Perfectionist and especially alphabetical order are such well understood general terms it's unclear why you felt the need to link them. Definitely in article space they are extremely unlikely to be useful links no matter the number of links. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW as this is not article space, then please don't edit your signed post to e.g. remove your links, after people have replied. Just try to understand what overlinking is since it isn't primarily about the number og links. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I get what you mean. I linked those words to show emphasis. I will make sure that I don't do that when editing articles. Vic Park (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Most editors use bold or italics for emphasis but that by itself doesn't really matter. It's great if you now understand, but do you understand why editors are concerned that in your defence against overlinking you added links which would clearly be overlinking in article and when challenged on it, you didn't immediately explain something like 'oh I get the links to perfectionist and alphabetical order would be unnecessary generally but I just added them here for emphasis' but instead didn't seem to understand the point being made? Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest you something? Yes you may make cosmetic source code improvements, but please only make them when you're also making changes that actually improve the article to readers (e.g. fixing typos or missing spaces). Don't just make edits that purely only make the code look 'neater'. In other words, combine code tidy-ups and real improvements in edits but don't make those tidy-ups only by themselves.

I am also another one of those people who are bothered by untidy source code and like to clean them up, but this is the particular way I've been doing it for probably two years now, with no complaints. When I write edit summaries for such edits, I usually only focus the edit summary on the stuff I changed that's visible to readers of the article, as cosmetic code improvements are so trivial that honestly it just doesn't matter to almost anyone.

At the end of the day, what really matters to readers (the vast majority of the Wikipedia user base) is what's visible on the page (i.e. the body text), and not how tidy the code behind the scenes looks. As long as it works, y'know... For that reason, I usually don't spend a lot of time and effort doing the code tidy-up. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your brilliant reply. Wikipedia needs more quality editors like you. If every editor is as enlightening and open-minded as you, Wikipedia will be a much more harmonious place where everyone can collaborate with each other. I will definitely take note of that. When I make edits, I do tend to make some corrections whenever I can, but from now on, I will make sure that I will make at least one correction in my edits so they won't be classified as "insignificant" by some people. Vic Park (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The trouble with perfectionism is that different people have different ideas about perfection. For example, for one person it may be to have all templates starting with a capital letter, and for another it may be for them to start with a small letter. That could lead to an edit war if Wikipedia didn't discourage making edits that don't affect what the reader sees. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case, whoever "started the edit war" should get warned and if still not cooperating, banned. Wikipedia is a place for mutual collaboration, not conflicts. Whoever creates the conflict should be the one to get punished. Vic Park (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So you agree you should be banned for creating conflict by making unnecessary edits when plenty of editors have told you they are unnecessary and therefore not co-operating and refusing to collaborate and risking starting dumb edit wars to boot? Can't you just voluntarily refrain from editing rather than asking us to ban you? Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you won't understand the point I'm making with that reply, so I'll explain it clearer. What Phil Bridger has emphasised is that in a lot of matters when it comes to stuff readers don't see, there's no community norm, and definitely not anything in a guideline or policy on what's right or wrong. Should a template start with lower case or upper case? If you feel it should start with upper case that's fine, you're welcome to that view just as others are welcome to the opposite view. So you're welcome to use upper case when you add a template to some page. Unless for some reason there is some particular agreement for consistency in that page or with that template that you violate, then no one should be changing what you did. They especially should not be changing it if they're only making edits like that which are unnecessary. This editor who changed what you did, can be said to have "started the edit war".

However it's clear from this thread this isn't what concerns people. What concerns people is you are often this other editor. You are the one who is making such unnecessary changes and is continuing to do so even after you've been told not to. You are therefore the one who "started the edit war" if any edit war develops because you are the one who made these changes even when you've been asked not to and where there's often no community norm to justify your version being correct. The fact you think it's better or more perfect is irrelevant since other editors disagree and there is no consensus nor any desire for any consensus. The fact you're often only making these edits greatly compounds the problem.

As AP499D25 mentioned if you make such non visible changes along with visible clear improvements you're likely to find yourself in less strife. But still this will depend a lot on what you're doing. If you're fixing a single typo along with making a lot of cosmetic changes you'll probably still find editors don't feel that's helpful since while your typo fix is helpful all the other edits just unnecessarily confuse the diff.

More importantly even if you're making them along with other good changes, are your cosmetic edits actually something which are clearly an improvement cosmetically? Again goes back to what Phil Bridger said. Some cosmetic edits the community would generally agree are a clear improvement even if unimportant. But some cosmetic edits like whether to capitalise the first letter of a template will be stuff with no community agreement.

Therefore all you're introducing is your personal preference and there's no reason you should be going around changing stuff to your personal preference. While dumb edit wars are dumb edit wars, you're still the one who can be said to have "started the edit war" by making these unwarranted changes along with your helpful one/s. Collobration and cooperating with others means you should be following the advice others have given you a so many times and stop making these edits, especially if you are only changing stuff to your personal preference. It does not mean other editors need to agree with your personal preferences when there's no community norm that it's better, or allow you to change stuff to your personal preference unnecessarily.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Adding a missing negative which mean my reply didn't quite say what was meant. Nil Einne (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course not. When you say plenty of them, there were really only two of them who were very unhappy about my edits. The rest of them just made some friendly suggestions and never participated in the discussion again. For the person who threatened to ban me, I just politely asked them to leave me alone since they had made false accusations against me. I do consider their threats to be overreacting and unnecessary as I have not violated any policies here. Most importantly, I have not fought back against them, so there were no edit wars. If one party is not engaging with the other party, how can there be an edit war? Furthermore, it is them who started the conflict, not me. I know these people are engaging in edit wars everyday, so it is best to stop interacting with them and let them take control of the articles. Vic Park (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that this seems to be an editor who will not take advice, or even recognise that there is no need for anyone to be very unhappy about their edits to give advice worth taking. There are far more than two people on your talk page who are unhappy with your edits, whether you class them as very unhappy or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me like a block of some kind is in order, at least until we can be satisfied that this editor will actually listen to advice and (constructive) criticism from other editors. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but I suspect a block is only likely if Vic Park continues to make such edits. It doesn't seem likely they are going to listen but as common with these sort of cases, I suspect editors will still want to give them that chance and wait for them to continue their problematic editing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this editor has a habit of not including edit summaries, and seems to justify it by saying they only include one for major edits, even though this is also against policy, so far as I know. This makes it very difficult to see at a glance what exactly they've changed. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Not using edit summaries is not a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks.

Still, as I said, the lack of edit summaries makes it very difficult to tell what exactly has been changed without individually going to every diff (of which there are a lot). Even if this isn't against policy, I still think it would be prudent to at least give a short explanation of what they're editing. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I didn't include edit summaries because most of my edits were minor edits. I will try to include as many edit summaries as possible in the future, but I feel I wasn't being treated fairly here because there are a lot (it is literally a LOT) of editors who made minor edits have not included any edit summaries at all, but I will respect the policy and do the best I can to help the project. Vic Park (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Just write "ce" or "c/e" in your edit summaries as a shorthand for "copy edit". This usually covers minor changes like fixing typos and the like, and it takes almost no time type such a short edit summary. Nakonana (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I refer the honorable Wikipedian to my essay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

To refocus: my complaint was not really about their lack of edit summaries, it is about their general lack of care for site guidelines or stated concerns by fellow editors—that they will continue to ignore communications that they are violating guidelines unless they feel like it works with their "editing style", essentially. Remsense ‥ 论 08:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption, uncivility and blatant racism by IP user

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

The user has engaged in a disruptive behaviour on Pedro Sánchez over the use of the article's profile picture, resorting to increasingly uncivil and racist comments such as "leave our country on us", "go and find smithing better to do with your life" and (particularly) "stupid immigrants stop changing the picture over and over again and claiming you are from spain" whenever he is countered, which suggest a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset and raises concerns on WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. Impru20^talk 09:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Impru's comments above, I also reported this ip user at WP:AIV. Both Impru and I have asked them to use the talk page and WP:BRD, but it's falling on deaf ears and the only response is abuse. Valenciano (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The behaviour is blockworthy, but as the IP appears to have stopped editing for a minute, and hasn't done so since the final "seriously, stop it" warning, I'm going to hang fire for a minute unless they started abusively editing again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mnazini: close paraphrasing and AI generation

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

This user has created and expanded numerous articles on the history and culture of the Chaga people: very worthwhile contributions. However, their additions exhibit close paraphrasing and quite likely AI generation too. Below are examples from three articles they created in the past week (originally posted on their talk page).

Tables demonstrating close paraphrasing

Kingdom of Mbokomu Stahl 1964 Mbokomu, often referred to as "old" Mbokomu, is distinguished by its ancient aura and unique geography. The area consists of a prominent high ridge that descends steeply to the west into the deep valley of the Msunga River and to the east toward the Kisaringo River. Additionally, a second ridge extends further east to the valley of the Msaranga River. A notable landmark of Mbokomu is a spectacular waterfall (Materuni falls) located high along the Msunga River, visible from a considerable distance as a dramatic cascade of white water amidst the lush mountain greenery. Adjacent to this waterfall is the steep cliff of the Msunga ravine, cloaked in forest. Above it lies Kwampung’u Hill, the highest vantage point in Mbokomu, providing expansive views over Kilimanjaro and beyond to the plains of Meru, Monduli, and the Blue Mountains. Exploring Mbokomu offers a perspective akin to that of a general surveying the landscape from a natural citadel, as the steep terrain allows for broad visibility of the surrounding Chagga states. The area's cultivation occurs in small patches on the steep slopes, illustrating the adaptation of the local population to the challenging geography. The attraction of Mbokomu is the aura of age which surrounds it. It is known on the mountain as “old” Mbokomu. The area comprises one long high ridge falling on the west in a clear drop down to the deep valley of the river Msunga and on the east down to the river Kisaringo, together with a second ridge in the upper part only which takes the chiefdom a little further east to the next valley, that of the river Msaranga. From the plain Mbokomu is identified by a great waterfall high up in the river Msunga which can be seen from afar, a huge white roar of water in the midst of the greenness of the mountain. At the side of the waterfall rises the incredibly steep cliff of the Msunga ravine, covered in forest, and above it the hill Kwampung’u, the best look-out point in Mbokomu: from this hill the observer looks far and wide over the other chiefdoms of Kilimanjaro and beyond the mountain over the plain to Meru, Monduli and the Blue Mountains. To tour Mbokomu is to become like a general reviewing his military dispositions from a natural citadel, for the lie of the land is so precipitous that ... each turning gives a vantage point for surveying the rest of Kilimanjaro. Cultivation is in little patches on the steep slopes. You should note that the article's other citations for these paragraphs, to Dundas 2012 and Krapf 1858, are irrelevant. Kirua Stahl 1964 His son, Singila, later unified the chiefdoms of Lego and Mrumeni through a combination of conflict and subterfuge. Singila's annexation of Lego followed the impounding of his cattle by its inhabitants, while his conquest of Mrumeni involved marriage to the sister of its chief, who helped orchestrate her brother’s downfall. Thus, Singila established a ruling dynasty that has persisted through the various challenges faced by Kirua from the late 18th century to the present day. After Singila's reign, the Kirua Kingdom encountered ongoing external threats and often became a vassal of stronger powers. The newly arrived Maasai migrants from Kenya conducted sporadic cattle raids in the 1820s, prompting Kirua's inhabitants to retreat to higher elevations. From the late 18th century to the 19th century, the primary threat came from the Kilema Kingdom, leading to Kirua's subjugation under Mangi Kombo and later Mangi Rongoma. This period saw Kirua divided into three parts: Kirua, Mrumeni, and Lego. Following Rongoma's death, Mangi Orombo of Keni asserted dominance over Kirua, which was passively accepted by its leaders. His son Singila, a little later in that century, annexed Lego and Mrumeni: he took Lego by way of compensation after the people there had impounded his cattle which they were farming on his behalf; he took Mrumeni by stratagem, having married the sister of the chief there and having persuaded her to betray her brother... He founded a ruling dynasty which, through all the subsequent vicissitudes to which Kirua fell prey, has continued from the late 18th century down to the present time. After Singila’s time, Kirua fell victim to outside raiders or existed as the submissive vassal of stronger powers. Masai ... spasmodically raided Kirua for cattle; to evade them people moved higher up the mountainside into the top mitaa. From the late 18th century until well into the 19th century the main threat was ... from the neighbouring chiefdom of Kilema... [Kirua] was conquered and made vassal by Mangi Kombo of Kilema and ... Mangi Rongoma. During this time Kirua was split back again into three parts: Kirua, Mrumeni and Lego. After Rongoma’s death, Mangi Orombo of Keni ... asserted his supremacy ..., though this meant little to Kirua beyond meek acceptance. Draft:Kilema Stahl 1964 Oral traditions indicate that Kilema was originally known as "Kitandu." The name "Keema," meaning "Impenetrable," was given by the Kibosho people, referencing its deep protective ravines. This name evolved into "Kilema." The earliest settlements were located in the upper mitaa, particularly in Nkyashi, Kimararoni, and Ruwa, with Nkyashi being the most densely populated area. According to Mtui, Kilema comprised two chiefdoms ruled by the Mbuya and Mosha clans, with the Mbuya clan having migrated from Kahe in the plains. Ngowi, father of Mremi, ruled Marangu and initially defeated the Mbuya clan, extending his influence over part of Kilema, but not its most populated area, which was governed by Mangi Masuo. Ngowi attempted to raid Masuo but was ultimately unsuccessful. Following a raid by the Shambaa people, Ngowi and Mremi fled to Kilema, allowing Mremi's brother Riwa to assume leadership in Marangu. Riwa accepted Ngowi back in Lymarakhana but threatened Mremi if he returned. According to oral traditions the old name for Kilema was “Kitandu”. It was nicknamed “Keema”, “Impenetrable”, by the Kibosho people on account of its deep protective ravines. Hence arose, out of “Keema”, the name “Kilema”. The oldest settlements were in the upper mitaa: in Nkyashi, Kimararoni and Ruwa, of which Nkyashi was and has subsequently remained the most densely populated area. According to Mtui, Kilema consisted of two chiefdoms ruled by the Mbuya and Mosha clans, of which the former had come in from Kahe in the plain. Mremi’s father Ngowi ruled Marangu. Ngowi fought and defeated the Mbuya clan of Kilema and extended his tule over part of the country, but not the highest populated part. The latter was under its chief named Masuo whom Ngowi raided but could never beat. Then the Usambara folk ... raided Marangu and Ngowi and his son Mremi fled to Kilema. After this battle and their flight, Mremi’s brother Riwa seized the chieftainship in Marangu. Riwa accepted his father back in Lymarakhana, but he intimated that he would kill his brother Mremi if he tried to return.

These examples seemed very reminiscent of AI-generated text to me, especially the addition of "illustrating the adaptation of the local population to the challenging geography" at the end of the first example; not verified by the source, it is highly similar to previous examples of AI-generated promotion I have seen. I have put the quoted three paragraphs from Kingdom of Mbokomu through three different LLM detectors, and each has given a result of 100% AI generation.

I recommend a block from mainspace until the community knows they can be trusted to create and expand legally acceptable articles. Pinging Sennecaster and Diannaa as editors experienced with copyright: do you believe a CCI might be necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Either way, if we confirm use of LLM combined with false citations and the, at times, basically straight copy paste, makes me inclined that whatever we do will involve PDEL. I'll need more time to investigate this for a CCI, but I can get some of the books cited through my library. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Many are also available through archive.org Sennecaster. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:BizzelySindh Disprutive Editing

@BizzelySindh is engaging in unsourced/poorly sourced POV pushing in the lede of the article on Sinti people trying to push the fringe hypothesis that Sinti people are a completely different ethnic group to Romani people and are in fact Sindhi (something already discussed in the article itself with reliable sources). This has been going on for years and every time he has been reverted, he continues the same disruptive edits, accusing his fellow editors of “Nazi Whitesplaining,” subscribing to a “Nazi taxonomic order,” and Whitewashing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinti&diff=prev&oldid=1011945538&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinti&diff=prev&oldid=1011947368&diffonly=1

He also wrote on my talk page a message filled with personal attacks such as calling me a “Sinti-hater” and threatening me to stop rewriting his edits but again with no actual discussion of reliable sources or any solid academic evidence that the longstanding academic consensus that he is trying to change and that is supported by all the reliable sources that are in the article should be deemed false.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATagaworShah&diff=1279767531&oldid=1258293675

This editing is highly disruptive, POV edit warring over a span of 3 years without any addition of reliable sources, calling fellow editors who disagree with him “Nazis” and saying they have “White Privilege” and so on. This type of editing is unacceptable and in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. TagaworShah (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

A Sinto and Ethnologist from the University Ljubiljana like Dr. Rinaldo Dirrichardi with a Phd is a reliable source. It is sad to see how Sinti and their right of Sovereignty of interpretation is denied, just because there so few academic Sinti. The perspective of Sinti is not represented in your articles but in the sources which I am sharing. "whites - plaining" is a word which describes exatctly that, when members of an ethnic community are made silent because their academic papers are not seen as trust worthy enough. BizzelySindh (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@BizzelySindh Someone’s ethnicity has nothing to do on whether the source is reliable or should be prioritized, that verbiage is highly disruptive. I highly recommend you review Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what counts as a reliable source because what you added most certainly does not. For one, it is a self published source ( Wikipedia:SELFPUB); and this Rinaldo Dirrichardi is not a historian or faculty at University of Ljubljana, he is a faculty of theology at a Catholic School and his source has not been cited by any researcher other than himself. He is going against a widespread academic consensus, exceptional claims require exceptional sources especially when there are plenty of actual reliable sources in the article that directly contradict this fringe theory. And this is not the place to discuss content, this is about behavioral issues. TagaworShah (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Accusing others of "whitesplaining" is a personal attack. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

President Fan257 is spckpuppeting with GroverCleveland4 and 2603:9001:A000:F1C:EC7A:476:635F:217D

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 user President Fan257 was given an indefinite block for disruptive editing earlier this month. They have returned as the users GroverCleveland4 and an ip address. All of their edits are about the same topics and they use the same phrases, such as "editing without consequences". See President Fan257 contributions, 2603:9001:A000:F1C:EC7A:476:635F:217D contributions, and GroverCleveland4 contributions. Jon698 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I DID NOT HE IS LYING GroverCleveland4 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

IM TRYING TO MAKE HISTORY CORRECT ON ELECTIONS

ALSO IN 1876 ELECTION I AM TRYING TO MAKE RUTHERFORD HAYES PICTURE BIG SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT BUT HE KEEPS MAKING IT SMALL SO I COULD NOT SEE IT A BIT GroverCleveland4 (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

•  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  Confirmed. Sock indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies to Jon698 for the edit warring template. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:57, 13 March 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:Lvivske and slow edit warring

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

Lvivske has been slow edit warring at Ukrainian Insurgent Army since 21 November 2024. They removed Nazi Germany as allies in the infobox, claiming that this is "false info", even though there is an entire section about this. They removed this again on 16 January, writing "fake/debunked". On 25 February, they removed this again, writing "fake", again on 8 March, writing "rv edit warring", and they reverted me again now with no explanation.

This is not the only recent case of them edit warring and having no willingness to start a discussion. See for example history of Russia where they made an unsupported change to the lead and then proceeded to restore it three times.[182][183][184] In this edit summary they accused me of "trolling". I should also note that they already have a topic ban from Azov Brigade due to edit warring and a violation of a revert restriction. Mellk (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

They also accused me of "disinformation" in this warning on my talk page now. Mellk (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You have a long track record of this kind of disruptive editing, forgive me if I'm cutting to the point. To illustrate a new example of this MO, you said above the unsourced claim I removed was despite "even though there is an entire section about this." Of course, that section doesn't support the claim - but you knew that, since you brought it up.

It is not bad conduct on my part for removing unsourced or disputed content that I stumble upon. Compiling a list and going to Admin noticeboard the second you started edit warring however, is fully in line with the bad faith attitude I pointed out. (thanks for briging up your edit warring on the other article so I didnt have to look it up again, as I said, long track record of you doing this)LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The infobox listed Nazi Germany as both an ally and opponent. It said "varied". This section says: After the front had passed, by the end of 1944 the Germans supplied the OUN/UPA by air with arms and equipment, and so on. Instead, you decided to write unhelpful edit summaries like "fake" with no care about discussing why this is false. You have a userbox that says you remember "the heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" and you demonstrate once again that you cannot edit such topics neutrally and without resorting to personal attacks. Mellk (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ever think that maybe since it's a topic I'm knowledgeable about, that's why I corrected the false information when I saw it and moved on, not thinking someone was going to revert it immediately? You literally highlighted yourself above reverting that I added the word 'colonial' to an article on an imperial concept, tell me again who can't be neutral. If there was an actual citation you could have just added it instead of spending hours writing up a complaint.

You also brought up an ancient topic ban on a page that in the end changed to the neutral version I was proposing after consensus was needed. But what do facts matter. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That is why you made only six edits in the time between that topic ban was imposed in November 2015 and early 2022. I see you did not learn from that topic ban. Mellk (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just because it's a topic I'm knowledgeable about it doesn't make your contributions to the page more worthy than Mellk's, or anyone else's. Even experts can be wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually we should rely on experts to write articles, thats why we use reliable sources. Not insert unsourced or debunked content into articles to push an agenda. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"Not insert unsourced or debunked content into articles to push an agenda."

The irony, lmao. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we rely on Wikipedians to write articles using reliable sources. Sometimes that does mean that Randy from Boise gets to edit, but that doesn't change the fact that being an expert in a field gives you no special privileges with regards to the topic (and in fact can make it more likely to be scrutinized). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Having a section of pages on their userpage titled "These are mine. Don't touch (or else)" also seems uncollaborative. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh man, lighten up. You can't be serious. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

They are. I would advise reading WP:OWN.

The only page that is "yours" is your userpage. You don't have any more authority over the listed pages then anyone else does. While it's fine to have funny things(within reason of course) on your userpage, the threat in the section header (the "or else" part), isn't funny, its vaguely threatening. This isn't appropriate behavior from an editor who seems to have been around for this long.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

To be completely fair, WP:OWN is the first thing listed there. But I agree that the "or else" could have a chilling effect on editors less versed in Wikipedia standards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Just relaized that, thank you. They should ABSOLUTELY know better then. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought implying I own the article WP:OWN was a self explanatory joke. Alas... LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these takes are brazenly anti-humor. It's very clear that the intention is humorous, especially since WP:OWN is linked right there. A new user would realize the humor, an experienced user would just instantly get it. Hunt some other game, that section header is fine. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise, I'm sorry I didn't get the joke immediately and for assuming bad faith that the heading was meant seriously. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 22:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The page in question is not on that list. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"I should also note that they already have a topic ban from Azov Brigade due to edit warring"

That topic ban should apply to Ukrainian insurgent army, since Azov is known to use UPA flags and symbols, e.g. https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-nationalists-of-regiment-azov-and-right-sector-news-photo/614688616 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bataillon_Sainte-Marie.png TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That's such an absurdly biased reach. You linked to completely random and unrelated pictures to shoehorn your point in, too. Come on. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated? I posted a photo of an Azov rally with a massive UPA flag. I also posted a picture of an Azov battalion that uses the red-black UPA flag in their insignia.

There's also this: "Regarding Stepan Bandera, Azov soldiers regard him as a Hero of Ukraine and a symbol of the struggle for Ukrainian independence, according to Dutchak." source: https://svidomi.in.ua/en/page/myths-of-neo-nazism-and-bandera-how-azov-became-the-target-of-russian-propaganda TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, unrelated. You posted two different groups of people adjacent to one another, which is irrelevant to anything here. Also they do not use that for their insignia, you posted a link to an Orthodox Christian unit. Its all just a soup of random. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

even though there is an entire section about this
The first thing the section says is The relationship between Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Nazi Germany was complex and varied on account of the intertwined interests of the two actors, as well as the decentralized nature of the UPA. Given the infobox should contain only undisputed info, this is not enough justification for having Nazi Germany as allies. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Then they should not listed as opponents. But this is something for the talk page of that article. Mellk (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I opened the discussion there. I mean, did UIA and Nazi Germany have agreed to enter some military alliance, or something similar to USSR - Nazi Germany agreement of I think 1939? Do we have Nazi Germany listed as an ally to the USSR? If not, why Lvivske's edit is so controversial? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, this is an issue with behavior. But despite the warnings given to you about WP:FOLLOWING you just do not listen. Mellk (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

despite the warnings given to you about WP:FOLLOWING
Wait a moment, so you are following me in an article you never edited undoing my contributions [185] and blame me of following. Thank you for victim blaming. And no, "the warnings given to you about WP:FOLLOWING" is also false. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist. You would see during this period I was going through my watchlist and this was among the first edits of the day. This edit just before the revert you mentioned followed someone else's edit to the article that was made around 8pm GMT on 28 February. This is around the same time you edited the article neo-Nazism. But you happened to show up here soon after I deleted Lvivske's warning from my talk page.[186] Good job trying to derail this. Mellk (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Now, if we don't have Nazi Germany listed as an ally to the USSR, why Lvivske's edit is so controversial?

And the question is valid, because there is a history of you abusing WP:BRD and sabotaging the consensus building, deleting content referenced with academic sources, for example Talk:Neo-Nazism#BALANCE violation in Ukraine section , Talk:Neo-Nazism#Konotop mayor with BLP violation still in the article, and so on, also Talk:Nikolai Gogol#Ukrainian , where consensus has been reached, which you haven't participated in the process of, yet arrived there with reverts and tags. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I have told you to stop following me and you want to continue derailing this discussion with whatever content dispute you can remember and misrepresent. Mellk (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know no source exists to support what he kept re-inserting into the article and it's just based on original research. There's no reason why he was justified in instant-reverting everything for no reason, and if justification existed he could have a) added a citation, b) used the talk page. Instead he deleted my warning and here we are. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the best way out of this mess is to topic ban both of you from Ukrainian Insurgent Army and related topics, broadly construed, as well as emplace an interaction ban between the two of you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposed, as I think it's the only thing that won't end up with a site ban for both.

Star Mississippi 00:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hammersoft, I'm t-banned from Eastern Europe. I don't know if this also applies on this noticeboard. I don't want to give any opinion, I just want to show some curious contributions of the user. May I proceed? Mhorg (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the t-ban, I would suggest you don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Mhorg (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• I will admit that I lost my cool after I read the message they left on my talk page. I have spent some time to process this. I assumed they had seen my initial edit summaries on why I reverted their change (as I had believed that the section on Germany supported this and that this was the long standing version), but it seems there was a misunderstanding on my part. I would prefer to settle our disagreements on talk pages in future, if it would still be possible. But I will avoid editing the article Ukrainian Insurgent Army since I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic. Mellk (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: I had a quick look at the article in question and it's not good. From the lead, the reader will understand how bad the article subject was, but when answering the "what is it?" question, the article only informs us that "The goal of the OUN was to drive out occupying powers in a national revolution and set up an independent government headed by a dictator", distorting the source, which say - Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists - it was A Ukrainian political movement dedicated to the establishment of an independent Ukrainian state, and This goal was to be achieved by a national revolution led by a dictatorship that would drive out the occupying powers and set up a government representing all regions and social groups, and this is only According to its initial declaration.
  Now, it looks like unsourced "Nazi Germany ally" gets removed, thanks to Lvivske's "slow edit warring". But if the editors who care will get banned, who will clean the rest of the mess? Shouldn't there be more productive mechanisms and tools. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NONAZIS

  UPA was a fascist, racist organisation that sought to exterminate Jews in Ukraine and it cooperated with Nazi Germany to do so. These are facts, and no amount of "just asking questions" and "but they were actually freedom fighters" will alter those facts or history. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Too biased, one-sided. Combined with personal attacks in talk. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing of Nazi crimes . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Nazi crimes

TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuses of "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes" [187] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You questioned whether the UPA wanted to exterminate Jews in Ukraine since "there were Jews in the UPA". I'm not even going to defend myself against this ridiculous ANI. Anyone can see what my comment was in response to, that should be enough. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

False.
Including "there were Jews in the UPA" - I don't know about UPA, the page is OUN. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You wrote: "How comes than Jews were among UPA members, according to Gogun" diff TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Gogun writes there were Jews in UPA [188], and you provided nothing except WP:NPA violations to advance your point. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

you provided nothing except NPA violations to advance your point

That doesn't seem accurate. Their first reply to this discussion was very collegial and provided sources with quotes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Overall, looking at the full trajectory of the discussion, I think that TurboSuperA+'s comments are within the realm of civility and collaboration expected by policy. If you have no other diffs of problematic behavior by TurboSuperA+, I recommend withdrawing this complaint. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that my arguments constituted "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes". If proven, I will need to radically change my argumentation approach. If not, those are pretty serious accusations, and it should be decided if such accusations are allowed or not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that the context was several replies deep into a discussion where your main point of argumentation is that an organization identified by RS to have collaborated with Nazi Germany was not an ally of Nazi Germany, presenting an OR argument based on a source's statement that there were Jewish members in the organization, and also accusing editors working on the article of using Soviet propaganda without providing a clear example of how that was occurring (as far as I can see, you pointed out a source that you said was weak and it may well be weak, but you didn't identify its link to Soviet propaganda), I think that the accusations have some merit.

A better way to have presented your case that wouldn't have drawn such accusations would have been to provide high-quality sources that actually directly rebuke the claim of OUN-Nazi collaboration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This goes into the discussion regarding article content. Yes, to the unsourced claim about "independence as part of a racially pure Ukraine without Jews", a source was presented about Jewish members in the organization. Instead of sources or proofs, an accusation of "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes" followed. I disagree that this should be characterized as such. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that the two sources below failed verification? Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This ANI wouldn't be here if your message below would be in place of accusations presented above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is also OR: you're synthesizing a claim from Gogun regarding Jewish membership to make claims regarding the organization's broader goals. Good faith is a collective pool, and I'm afraid in the context of the talk page discussion at UON you've let it run dry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It is an OR, but it's an argument supported by source, raised in the middle of a discussion on a talk page, where OR is allowed, unlike the personal attack which we should be discussing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The context of that OR is that you disregarded sources in the lede that supported an ethnonationalist interpretation of the organization's goals and claimed that was uncited except to a third, lower quality, source and then proposed that the article was impacted by Soviet propaganda without any examples of soviet POV citations. This creates a perception that you are making claims about the article without having reviewed the sources. When those claims are attempting to create distance between this group and the Nazis there's a legitimate concern about white-washing. I do think TurboSuperA+ could have been more diplomatic in their approach, but based on the timeline of events, their concerns have grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

there's a legitimate concern about white-washing
Was OUN Nazi? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are six sources cited in the lede alone that link OUN to the Nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right.

But no, it only says "Its ideology has been ... influenced by German Nazism". See, how some editors are quick to jump from this, to "OUN Nazi", to "create a distance between this group and the Nazis ... is a legitimate concern about white-washing". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I've already given my assessment as an uninvolved admin: the circumstances surrounding the personal attack are sufficiently mitigating such that no action should be taken. Your argumentation here has generally been to the detriment of your own case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think ManyAreasExpert was denying that OUN collaborated with the nazis (unless I'm missing something). As I point out in that discussion, collaboration and alliances are not the same thing. I agree that ManyAreasExpert could tone down some of the original research (and speculation about soviet propaganda) and I also think that TurboSuperA+ should not have made that accusation. Tristario (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

While TurboSuperA+ is coming in a bit hot in this conversation I can certainly sympathize with the frustration one would feel dealing with an editor who wants to remove or minimize mention of antisemitic purges on the basis of an unfounded claim that an article is pervasively influenced by Soviet propaganda.[189] Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

who wants to remove or minimize mention of antisemitic purges
Thank you, but no. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If I am misunderstanding the situation could you please clarify what you mean by suggesting the article is influenced by Soviet propaganda and what specific changes you want to make to the article? Because your comment in the diff above seems to have been the start of the unfortunate trajectory of this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

what you mean by suggesting the article is influenced by Soviet propaganda
It's described here Talk:Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists#c-Manyareasexpert-20250312113000-TurboSuperA+-20250312112000
what specific changes you want to make to the article
We were discussing What good enough sources regard Nazi Germany an ally to the OUN to justify having it in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OK but I'm not sure that's correct. On goals, the lede currently says The OUN pursued a strategy of violence, terrorism, and assassinations with the goal of creating an ethnically homogenous and totalitarian Ukrainian state. with reference to two academic sources - Wodak, Ruth; Richardson, John E. (2013). Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. Routledge. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-415-89919-2 and Shekhovtsov, Anton (March 2011). "The Creeping Resurgence of the Ukrainian Radical Right? The Case of the Freedom Party". Europe-Asia Studies. 63 (2): 207–210. doi:10.1080/09668136.2011.547696. S2CID 155079439. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's incorrect, but how would we know, if we start accusing the opponent of the likes above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally by reading the underlying sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Simon's comment. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Manyareasexpert: That could reasonably be described as "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes" although I would have used less loaded language. You might want to reconsider how you make arguments on wikipedia, your name leads people to think that you are an expert in the topic areas you contribute to but as far as I can tell you aren't an expert in any of the topic areas you contribute to... This means that when you're wrong (which is all the time) people are going to judge you much more harshly than if your name was "notanexpertinthisarea" ... People are going to see ignorance but assume malice due to you name, which to be fair is partially on them but also on you because that is your name and you present in a rather pedantic way which matches your name even if your expertise does not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Want to thank admins for their attention and assessment, as well as all of your volunteer work, which we the editors respect very much. Don't want any pressure, realizing it will have no positive contribution, but let's see some future. Opponent adds "source needed" tag [190] as a retaliation to the previous "source needed" tag [191] , while there is a whole "OUN-B's fight against Germany, Soviet Union and Poland" section confirming the tagged content directly (unlike the first tag). Now, what motivation would I have to open the topic in talk explaining the issue and getting shut with personal attack of the like from the opponent? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have moved this to be a subsection of the related report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Abuse from 2405:201:E02E:8869:C88E:34C6:9310:3443

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.

---

2405:201:E02E:8869:C88E:34C6:9310:3443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP is a long term abuser at Sasha Grey, but on this particular IP they've only made three edits.

• Special:Diff/1280223144 they edit the user talk of another editor of the article writing "F$%#Ier, who do you think you are? Do NOT mess with me again. You now know who I am. I repeat: be careful. Do NOT mess with me".
• Special:Diff/1280223513 They attempt to reapply a previous edit and leave an edit summary "Plenty of streams on twitch & yt. Im not gonna go dig unless you continue to confirm the already obvious fact that you’re a m0r0n!c a$$h0lε".

TarnishedPath^talk 09:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week, page semi'd for two years. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, they've just created an account and commented at Special:Diff/1280251573 with a string of expletives. TarnishedPath^talk 13:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ritchie333 picked up my slack and already indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 13 March 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 AfD nominations by TCBT1CSI

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.

---

• TCBT1CSI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Issue: Possible disruptive editing, bad-faith AfD nominations, and potential sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry

Summary of Concerns

Excessive and questionable AfD nominations:

• The user has been creating a large number of AfD discussions, many of which appear to be bad-faith nominations or outright vandalism.
• Their AfD nomination history can be reviewed here. Potential abuse of deletion processes:
• Many of their nominations show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's notability and deletion policies, suggesting disruptive intent rather than good-faith contributions.
• Their contributions can be reviewed here. Possible abuse filter triggers:
• The user's edit filter log indicates some problematic actions, which can be reviewed here.

XfD Logs

Their XfD logs show a concerning pattern, with an unusually short amount of time spent on each article before nomination

• March 8 – Nominated 15 articles for AfD, with the first two tagged within just 7 minutes and the remaining 13 in only 45 minutes
• February 19 – Nominated 4 pages in just 17 minutes; two were soft deleted due to little or no participation, while one survived.
• December 30 – Tagged 13 articles for deletion, 9 of them within just 17 minutes.
• December 22 – Nominated 13 lengthy articles within few minutes. Based on this user's editing history, it's pretty clear they’re not here to build an encyclopedia but to tear it down, and they seem to have a personal agenda. Ever since they joined, all they've done is tag pages for deletion after making some questionable spam edits early on. They then go inactive for a while before returning to repeat the cycle. They've been mass-nominating articles for deletion in a ridiculously short amount of time, using the same generic comments in every AfD. What's even more suspicious is that they mostly go after large public and private companies. Their actions suggest they either don't check sources at all or barely skim them, let alone conduct proper due diligence or follow WP:BEFORE guidelines. They reuse the same nomination notes over and over. Most of their nominated pages only got deleted due to no/low participation. This user calls themselves a "deletionist" on their user page. On December 22, 2024, they nominated 13 lengthy articles for deletion within minutes, all using the same generic notes they repeat in every AfD. Then, on March 8, 2025, they nominated 15 more lengthy articles. They spent an average of just 3-4 minutes on each article before tagging them. There is no way anyone can properly review such lengthy articles, check all sources, and run BEFORE searches that fast. Many of these companies were major publicly listed ones, and Wikipedia's WP:LISTED policy clearly states: "Sufficient independent sources almost always exist for listed companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." An editor even called them out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Exports for failing to do proper due diligence before nominating the page for deletion. Let's break down some of the articles they've targeted and see if they're actually reviewing sources and doing WP:BEFORE checks before tagging pages. On December 22, they nominated Amrita Narlikar for deletion, claiming: "Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a résumé-hosting site WP:NOTRESUME." But during the AfD discussion, it turned out the subject did meet WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF, so they had to withdraw their nomination. A quick review of the sources and basic research reveal that the subject's work is highly cited and meets WP:NPROF. The subject has also authored several books with independent reviews. Thanks to User:Espresso Addict, User:David Eppstein, and User:XOR'easter for their input. Then, just a few minutes later, they nominated Aditya Birla Sun Life Asset Management for deletion, which ended up being soft deleted due to lack of participation. But let's take a closer look at their reasoning. They claimed it failed WP:NCORP or WP:LISTED, but WP:LISTED explicitly states: "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." A simple online search brings up tons of news articles and analyst reports that provide in-depth coverage of this company, like this analyst report. Then, just two minutes later, they nominated Nuvoco Vistas Corporation for deletion. Then, within three minutes, they nominated CybageAsha and Data Security Council of India, the later one just needed some clean up, not deletion. AfD is for discussing notability, not whether an article needs better formatting. And they didn't stop there. Two minutes later, they tagged South Asia Analysis Group for deletion. Then, just a couple of minutes after that, they went after Books on the Delhi Metro. Then, within four minutes, they sent four other articles to AfD. On December 30 alone, they nominated 13 articles for deletion—nine of them in just 17 minutes. At this point, it's pretty obvious they aren't actually reviewing sources properly or following WP:BEFORE before slapping deletion tags on articles.206.84.236.18 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@206.84.236.18, you're supposed to notify editors when you start discussions about them here. I've notified them, but please keep this in mind in the future. TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I went straight to the AfD contributions and read "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 83.8% of AfDs were matches and 16.2% were not." People pass RfA with that sort of AfD stats. What's the issue? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, I was about to write what you did. I have no idea what the IP is going on about. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The IP also cites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amrita Narlikar as an example of "abuse", but a close look at the discussion shows TCBT1CSI saying "okay, I screwed up on that one, withdrawing the nomination, sorry". Elsewhere I see them filing good faith AfDs on what appear to be, to be frank, large dollops of corporate spam. I see no administrator action to take here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm inordinately proud of the fact that my AfD nomination accuracy is 88.8%. A mere 83.8%? Ptui! (Note: this post may contain sarcasm.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Data Security Council of India was kept at AfD - clearly all the participants didn't notice that 90% of the article was a copyright violation - almost verbatim from the DSCI's "About Us" page. I've deleted it as G12. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If the following is true, I think the mass nominations should be investigated.

Their XfD logs show a concerning pattern, with an unusually short amount of time spent on each article before nomination

• March 8 – Nominated 15 articles for AfD, with the first two tagged within just 7 minutes and the remaining 13 in only 45 minutes
• February 19 – Nominated 4 pages in just 17 minutes; two were soft deleted due to little or no participation, while one survived.
• December 30 – Tagged 13 articles for deletion, 9 of them within just 17 minutes.
• December 22 – Nominated 13 lengthy articles within few minutes.

ash (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Based on the time spent between each batch of edits, this may be a case of someone having many tabs open and publishing finished revisions all at once. I don't see it as concerning, especially with their success rate. Reconrabbit 13:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

An extremely plausible explanation. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 13 March 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.

Restoring of my talk page

Hello, please restore this page (which contains the history of my user talk page) and move it to User talk:XXBlackburnXx. This page got involved in a page move vandalism and got deleted, along with my talk page. Thanks. -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I'll start cleaning up the logs and such now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

How random is "random article"?

What is the algorithm behind the "random article" button? Alizarin kirmizi (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Alizarin kirmizi, Please see the top of the page "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.". Technical questions should be asked somewhere else, such as (WP:TEA, WP:HD). Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 10:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon This is urgent. It is related to Phabricator*T389057. Thank you. Alizarin kirmizi (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alizarin kirmizi, this is still the wrong page. I suggest asking at WP:HD and explaining why it is urgent, with a link to the Phabricator incident. You could also search the WP:HD for previous questions about the "random article". TSventon (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

TPA revocation needed

Can an admin please revoke TPA on User talk:Degurumcqueen? This user was blocked by User:Drmies but they don't seem to be around to respond to the personal attacks that have continued on the talk page. Jfire (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done, and bleach applied to some of the nastier stuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

IP socks of Pedrote112 and Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States

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.

---

• Talk:Rent control in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Over at Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States (and sometimes at Talk:Rent regulation) , most of the activity comes from IP socks of Pedrote112 (talk · contribs). Both articles are semiprotected because of these IP socks, so they post on the talk pages. The usual venting on the talk page has given way to repeatedly posting personal attacks, links to off-wiki personal attacks, and links attempting outing off-wiki. I put a request up at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but no help thus far, and getting a talk page protected over there can be difficult.

Is there anything we can do about this? - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 15 March 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:Bearian Personal Attacks

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

---

User Berian seems to have a pattern of other than neutral edits and personal attacks when confronted over it. Recent examples are below:

Below, a user pointed out bias in edit summaries, and Bearian resorted to claiming they were with Heritage Foundation or the New Yorker, and told them “go away.” User talk:Bearian#/editor/222

Below, a user pointed out the policies against personal attacks and on assuming good faith and Bearian resorted to doxing. They then claimed they would never face any suspensions. User talk:Bearian#/editor/222

Let’s see if Wikipedia has the integrity to treat all users the same, not let a former admin get away with wrongs. 205.132.40.30 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not doxing if you're using an IP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User talk:Bearian § Warning: Personal Bias and below section. IP, I'd say that some diffs of Bearian displaying bias in edits might help. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 15:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The whole thing looks engineered. The IP editor never gave Bearian a chance to reply and how did the IP find that note on Bearian's talk page. The chances of finding that note are absolute miniscule, and references the previous note in the first sentence, so its an offsite collaboration setup to trap Bearian. Could be the same editor? Both these IP editors should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. They haven't done a single productive thing. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am definitely curious to see if there is an as-of-yet undisclosed connection between these two IPs. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 16:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Also I haven't seen any WP:NPA either, which is curious. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Could Bearian have used better wording? Quite possibly. Was this doxing? No. Were they understandably annoyed at what is obviously either meatpuppetry or the same IP changing in order to "call them out"? Yes. Should this be closed before the IP gets thoroughly boomeranged? Chances are very good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's 4:02 a.m. where I'm traveling now for the next three days. I don't see (1) any personal attack, (2) any falsity, and (3) any doxing: I used Geolocate to show the IP user that IP addresses are not secure. This series of accusations against me have been going on for two weeks. Other than 1 poorly worded statement, I can't see I've done that's wrong. Please block them, at least temporarily. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Why isn't this thread closed and the IP blocked? They're trolling, and WP:BOOMERANG applies. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've blocked the OP IP for harassment. Left the other one for now. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 15 March 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.

Book of Mormon (page moves)

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.

---

Please review the recent page moves related to the Book of Mormon by Top Cat Pig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have tried to revert them, but here are sevaral loose ends here which I am unable to resolve. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No-one had actually communicated with them about this, so I've left them a message. It's best to speak to them first, before going to ANI. Secretlondon (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

An account with "Truth" in the name turned out to be socking. Well I never! Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 14 March 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.

Repeated addition of unsourced 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.

---

47.229.163.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing to add unsourced content to Jennifer Decilveo after receiving a final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 15 March 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.

Heavy vandalism of Mark Carney

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 has been heavy vandalism of the article for Mark Carney as he was just sworn in as Canadian Prime Minister. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Uh, no. Hitler vandalism is not on. I have semi-protected Mark Carney for ten days. Thanks for the report, Wellington Bay. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 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.

AndyBloch

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.

---

Immediately after making their first edit request, AndyBloch (talk · contribs) was informed of MOS:ANTISEMITISM and why their request to change the word's form was declined.[192] They seemingly are not listening, and are continuing to make either edit requests or the change themselves across pages, despite multiple pings and talk page messages. Remsense ‥ 论 01:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

(...Urgh, and they seemingly stop as soon as I file the report. I wish I had a better sense for how I'm best supposed to deal with WP:CANTHEARUS cases like this.) Remsense ‥ 论 01:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Remsense, my advice is to actually talk with an editor you have an issue with rather than piling up templates on their user talk page. Most editors tune out templates after the first one or two is posted and an actual conversation goes a lot further. I've seen some patrollers put 5 or 6 templates on an editor's User talk page when an actual comment, written one-on-one, from one person to another, would have probably alleviated the problem. I think, by and large, templates are often ignored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz—I did! I answered their question, left them a bespoke message, and only then went to templates if only to certify to third parties that I'm giving adequate warning. Remsense ‥ 论 02:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You didn't give me a chance to see your talk message and respond. I have since responded there.

It would be helpful if you would have explained your reasoning beyond a citation and misstatement of the manual of style. AndyBloch (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I often get frustrated at my own difficulties in concisely state problems in my own words, and often feel the MOS itself is far easier for someone else to understand. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 14 March 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:Leopardus62 and Eucratides I

Leopardus62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding a particular piece of content to Eucratides I; talk page discussion has consistently opposed this material, but this user simply refuses to engage with the talk page and reverts every attempt to remove the material, accusing me of vandalism. The course of events:

• 19 June 2024: Leopardus added the material (among many other additions which were constructive): diff
• 18 December 2024: I removed the material diff (and I admit that my edit summary could have been more constructive)
• 19 December 2024: Leopardus reverted: [193]
• 19 December 2024: I took the matter to the article talk page: [194], laying out my concerns about the material (WP:OR, WP:RS, consistency with other articles). I add a ping Leopardus on the talk page asking to discuss [195]
• 21 December 2024: No response on the talk page, so I removed the material from the article once more: [196]
• 24 December 2024: Leopardus reverts: [197], accusing me of vandalism "You will be reported if you continue disrupting the improvement of this article without reason"
• 24 December 2024: Leopardus replies on the talk page [198], laying out counterarguments and stating "Just leave the section and more citations will soon be added, something that is commonly done in many other articles."
• 24 December 2024: I repeat my concern about OR: diff.
• 27 December 2024: No response on the talk page, so I remove the material once more [199], pointing out in the edit summary "Removed section as WP:OR; if editors wish to restore this material, the WP:BURDEN is on them to find WP:RS for it."
• 16 February 2025: Leopardus restores the material once more diff; Leopardus posts a message to the talk page entitled "Eucratides name final" [200], threatening to report me, gatekeeping "you are completely ignorant about this subject. Stay in your realm. I have studied Ancient Greek history," expressing a refusal to engage in dialogue "If you remove my edit, I will continue to remove your edit forever and ever. I will make sure you understand, because I am right about the information, and you are wrong." and accusing me of acting in bad faith "You are bringing your ego into this, rather than knowledge and truth."
• 16 February 2025: I reply, stating that there is still no citation for the key factoid in dispute and suggesting that we seek arbitration through WP:Third Opinion [201]
• 16 February 2025: User:Manuductive offers a Third Opinion of "strong support for removal" of the content diff
• 18 February 2025: No response from Leopardus on the talk page, so I remove the material once more diff
• 28 February 2025: Leopardus reverts diff
• 28 February 2025: I revert [202] steering Leopardus to the talk page.
• 1 March 2025: Leopardus reverts diff
• 1 March 2025: I call Leopardus to the talk page once more [203]
• 2 March 2025: I request comment from WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome [204]
• 2 March 2025: User:StarTrekker and User:XabqEfdg post on the talk page. Both support the removal of the information [205]
• 7 March 2025: No response from Leopardus on the talk page, so I remove the material once more [206]. Leopardus reverts within two hours [207] with the edit summary "Undid revision again, citing vandalism and disruption to improvement of Wikipedia article without valid reason".
• 7 March 2025: I notify the talk page of the situation. User:XabqEfdg posts to Leopardus' user talk page requesting that they engage diff

Throughout the times when Leopardus has refused to engage on the talk page, they have been editing other articles. User:Leopardus has been very active on WP since receiving that message, but has not replied on their user talk page or on the article talk page. This refusal to engage now seems to be a persistent pattern. The other involved editors are Manuductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) StarTrekker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and XabqEfdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who suggested taking the matter here. Furius (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing about Greco-Bactrian kings and their names, but I know that Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures, and their outcomes decide what goes in articles rather than one person's view. If Leopardus62 can't accept that consensus is against them they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. By force (blocking/banning) if necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Leopardus is a bad editor overall, but they need to stop the edit warring. Not supporting a block as of this moment but might (a block with a limited time) if they continue this.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from article space. Communication is not optional. They retain access to the talk pages and to participate here. Star Mississippi 23:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to come here and waste time talking about this topic again. The issue was first started by the user Furius, they first started making rude and unwarranted statements about my edits in the edit descriptions. They instantly removed my edits, using completely made-up, wrong and nonsensical reasons. I already had a citation, and owing to my knowledge of this topic, and Ancient Greek, I put a great deal of effort into the edit.

Also the short "Name paragraph" I added is found in many high-quality articles relating to Hellenistic Greek figures. Featured articles about the similar Seleucid kings all include information about their names. The are a common and important part of becoming a good article, and not a stub. Also I know that many people want to know the meaning of Eucratides' name. I have looked at the results and many people search the meaning of Eucratides' name on Google, and there are no good results. Many people do want to know about it.

Furius did not listen to anything that I said, and I told them: I have a citation, but just leave a "more citation needed" note and I will definitely add more citations very soon, which is a normal thing to do in Wikipedia. But they quickly removed my edit again. Also, the information in my edit was correct, it was right, and also relevant. I checked it. I also then added two good citations to back the information. It's literally just a small paragraph as well. But they still removed my edit, without good reason. I gave up reasoning with them, because they were uncooperative.

I am the one following the rules of Wikipedia editing, using high-quality information and citing reliable sources. They are not. They just want to make sure that they win, it makes them happy. Even though the article ends up worse. I'm busy improving Wikipedia the entire time, while they dwell on this ridiculous situation. We should all want to make this article a good article. But Furius doesn't want to. That is not acceptable, because it does not improve Wikipedia as a whole. Leopardus62 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Even if the information is correct...right, and also relevant and has two good citations, if the consensus is that the content should not be included, the content should not be included. Also this is absolutely unacceptable, and this - calling something vandalism that is not vandalism - can be considered a personal attack. Also I have looked at the results and many people search the meaning of Eucratides' name on Google - how do you know this? {{citation needed}}. It doesn't matter if adding more citations very soon...is a normal thing to do in Wikipedia - unreferenced content can be removed by anyone at any time, and content that talk page consensus has determined is poorly or insufficiently referenced - which it does appear is the case here - can also be removed at any time. When multiple editors agree that content is not desirable in the article, you do not edit war to keep it in the article, no matter how much you believe the reasoning is made-up, wrong and nonsensical. You absolutely have to waste time talking about this topic again because you are editing against consensus; communication is required. And They just want to make sure that they win, it makes them happy is casting aspersions and a personal attack on Furius. Consider yourself warned not to make futher personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It's very ironic that you are complaining about other people being uncooperative when you are the one who is refusing to join in the discussion on the talkpage and threatening to continue to remove your edit forever and ever.

If consensus is to exclude something from an article which you think should be included, you have two choices: either you can discuss the issue on the talkpage and attempt to achieve consensus for inclusion, or you can accept that consensus is against you. What you cannot do is to repeatedly revert against the talkpage consensus. If you think that continuing to discuss the topic is a waste of time, there's absolutely no obligation for you to do so - but in that case you must accept the consensus, which in this case is clearly not to include the claim that Eucratides "may possibly have had a grandfather or another male ancestor named Eucrates". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The irony of saying "I am the one following the rules of Wikipedia editing" while completely and actively ignoring one of its most fundamental principles is quite funny. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And now they seem to have come down with WP:ANIFLU. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Lenny7092 misusing edit summaries and talk pages to spread rumors

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

---

I didn't want to have to file this incident report, but I feel there is no other path forward. Lenny7092 has shown persistent instances of focusing on spreading rampant rumors and speculation that they find online or what they believe to be possible into edit summaries when editing articles and by making entire talk page discussions centralized around said speculation, despite previously being warned about doing so numerous times by several editors, and quite frequently by myself. These are primarily regarding articles pertaining to the superhero genre, particularly recent Marvel works related to the Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article such as at Talk:Venom: The Last Dance and Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps. The following are a few instances of this patternered behavior (in edits and summaries here, here, here, and here, as well as at talk pages here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and lastly here).

Lenny has shown repeated WP:POV pushing of their own opinions and inserted them into articles as facts, despite being told numerous times such rumors or opinions are not the purpose of Wikipedia. I have explained this to them a few times in several of these discussions, but it unfortunately does not appear that they understand this or why they have received these warnings. Based on their comments at their talk over the span of 10 months, especially at User talk:Lenny7092#March 2025 on the most recent warning (in which they self-proclaimed spreading and discussing rumors is their purpose and also say as much at their user page), they do not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia or learn what the purpose of Wikipedia is, despite numerous warnings, and would much rather entertain and spread such speculation and have repeatedly not listened when told otherwise. It has become quite exhaustive re-explaining talk page etiquette to them, which leads me to believe some action ought to be taken. Thank you for your time, admins. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is rude for reporting. Anyway, listen. I'm new to being a user in Wikipedia, so sometimes I can go overboard. I have seen some pages talking about speculation, in both pages and the talk pages. I thought it would be okay to do so. Trailblazer, I think you were overreacting a little, so. It's not fair when people do the things while I don't. I saw you deleting some of the discussions made by other people, too. Does that make sense?Lenny7092 (talk) Lenny7092 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I have explained Wikipedia's stance on rumors and speculation to you far too many times, and you have been warned plenty of times about your behavior, I think generously. I provided you with links to our site's policies several times and it appears you chose to ignore them. Whenever I see such unconstructive discussions, I do revert them, so it is not just you in particular, Lenny. Wikipedia simply is not a platform to spread rumors or speculation. I truly did not want to file this report, but it seemed that nothing I and other editors have told you was going anywhere, so this was the natural next step. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

non-involved comment, but the parts of their userpage reading I get nervous about anything that says "citations needed", and I rarely look for things that can get rid of the "citations needed" stuff. and

Also, I do not know how to cite things. If I do, that would be time-consuming, so I tell people to go fetch sources based on what I said. Don't ask me source things. It is okay to talk about theories in Talk pages in Wikipedia, as long as they are logical. don't inspire much confidence in me that this editor understands the purpose of Wikipedia. Sarsenet (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I've warned this editor numerous times about unsourced editing and inappropriate talk page messages. There's been enough chances. Any more problems and I'm starting to issue blocks. Not opposed to any admin taking immediate action either. Sergecross73 msg me 11:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lenny7092 Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of film theories but is rather an encyclopedia project. As such sources are everything. If you don't want to bother to learn how to cite you are not here to build an encyclopedia. I would strongly recommend that you commit to ceasing using Wikipedia talk as a forum for discussion of film theories and instead focus on learning how to format a proper citation and how to select reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

As Sarsenet pointed out, Lenny7092 openly states that they can't be bothered to provide citations to their edits or make an effort to make sure that Wikipedia content in general is properly sourced. Their talk page furthermore states they are upset how a number of corporations treat various comic book characters, and that their agenda is to use Wikipedia as a forum to talk about rumours and promote petitions. Lenny7092 is very much NOTHERE. Cortador (talk) 11:43, 14 March 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:Hyperborean11 disruptive deletions & edit wars

So, this user @Hyperborean11 is constantly mass deleting sourced stuff on 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests calling it "fake" and "not important" meanwhile I was thanked for these contributions & nobody deleted this except from this user. This user also has also done this multiple times deleting over thousand stuff on various wikipedia which this user doesn't like & calls it "fake". Another wiki page which was unfortunately ghosted the Serbian Language they deleted over 3k contents left there with all the sources. But this user is starting edit wars with whoever adds something they don't like primarily on the 2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests article which they constantly mass delete sourced evidence (every single contribution this user has added on wikipedia was just an edit war & mass deletion of sourced contents). Currings (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

First off, doing the @Hyperborean11 is referencing a non-existent article on the subject 'Hyperborean11', not the user. The user is User:Hyperborean11. Secondly, you're required to notify the editor you are discussing. See the gold colored alert box when you edit this page. Third, I do not see any attempt to discuss this issue with the editor. You've not made any post to their user talk page, nor have you raised this issue on Talk:2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests. WP:AN/I isn't the first stop for resolving disputes. There's only a single level-1 warning on the editor's talk page. Please following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If they refuse to engage, if they continue making problematic edits, if they are warned with successively higher level warnings, then there might be something to act on. For now, there's nothing for an administrator to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Historyk.ok disruptive editing

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)

Persistent WP:DE by this user on Battles of Nabróż article by making changes the user believes are correct, ignoring the source, warnings and agreement at the talk page of article.[208][209][210][211][212]

I gave user a warning for initial behaviour.[213] I started a discussion at article talk page and explained to him why I gave him this warning. I've explained what he was doing wrong, asking him many times not to engage in WP:EW and other disruptive behaviour. We had a discussion about content of the article. Conversation stalled on how result should be, so I pinged another user. After this, we had a majority agreeing (Dushnilkin,[214] Grechkovsky[215] and myself) who took part in the discussion, that result should be Ukrainian victory. Despite this, user continued insisting on his own changes by changing the result and I gave this user a final warning.[216] However, this user continues to ignore the warnings and makes changes he thinks are correct, accusing me of lying on majority agreeing for result box to be Ukrainian victory,[[217] and before that stated "Per consensus at the talk page." in his edit for where he changed result to "See Aftermath", which clearly isn't the consensus.

For more context, the user initially wanted to have a "full results" box kept below the result with outcomes of different attacks in this clash.[218] However, there should only be one result such as "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Otherwise, terms like "See Aftermath" linking to section explaining details, if terms like these don't clearly describe outcome as per MOS:VICTORY. Later, he started insisting on putting "See Aftermath" as a result,[219] but this isn't one of these clashes with unclear result or where these terms do not apply, I even provided a direct quote from a cited source for Ukrainian victory result that states the fighting ended in a "Ukrainian triumph" (I.e. Ukrainian victory) at one of my edits[220] and talk page.[221]

In the most recent response, this user replied: "...as a result I do not think that the Ukrainians lost, but I still think it is better to stay, as I said earlier, and I saw that you even used it in your articles Crimean Campaigns (1668)". Contradictory to everything I mentioned above with persistently trying to remove "Ukrainian victory" from result or add additional results in the infobox, which this user even done 10 minutes before responding to me with this message on the talk page.[222] Also, I didn't insisted on keeping results like these anywhere, and in the article he brought up these results were restored by another user.[223]

Last month, I reported this user for WP:NPA.[224] This user was blocked for disruptive editing and made promises not to break rules again.[225] In general, plenty of warnings related to disruptive editing.[226][227] StephanSnow (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised that WP:HID wasn't applied the first time. Lessons weren't learned, it would seem. Maybe at TBan would be the best course of action... King Lobclaw (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Just saw this. I don't think the constant reverting by him is good, but I don't think your point is either. He is right in saying that you shouldn't have changed the result, after all, it shouldn't be based on amount of votes, as per WP:MEAT. And you do seem to have randomly ended discussion and ignored statements for whatever reason? I'm sorry, but this personally seems ignorant to me for no reason. I get Historyk.ok has been rude in the past (which is why he got a previous ban), but this seems far too forceful. Setergh (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to report this here if Historyk.ok didn't ignore his final warning (continuing reverting) and responded to it inappropriately by calling me a liar.[228] (at least without involving Ukrainian Jews this time)

Our previous discussions also "randomly ended" and "based on the number of votes",[229][230] except no one reverted my changes so it was obvious the discussion ended, and should've been obvious to Historyk.ok after I reverted his change that this wasn't an agreed change, instead of reverting back to how he wants to be after his last warning and accusing me of lying.[231] The result Historyk.ok put wasn't the consensus that for some reason wasn't clear to this user even after I reverted this user's other edit.[232] The change Historyk.ok put doesn't even make sense, why don't 1 and 2 also have the result as "See Aftermath" despite only last attack & siege ending in victory for their respective sides there? You also didn't have a problem with agreeing that the result is determined by how the last attack/siege ended in the proposed "Sieges of Bar" article alongside Historyk.ok.[233]

Also, you mentioned WP:MEAT. You didn't say this is the case of meat puppetry, but I will address this preemptively since that's a serious allegation. All the users I tagged were the ones I interacted with at some point which weren't all in agreement, my first interaction with Dushnilkin was him tagging me over an issue with result of another article I put.[234] There's no guarantee that any of the users I tag are going to agree with the points I make, nor I ever asked them to do so. In the case of Siege of Bar (1648) discussion, they agreed with your and Historyk.ok's points. As I already mentioned in the conversation,[235] users I remember being in our discussions haven't edited on Wikipedia for a while[236][237] (Rxsxuis edited recently, but didn't respond to a tag) so they likely wouldn't have responded, so I pinged Grechkovsky who I remember edited my articles and was recently active. Of course, these people are interested in similar topics as me, that's why they edited my articles at some point and why I think they're appropriate to ping to these kinds of discussions, since they would be the most likely to respond. StephanSnow (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Historyk.ok shouldn't have continued the fighting. And I suppose I get what you mean, although the way I handle things and the guidelines I learn about does change overtime.

As for your debunking of WP:MEAT, I have no clue why you did this as nobody accused you of such a thing. Setergh (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I did not ignore the source you provided; I even explained why that source has a different significance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279097217 So claiming otherwise is nonsense. Secondly, the user completely ignored other messages from another user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279410362

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279402699 When they were asked questions by another user, they completely ignored them and did not respond. Additionally, there was another user who supported changing the outcome, which this user did not mention.

Thirdly, the user ignored what I wrote on the discussion page. They did not provide any response; instead, they tagged other people who had nothing to do with the discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279263931

And fourth, I told the user that I did not see how my changes violated the rules. Instead of explaining how my edits broke the rules, they gave me a warning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1278902692 Historyk.ok (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

At the root of this discussion is a content dispute about which side "won" this battle. I have no idea about that, but I know that having such an infobox parameter leads to a lot of bad blood between editors. Battles in modern wars do not usually have an undisputed winner - it depends what timeframe you use to assess it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it's true Historyk.ok (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Who won isn't logically disputable in this case.

At one of our discussions, it was proposed to rename Siege of Bar (1648) article to "Sieges of Bar" where the first siege ended with Cossack victory and second with Polish-Lithuanian victory, but overall result would be Polish-Lithuanian victory since that was the result of last siege. Most users supported it, including Historyk.ok[238] (discussion ended differently, but that's unrelated to the topic).

Same thing applies to Battles of Nabróż, result of the last attack is the logical result which most people in the discussion also supported. Historyk.ok merely doesn't like the result on specifically this article, repeatedly disrupting it in process (which is why I report this here).

In this case I think there could still be a note in the form of {{efn| cited at Battles of Nabróż to result with outcomes of different attacks like it was also proposed at the discussion of Siege of Bar (1648),[239] another user in our discussion,[240] and it would appeal to MOS:VICTORY, but it shouldn't undermine the overall result.

I wouldn't have had to report Historyk.ok for WP:DE in here if this user wasn't ignoring warnings and continuing to put the changes this user thinks are correct to the point of WP:EW. StephanSnow (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the source by changing the result to how you want it to be. You know this. You know the logical result is the result of the last attack, you agreed to this being the result in previous such discussion.[241]

2. "Completely ignored another user", I pinged other users to get their thoughts since the conversation with you and Setergh stalled, with only Dushnilkin agreeing with me on how the article should look (2:2) and Rxsxuis not responding. Setergh responded with the same opinion that they held previously to which I responded. Later, it was 3:2 in favour of the result you constantly revert on the article. 2/5 people disagreeing with this result doesn't give you consensus, I mentioned people agreeing with this result (majority in the discussion) which you repeatedly revert. The "See Aftermath" you put in result is your invention that wasn't even mentioned at the talk page. You know from previous discussions that majority opinion decides more on how the article should look in this case.[242][243]

3. I responded to you previously and later pinged other users to help resolve dispute when our opinions were unlikely to change. Something we done many times in previous discussions.[244][245]

4. I explained why I gave a warning and you were also explained the problem with your edits by another user.

Also, I fail to see how any of this is supposed to justify your WP:EW behaviour in the article which is clearly disruptive. Your explanations such as "Per consensus at the talk page." for reverting don't even make sense and you were asked before to refrain from further edits since there is a discussion. Changes I made were based on majority opinion at the talk page that you constantly reverted despite being asked not to. You should know how this works from previous discussion like this.[246] StephanSnow (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

1. I did not ignore any source, and I even explained to you what problem I have with that source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279097217

2. Well, yes, it was the majority vote, but still—was "See Aftermath" my invention, as you described it? I doubt it, because Setergh had doubts about stating the outcome as either a Ukrainian or Polish victory. So, when I noticed that you ignored two of Setergh's responses, I decided to change it in line with his reasoning.

3. Well, you didn’t respond to my second reply, so I assumed you just ignored me.

4. I refrained from further edits because, as I mentioned, you ignored another response from Setergh. I specifically waited until you were active to make sure you had actually seen what he wrote. When I saw that you didn’t reply, I concluded that you had no problem with changing the result. Do you understand now? Also, I want to remind you that you had already used this in your articles, such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zahoriv_Monastery, and you only removed it when you suddenly didn’t like what was in the Battles of Nabróż article. Historyk.ok (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Author in his 1999 book describes these battles in detail, in his 2022 book he summarizes all the fighting in a nutshell by saying it ended in a Ukrainian victory. He referred to the last attack, but the result of last attack is the logical result which was already mentioned by another user,[247] you didn't dispute this in another discussion which I already mentioned,[248] and the fact that the author in his 2022 book uses the result of last attack to summarize how the fighting ended only confirms what have already been told about result of last attack being the logical result. You attempt to make it look ambiguous, when it really isn't, you clearly only have a problem with it in this article specifically.

2. So, how was I liar than for making changes based on majority opinion? No one in the conversation suggested putting the result as "See Aftermath". Declaring neither said won doesn't even make sense with the points I mentioned above. By your logic, 1 and 2 articles should also have "See Aftermath" result since only the last attack and siege ended in victories for their respective sides.

3. I changed the topic name to "Result and Losses" as you suggested[249][250] then pinged other users to give their opinion after you said "For now I will leave the result you added until the discussion consensus...".[251] I didn't "ignore" you. Pinging other users to give their opinion was the normal process we had in previous discussions.

4. Except I reverted your edit, so it was clear there was a problem and that wasn't a consensus as you previously claimed.[252] Despite this, you reverted it back to how you want it to be and accused me of lying.[253] Setergh expressed same opinion he did before to which I replied,[254] but also said it can be changed to Ukrainian victory if the source directly says May fighting ended in a Ukrainian victory "If your source directly says "may fighting ended in a Ukrainian victory", then put the result as a Ukrainian victory, although I understood it as only the third clash was a Ukrainian victory." and it does, by the way, ""May saw heavy fighting between the Home Army and UPA over Nabroż, which ended in a Ukrainian triumph."". Problem was that you attempted to interpret it differently referring to the author's 1999 book talking about these attacks in more detail, but where does the author say the fighting ended "inconclusively" or that "neither side can claim victory", while I gave a source from same author supporting Ukrainian victory narrative. As I already mentioned, you only had a problem with basing the overall result on last attack (which is the logical result) only in here, not in previous discussion.[255] Setergh didn't dispute it there either.[256] So, why is only basing the result on last attack is only controversial here but wasn't in proposed "Sieges of Bar" conversation? Dushnilkin was consistent with that the result should be based on the last attack/siege.[257][258] For Zahoriv Monastery, I removed it after Dushnilkin explained this box doesn't appeal to MOS:VICTORY so I corrected the article.[259] StephanSnow (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

1. I wanted to prove to you that I did not ignore your source, and secondly, I do not think that the Ukrainians did not win the third attack. I believe that overall, they won, but I wanted to add: 1st Attack – Polish victory|2nd Attack – Polish victory|3rd Attack – Ukrainian victory" and only later did I include "See § Aftermath".

2. Apparently, we misunderstood each other. What I meant was that Setergh suggested that neither side won or had such a belief https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=127941036, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279266378. Of course, he did not say explicitly to apply "See § Aftermath", but honestly, what conclusion can be drawn from this message? And yes, the majority still voted for a particular result, but I just noticed that you did not respond to Setergh's message https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279410362 so I decided to change it. Well, that was my mistake.

3. Yes, here I have to agree with you—it was my mistake.

4. Setergh initially did not agree with calling it a Ukrainian victory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279266378)). Later, you responded to him, and then he sent another message, which you did not reply to, where he asked a question that remained unanswered https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279402699. But after a while, he wrote again and explained why he had doubts about listing the result as a Ukrainian victory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279410362. Again, you did not respond, despite being active, since Setergh's message was sent at "11:37, 8 March 2025", and you were still active later that day at "23:52, 8 March 2025" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_Khmelnytsky_Uprising&diff=prev&oldid=1279506370. This proves that you simply ignored the questions he asked you. As for Zahoriv Monastery, yes, he even mentioned that you later removed it. And regarding the Siege of Bar, that was some time ago, and back then, I had a slightly different opinion on the matter. Historyk.ok (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I'm content with closing the discussion since you admitted your mistakes (though that's the process only experienced editors and administrators that weren't previously involved in discussion can do here).

Admittedly, I was quite pissed when you responded to me by calling me a liar. Responding the following way[260] and reverting the edit with the same response[261] (after being given final warning) simply isn't the best course of action. That's combined with previous cases where you argued for opposite of these same changes ([262] and [263]) so that just seemed incredibly hypocritic.

As for "ignoring" Setergh, to me this didn't look like a message that required a response since it was the same point that he made previously to which I responded before, so I thought there was no need to respond again since my opinion hasn't changed. StephanSnow (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I can only thank you for the discussion. Honestly, I overreacted by calling you a liar I just let my nerves get the better of me because of that warning. But well. As for Setergh, I understand that you didn't want to hold back, but I think it would have been better to repeat yourself and reply to him. Maybe if you had responded now, this discussion wouldn't have happened. But well, the important thing is that we both understand each other now. Historyk.ok (talk) 21:30, 12 March 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.

Rangeblock request for Kipperfield

Could someone block Special:Contributions/51.7.17.0/24? It is being used by an LTA to make mass changes to date formats. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Could Special:Contributions/143.117.156.0/24 be included as well? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The edits I looked into look fine. Scientology in the United Kingdom has a "Use dmy dates" template at the top, and the user followed it. This edit is indeed consistent with the birth and death dates on the lead sentence and other dates throughout the article, as is this, this and this edit. From what I can see, before the user's edits, the pages were inconsistent with the date format, and the IP fixed it, so I don't see the problem.

Unlike that LTA, the IP didn't change every single date format on the article in the edits I've seen. (There are edits like this that change every date on the prose of a stub, but that is likely done to match the date format used on the infobox.) ObserveOwl (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If you dig through the contributions, you might find a few edits where the policy is in Kipperfield's favor. The problem is that he is changing the dates indiscriminately and that he is evading previous blocks. I don't see any difference in the behavior of Special:Contributions/51.7.17.0/24 and Kipperfield. In fact, Aoidh has already blocked Special:Contributions/51.7.17.9 for block evasion. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. If they're block evading, they're block evading. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that the edits on this range for the past year (or more) are all from this LTA, I've blocked the range for one year for block evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you look at the other range: 143.117.156.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Also blocked for a year, no collateral on that range. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Found one more: 46.208.233.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Also: Half the Harold angles swing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Normal rookie

Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Anwar Ibrahim cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor continually reverts my changes (IP 183 and 118) on Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, without providing adequate reason. This behavior clearly falls under the issues listed in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. During our discussion here, instead of addressing my concerns, the editor dismissed my question and focused on my status as an editor, attempting to assert authority (pulling rank).

This behavior also extends to the article Anwar Ibrahim, where my changes, for which I clearly provided an explanation, were reverted here without an explanation. 183.171.113.29 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Normal rookie, the statements "no need change on the article, is perfect" (diff) and "<...> Stop editing on Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, no need improvement" (diff) and then reverting 9 of the IP user's edits in a row with no explanation, including at least one edit which appears to be clearly in good faith and has improvements (diff), is not compatible with possessing editing privileges. This behavior is concerning coming from an editor with your tenure (3 years) and edit count (19k). (Non-administrator comment) —Sirdog (talk)

I know, but the user continue editing the article, without stop. Normal rookie (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The IP is allowed to edit the article, as they explained to you. I'll note for any administrator reviewing this that they were given a warning back in 2023 for WP:OWN in relation to Anwar Ibrahim cabinet which was not acknowledged (diff). Rookie's talk page is littered with warnings within the 30 to 45 day mark about various things, such as inappropriate WP:RFPP requests, a reversion without explanation until pressed for them, and cut-and-paste moving. This may also be a WP:CIR issue. —Sirdog (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, they are absolutely allowed to edit the article. You do not get to declare it "perfect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit warring, Bludgeoning, POV pushing, personal attacks, and incivility from Moxy

Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behavior while editing the United States article is marked by disruptive editing trying to erase any mentions of Indian country from the United States. User frequently removed multiple references to Indian country, Indian tribal governments, and Indian reservations despite the talk page consensus. During this time the user also removed multiple images related to the 1969 Moon landing and a map of all Indian reservations. A talk page consensus was reached. Still, this user continued edit warring with multiple other users against the consensus on the talk page [264] [265] [266] [267]. Said user engaged in bludgeoning, POV pushing, and multiple personal attacks on the talk page and in the edit summaries. The user did not cite any supporting facts and only engaged in disruptive discussion, although there was plenty of constructive discussion held by other editors.

User repeated and escalated personal attacks after being warned not engage in personal attacks. [268] [269] [270] User reverted a simple accurate sentence about 49 continental US states and Hawaii that was being discussed on the talk page. Their only explanation for this edit warring was a personal attack with the false allegation that there was no discussion about Alaska on the talk page.[271] User then refused to engage in the substance behind their reversion, preferring to make another personal attack. [272] This is a clear violation of the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle — there is no Bold, Revert, Disruptive Edits and Personal Attacks Cycle that is accepted in Wikipedia. --Plumber (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit weird that there are several people on the talk-page telling you they disagree with your edits and no one saying they agree with your edits, isn't it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User edits are getting disruptive at USA article ....resulting in many editors having to clean up and revert changes WP:BOOMERANG]

Lets begin with lead and "Mention of Indian reservations and tribes in first paragraph of lead"

• Original addition Feb17th --Plumber
• Reverted same day - not by me
• Added back the Feb 18th -Plumber
• removed again March 5th again not by me
• Re added again Mar12th with zero attempt by Plumber to start a conversation.

Talk:United States#Mention of Indian reservations and tribes in first paragraph of lead (talk start 12th by thrid party with no support)

• Removed same day by me!
• rRstored same Plumber
• removed by me same day by me i think
• added back same day Plumber
• removed again not by me.

Map and fake consensus Map added here ....map removed not by me map restored this edit also claims a consensus dispite what is being said at Talk:United States#Alaska in the lead. Moxy🍁 01:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks. On a side note, "continental United States" and "contiguous United States" are not the same thing, and Alaska is not located south of Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

As seen by page history many trying to keep up with edits that are simply wrong. Moxy🍁 01:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This complaint is unfounded and should be closed by an administrator. There is nothing actionable here. The original complainant should also look at a map of North America again if they think Alaska is somehow south of Canada or in any way part of the contiguous United States. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This complaint is entirely unfounded. The "facts" and arguments presented here are so misleading and inaccurate that it takes an awful lot of assuming good faith to believe that Plumber might merely be confused and wrong rather than intentionally dishonest. CAVincent (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to invoke any boomerang, but just wanted to stress further that Plumber's editing style seems to be one that will attract concerns and challenges like those from Moxy. Edit sprees like this to Jesus are not inherently wrong, but they are imposing a lot on one of our most mature articles—I am being generous, given some of the material they altered has comments saying to seek consensus for changes first, which they did not. (As stated there, I found all of their edits to be either unnecessary or unhelpful.) If one is to be this cavalier, they have to be able to handle being swatted down with some frequency.

That's not to say their editing is inherently disruptive, but if one does not handle routine criticism and being on the "losing side" of disputes or the "outside looking in" well, it will become disruptive very quickly. Remsense ‥ 论 09:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Talsta long pattern of questionable editing

Talsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is a long pattern of questionable editing that IMO warrants a closer look. Random vandalism here. Has had a number of final warnings over the years. Has limited engagement with their talk page. DaHuzyBru (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For someone with over 7000 edits, that’s worryingly blatant vandalism. I would definitely like to see a response here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

They are apparently ignoring this thread... Anyway, only 6% of their edits have an edit summary, which is extremely low. A temporary block from articles is warranted until they explain the edits. 84.245.120.101 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I was planning on doing so-- done now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

GlobalMindSphere seemingly unaware disruption

I don't know how better to deal with this—GlobalMindSphere (talk · contribs) is making slow-drip, deleterious copyedits to History of science despite my reversions and talk page messages. I don't want them blocked, but I seemingly don't have a way of stopping their disruption and it seems they won't stop until they've gotten to the bottom of the article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what he's doing. The first two edits that you reversed just look like he put in paragraph breaks. (Also, it would probably be easier on your nerves if you just let him finish and then revert.) If he's not going back to look, he probably has no idea that you're reverting his edits.

But are his changes really disruptive? ash (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph breaks, as noted to them previous to today on their talk page, are leaving bare paragraphs lacking inline citation. Remsense ‥ 论 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Good day Remense,

I understand you have a concern regarding my paragraphing edits. As I understand paragraphing is based on discussion context, if the context changes or a new major point is introduced, a new paragraph is justified. The inline references are not based on context per se, and may be applicable in the wider context of the discussion, thus may be valid for several paragraphs.

Once new references are introduced, we may assume those will remain valid until new references are offered.

If we fail to paragraph based on context of discussion, and are more concerned about references, the paragraphs becomes tediously long and makes for very difficult reading.

I'm far from trying to be disruptive and are spending several hours working my way through an article and ensure I'm completely understanding and following the discussion, and try and represent clarity as far as I can. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The preference on Wikipedia is for inline citations, ie a citation for every sentence. In that article, the citations appear to be at the end of the paragraph (which used to be the way we referenced when I was in uni). When you insert a line break, you're are inadvertently separating part of the material from the source that backs it up. I don't know anywhere on Wikipedia where one source back up multiple paragraphs - we repeat the inline citation. When people cite a single source for an article, a tag is added to the page to say that inline citations are needed. So I think he's right - your edits are inadvertently disruptive or you're too attached to your own principle. If you're going to insert paragraphs breaks for readability, you should copy the citation before you publish. But honestly, are the paragraphs really that necessary? ash (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a look at your contributions and they all seem to be "slow-drip, [pedantic] copy edits". Are you try to boost your edit count or something? ash (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you're referencing – "slow dripping" → not at all, I don't care about the number of edits.

I'm simply working on an article and once I've made a change, I save the change, and continue through the rest of the article to allow a resync incase others are also working on the article to allow everyone to stay in sync.

If this is problematic – as I can clearly understand I may have ten or more edits per article.

Calling me pedantic, I do not mind, that's my nature - something is either right or not. I however do not scrutinise someones word choice or sentence construction unless I clearly consider it to be problematic.

Most of my edits are: punctuation, paragraphing and incomplete information — i.e. using acronyms without clarity, and a reference to the acronym helps, but it must be clear from the text.

To improve my editing habits, I will limit myself to one save per subsection.

I'm looking forward to suggestions of how I can improve my contribution and avoid frustration to others. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@GlobalMindSphere: If you intend to copyedit a page with high visibility such as History of science, which has 660 people watching the page and over 12,000 monthly views, you will have better results if you copy the source text to a sandbox (with attribution) and work through making revisions at your own pace. Then, you can provide a link to your proposed version of the article on the talk page and receive input there before implementing the changes. Reconrabbit 13:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the suggestion, I will use the sandbox in the future for edits with discussions. .

Appreciated. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Pardon my asking, but are you using an LLM or AI? King Lobclaw (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems a little untoward. This editor has a fairly straightforward style of writing. Reconrabbit 14:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, some of their comments are very LLM ("I'm looking forward to suggestions of how I can improve my contribution and avoid frustration to others") though I'm not convinced they are purely using AI. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of LLMs try to adopt those "academic" styles of writing. The key is usually a bunch of corpo-speak "I understand," "I look forward to" and "I will endeavor to avoid doing X in the future". Lots of flowery speech.

I don't think that's happening here, given the overuse of line breaks and some rather poor grammar in spots. It's fair to ask, but I don't see the hallmarks of an LLM here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If you've got any other insults to throw at me, I'm listening. You sound like a (Personal attack removed). Please take a break and catch some life before you choke on your own spewed insults. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the question of AI use may or may not have been called for, there weren't insults in it. This reply on the other hand was entirely uncivil at best. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a good way to catch a block for incivility. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

To be more firm: like I said on @GlobalMindSphere's talk page, it's more than a preference. The problem you think you are solving with paragraph breaks (which IMO are often still unnecessary) is much lesser than the problem you are creating by leaving bare paragraphs uncited, which are liable to being tagged as lacking citations or ultimately removed from the article, or to the status of good and featured articles being called into question.

I don't know why you've asked what you can do to improve, given I already made this clear: you need to either ensure material retains proper inline citation, or you need to stop making these copyedits. You also need to change whatever you are doing so you can adequately respond to other editors trying to communicate with you about your edits. Remsense ‥ 论 18:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Have heard you load and clear and I'm fully aware of the greater implications, and I'm taking this discussion very seriously. You've made your point and I now consider this discussion closed. Will revert with specific questions if I have any other issues that needs clarity. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

You also need to go back over the pages you’ve previously edited and make sure you’ve copied the citations. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

GlobalMindSphere is still inserting breaks where they don't need to be. This example splits one line into two inside a wikilink making it much more awkward, simply to shrink the column size.

At this point, I think GMS needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The are not line breaks, please read my change notice —

→Techniques and Tools: & →Institutions, organizations, and societies: – <br/> inserted to limit group display width requirement GlobalMindSphere (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at HTML element § br? Remsense ‥ 论 18:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

These <br/> was applied to the two Template column groups to achieve

i.s.o:

Techniques and tools

&

Institutions, organizations, and societies

to the following:

Techniques <br/> and tools

&

Institutions, <br/> orgranizations, <br/> and societies.

Especially for the last group this drastically reduce the width required for the display for the group header allowing more room for the display of the group lists. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Please also take note that the person responsible for this template expressed his appreciation for the change:

‪GeogSage‬ thanked you for your edit on ‪Template:Geography topics‬.

/* Techniques and Tools */ & /* Institutions, organizations, and societies */ – <br/> inserted to limit group display width requirement

‪GeogSage‬‪Geography topics‬ GlobalMindSphere (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

We are not confused as to why you think your edits are good ideas. That is not what HandThatFeeds said they were concerned about above. What you think you are trying to accomplish is not remotely mysterious to us. This is not snark: you are already quite good at telling us that.

Frankly, the emerging pattern here seems to be your often appearing oblivious to any secondary issues your edits may create, if you are not yourself interested in that dimension of things (say, ensuring verifiability or avoiding bizarre links). It does not seem that you have really read or skimmed the policies and guidelines that you have been linked so far, because that would tend to garner a more holistic sense of what to watch out for, to avoid unwittingly creating certain classes of issues down the line. Remsense ‥ 论 18:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The first change only effect the display of the link ->

| group2 = Techniques

and tools

the second change has no links attached ->

| group3 = Institutions,
organizations,
and societies GlobalMindSphere (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

And I'm saying those changes were not helpful and part of the pattern of you inserting these breaks where they are unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Paradygmaty

Paradygmaty (talk · contribs) was nearly indefinitely blocked in January for incivility and disruptive page moves. They avoided it by requesting a two-week block and the report was later archived without action. They came back a few days ago and immediately started with the same disruptive behaviour that nearly led to the block: controversially mass-moving pages without discussion. See Kazimierz Górski Stadium, for example, where they essentially reverted last year's RM discussion. Their moves of Stadion Miejski (Nisko), Stadion Miejski (Kielce), Stadion Miejski (Łomża), Stadion Miejski (Starachowice), and Stadion Miejski (Gdynia) were all clearly controversial, either because there was a previous RM that decided on a title or their moves had previously been reverted. Then, today, they requested that User:FromCzech's move of Kramolin, Bulgaria be reverted for seemingly no reason — Paradygmaty had never edited the page before. Presumably, this is a continuation of the retaliatory behaviour mentioned in the January report. I struggle to understand how Paradygmaty even came across the page without digging through FromCzech's contributions.

For these reasons, and because they have apparently not learned their lesson, I'm proposing a one-way ban from interacting with FromCzech and a ban on moving pages without starting a formal discussion. C F A 17:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have also noticed that @Paradygmaty seems to have trouble acting in a civil manner towards other editors. When @CFA templated them earlier this week, the response was to tell @CFA to "stop pestering them." That kind of response does not give me high hopes for continued positive interactions with other wikipedia editors. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Insanityclown1, I haven't looked at the edits that concern CFA but that edit that you point out is really not a terrible talk page response. They just sound irritated, I don't think you needed to give them a warning for that. They also have a lot more editing experience than you have. Now, I'll see if an IBan is warranted here but I'd like to hear from Paradygmaty, too, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And? Editing tenure means diddly squat when it comes to determining basic civility. Really not sure why you bother bringing that up @Liz other than to try to score some cheap points. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Liz on that talk page response. They just sounded irritated and didn't say the most uncivil thing in the world. If anything, they just dismissed the message, akin to removing warnings. Conyo14 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

On a reread, I'm inclined to agree, and will concede that point. However, my other point still stands that it is frankly pointless to bring up a person's editing tenure other than to try to score cheap points. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Insanityclown1, I have no idea you mean by "scoring cheap points" as I have no need at this point in my career here to score points. I just thought that your message on a very public noticeboard was a little holier than thou ("That kind of response does not give me high hopes") when you actually have very limited editing experience editing here. Typically editors with a lot more experience on this project help with disputes and disagreements on the main noticeboards and I think you should work on building up your own level of experience before judging others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday Paradygmaty mass nominated (in my eyes disruptively) a bunch of RMs. GiantSnowman 18:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Paradygmaty, consistency is not one of our goals. You can start a few requested moves (not nearly so many), but should not use that as an argument and you should accept the result. I haven't checked whether you have done this since the previous discussion but, if so, you should not call people who have different ideas from you vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jastrzębie-Zdrój Stadium, Talk:Kazimierz Górski Stadium, not how you should act at RM. I checked a few others and that exact same attitude and arguments even are across all of the ones currently open. The mass nomination of pages like GiantSnowman noted is disruptive and how they're acting at these RMs makes me think that they need to spend time elsewhere. I checked the page histories of all these articles too and noticed super messy histories; self-reverting page moves from a year ago, completely ignoring past move rationales and discussions, and outright reverting long-stable titles. I think we have some form of infrequent but long-running series of disruptive page moves here that happens in bursts of edits. A topic ban on page moves and RM might be necessary, especially considering the last AN. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Our paths haven't crossed since the last AN, and yet he's clearly stalking me again, and wants to revert my work again for no reason. Based on his history and current RMs, I'm all for him not being allowed to participate in any way in RMs, whether it's proposing them or discussing them. FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I must admit that I am genuinely shocked to find myself at the center of yet another public discussion of this nature. I am even more shocked that, rather than engaging in direct dialogue with me, some editors have opted for what feels like a public lynching—one in which my good faith efforts are mischaracterized, and my direct messages are seemingly ignored.

I am deeply surprised that when I privately reached out to GiantSnowman in an attempt to discuss these matters constructively, that conversation was instead escalated to this forum. I am equally shocked that CFA has immediately resorted to accusations of vandalism—an extremely serious charge that I find unwarranted and unfair.

Let me be absolutely clear: I do not claim to be perfect, but my intention behind initiating the Requested Moves (RM) discussions was precisely to clarify a persistent inconsistency in the naming conventions of Polish stadiums. I sincerely believed that this was the most transparent and structured way to address the issue. If there is a more effective approach to resolving these long-standing inconsistencies, I am more than willing to hear it.

I fully acknowledge that it is always easier to criticize than to propose a workable solution. If the community is invested in achieving a consistent and well-defined naming convention for Polish stadiums, I would genuinely appreciate guidance on how best to formalize and standardize this process. My goal has never been to disrupt but rather to seek clarity in a way that benefits Wikipedia as a whole.

As for the claims regarding FromCzech, I find them puzzling. I hold no particular opinion about this user, nor do I feel that there is any lingering tension between us. In fact, I previously extended an apology, which went unanswered. I find it difficult to understand why this is now being framed as an issue of me "stalking" them.

To summarize:

• My actions have been motivated by a genuine desire to standardize an inconsistent naming policy.

• I am more than open to discussing a better way to conduct these discussions.

• I categorically reject accusations of personal animosity or bad faith—my interactions have always been focused on content, not individuals.

• I would appreciate a more collaborative approach rather than public condemnation.

I remain open to feedback and constructive suggestions on how best to move forward in a way that benefits the project. Paradygmaty (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero score: 100%. C F A 14:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"I had hoped for a constructive discussion, but dismissing my response this way feels more like an attempt to discredit me rather than address the issue. If there are substantive arguments, I’m open to hearing them Paradygmaty (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You didn't address anything — you just pasted the discussion into ChatGPT, and it gave you a rather vague response. No one has accused anyone of vandalism. How did you come across Kramolin, Bulgaria if it wasn't by digging through FromCzech's contributions? C F A 16:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@CFA, I reached out to you directly in good faith, yet you chose to ignore it. Instead of engaging constructively, you seem more focused on proving a point at any cost. This will be my final statement on the matter—I leave it to the community to judge. What matters most to me is that this discussion has brought attention to inconsistencies in stadium naming conventions, and I hope that leads to a productive dialogue moving forward. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, CFA is doing their due diligence with accordance to the disruptive nature you've presented over the past two - three days (possibly more). Conyo14 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

final  Comment: I reached out to both CFA and GiantSnowman on their talk pages in good faith to clarify the stadium naming conventions, but instead of a constructive discussion, I was met with hostility and accusations. CFA dismissed my messages, accused me of using AI-generated responses, and shifted the narrative to personal attacks, while GiantSnowman deflected responsibility. I feel like I was treated as an adversary rather than a contributor, which was disheartening. Paradygmaty (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing was hostile in CFA's interactions with you. They provided you with a way forward, but frankly it seems more like you don't want to listen to what other people are telling you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing was hostile on my talk page post. I suggested they start a central discussion at a relevant WikiProject, and they flounced off. GiantSnowman 21:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that in your discussion, the user seems to be listening to your advice so the "final" comment above is quite the 180. Conyo14 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Quite - when I wouldn't tell them exactly what to do (because I have no skin in the game on the issue), they said "I'll proceed with the broader discussion as suggested". When I then repeated a suggestion of a centralised topic, they said "I'll step back and leave the chaos to you all". Bizarre! GiantSnowman 21:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Propose a 30 day block I think that @Paradygmaty has a lot to consider, and a temporary block might be helpful to facilitate that. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

In response to the above comments: I have consistently tried to engage in constructive dialogue on CFA's and GiantSnowman's talk pages. However, in his most recent comment, GiantSnowman manipulated the situation. If you visit his talk page, you'll see that I thanked him for his information, expressed my frustration over the lack of good faith, and wished him good luck. I explicitly stated I was stepping back due to the lack of productive engagement, not out of defiance or avoidance. Despite this, he portrayed my attempt to leave the situation as an attempt to "flounce off," which is an aggressive attempt to undermine me. Over the past few days, I've been reaching out in good faith, writing to others (like @GiantSnowman, like @CFA) in an effort to engage in a productive discussion, and perhaps even asking for guidance on how to proceed. Does this not follow the principle of assuming good faith? In contrast, instead of attempting to understand my intentions, Insanityclown has been poking at me and now is suggesting a 30-day block. This is not how collaboration works on Wikipedia, and it reflects a clear misunderstanding of my actions. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want good faith, don't give other's reasons to assume otherwise about you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m open to any suggestions you have on how I can improve my approach. Let's try to work together to resolve this in a positive way. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

well for one, apologizing to fromczech for hauling him to the starchamber/ANI for no great reason would be a good start. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll do whatever you suggest, just let me know what exactly you think I should do to resolve this. I’m open to your guidance, as long as we can keep things constructive Paradygmaty (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologise to the editors involved (and mean it), give your proposal re:renaming serious thought, and then go to WT:FOOTBALL as suggested. GiantSnowman 08:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I’m open to apologizing - just let me know which editors specifically and what you believe would be an appropriate way to phrase it. As for WT:FOOTBALL, I’ll take it into consideration and address it in due time. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh my word, are you serious?! If you do not know how to apologise or who to apologise to then you should not be part of this community. GiantSnowman 09:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're responding to ChatGPT generated responses, but I could be wrong. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In which case, block them until they speak as a human. GiantSnowman 10:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Can you answer me? I will 100% follow your instructions. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Then start writing your own replies. C F A 13:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I write it by myself. <3 Paradygmaty (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Then you're either being willfully obtuse, or incapable of comprehending what the problem is. Either one is blockable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am an experienced user (A user with 2,364 edits. Account created on 7 April 2023.) who has collaborated on numerous occasions. The fact that I am seeking to clarify certain issues and now fully place myself at the community’s disposal - ready to follow any good-faith guidance on how to proceed - demonstrates that if there is genuine willingness to resolve this = we will find a solution. Paradygmaty (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not how normal people speak. GiantSnowman 20:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to deny the fact that there is an issue here, but I strongly suspect that Paradygmaty is not a native english speaker, and that might contribute to some of the problem. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been given good-faith guidance on how to proceed. Multiple times. Each time you say "just let me know" "I'm open to any suggestions" etc. in response to the suggestions. And below you say Okay, you are right to Liz - before continuing here exactly as you have been - with responses that are very blatantly either LLM-generated or indistinguishable from such.

Given the WP:IDHT going on here consistently, I've blocked Paradygmaty indef. If they actually start understanding and properly communicating and agree to avoid the behavior that led to this in the future, any admin can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we can close this one, but I did take the time to provide a final bit of advice to Paradygmaty and suggested that they read the entirety of the thread very thoroughly as well as WP:IDHT before making an appeal to be unblocked. I think they do have the capacity to edit constructively, but they keep getting in front of themself. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Paradygmaty, you went to CFA's and GiantSnowman's talk pages with an idea about a renaming project you wanted to undertake. They responded to you but it seems like you wanted them to take the lead here and do the follow-up work for you or with you while they were not interersted in pursuing this renaming project at all. Ever since then, you have over and over again expressed your disappointment that these editors didn't volunteer to help you with this. They didn't personally attack you like you claim, they were just uninterested in what you wanted to work on. They gave you advice which you haven't taken (going to discuss this at FOOTBALL) and now you've ended up here at ANI.

I think if you want to continue to edit on this project, you have to drop the stick, get over the fact that neither editor responded as you wanted them to and pursue getting a consensus for these renaming changes you think would be an improvement. But get over CFA and GiantSnowman's lukewarm responses because trying to argue that they did something wrong will only get you deeper and deeper in trouble. Focus on the work, not other editors. Other editors may very well not be excited by what excites you and you just have to accept that and move on. And GiantSnowman did give you advice, you should take it instead of beating this dead horse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you are right. Thanks. Paradygmaty (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Anna Drozdowska - possible conflict of interest

The page on Anna Drozdowska was nominated for deletion. I attempted to improve it, but the article's creator User:Module100 reintroduced the same issues. I manually reverted the new changes and, thinking there might be a language barrier, moved to the talk page.

Ignoring a few digs they've taken at my grammar and the comment "little bit silly, are you having bad day?", I've noticed hints of article ownership in their responses.

Checking their contributions, this is the only page they’ve ever created or edited. When I asked about a conflict of interest, they replied the subject is a "friend of a friend." While that alone might not be a conflict of interest, their singular focus on this page is concerning.

I referred them to COI guidelines and explained that the article should have gone through Articles for Creation process, to which they responded:

I will read your message carefully and I am going to chat with other editors , cause I found you a little bit of too much… I want you to stop writing or editing my article s and I am going chat with other editors, leave me for a now if you can.

While I suspect the page on Anna Drozdowska will be deleted, I don't feel this user will understand why or is taking on board the comments about article ownership or conflict of interest, and depending on what they mean by "conferring with other editors", this could also raise another issue.

Can I escalate this issue please? ash (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ashlar, Bbb23, Joyous!, and Wikishovel: I must admit this first thought here was "OK Ash, as you wrote, this page is likely to be deleted, Module100 is a single purpose account, and when and if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Drozdowska has a delete outcome, the problem will solve itself, no reason to ask for escalation, just wait it out". That first thought was wrong. Please see User talk:Anna Ania Drozdowska - this may well indicate something that does require escalation. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Aye, the responses on that talk page are curiously similar to, and just as incomprehensible as, those of Module100. Ravenswing 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

While I think a larger action is necessary per @Shirt58 & @Ravenswing's comments, I have taken the interim step of partially blocking Module100 from the article and AfD to allow consensus to develop, I will leave a note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 21:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think Topas510 might be a sock of Module100. I went ahead and opened up a sockpuppet investigation on the two. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Module100 and several other accounts blocked as socks by 0xDeadbeef. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:RingoFreakus clearly WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

They have triggered the edit filter multiple times trying to vandalize and have received 3 warnings from other users for vandalism that got through. Now hes gone ahead and posted a talk page message to another user for no reason. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and its amazing he hasn't been blocked yet. DotesConks (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

DotesConks, admins usually don't know about vandals until they are reported at noticeboards like you have done. That's how we find out about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

that’s not very nice i’m just trying to source truthful information RingoFreakus (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh and a violation of edit-warring/3RR rule as well. DotesConks (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I've been patrolling the abuse log today and I've seen this person a few times, I'll go ahead and provide diffs here: 1, 2, 3. Looks like in-joke vandalism to me. Support block as NOTHERE unless this immediately turns out to be a one-off as some similar incidents do. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 00:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

shhhhhh RingoFreakus (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@DotesConks, I've indefinitely blocked this user. They had already been reported to WP:AIV; in the future, it might be better for that report to go through than go to ANI. Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees Understood, will do next time. Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 00:59, 16 March 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.

Netitas06

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.

---

Netitas06 (talk · contribs) has never posted on a talk page or used an edit summary other than "Little fix", "small changes" etc. The "little fixes" are almost exclusively fiddling with terminology on and adding original research to articles about Latin American race, class, and ethnic groups.[273][274][275] They've already received a final warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie to no avail. Remsense ‥ 论 21:01, 15 March 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 and incorrect editing by Polygnotus on Vegan Camp Out

Disruptive and incorrect editing by Polygnotus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article contains a lot of half truths or total mistruths. I have tried offering advice to make the page better and more informative but user keeps disrupting the editing. User also admits they don't care either way if the page is accurate or inaccurate which goes against the mission statement of Wikipedia -- unsigned

• This is a retaliatory post for a thread opened recently elsewhere on this page. Archiving. EEng 15:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Fahrenheit666 on Fort Moore

Fahrenheit666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some necessary background for users not acquainted with the Fort Moore/Fort Benning dispute: The fort was originally named Fort Benning, after a Confederate general. After the George Floyd protests resulted in a change of names in places named after Confederates, Biden changed the fort's name to Fort Moore, after Hal Moore. On March 3, 2025, Trump, as a part of his controversial name changes to "honor American [and Confederate] greatness", restored the old name of Fort Benning. Four days later, Fahrenheit666, who had never edited the article previously, initiated a move war with Swatjester. On the 8th, an RM was opened by Voorts, which Fahrenheit666 began to excessively bludgeon. While the RM was ongoing, Fahrenheit666 edit-warred numerous amounts of times over changing instances of the fort, being reverted twice by Voorts before being blocked from the article for 72 hours. However, Fahrenheit666 continued to disruptively change instances of Fort Moore in other articles to Fort Benning, en masse even after being pblocked. Considering the editor's continued edit-warring and bludgeoning, I think an AP2 ban may be in order. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The RS on all the other articles I edited say those schools are located at Fort Benning. What's disruptive about editing the articles to reflect what the sources say? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not disruptive for someone continue to mass edit other pages doing the same changes that that got them p-blocked from another page, instead of waiting for a discussion to run it's course?LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's irrelevant to the nonsense over the Fort Moore/Fort Benning article move and I don't see why it's disruptive. If all the RS say that, for example, US Army OCS is at Fort Benning, why is it disruptive to edit the wikipedia article to say US Army OCS is at Fort Benning? It's undeniably correct and I'm just not seeing any disruption. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's disruptive because it's been made clear that your change to the title was contested. You are going to other articles and making the exact same contested chnage, only to the text of articles. It's also essentially WP:WIKILAWYERINGLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So reliable sources don't actually matter? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What matters is that you are gaming the system. Partial blocks for disrupting an article generally indicate that you probably shouldn't be editing similar articles in the exact same way. Your response is also a complete straw man, as LakesideMiners never even mentioned reliable sources. As an aside, you are bludgeoning beyond belief right now, in this very discussion that is partially about your bludgeoning! I have to say that that does your viewpoint no favors. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not allowed to make any argument in favour of my edits? OK... Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You've made more than your fair share of arguments in favor of your edits. We call that bludgeoning a conversation and you were expressly asked by voorts not to do it. If you're unwilling to see that, in the face of the sheer number of people trying to caution you about your behavior, then a TBAN is absolutely in order here.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why can't you just wait until the move discussion has finished? Short-termism is disruptive here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand what the move discussion's for. The name has changed. Why is Wikipedia arguing about whether its article about Fort Benning should say Fort Benning at the top? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Defense.gov says: "The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty." as of less than a week ago, which you're well aware as we've gone over this time and time again. Your statement that the name has changed is a disputed assertion that the DOD does not agree with, not a statement of fact; and you know that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That isn't an argument based on Wikipedia policy. As a reminder, WP:NAMECHANGES says "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The name used in RS has changed. There are articles this week about equipment upgrades at Fort Benning, shooting competitions at Fort Benning, drone events at Fort Benning. Every article mentioning Fort Moore since March 3 has been about how it's called Fort Benning now. The name's changed. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, your naked assertion that the name has changed, when there is a direct quote from a reliable source (and not just any reliable source, but the actually relevant authority here) stating that the name hasn't yet changed, is not compelling. If you're suddenly going to claim that is somehow not a policy based argument, we definitely should revisit the numerous times you made direct assertions to said quotes on Talk:Fort Moore. But by all means, do continue to make my point about whether you're arguing in good faith here for me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

But there is not a direct quote from a reliable source stating that the name hasn't yet changed, is there? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not engaging with that. You can scroll up, I literally quoted it. You can disagree with the position, but you cannot argue in good faith that you don't understand why there's a discussion happening. I've said my piece here, and not going to continue to bang my head against a wall in the face of WP:IDHT and WP:TE. Support TBAN from AP92 at a minimum. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You quoted a source that does not say what you are claiming it says. Just like Fort Benning's announcement that the name change is "effective immediately" does not go on, as you claim it does, to say "actually it isn't". Perhaps it's you that needs to have another read at WP:IDHT - and perhaps WP:SYNTH, too. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, consensus certainly isn't built by aggressively refusing to move the article to match the actual name of the post.[276] along with everything above, an AP2 TBAN seems apt. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a very specific recommendation. You've clearly picked up a lot in your six weeks on Wikipedia. Well done. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I, who have been here for six years, with over 20,000 edits, and who administrators have deemed competent enough to become a pending changes reviewer, agree completely with REAL MOUSE IRL, and remind you to not WP:BITE the newcomers. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I would never dream of biting a newcomer. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fahrenheit666, You've clearly picked up a lot in your six weeks on Wikipedia. Well done is biting a newcomer. Please don't do it again, and especially at a noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the same "specific" recommendation as the original post. Also the appeal to tenure would go over a lot better had you picked up how consensus works in your 9 years on Wikipedia. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really confused by how consensus works. I always thought it meant discussing things until we find a position everyone can agree on. But if I try to have a discussion I get accused of WP:BLUDGEONING. If I produce sources showing that the name has changed I get told Wikipedia policy doesn't rely on sources. If I point out that WP:NAMECHANGES explicitly DOES rely on sources, i get told a (misrepresented) source trumps Wikipedia policy. So no, you're right; I don't have a clue how consensus works here. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"a position everyone can agree on" an aside but that's wrong, consensus doesn't require that everyone agree. From WP:CONSENSUS "The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group", so sometimes you just have to accept that others don't agree and move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chicdat,@Fahrenheit666,@LakesideMiners,@REAL MOUSE IRL,@Swatjester and anyone else: immediately stop arguing content here. We don't care. What we care about is behavior. It looks like this is an issue of edit-warring and bludgeoning by Fahrenheit666, which are behavioral issues? F666, I'll give you an opportunity to explain why you don't think what you were doing was edit-warring and bludgeoning. I don't want to hear anything about why you feel you're right on content. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. I accept that I was in the wrong over the edits to the Fort Moore article that got me the 72-hour ban. I don't accept the arguments being deployed against the move for a moment, but a discussion is underway and I should have waited for that to be resolved before changing the post name in the article.

However, the reason this discussion is happening here is that a user objects to me updating other articles to reflect what the RS are saying. I do not feel that editing, for example, United States Army Airborne School to say it's at the location stated on its own website violates a ban on moving the Fort Moore article.

As for bludgeoning, it seems to me that's rather subjective. If you feel my level of engagement with the discussion is bludgeoning, I will accept that and modify my behaviour. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

To expand on that, the discussion came here because I edited several other articles, not the Fort Moore one. One user then started following me around Wikipedia, undoing my edits. I do not believe the reason they gave for undoing those edits was supported by any Wikipedia policy or by any RS, so I reverted (some of) their reverts. Once. It's my understanding that this isn't edit-warring.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, and in particular at contentious topics: if you're reverted, go to the talk page and discuss. This goes for everyone, not just you, not just newer users: best practices is when reverted, immediately open a talk page section and start discussion. There is no urgency to "be correct" except in very limited cases, and the name of a military base does not fall within those exceptions. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, certainly you've made over a dozen comments in this discussion, so yes, in general that looks like bludgeoning. As a newish user trying to work in contentious topics, you need to understand these are fraught. Experienced editors have very little patience with newbie mistakes and zero patience with what feels like intentional disruption. It's best to make your point once, without snark, and to only comment again if you need to clarify. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. As I said, I'll accept your judgment on that. I note that some of the comments I've made here were in response to direct questions from other users. If I ignore those, can I assume nobody's going to come after me under some obscure rule about ignoring questions? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, in general: you do need to respond to expressed concerns on your user talk. You need to show up at noticeboards if someone drags you there. You don't need to respond to everyone in a discussion at a noticeboard, and I'd recommend you don't unless you think their statement might be important to administrators assessing behavior and is incorrect. That "and" is important, but it's nuanced. That's a difficult judgment call for a newish editor, which is one of the reasons we advise new editors not to edit at CTOPs until they've had a chance to kind of figure out various important wp:policies and guidelines. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted. So it would have been a better idea, on this noticeboard, to make a single, longer comment setting out why I didn't see my edits on those other articles as edit warring, then sit back and watch? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Weeeeell...not necessarily. Short is better. Ideally a comment is just long enough to express your opinion concisely and precisely, and no longer. Writing short is a skill that is very helpful here and is worth developing. I very commonly vomit onto the page, then spend significant time making it shorter and clearer. Before posting, preferably. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

k Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that's just about short enough, but in many situations it can be better to say nothing at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

lol...hey 'k' is IMO a reasonable way to say "I understand" when people are telling you you're talking too much. :D Valereee (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd originally written a longer reply, but I took your advice and eventually managed to trim it by 50%. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't care what happens in this discussion but this is legit hilarious, well done. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chicdat, unless I'm somehow overlooking, you didn't provide any diffs? Can you provide bright-line diffs for edit-warring? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok. First move, Revert, Re-revert by Fahrenheit666, including second move, second revert by Swatjester, third revert by Fahrenheit666, revert by Technopat, fourth revert by Fahrenheit666 with an uncivil edit summary, same deal. Technopat's next revert stated that this is inappropriate during an active RM, and you're well aware of this. Your behavior is beyond the pale at this point. Stop it. After a series of the same edits, Fahrenheit666 made their fifth revert in two days, which was reverted by Voorts, resulting in their sixth revert, which led directly to the pblock. After Voorts explicitly told them to wait for the RM discussion to close before changing instances of "Fort Moore" to "Fort Benning", they completely ignored the notice. Are these ok diffs? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Minor nitpick -- the revert w/ quote that you're attributing to Technopat is from me actually, just want to be transparent about that for any reviewers.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so @Fahrenheit666, that does appear to be edit-warring at Fort Moore, along with multiple clear warnings and finally a p-block from the article, at which point you started making that change at other articles, and when the p-block expired, you started dropping pointy tags at Fort Moore.

There is a lot of policy/guideline/previous consensus to understand here. This is a contentious topic. There is no exception to the rules against edit-warring for being correct. There's an RM being conducted, which generally requires 7 days. There's no deadline for getting this changed. At your level of experience, we don't expect you to be familiar with all that, but we do expect you to at least be aware there may be policy you aren't familiar with and be willing to slow your roll when other editors are objecting. I am wondering if you may need to stop editing at US politics until you grasp that. Please feel free to respond at necessary length. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I do accept I was edit-warring at Fort Moore, and understand why I was banned for it. Clearly, that article will be moved when the process ends and consensus is reached, not before. By "pointy tags" I assume you mean the ones asking for citations about "Fort Moore" which nobody can provide? After adding two (I think - maybe three?) I decided that was a bit childish and stopped; obviously there's the potential to add hundreds of them, which I can see would be disruptive and very annoying.

My understanding is that the RM on the Moore/Benning article only covers that article, and doesn't by its mere existence shut down any updates of other articles. If there's some policy that says it does then I'll abide by that. My concern there, though, would be that people who just don't like the (at this point, indisputable) fact the name has changed could impose another seven-day freeze on improvements across the whole encyclopedia by reverting, and then challenging, any replacement of "Fort Moore" with "Fort Benning", even when it's entirely supported by the sources. Considering how many schools and units are based at Fort Benning, and how many articles link to it, that could go on for years. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, how widely does "contentious" cast its net? I understand the "contentious" aspect of this is US politics, specifically the Trump administration's decision to restore the names of Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. Does that taint every single mention of those names though? Taking the infantry school as an example - to illustrate my point, not to debate whether I'm correct about the facts or not - its homepage is at army.mil/benning. The header on that homepage says "Fort Benning". The subhead is "U.S. Army Fort Benning and The Maneuver Center of Excellence". The Maneuver Center seal on the page says "Fort Benning" on it. The school is clearly at Fort Benning. Given that, I really don't understand how writing "Fort Benning" as the location of the Infantry School is contentious, as opposed to simply a fact some people wish wasn't true.

Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the topic -- American Politics 1992-present -- that is contentious. Everything within that topic is considered part of the CTOP.

I don't want to get into content, but you simply cannot try to prove X is at Y by look at government URLs or homepages or seals or any other piece of original research. You could argue those as WP:BLUE, but if people are saying, "Yes, but is it actually official yet?" then BLUE doesn't help. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, but if a website run by the entity that owns both X and Y says "X is at Y" does that prove X is at Y? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

No. It proves the entity is saying so. If what an entity is saying is controversial, we go by what reliable sources independent sources say because what an entity says about itself is not always true. We don't, for instance, source to corporate websites or personal blogs anything that is at all controversial. P&G says their packaging is "delightful". Wikipedia is not going to take their word for it.

Please stop having discussion in two places. At this point you're bludgeoning ANI. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(EC) Well, as a practical matter, I doubt we're talking years. I could certainly see weeks, but generally (generally!) when a parent article moves, links to that article get changed at some pace. Within a CTOP like AP2, often at light speed, especially if the original issue has a highly politicized component, which obviously this one does. But generally at worst there would be the need for a second RfC on "Now that we've changed Moore > Benning at the parent, is there consensus for making that change at other articles?"

Please don't assume the only reason people would object is due to JDLI. Unless they're actually saying so, that's an assumption of bad faith. There could be any number of reasonable policy-based opinions well-intentioned experienced editors could have on something like this. Some seem to be asking whether the name has actually officially changed yet. You can privately think all you want that JDLI is the reason, but making that accusation is not okay. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There certainly are people saying the name hasn't officially changed yet, but the evidence being cited for that includes a statement that begins "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". So it's actually quite hard to AGF there. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't care. That's content, not behavior. You need to stop making the same argument over and over again, even if you think you're right. If you can't shrug and walk away when consensus doesn't go your way as fast as you think it should, AP92 may not be a good fit for you at this time. Valereee (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not trying to argue the facts of the matter here, just using it to illustrate why I'm finding this so frustrating and confusing. Say someone was citing a document that says "Lemons are yellow" as evidence that lemons are in fact blue. Would you find that frustrating? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a difference of acceptance and interpretation of sources, which is an extremely common argument at most CTOPs. It is always frustrating for those on both sides because both think their arguments are being misstated/ignored/misinterpreted by the other, and I can absolutely assure you that everyone working there is feeling some level of frustration. Frustration is a part of working at any CTOP. That's one of the reasons we advise less experienced editors to learn policy outside of CTOPs: so by the time they're dealing with that frustration, at least they've already got a solid grounding in policy. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I actually took the trouble to look up the policy that was cited as a reason not to move the article, WP:NAMECHANGES. It says that if reliable sources are using the new name, Wikipedia should reflect that. They are. It doesn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

And I've told you, multiple times now, that at ANI, we don't care whether you're right. Given the bludgeoning here just today, I am becoming less and less sure you will be able to stop this behavior at AP92. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to thank you personally for being so patient and understanding, but this whole experience has been intensely frustrating and unpleasant. I'm going to step away from editing Wikipedia at least for a while, because life's too short for this shit. Thank you again and I'm sorry this has taken so much of your time. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Bump. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, I'm hoping maybe this editor is starting to get it, but maybe a logged warning for bludgeoning at a CTOP? Valereee (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Trying to determine if these users fit the pattern of User:Maelbros

There has been an annoyingly persistent IP-hopping user editing children's animation articles over the past 6 months or so. This user keeps adding false information, often adding bizarre plot summaries that are implausible or slightly inappropriate for the intended audience, changing infoboxes to the names of other cartoon series, or adding crossovers that the user wishes would occur--oftentimes with the same off the wall plot summaries. The user has a highly distinctive immature writing style. Initially, I thought this was just a run-of-the mill IP user, but one of their accounts commented on the talk page for User:Bandatoryy, which is a banned sockpuppet of User:Maelbros. I was wondering if someone familiar with User:Maelbros MO maybe could comment here to determine if this user reemerged so we could have more of a ban on site approach for their IP's.

Here are some examples of their contributions, to showcase the patterns I'm referring to.

[277]

[278]

[279] (This one lasted for 16 days before I reverted it.) --Thebirdlover (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I reported it here instead of SPI because the editing is being done over IP's so the checkusers won't be able to find anything, and I also wanted to get consensus to relaunch the relevant LTA page for this user. --Thebirdlover (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Various anon IPs closing AfDs in breach of WP:NACIP

2 different IPs 67.87.122.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.199.86.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are making very similar disruptive edits in closing AfDs that really is turning into vandalism. They have been warned on their talk page. User talk:68.199.86.139. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

closing AFDs isn’t vandalism and they’re closed according to consensus. A lot of editors close AFDs all the time. Anonymous 02:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.244.148.106 (talk) blocked IP sock

174.244.148.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also now joined in. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

67.87.122.110 blocked x 3 years w/TPA revoked - 68.199.86.139 blocked x 1 year. Pages protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

174.244.148.106 blocked x 1 month by Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Ad Orientem. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver if anyone has time for paperwork. Star Mississippi 03:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these IPs are BCD, BCD always closes discussions in the exactly same identical way as "No consensus" and some of these closures were more amateurish, as if the IP editor wasn't sure of what they were doing. Also, BCD does multiple AFD early closures all at the same time for the same day. They are easily undone and usually is a registered account. But regardless, these closures all needed to be undone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It may or may not be. This morning's round definitely was the usual nonsense. The "according to consensus" is my BCD tell, which our now blocked friend weighed in with above. Thanks all who were active and caught the latest spree. Star Mississippi 15:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• •  Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Their closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uzi_Vishne didn't get reverted, so I brought it to DRV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

2600:1001:B1C0:0:0:0:0:0/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is engaged in the same activity. Could someone please block? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell blocked this for 1 week, but I think a longer block (consistent with the other IP blocks) is warranted due to the extent of the disruption. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem handled (TY!)

Currently cleaning up their page creations. If anyone has an objection to the speedy as vandalism, let me know as yes it's IAR but DNFTT Star Mississippi 15:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they are running amok. I'm bumping any blocks that are less than 3 months. I also turned the range block into an anon to mitigate possible collateral damage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Also note that they may now be trying to impersonate admins, see User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 31#Is this really you?. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• To any non-admin patroller, first of all: THANK YOU! Second of all, don't worry about DRV for their closes, just revert. It's vandalism and you're in the clear. Star Mississippi 16:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I've seen similar behavior at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raegan_Revord_(3rd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

they unfortunately hit AfDs with regularity. I thought for a second that we had yet another Revord discussion. Yikes! Star Mississippi 18:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And now an account Special:COntributions/Bbe23 impersonating bbb23. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there is the pronoun-thing... ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Self-trout I accidentally put in the wrong template. I am now involved as well, by reverting some of their closes. Recommend the WP:RBI page for the admins in this case. Be on the lookout for more admin impersonation.. as they will return. Codename AD ^talk 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Star Mississippi, Ad Orientem, The Bushranger, and HJ Mitchell: They're back as Special:Contributions/2600:4041:5F7A:C800:C585:C337:2643:9F69. Does it need SPI. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi /64 Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  They'll be back. As I understand it, BCD uses mobile and public WiFi connections so it won't take long to find a new IP. RBI is the best approach. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• They returned, and they are doing impersonation of CFA. @Star Mississippi, The Bushranger, Ad Orientem, and HJ Mitchell: Could someone do the honors please. User:CFA II is BuickCenturyDriver.

Codename AD ^talk 17:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed by HJ Mitchell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline. We're training for the Olympics in Whack a Mole. Star Mississippi 22:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? by User: Mynxfg

This user, @Mynxfg, has been removing content from the Sebastian Stan page for days. Looking at their edit history, these are literally the only edits they have been making (here) I have reverted their edits in the past without giving them a warning. However, yesterday, I issued the first warning, and today, the second one. (Their Talk page) They have not responded or stopped their actions. The removed content was related to Stan's personal life, which is relevant and properly sourced. Since they continue to remove it without discussion, I thought to address them here. Lililolol (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

They're removing a piece from People supposing a relationship between the subject (Sebastian Stan, by the way) and another woman (Annabelle Wallis; please state what articles are at issue next time) merely holding hands and gathering based on that, and a removed photo from an Instagram post by a photographer at the event, that the two are a couple, along with reading into other PRIMARY Instagram posts that they have a relationship. I see clearly their reason for removal of the source as pure gossip with no confirmation of a relationship. They could definitely had done with describing why in an edit summary (not marked minor) it was removed, but a subject's relationship needs much better sourcing than this piece that might as well be signed 'xoxo Gossip Girl'. Your templated talk page notices (which didn't even mention the page at issue) didn't clarify at all what they did wrong and could've been personalized to ask why the removal was done (I've also notified them of this discussion, which you must do). Nathannah • 📮 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I also removed an equivalent poor listicle source on Wallis's own page regarding this; just because they come from magazines you've heard of in People and Elle never means you're free to add any source from them, because it must be confirmed by the subjects themselves; WP:BLP is there to be a guardrail against unsubstantiated gossip. Nathannah • 📮 19:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Still, the user should be bringing it to a talk page if it is repeatedly challenged instead of brute-forcing it. The edit war combined with no communication should warrant measures. 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol, this edit was not vandalism; although I'd still like comment from @Mynxfg, they were completely in the right to remove those sources (which continue to suppose a relationship, not confirm), and as long as Stan and Wallis remain silent on the subject of their relationship, we do the same. Read WP:BLP, please. Otherwise there are two talk pages that are perfectly fine to debate this, which neither party has gone to, as our IPv6 friend pointed out. Nathannah • 📮 17:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, sorry, but it is confirmed. Lililolol (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nathannah Hi, regarding your revert of my edits—according to WP:RSP, People magazine is generally considered a reliable source for BLP. Also, his relationship was confirmed, not just based on "holding hands" on IG. Additionally, I included Us Weekly, which is based on recent events and is also a reliable source. So.. Lililolol (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose that @Lililolol start a talk page discussion in the given article and also notify the other editor of that discussion. If @Mynxfg remains unresponsive while continuing wholesale removals, block that user. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with the encouragement for Mynxfg to comment, and again as I previously said, Elle is certainly a reliable source, along with People, but the latter has equally as much junk gossip as any other unreliable source such as TMZ or Deuxmoi (and as seen in any situation where a celebrity child's first pictures are involved, do participate in checkbook journalism) and the sources must be read through with extreme care to make sure we're not stating a falsehood, and WP:USWEEKLY is a tenuous source by itself. Even if it appears for all intents and purposes that these two are a couple, as long as they have not vocally confirmed it as such in some way such as in an interview or a social media post, we cannot make that judgement through an approximation of sources or someone else making that judgement call through their writing. The two subjects seem to be very private and as long as there isn't confirmation from them, said privacy should be respected per BLP. Nathannah • 📮 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

We need more than gossip magazines for details on BLPs. This is an encyclopedia, we don't include every person a subject dates or has a relatiionship with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/fashion/fashion-news/a60990515/annabelle-wallis-style-interview/

https://talkeasypod.com/sebastian-stan/

https://youtu/cannot add proper link/be/zoAGOVvl2yc?si=CVSP4CVY_tECkpNZ

Both mentioning each other in interviews, him saying ILY on TV, her Instagram post https://www.instagram.com/p/DGyRMoUvkV6/?igsh=MXU3b3hpcDVhdGp2NQ==

Plz clarify what more info is needed? And why, as of now, all the other ex partners are referred to based on the gossip magazine timeline for THIS rs. There's never been any more confirmation from either parties, the only gf Stan ever mentioned in an interview by name was Leighton in 2009. 46.53.214.195 (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you linked Harper's Bazarr, as it doesn't mention Sebastian Stan.

What in the TalkEasyPod podcast are you claiming is a source? Your YouTube link is broken. The Instagram post doesn't mention him either. It really looks like you're just posting anything involving her, whether or not it actually supports the claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Podcasts are not reliable sources. Youtube is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

How are these sources any less reliable and full than all other exes, still no answer. Instagram post includes a picture of him. YouTube links cannot be posted here by unregistered users, I specifically made /.../ in it, it's easy to delete this part and check the link - it's his Golden Globes acceptance speech, calling her by name and directly pointing at her in front of the audience and cameras. Her interview mentions her bf, his podcast appearance mentions his gf, both at the time they were "linked" to each other. I'm perplexed what kind of other sources justify the presence of other exes on his page all of a sudden, when for ages all this info was omitted. Where's ANY official enough rs claim? How is People Magazine quoted as the source for them but not for her? 46.53.212.165 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption at RFD

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

Ongoing disruption at RFD: spurious and baseless nominations, including to sockpuppet categories [280][281]. I am moving this from SPI, where the original report stated:

The IP nominated Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pokamona. And the other IP is only commenting on CFDs in support. [282]

[283]

In general their behavior is fairly suspicious to be nominating sockpuppet categories. ^SMason_Garrison 03:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving here, since this is not really a matter for sockpuppetry investigation. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!@MarioGom I was on the fence between the ANI and sockpuppet.^SMason_Garrison 11:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Inactive since 15 December 2024, but 176.40.228.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can be thrown into the mix. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Can someone provide the SPI this was originally copied from? The first one sure looks like a sock to me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I have neither an elephant's memory nor an eagle's eyes, but have a sneaking suspicion that someone with one or both might be able to merge some longstanding SPI threads and categories... Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a snaking suspicion? EEng 09:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/120.29.77.232 ^SMason_Garrison 23:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so not already organized under any particular other sockmaster. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

39.56.210.104 IP vandal on articles of cricketers

39.56.210.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this ip is continuously changing or adding false spouse names to various cricketers page, see 1, 2, 3 TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Massive copyvio about an Armenian hoax

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.

---

Article: The Memoirs of Naim Bey
Source: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=The+Memoirs+of+Naim+Bey&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
It was fun to read about the Armenian hoax, but how could have guessed it was also a massive copyvio 😂 Sarımtrak (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Straight to contentious topics, eh? Secretlondon (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Describing the article as a whole as a 'massive copyvio' seems excessive, but there certainly is content in it which is copy-pasted from the source cited: see [284]. This edit was made by an IP back in 2016. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Deniers of the Armenian genocide should be indeffed on-sight. No point in wasting time trying to reform someone who submits crap like Draft:Legal status of the Armenian genocide. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. Doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia has been hosting a blatant copyright violation for over 8 years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And someone should probably fix it. But having seen what content generated by the OP looks like, it obviously shouldn't be them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Also let's be clear, the content in question is an attributed statement of a single source's opinion, in an article with lots of block quotes from various sources. It can be written better, but it's not like this is significant chunks of wikivoice text that need to be thrown out, it's just a quote that needs to be more appropriately integrated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is everyone so keen to try to gloss over the fact that Wikipedia has been hosting a copyright violation for over 8 years? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Because of WP:GS/AA and the obvious bad faith motivating the initial report? I would fix the copyvio but am involved as an admin (and had this actually been a total non-issue, I would have just removed or closed the report). You, on the other hand, could fix it straight away. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are arguing with. My only point in commenting is that the OP should be indeffed for being a genocide denier. That doesn't preclude you or literally anyone else other than the genocide denier from dealing with the copyvio. I honestly didn't expect to get pushback for saying that a genocide denier should be indeffed. I know you're a grump, but c'mon. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that policy would appear to require WP:REVDEL, and given that I do not have the necessary tools, I am in no position to fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The first step is to remove the content, and given the amount of unrelated edits made to the page since 2016, revision deletion is unlikely to be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I reported this over at WP:CP, the text is currently hidden pending rewriting/deletion. Since the OP is blocked for a week, this thread could be closed, unless someone wants to make a proposal for indef. Never mind, OP was unblocked on a technicality. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And blocked again due to sockpuppetry. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• I have CU blocked the op; they are part of a string of accounts harassing User:Buidhe, who has done (excellent) work on our coverage of the Armenian Genocide. These accounts have engaged in some rather nasty (oversighted) harassment, so admins might want to keep an eye on her talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:42, 16 March 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:Channel 1915 and User:Francis 188 on Richard Heydarian

• Channel 1915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francis 188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard Heydarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Richard Heydarian has been under heavy editing recently due to his controversial remarks about Mindanao, an island in the Philipipnes during a CNN interview.

I would highly recommend taking a look at multiple talk pages before commenting on this dispute, linked here and here. I would also recommend taking a look at the edit history of Richard Heydarian, specifically recently after the page was semi-protected and Channel 1915's edits before the controversial CNN interview.

Context for viewing:

• [285] GMA Network
• [286] Daily Tribune (Philippines)
• [287] YouTube video of the interview

Both editors have been edit warring and have likely broke 3RR. I took this dispute here instead of the edit warring noticeboard, as this looks to be a very complex article conduct dispute. I would prefer for the users to not be immediately blocked under WP:3RR so they can comment on this discussion and if needed opting for page protection or a page specific block.

Francis 188 is accusing Channel 1915 of undisclosed conflict of interest editing and being the article subject Richard Heydarian. As of the writing of this message, Channel 1915 has written 72.6% of the article and the majority of the accounts edits have been to the article. The user previously recieved a COI notice in December 2024 by Jay8g. The user's edit summaries (visible here) have very specific mannerisms that should be compared to the common mannerisms of Richard Heydarian.

On the other hand, Channel 1915 is accusing Francis 188 of WP:POVPUSHING in the article. This edit here [288] shows the user editing the infobox caption to "Heydarian declared Persona Non Grata and became one of the hatest personality in the Philippines by the Filipinos" and adding a copyvio image which was a meme of this image (facebook link) with a huge rubber stamp over the image that states Persona non grata. Other edits that should also be analyzed include creating the section traffic violator [289] and this edit [290].

Parksfan1955 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Francis 188 is copying content from an article called ‘Sub-Saharan’ Mindanao: These memes might make your day. Someone needs to explain to them that 1. this is not a reliable source and 2. this is copyvio, instead of going over the top with accusations of vandalism and bias. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The two users continue with their back and forth editing from this diff Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Channel 1915 and @Francis 188, please discuss over here so that administrators can hear your points. Parksfan1955 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Semiprotection didn't help so I've locked the page for a few days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Ky01535 disruption via repeated copy-paste move

• Ky01535 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think it's time for an admin to get involved with this user. They were first advised not to do copy-paste moves back in January [291]. Then they repeated it and were advised a second time a few days later [292]. They just did two again, back to back: Draft:Miss Charm 2025 -> Miss Charm 2025 and Draft:Miss Earth 2025 -> Miss Earth 2025.

I don't know if this is CIR or deliberate disruption, but the effect is the same. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This user never appears to have spoken to anyone. Maybe a partial block from non-talk pages will get their attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Years of original research from London IPs

• 2A02:C7C:5079:A200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in the UK has been contributing for years, making hundreds of edits all of which violate the WP:No original research policy. The current /64 range started in May 2022 with this edit, and continues through today.[293][294] The person has been given a bunch of warnings, including Level 4 warnings,[295][296][297] but has never used a talk page. Can we block the /64 to bring them to discussion?

The person started doing this earlier. I found similar activity from June 2018 with the nearby IP Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:8ADF:1B00:95D0:41A8:467B:AB8D. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Supporting rangeblock for failure to communicate until the user replies here or to an editor talk page. Looks like the majority of the edits in the range were reverted. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support Rangeblock. Who knows how many articles have been wronged by original research. DotesConks (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this is both a WP:OR and WP:FTD problem, I would recommend a block of the /64 range from article space, that way they can still post messages on talk pages as well as this discussion should they figure out how to use talk pages, while being blocked from editing articles directly. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This IP range is Sky Broadband which has about 6 million users in the UK. These edits just seem to be bickering about pop music and so are of little importance. Blocking so many users for this reason would be an absurd over-reaction. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  IPv6 /64 ranges cover only 1 location/device, the full sky range covers billions of /64 ranges. It's effectively the same as blocking 1 IPv4 address. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  And even if this IP range was bigger than a /64, remember, what actually matters is the weight of the bad edits against the good edits, not the theoretical maximum number of IP addresses. If a large IP range makes 50 vandalism/misinformation edits and 2 good edits every month, then it should be rangeblocked even if it is at the cost of those one or several editors making good edits on that range. Affected innocent users on a blocked range have the option to use WP:ACC to create an account and get around that range block if they want to continue editing.
  I have seen some really large (like, /16 IPv4) ranges where 90-99% of the edits were all coming from just that one person, despite it being such a wide IP range. Kinda crazy, I know. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support To be fair, I don't think the whole of Sky UK's user base will be blocked as a result? It'd be an important reassurance. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  The range has been pblocked from article space since yesterday afternoon, so if it did block everyone on Sky, I'm sure somebody would have read the block notice and come here to complain by now REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  IDK, I did find that the entirety of the Shard in London (tallest building in W. Europe) had been blocked by one of these trigger-happy blocks a while back and it took a while to surface. FOARP (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  On another occasion much of the Rogers' (Canada's biggest mobile provider) range for GTA pnones was blocked at another time. With more upsetness that someone had finally complained about it, than that someone had blocked so agressively. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and restoring versions by blocked users, User623921

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.

---

User623921 is constantly edit warring, with different users, on several articles. Probably also lacking basic knowledge in how Wikipedia work. His edits has been reported twice at WP:DRN, for edit warring on Ant Wan. I am also asking for attention on this user now, as he seem to in the the process of trying to restore (also, see talk page) an old fork previously created by several blocked users [298] [299] [300] [301] [302]. I don't know whether he could be a sock or not, but it is disruptive in anyway. Shmayo (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Which different users? I am constantly in the Talk pages, I had one agree with me on a village of Tur Abdin "(The sources do overwhelmingly use "Syriac".)", he changed it to Syriac, following changes I made on other villages was based on the consensus we reached on said village since all the other ones use the same sources.

I have been reported by you and Surayeproject3, two persons following an Assyrian bias. I am simply changing to what the sources say and I am active in the talk pages, see Ant Wan for example, left a comment, no answer, thus I changed it.

I am not trying to "restore" a old fork, I was looking through old version of the article where Arameans are written as a existing people, I reverted back literally one second later and I am active in its talk page where we are trying to reach a consensus before making any changes.

You accused me of being a sock earlier, and your accusation got dismissed.

Everyone not following your agenda is not edit warring. User623921 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

New entries in talk pages and reaching consensus are two different things. What you are doing on Ant Wan is edit warring. Shmayo (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

it is not. i have constantly referred to the sources and suggested the other editor to do the same. i was left without a response for over 24h, i then edited. it was left as the other editors version before i reverted back, more than 24h later. User623921 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

non-admin comment: This is definitely a matter of content dispute. See WP:DRN if you need assistance or go to the project's talk page for more input. However, it seems like User:Surayeproject3 is the person edit warring with User623921. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Conyo14 The issue for the article Ant Wan has been posted on the DRN here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ant Wan. I edited the article before User623921 made their changes [303] [304], I then expanded the article [305] before they then changed the subject's ethnicity [306] and I reverted, requesting them to leave a post on the article's talk page [307]. Despite proposing a compromise, they have so far continued to revert their edits to fit their point of view of the subject, so please view the Talk page for more info.

The user being discussed has applied this same style of editing on other articles regarding Assyrian musicians in Sweden as well as Assyrian villages in southeastern Turkey, which has been discussed by Shmayo and another editor as well. Hope this information helps and if there's anything that needs clarification, please let me know. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I'll let others judge from here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly raised this issue on the discussion page, emphasizing that claims not supported by referenced sources should not be included in the article. I then made edits to align the content with the sources. However, Surayeproject3 did not cite any references to support his claim and continued reverting the article to promote an Assyrian ethnicity.

I addressed him on the discussion page, but after more than 30 hours without a response, I revised his version to better reflect the source material. User623921 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Well. The OP has come here accusing User623921 of edit-warring, yet if we look at the history of Ant Wan I see that this is mainly a long edit-war between User623921 and User:Surayeproject3 (who, incidentally, on their talk page, has My goal on Wikipedia and WikiMedia Foundation is increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean, so there's something that needs to be looked at. Meanwhile, the sentence that is mainly being edit-warred over is this one - Afram ... was born to an ethnic Assyrian/Syriac family originally from Syria (Surayeproject3, the OP) vs Afram was born ... to an ethnic Syriac-Aramean family originally from Syria (User623921). Now, this sentence is cited to two sources, and - well what do you know - neither source says anything about their ethnicity (apart from the fact their background is Syrian). My temptation, given the long disruption here, would be to change the sentence to Afram ... was born to a family originally from Syria and then block anyone who starts trying to insert the Assyrian/Aramean nonsense without a really good source. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite There was a source originally used that identified the subject as Assyrian, but it was deduced to be unreliable during the talk page discussion so it was removed. Incidentally, the page was changed to say something different around the same time this dispute was happening, but I am fine with the change you've proposed as long as it settles the dispute.

  And yes, my User page has my intentions on Wikipedia and WikiMedia Foundation. I come from these backgrounds and edit articles relating to my community, nothing wrong with that though. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am in favor of this proposal. Alternatively, we can write: "Afram... was born to a Syriac family originally from Syria." Both sources explicitly state that he is Syriac, that way we can exclude both Aramean and Assyrian. The newspaper published in Sweden uses the term 'Syrian,' which should not be confused with Syrian Arabs. In English, this is translated to 'Syriac,' while the Swedish term for Syrian Arabs is 'Syrier.' User623921 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think Black Kite's proposal works the best as the sources do not explicitly state his parents are Syriac and it is best to include more than one source on this contentious topic. No to the alt. Conyo14 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  No worries! Black Kite's proposal works just as good. User623921 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are content disputes resolved at ANI and not on article Talk pages? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:51, 17 March 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.

46.201.211.132 and persistent addition of unsourced info

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.

---

46.201.211.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The user is only interested in one article, in which they persistently add unsourced info which contradicts to existing sources. When challenged they went to personal attacks. Since this is a static IP, it is easier to block than to protect, but I am obviously involved. Thanks Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked three months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 17 March 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.

Texas IPs representing ban evasion by Rishabisajakepauler

Rishabisajakepauler is banned per three strikes. He has evaded his ban with many IPs from Texas. Recently, he has been very active with a handful of IPs, doing all the things he is known for including requesting redirects to be made so that he can create articles from redirects,[308] and creating articles from redirects.[309][310][311][312][313][314] He is making a mockery of our restriction that only registered users can create articles.

Three weeks ago he shared his thoughts at User talk:64.189.243.210. He understands he is banned, but he wants to edit anyway. He refuses the six-month standard offer as impossibly long.

I am asking for the following IPs to be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC))

• 108.90.220.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 12)
• 67.78.68.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 11)
• 76.227.109.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 11)
• 129.120.67.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 6, blocked once in 2024)
• 24.28.40.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 2)
• 65.36.59.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active Feb 16)
• 98.6.144.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active Jan 3, blocked in 2024 and 2023)

• Binksternet, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler awaits your SPI report. Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

SPI is not usually forthcoming in cases involving only IPs. They want to see registered usernames. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Sunnya343 from initiating airport & airline destination deletion discussion

This is a chronic, slow-simmering behavioural issue with User:Sunnya343. Sunnya343 initiated 4 identical/similar discussions in 15 months around whether airport and airline destination tables should be included.

1. September 2023 in Village Pump
2. March 2024 in an AfD
3. April 2024 in Deletion review of previous AfD
4. January 2025 RfC in WP:NOT

Every time, the result was "consensus to keep", "no consensus to keep/delete" or "endorse the keep". Note that the same issue was raised at 4 different venues, exhibiting the textbook definition of forum shopping. During the most recent discussion in January 2025, after I left Sunnya343 with a warning for their behaviour and they acknowledged, two days later the user tried to unilaterally withdraw the RfC to prevent a discussion that was steering towards reaching a consensus. Four other users contested Sunnya343's withdrawal [315][316][317], with one explicitly saying I'm concerned that the early withdrawal was because consensus was so overwhelmingly against both, and there will be another attempt to forum shop in the near future.[318] The withdrawal was reversed and clear consensus was reached yet again. The pattern has become apparent that Sunnya343 refuses to "get the point".

As everyone can see in the above diffs, considerable amount of volunteer time was sunk into the discussions each time to arrive at the same outcome. Based on past behaviour and barring a topic ban, I believe that Sunnya343 will continue and waste more of volunteer's time in the future on same kind of discussion.

Therefore, I am proposing a topic ban to be applied to Sunnya343 from initiating airport or airline destination table discussion in any namespaces or community processes (broadly construed). However (and for greater clarity), Sunnya343 may participate in these discussions/votes if another editor initiates these discussions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban, but I'm not so sure they should be able to participate in the discussions either as I'm leery of filibuster and bludgeoning. Star Mississippi 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any kind of sanction. Four similar discussions in 15 months isn't a lot, especially cause the Village Pump topic found consensus that there needs to be secondary RS mentioning a destination to justify its inclusion. Below is a content overview of the RfCs and why I think they were justified in starting them, but since AN/I is for behaviour I collapsed the text.

content overview

With that in mind the March 2024 AfD seems appropriate and in good faith as Sunnya343 identifies many lists where the consensus from the Village Pump RfC isn't being adhered to. I clicked on a random one (List of Air Caraïbes destinations) and there only 8 out of the 20 destinations have a WP:RS citation, and a lot of those citations come from RoutesOnline.com which describes itself as "The Routes business is focused entirely on aviation route development and the company's portfolio includes events, media and online businesses." It is not a news organisation, it is a company that has a vested/financial interest in highlighting the existence or non-existence of air routes in hopes of helping airports/airlines fill those routes. This puts into question how "R" that Source is. I think @Sunnya343 has a point in the March 2024 RfC, these lists are just catalogues of previous and current destinations that are obviously taken from the airlines' websites with citations added as an afterthought. They are also full of language that you'd expect from an ad, here's the List of British Airways destinations article: "British Airways serves destinations across all six inhabited continents." Did BA marketing team write the prose? The March 2024 RfC came to no consensus so I don't see how a review of it can be considered disruptive. Sunnya343 January 2025 RfC in WP:NOT makes the mistake of bundling two separate articles, with different issues and policy concerns, into the same RfC. That is why WP:RFC says that RfCs should be simple and about one issue. Editors were right to defend the inclusion of one of the articles in the RfC, but I think a case for deletion could have been made for the other one (based on WP:NOTADVERT.

--

I think Sunnya343's heart is in the right place, perhaps a bit eager, but they do seem to start discussions (and participate in them) in good faith. They care about airports and air routes a lot, but so what? Shouldn't editors ideally be interested in the topic area they edit?

--

@OhanaUnited The only attempt you seem to have made to communicate this issue to Sunnya343 is your response to a topic on their talk page where your first sentence is: "Just so you know (and consider this as an advanced warning), after the conclusion of this RfC, I am intending to start a TBAN discussion on your forumshopping behaviour around initiating airport and airline destination deletion discussion." Sunnya343's response was not combative or confrontational. Even an admin, @FOARP, said they don't support a TBAN and that they don't see a TBAN passing based on "4 discussions in 15 months".

Sunnya343 needs guidance, not punishment. It says on the top of this page "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" This is neither an urgent incident (2 months passed without incident since your warning) nor a chronic behavioral problem. I hope @OhanaUnited withdraws this ANI report before editors light their torches and sharpen their pitchforks, in order to save everyone some time and a good faith editor from a TBAN in their topic area of interest. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any kind of sanction. In my humble opinion this looks like bludgeoning a valid concern/discussion. I have my concerns too over these listings (it is remarkable how many low-cost airlines have long listings without sources compared with "regular" airlines) but the consensus is to keep the listings. However, consensus can change, so stopping those discussions and hammering one user involved is not a good plan. The Banner talk 14:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Confusion as to why this is being brought now - the behaviour complained about is four discussions in 15 months, the most recent of which was already 2 months ago. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was travelling for work in remote places for better part of last month with limited internet access. Moreover, the RFC only closed three weeks ago. And I don't want this topic ban discussion to run in parallel while the RFC was still open to avoid any "contamination" or influence the RFC discussion that focuses on the nominator instead of the policy. The fact that Sunny343 tried to short-circuit the RFC by withdrawing while consensus was being reached demonstrated pointiness and failure to observe & respect community processes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  ”only three weeks ago” - please go and look at the header of this page to see what it’s for.

  I’m also confused as to what your objection was about the most recent discussion. You apparently both didn’t want it started but also didn’t want it to be withdrawn. Either this discussion was a waste of time in which case withdrawing it was fine, or it wasn’t, in which case bringing it wasn’t objectionable. FOARP (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I stopped following the discussion after I withdrew it, so I didn't realize several people in addition to OhanaUnited were opposed to the withdrawal. I'm sorry for not responding to you all. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Whether or not there's a formal topic ban, Sunnya I think you should drop this issue on your own initiative. This horse has been pretty been pretty well-beaten. You don't need the ill will this engenders. Let others fight this battle if it needs fighting. I write this as someone who disagrees with you on the issue but who very much appreciates and respects your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia. -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced and incorrect changes of tornado ratings

2601:243:C601:570:19BD:8D6C:575:5F52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently making changes to tornado ratings across various articles. This IP was previously reported at AIV for vandalism but the report was ignored. Some edits such as this, and this were likely vandalism but some, such as these [319], [320], and [321] might not be vandalism in a strict sense, since there some people do disagree with the official ratings these tornadoes got. Nonetheless this is changing information from what is documented in reliable sources.

I suspect that Marcika2013 (talk · contribs · count) is the same person based on the similarity of their edits [322], [323], [324]. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

And another edit seems to be just vandalism. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS I've blocked 2601:243:C601:570::/64 x 60 hrs. Marcika2013 blocked x 24hrs by Daniel Case. In light of the pattern I'd not be opposed to turning that into an indef. But I will defer to Daniel on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem Yes, I was aware of the block for Marcika2013, I figure this counts as block evasion even though they were editing under the IP first. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I have made the Marcika block indef. I did not originally block indef despite sharing these suspicions because at the time the account was reported to AIV, the IP had not yet been blocked ... how can you block for block evasion if there's no block on the original account? But that has been rectified. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User talk:117.198.13.8

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.

---

Could an admin please revoke TPA: User talk:117.198.13.8. Thank you. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 18 March 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:Smashedbandit

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

The user is removing sourced information for ideological reasons. Just look at his discussion, I think it proves enough. But to not waste your time, here are some diffs:[325][326][327][328][329]. And when he doesn't delete sourced info, he's just making stuff up, like here (source?) That's just like his 10 most recent edits. Oeleau (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about all of this but the discussion regarding the first diff is at Talk:Svoboda (political party)#Ideology . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Dash9Z failing to communicate about attribution issue

Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has failed to respond to my request at User talk:Dash9Z#March 2025 about fixing attribution where they've copied from one article to another, despite a couple of reminders, one of which mentioned WP:COMMUNICATE. I'm hoping that a post here will be enough to elicit a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Still no response from Dash9Z, despite them having edited since my post here. Does anyone have any suggestions for how we can get them to communicate about this? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Bumping this, suggesting an admin steer them this way. I would poke them on their talk page if I thought it would result in anything, but it's likely to go ignored again. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@REAL MOUSE IRL: Hello REAL_MOUSE_IRL. You should've "poked me" earlier like how BusterD did. I did respond to him. Dash9Z (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:REAL MOUSE IRL, I'm with Dash9Z on this. I do appreciate your edit in this thread; it provoked me to read some history, and invite our new friend. But let's always try to assume good faith (and stay as far away from the WP:DRAMA boards as possible). Most editors should stay away from commenting about behaviors most of the time. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've pinged the user to this page. If they choose not to engage, their behaviors may be prevented by reasonable administrative action. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Hello BusterD. In response to your message, I went back to the article and reverted my edit so I can attribute the content later on. I've been focused on working on other articles when I'm on Wikipedia recently. Dash9Z (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that willingness and your many positive contributions to English Wikipedia! FTR, you don't answer to me, you're responsible to any fellow editor who reasonably holds your actions up to consequence (especially in this forum). User:Cordless Larry did appropriately notify you of this discussion. I expect my behaviors are under scrutiny at all times. No kidding, please strive to be better at responding to feedback as it occurs. Remember, smart people disagree all the time; we are bound to disagree in our pursuit of free information for everybody. This, as Devo pronounced in 1982, is a monumental good thing. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Weird user 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.

---

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

Wanted to ask about JWxKJA, a brand new user who's been behaving bizarrely. As of right now, the only edits they've ever made are nonsense contributions (e.g. "Mw..aw.tp..a" or "Yes h~290") to seven-year-old sections on another user's talk page, which the talk page's owner has reverted themselves only to have JW make new ones again — but otherwise, so far they've "thanked" me for almost every single edit I've made in the entire past two days, so that I just suddenly had 40 thanks notifications all at once, despite them having no obvious history relating to any of those topics. (And while I can only speak for what I saw, it's probable that they're pestering other editors that way too rather than singling me out per se, but I have no way of knowing that for sure.)

This doesn't seem like productive editing at all, obviously, but I don't know if it rises to the level of requiring warnings or editblocks. So could somebody take a look at this? Thanks. (I am wondering if there's any connection to the IP number who I reported a couple of weeks ago because they were constantly making edits, self-reverting them and then pinging other random users on talk pages for no reason, though obviously I have no way to prove that.) Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked for harassment at User talk:Entranced98. BusterD (talk) 22:55, 18 March 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 making threats at WT:Teahouse

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.

---

As reported at User talk:Liz, an IP is being used to post threats at the Teahouse: Special:Contributions/90.157.115.194. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 06:02, 19 March 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.

A confession and apology for my trolling & block evasion, and a request to look over and discuss past events

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, here i want to confess that in the past, before I made this account. I often messed around on Wikipedia and trolled quite a bit, which I do apologize for. Over the years I did trolling on multiple ips. I also have 3 accounts that were and are still blocked. They were DefenderOfTheElderly (a shameful troll account that I regret), EpicTiger87 (an account where I discussed with others in good faith in the brief time i had it, although I was too aggressive with others which I apologize for, but the account was only blocked because it was caught up in a checkuser with the DefenderOfTheElderly block), and BigBuilder1755 (created to raise an issue but blocked as it appeared to be trolling and was linked to other accounts via checkuser, discussed below). There are also numerous ips I used over the years, some for good edits, some for trolling. I regret this behavior, which is why I have only used this current account for legitimate edits, my days of disrupting this project are behind me. I am coming clean about my history here because I feel that I should be honest rather than hiding my past. I am bringing this information here firstly so that the administration can do whatever with it that they like, I will accept the deserved consequences. I know that this account will be blocked now that I have admitted this, and when that happens I will make an unblock request where I will offer to fulfill the terms of the Standard Offer or whatever else is asked of me. I would like to keep editing as I have the past few months (and I think that my edits on this account have clearly been useful), but I understand the skepticism due to my bad history here.

I do also have a secondary request, and that is to discuss an issue that I have been trying to get sorted for a while. Last February, on the BigBuilder1755 account, I brought up an incident that happened in 2019 on one of the old ips I messed around with. Here was the initial post. My post was very aggressive and demanding, regrettably so. I should not have demanded that the admins I took issue with be penalized, especially not for 6 months each 5 years after the fact. I apologize for this. I should have gone into this post with a more polite tone without many demands, I should have just called attention to the incident and gave my perspective so that a proper and measured discussion could be had. I was immediately blocked for this and the responding admins dismissed my complaint as nonsense. At the time I was mad about this, from my perspective I had a legitimate complaint and it was brushed aside. But in hindsight I don’t fault the admins for reacting this way. My complaint looked very much like a troll with the demanding nature, the fact that it was the first thing I had ever posted on the new account, and because the checkuser was able to connect this account to other blocked accounts of mine. I handled this the absolute wrong way, and I really had no right to leverage the complaint at all since I myself had wronged others on here and hadn’t owned up to my own had behavior. Regrettably, I did not get the clue at the time and over the next year I reintroduced this claim multiple times on different ips, each time getting them written off in similar fashion. This was stupidity on my part. Here are my additional threads on the matter for reference.

While many of my behavior over the years has been trolling, these specific posts were actually done in good faith, as silly as they seemed and as poorly as I wrote them. Let me explain where I was coming from. I was legitimately very upset by the interactions I had with multiple admins in 2019, and that stuck with me. While I knew that I myself had done bad things here and myself have wronged members of this community on multiple occasions, I was very much disappointed in what I saw from admins who I previously thought higher of. So last year I decided to look at the details of what had happened, and I came to the conclusion that I was wronged. I really wanted to see what could be done, which is why I posted that rant so many times. Each time I was very unsatisfied by it being dismissed. It being dismissed was my own fault obviously, but that’s how I felt at the time. I now withdraw all my requests to punish those admins that I ranted about, I instead just want to discuss what happened in that incident. I looked through the evidence and came to the conclusion that those admins were lying to me and unfairly blocked me, as I explained in those posts. I also understand that it’s possible that I could be missing part of what happened or misunderstanding something. While it looks to me like those admins were in the wrong, it is also very much possible that I am actually the one in the wrong. So below i will repost my perspective on what happened, but rewritten to avoid all my demands and harshness:

“I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was unhappy with what I perceived to be unprofessional behavior from the admins. So I would like to file a complaint on the matter so that we can discuss what happened. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page.

My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla seemed to have lied to me. My ip was blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my ip. From my perspective, it was clear that my ip was blocked, I believed that the admins were lying about this. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page which I interpreted as essentially admitting that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. I thought this was also a lie or at least that user being confused, as I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for an untrue reason. I believed that the 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. I thought that they were not taking me seriously because I was an ip editor.

Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla seemed to decide that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, which I thought was common knowledge. So it seemed to me that he just wanted me gone and made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. While this was true, I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. Since that issue was already resolved without a block, I also saw that as another flimsy excuse.

I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block, but got no reply. This really bugged me, I felt that I was being unfairly ignored and that none of my complaints were being taken seriously.”

And that sums up my issues with that incident. Hopefully this is more understandable now that I explained the context behind this, withdrew my unfair and hypocritical demands, and have admitted to all my own faults and am ready to face the consequences. I am no longer asking for any penalty to those admins, I just wanted to share my perspective. I am willing to listen to the opposing perspectives from the admins involved to understand why they did what they did and to see if I missed anything. I just want to put everything from my past here behind me and face the consequences so that in the future I can be a good Wikipedia user who isn’t hiding anything. Since I have cleared everything up and given my apologies, I sincerely hope that the admins involved in that incident are willing to clear the air with me. Since I will likely be quickly blocked after posting this, that discussion can take place on my user talk page in the event that I lose my edit access to this page. To conclude, I apologize, I am happy to admit to what I’ve done, and my only requests for admins are to hear out an unblock request whether it be via the standard offer or other conditions, and to clear the air on that unfortunate instance from 2019 so we can finally get closure and move this all behind us. That one instance is the only legitimate issue I have had with admins, which is why my only other request beyond consideration of an unblock request is to clear the air on that specifically. But to anybody I have wronged: If you want to clear the air with me about bad things I did to you, then please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

For an apology, quite a lot of space is used for accusing others. This is largely the same rant you've been posting for years, which you have helpfully linked to; it doesn't become an apology simply by calling it one. I think we're well past the point where any rehashing of these incidents or "clearing the air" is fruitful, and that the proper action at this point is a WP:CBAN. In case that's not clear, I support a community ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely changed my tone and my requests; I was originally harshly accusatory toward those users and demanded that they be punished, but now I dropped my original demands and am admitting that I could have been wrong and requesting respectful dialogue. That combined with me coming clean about stuff I have hid makes this an apology. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 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.

Abusive 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.

---

A very disruptive editor, User:Pax98 who continuously reverts edits by other users and falsely accuses people of sockpuppetry has been using derogatory language against me.

The graphic message was sent in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I and other editors have consistently been abused by this user and i would want serious sanctions imposed as this user has ignored all warnings and doesnt seem to stop. Taeyab (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

[330] relevant diff. Um.... yikes. Please also see the previous warnings from Liz [331] and Cullen328[332]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite block. Rev-del’d that edit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

[333] Anybody online who feels like pulling TPA? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done sigh… — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:43, 19 March 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 at Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

• Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This involves Comsats777 and Pax98

Rather than provide an overwhelming list of diffs, I will provide a link to the edit history of the article which clearly evidences the disruption.

• Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 revision history from 10:46, 5 March 2025

Please note some of the edit summaries with allegations of disruptive editing and sock puppetry.

There are similar edits at Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 revision history from 07:35, 6 March 2025 but these do not rise to the same level.

For further context please see:

• Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971#Aircrafts losses
• Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Fatal casualties of 1965 war
• User talk:Pax98#1965 war solider losses
• User talk:Cinderella157#1965 war losses (deleted by Comsats777)
• User talk:Cinderella157#1965 WAR (Comsats777 replacing the deleted section immediately above)

Both editor are CT aware for IPA. Most of these edits pertain to the infobox but I do not see they are CT aware for this.

• User talk:Pax98#Introduction to contentious topics on 23:00, 8 February 2025
• User talk:Comsats777#Introduction to contentious topics on 12:01, 15 March 2025

There may be mitigating evidence to treat these two editor slightly differently but I will leave that for wiser minds. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Cullen's notice on Pax98's talk page, they have made two edits to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 and they are reverting Comsats777 edits. [334],[335]. Most of their editing comes from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 revision history. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I even rise my voice in talk page of 1965 war about his edit and try to talk him personally in his talk page so we can make consensus but he doesn't reply there and continously reverting my edits first in both wars 1971 and 1965.

Then in Cinderella157 talk page he talk a bit but make false statement about his references there's only one reference he give on casualties (ref:Encyclopedia of developing world) but he stated there there's not only 1 reference.

Meanwhile i give two references (ref: Encyclopedia of wars and Encyclopedia of Casualties) both books are primarily for wars.

You guys can see he recently reverted my edit on 1971 war page without giving any reason and removed my references to. Comsats777 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Just take it to the talk page or WP:DRN. Conyo14 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ahh 😭 i tired hundered times on the talk page. Comsats777 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Worth mentioning here, that Pax98 is now indefinitely blocked after ignoring the final warning and crossing the red line. (more context at WP:ANI#Abusive Behaviour) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

IP editor 143.58.246.170 - personal attacks and rude comments in talk pages

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.

---

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

I reverted (twice after informing them about WP:BRD) this IP editor in what I personally believe is nothing more than a harmless content dispute - easily resolved by a short discussion at the article talk page with input from other editors. I left a message on their talk page (no diff as it was the creation of said page), which included a link to WP:BRD telling them it was best to take the issue to the talk page. They replied with the rather condescending reply:

Do not slap WPs at me, as if I do not know how to write and you do. Next you may be saying I am insulting or being personal as well - another ploy... If you think that is good English, and promoting infactuals who should desist from editing Wikipedia.

They then created the talk page discussion Talk:Merseyrail#Editor Danners430 disruptive with the comment This editor is reverting edits that correct infactuals. When it is explained to him where the article is incorrect he still reverts. - I don't see how this is a good faith attempt at resolving the content dispute in any way, rather labelling myself as disruptive. Not really in the spirit of WP:AGF as far as I can tell.

Two further replies which cemented my belief that they are not acting in any sort of good faith, and are not interested in resolving this content dispute amicably - I feel like I am taking to naive teenager, who is confused but stamps his foot thinking he is right... None of that is difficult to understand. I will be very direct to you. If you cannot understand that, you should not be editing. [336] and The fallback eh. A personal attack allegation. The second line after slapping inappropriate WPs. I was very direct with you. If you are wrong I will tell you so. No good stamping your foot when you out of order. [337]

In another thread on that page - Do not slap WPs at me, as if you are right and I am wrong. You are out of order in many ways. By wanting infactuals in the article and misleading sentences you should not be editing. Sort yourself out. [338]

I'm not sure if this warrants any form of sanction, and I'm not generally in favour of sanctions for a single incident anyway - even if someone could simply tell the editor to back down and engage in trying to resolve the content disputes while refraining from flinging insults and personal attacks about. I'm fully open to trying to resolve the issue, but I don't think anyone would disagree if I said I don't really want to engage with this sort of conversation. At the same time though, please do say if I am indeed out of order and should change - I am but one person and human :-) Danners430 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong. 100% wrong. You are reverting edits that correct infactuals. When pointed out where you are wrong you get worse and take it personally. The problem is you reverting edits that correct infactuals. It has been explained to you where you are wrong and/or lack understanding, but you still stamp you foot, wanting the article to be factually incorrect. This may be you wanting power over others rather than cooperate.

The idea is cooperation basing the encyclopedia on fact, not adopt an I am always right, even thought I am not right attitude. 143.58.246.170 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• This is oversight-blocked editor Wisdom-inc (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wisdom-inc/Archive). I have blocked the IP for 6 months, but if you see any more IPv4s in the range 143.58.192.0 to 143.58.255.255, please report them. They have also previously edited from an IPv6 address (i.e. this one on Glasgow Subway which displays exactly the same attitudes); but all of them geolocate to Southwark in London. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  That makes a lot more sense :-) Ah well, today's excitement over! Thanks for your assistance Danners430 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 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:Delectopierre incivility and ignoring of policies

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

Delecto has previously brought me here twice, I just want to preface with that. (first time, second time).

Following the last ANI discussion, I made an attempt at trying to build a better editor relationship, I reached out to them while trying to ask how I could avoid potential issues with them in the future, offer to explain any past policy issues they thought I had misapplied with them, and just work towards making the article we had disagreed on before better as a whole. I followed up a week or so later when our Dispute Resolution was archived, congratulated them on their new articles they had created while pointing out I had removed a name from one on BLPCrime grounds and again tried to work together.

Another editor @Counterfeit Purses: later removed material from the article, which led to a [[339]] talk page discussion being started by Delecto. I commented on it, and later removed the rest of the material several days later since there wasn't a consensus for including while commenting to please address on the BLP noticeboard before restoring due to BLP issues, which was ignored. I removed again, which was again restored. Delecto's reply of go bother someone else. i have been attempting to ignore you, and you continue following me around. cut it out. seems less than civil especially when I have been trying to be polite and attempting to work towards the betterment of articles while following policies, so I figured I would bring it here rather than engaging any further. Delecto had previously asked me to essentially 'check in' before I revert any of their edits which struck me more as a violation of WP:EPTALK than an olive branch, but even attempts to talk to them first seem to end with issues.

This is not to discuss the above as a content issue but rather an attempt to figure out how to work with a user who wants to be consulted before their material can be removed (if that is even required) and always restores their preferred version regardless of the policy based reasons for removal (regardless of who has removed it as noted in prior discussions - I cannot provide a direct diff due to the link not being clickable on my end but it's my last comment on the first ANI discussion listed above). If consensus is the goal of Wikipedia and two editors cannot get along or one prefers no communication with the other but also wants their preferred version of an article to say what they want and is unwilling to collaborate with another user, how does that work? Respectfully, if someone is being uncivil with me, I would rather not communicate with them at all. But I also respect the consensus process and would like to follow it, and if communication is required I would prefer it at least remain civil. If I could make a possible recommendation going forward - If material is removed that Delecto has inserted, by any user, and Delecto disagrees with the removal for them to please focus on trying to work towards a consensus first in accordance with WP:ONUS before reverting back to their preferred version since this has been an issue with multiple separate edits (1, 2, more diffs available but cannot get currently because 5% battery life on laptop without a charger) involving multiple separate editors which have also pointed to ONUS going back months to when they first started editing full time.

Awshort (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Leave me alone. Delectopierre (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

While editors should generally take care when following a thread to some unrelated dispute of someone they're in frequent disagreement with, in this case since Awshort was fixing a serious BLP vio they clearly did the right thing. User:Delectopierre if you want to continue to edit about living persons you need to start to take BLP editing more seriously. The alternative is you either voluntarily stay away from all edits about living persons or we topic ban you. You've already been given the necessary BLP CTOP alert [340] so should be aware of how seriously we take BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Nil Einne what is the serious BLP vio, exactly? I do take BLP quite seriously. Awshort has decided that in this instance I must follow a stricter standard than BLPCRIME prescribes: i.e. "must not include the material". BLPCRIME actually says must seriously consider not including material. But because I declined to follow Awshort's new standard, they decided it's a BLP violation. Delectopierre (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nil Einne just want to ping you once more to make sure you saw my question above. Thanks! Delectopierre (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't the BLP violation in my eyes. The issue was that when the material was removed on BLP grounds with the suggestion to take it to BLPN on the TalkPage prior to removal and the edit

summary pointing towards both BLPRESTORE for removed BLP content as well as ONUS, which was ignored before going back to the preferred version with the edit summary of there you go again, claiming consensus is always on your side. I never once claimed any sort of consensus being on my side. Lack of consensus for BLP's gets the material removed and there were alternatives provided to ask for outside opinions upon removal.

The BLP violation was restoring material that several other editors had disagreed with that could have a real world impact on a living person while completely ignoring the fact that consensus was absolutely necessary to restore it unedited which they knew before restoring. It isn't a "new standard" that I put into place; other editors and myself have pointed out WP:ONUS as early as December 2024 (1,2) and that it rests with the person trying to add in disputed material, with the latest person pointing it out to them being an Admin no less in February. (pinging @David Fuchs: since mentioned). It comes across as intentionally ignoring the policy at this point.

At least some of the confusion seems to be with their reasoning that I believe that once something has implied consensus, ONUS/Burden shifts, so long as the material doesn't violate other policies., and the possible justification of relying on a essay.

A editor relying on the editing approach of WP:BRR while essentially stonewalling others who try to remove material that fails WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS or even changing the wording of their posts to be more neutral leads to massive timesinks for others who attempt to fix errors, including what comes across as trying to WP:RGW at times (Most were noted previously, but 1,2, 3, 4).

I think without a "discuss before reverting" attempt in place going forward, more editors are going to be forced into devoting time to stuff that is either easily explained by policies, or drawn into discussions that are otherwise easily fixable by collaboration rather than combativeness. In almost all instances that I can think of, simple changes to text or sourcing would have avoided weeks worth of discussions that could have been spent on something much more productive for everyone involved.

Awshort (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no way to justify under BLP your inclusion of the name what seems to be a clearly non-notable and also non-public figure living person accused of such a despicable crime in an extremely unrelated article of who employed them in a relatively low level position. It's highly questionable if mention of the allegation even belongs point blank in that article but even if it does, there's no reason to name the person. The name adds nothing significant to the readers understanding of the topic at hand which is the alleged problems with this organisation. If you though because it says "must seriously consider" this means it was okay for you to seriously consider it then go ahead and include the name, this means you don't understand BLP well enough to continue to make edits about living persons. I'd note in any case you missed the more important of WP:BLPNAME which says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" and other things. It's great you didn't revert Awshort's removal of the name, but the name should never have been there in the first place and if Awshort needs to follow you around to fix such major problems in your editing, you're not going to find sympathy from me for any harassment concerns. Instead as I say you need to fix your editing very soon someway or expect there to be intervention to force you to fix your editing. To be clear, if Awshort hadn't followed you around, there's a non-zero chance that this serious BLP violation you introduced of naming the person [341] would still be in the article so why would you expect me to have sympathy for your concerns? (I'd note that you re-adding the accusation without the name violated WP:BLPUNDEL as another editor pointed out which is also a BLP violation. Still IMO this isn't quite a serious as the fact you thought it okay to add that accusation while naming the person, no matter what you later did when called out for it. Although even if you didn't revert, you've shown no signs of understanding that you made such a major mistake with including the name in the first place.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

If you though because it says "must seriously consider" this means it was okay for you to seriously consider it then go ahead and include the name Nope. I do not think that, and have not suggested I do. I made a mistake, as I wasn't as familiar with BLPCRIME. Awshort fixed the mistake I made, I re-read BLPCRIME and that's that. I haven't once suggested the name should be included since then.

I'm pretty taken aback by the statements below. I haven't asked for your sympathy, nor have I mentioned harassment in this thread.

and if Awshort needs to follow you around to fix such major problems in your editing, you're not going to find sympathy from me for any harassment concerns.

To be clear, if Awshort hadn't followed you around, there's a non-zero chance that this serious BLP violation you introduced of naming the person [38] would still be in the article so why would you expect me to have sympathy for your concerns?

Although even if you didn't revert ...I didn't revert the name. I'm not sure what to make of this.Delectopierre (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned I will give my thoughts. I don't think this is necessarily a BLP issue if the accused is not named. I think that it should be obvious that this alleged crime has nothing to do with the person's employer and therefore doesn't belong in the article, but that's a content dispute. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies. Just because the Wikipedia text itself doesn't name the person doesn't mean BLP can be ignored, especially because the person's name is the headline and URL slug in the source linked off of Wikipedia. That it's irrelevant to the article and seems only included in an attempt to paint the org in a bad light by association is just gilding the lily. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I have commented on the content at the article talk page. On the behaviour, WP:BRD needs to be followed. The content should certainly stay out unless an until a talk page consensus says that it should be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I just replied. It seems the consensus to leave it out is clear. Delectopierre (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Long-term weirdness by a couple of IP's at List of You're Under Arrest characters and many other pages

• 58.69.182.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.201.182.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• List of You're Under Arrest characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These IP's, which both geolocate to the same country, have been adding often barely intelligible unsourced excessive detail to the page linked above and many others, and the first IP has been doing this since late 2019 (pick just about any substantial diff in their list of edits to this article for an example). In August 2022, they were blocked for six months for this behaviour by NinjaRobotPirate, but they went right back to doing the same thing, resulting in this revdel at List of incidents at Disneyland Resort, where they'd edited before. As for 112.201.182.65, not only do they share a peculiar interest in the "Under Arrest" page as the 58... IP, they've also put very broken English into the mouthes of world leaders at International reactions to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I'd suggest that the 58... IP be re-blocked for a very long time and probably the 112 ... address too, along with perhaps some semi-protection at List of You're Under Arrest characters. I would have mentioned this at NinjaRobotPirate's talk page except for their reply at the end of their talk page (permalink). And I should also never check how articles on my pre-purge watchlist are going now, ever again ... :-) Graham87 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

112 ... has continue editing. Graham87 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like block evasion by Special:Contributions/119.94.160.0/19. I blocked both IPs for a year but left account creation on. That should minimize the collateral damage. If accounts show up, it should be easy enough to tell. Given the English-language proficiency of this editor, it seems unlikely they'll make it through the account creation process, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Avatar317 and battle grounding behaviors

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.

---

• Avatar317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first met Avatar317 while I was editing the article capital accumulation, on the addition of the effects section that got added in, after deadlock in which I felt they weren't listening to the sources I opened an RFC. The RFC began and all those involved with the exception of Avatar317 agreed for it's inclusion. They commonly use personal attack, in RFC that who's consensus went against their viewpoint, began using personal attacks and assuming bad faith to Unidentifiability they stated You are a new user with less than six months on Wikipedia and 46 edits, and no bot notification for RfC's (this person had found the discussion from WP:RFC/A). They believe that modifying someone else's comment is acceptable. They use battle grounding tactics, and use capital case to demean people because apparently Avatar317 has unlimited intelligence.

That's true, but that didn't answer the question of how YOU found this discussion (They use capitalization often to demean people they disagree with, here this person commented on the RFC against their opion and immediately assumed bad faith)

So your comment here is simply because you want to harass me after you didn't like my edit yesterday? You never edited this article before this post, (as you admit) and now you come here to criticize my other edits to this article as well, in addition to what is being discussed. This is clearly a case of WP:HOUNDING. (Ironic as they are currently hounding me, this was directed towards Bejakyo)

After the RFC I moved on and didn't pay close attention to them, until I noticed they had nuked one of the pages I had worked on Food Inflation, the page was already reviewed numerous times and was given a B rating on quality. They fail to understand that an essay isn't gospel and that even in that essay it states to include cited information. I also told them I used citations when writing the article I just don't cite them until the draft is done because it gives me flexibility, and was immediately ignored. After finding this months later reverted them, at which point they followed my contribs and have reverted information I added on Social Security (United States), I told them the current version is the stable version but they are continuing to edit war. They claim to want to reach consensus, yet in the past three days they have not even commented anything on the talk page Talk:Social Security (United States), despite me pinging them. In other words deny edits, until "reaching consensus" while refusing to engage in a discussion.

I am putting this here because their behavior is consistent and disruptive. Des Vallee (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Also they were involved in an edit war on Sodium Reactor Experiment although I was not involved but showed much of the same disruptive behavior with them stating: Wow! Are you so lazy or incompetent that you can't even do a simple text search of the article yourself? In response to a citation discussion directed at Robertiki. Des Vallee (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Except that I didn't "follow your contributions", I've been editing on the Social_Security_(United_States) article since 2020-06-03T22:47:28, and it, like many other articles, is on my watchlist. In case you hadn't noticed, I am interested in economics articles. You added TWO additions to Social Security (United States), ONE of which I have issues with, and I've clearly stated my issues with that edit. You simply repeating yourself on the Talk page doesn't magically make your opinions correct. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

To be more clear, you added the part I reverted, and you added this "The amount of money allocated to social security is connected to the amount of amount of working class people in the labor force every month." which I was ok with. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

References

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:Billclinton1996

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.

---

• Billclinton1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created the page 1995 United States elections by copy and pasting from other articles about elections in this year. No attribution was given to the pages copied from. The standard text regarding attribution ({{Uw-copying}}) was placed on their user page[343] which was promptly deleted. No efforts have been made to provide attribution.

Of more concern is that the article is largely unreferenced. When the unreferenced parts are removed the user simply reinstates them[344][345][346] even though WP:BURDEN has been explained to them both on their talk page[347][348][349] and in edit summaries.[350][351] --John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Billclinton1996, you stated: I decline to participate in the noticeboard discussion. I suspect that I will be unilaterally blocked for a short period by an admin, but that's a natural consequence of concentrating immense power to a select group of editors. You are correct; I will block you if you refuse to discuss your edits, but it will be an indefinite one from mainspace until such time as you choose to discuss them, not a short block. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that user name may also be problematic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not. There is already a notice on my user page indicating that I'm not related to any people with a Wikipedia article by that name. I have already given my full reasoning on my talk page. I don't feel the need to discuss anything further right now. Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Billclinton1996: As much as I admire Bartleby, the Scrivener, "I would prefer not to" is not an option on Wikipedia. If you refuse to discuss your edits, I am inclined to indef you until you decide to do so. Copyvio is quite serious, and combined with edit warring and a refusal to communicate, you're veering into WP:NOTHERE territory. I'll give you one last chance to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine. I understand that my tone could have been construed as inappropriate and "not here to build an encyclopaedia". Are there any particular questions you feel I have not addressed already on my talk page? Or perhaps some comments? Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't feel that content needed sourcing because I had left a "main article" template on each of the sections indicating where I got my information from, and if a reader really wanted a source they could just go there. WP:BURDEN requires citations in an article, not citations in a different article: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We do not and cannot rely on citations from other articles, both because Wikipedia itself is not reliable and articles and their citations can change. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such an urgent matter that you feel my editing privileges need to be revoked. It was urgent because you failed to attribute, refused to communicate about it, and edit-warred to reinstate it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that copy-pasting from one Wikipedia article to another without attribution creates a copyright violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I appreciate the comments above. In future, I will attribute when copying content within Wikipedia, study WP:BURDEN, not revert repeatedly to restore my own unsourced content, etc. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And will you also communicate civilly when someone points out an issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Given your argumentative comments at AfD and attempts to portray yourself as a victim of a fully-fledged "flogging and pillory" in this ANI discussion, I am skeptical of your willingness to collaborate with other editors in the future. --John B123 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"Please don't unilaterally redirect articles. Take it to Afd if you want." Ask and ye shall receive. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems highly likely that this is a returning editor, given their talk page commentary about the nature of ANI. I'm guessing their previous account didn't cease editing on good terms. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not a returning editor. I have simply garnered enough experience to establish a few key facts about this noticeboard. I don't know if you've ever been on the receiving end of an ANI complaint, but the flurry of notifications and mentions certainly feels like a "horse whipping" to me... Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been dragged here a few times, yes. I know the drill. But you speak with the air of a jaded veteran, something that scarcely reflects the age of your account. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree, looking at this user's edit history it's not what you'd expect from a newcomer. --John B123 (talk) 08:47, 18 March 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.

rapid-fire "I will shoot you to death" posts

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.

---

Requesting an immediate block on 73.176.46.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. The block is just to stop the immediate disruption, if a longer block is needed or another admin feels the block needs to be modified in any way, please feel free to address that as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Meters (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Block extended to three years by Aoidh after discussion of past history. Meters (talk) 03:08, 20 March 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:Cdvbfgb persistently edit-warring at University of California, Davis to smear the university

• Cdvbfgb (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)
• University of California, Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In February, I noticed an unregistered editor making POV edits to smear the university by adding multiple minor events to the article as "controversies." They reverted my attempts to remove this material and ignored the subsequent talk page discussion. Shortly thereafter, User:Cdvbfgb created their account and began making similar edits to the article to impose a negative POV. Multiple editors have shared their concerns in the article's Talk page and reverted Cdvbfgb's edits; Cdvbfgb has only responded once to post a short note accusing another editor of working for the university despite being specifically pinged multiple times by different editors in different parts of the discussion (e.g., [352], [353]). Multiple editors have also asked or warned Cdvbfgb on their User Talk page to stop making these edits (e.g., [354], [355]) with little apparent impact.

Cdvbfgb was briefly blocked by from editing that article in the wake of their edit-warring. The block has expired and they have resumed their POV edits and edit-warring. In response to a warning on their User Talk page, they indicated that they are willing to continue edit warring and making POV edits: "I used the words carefully so not to be blocked. If blocked, it is a short-term blockage at most. a completely neutral wiki page of a big school with this rank is rare--I cannot say any more.

Examples of their POV edits including their edit summaries:

• (no edit summary and edit marked as "minor")
• unnecessary and misleading information cut off
• to improve accuracy
• misleading. they mainly reappeared when you do not give a tuition. not closed to the reality. they are pretty passive and beaucracutic, unless there is a serious issue, they disappear. (made after returning from their block)
• uc davis is public schools--of course many people can use for public interest. things mentioned potentially are common for a nuclear lab. intentionally promoted-- why not mention all facility with this details? because they want to promote how good nuclear lab is to the public as if there is a mission of landing on Mars. (made after returning from their block)

To be clear, the article needs a lot of work. There are many unsourced statements that need to be sourced, edited, or removed. And it's also clear that parts of the article were written with an overtly positive and promotional point of view. I don't object to some of Cdvbfgb's edits and I welcome their help in improving the article. But deliberately editing the article to now have a negative point of view and doing so while refusing to collaborate and communicate with other editors is not acceptable, particularly when Cdvbfgb has already been blocked once and has said that they plan to continue edit warring because the penalty for doing so the first time was so light.

@Ritchie333: You blocked the editor after my March 12 request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring so I am pinging you so you're aware that this behavior has continued. I am not pinging the other editors who have been involved in these disputes; my goal is to stop Cdvbfgb's edit warring and POV edits and I don't think that further comments from other editors who have already weighed in on the article's Talk page and Cdvbfgb's User Talk page will be helpful or effective here. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Because Cdvbfgb has been persistently pushing a negative point of view in violation of the neutral point of view, a core content policy, and editing against consensus, I have indefinitely pageblocked the editor from editing University of California, Davis. They are free to make neutral, well-referenced, formal edit requests at Talk: University of California, Davis, which will be completed if their requests gain consensus.

Because of the evidence free accusations that Cdvbfgb has been throwing around, I want to state that I am not and never have been a student, staffer, faculty member or alumni of UC Davis or any other UC campus. However, I have visited that campus many times because I have lived relatively close to it for many years, and Davis is a delightful town. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the primary author of Manetti Shrem Museum of Art, which is located on the UC Davis campus but I do not believe that makes me involved with the University of California, Davis article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like MangoEater King Lobclaw (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "MangoEater"? -- Least Action (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume the implication is it's a sock of Mangoeater1000. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've written up a SPI case here after having a look at their contributions. -- Least Action (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

Clear and explicit legal threat here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I indeffed MorningUpdate (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ValleyFalcon is probably another sock, considering Special:Diff/1281094195. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Guy says he's represented by a firm calling itself (and I am not making this up) "Harder Stonerock" [356]. Now, before you pooh-pooh the suggestion that that sounds like a porn actor's stage name, let me point out that the firm apparently won a recent case against Ms. Stormy Daniels [357]. That can't be a coincidence, can it? EEng 02:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I actually had to look that firm up as well because the name sounds absurd. But the firm exists and specialises in defamation. I'm also pretty certain they would not serve notice via a publicly-viewable Wikipedia talk page and would instead do so thru more private means, as service this way is wildly counterproductive irrespective of the merits of the case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:40, 20 March 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.

Making legal threats?

User:ExMLAangoorlatadeka appears to have a WP:COI and has made legal threats here: [358] and here: [359] Does anything need to be done? They assumed that they were the owner. Codename AD ^talk 16:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Clear legal threats, blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I can smell WP:LOUTSOCKing here [360]. This is the IP's first (and afaik only) edit. QwertyForest (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Roberta Hoskie

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.

---

Editor User:Skyerise repeatedly edit warring to maintain promotional content at Roberta Hoskie#Philanthropy, that they refuse to remove. We had a conversation on his talk page but its going nowwhere. Editor User:Skyerise is a long established editor but its possible they have never came acrosss this before. I don't think they realise how promo it is. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

As I advised on the user talk discussion, this isn't likely to go anywhere; you need to work out your content dispute on the article talk page. I suggest that you withdraw this discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked the OP to discuss on the article talk page in order to determine whether there is a consensus among the editors/watchers of the article for their change. I have repeatedly pointed to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and requested that those fairly standard processes be followed. Given that the OP flatly refused to open a discussion on the article talk page, which is the only place consensus could reasonably be determined for their change, I have opened one myself, yet the OP hasn't (yet, last I checked), replied there. I assert that the OP is engaged in disruptive editing (point 4: "Fails to engage in consensus building") by ignoring my invocation of the entirely normal process of consensus building on the article talk page. Instead of moving the discussion to the article talk page when requested, they threatened to take the issue to ANI on my talk page, even though this is a simple content dispute which should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. Skyerise (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It not a content dispute. Consensus is long established on this. Philanthropy sections shine an unnatural light on BLP subjects. There is consensus that where there is business is mentioned and only reported as single human interest stories in passing that don't get wide coverage are promotional by nature. They are promoting the subject and the business and that breaks the Terms of Use. Skyrise edit warred to maintain it before starting a discussion. I reverted because its plainly obvious to me. Skyrise only opened a discussion while I was writing my last comment. I informed Skyrise that I was an NPP/AFC reviewer following process. scope_creep^Talk 10:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a content dispute, and other editors of the article should certainly be involved in the discussion. I've got no idea what a " NPP/AFC reviewer" is, but I don't think they have any special rights to avoid normal processes if their edits are disputed. As I clearly told you on my talk page: "We open these discussions on article talk pages because no consensus can be determined on an editor's talk page. It takes a third (or more) editor of the article to determine consensus. I am happy to follow consensus, but you are evading actually finding out what the consensus is by refusing to hold the discussion on the article talk page." Skyerise (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems fundamentally a content dispute, about whether content is in keeping with policy. I don't see how this "breaks the Terms of Use". 331dot (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

When this was written in 2015 it was more acceptable because the nature of philanthropy wasn't understood. It was only because it went through Afd that it surfaced. I try and check most articles that come out of an Afd keep !vote, particularly BLP's. Some of them are not been seen for years like this. I would suggest and what I've been working to, is that it breaks the "Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud" clause of the Terms of Use. It give a false impression of the person that isn't necessarily accurate or fully based in reality. Which is WP:NPOV, but in this case its clearly violates WP:PROMO as it links her business. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: There are no links to her business on that article, only to third-party sources. And the paragraph in question mentions only a non-profit organization, not any commercial venture. Skyerise (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a consensus-oriented discussion happening at Talk:Roberta Hoskie#Repeated unilateral removal of material by User:Scope creep right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 20 March 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 85.134.229.147, still

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.

---

85.134.229.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and continued after a 31h block on the 13th. IP hasn't responded to warnings or to this previous ANI report. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 month. This is a return customer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 20 March 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.