Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1183

Reporting inappropriate behavior of two users

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

---

Hello, I am here to report the inappropriate behavior of two users: OhnoitsJamie and Justiyaya, who I feel have used their seniority (and role of administrator in the case of Ohnoitsjamie) to speak and engage me in a completely inappropriate manner. Their language towards me has been both accusatory and condescending. I will list examples here, but they can also be found on my talk page on the Jacob Elordi talk page as well.

1. OhnoitsJamie accused me, on my talk page, of purposely "whitewashing" information on Jacob Elordi, after I had already conceded to accidentally removing pertinent information.

2. OhnoitsJamie accused me of "making things up at this point," despite the fact that I was citing directly from Wikipedia pages that they had previously linked during our exchange User_talk:Librasunco.

3. Justiyaya tried to intimidate me from furthering participating on the Jacob Elordi talk page by weaponizing seniority on the platform. These are their words: "I'd suggest finding another article to edit or another task to do to learn how Wikipedia works and its core policies. When you're starting something, like glassblowing, and someone who's been doing it for close to two decades tells you you've doing it wrong, it's better to listen. It's a bit too early in your editing journey to be engaging in debates like these, it's better to learn the rules first and how they are applied by editors."

4. As you can clearly see above and here, I was accused of "glassblowing" an administrator (might I add, is the incorrect terminology) for simply disagreeing with their interpretation (with cited evidence and justifications), and despite my written correspondence suggesting nothing of the fact, as I was continuously respectful and civil. I feel these words are unfair characterization and were written in bad faith.

The behaviors of both OhnoitsJamie and Justiyaya violate Wikipedia's rules for dispute resolution, which include: failure to assume good faith, failure to be civil, and failure to compromise. To add, accusing my character and accusing me of defamatory behavior, in the case of Justiyaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librasunco (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay. So what sanction are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to request an interaction ban with both users. Librasunco (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems highly unusual for an editor with only 75 edits and about 1 week of experience to know what an IBAN is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Librasunco (was typing this as a reply to Talk:Jacob Elordi) I intended glassblowing as an analogy to editing Wikipedia... not as a comment on your behavior. Reading it back, I've realized it's probably a bit unconventional or confusing, apologies. I also didn't want the comment to suggest that they were correct simply because they have seniority, that would be pulling rank. I wanted it to refer more so to levels of competence, as a suggestion to assume good faith. I could've probably made that clearer too. Justiyaya 15:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It is fair to call removal of all criticism on flimsy grounds "whitewashing." I said you were "making up things" in regards to your assertion that sources you didn't like were not "official" criticism sources, and were thus not usable in Wikipedia. To edit Wikipedia, you need to be able to collaborate with other editors who disagree with your edits and discuss those edits on the article talk page. I don't understand the accusations; where has anyone been uncivil to you here or defamed you? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Meritless accusations. An uninvolved administrator should close this down promptly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 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.

Pro-Thai nationalistic vandalism

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,

So there has been a user, OatyOaty, whose only contributions have been the same nationalistic edits to the Sbai page. They have already been warned by myself and another on their talk page yet this continues.

Regards, TansoShoshen (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen without you providing WP:DIFFs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The reported editor was blocked from mainspace by QEDK 45 minutes after this report (11.5 hours before your comment). --JBL (talk) 19:57, 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.

Wikipedia talk: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.

---

Could Wikipedia talk:Teahouse be protected by a longer duration? The vandalism is starting to clog up the page history and protecting for only a few hours at a time seems insufficient. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Indefinitely_protect_Teahouse appears to be short protection in order to let new editors ask questions. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

A better question is has the WMF had any success in trying to limit the access of the vandal through these proxies? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Given how the service works, this would be very difficult. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Are we aware if "this particular vandal" has ever used a non-proxy IP? The statements being used are bad enough to warrant a response from Trust and Safety team. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK no but they have lots of blocked alts. For what it's worth, User:MidAtlanticBaby is the vandal. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@MolecularPilot has a bot that tracks these proxies here. I don't think we've got an adminbot automatically blocking these yet, though, which really needs to happen ASAP. Toadspike [Talk] 09:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If we protect the Teahouse long-term we might as well shut it down. The whole point of it is that it's somewhere for new editors to ask questions. It is better to simply revert and block, and report to T&S if needed, and they can decide whether to get law enforcement involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would hope law enforcement would be involved, given their vulgar and violent threats. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm hoping it doesn't take him escalating it to threatening a random company to get rid of him, such as what happened with JarlaxleArtemis. But the way VPNGate works means that law enforcement would essentially be unwittingly swatting people whose only crime was allowing a GIFT subject to use their IP address to send death threats across state lines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

While we are here, has someone already contacted T and S? Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. MidAtlanticBaby is banned by the WMF. C F A 19:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of the teahouse when {{help me}} exists? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

New users tend to not know that template exists or how to use a template en generale. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Question: When dealing with this type of rapid IP-hopping vandalism after it's already gotten an admin's attention, is it better to revert quickly (to get the offensive material off the page let's say 1-5 minutes faster than it otherwise would've been removed) or hold off and let the admin deal with it (to avoid creating more revdel work for the admin and adding more garbage to the page history)? --Richard Yin (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Yin go ahead and revert. There's no material difference between doing a revdel of one revision and one of twenty. -- asilvering (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the horrific and highly specific nature of this sick puppy's demented threats, all their posts should be reverted as rapidly as any sane editor can click "undo" or "rollback". Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I wanted to make sure I hadn't somehow made things worse. Thank you both for the input. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:53, 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.

Report of User Misconduct: Vandalism of Userpage and Refusal to Engage in Discussion

My userpage has been repeatedly edited by @Indonesiainfo24, with false claims that I am being blocked, despite the user not being an administrator. This occurred after I politely invited the user multiple times, including on their personal Talk page, to engage in a constructive discussion on the talk page regarding the Rendang article, but they chose not to participate. Instead of collaborating, the user made misleading statements, including posting on my Talk page that I had been blocked, which is not accurate. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as this behavior disrupts the collaborative and civil environment that Wikipedia encourages.--Native99girl (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Another @Mat Kiyan has kindly helped restore my page, but if you check the edit history, you can see the disruptive actions. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as this behavior disrupts the collaborative and civil environment that Wikipedia encourages.--Native99girl (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Indonesiainfo24 has blown past the 3RR boundary on Rendang, so I have blocked for 31 hours to stop the edit war. To allow the user to reply here and to participate in the talk page, the block only applies to articles. This is an interim action, and is not intended to limit or prevent further action if needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a long-term pattern of behavior from Indonesiainfo24. It's high time for some sort of longer-term block or CBAN. King Lobclaw (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Indonesiainfo24's conduct at Rendang has certainly been poor, short-circuiting an ongoing discussion on the talk page to edit war in their preferred version while dropping in vandalism notices for people who disagree with the changes, all while refusing to join the discussion. Not to mention, in a rare actual use of an edit summary, going with Some of the citation sources in the article were recently published to distort history, which they fabricated using their own logic. This is not the true historical account that has been reported for a long time which does not appear promising. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to the false ArbCom block notice on User:Native99girl Indonesiainfo24 has done the same at User:MrCattttt. I have added user namespace to the pblock imposed by rsjaffe, and extended it to indefinite in order to ensure that Indonesiainfo24 engages with this discussion. No prejudice to the outcome of this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Some of the citation sources in the article were recently published to distort history, which they fabricated using their own logic. This is not the true historical account that has been reported for a long time. Indonesiainfo24 (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  How does this explain your addition of false block notices to the user pages of two other users? Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Some articles from the cited sources actually discuss fried chicken instead of Rendang, making them inaccurate references for the page. Indonesiainfo24 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hello Admin, I was only issuing a vandalism warning for a page, but I was blocked without a clear reason. Could you please review my case and clarify why this happened? I believe my edits were made in good faith to maintain the accuracy of the content. Indonesiainfo24 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Indonesiainfo24 To be clear: you were adding a block notice to editor's userpages, which is different than a vandalism warning. The editors your were warning for vandalisim were not actually vandalizing the article; there's a difference between the edits they were making and vandalism. You were then blocked from articlespace because you were edit warring on that article; even if you are on the "right" side of a content dispute, edit warring is not allowed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support extension of block to site-wide due to continued refusal to understand the problematic nature of their editing and either—I'm not sure which, possibly both—NOTHERE or CIR. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Support indef. block. King Lobclaw (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Support indef block for WP:CIR. Despite prompting and a 3 day window to respond Indonesiainfo24 has not acknowledged that they issued false block notices {{ArbComBlock}} rather than just warnings of potential blocks {{uw-vandalism4}}. They do not acknowledge the personal conduct aspect of their edit warring, focussing instead on the content aspects. As I handed out one of the interim pblocks I feel I'm too WP:INVOLVED at this point. Cabayi (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

   Done following seeing their comments on Cabayi's talk page following the pblocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Dispute over talk page comment on Talk:United States Department of Education

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.

---

• United States Department of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was browsing Recent Changes when I noticed that an improperly placed, unsigned comment on the page mentioned above was being vandalized by an IP address, which I promptly reverted. This caused said IP address to continue vandalizing before starting a section titled "Anti-Christian bias" where they accused Wikipedia and its editors (myself included) of, among other things, being a Reddit user and being biased against Christians for including the talk page comment. While I agree its deletion was handled in a much more mature way upon the second revision by the second IP address (and I perhaps could've removed the comment myself rather than instantly assuming vandalism because the comment was being vandalized in return), I still noted some quite aggressive behavior from both IP's as well as assuming another editor is a sockpuppet of myself. I'm kinda waiting for an overall administrator consensus on this issue, as I've stated before on the talk page. Bored kittycat (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing but complete lies You keep on adding a personal attack against Christians saying that they want to ban teaching evolution in schools and Wikipedia talk page on the department of education. You use multiple accounts to keep on adding this back and will attack anyone who removes it. You weren't just randomly browsing Wikipedia one day you personally came here and decided you as an IP editor will add this irrelevant thing to a Wikipedia talk page for no reason whatsoever you have threatened many people because you just want to hate on the Bible and Christianity you have proven that you're willing to open up a discussion into this which time we will be sure will ending you getting banned and your alternate account as any moderator will come and see that these things have absolutely nothing to do with the department of education and do not belong on its Talk page. 217.180.216.90 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Taking this approach doesn't really help matters - again, I was waiting for the moderators' consensus. My typing style doesn't really match 74's, but eh. Assuming randomdude is another sockpuppet of me isn't really helping your case either, as I've removed your comments for being vandalism/attacks. I do not wish to make this personal at all, and warning templates are not threats either - they are pieces of advice designed to guide editors on the encyclopedia (which, assuming you are the other IP [going to have to wait on CheckUser to confirm that if necessary], you claim is anti-Christian, even though WP:NOTCENSORED clearly states this is not the case). Thank you. Bored kittycat (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Clearly the same person, and clearly up to no good, with all of their edits focused on confrontational talk page nonsense. IPs are allowed to be dynamic, so the fact that there's multiple IPs involved isn't immediately sockpuppetry (although they did essentially commit to socking, which is blockable), but the discussion behavior alone is cause for a block, and/or page protection. For the record, the initial IP that made the "anti-Christian" FORUM-style post was also up to no good and it is correct to have removed it; none of that made the following tantrum by the other IPs appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorta rusty when it comes to talk pages as I haven't edited in a hot minute (last time, I was stuck in high school and now I'm in pharmacy school), so I wasn't 100% if it could've been removed or not, considering legislation I've seen out there for US state education in recent eras, but hey, you've got this. Bored kittycat (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And removed 217*'s talk page access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 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.

Mariofan(!)08 and ongoing WP:IDHT issues

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

---

Mariofan!08 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly edit warring on several pages related to parts of Dublin and ignored requests from other editors to stop this.

On a previous account, now renamed but previously named Mariofan08, the user repeatedly made changes to articles, changing the description of these places to "suburbs of Dublin", completely unsourced. Guliolopez (talk · contribs) on several occasions explained in edit summaries that this was against what sources said and reached out to the editor (as seen on their talk page), but all of these issues were ignored and the disruptive addition of this unsourced content continued. The account was later renamed and globally locked. After this, the user started editing similar claims on several IPs (1, 2, 3), again with the constant addition of unsourced content. I sent Clondalkin to RfPP where it was semi-protected, which ended some of the issues on that page for a while (not on other Dublin-related pages, where this continued however).

The newest iteration of this user, Mariofan!08, has continued to add this content, ignoring prior edit summaries and attempts at outreach. Enough is enough at this point and the constant addition of unsourced information and WP:IDHT behaviour is becoming disruptive. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Update; the subject of this report has attempted to remove this section. Seems they can hear me, but are just choosing not to listen, which is kinda way worse..... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Given they apparently requested a courtesy vanishing on their previous account and then created a new account with a username all but identical to the name that account had before its vanishing, and went back to editing in the same topic areas (Dublin), this is a bad WP:CLEANSTART - it looks very much like they were attempting to evade scrutiny, given the old account was vanished immediately after receiving a level 3 warning for disruptive editing. Accordingly I've blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Cheers Bushranger, much appreciated. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:15, 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 Yerkezhan Zh

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.

---

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

There is probably some tiny chance that this account isn’t deliberately puffing up its edit count for some less-than-farious purpose, but damned if I can see it. {{CU needed}} Qwirkle (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

All those "+1"s in the byte count do look a little suspicious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

88 edits in a day to add a space character or comma. Looks like gaming the system to get WP:XC. Northern Moonlight 21:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Uhh, someone smarter than me might want to look at those CU results, because I have no idea what to make of them. As a start, we could reasonably assume that Yerkezhan Zholdas is the same person, and A Tomiiiris seems technically and behaviourally cromulent, but there are about 50 or 60 other accounts to deal with, all doing vaguely similar stuff. I wonder if there is an editathon going on in (location redacted). Spicy (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, editing marathons should have regulated people regarding multiple accounts. Consider blocking the user in question immediately. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say the technical evidence suggests A Tomiiiris and Yerkezhan Zh are unlikely. Not sure if that contradicts what you meant. If it does, I'll send you an email as to why. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Spicy: I'm flattered by the ping, but also pretty confused by the results. I'll follow up in private. Fwiw, I am confident that A Tomiiiris (talk · contribs) = A.Aselya (talk · contribs) = Shapa995 (talk · contribs). --Blablubbs (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for the clear disruptive purpose. Izno (talk) 17:57, 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.

Misleading edit summaries

Moved to Talk:Qatari connection affair § The Guardian

Due to this editing and due to it, I moved the issue to the talk page. _Dgw|Talk 10:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible fraud case using Wikipedia.

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

---

Hi! One of the Wikipedia admins told me to post this here, asking for your advice. I have reported several pages of fraudsters in the past. I got this one from Reddit, while discussing some scammers with other members of the community.

The company is nothing but a scam, as I was going through Reddit. Wikipedia's name is being used to defraud people. Undetectable.ai History shows that the page has been nominated for deletion, but did not receive much larger objective discussion by mostly amateur nominators. 4 of the 4 co-founders are not business professionals, but fraudsters.

The only media coverage that exists of the "founders" is regarding their felonies. An editor on Wikipedia added a section about felonies a few times, including the note that one of the founders has been convicted of selling drugs to college students, while presenting themselves as a company for students. there are no real employees.

Can you look into this? I think an experienced editor should do a proper nomination to delete the page, and note all the concerns about conflict of interest, and lack of sources to establish notability, along with repeated attempts to remove entire paragraphs made regarding the questionable background of executives.

I am concerned about the danger it represents to the community, as the reputation of Wikipedia could be used for someone's deceptive practices to defraud people. Out of 20 sources, I am not able to see one that can help establish notability.

Some edits are made by

• curprev 20:14, 25 December 2024 Pppery talk contribs  3,208 bytes +406  Fix undo While the name of the founder, with Christian Perry.

Here are the edits the founders have been trying to remover over 4 times, as seen in the history of the edits.

• curprev 03:47, 9 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs  12,654 bytes +1,489  I created a controversies section, partially taken from an existing page on actor Devan Leos who is also the CMO of Undetectable AI using sources that were already approved for that page. I also added to this the criminal history of the founder and CEO Christian Perry and provided the court record as a source. undo Tag: Reverted
• curprev 02:44, 9 April 2024 Comintell talk contribs  11,165 bytes −949  →Controversies: Removed primary source claims undo Tag: Visual edit

8 April 2024

• curprev 20:04, 8 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs m  12,114 bytes −1  Removed an extra spacing from a previous edit. undo
• curprev 20:00, 8 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs  12,115 bytes +950  →Reception and analysis: I added a subsection on two of the senior executives involved with this company including its founder. It is notable that two executive officers have a history of felonious behavior. I presented this information in an unbiased way and it is simply to inform the public about the background of two people deeply involved in the development. undo

Upon closer inspection, an experienced Wikipedia editor can easily establish that all of the sources are not reliable. Moreover, some of the sources even have the name of the founders listed as "authors". Sources do not provide reliable in-depth coverage. The section "Academic research" does not establish the notability of this company. None of those sources are media, but rather self-published, non-peer-reviewed "research articles", which hold no more value than a Facebook or Instagram post used as a source. I want to comment on each source, as I check. I think this is dangerous.

1. https://technology.inquirer.net/131809/ai-detectors - briefly passing mention

2.https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240612-the-people-making-ai-sound-more-human- it is an interview by the founder. How can it be used to establish notability

3.https://www.swaggermagazine.com/ai/how-this-ceo-makes-chatgpt-speak/ - blandly promotion content, by a Staff writer, while the CCO of the company is listed as a writer for the same platform.

4. https://arbiteronline.com/2024/08/22/undetectable-ai/- another interview by the founder 5.https://okmagazine.com/p/researcher-working-royal-air-force-created-undetectable-ai/- no sources, by Staff writer, keeping in mind the owner of tech company - Devan Leos, writes that he is "a staff writer" to this magazine.

6.https://www.kget.com/video/undetectable-ai-helps-emulate-%E2%80%98human%E2%80%99-side-to-ai/8670091/- interview by the founder, who is currently on 5 year probation for attempted murder.

7.https://radaronline.com/p/alan-from-mighty-med-condemns-ai-cheats-then-explains-how-to-cheat-with-ai/- interview given by the founder.

• 8.https://www.techtudo.com.br/dicas-e-tutoriais/2023/10/undetectableai-como-saber-se-um-texto-foi-escrito-pelo-chatgpt-edsoftwares.ghtml- press release in Brazilian 9.https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/- brief mention based on the interview of the founder Sources 10-13 are about the questions " academic research". My concerns are that none of these "studies" establish the so-called "notability" of the company. None of these "studies" are published in recognizable peer-reviewed research databases. They have not more reliable than a post on Facebook. 14. https://thechainsaw.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-detectors-used-to-accuse-celebs-of-faking-their-apologies/- it does not even mention the company. Revisions show that it has been removed many times, but someone keeps reverting it.
• 15. https://thechainsaw.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-detectors-used-to-accuse-celebs-of-faking-their-apologies/- paid article that has a big note on it "*Notice: our partnership includes paid API and the use of Undetectable AI; this article was not solely created in exchange for the use of their platform. As providers of articles of engaging online social content and the latest trends, we are genuinely proud to be among the first publishers announcing a partnership with this company"
• 16.https://www.flexos.work/learn/generative-ai-top-150- this is a blog. The company in questions has never been places in any real "tops".
• 17-19. https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-tested-10-ai-content-detectors-and-these-3-correctly-identified-ai-text-every-time/- https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC2403/S00015/want-to-make-your-ai-content-undetectable-theres-an-app-for-that.htm brief mention, an review. Here, I am not sure, can an Amazon review be used as a Wikipedia sources too?

108.60.60.254 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment Seemingly AI-generated edit summaries on pages about AI. How ironic. Also, you must notify users involved in ANI cases; I will do so for you this time. Departure– (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I forgot to add the link to the Page itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable.ai 108.60.60.254 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Too much to read here through the seemingly AI generated post. From what I gather, are you trying to create an WP:AFD? If so, do that. If you are saying this is a blatant hoax, that doesn't appear to be the case. Otherwise, what are you asking for? Conyo14 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't start an AfD directly, but they can request one at WT:AFD. On a side note, the user seems to be checking the references on the article for notability, but some users on the first AfD have highlighted some sources not cited that could count for notability. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion that should be occurring on the article talk page as it doesn't seem to involve any misconduct by an editor. We don't evaluate references at ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anything actionable here. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:53, 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.

Uncivil behavior and accusations

It would be good to get other sets of eyes on the short dialogue at Talk:Telling China's stories well as we have what looks like WP:ASPERSIONS and accusations thrown by TinaLees-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). - Amigao (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read the history page of Telling China's stories well and observe the vivid and compulsive manner in which one account (Amigao ) executes removals while others engage in modifying and augmenting content. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Amigao and TinaLees-Jones, can you please supply some diffs rather than asking editors to search for whatever is concerning you two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. This one for starters: 1. - Amigao (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Very clear WP:NPA violations on Talk:Telling China's stories well. - Amigao (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I was in the process of adding this article when Amigao abruptly intervened and disrupted my additions multiple times consecutively. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Amigao possesses a notably poor reputation beyond Wikipedia, particularly with Chinese subjects. [8][9] This account has frequently pursued the content I have authored and contributed over the past year, and I was reluctant to trouble the administrators with such minutiae; nevertheless, now that it has been brought up, I articulate it all collectively. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia affairs really shouldn't be brought up here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that permitting external opinions to impede standard editing is perplexing for normal accounts like me, like you; is there an approach for Wikipedia to maintain a social distance from individuals who exhibit hostile attitudes towards specific topics? No individual is inherently predisposed to harbor animosity towards another person or a nation; so, if such animosity persists for an extended duration, what level of motivation underlies it? TinaLees-Jones (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have onwiki evidence than someone exhibits specific attitudes towards specific topics, you can present that evidence at ANI or maybe AN with appropriate diffs. Note that any suggestions of a motivation would need very strong evidence or should not even be mentioned as it will likely be a blockable personal attack. Until and unless an editor is restricted from editing in that area, then when they chose to do so, any other editor editing in that area will need to engage with in them in good faith with needing including discussing content concerns, not assuming their edits are intended to cause harm etc, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project. (And to be clear, this applies to any areas where the two editors editing overlaps.) There's no requirement for editors to engage socially with other editors so editors are always free to avoid social contacts generally or with any specific editor. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The talk-page in question is very short and Amigao’s issues with the exchanges there will be apparent if you take one minute to read it. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@TinaLees-Jones I just reviewed your most recent edits to the article, done about three minutes after you posted the comment I'm replying to. On those edits, Amigao was absolutely justified to undo your edits, because some of the changes you made were to alter direct quotations by editing what the quoted person said. Couple that with your casting of aspersions, and it becomes increasingly easy to view your edits as bad-faith. —C.Fred (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw that and wondered if they had duelling translations - haven't had a chance to dig into sources for the quote yet. The other question appears to be about interpretation of WP:XINHUA - I do think Amigao is a bit too hot to remove bromine statements like "this conference happened" on the basis of Xinhua being unreliable but I think that casting aspersions and linking to Reddit posts claiming specific Wikipedia editors are CIA operatives is more disruptive than being a bit too aggressive with source removal of a disputed source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

OK so I looked at the source [10] and the language is in English and corresponds to Amigao's transcription. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Quite a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND and other behavior indicative of the user's general disregard for Wikipedia policy and guidelines. For example, even after being warned multiple times to use WP:ES on their talk page by Kautilya3 and myself, TinaLees-Jones refuses to do so. There is a pattern here and it is looking increasingly like TinaLees-Jones is WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I have also faced WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from this editor. They removed long-standing county maps from a wide range of Tibet pages, which must have taken a lot of effort from the creators of those maps. Gonggar County being one such. When reverted, they didn't take it lightly, and responded with wild aspersions as found in this reply. The edits they made seem to be all cosmetic, but they included a lot of Chinese language sources to existing content, and nobody knows whether they actually verify the content or not. They didn't provide transliterations or translations for the Chinese titles of those works, as I requested. It would take a lot of work for somebody to clean up after their edits.

I don't think the editor is ill-meaning, but they are quite headstrong and don't take advice. WP:AGF is totally lacking. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition to a total lack of willingness to use WP:ES, there is also concern that TinaLees-Jones has been using WP:LLMs to create pages such as Shannan People's Hospital. Other pages created by this user (e.g., Yarlung River, Kadruk Monastery, Zhaxigenpei Lhakhang) appear to have the same issue. - Amigao (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• TinaLees-Jones, your continued participation here would be beneficial for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, I appreciate your intervention. In my correspondence with Kautilya3, we have achieved a consensus on my Talk page concerning the Sino-Indian relationship and the use of OSM's map model; hence, our agreement has been established. I comprehend Amigao's motivations and do not concur with numerous aspects of his perspectives; nonetheless, this does not preclude our potential collaboration in the future, and I am open to suggestions for enhancing my modifications. Thank you. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  There was no consensus. The editor basically exhausted my energy I am willing to spend for routine watchfulness. These are not my pages to begin with. Claiming that this had anything to do with "Sino-Indian relationship" is totally bogus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  The editor clearly is here to right great wrongs. I would like to be symapathetic - they are correct that pages regarding contemporary China have POV problems that are exacerbated both by the POV of many English language sources (which trend hostile to socialism) and by how we adjudicate the reliability of Chinese sources - but these are systematic bias problems and systematic bias problems are not going to get fixed by storming into article talk pages and accusing editors of being paid by the CIA to spread disinformation. If the editor really wants to improve the POV balance of articles about contemporary China they would be much better served by focusing on learning Wikipedia policy and identifying novel sources that can provide perspectives on things like non-dissident mainland Chinese POVs rather than picking fights with long-term editors. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Competence of User:Bookworm857158367

• Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've had previous issues with User:Bookworm857158367 recently, e.g. the bizarre issue which lead to User talk:Bookworm857158367#Edit warring 2. Looking at their user talk page, I see repeated issues over the last few years (since 2022 or 2023) about edit warring and about reverting without edit summaries.

This morning, I noticed an editor asking why their edit was reverted, and after checking I found that the 7 most recent edits by Bookworm were all incorrect reverts (of 7 different editors). I posted this on their talk page, User talk:Bookworm857158367#Your latest reverts, but they just insisted that they were right and again reverted a couple of these articles.

They have now 3 times changed the genetive of the latin Flos back to "Florus" instead of the correct "Floris"[11]. They have also reinserted the wrong capitalization of a book[12] because "The title in the source is listed in lower case", even though the title in the source is "title=Poems on Several Occasions"... And I have no idea why they insist that instead of the sections "Given name" and "Surname", we need sections "People named Bonnie" and "Surname"[13].

Can some people please give them a troutslap or whatever they feel may be effective to get them to stop? Fram (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It comes down to a matter of stylistic preferences in some instances and, in others, using what was listed in the source material. The word “ flōrus” rather than “floris” is used in the cited reference. It might be a difference in transcription, but flōrus is certainly a correct version. The one book title was listed in lower case type in the source — again, probably a difference in transcription between modern and older sources. In any event, Fram and I have had philosophical content disagreements in the past on other matters. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"Florus" is not listed as the genitive of "Flos" in any reliable source. Florus listed as "likewise derived from flos" in the Oxford source[14], which is not the same as your "which had the genitive flōrus". And where do you see that title in lowercase? Not in the ref as given on Wikipedia, and not in the ref when one follows the link. Please make it more obvious where exactly you see these things, because I really don't see them. This is not "philosophical", this is about simple facts. Fram (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I double checked the reference and you are right that it is floris. The same entry lists it as a feminine form of Florus, which does come from flos. I restored the correction and added the information on Florus.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the link to the book of poetry with the title in lower case: https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_poems-on-several-occasio_barber-mary_1735

it has also been listed elsewhere with the title in upper case letters. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That link to archive.org, which isn´t a reliable source anyway, is not in the article where you were editwarring, so I fail to see how that is a reasonable explanation. The link which is used pn that page has it in uppercase, as is standard for book titles in English anyway. Fram (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It is also listed in lower case in the list of works at the Mary Barber (poet) article. It appears in both lower case and in upper case in different locations when I looked it up to confirm its existence. I suspect I went by the way it was listed in the Barber article when I added the reference. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

103.231.161.138

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.

---

103.231.161.138 (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)

Their contributions: Special:Contributions/103.231.161.138

This user is repeatedly making false and defamotory statements on their Talk page, despite being blocked. Further, They are falsely accusing others of Vandalism. Jlktutu (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This edit is beyond the pale. Narky Blert (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed TPA yesterday but didn't come to update this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 21 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.

Naming issues over Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025

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

---

• Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a lot of issues with naming of this article. It has already been subjected to 3 RMs, plus a fourth one procedurally closed and has two open RMs at once in different places. There is massive confusion on what is going on with this article and administrative guidance is required. 216.103.15.39 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)LTA sock struck The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the above matter, I don't think this is a matter for the noticeboard. Departure– (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

(involved) This is more of a content dispute than anything else and I really don't think we're at the level where admin intervention is needed. Would like admin comment on the potential bludgeoning while we're here, but other than that this isn't an ANI-worthy issue in any way. — E_F⁵ 19:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention accusations of bludgeoning going around. 216.103.15.39 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to NAC this before it gets any more out of hand. Departure– (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Departure–, I'm not sure you're allowed to do that as involved. — E_F⁵ 19:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Argh. Fine. I know this should be closed. For those wondering, as someone more closely involved in the dispute, I don't think significant bludgeoning is currently occurring - the user in question has addressed them, and that's not at all what this ANI thread is here for. Departure– (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

However, I do think this is a mess that the involvement of an administrator would be appreciated in. Departure– (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There has been significant policy violations occurring with Mario opening up a RM after one was already open, and someone else attempted to do so as well. Not to mention taking the discussion to five different viewpoints. Not to mention the confusion going on before the RM was opened this morning. Not to mention a move moratorium should probably be in place when this RM concludes.216.103.15.39 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Alright then, if we're going to shift the subject of this ANI thread, then so be it. @216.103.15.39, you must notify users that you bring to this noticeboard. On that note, as stated earlier, MarioProtIV (talk · contribs), in my opinion, hasn't done anything significant and has been working with the rest of the project to resolve any issues. I don't see any action needs to be brought up given their active effort to defuse the situation - see Special:Diff/1281467931 for instance. Departure– (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I wasn’t aware of the exact rules of ANI; thank you. 216.103.15.39 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Departure here. This whole saga is causing me some stress that I don’t need, and sure I probably didn’t follow exact guidelines RM-wise when I attempted to open a broader discussion on the project page while the other RM was in motion - one of the project members had left a comment that incited me to think bigger and realize there was an underlying problem with some of our pages. I did try to assume WP:GOODFAITH by trying to redirect all conversation there to consolidate everything, but I may have just ended up creating a bigger mess that I didn’t intend to start. The only administrative action per se would just be the closing of the RMs except the current one on the outbreak page. Plus, the BLUDEGON concerns as said by Departure aren’t grounded in truth either - my points there were to look at how RS refer to it. That said the broader issue still needs to be discussed there. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Examining Mario’s talk page, it appears he was banned from weather from May 2022 to September 2023. While I’m not sure what issues were caused by that, it might be related to this. 216.103.15.39 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's laundry day - 148.74.145.65 opened the post saying "I wasn’t aware of the exact rules of ANI; thank you." which was replaced by 216.103.15.39 here; and wouldn't you know it, the 148 IP geolocates to Greater New York, just like WP:LTA/Andrew5, a sock often editing from proxies frequently editing in the weather area space - pinging @Ponyo, the primary admin for this LTA case. Departure– (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy links: 148.74.145.65 (talk · contribs). They're also doing the same type of bureaucratic stuff that's right up Andrew5's alley at Effects of Hurricane Helene in Florida. Departure– (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

IP blocked for exceedingly obvious block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: You blocked 216*, did you mean to block 148* also? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Could I still get a second opinion on the potential bludgeoning mentioned? It obviously won't warrant a block, but admin advice would be preferable in clearing this up over us constantly arguing about bludgeoning. E_F⁵ 20:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I've undone my close. I thought I was still on a talk page, not AN/I. Too many windows open at once!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Bringing back my comment from the collapse - [MarioProtIV], in my opinion, hasn't done anything significant and has been working with the rest of the project to resolve any issues. I don't see any action needs to be brought up given their active effort to defuse the situation - see Special:Diff/1281467931 for instance. Departure– (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but they may have bludgeoned in that exact example. E_F⁵ 20:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

So what if they were one way or the other? They're taking active steps to remedy and tone down this dispute. They're trying to ensure that it's not going to happen again. Departure– (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm concerned it's just going to continue, though. They even said later in that discussion that This is not WP:BLUDGEON at all; I want a seond opinion on this so that it won't continue, assuming it's even bludgeoning (hence why I'm asking). They said in an edit summary on March 18 that they'd stop with the moves, so I really don't fully trust that constant bludegoning (or perceived) will just stop on a whim. — E_F⁵ 21:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, today’s already been too stressful, I can assume for both sides. Just ignore I said anything. E_F⁵ 22:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And this, my friends, is why any IP in the weather space, especially those requesting moves, should be heavily scrutinized. I haven't seen anyone else but Andrew5 socks doing that exact thing. Ponyo I would also suggest blocking 8.44.200.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which was also used by Andrew on Mar. 20 and has almost been exclusively used by him since last year. wizzito | say hello! 08:25, 21 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.

Disruption-only account: BrandNameofc

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.

---

BrandNameofc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): user has repeatedly added unsourced information into film and TV pages with no edit summary, as well as unsourced credits to BLP pages of a handful of actors, despite being reverted and being asked to stop by MikeAllen. User has not communicated to address concerns raised and has been warned. Examples of repeated unexplained and unsourced edits:

• [15] (reverted by reporter [16]; reinserted by BrandNameofC [17])
• [18] (reverted by reporter [19]; reinserted by BrandNameofC [20]; reverted by MikeAllen [21])
• [22] (reverted by MikeAllen [23]; reinserted by BrandNameofC [24]; reverted by reporter [25])

Currently user has 94 edits and all have been reverted as disruptive/unsourced/unexplained by a variety of editors, yet editor shows no signs of slowing down. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• User alerted to this discussion —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

   Indeffed for persistent disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 22 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.

Link spamming and possible logged-out 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.

---

Users of concern:

• WorldPoliticsOfficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4089:A29A:2522:0:0:822:A0AD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Wikipedia admins. I would like to bring attention to the 2409:4089:A29A:2522:0:0:822:A0AD IP user for constant addition of poorly-formatted link spam on various articles. I also highly suspect that it is WP:LOUTSOCK of the user account WorldPoliticsOfficial.

The IP user keeps adding links to the website ijcrt.org – and in particular, to a publication from them – as seen here, here, and here. These edits are also very poorly formatted and break the flow of the written text when reading it.

As for the evidence of logged-out sockpuppetry, compare this edit by WorldPoliticsOfficial to this edit by IP. They are both adding the exact same text Ozone hole are the result of the freezing of Atmospheric components (Aerosol, Gases. etc.) both in the article text and in the edit summary.

I have warned the user account of logged-out editing here, as well as warned the IP of inserting link spam plus the logged-out editing too. And yet, they have continued these disruptive edits in spite of these warnings, so now I am requesting that action be taken here.

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've issued a level II warning and protected the page x 2 weeks given history of disruptive editing that goes back at least several months. I've also page blocked the IP x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the IP has also added the linkspam to other pages including Ozone, Chlorofluorocarbon and Tropospheric ozone depletion events, and not just the Ozone depletion article. Anyways, thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 I've now indeffed WPO and changed the IP block to site wide for 1 month. After doing a little digging I am satisfied that they are pushing pseudoscientific nonsense and the link is to a bogus journal. The charitable interpretation is that they are an idiot. The not so charitable interpretation is that this is just vandalism. Either way... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again! I think we're done here now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:16, 22 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.

Careless user, battleground behaviour

user:NXcrypto is careless with his edits and does not seem to have a proper understanding of English, which leads to misunderstandings and unnecessary reverts.

He has specifically targeted me followed my edits, reverted them without proper understanding, and refused to participate in discussions.

This is not the first time, Nxcrypto has done this before on major articles - Bangladesh[26], [27] and Mauritius[28]. And today, the third time[29], on a highly sensitive article 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence. He has restored irrelevant, false and unverified content despite an active discussion already taking place on the talk page, instead of participating.Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Updates

In the past when I had asked him on a ANI discussion, his talk page, he avoided and tried to move the topic. I’ve never seen him accepting his faults.

His behaviour was also aggressive in a recent report against me. The admins stated that the report was invalid and explained why, but Nxcrypto questioned the admins. Nxcrypto still refuses to accept the decision, he has left message on my talk page, claiming that I was “lucky” that’s why the admins did not block me.[30].
(check his behaviour on this ANI report against me- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:PA by Cerium4B)

This is very shameful. Wikipedia is a collaborative place where users spend time to improve content, It’s not a battleground as far as i know.

I am requesting a ban on user:NXcrypto. Now admins take decision…

Thank you. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What made you think that I was following you by making this edit to Mauritius when I have edited this page before? Your edits are problematic and there exists no doubt. One needs to see this edit of yours where you were violating WP:BLP. NXcrypto Message 17:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

+Cerium4B, you've recently received a final warning from an admin regarding harassment of another user . Your talk page also shows several recent warnings for BLP violations and other issues:[31][32][33][34]. I’m not interested in digging into your edit history to tally violations, but I strongly encourage you to take these warnings seriously and improve your edits. NXcrypto Message 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Again you are trying to move the topic…

1. On Mauritius, you’ve shown carelessness.[35]. You had undid my edits but didn’t check the content.

2. on ISKCON schools article: those were sourced content I had added. The people I mentioned Chinmoy Krishna Das, he is currently in jail for his guilts.

3. I had mentioned age of an user that’s why I’ve received the warning.

4. warnings from user:Bongan, Bongan doesn’t even have any idea about BLPCRIME, vandalism. There was no living person present in that article. So those are wrong warning.

5. Warnings from user:Someone who's wrong on the internet : check our conversation [36], [37] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 06:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You were falsely accusing me of wikihounding you at Mauritius. Don't shift the goalpost now.

You are trying to justify the BLP violations you made by presuming the person as guilty here. Das has not been tried, let alone convicted. Read WP:SUSPECT, Das is not a public figure, he is only in the news because of his arrest, it is irrelevant how sourced the information is, presenting him as guilty is an egregious violation of BLP policy. NXcrypto Message 07:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to be that person, but did you actually message them about the disputed content on their talk page or ping them to the discussion? I'm not seeing any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from talk pages or their edits. You were fortunate to avoid sanctions at ANI this time, don’t push your luck is more of a user warning without the template. Conyo14 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is that the whistling of an incoming WP:BOOMERANG I hear? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Conyo14,

•in my edit summaries I’ve asked to make a discussion first/participate in the discussion, but he ignored. And on Mauritius and Bangladesh articles, those were sourced misrepresentation. You can check them.

•I’m not specifically mentioning wp:battleground, but mentioning his warlike behaviour on the ANI discussion.

•Admins mentioned that there was no valid reason to block me, then why has Nxcrypto left that message on my talkpage. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 05:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That onus is on you to create that discussion. There's nothing actionable here on NXcrypto's part. As for the whistling, perhaps the tea kettle needs to be taken off the stove. How about a WP:TROUT before we dig a hole too big? Conyo14 (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s actually questionable when an experienced user makes mistake thrice and only with my contribution! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 06:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

ThantBhoneHtet1123

• ThantBhoneHtet1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#ThantBhoneHtet1123, the disruption from ThantBhoneHtet1123 (talk · contribs) continues. Despite multiple talk page warnings and clear explanations of why their edits to circa dates are wrong, e.g. [38] they are continuing to make the same mistakes[39] (Richard Cecil's birth date and year is not known, it is not possible to calculate his age to within a year) [40] (the age of Socrates at death is not known with such certainty) [41] (it is known that Jane Grey was born in either 1536 or 1537, circa is not needed). Can we please block this user until they engage with the talk page messages? Celia Homeford (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

See a complete list of their edits here. They do little other than WP:OVERLINKING and messing around with dates. Their talkpage is a long list of complaints. Polygnotus (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until they respond. As per usual unblock if they make a good case. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended for a further week after restarting the same behavior immediately after the block. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption-only account (Evola19)

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.

---

Evola19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Evola19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): username is an apparent homage to notorious Italian misogynist fascist Julius Evola. Only edits so far include highly contentious changes within the Gender and sexuality topic area: using Talk:Misandry as a soapbox or forum [42] and edit-warring to push a disputed interpretation of SCUM Manifesto. [43][44] Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The username may well be problematic. I'm not seeing any attempt at communication or any formal warnings here. While I concede that their editing may not be constructive, I'm not sure it rises to naked vandalism or the sort of thing that would trigger a no warning block. That said, I think they need to come here and explain what exactly they are up to and clarify their username. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to bed and will check back in tomorrow. However if there is no response here within a reasonable period of time, and/or this behavior resumes without any communication from them, I would support an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

lol, you're so pissed off at my name signifying you have a clear agenda against me not realising that most influential men in history have been misogynistic so therefore saying that I chose evola just for his misogyny is highly irrelevant I may as well have been named Napolean and you'd say the same things. that being said you can ban me I don't care. Evola19 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Evola19, there are questions here besides those about your username about your edits. Can you respond to those? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

no Evola19 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked as WP:NOTHERE Secretlondon (talk) 14

14, 22 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:Jlktutu

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.

---

Jlktutu (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)

Their contributions: Here

This user is repeatedly making an edit, reverting it, making the edit again, reverting it, etc etc, in what appears to be an effort to inflate their edit count. This can be seen by their edits on 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1st Cavalry Division (United States), List of animated television series of 1983, and to an absolutely astonishing degree on Kavidi Sirimannage. They have been previously warned for this on their talk page. They are adding zero value to Wikipedia and just bloating the edit history of articles, and despite promising to stop, are just doing the same thing over and over. GraziePrego (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry that I made this edit. I really truly apologize. I was warned about this earlier. I promise that I will not make such edits again. Again, I am sorry for making such edits. Jlktutu (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You made 118 edits in a row to Kavidi Sirimannage where you just added a single white space and then removed it again. That's clearly not by mistake, that's just being highly disruptive to boost your edit count. You've then continued to do the same thing well past a warning. GraziePrego (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You also just then did 35 edits in a row to 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which was just adding and removing the same 35 bytes. Saying you're sorry for "this edit" doesn't make sense- it's a lot more than just 1 edit! GraziePrego (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There's also the edits to Going in Style (2017 film), You Be the Judge, Bell Labs, List of animated television series of 1983 and Kitoy. Even with assuming good faith, this looks like blatant gaming for extended confirmed. Nobody (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did do that. It was not a mistake. And it was not 1 edit. I truly regret doing this. I promise it won't happen again Jlktutu (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This was clearly gamed even while this complaint was open today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

By my count they made at least 340 edits that are clear gaming, with most of them also being whitespace-only cosmetic edits. Nobody (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Given a sizable chunk of this account's edits are WP:PGAMING, I've done the thing of granting EC and then revoking it so it doesn't automatically ping at 30 days from account creation which would be tomorrow, by complete coinkydink - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see why you did this. I did too many edits that added no value to Wikipedia. I accept responsibility for what I did. I promise that I won't do this again. I accept the decision that you made, because I know it is for what I did. I don't want you/anyone else to do any favors for me. I'm just asking only because I want to know, respectfully, do you have some idea when I may be granted EC? Jlktutu (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Once you've made at least 500 constructive edits and have demonstrated you can be trusted with the user right. If it's not a WP:OWB it should be that editors who are concerned about gaining EC are often as not editors who don't want it for constructive purposes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I will make only constructive edits. That is what I am supposed to do as an Editor. And that's what I will do going forward. Thank you for taking the time. I hope I have learned my lesson, and that I won't repeat such activity. Thanks for all that you do. Jlktutu (talk) 05:24, 22 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.

Unexplained and disruptive editing in music-related articles

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

Almost all of their edits are both unexplained and disruptive (e.g. this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one). They have continued such behavior even though they had already been asked to knock it off an awful lot of times (see this comment, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one). Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Something should indeed be done about this user, he's had tons of warnings. An admin also previously left a sorta final warning on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndrewTheWikiEditor&diff=prev&oldid=1272954482 --FMSky (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from article space. Not against a broader block should be prove necessary. Communication and collaboration are required. Star Mississippi 14:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Archiduck2018

• Archiduck2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has, in several cases, introduced non-RS sources on MicroWiki ([45], [46], [47], ). When these non-RS sources were removed by other users, citing RS or other policies relating to it ([48], [49], [50], [51]) , they have repeatedly reverted these reverts in order to put the sources, and the statement that they accompany, back on the page ([52], [53], [54]). This has recently led to a spat on its talk page, where Archiduck2018 has resorted to referring to myself and another user as "MicroWiki henchmen" that work for the MicroWiki Foundation, which operates the wiki. Hwqaksd (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure, but this seems to indicate a COI flounce. I've given them a final warning, regardless. Star Mississippi 14:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Another news article dropped on coordinated editing in Israel-Palestine

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

---

https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/380074/gaming-the-wiki-system/ reveals several new editors that haven't been blocked as being part of the Tech 4 Palestine editing campaign that helped spark WP:ARBPIA5, including some still actively editing in the area. I had no role in creating this article despite being quoted in it. What does ANI think? Do we need more site bans? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to suggest site bans for editors, you should probably tell everyone who you think should be banned, notify them (as required for the noticeboard), and actually post the evidence here on wiki. Being coy like this doesn't do anything for anyone. Parabolist (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Parabolist: Can I post the evidence from the news article on wiki, given that it's about Discord and will link specific editors to those accounts? I've seen precedent at WP:ANI ([55]) that it's acceptable to link to news articles about offwiki influence campaigns, but not that it's acceptable to repeat the accusations onwiki. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is never acceptable. If that link connects real-world identities to accounts, you need to redact it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: It does not connect real-world identities to accounts. The link has the same type of information as the Pirate Wires story linked in the earlier ANI thread, which also provided screenshots of Discord conversations and demonstrated that specific users onwiki, likely at the request of other accounts on Discord, edited specific articles.

At that time, administrators did not see an issue with linking to the article, but there was a general consensus that editors should not repeat the accusations onwiki.

It would be surprising to me if this would be considered outing, since the Pirate Wires article was not considered outing by administrators at the time it was posted. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious, but if it was allowed before, that is precedent! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

So what was your intent in starting this section then? It seems pretty clear that you both wanted site bans for these users AND recognized that this was potentially OUTING material. But instead of privately emailing this material to ArbCom, a procedure that we both know you're familiar with, you decided to post a link to the outing material on ANI coyly suggesting site bans. Make the good faith reading make sense. Parabolist (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Parabolist: My understanding of WP:ARBPIA5 is that it was partially sparked by a news article on Pirate Wires that did almost the same thing as the Jewish Journal article (Pirate Wires discussed a narrower set of users). Said Pirate Wires article has been linked 22 times onwiki. Another Jewish Insider article on the Tech 4 Palestine cluster is cited in Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Israel–Hamas war. This leads me to conclude that reliable news articles on offwiki canvassing can be linked from onwiki.

The only possible reason I can think of that this Jewish Journal article is suddenly throwing up red flags is that the Pirate Wires article was behind a paywall and literally not a single admin or oversighter on Wikipedia realized it contained Discord screenshots. That seems unlikely, and if it is the case, a lot of pages need WP:OVERSIGHT.

The Jewish Journal article also has a comment attributed to noted administrator Tamzin, who the author (Aaron Bandler) regularly quotes about the topic area and uses said quote to support the article's thesis that WP:ARBCOM doesn't take this issue seriously. This is not an endorsement of the article's content, but it indicated to me that other editors view commenting on this as acceptable.

I've also linked similar articles in public evidence during the evidence phase of WP:ARBPIA5.[56] Specifically, I submitted the actual contents of messages on Discord as private evidence, and linked the news articles as public evidence. However, I was previously oversighted because I linked to a blog discussing the Tech 4 Palestine Discord server. The dividing line appears to me to be publication in a reliable news source. There also appears to be a recommendation against posting the messages onwiki. This has been my understanding since the beginning of this thread, which is why I outlined that this was a news article and avoided posting the messages onwiki.

In terms of what I want to happen here, Ivana was site-banned because of off-wiki canvassing allegations surfaced in the Pirate Wires and Jewish Insider articles.[57] If similar allegations are being made about other users, I believe the community should know about that. Specifically, topic bans or site-bans might be necessary. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

So, exactly how I described it. You want to suggest site bans for users at ANI, but without naming or notifying them, because naming them would require linking or providing evidence that you believe is OUTING material. So you want everyone to...what? All go read the OUTING material, that you've found a precedent loophole to link to, and vote for these sitebans without the names of these editors ever being spoken? Ask yourself: why aren't you willing to post the usernames? Are you expecting someone else to do it, making it okay for you to? Parabolist (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, Bandler did not ask me anything about TFP other than whether I thought the ArbCom action was too light, a question I declined to answer for lack of familiarity with the facts. What I did say was purely in general terms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Sorry for forgetting to leave you an ANI-notice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you no sense of decency? Daveosaurus (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I've redacted the link as a first resort. It is being discussed by oversighters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• The Arbitration Committee, which previously took action against T4P, is aware of this drop of an expanded dossier. Previously, the Committee had been sent a 50 page dossier of a similar nature, which is much smaller than the new 244 page dossier. Of course, nobody thought to first send the expanded dossier to ArbCom, so that we could do something about it. We're examining the new dossier to see if there is evidence in there that would substantiate further action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Now that the info is at the appropriate venue, we should close this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Not to grandstand, but I did get mentioned by name five times in the follow-up article for my "extra stupid" RfC close [58]. (Everyone's a critic.) Chetsford (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• If you're referring to the recent ADL article, it doesn't even get basic facts correct. For example it claims that editors were topic banned in WP:ARBPIA5 because they edited “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” into Zionism which clearly didn't happen. If the article can't even get basic facts like that correct then I sincerely doubt that they are correct about claims about off-wiki coordination. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath: That's not the article I was referring to. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:32, 22 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.

Dispute Over Geographical Edits and WP:UW Warnings

Hey there,

I’m seeking some help with a dispute on my talk page. The issue stems from my edits about the UK’s geographical status in Europe, contested by Oliverclaytonfoster, who accused me of vandalism and disruptive editing. I suspect Oliver may have joined WikiProject User Warnings (WP:UW) specifically to issue me exaggerated or unwarranted warnings, as their messages align with WP:UW templates but seem disproportionate to my actions. I stated how the UK isn’t geographically part of Europe based on Australian materials, but I now see this was likely incorrect, given sources like the ‘List of European countries by area’. I take responsibility for my mistake and am ready to correct my edits. However, I’m concerned Oliver’s warnings misrepresent my intent as vandalism rather than a good-faith error, possibly leveraging WP:UW to escalate the situation. I’d appreciate your review to ensure fair application of Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you for your time. RavenM3 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Given your uncivil behavior in the linked discussion and apparently AI-generated post here, WP:BOOMERANG might apply. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Joining a WikiProject has no effect on an editor's ability to use warning templates. Looking at your talkpage, Oliverclaytonfoster does not appear to have accused you of vandalism, the word does not appear until your reply. A warning template by itself also does not apply any particular change to your profile. Further, a misapplied warning template is also unlikely to necessitate any action on its own. If the content dispute has been resolved, moving on to other edits is the best course of action. CMD (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding the message I left on their talk page and the one they left on mine: I removed the message from my talk page because RavenM3 had accused me of being incorrect about the UK's geographical status. Their message was not constructive, as the information they provided was inaccurate.

In response, I left a message on their talk page, including sources to properly inform them about the UK's location within Europe. I also issued a warning, as I believe they had distributed misleading information. Additionally, in their edit summary, they told me to "Please study some geography before making edits :)," which I consider to be more in line with a breach of the Commitment to Civility that they referenced on their talk page.

If they believe I have been over-the-top or exaggerated, I apologise if they were offended by my warning, which was in accordance with WP:UW. I do not wish to pursue this matter further. I acted in good faith by reverting their factually incorrect edits, but they chose to leave me a passive-aggressive talk page message and similarly passive-aggressive content in their edit summary. Because of this, I thought I was justified leaving them information and resources they might find useful.

Thank you. Oliverclaytonfoster (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Shamiksh123

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.

---

Shamiksh123 (talk · contribs) - blocked by me earlier this month for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs, but they are still at it (and, based on the edit history of that page and similarities in edits and edits summaries, I suspect they were block evading as IP). GiantSnowman 10:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time, as well as the IPv6 range used to evade the block last time. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 22 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 2600:1700:2E50:EC30:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2600:1700:2E50:EC30:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings. /64 was previously blocked for a week on February 18th due to "Persistent addition of unsourced content: hoaxing", behaviour continued after block expired. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked x 3 months. This is a returning customer with zero constructive edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 22 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.

Revoke TPA for hoaxer

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 blocked user BPS_CS1804-0888 (talk · contribs) needs their TPA revoked for using it to create hoax content: [59]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:08, 22 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 adds cast members without discussion

Remember the The IP from France? Well this new user adds names to Tamil films (as opposed to the Telugu film opposed IP from France who had certain Tamil overlaps -- all of their IPs are not listed in one place). There is one major issue; however, the opening/end credits sometimes mention actors who are not in the films since their scenes have been deleted. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to repeat the mistake. These actors will needlessly live in the article's cast section and won't have any character names since they are not in the film.

Going through each of their edits is a hassle and they have two major similarities to the France IP:

1. They are geo-located close to [60] Île-de-France.
2. They don't respond on their talk page [61] and tend to revert editors that revert their edits [62].
3. They actively keep returning back to Wikipedia esp. when their edits are reverted. DareshMohan (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As someone with no familiarity with the prior case, I wouldn't say southern England is particularly close to Île-de-France, at least not enough to connect this IP to any previous French ones. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That IP geolocates to Leeds in northern England, nowhere near France. Neiltonks (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it says it geolocates to Leeds, but that dot is in... Kent. Which is rather closer, though still not in France. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Leeds Castle is in Kent. Would that explain it? Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

And there is a village called Leeds near Leeds Castle. I think the word "city" in the geolocation needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Lots of websites seem to think that everyone lives in a city. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

In any case, if geolocation is being used to connect this IP to a previously problematic one, I think the connection is quite tenuous. I cannot speak for the other potential evidence, though. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

MaxMind (which is generally more accurate than other geolocation services) states that the IP geolocates to Chatham, Kent. Of course, it doesn't discount the possibility that the user behind the IP may be traveling, visiting family, etc. since the first usage of the IP was on February 10. I've also seen cases of IP vandals moving house and even moving to another country altogether. wizzito | say hello! 22:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

e.g. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP frequently travels out of the U.K. and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky moved from the U.K. to Turkey. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

So, what is the protocol when they don't respond to warnings on their talk page? See my latest comment [63], seems like they have no idea on how to update tables and revert their own edits. DareshMohan (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years, and a couple of (rather misguided) people have invited me to stand for adminship in that time, but I have no idea how to update tables. Concentrate on the important things. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I meant they don't know how to update filmography tables and add a film to a cell with a different film and then remove it.

@Ravensfire: The IP in discussion is 82.42.38.65 and they edit rather frequently. The IP's edits are rather irksome and they revert my edits without discussion. It will take time to fact check all of their edits and when I remove false cast members, they readd them back. I don't have enough evidence to prove that they are the same person although they might be and if the IP doesn't get blocked, I can't revert their edits due to possible edit wars.

I think all of their edits are made in good faith. DareshMohan (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Repeated serious violations of WP:BLP policy on the Help Desk.

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.

---

Despite repeatedly being informed of WP:BLP policy, User:Makeyoubillions, a single-purpose account with a clear conflict of interest (see [64]) has persisted in making unsourced or inadequately-sourced allegations about a living individual. I have redacted the content on the Help Desk (there is more elsewhere, though less prominent) , but could I also suggest that the content in question be revision-deleted, and that Makeyoubillions be blocked from editing, given this self-evident attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground over external matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed with TPA revoked, every edit rev-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 22 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.

Jon698 Edit Warring

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.

---

Jon698 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jon698 continues to edit war on the election page 1892 United States Presidential Election 2600:100E:B041:736C:D5E5:D79C:BCC0:B480 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

What "election page"? Do you have diffs showing the edit warring? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 23 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.

Help

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

---

Hello, I'm from Spanish Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but I'm being intimidated by a local LTA (es:user:Exactamente) via the sockpuppet Stingy Tu Maximo Jodedor (talk · contribs) here at my English Wikipedia talk page. Please block this sock as he keeps intimidating me here. Thank you. Stïnger (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually ... hang on. Let me get this straight. Only twice has this person sent "You and I have the same name" in Spanish to your talk page. Could you tell us what is "intimidating" about this? Ravenswing 20:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I am pointing out something really obvious, but is it not kind of normal that a person called "Stinger" would feel stalked and, yes, perhaps intimidated, by someone naming himself Stingy [i.e. "little Stinger"] Your Greatest Fucker/Annoyer [this difference in translation depends on the variant of Spanish, but it is pretty bad either way], following him across wikis? Ostalgia (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Although, on Stingy's User Page it is made apparent that their name is a reference to a character, rather than having been made to form a relation to Stinger.

I could be wrong, however, and feel free to correct me if I missed something. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That user page was created after posting on Stïnger's user page twice, so OP could not have known that in advance (in the odd chance that the choice was an "honest" one) and not felt stalked.

All of this is purely academic, however, as a quick look at the es.wiki link above shows that the "Stingy" account is already blocked there as a sock of this "Exactamente" LTA. Ostalgia (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted and appreciated. I always try to play both sides in these kinds of issues where the problem is a sort of gray area, Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies: I translated the SPA's comments, but not the SPA's name itself. My bad. Ravenswing 22:21, 22 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.

Greece national football team squad MOS:OVERLINK

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.

---

• Wendroa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did multiple unnecessary edits like this at Greece national football team for months. Despite my warning, the user provocatevely proceeded asap in such edits once more. He stopped after the administrator's warning for a while, but it came in my attention that he continued overlinking the footballer's names recently. It is an obvious spam and I have to bear in mind in cleaning up after him every now and then. BEN917 16:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

BEN917, remember, it is mandatory to post a notification on the editor's User talk page. They haven't edited for a few days so they might not respond very quickly but you still have to alert them to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote you, I did warn him in the first place and he then asap provocatevely proceeded in overlinking the article. He is a warned user by both me and an administrator. BEN917 17:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

BEN917, and as I wrote, I didn't say a "warning" I said a "notification". You have to let them know that you reported them here, at ANI, and started a discussion about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 22 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.

Albert101032

Previously raised - and ignored! - at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Albert101032.

I'll repeat - 2 previous blocks for adding unsourced content to BLPs, but continuing despite recent warnings. We need a longer block. GiantSnowman 09:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If it was ignored it probably wasn't a great report, and you should provide more evidence rather than copy and paste it back here. Secretlondon (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space for six months. I see you blocked them twice before so was there some reason you didn't block again? A more detailed report, more links, as to what they were doing would be good. If they respond and it seem reasonable then unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Given this is the third block, I'm skeptical. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

When I closed UTRS appeal #91716 , I sent them back to their talk page, having not seen the link to this thread at the time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That's an old appeal. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Trolling habit on the circular links without any response

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.

---

• Ron Karlos L. Castillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor — Ron Karlos L. Castillo has multiple times of adding the circular links without providing the evidence, as well as the related articles. Also, he didn't response and communicate all of the notification message from the other users (especially me) until the final warning arose. Some of the edits were considered a trolling habit of its circular links: [65][66][67][68][69]

Until now, he currently add the overlinking articles on Philippine television articles (as a circular links) to the other red links or redirects with any possibilities and purely unsourced content, which he also violated under WP:BURDEN and MOS:CIRCULAR. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 07:05, 22 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.

Not quite over, @Icarus58:; I reverted this edit on 1992 in Philippine television from Ron Karlos as part of their hijacking of Ashley Rivera, and 216.247.19.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is trying to restore everything back in place, so we might have more socks in the drawer to lock out. Nathannah • 📮 20:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

TMKOC

I tried improving the Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah’s Cast and Characters section [70] to follow WP:TVCAST, but User:CNMall41 kept reverting to an outdated one [71]. When it was addressed on the talk page here, they dismissed my concerns and warned me about edit warring (please see here) while doing the same themselves. Despite my attempts to discuss, they keep restoring an outdated version [72] and even told me to “not come to their talk page again,” (please see here). Additionally they accused me of WP:BLUD.

I request admin intervention to address their disruptive behaviour and stop baseless reversions. Thank you for your time. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how telling you to stay off my talk page is a consensus "violation." The issue has been going on for months with IPs attempting to add too many details to the cast section which do not meet WP:TVCAST. User Tenshi Uius began edit warring the same information. Two other editors other than myself have reverted Tenshi Uisu's attempt to add the information. It was them who failed to discuss so I am the one who actually started the discussion on their behalf and engaged them in discussion. Despite not having consensus, they reinstered the content with a misleading summary of "as discussed on talk page." Yes, it was discussed, but there is no consensus. They were reverted and warned for edit warning, returned the same warning on my talk page and now here we are. If it's a conduct issue, I will fall on the sword. But, its a content dispute which user wants to use ANI to get their preferred version prior to having consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, your version [73] is outdated, and contains many grammatical errors, accept it and fix them. I have tried it, and here we are. Additionally, it does not align with WP:TVCAST either. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you discussing behavior or content? This noticeboard is for the former. The talk page there is still open for discussion should you wish to. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Copy-paste move disruption by Ky01535 is continuing

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.

---

• Ky01535 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately this didn't get action last time I reported it about a week ago (archive 1182), and the disruption is continuing. A partial block was recommended by Phil Bridger, which I would be OK with.

The latest disruptive copy-paste move is here. It is the fourth copy-paste move of the same article, by my count. And the user is not communicating on any talkpage to repeated warnings, nor did they participate in the prior ANI case. I see this as escalating because another, uninvolved editor has recommended AfD as a remedy for the latest incident, which is just a big waste of time for something that should just be a draft in preparation. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. GiantSnowman 16:38, 23 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:Simon2920q8394

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.

---

Simon2920q8394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been excessively created non-notable articles (diff 1, diff 2) and has been removing CSD tags (diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, etc.) past the fourth warning. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 23 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.

MarioProtIV is violating his topic ban

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

---

In the following diffs [74] [75] Mario closed discussions. This goes against his topic ban per WP:ARBWPTC. While the remedy banning him from weather was rescinded, this remedy was not. Thus, a block should be imposed. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've given them a chance to self-revert before imposing a block. The next question is, who are you, editor whose first edit three minutes after account creation is to pull Mario to ANI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

While the report is valid, I’m tempted to say this is Andrew5 (talk · contribs). E_F⁵ 22:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The user has reverted their closures and claims they forgot about the ban. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that Mario was brought to ANI a few days ago by an Andrew5 sockpuppet, so I'm almost 100% sure this is sockpuppetry. — E_F⁵ 22:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That was most likely not Andrew5 since the IP in question gelocates to New Jersey, not New York, FWIW Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That furthers my suspicions this is Andrew. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Valid report and thanks for the reminder, but seriously who are you? I'm tempted to agree with EF5 and think its Andrew (and I actually was in the middle of filing another SPI before I checked this) MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of infighting and socking in this WikiProject. Has it ever been considered to be a CTOP? I found two ANI discussion from 2023 including one attempt to make it a CTOP, an ARB case and an ANI case from 2021. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Chopsticksfan2828, it's just two users who cause all the chaos (both being notable sockpuppets). I'm inclined to think you're one of them. — E_F⁵ 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem very informed of those kind of topics despite being a new user. Think its laundry day I see. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thoughts? — E_F⁵ 22:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not. There was an unrelated sockfarm at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Colin (2022). Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention A1Cafel, IPhonehurricane95. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Did we forget Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 44#WPTC recruitment guidelines and concerns? Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

DNFTT, but I'll agree with Andrew here that "a block should be imposed". Cheers to MarioProtIV for recognizing their actions and obligations. Departure– (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Chopsticksfan2828 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Screencherness (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as socks, likely of Andrew5. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:17, 23 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 by Simply patience 405 on Vegan Camp Out

• Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vegan Camp Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could any admin or experienced editor help out? Also, should I revert again?

Ongoing promotional edits on the Vegan Camp Out page by Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While it might appear they’ve only made a single edit under this username, they previously made identical edits anonymously using IPs and confirmed on the talk page that those edits were theirs. It appears their account was created solely to edit this page, and they disclosed working/volunteering for the organisation by managing their social media.

They mentioned on the talk page that they work/volunteer for the source doing 'admin' on their social media. They've repeatedly posted the exact same wording, which is promotional, removing (correctly) several referenced and replacing with their version which to me sounds biased.

The edits they’ve made consistently add promotional content, remove referenced material, and replace it with information derived from personal conversations with the organisation's owners or primary sources like social media posts. Despite attempts to guide them via the talk page and provide links to referencing and neutrality policies, they’ve continued editing disruptively.

The page was semi-protected for a week due to this disruption, but as soon as protection was lifted, the user resumed making problematic edits. Their latest edit is slightly different but remains promotional, and they’ve left in some original references while changing the content to biased wording. Here are some diffs, I think there are a couple more examples but you get the idea:

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

Thanks :)

RufusLechuga (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@RufusLechuga Reverted, posted on talkpage, and invited them to join there and here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have made a few changes to the page after speaking with people on the VCO team and verifying my edits. I have actually spent quite a bit of time on this and have absolutely every edit I have put in there verified. Both the Facebook pages of both individuals confirm the dates for working at VCO that I have mentioned - as well as the posts on the Vegan Camp Out Instagram

I do not work for their team, but do volunteer helping about 8 different businesses and told VCO I would help them to make this Wiki page more factual (as originally, there was over 10 errors on it, these changes have happened through the hours I have spent on this dedicating my time to making the page more accurate)

I have put some of the changes back onto the page - but I am by no means an expert with Wikipedia. So if you could please sort the references how you need them - that would be great (however I am confused because not every claim on the article has a reference, so why do some need a reference and some don't?)

Every other change in there was because it was incorrect information - surely Wikipedia articles need to be as factually accurate as possible right? But also informative - which is why there are some important/interesting facts about VCO missed out that I have added in

Someone on this thread said my edits were 'promotional' - this is not the case. All my edits were adding more information about the event, stats, information or correcting errors - thanks!

Rather than undoing all the changes again (which are all 100% accurate) - Please just say here which ones you need more info on and I will be happy to speak to the relevant people or provide you with the links/information that confirm them. It seems more sense to go off this edit and fix/clarify whatever you want given this is the more accurate version (and has been confirmed by 3 different people on the VCO team as well as hours of my own research on Google, Facebook and Instagram to confirm everything that I have put, nothing is my own opinion) - Thanks! Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You posted the same text over at Talk:Vegan_Camp_Out#Camp. Unfortunately for you, things do not work that way. We are not going to fix your mess. So either you do it properly or the article will remain the way it is. Polygnotus (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

So you prefer for Wikipedia to be less accurate? Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to have the same childish debate in two places at once. I answered your question here: Talk:Vegan_Camp_Out#Camp. Polygnotus (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@RufusLechuga: And now they are editwarring. Boring. Polygnotus (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@RufusLechuga and @Polygnotus are actually editwarring. This is what Wiki says about you keep undoing my changes:

"Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection." Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That is not what "Wiki" says, that is what the template I posted on your talkpage says. And if I request page protection then you can no longer edit the page while I still can. Polygnotus (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Simply patience 405 has been editwarring both logged out and with this account. [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] Polygnotus (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus has been editwarring which has caused a number of issues. They were adamant on reverting the page back to an unverified / unreliable state. This has now been fixed thanks to another editor, who between us we have got the page to be accurate, reliable and properly referenced/sourced, which is what we were trying to do from the beginning. Simply patience 405 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to have a constructive conversation or are you going to act like a child who can’t here what others are saying? Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Are we able to report this user? They are extremely persistent with reverting, spamming the talk page etc., and adding clearly promotional stuff. I don't the best thing to do RufusLechuga (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's clearly vandalism, WP:AIV is the way to go. If it's edit warring, WP:EWN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Simply patience 405 is editing logged out. The edit notes in the diff1 here is borderline identical to the edit note by IP user 2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 in diff2. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that smells distinctly of WP:LOUTSOCKing. Semiprotected Vegan Camp Out for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

worth taking any action against the account and the IP? Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

At this moment, not yet - I'm going to assume good faith, in the absence of the behavior recurring, that they forgot to log in. It's a longshot, I know, but the "don't edit while logged out" warning is sufficent for now. If they keep doing it, well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Constant removal of the infobox in the article Germans

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.

---

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

Since 22 June 2024 until now, Andrew Lancaster, Rsk6400, Frietjes, Jähmefyysikko and Plastikspork keep deleting the infobox and the mention of Germans as an ethnic group which appears in every other ethnic articles claiming things such as it "adds no value", "is not in line with the article", "is not an improvement", "Germans in the diaspora are not Germans" (!!!!!) or even "German speakers from neighbouring countries are not called Germans in the 21st century", as if French Belgians were not French, and since ethnicity isn't just about speaking. They've discussed the "issue" on the Talk Page as if it werem something challenged rather than accepted on Wikipedia. No one has appeared so far to solve this mess for once and for all. The same uniform policy should be applied to this case as well as to all the others. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@DdeMdeT, you haven't made any edits to article talk pages to attempt discussing the issues with the other editors. Whether an article should have an infobox or not needs to be decided by consensus on that article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

No, not exactly, I don't have to edit in order to be involved, and this is a matter of policy, not consensus. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

And?... It doesn't mean I won't intervene. There isn't any issue, the "consensus" pertains to the mandatory practice on every other similar articles on Wikipedia and is not to be discussed and challenged on one article alone. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not a mandatory practice. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

They do appear on every article, it's accepted beyond individual case consensuses, someone simply decided to challenge that. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The uniform policy on Wikipedia is to mention ethnic groups as such and to have the infobox on the respective articles, and that is to be inforced also on this case. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, you are required to notify every editor that you are reporting; you only notified two. Schazjmd (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to notify the other three, but I was prevented by some needless and absurd filter someone invented to complicate even more, I don't know how to report false positives and the reply to them takes time. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I was able to notify two more. Still missing one. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I was finally able to notify the last one. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:55, 22 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 edits

@Zemen disruptive user edits on Arabization of Kirkuk, removing sourced material. Relentless reverting. Will most likely continue to revert edits. [88][89][90] Montblamc1 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm the user repeatedly engages in disruptive edits cross-wiki, as evident here. User has a history of POV pushing and encourages ckb admins of Wikipedia:Censorship. User Zemen engages in Wikipedia:Systemic bias not only here, but also on ckb wiki. Épine (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Montblamc1 Please, the conversation continues here, when you can't resist and know it's wrong, you don't have to open another section and keep tagging me.  Zemen  (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Épine, what is "ckb"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz, | Central Kurdish Wikipedia —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation, Sakura emad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

As Zemen notes, Montblamc1, why did you open this discussion thread when you had already opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing and warring? Don't have multiple discussions going on at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent disputed content edits by User:Yellowfish0052 on Kiang Malingue

• Yellowfish0052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kiang Malingue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As can be seen here, single-issue user Yellowfish0052 has several times removed referenced content and made generally non-constructive edits that I've subsequently reverted, with explanatory edit summaries. I've also left messages on their talk page, to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, with content issues like this, it's typical to start a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Kiang Malingue. I don't know if it would be successful but that's generally the next step before coming to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I'm doubtful about the outcome of such a discussion. I've left two messages on the user's talk page, and not only have they ignored them, but they've persisted in their edits, so I suspect they either don't read messages or don't care; this is why I a took the matter to ANI. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing via live updates on football matches

• Tumford14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see on his contributions, Tumford14 has been doing disruptive edits on and on. He was previously warned a few days ago by myself on his talk page after initiating a edit warring due to to live updates. I reverted a few of his edits, just to be reverted by him and he only stopped as I warned him. I just noticed in some other pages today that he repeated such behaviour. To make matters worse, by searching previous versions of his talk page, it is possible to see that he was already warned due to these kind of updates and chose to ignore it. Live updates have been prohibited for years in football articles to avoid mistakes and duplicate information. And you can see by his responses to other warnings in his talk page that he just doesn't care about anything anyone says. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yo, that's my bad Felipe. I didn't know there was a reason for not doing live updates, and was just tryna do it to be quick and save time. I thought you were just tryna be a pain in the ass but that's my fault, I should've known better. Not tryna start any beef. Sorry if I got under your skin. AB (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by MSgames2000

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.

---

MSgames2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] and there are plenty more. What next steps are there to address this? Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 23:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Where have you attempted to address this through discussion? I am not seeing anything current on their talk page. The last notice (a formal caution) was in 2021. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This probably should have been taken to WP:AE where admins pay attention to ECR, ARBPIA, and BLPVIO before ensuring the paperwork has been filed in triplicate. 12.75.41.118 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing any CTOP awareness notices. And while I concede this does not appear constructive, I don't see it rising to the level of a no warning block. I will add the appropriate notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

OK; I've posted a CTOP awareness notice and a level II warning for the Portal edit. Everything else is way too stale and not actionable. Looking through their history, this is not a clear case of NOTHERE. That said, any further disruption is now eligible for sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 23 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.

Placename vandal

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I've recently noticed a number of strange edits to articles about localities, mainly in Germany and Poland, involving various manipulations of place names, such as the addition of made-up names in ethnic minority languages/dialects ([97], [98]), the removal of official German names in articles about Polish villages (eg. [99]) and the addition of irrelevant (not used at all) or even completelty made-up Polish names in articles about German places (eg. [100] [101] [102]). Sometimes it's just simple vandalism in the form of adding offensive wording ([103] [104] [105]). The last active account to make these changes was Zdyhan, but searching through the history of edits and making comparisons, it seems to me that this is not the only account by this person. Very similar edits have been made by the accounts Pchaccx (banned), Yihanbai12, Yihanbai16 (and a few other YihanbaiXX accounts, some of them banned) and IP numbers, eg. 2603:7080:9301:a7d:499c:af5e:9ff3:f9c8 (I'm pretty sure there are many more). In addition to the ban, it would be good to track this guy's entire activity as thoroughly as possible and revert all the edits he made, because he potentially left hundreds of articles vandalised. Khan Tengri (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Jacksonville International Airport

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.

---

Who knew that arguing over airline routes was the thing to do!

The page on Jacksonville International Airport was amended by User:Jahamian876242 on 20 March to add that the Fort Lauderdale route was set to end and adding a source. Despite Jahamian876242 being an experienced editor, this change was reverted by User:VenFlyer98 because the source didn't include a date. Not revised, not amended but reverted but leaving the source in place as a source for nothing.

I undid the reversion and corrected the source adding the full details. The page was then seemingly vandalised by an IP user. This was reverted by User:The Banner to my previous edit. The page was then apparently vandalised by another IP user. This change was reverted by VenFlyer98.

Ven Flyer 98 then restored the page to a previous version by him (reverting my edit, The Banner's edit, and Jamamian876242's edit).

I'm escalating this for two reasons:

- one for semi-protection from IP users; and

- because VenFlyer's reversions are unnecessary confrontational. He could easily delete the text and the source and no one would be the wiser but he is choosing to revert good faith edits by experienced editors, which will send them notifications of reversion. Moreover, these reversions appear to be inconsistent with the guidelines on reversion.

- ash (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This should be discussed at talk:Jacksonville International Airport. I note that User:VenFlyer98 provided an explanation in the last edit summary, which could be the basis of discussion there. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Wrong venue
2. A firm date is necessary, "Most of the routes will end on April 30." is not sufficient
3. The given source sources the connection, so is valid.
4. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT

The Banner talk 16:40, 24 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.

Disinformation and vandalism

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.

---

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

Please pay attention to the dissemination of disinformation and vandalism of a participant from Russia, Dushnilkin, who adds false data to articles about the battles of the Russian-Chechen wars. 098Jack (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

No diffs, no user notification (as described at the top of this page). Do you plan to do these or should I close this report? Also, 098Jack, please translate the section header; "Дезинформация и вандализм" is not appropriate here on en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 24 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.

Reporting an user

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

---

A guy named Nicolas22g is deleting some of informations in the wikipedia page im working on for no reason. I cant have any reason why! He just deleted the photo of the guy i made the wikipedia page! The wikipedia page is rza cafarov plz look at his account if he is doing this consistently because it is really annoying me Djinkyyy (talk) 21:57, 24 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.

Removing the mop

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.

---

Been a while since I posted so I don't remember where this is supposed to go. I'm fully retiring from Wiki so I would like to have the administrator role removed from my account, just in case someone gains access to it somehow along the way. Thanks in advance and take care y'all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Thanks for your service to the community. Don't be shy about asking for your permissions back if the situation changes. We always need experienced eyes, even if they don't hold a mop. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit Sorry to see you moving on and hoping you will be back one day. Thank you for all your work here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We salute you and wish you well in your future endeavors. May the wind be forever at your back, and the seas be in your favor, comrade. Your memory will not soon be lost. Farewell. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Thank you for your past work. I had to do the same thing when I was preparing to go back to graduate school. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 24 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.

Hypersilly's talk page

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

---

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

Please revoke TPA. Obvious misuse. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. A disaster waiting to happen, because we have the ADL, New York Post, Elon Musk, the New Yorker, and the Heritage Foundation all trolling us to catch us in a trap so that Trump can revoke our 501(c)(3) status.

Bearian (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just curious, what is the matter with the New Yorker? I haven't heard about it yet. Janhrach (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian, what about that talk page raises alarm bells? I see some mild silliness that’s best ignored. Nothing else. The user can delete the block notice—that’s allowed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the comment is supposed to be a joke? It really doesn't help. I see nothing that warrants removal of talk page access either. Secretlondon (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

If I say a joke on here, I use a /s or /snark note. I'm not certain about the one I struck out, but expect a story out soon. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This is just irritating. Secretlondon (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

And this has to do with an editor posting spurious/joking unblock requests on their talk page how exactly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What exactly do Donald Trump and Elon Musk have to do with this?

Also, you can't seriously expect everyone to declare every joke they make on here? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What was this person originally blocked for? jp×g🗯️ 18:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Immaturity/trolling. I reported them to ANI several months ago. Janhrach (talk) 18:28, 24 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.

Placename vandal

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I've recently noticed a number of strange edits to articles about localities, mainly in Germany and Poland, involving various manipulations of place names, such as the addition of made-up names in ethnic minority languages/dialects ([106], [107]), the removal of official German names in articles about Polish villages (eg. [108]) and the addition of irrelevant (not used at all) or even completelty made-up Polish names in articles about German places (eg. [109] [110] [111]). Sometimes it's just simple vandalism in the form of adding offensive wording ([112] [113] [114]). The last active account to make these changes was Zdyhan, but searching through the history of edits and making comparisons, it seems to me that this is not the only account by this person. Very similar edits have been made by the accounts Pchaccx (banned), Yihanbai12, Yihanbai16 (and a few other YihanbaiXX accounts, some of them banned) and IP numbers, eg. 2603:7080:9301:a7d:499c:af5e:9ff3:f9c8 (I'm pretty sure there are many more). In addition to the ban, it would be good to track this guy's entire activity as thoroughly as possible and revert all the edits he made, because he potentially left hundreds of articles vandalised. Khan Tengri (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Jacksonville International Airport

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.

---

Who knew that arguing over airline routes was the thing to do!

The page on Jacksonville International Airport was amended by User:Jahamian876242 on 20 March to add that the Fort Lauderdale route was set to end and adding a source. Despite Jahamian876242 being an experienced editor, this change was reverted by User:VenFlyer98 because the source didn't include a date. Not revised, not amended but reverted but leaving the source in place as a source for nothing.

I undid the reversion and corrected the source adding the full details. The page was then seemingly vandalised by an IP user. This was reverted by User:The Banner to my previous edit. The page was then apparently vandalised by another IP user. This change was reverted by VenFlyer98.

Ven Flyer 98 then restored the page to a previous version by him (reverting my edit, The Banner's edit, and Jamamian876242's edit).

I'm escalating this for two reasons:

- one for semi-protection from IP users; and

- because VenFlyer's reversions are unnecessary confrontational. He could easily delete the text and the source and no one would be the wiser but he is choosing to revert good faith edits by experienced editors, which will send them notifications of reversion. Moreover, these reversions appear to be inconsistent with the guidelines on reversion.

- ash (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This should be discussed at talk:Jacksonville International Airport. I note that User:VenFlyer98 provided an explanation in the last edit summary, which could be the basis of discussion there. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Wrong venue
2. A firm date is necessary, "Most of the routes will end on April 30." is not sufficient
3. The given source sources the connection, so is valid.
4. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT

The Banner talk 16:40, 24 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.

Disinformation and vandalism

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.

---

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

Please pay attention to the dissemination of disinformation and vandalism of a participant from Russia, Dushnilkin, who adds false data to articles about the battles of the Russian-Chechen wars. 098Jack (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

No diffs, no user notification (as described at the top of this page). Do you plan to do these or should I close this report? Also, 098Jack, please translate the section header; "Дезинформация и вандализм" is not appropriate here on en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 24 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.

Reporting an user

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

---

A guy named Nicolas22g is deleting some of informations in the wikipedia page im working on for no reason. I cant have any reason why! He just deleted the photo of the guy i made the wikipedia page! The wikipedia page is rza cafarov plz look at his account if he is doing this consistently because it is really annoying me Djinkyyy (talk) 21:57, 24 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.

Removing the mop

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.

---

Been a while since I posted so I don't remember where this is supposed to go. I'm fully retiring from Wiki so I would like to have the administrator role removed from my account, just in case someone gains access to it somehow along the way. Thanks in advance and take care y'all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Thanks for your service to the community. Don't be shy about asking for your permissions back if the situation changes. We always need experienced eyes, even if they don't hold a mop. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit Sorry to see you moving on and hoping you will be back one day. Thank you for all your work here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We salute you and wish you well in your future endeavors. May the wind be forever at your back, and the seas be in your favor, comrade. Your memory will not soon be lost. Farewell. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Thank you for your past work. I had to do the same thing when I was preparing to go back to graduate school. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 24 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.

WP:LTA WP:NOTBROKEN vandal

2403:6200:8850::/47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (/47, not /48) has been violating WP:NOTBROKEN for months. Many, many warnings, no reaction. None. Nothing. Most recent warnings: here and here. Older ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and many others. User:Betty Logan, User:Geraldo Perez, myself and others have reverted hundreds of edits by this IP range. It's time to stop this. Please block the IP range for a while. If there's a way to force the IP to communicate with others, that would be even better. But I don't think that's going to happen. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for three months Star Mississippi 16:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! For future reference: The disruptive editor has also used IPs in the 49.49.0.0/16 range (from the same area in Thailand as the IPv6), e.g. here and here. But that has only happened in the last few days, probably not block-worthy yet. I'll keep an eye on it. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

...two more, this time from early February: same IP range and location; different IP range, same location. Just for the record, not block-worthy (yet). — Chrisahn (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion with new IP, still "fixing" WP:NOTBROKEN links, e.g. here. Reported at WP:AIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

112.207.123.170 WP:NOTHERE

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

---

This IP disruptively messes with article deletion. Also investigated for sockpuppetry. --Altenmann >talk 04:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's use {{userlinks}} to make it convenient for others to investigate: 112.207.123.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Chrisahn (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at the IP's contributions. The IP has proposed / started discussions for deleting several articles, files and categories in the last two days (roughly three or four per day, I think). Technically correct, as far as I can tell (user notifications etc). Some of the reasons given by the IP are written in poor English and incomprehensible. I get the impression that the IP believes these deletions would improve Wikipedia. In that sense, I don't think it's a case of WP:NOTHERE, but given the number of proposed / requested deletions, the behavior may be disruptive. And yet... Altenmann wrote on the IP's talk page "Anonymous users have no rights for this". Is that backed by policy? I don't think so. Altenmann also reverted some of the IP's edits, and I'm not sure these reverts were fully warranted. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Er, yeah. IP users can absolutely ~vote for deletion. They can't directly start AfDs, but they can propose deletions and request other editors prepare the actual page. Saying they 'have no rights for this' is outright wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

IP editors can absolutely participate in our deletion processes. We have a number of IP editors who regularly PROD articles and IP editors participate in AFDs as commenters all of the time. That warning was inappropriate, Altenmann. And I hope you notified them of this discussion thread. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:MarioGom has notified the IP. QwertyForest (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I find this strange: since their votes do not count, their comments are just clutter which can bias discussions and prone to sockpuppetry. --Altenmann >talk 16:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz's comment is a bit confusing to the extent it implies that IPs can only participate in AfDs as commenters. As Bushranger correctly says, IPs can vote at AfDs, and their votes do count. Also, in case you didn't notice, I've blocked this particular IP, but not because of the deletion-related business.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

By "comment", I meant "participate" and I'm sorry if the meaning was unclear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Belgrade

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.

---

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

Greetings. Can someone put back the stable version of this article? Current version is made by user Updating Edits which is sockpuppet of user SatelliteChange. 95.86.51.136 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No, for editorial reasons. —Alalch E. 22:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Hello. Why is that? That is the stable version, the current one is made by blocked sockpuppet. 95.86.51.136 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Start a discussion on the talk page about the image choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That does not make sense. That is the stable version. The current one is only a POV of a blocked user. 95.86.51.136 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Responsibility for the edit has been assumed by an editor in good standing, so now it's just a content dispute that should follow WP:DR. Please bring it to the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: But who should I ping? With who should I talk to bring back the stable version since the user is blocked? 95.86.51.136 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Belgrade#Panorama picture should be updated; in the meantime, I have reverted to an even earlier state (that of 8 February). Please do not comment here any more. There's nothing left to do here. —Alalch E. 23:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them as socks. The page is currently protected at the wrong version, which I have no opinion on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1282360207.—Alalch E. 23:03, 25 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.

Madamrose1965

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.

---

Madamrose1965 (talk · contribs) is certain MOS:'S is wrong, and has stated unequivocally several times that they will not stop violating it,[115][116][117] in their responses to the multiple attempted explanations given on their talk. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

and I stongly encouage the Wikipedia authorities to block me permanently so that I do not become a nuisance for them and that the issue does not go further, and I know that Wikipedia is a respected authority but I want to make sure that my actions are not sugar coated and only reported as they have been. Thank you Remsense and all the editors whom I have talked to as well as Wikipedia who always make its environment feel at home, it has been an honor working with you Madamrose1965 (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is one odd response. Several minutes after posting the above Madamrose edited two articles removing the 's from the text. I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 25 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.

Habitually non-collegial behavior

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

---

Engage01 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked twice for harassment and uncivil, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, has been remorselessly repeating them since their last block expired. See [118], [119] in Talk:Sia#Family, User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion and User talk:SchroCat#Hi. And while cleaning a personal talk page isn't illegal, the fact that they scrub warnings and block notices under misleading edit summaries [120] [121] [122] [123] reinforces the suspicion that they are simply WP:IDNHT. Also asking if these conversations on User talk:Johnuniq may count as canvassing or some other inappropriate communications. Borgenland (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Suggesting that messages and warnings are somehow advertisements through edit summaries is not only misleading and inappropriate, but also shows that they completely fail to understand what is being told. Their attitude hasn't changed, clearly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I call your competency into question as an admin. You are a true troublemaker in my view. I have the right to say this site is nuts when you can't understand that sometimes viewpoints on here are just wrong. Only a dunce would use your arguments. Engage01 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I fully have the right to ask Johnuniq about stress on the site in particular since someone just told me they are having it. You two could be the cause of some of it. Find something else to do in life where you can hold real authority, maybe. Engage01 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think colleges would throw you off of campus for how you view stuff. Engage01 (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledging receipt of you proving further that you are WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that user is again barging into my talk page [124]. Given their previous behavior on User talk:Borgenland#Statistics I have reason to believe they are up to no good. Borgenland (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I call on you to be removed as an admin. You like those apples? Engage01 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but can you make me an admin first? So much for calling other people's competency. Borgenland (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC). Borgenland (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, this site is such a disaster I am sure they will. Engage01 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, you never tried to look at the people who perished in the collision and whether or not you are grossly wrong for omitting information or permitting it. Engage01 (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

May I remind you that no one agreed with your attempt to circumvent WP:MEMORIAL, your concocting of unsourced data and subsequent gaslighting, and the obnoxious manner in which you tried to impose those edits, which also led to your second block. And to remind the community how nothing you have changed since then, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Harassment and possible Canvassing, User talk:Aviationwikiflight#Reason, User talk:Aviationwikiflight#Previous and User talk:Borgenland#Statistics. Borgenland (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using the word may? As if you have some reasonability. Do you understand that two people, maybe if I use all caps you could... PEOPLE. You don't seem to care that they aren't mentioned due to silliness. Two foreign countries with faulty reporting can't source something or report right. There are other sources. Engage01 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Again with your excuses for your inability to produce a source. If you weren't on ANI, you would have ordered me to find one for you. Borgenland (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I did find sources. You have NO ability to source something? Why are you even talking to me? Why are you seeming to "follow" me on Wikipedia? Why are you trying to stir up something or problems? Engage01 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I can command you to stop editing? Are you nuts? Engage01 (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Your last block notice speaks for itself [125]. Borgenland (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to help on a dispute that I happened to come by, and all you think of is I am out to get you just because I disagreed, not because there were serious concerns raised by editors on your editing before you proceeded to insult them, not to mention you continue to claim you have a source in 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision that for some reason has not appeared more than a month later. Borgenland (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And you don't need me following you to get dragged to ANI, @SchroCat had already warned you that this day might come thanks to your own behavior. Borgenland (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a point?Engage01 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You happened to be on that particular talk page? Engage01 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why, do you WP:OWN the page to bar me from editing? I surf multiple pages in a day on Wikipedia and have as much right as any other decent editor to make constructive edits on that, unlike your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior there. If I did intend to follow you you would have been taken here long ago and before any well-meaning editor bothered to warn you for the last time, which you ignored. Borgenland (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And was it me who said "You are all living in alternate realities in my opinion" or made this snide [126] when confronted with disagreement on you proposal? Borgenland (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way, snide isn't a noun. Engage01 (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't need to. The diff speaks for itself. Borgenland (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You talk about grammar. You think that you would want to use nouns properly. Like everything you seem to do, it's almost all questionable. Engage01 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Says you who have been blocked twice in 3 months. Borgenland (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Again this insincere [127] scrubbing on a notice. Borgenland (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You are the only person now? You're qualified to tell every user here how to use their own talk pages. Please find something to do besides Wikipedia. You seem to exhibit odd tendencies. Engage01 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It just shows again how you don't take other editors' concerns about you seriously and how you make wild accusations on most editors you've interacted with. I'd advise though that you sincerely pray that other admins whose advice you scrubbed on talk under false pretences give you a reprieve. Borgenland (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You will just keep on going and going, right? You realize this isn't helping your "endeavor." Engage01 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I do, but it's your editing that helps me. Borgenland (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Engage01 for a month for continuing personal attacks and uncollegial behavior (right here at ANI, no less). Wikipedia isn't X or Bluesky or whatever; we expect users to communicate constructively and in good faith. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• A necessary step, I think. They have now made 800 edits on the site and in that time been brought to ANI three times and been blocked three times. Their BATTLEFIELD behaviour, incivility and continued personalisation of any disagreement hasn't abated at any point since they started editing; when (or should) they return, I don't think there will be any change in that approach and I don't think this will be the last time ANI has to deal with them. Is there a restriction we should consider for their future behaviour to try and limit their activity to a more constructive approach? - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’d also like to note that several instances of them pulling notices on TP under misleading and insincere edit summaries have been made while they were blocked. Suggest action be taken to discourage this. Borgenland (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that block was the minimum that could be done. I predict an indefinite block if Engage01 comes back, but I hope to be proven wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I considered an indefinite block, but the tenor of the conversation was editors trying to reason with them. I do think this is their last chance. Mackensen (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I respect your decision, but I concur with other commenters here in that the editor in question has had an extremely long rope, and that they were lucky I only backdated events following their previous ANI as an example and not every single ANI they had since January for the sake of mercy. Borgenland (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Stepped up to indef by Tedder. Aydoh8^[contribs] 23:23, 25 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.

NPA

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.

---

Egregiously offensive personal attack by @NutmegCoffeeTea [128] based on no evidence. I’m genuinely gobsmacked. Kowal2701 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This previous SPI case confirms my suspicions that I’ve been personally targeted in some fucked up crusade. (History of Africa gets next to no traffic and there were ~8 people making the same edit, a similar things ongoing in the current SPI case). I’m speechless, as I have no idea how anyone couldn’t just look at my edits. Kowal2701 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that in that same WP:AE report Kowal2701 commented at Special:Diff/1282103208 in which they insinuate that the filer of the report is weaponising the noticeboard in order to take out an editor with an opposing POV, while trying to claim that's not what they were insinuating. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

We should be wary of the weaponisation of these avenues to get rid of opposing POVs. is an acceptable thing to say, I didn’t say "this is", just what it looked like to me. Fortunately there isn’t any opposing POV to mine on this site, my POV’s just Afrocentric in the mainstream sense. I only came upon the case after FMSKY filed an SPI on a page I was watching, and I don’t care at all about non-African history articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Was there a softer way I could’ve raised my concerns? Maybe I could’ve minced my words a bit. Think that’s a complete distraction from what this ANI thread is about. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't have insinuated anything if you weren't going to be providing evidence to support it, otherwise you're making personal attacks and casting aspersions just as much as the editor you are filing this report on. And no it's not a distraction. Any editor raising a complaint here should be aware that their own conduct may come under examination. TarnishedPath^talk 07:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It's well documented that AE threads were weaponised in the IP topic area, but I'll give a possible solution at the pump instead. Saying "we should be wary" is okay imo, it just gives the admins a narrative to consider. But I should've said "Idk whether that's happening here, just something for admins to consider" Kowal2701 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it's nothing for admins to consider unless you bring evidence that is what is occurring in that circumstance. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

But what if it’s the first time it’s happening? Do we just let it slide? FMSky is a valuable editor and these are the sort of things that make experienced editors leave the project. Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I do agree. The evidence for supposed "eurocentric white supremacist editing" is laughable. That baseless charge damages Kowal2701's reputation and should at minimum be removed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It’s very similar to @BlackVulcanX’s comment in the previous SPI case Btw I don't know if it matters but Kowal2701 is a far-right editor. Not saying that because it's bad but because he's interested in a colonial view on the article[16] using [129] and [130] as ‘evidence’ Kowal2701 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise this could look like forum shopping, as I understand it SPI only deals with sockpuppetry rather than user conduct so this is just about PAs, but I realise since we have to assume NCT only has one account, they haven’t been warned for PAs before. I was thinking since this was so egregious and baseless it might warrant action but idk Kowal2701 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• That SPI case does not show you were targeted but that you were labeling editors you disagree with as likely sockpuppets even though the evidence showed they were not even from the same countries. I have no idea why you would bring that up since the accusations was baseless. It is not a strong card to play here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’m sorry but I can’t assume 6 people making the same edit on a page that gets very little traffic are unrelated (and a similar things now happening in the current case). Specifically I was referring to the personal attacks in the case rather than the outcome, but I should’ve made that clearer Kowal2701 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  NCT called me a white supremacist on baseless evidence, why is that being tolerated (by the admin at AE)? There’s literally nothing else I’d find more offensive, I really despair Kowal2701 (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve commented on the admin at AE’s talk page which is probably what I should’ve done in the first place. Apologies for anyone’s time I’ve wasted, this can be closed unless people have further issues with my conduct Kowal2701 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

IMO no action should be taken here, because making an accusation of misconduct at AE is not a personal attack. Loki (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI as without merit. I've elaborated on a previous warning to NCT for accusations of racism. I've hatted a lot of off-topic sniping at the AE thread, and directed NCT that she can start a new AE thread if she thinks there are actionable issues against Kowal. I think that this AN/I can be closed, with an understanding that the next person to pick up the stick here is getting blocked unless it is in the form of a noticeboard filing with clear-cut evidence of the exact misconduct alleged. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:26, 25 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.

Mass vandalism of articles about YouTubers

Can someone rollback the edits by User: 2601:14D:4A02:3210:6446:B63D:2B4F:CD8D They deleted the channel links (infobox) on tens (if not hundreds) of articles about YouTubers. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The template is used on their talk page. Also Geni has blocked the range for 31 hours. Conyo14 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure the IP was committing vandalism? Previewing the page before they removed the deprecated |channel_direct_url= field gives the message: Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox YouTube personality with unknown parameter "channel_direct_url".
This appears related to ongoing changes to {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, per this edit[131] from yesterday. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

They also made edits prior to the ones on YouTube articles to remove unknown parameters from templates[132][133]. This appears to be a case of mistaken assumptions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The IP 2601:14D:4A02:3210::/64 has been blocked by Geni 16 hours ago for 31 hours. The problem with this IP goes far beyond YouTubers, and it goes back to September 2024. Since then, the IP has made almost 1500 edits, 300 of them with the edit summary "unknown parameter". I guess we should roll back as many of them as possible. I'm not sure though – in the case of the YouTube template it's pretty clear that the IP removed a parameter that should have been renamed instead, but maybe the other templates "fixed" by the IP didn't have a replacement parameter, and deleting it was OK. (I agree that the IP probably didn't mean to vandalize, but the effect is pretty much the same.) — Chrisahn (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:174.216.146.95 is likely a sock of the original IP, based on their one edit and geolocation data. Chrisahn's assessment is correct: they were meant to manually review the now-deprecated parameter and replace it, instead of removing it outright. I doubt this was intentional vandalism, but rather an oversight on their part by not reviewing the template and its talk page to see why these changes were being made. I will go through their edits later and fix them. Prefall 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Well they are being more communicative at least.©Geni (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

All of their edits have now been fixed. Prefall 03:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! — Chrisahn (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing from User TarnishedPath

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.

---

Normally wouldn't file this, but this user has explicitly said he would not yield unless brought here [134], so here it is.

I'll try to summarize best I can. There is a discussion/quasi-RFC going on on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. The page has a template broadly outlining different past established consensuses made by the community for the subject matter. At one point, an editor unilaterally edited the template to add the word "exclusively" to one of the consensus, (despite it not being in its 2021 RFC closing) and then immediately posted a discussion comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that they had just edited it. (They said it was a BOLD edit, that more clearly reflected the 2021 RFC in their eyes).

I, along with another editor, pointed out that doing this to templates was clearly frowned upon per WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace, which states "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." We also disagree with they're assertion that it is more accurate, especially when it's without broader community discussion as called for by guidelines, and was seemingly done just to strengthen a party's argument in a debate. User @TarnishedPath ignored this, and reinstalled the change. On that basis, and because there was at the very least a dispute, I reverted per WP:STATUSQUO. He again ignored this, and, despite the fact that it is against policy, added it back in, saying to be taken to AN. I do not want to revert again because I don't want to get into an edit war. I generally never revert more than twice.

He has also recently participated in edit warring on the main COVID-19 lab leak theory page, which I warned him for. (I again did not want to revert more than twice. He did not explicitly break 3RR like I originally thought, he "only" reverted 3 times in one day.) Unfortunately, the warning appears to have done no good.

Lastly, he is continuing to post on my personal talk page (mostly in direct retaliation for me warning him) despite the fact that I've kindly asked him not to in the past for posting erroneous messages. [135] and he has said that he is aware of this request and yet does so anyway. That's why this isn't just in the normal edit warring noticeboard. I don't know if that qualifies as harassment or if a long-term block is appropriate, but this blatant disregard of policy, particularly WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace, is incredibly frustrating and I think WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and I see no other choice since he demanded AN.

TLDR: Requesting help, clear violation of WP:STATUSQUO, possible harassment and overall battleground behavior. Just10A (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TP has posted just the once to your talk page when they shouldn't have, which hardly falls under WP:HARASS (repeated offensive behavior, my emph.). I suspect that you didn't take it to ANEW because you were (correctly) afraid that you might be equally sanctionable. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

He did it twice, and in direct retaliation to me warning him of edit warring. But I agree, that's not the meat and potatoes here. That's why I said I wasn't sure. He also might be WP:BLUDGEONING the talk page discussion at this point, as pointed out by @Horse Eye's Back. Just10A (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You're talking about the 3RR warning. The other was a CTOPS alert, and anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template. Indeed, it is neccesary that editors are so alerted, and is intended to be a useful reminder to them. If you assumed good faith (as you are demanding from TP), you would appreciate that... actually, the 3RR warning is also an essential precursor to a noticeboard filing. Per WP:NOBAN, a user cannot avoid... notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. So it looks like, actually, there was little or no harassment. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Its just the cherry on top of general battleground behavior. Again, keep in mind that this was directly retaliatory of my warning. Just10A (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's an aspersion, as they were arguably two necessary administrative templates. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if thats the case, but I figured the fact it was *2 minutes* after his warning reply got it pretty much into WP:SPADE territory. Just10A (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Just10A: to be clear CTOP awareness is required before there can be any sanction. Provided an editor is clearly editing within a CTOP area, and is unaware or at least might be, then there should be no question about giving a CTOP alert especially not a justified first CTOP alert. While tit-for-tat alerts are dumb because someone who has given a CTOP alert is themselves taken as aware that isn't what happened here. Also you say "2 minutes" as if it proves some sort of retaliation but in reality it could easily be just you both started to give notices at the same time and neither of you knew the other was doing the same thing. This is especially the case if this warnings came very shortly after you both were editing the article which resulted in the warning. BTW, the two different notices/templates may have been in different edits but they were about 28 seconds a part with no intervening edits [136]. So while there might be two notices, they should be treated like a single edit so can be considering posting only once. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually I see now TarnishPath had replied to your warning before they warned you, so they were clearly aware of it. Frankly I consider tit-for-tat warnings a bit silly since I'd imagine most admins at WP:ANEW would consider that the other editor having just given a warning means they should be aware edit warring isn't okay. However I have little experience with ANEW so it might very well be that some admins don't consider it enough so perhaps it was necessary to warn you. More importantly there seems to have been reasonable concern about your understanding of our edit warring limitations since you made an accusation about violating the bright line 3RR that seems to have been unsupported and perhaps giving you even a templated warning would help with that. And most importantly as silly as I find tit-for-tat warnings, it's even sillier to care about them. If you feel it was fine to warn someone, there's no reason to care that the other editor warned you for similar behaviour. Revert it if you want, but don't make a fuss about it. BTW, I also see the CTOP alert wasn't a first one somehow I thought it was. Even so the rest of what I said stands. There's no reason to care about CTOP alerts when the editor might be unaware. I'd add an editor is free to use the 'already aware' templates on their talk page for any areas they're aware, if they care so much about not receiving a CTOP alert. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as CTOP awareness, TarnishedPath has taken it upon themself to post the "Introduction to contentious topics" notice on many user talk pages after any user's first edit or comment in the Covid19 space. Ymerazu (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

They're supposed to do that. That's not the issue. Just10A (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Because of CTOPs work this is something editors are actually required to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I incorrectly read "CTOP awareness is required before there can be any sanction" to mean that TP's awareness was in question, I understand now. Ymerazu (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think the requirement only raises tensions, but it's how it's designed at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment an editor unilaterally edited the template to add the word "exclusively" to one of the consensus I am that editor. Please link to the edit and notify an editor if you're implicating them in a WP:AN incident. As far as I can see, every edit on the template has been unilateral in exactly the same way. There's no notable discussions on the template talk page that would indicate otherwise. Many edits on templates and wikipedia in general are made unilaterally. We notice things that need improvement, and improve them adhoc. I initiated a discussion per WP:BRD after Just10A reverted me, but they still haven't explained why they think my edit didn't improve the template.
  • despite it not being in its 2021 RFC closing As I noted in my edit summary, the edit was intended to clarify the RfC outcome summarized on the template, which clearly states that both sides have valid arguments and goes on to say that Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories. This is already covered by WP:RS. Clearly, WP:MEDRS sources are still important in the origins of viruses. That's why I added the word exclusively to the template.
  • My edit to the template was partly in response to Just10A misconstruing the RfC outcome in a comment on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory.
  • Since my edit to the template, I have been the recipient of multiple WP:ASPERSIONS, for example here, here, and here, one of which was made by Just10A.
  • He has also recently participated in edit warring In that case it was Just10A who was edit warring. Per WP:ONUS, the editor trying to add new content is the one who has to initiate the discussion as outlined in WP:BRD. In the case on Covid lab leak theory, Just10A was trying to add the new content, and also did so while there was an ongoing, high participation talk page discussion on whether that same content should be included. Just10A also wrongly warned TarnishedPath and then removed a warning template from their own user talk page.

The void century 17:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief and just let the admins sort it out, because I think the evidence is pretty clear.

-"Other people got away with it" doesn't override clear guidelines and policy.

- Multiple editors explained. It's not in the closure and they do not agree it's accurate.

- The "aspersions" have already been addressed by other editors. Pointing out something you objectively did and asking you to stop is not an aspersion.

- I reverted twice, and only twice, specifically to not be edit warring . (Edit: striking this because it's causing some confusion, better language would be "because I'm explicitly trying to not edit war." ) Just10A (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Specifically to not be edit warring: You're talking about the three revert rule. But per WP:EW, it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. In fact, what you just wrote is effectively an admission that you deliberately sailed as close at you could to the letter of the law, which is, of course, against the spirit of it. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think you're assuming good faith. I purposefully hold myself to 2 reverts so I never get remotely close to violating the bright line rule with a 10 ft. pole, not "deliberately sail[ing] as close at you could to the letter of the law." Just10A (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and by purposely doing so, you make yourself safe from accusations of breaching 3RR but not necessarily one of edit warring. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As a fellow law student, not breaking a bright line rule is not necessarily dispositive. 3rr is a factor in determining edit warring, not an element. Best of luck with your studies @Just10A. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes. I'm not trying to say it's totally dispositive. It's not. I'm just attempting to express that I'm trying to interact with these people within the bounds of policy and guidelines,(QUO and template), and they are not doing the same. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would make an extended comment but I just don't think that this is ANI worthy... I think that Just10A has been essentially baited into opening this discussion when the wiser course of action would have been for all parties to drop the stick. Recommend a quick close and everyone eat some trout. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, but I don't know what other action there is to take when they defiantly demand they will not cease unless taken to AN.

  I really am not trying to bludgeon the convo here: but what should I do? We currently have a template that has been changed (and is currently still changed), flagrantly in defiance of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace here [137] and just no one cares? Can we at least agree that clearly policy calls for that to be changed? These guys are breaking policy, no one is disputing it, and we just do nothing? Just10A (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Looks to me that the one word change clearly clarified the template’s explanation of the lengthy RfC close, which should improve discussion. I see no harassment, disruptive editing, or battleground behavior by TarnishedPath. This belongs back at the template talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  The original closer weighed in on the talk page for the template and at least to me it seemed like they were saying that their original intent was already well captured as best they could understand / remember (it was four years ago after all). At that point they were asked if they were a creationist. Ymerazu (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• TarnishedPath has been bludgeon-y generally, and shouldn't have tried to enforce the change to the template. Messing with the template during a highly relevant widely participated discussion was inappropriate from The void century. Maybe the baiting should catch some trouts... SmolBrane (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Templates are used in multiple articles, so clarifying the wording on a template is warranted regardless of whether there's an in-progress discussion on one article's talk page. Am I supposed to wait until all relevant discussions have resolved on all pages that use the template? That might never happen. The void century 18:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  In general you should wait until the discussion(s) you are involved in have concluded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is clearly a false dichotomy. You chose an extraordinarily poor time to boldly edit this. TarnishedPath's enforcement was much worse though. And upon further assessment, TarnishedPath has made 30+ comments in the German intelligence section across three days(!), and also boldly closed an RfC as highly involved during this time. They have also been blocked ~3 times(?) historically for edit warring. This section has stayed pretty civil all things considered, but normally sanctions are escalated when experienced editors continue to transgress. SmolBrane (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's always a good time to fix issues. That's why WP:BOLD says Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.. Just10A reverted my edit, and I continued with WP:BRD. They've had ample opportunity to convince other editors as to why they reverted the edit, but their only arguments so far have been that they disagree, it was bad timing, and they think a discussion was warranted before making the edit. None of those arguments substantively explain why the edit was reverted. The void century 19:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  We don't need to do any convincing. You do, per WP:ONUS. All you have is 2 editors edit warring it onto the template in violation of WP:QUO. Just10A (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  We don't need to do any convincing. You do Which is exactly what I did, both in my edit summary and the talk page BRD discussion.

  WP:ONUS says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. It's based on convincing policy arguments, not a simple majority vote. WP:TALKDONTREVERT says The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.. The ONUS being on me doesn't excuse you from participating. If I make a convincing argument to include the content, then you need to explain why that argument is wrong. You can't just WP:STONEWALL the edit. The void century 19:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Multiple editors explained. We can have a more in-depth discussion on the talk, but I'm trying to deal with the edit warring and violating WP:QUO first. Just10A (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, they didn't. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an explanation. The void century 19:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  "I (as well as others it seems) do not think the addition of "exclusive" is accurate, and it is not found in the RFC closing." Just10A (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's just a more verbose way of saying you don't like it. The question I am asking you is why you don't think the addition is accurate. The void century 19:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'll see you on the talk. This is not for the ANI board or relevant to the WP:QUO violation. Just10A (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  This became relevant when you used it as the premise for your ANI notice. It's important for admins to have proper context. I agree that further discussion should be on the talk page, now that the context has been shared. The void century 20:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  That linked essay, about AfD arguments, is irrelevant to this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, I should have linked WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT The void century 23:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  You've ping-ponged from "never" to "always" and I would suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  They have also been blocked ~3 times(?) historically for edit warring. Careful with arguments like this. TarnishedPath has over 20,000 edits to Just10's 1,100 and Just10 has also been blocked for edit warring. Also, in the last 500 edits to that TP, Just10 has more edits than TP. In this case, Just10 reverted two editors. Stick to the current incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have been blocked a *single* time for what was largely unintentional because I did not yet know policy as a new regular editor. Avoid WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, it's a meaningless statistic. I edited many times as an IP prior without issue. Just10A (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  it's a meaningless statistic. That was my point. Two of the three EW's TP had were over a decade before you became a user. That's the problem wiith bare stats and why I said be careful with arguments like this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• User TarnishedPath's actions, including unilaterally editing templates, ignoring community consensus, and engaging in edit warring, are clearly in violation of established Wikipedia policies. I participated in the BND discussion on the LL talk page and their constant bludgeoning makes for a disruptive environment, contrary to the collaborative values Wikipedia upholds. I second HEB's sentiment that this looks like a baiting, but since a complaint has been filed, administrator attention is due. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

He also just up and unilaterally prematurely closed an RfC that I filed on that page talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, despite having a previously clearly stated position on the matter. I was considering reporting him here for that as well. Red Slash 01:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

[138] This is well into WP:OWNBEHAVIOR now. I don't recognize the RfC to be malformed and I didn't the first time it was closed 64 minutes after being created either. SmolBrane (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Tarnishedpath is displaying WP:Ownership of content#Examples of ownership behaviour on this and related pages. For example, whenever people make an edit he disagrees with, he tells them to take the issue to the Admin noticeboard, rather than debating it in the talk page. This is essentially saying "this won't change unless admins force me". See for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280624447

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1281087974

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280592862 Hi! (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

One of those was the wrong link, should have been https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280371615 Hi! (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Folks are we really trying to bring a content dispute to ANI in order to preserve a status quo, about Covid, from four years ago? What am I missing? Why is this here and not the subject of a new RFC or a perfectly ordinary talk page discussion? -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Any time a new source is found, for one side or the other, this is typical of that talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like Covid, the Covid discussion is infectious. This belongs back at the template talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear from User:TarnishedPath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be wise for them to participate. The sudden editing absence is unlikely to go unnoticed. Concerns about collaboration are not well satisifed by non-participation. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But if I were TarnishedPath, I don't think I'd want to get involved in this mess. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that parts of this have devolved significantly. But at the core we still have the same issue. We have an experienced editor who (unless he just up and forgot WP:STATUSQUO) knowingly and openly violated norms/policy, and then dared to be taken to ANI about it. No one seems to be even attempting to defend that issue, because it's pretty much undisputed. Now, should we string him up and hang him? Probably not. But I don't think anyone's disputing that's clearly aggressive and problematic behavior. All the other testimonies/issues from other editors just add to the profile. Just10A (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You quote WP:STATUSQUO but then have amnesia about your reverting three times, while discussion was occurring, against that policy and WP:ONUS (See Special:Diff/1280320706, Special:Diff/1280353026 and Special:Diff/1280355614 for your reverts). TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything 3 times. At that time there had shown significant support for a new addition that had been workshopped in the talk. The discussion was relatively moderate. That discussion obviously ballooned afterwards when you tagged dozens of editors from the old RFC, but at that time I was adding the workshopped version (that I didn't make, FYI) that seemed to reflect the overall community posture it had expressed at that point. That's all present in the edits and the talk page. So no, that did not happen like that. I think the fact that your only defense to your actions is an attempted Whataboutism speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything 3 times.

Refer to my diffs above.

At that time there had shown significant support for a new addition that had been workshopped in the talk.

A bunch of people going 'I agree with x" does not constitute consensus. Consensus is not a head count. It was clear that myself and an other editor were providing policy bases arguments why the edits shouldn't occur. Clearly there was no consensus for inclusion and you reverted three times against the above mentioned policies.

Ps, calling whataboutism doesn't work here. You started a report and so your own actions are also subject to review. Regarding anything else here, from what I've been able to digest of this mess of aspersions, quite a number of other editors have put forward good defences on my behalf. TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

So, do you have any defense to your actions other than alleging "someone else did it?" (despite it not being the case) Or do you agree that your actions clearly violated WP:STATUSQUO? Just10A (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

despite it not being the case

Please don't WP:GASLIGHT. I've provided clear diffs of what I allege above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I think that refusal to answer speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You also think that you didn't revert 3 times against WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO, which is demonstrably incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained why that is not the case. I reverted twice, and only twice, like I've maintained since the beginning. You have offered no such defense for your actions. You've just said "but what about them!" and refuse to answer direct questions, because you can't, because you know they indicate guilt. Again, your refusal to answer speaks for itself, I think we're done here. Just10A (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've already provided three diffs demonstrating three reverts (Special:Diff/1280320706, Special:Diff/1280353026 and Special:Diff/1280355614). You claiming that it didn't happen is plainly false. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The first edit you've linked to is not a revert, did you link the correct diff? BabbleOnto (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR it is a revert because it partially restored material which had previously been removed at Special:Diff/1280196777 and Special:Diff/1280241341. TarnishedPath^talk 04:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the correct diff. He's arguing it's a revert because I'm adding a totally different paragraph that was made (again, not by me) per discussion on talk because it's the same general subject matter as the pre-discussion version. If it was a premature BRD, I get that. Like I said, the discussion was moderate at that time, but showed clear general support for inclusion. I honestly didn't even think it's addition would be contentious per the talk. If that was a hasty BRD, my bad and I take responsibility for it. Obviously arguing it's a revert is silly, and is just trying to distract from answering the direct questions about his behavior. Just10A (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It was clearly a revert as it partially restored previously removed material. You started this discussion and so your behaviour is under review as much as anyone else's. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, you ask what you're missing about the lack of an RFC. You're missing that RFCs that might find a change in 'status quo, about Covid' aren't allowed (admins allow them to be shut down). Unless this incident results in admin action. I just confirmed my recollection : TarnishedPath shut down this RFC: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#RfC the other day - and I didn't buy the rationale or irredemability, but said nothing, not wanting to be beaten up, so to speak, as is the norm on this topic. That page is COVERED with aggressive Wikipedia:BLUDGEONing by TarnishedPath. You don't even need to count their comments on the page to see the volume; it's visible from afar.

Paid editing semi-tangent: I see lots of such behavior from several editors on the topic indistinguishable from that which I would expect of a paid editor. Have there been inquiries as to paid editing? How would I search to find out if an editor had been asked about paid editing? (Is there a search that would work? Will try to figure out myself...). Guidance is really vague on when it's OK to ask about editing indistinguishable from that one would expect of a paid editor, such as in topic area where there are relatively large financial incentives to push one point of view and disallow others. (not the place for a general question - was taken as insinuation)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change is supposedly wikipedia policy. I mean it's marked as such. But it's not, looking at how editor behavior on the topic is policed.

The template in question and Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK are used as bludgeons to effectively intimidate and get away with Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change violations.

I find the edit summaries by TarnishedPath on these edits to the template glaringly consistent with a PoV and so glaringly logically inconsistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280339718. vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280514726

It seems to indicate such desperation it scares me. I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right. RememberOrwell (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The second of those is what this discussion is about, and there's no consensus TP was in the wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first edit summary. As for why admins allow them to be shut down, I can't imagine why. Also that little hidden comment at the end of your post I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right. is tiptoing around WP:ASPERSIONS and the fact you chose to hide it indicates you know this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are perfectly normal. Of course you can't change a statement that says "there is no consensus" until a consensus has been achieved. Shutting down an RFC that is obviously non-neutral is also a perfectly normal thing to do. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with someone being a paid editor. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

>Of course you can't change a statement that says "there is no consensus" until a consensus has been achieved.

Agree.

> Shutting down an RFC that is obviously non-neutral is also a perfectly normal thing to do.

Agree.

I'll ask the paid editing question elsewhere. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you find it's true that TarnishedPath's "edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at", as claimed? RememberOrwell (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm asking @Asilvering, Phil. SMH. @Alexis Jazz ruled the consensus is: "who created something or where it was created is historical information" not BMI. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought this discussion was being held in public. I can't say any more, not because you seem to want to exclude me, but because I have no idea what you mean by "SMH" and "BMI". Please communicate in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Presumably, "Shake my head" and "Biomedical information,' respectively. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we need to hear from TarnishedPath.

There's a near total breakdown in normal editing processes in this area, and our articles reflect that. The article STILL has this blatant falsehood in it, months after it was tagged ^{[dubious – discuss]} : "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV". It persists even months after, after much effort, @Ultraodan fulfilled my request to "Please add ^{[dubious – discuss]} after the sentence". You can find the WP:Status quo stonewalling, largely by TarnishedPath, leading up to the tag placement, and continuing after the tag was placed in an extensive discussion: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 41#WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses. That discussion section also has the proof, since last May, down to the specific genetic manipulations of a specific SARS-related bat coronavirus, described in and copied from peer-reviewed, published work by none other than WIV's Zheng-Li Shi herself - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 etc and her saying her WIV lab did the work, sourced to linked articles included in MEDLINE, proving that the sentence that is still in the article is a blatant falsehood.

Admins, e.g. @Asilvering, do you follow; do you see and are you OK with the behavior violations I've identified, or should I ignore any violations in furtherance of there was no lab leak? I try to stay away from the area because it's so lawless, but I hope it gets cleaned up someday, and hope it's soon.

I want to further clarify what is glaringly inconsistent between these two edit summaries by TarnishedPath:

"Don't change the current consensus template unless there is discussion that leads to a new consensus."

"No new consensus is required as edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at."

With those edit summaries, TarnishedPath conveys the glaringly inconsistent belief that they don't need to prove there's a consensus before changing the template, but anyone they disagree with does need to prove there's a consensus before changing the template. In other words with those edit summaries, TarnishedPath conveys a "Rules for thee but not for Me." mentality, Is there a WP: link for it, I wonder!? Note: I do acknowledge that there's no issue if it's true that TarnishedPath's "edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at"; I just don't believe that the record shows that's true; Just10A already adequately explained why it's not true when opening this discussion, though I don't assert there's consensus on that. I WILL add that as I see it, the edit of the first edit summary only only reverted clarification of what consensus arrived at when, by removing time info. So I see the edit that that edit reverted as in fact NOT a change to the current template that tried to impose a new consensus. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(In isolation, these would be fine statements:

Don't change what a current consensus template indicates is consensus unless there is discussion that leads to a new consensus.

No new consensus is required for an edit that only clarifies what consensus arrived at.)

It's the "then immediately posted a discussion comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that they had just edited it." action complained of in the OP that makes the whole place stink. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

On the first half: personally, I think an edit request to add a maintenance tag is ridiculous. They're not supposed to be decorative. If you think something is dubious and needs discussing, you can just go ahead and discuss it. This isn't a low-traffic article where you might suspect no one will turn up to the discussion. I agree that article does say there was genetic manipulation of bat coronaviruses (note: I'm a historian, not a geneticist). What I am unclear on is whether that happened at WIV, though I would assume so. It seems to me like a simple fix here would be to remove the "there is no evidence" sentence from the article - it's not like the rest of the article isn't extremely clear that scientists overwhelmingly do not believe this was the origin of the pandemic. WP:DRN would be a good place to solve this, if regular talk page discussion isn't working.

On the second half: I don't think TarnishedPath needs to be pilloried for an incautious edit summary. But it is very clear that there is stonewalling going on in this topic. Four years is plenty of time for editorial opinion on a topic to change, especially when it's a very new topic, like covid. Rather than edit-warring each other over the template that describes the consensus from four years ago, you could simply have a new RFC to settle the matter. @Novem Linguae, apologies for tagging you in, but that's what you get for writing the defining essay on the issue. Are you able to help out here by setting up a neutrally worded RFC to affirm or overturn the results of the 2021 one? Given the updated research you've added to that essay, I expect the outcome of that RFC will be to affirm the previous one, which presumably won't make these editors happy but will at least clearly lay down that there will be no editorial interest in revisiting the question for some time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would behoove User:RememberOrwell to strike their aspersions and tone down their own bludgeoning and sealioning. Frankly, the accusations of paid editing and nefarious editing on the part of others should be worth some sort of sanction. King Lobclaw (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is also typical of that page when editors don't get their way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Either that, or tell me where my paycheck is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No you're just meant to put up with constant low level aspersions and sealioning, you don't get paid for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm issuing myself a script-imposed break from wikipedia, so I won't be responding to any of these discussions for at least a year. I am a healthy person, but as a semi-expert with a degree in biology, every time I'm dragged into Covid-19 discussions on wikipedia, it harms my mental health. The degree to which pseudoscience and far-right politics have taken hold on this platform is concerning and stressful, and makes me want to stay away. And comments like this one from the closer of an important RfC causes me great concern. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when admins are closing RfCs based on the way [they] see it. That is a non-starter and the effort required to reopen that RfC and deal with that can of worms is just not something I'm willing to endure. I doubt me saying this on an ANI discussion will make a difference, but I'll end by linking to WP:YWAB. Cheers. The void century 16:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The admin did not close the RfC you linked simply in favor of of the "way they see the issue." They provided a logical explanation a second time, in response to your questioning of it, personally explaining it to you, with examples, as to why they closed it the way they did. Taking their introduction, "The way I see the issue is..." out of context here, without pinging them to defend themselves, to imply the admin just closed the RfC based on their own personal opinion, a very serious charge, is ridiculous and should be stricken. Not even to mention it being completely irrelevant to this ANI. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

From my interactions with them on other topics I don't believe that Alexis Jazz is either a pseudoscience promoter or subscribed to any brand of far-right politics. This theory is even less plausible than the one advanced about paid/coordinated editing above, that at least was supported by a smattering of evidence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @User:Alexis_Jazz in case they want to respond. Ratgomery (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The void century, first of all, I'm not an admin. I'm sorry to hear the stress harms your mental health.
The degree to which pseudoscience and far-right politics have taken hold on this platform is concerning and stressful
Wait, you accuse me of that? You also suggested that based on your expertise you strongly suspect I'm a creationist over on Template talk:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). I didn't want to justify that with a response. Let me just say some idiot on Twitter said that the audience in my Harris-Walz rally panorama was AI-generated. Clearly me is a far-right creationist robot. 🤖
How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when admins are closing RfCs based on "the way [they] see it".
You guys are asking me about a closure I did nearly 4 years ago. I re-read my own closure, but I didn't re-read the entire discussion. I have no memory of writing it. I'm not a regular editor on the subject of COVID-19. So in this discussion I have to consider my words and trust that nearly 4 years ago I did my homework, which from the looks of it, I did.
It's actually unclear to me what exactly the problem even is. Your reply there actually seems to largely agree with what I said. The only issue I see is the exact definition of what is historical and what is scientific. If there is a problem with that definition or what kind of sources are allowed because of it, why not open an RfC to redefine the definition and/or change what kind of sources are acceptable? Or if I made a mistake, show me where the correct definition is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like to me that the Discussion portion of BRD had just started on the template talk page, when TarnishedPath apparently and unilaterally decided enough Discussion had taken place after just a few comments, and reinstated the disputed edit; a mild edit war ensued, and TarnishedPath dared to be dragged to the drama boards. And here we are. Nothing really requiring sanctions in my view, but TarnishedPath should be reminded if BRD is invoked, and a good-faith Discussion is taking place, don't just reinstate the disputed edit, instead, join the discussion and express your argument. Now that the original RfC closer has weighed in and removed the word "exclusively", this can probably be safely closed, unless there is an appetite for more dramah. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• I really don't know what to write to defend myself here which others haven't already done on my behalf. Apologies for my late attendance, but I have swimming and gym classes with my children on Sundays, which means my editing is generally reduced on that day of the week. Per asilvering above I'm not going to address most of the weak aspersions levied at me here because they reflect on those editors more than they do anyone else (paid editing FFS?). TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• I should note this user has additionally now summarily closed two [139][140] RfC's unilaterally, before anyone could comment, without any reasoning other than pasting the RfC instructions and saying "this violates these." One of which was just recently, after the start of this ANI, and after the user presumably was put on notice that their edits would be put under more scrutiny. This seems like textbook WP:SQS. BabbleOnto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with stonewalling. This was a seriously malformed RfC. Read the close. If hey hadn't closed it, someone else would have after wasted editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  The close, aside from copy and pasted sections of WP:RFC, is one sentence long and reads, in its entirety:

  This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC

  This is the equivalent of closing an RfC and just saying "It breaks a rule." Just calling an RfC "malformed" and "A long way from the instructions," then closing it without elaborating any further, is not a good-faith action ESPSECIALLY when the person closing is actively involved in the content dispute which the RfC tried to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  RFCs questions are meant to be neutral. It's not uncommon to close RFCs that are so far from neutral, it stops the RFC from being a waste of time. If the RFC is needed it can be restarted with a "brief, neutral statement or question". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  Your comment suggests that an RfC on the question, "How should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?" on the article "COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory," is a premise which is, "so far from neutral" that it would be a, "waste of time" to discuss. It is becoming hard to assume good-faith. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  But that wasn't the question asked. The question asked is about 7 paragraphs long. If you think that's a brief neutral statement I suggest you don't open RfCs. Frankly I'm surprised Legobot could even handle one that long. I'd add that length aside the RfC includes two paragraphs which seem to be arguingfor a need for change and the only suggests options. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  But that wasn't the question asked. The question asked is about 7 paragraphs long.

  Are we looking at the same RfC? Here is what mine contains.

  5 sentences of introduction and background.

  1 question: (The question which I directly quoted. "How, then, should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?")

  3 potential options, with headers describing them.

  Nowhere do I see a "7 paragraph long question." BabbleOnto (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  @BabbleOnto: There are 3 paragraphs of "introduction". The first paragraph begins with "This article began". The next paragraph starts with "Since then" and then goes into a non-neutral argument for change. I counted this second paragraph as two by accident since it looked like that on mobile. The third paragraph starts with "How, then". Then there are 3 paragraphs, one each for different options. None of the two proposed changes seem to have been significantly discussed before they were proposed as the options. So six paragraphs instead of seven, but still several paragraphs including as I said a non-neutral argument for change as the second paragraph. Again if you think this is a neutral and brief RfC, I suggest you don't open RfCs until you have more experience. As also noted, WP:RFCBEFORE also means that if you're proposing specific detailed individual paragraphs (with about 6 sentences or so each) or proposed options these should have been workshopped before the RfC was started not something you came up with by yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Actually I wasn't quite mistaken about the 7 paragraphs. I missed in my double check that in the second RfC you included within the RfC question itself a paragraph complaining about the previous RfC closure. Why you thought you needed to include this in the question so that anyone checking out the RfC in some list of RfCs needed to see your complaint etc etc, I'm not sure. But it further demonstrates the problem with the way you're starting RfCs IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to keep this short because I don't wish to waste anymore time here, but I want to call out the following inaccuracies:

  I didn't start this RfC. Nor did I come up with the options. That was @Red Slash

  The first "paragraph" is two sentences long, and one and a half lines long.

  The second "paragraph" is three sentences long and three lines long.

  The third "paragraph" is one sentence long and less than one line long

  Calling those sentences "paragraphs" is nonsense and anyone viewing it will clearly see that. They're only paragraphs in the sense that each is separated by a line break. One sentence, 19 words long, is not a paragraph.

  WP:RFCBEFORE does not require anybody to submit proposed options to anyone for workshopping before starting an RFC. That's just not the policy.

  RFCBEFORE does request that editors try and reach consensus without resorting to an RfC. That was attempted. Tens of thousands of words were written without reaching any consensus. Hence why this RfC was started, and is still very sorely needed.

  If all of this was just brought up in the talk page, this entire ANI wouldn't have needed to exist. But editors took the general attitude of "I don't care, take me to ANI if you think I'm wrong. " and refused to explain their edits until just now.

  This ANI never needed to happen, but a few editors refused to just communicate with their fellow editors and now here we are. An admin should just close this so nobody has to make asinine arguments like actually needing to say "One sentence isn't a paragraph" out loud. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I won't respond to the rest given the topic ban but just wanted to say I apologise for conflating you with the starter of the RfC. However I fell most if what I said still stands. Any editor who cannot see why the RfC question was unsuitable doesn't understand RfCs enough to try and start them. Especially if an editor is going to argue they aren't a problem at ANI. They might not have written the highly flawed RfCs but they apparently can't see the problem and continue to not see it even when it is pointed out to them so it's reasonable to expect RfC they compose might have the same problem. To be clear, these editors can still often contribute productively to drafting an RfC. They might even be able to get the ball rolling by coming up with a first draft of a proposed RfC. But they most likely shouldn't just start one unless it's been workshopped with editors more experienced at writing good RfCs. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  If that was the question then that should have been what was asked, anyone capable of reading can see that it wasn't. RFCs started with such bloated and non-neutral questions rarely result in any useful consensus, and so are a waste of time. You continue to treat Wikipedia as a background, maybe try harder at assuming good faith. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  If that was the question then that should have been what was asked, anyone capable of reading can see that it wasn't.

  I copy and pasted the question from the RfC. I do not know how you are claiming it was not asked in in the RfC. It is in black and white on the RfC. I don't know if you're looking at the wrong RfC or what. You accusing me of being illiterate are especially ironic seeing as you accuse me of not assuming good faith. I hope the admin reading this notes this behavior. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  You copy and pasted approximately 3% of the RFC statement. It was a hopeless RFC and was rightly closed early. MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Correct, because the person claimed that this question was never asked. So I copy and pasted the question, because it was asked. I don't think copy and pasting the whole RfC then highlighting one sentence would be productive to anybody. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  That there was another 97% that you could leave out is exactly what the problem was. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Let's say I'm editor X and I come to Nil Einne's page and say. "Hey Nil Einne, I just want to let you know that I feel you're editing has been unhelpful in creating an encyclopaedia. Frankly you're a fucking idiot and your parents must be ashamed of you, actually do you even have parents or are you some science experiment gone wrong?" and this continues in a similar vein for 10-20 sentences. Nil Einne then heads off to ANI and complains that editor X left a terrible uncivil personal attack on his user page. In response editor X says "What I said is 'Hey Nil Einne, I just want to let you know that I feel you're editing has been unhelpful in creating an encyclopaedia.' Why is that a problem?" and leaves out the rest of what they said. Do you really feel that anyone is going to feel that editor X left a reasonable response to Nil Einne's complaint? Obviously not since editor X left out the parts of their comment that were a problem. Likewise you asked why it wasn't acceptable to ask the part of your RfC which was mostly okay when no one ever said it wasn't, and left out the parts which editors are likely to consider a problem which were why your RfCs were closed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Someone claimed the question I quoted was not actually from the RfC:

  If that was the question then that should have been what was asked

  I responded by again copy and pasting the question from the RfC to prove its existence in the RfC.

  Now I am hounded by cries that I did not copy and paste the entire RfC and clearly I'm trying to hide something because I didn't do that.

  Absolutely bewildering to me. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  No what was said is "If that was the question then that should have been what was asked, anyone capable of reading can see that it wasn't". Perhaps this could have been worded better but it's true regardless. It wasn't the question that was asked. It was as MrOllie said about 3% of what was asked. No one ever said it wasn't 3% of what was asked. The point is there is another 97% which you didn't mention which was also asked, which is the problem. Let's remember that the comment was a reply to your statement that "Your comment suggests that an RfC on the question" where you implied editors were objecting to what was relatively unobjectionable. But this is disingenous. Editors weren't objecting to the largely unobjectionable part you selectively quoted. They were objecting to the rest of your question which you did not quote/copy and paste. That was the problem and no one ever suggested otherwise. Just like in my example, perhaps the first sentence was reasonable and if editor X had just wanted to say this, they could have without issue (although it really needs an explanation why but I digress). But if that's what editor X wanted to say, then that's what they should have said, not what they actually said which might be 3% of what they quoted and 97% which they didn't quote. It's reasonable to tell editor X if you wanted to say, that then you should have said that and not what you actually said. There might be other ways you can word it e.g. including the word "only" to make the point clearer, but it's fair enough to just say it wasn't what was said, especially if you don't want to overcomplicate the response. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Something just occurred to me, in case there's any confusion I intended the example solely as an example. I did not think of any editor when composing it, my only purpose was to try and make the point that an editor cannot selectively quote a largely unobjectionable but tiny portion of what they said and imply it was a much ado about nothing, when it is the rest which they didn't quote which is actually the problem. I chose that example as I felt it was something where all editors could see while the first sentence might be arguably fine, the rest was clearly not and so it might be easier to understand why only quoting that part is a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC) 09:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I did not accuse you of being illiterate, I said that it was obvious to anyone reading the RFC that the opening statement was extensively larger than you claimed. That's a very, very easily verifiable fact. Stop making baseless accusations against me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested, they're now topic-banned and can't reply to you. Time to drop this one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry I had assumed they would still be able to comment here under the topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  closing it without elaborating any further, is not a good-faith action The included text gave options on how to fix the problem, which is beyond what we normally see in closing a malformed RfC. And as far as your WP:SQS link and bad-faith accusation, haven't we had enough casting of aspersions in this filing? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  The included text gave options on how to fix the problem, which is beyond what we normally see in closing a malformed RfC.

  I have quoted TarnishedPath's writing in its entirety. It does not give any option on how to fix the problem. Here I'll put it again:

  This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC

  Please point to where in this sentence it gives options on how to fix the problem. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  TP included this from the RfC description: If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the initial statement or question, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  So we are again back to the exact same point I've already said; Just copy-and-pasting paragraphs from WP:RFC without elaborating at all if and why the RfC violates any of them, then closing the RfC, is not a good-faith action, especially if you are involved in the content dispute the RfC was meant to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  If the description was not obvious to the RfC originator, this is a WP:CIR issue. In any case, repetition is not useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Objective3000, there have been far too many baseless aspersions cast in this discussion. Editors need to be aware that there own actions may become the source of examination at any time. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ideally, the question should have come first - How should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article? - then sign it, publish it, so Legobot can do its thing, and then go back and add your brief summary and options underneath the question. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @BabbleOnto, I quoted the exact instructions as well as providing a wikilink. After I closed the RFC the first time, the editor should have taken the time to read the quoted instructions I provided as well as anything else at WP:RFC that would assist them and not merely copy and pasted the exact same RFC that was deficient previously. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, I reiterate, even if it was faulty, it's an extremely bad look for someone actively involved with a content-dispute to simply close the other person's RfC on the issue you are involved in a dispute in.

  Furthermore, Yes you do quote 2 full paragraphs of WP:RFC and say effectively "read this," to a fairly seasoned editor, but you say nothing about which part of them you're accusing the RfC of violating. Is the RfC not brief? Is it not neutrally-worded? Do you think it's not a properly phrased as a question? Are you saying it should have been discussed on village pump first? By failing to specify what exactly about WP:RFC you think that RfC violated, the person making it acting in good faith would have no idea how to "fix" it. And all of that is assuming that you are correct about whatever deficiency you accuse the RfC has. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I took a look, and the answer is 'yes to all of the above'. And the way to "fix" it was part of the response. In fact, you can find it a few lines up this page as well, quoted in green. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  This failure to understand what exactly was wrong with the RFC, given the instructions I provided, and continued aspersions about bad faith is getting tiresome. TarnishedPath^talk 01:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  If closing 2 RfC's about a content dispute you're involved in and posting paragraphs of copy-pasted rules to someone, implying a long-time editor had not read them, then refusing to elaborate any further on what you mean, just saying effectively "read the rules, it's obvious;" if this is not acting in bad faith and SQS, then I throw up my hands and wonder what could be.

  And just to note, an "aspersion" is "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence." I assume then that you're referring exclusively to another editor's comments, because everything I've accused you of has been backed up with evidence, links, and diffs.

  I'm dropping the stick. I'm not going to bicker here anymore, I think a sound enough argument has been constructed and its challenges have been quelled. BabbleOnto (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're incorrect on all counts and if you continue on in this manner you will find yourself the subject of a report. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) BabbleOnto I'm largely uninvolved in the dispute, having not said anything since January, and indeed my most recent comment was nearly2 months ago raising questions over whether the wording over genetic engineering was fair the primary source presented Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 41#Suggested resolution of [dubious – discuss]. I endorse the closure and would do it myself if it hadn't already been performed. So let's stop worrying about who performed the close and concentrate on coming up with a proper RfC and not such a terrible one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that BabbleOnto is now topicbanned as a result of their behavior here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BabbleOnto&diff=prev&oldid=1281086474 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• I count four assumptions of bad faith (and another borderline) in this filing. Bad faith is not an argument. It is most often a faulty method of discarding an argument. Bad faith exists. But I have seen no sign of bad faith on any side in this discussion. I suggest the next editor that makes this wasteful aspersion get a time-out. (OK, I’m just trying to squelch further such disruption.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Can TarnishedPath be blocked or warned already? At the least, no more closing RFCs. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

What exactly would I be blocked for? More editors in this discussion have stated those RFC closes are appropriate than those who have continued to go on about it, not getting the point of why the RFCs were closed. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against TarishedPath. Support the block of RememberOrwell for aspersions and accusations of paid editing without evidence. Also, support looking into whether or not canvassing has occurred here.King Lobclaw (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  RememberOrwell has an AE case open, here although it was unrelated; the comment above was added in a reply there and I've added a bit more. They also have issues on other medical articles, which I noted there, and which I think fall under the fringe pseudoscience CTOP but which I recognize people might differ on, in which case it might need to be brought here if AE declines to look at them as out-of-scope... in any case I agree that their misbehavior is really the most eye-catching thing in this discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding that, @Aquillion. I'd been going back and forth about whether I should bring that here or to AE, but now that you've seconded TarnishedPath's addition at AE I agree it's plainly the better place for it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• As someone who blundered onto the talk page coincidentally, and had an apparent f-bomb thrown my way by an established editor [141] there seems to be something seriously wrong with that article/talk page. Park3r (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think the comment was directed at you, but a statement of frustration at the state of the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I honestly think it's time for COVID-19 to go back to the Arbitration Committee for another go. There's a massive disconnect regarding things like the question of what sources are reliable for discussing the origins of the disease between those who want to exclusively use WP:MEDRS and those who prefer to include intelligence and law-enforcement sources and it's becoming increasingly acrimonious. I have my opinions here but have largely abandoned COVID pages because, even for me, they're too hot. I'd suggest something should be done to pour some water on this conflict - but I don't think adjudicating another content dispute at the drama board is going to get this done. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Again, I really suggest starting an (actually neutral) RFC on the relevant questions. Almost all of the relevant RFCs were held in 2021, and the only ones after that (in the template at hand, anyway) are on much more minor issues. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Mate I'd agree with you if it weren't for what happened at ARBPIA5 and what has happened as a consequence. TarnishedPath^talk 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I certainly understand that reticence, all things considered, I just worry that the core problems at the COVID articles - which largely stem from the extent to which this disease has been politicized - aren't likely to be resolved at AN/I. (Also for the record I don't think any administrative action should be taken against TarnishedPath here.) Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Asilvering and Simonm223, i've been watching that article for awhile and would make a few comments:

  1. There is intermittent pressure on the article talk page as items appear in the news—this generally comes from newish editors—some obvious trolls or POV pushers, some mostly good faith but not fully understanding WP's approach to content and the article issues. No sanctions at ANI, RfC, or Arbcom descision (unless dealing with a very persistent and problematic editor) will likely change that, and generally it is not really that much of a problem. One or two of the reasonable editors watching the page will respond with and explanation and the discussion usually dies off, no big deal. The problem here is usually over-engagement by the article "defenders", continuing an argument when it's unessecary and no real content issue to solve. TarnishedPath, i'd take you to task here. Tho they certainly did not begin well RememberOrwell had a valid content issue to discuss. It could have been resolved by a slight content change which would have improved the article. Instead you went into battleground mode posting to FTN and failing to honestly evalute the content issue.
  2. A new RfC asking whether "lab leak" is a "conspiracy theory" or not would probably be a useless waste of time. For one WP editors are not qualified to say one way or the other, only quality sources can inform as to that. If there is a specific content issue that can't be resolved by the reasonable editors watching the article then it might be useful to as for outside comment. These RfC's asking generic questions are in my opinion useless and unproductive. They often cannot narrow the question enough to provide useful insight for article content. Re-running that RfC would be asking the wrong question and would not and should not change any content. They most often lead to useless opinionated argument and the result can sometimes end up being used by POV pushers, as this prior RfC obviously has been.
  3. If you think there is a behavioral issue and the talk page is too "hot" i would suggest first asking at FTN to get the opinion of some of the reasonable editors watching the page to see if they think some kind of action is necessary.

  fiveby(zero) 15:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'll happily defer to folks who've been observing this page for a long time on whether an RFC would be a waste or not, but I'm not fully convinced by your #2 point on it being unproductive. It seems to me that the template right now is basically functioning as a trap for those newish editors, who see a whole lot of "2021" and then immediately and reasonably conclude that the article, and the discussion, is hopelessly out of date. Maybe this is naive of me, but it seems to me that having a more recent consensus to point to would help quite a bit. It would take editor time, sure, but the state of the talk page right now is costing both editor time and editor sanity. On an RFC, at least, you can WP:COAL. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fiveby, I'm slightly confused about your reference to FTN. Which discussion are you referring to? From memory it's been a couple of months since I commented on any discussions on that noticeboard which were in the topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Re-reading i see that you are also discussing the MEDRS and virus origins RfC. Editors on that page should obviously be informed by the high quality MEDRS sources before trying to change content but in my opinion one of the most informative and usefull sources for the topic is not a MEDRS source. What source is best should be decided based on the specific content issue, trying to come up with a rule for all cases beforehand seems unproductive. fiveby(zero) 15:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was participating on the talk page and was brought to admin review by TarnishedPath for making one snarky comment and having another one of my comments misinterpreted to the point of absurdity. There I was accused of being a sockpuppet by another prolific editor on this talk page, Bon Courage, without any consequence to them. I don't have a side in this as my edit history will show (I supported the WP:NOLABLEAK compilation while disputing its use in the covid template as not having been established consensus, for example). You are right that something is wrong on this page. Ymerazu (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  If you're talking about this arbitration case it is a bit odd that you entirely stopped editing after that arbitration case was opened only to pop up a month later at an AN/I thread asking for the person who brought you to AE to be sanctioned. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  What is a bit odd? I don't understand what you're implying. Ymerazu (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Simonm223, I noticed that too. The closing admin will merely ignore Ymerazu's entire input to this discussion, I expect. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like I am being accused of something without it being said. At the risk of inviting harsh criticism, what is going on here exactly? I can make guesses but I don't think that would be productive. Ymerazu (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing more than what I said. It's unusual for an editor to face scrutiny at AE, completely stop editing, and then return only to participate in an AN/I thread raised about the editor who introduced the AE filing as the only thing they've subsequently done aside from an unrelated user talk message. There's no secret subtext here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm going insane. I know there's subtext here but I actually do not understand what you're getting at. I have to assume that by "unusual" you mean suspicious. Pretend for a second that I'm a new user (I am) who has some familiarity with Wikipedia as a lurker (I do) and help me to understand what you're saying. Ymerazu (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  The subtext is probably that this user is wondering if your motivation is to get revenge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  The topic is disruptive editing by TarnishedPath and my experience relates to that. I want the talk page to be better for future participants than it was for me. Ymerazu (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Fascinating... So when it comes to TarnishedPath we *must* assume good faith, but when it comes to anyone else in the discussion fuck them, am I right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Earlier in the thread the OP has insinuated that those of a opposing view are all paid editors, there's enough failure to assume good faith to go around. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  The OP was brought to task for that insinuation. Two wrongs don't make a right, its just two wrongs. Do you disagree? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ymerazu did not say anything about paid editors, that was RememberOrwell. - Palpable (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry Ymerazu my mistake, this thread has got so long I thought it was RememberOrwell who started it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  No problem of course. Ymerazu (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do think TP crossed the BITE line here, for what it's worth. Ymerazu was a pretty easygoing new editor who asked the wrong questions on the wrong article and got blasted for it. I do think they crossed the line behavior-wise. But the majority side of the content dispute sets a much worse tone on a regular basis, suggesting that snark wasn't the real issue. - Palpable (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• TarnishedPath doesn't appear to have learned anything from this discussion... They decided to denigrate their fellow editors on User talk:Asilvering in a related discussion, in particular I take issue with the uncivil comment "Seriously I don't think they'd know a neutrally worded RFC if they tripped over it."[142] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  You are continuing to make a great deal of sense in this discussion, thank you. The thing about RfCs is that if an editor doesn't like them, they can comment in the RfC saying they don't like it! Suggestions that this would be a 'waste of editors' time' is for each editor to decide for themselves--this is a contentious topic area and terminating discussion is a confrontational maneuver. SmolBrane (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  A malformed RfC is a waste of editor time by definition. If it's not easy to fix, it should be closed. Then, there can be a better attempt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which collaborative process was utilized to establish that this was a malformed RFC? My comment in the RFC was also discarded during this process. SmolBrane (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  It was quite obviously malformed. Your comment was not discarded as it is still there. You can re-add it if and when a proper RfC is created. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  RFC questions and options should be extremely short. Like at WP:RFC/A or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections. Things like background or opinions should go in the first !vote, not at the top of the RFC. A six paragraph RFC will get closed almost every time. The onus is on the person creating the RFC to do proper WP:RFCBEFORE with other editors to workshop the phrasing, question, and options in complex RFCs. RFCs are a very expensive process in terms of using community time and it is important to form them correctly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Just to add, I don't understand why editors are investing so much time in arguing over the closure of this IMO clearly problematic RfC when they could instead invest that time in coming up with a better RfC. As I noted, it not clear to me there has really been sufficient discussion to establish the need for an RfC instead of something editors might be able resolved themselves and in any case it might make sense to wait for the current informal RfC on the BND to close first. But if editors don't want to do either, well whatever it will still make sense to invest their time on coming up with a better RfC than arguing over the closure of that one. As it stands, one editor who could have perhaps contributed productively to coming up with a better RfC has been topic banned so can no longer do so in part I think because of their problematic attempts at defence of the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

---

TP is now engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS, misrepresenting sources to support claims that are not actually stated [143], in a discussion where consensus is clearly against them. This kind of WP:TE disrupts the collaborative process and undermines the ability of editors to actually improve the article without having to make everything a vote count. A topic ban may provide TP with the necessary cooling-off period to reflect on their approach and let calmer minds prevail. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is another example of TP needlessly hatting a discussion on another page, on the exact same topic, in what looks like an attempt to shut down discussion. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are talking about the edit request, it was marked as answered as seen here, before TarnishedPath hatted the discussion, and all he did was hat the discussion as answered, so there was nothing wrong with that. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - None of the diffs presented by the IP address demonstrate misbehaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - it looks like there's a ton of gatekeeping happening. I haven't looked at the page for some years, and for some reason stumbled on it yesterday, and although the names have changed somewhat, the arguments on the Talk page are largely the same, as is the content in the article. Oddly (or maybe not) the same sorts of efforts that seem to have applied in academia [144], seem to have played out, over a period of years, on this page. It might be time for a few voluntary recusals, and possibly topic bans. The article itself is increasingly unpersuasive in the light of real-world events and doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia. Actually, I think I was shooting the breeze and one of the things I ended up chatting with ChatGPT about was the origins of the pandemic, and I remembered this page and that's how I stumbled on this topic and then this ongoing ANI after being subjected to some unseemly behaviour on the Talk page. Incidentally, ChatGPT gave a more balanced and up to date view, with citations, than this article. If LLMs, hallucinations-and-all, can outperform a human curated article as a general reference source on a controversial topic, maybe this is all moot: Wikipedia isn't the only game in town anymore, and being at the top of the Google search results for a topic doesn't mean as much as it once did. Park3r (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• oppose not seeing any signs of synthesis. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:59, 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.

Arbitrary break

I think there is an issue, where for whatever reason nobody is willing to enforce basic conduct policies on articles like these. Likely because the topic area is extremely hostile and unpleasant, and people would prefer to just be involved in other areas; I am guilty of this myself, but at the same time, it's very hard for me to come up with any good-faith explanation for some of this stuff. jp×g🗯️ 14:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the answer may be that Wikipedia follows the sources, and in this case the class of source deemed worthy of inclusion (WP:MEDRS) labelled it as a “conspiracy theory”. But if the New York Times piece is accurate [145] and these sources were actively manipulated early on by a group of real-world scientists in order to discredit a theory that would be harmful to their careers and this coalesced to a premature consensus on Wikipedia, when coupled with the extreme political polarisation around Covid in the US, you can see why good faith gatekeeping and stonewalling could have taken hold. Park3r (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

At some point, it becomes strength in numbers. "They can't block all of us!" etc. Unconsciously, to be sure. But nevertheless. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• There is a wide disjunction between the "lab leak" discourse in the popular press/social media, and the knowledge to be found in the library, Many of the problem editors on this topic aren't interested in the latter, and it doesn't help that "leaders" of the LL movement are agitating on social media for the Wikipedia article to be changed.[146] We see similar in some other fringey topic area (like UFOs) but it's particularly pronounced here because of the sheer volume of coverage: I recall seeing one analysis saying there had been on average three lab leak newspaper articles around the World every day since the pandemic started. Bon courage (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Editors associating a scientific hypothesis (albeit a minority one), with UFO theories is probably part of why we're in this mess. Park3r (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is not any particular LL "hypothesis" (though most of them are out-and-out conspiracy theories such as the bioweapon idea or the "made in the USA" idea), it's lay sources bungling around with shonky evidence, jumping to conclusions or speculating with click-bait content. There are in fact striking parallels with UFOs: while "we are not alone" is a "legitimate" hypothesis, UFOs get credulous attention in the lay press (e.g. the infamous NYT UFO report) and editors clamour for inclusion and for Wikipedia to sink to the level of the popular discourse. The real solution to the LL would be if people turned off their phones, put down their newspapers, and took a trip to the library: there are now some really good sources on LL, the social and political context that gave rise to it, and its increasingly important role as an antiscience lever, particularly in the USA. Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see improved decorum in this area for sure. I believe it is possible to work in contentious areas without engaging in contentious behaviour. SmolBrane (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is correct. I used to be involved in this area, but the constant demands to include political talking points & conspiracy theories became so heated I stepped away for my own health. Some editors are so determined to believe the lab leak theory that they resort to bludgeoning the discussion until it's too frustrating to deal with them anymore. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Since Tarnished Path has stated they will be stepping back from this topic area, there doesn't appear to have been any actually sanctionable conduct Aside from that arising in the discussion, which has been dealt with I think, and this entire discussion has produced a heat-to-light ratio approaching that of a brown dwarf, can this be closed perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Truly substellar comedy. :P SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think you got to this only a few hours before it would have slid off the page naturally, so, it looks like it can be. To the survivors: this topic area is clearly driving some of you insane. Please, if you're feeling aggravated by or like you need to defend the wiki from the newbie wave that follows every new piece of lab leak coverage in the press, unwatchlist this article. There are loads of people with an eye on it and it's not worth your sanity and/or getting sanctioned over. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 23 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:Dmesh2498 being WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL and having an undisclosed COI

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.

---

• Dmesh2498 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dmesh2498 has only edited article Jay C. Block and removed negative information in the article. He has an undisclosed COI and proved it by making this comment here. This unambiguously makes him not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been uncivil on his talk page where he told an editor to "fuck off". I recommend an indefinite block. DotesConks (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from Block's article. Not opposed to a broader one should it prove necessary. Star Mississippi 01:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a block from editing this article is effectively an indefinite block for this editor and a more extensive block is not called for. As for "fuck off", search the archives of ANI and you'll find long debates about using this phrase in occasional incidents and the general consensus is that it doesn't call for a block if there aren't more examples of incivility. It's a phase that has even been used by some of our longterm and respected editors on occasion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the consensus remain that way in the 2020?? You could say all sorts of things like that in an office place when we started Wikipedia - and these days it can be a firing offence. Even if not meant as particularly offensive (though invariably it is - like this time), in a linguistically and culturally diverse space like this, it should, in my mind, lead to discipline. If we don't stop phrases like that, we aren't doing everything we can to foster inclusion here. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

DotesConks, if you quote someone, please quote them exactly. You've stirred up a discussion about tolerating "fuck off" but Dmesh2498 used stronger language.[147] NebY (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between following the "fuck" with "off" or "yourself". Both are the same physical (metaphorical) masturbatory act. And I believe both are equally offensive. If it was a more typical "this is fucked" or something, that you hear in everyday G usage in some places, then I can see the point. But again we get into local cultural norms. Personally I tend to invoke ancient mythological gods like Frija which would offend no one - TGIF! Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear. NebY (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Judas fracking priest! The OED definitions are a bit clearer, and do note the more common definition as an euphemism - but only North American. I haven't seen the "British" use before - despite being British. It looks most obsolete or regional. Is it really used that way? In Týr's name, it looks like I'll need another fracking euphemism. Still, my point holds. We shouldn't be using fuck in an imperative mood. Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely British; I refer you to track 22 on The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle. (The chorus I know includes foor couplets, not just the one.) Narky Blert (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

ANI doesn't see the activity from editors that it saw a few years ago or there would be dozens of editors chimining in on this point. There have been long debates about this term and, the consensus, from what I remember is that the phrase is seen as a sign of exasperation, not of sexual aggression. But I don't want to put myself in the position of arguing pro or con so I'll bow out now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 26 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.

Facing unsubstantiated accusations of editing in bad faith and threats of ban during edit dispute

Whomp That Sucker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To preface, the issue of the edit war itself has already been resolved here, which resulted in the page getting protected status. I am here on matters of conduct. The user originally added two reviews the music ratings table that, when inspecting the source, had no review attached to the rating, so I made alterations to the new additions, while inviting discussion on the talk page. Only after a few reverts of my alterations did the user respond in the talk page and this is what they had to say:

• [diff] 16:27, 23 March 2025 "This is very thin reasoning for non-neutral removals of negative ratings. You don't like the 2-star ratings so you remove them? That's a violation of WP:NPOV. The ratings template exists explicitly for reviews that assign a rating system to albums. The fact that a source publishes the rating is validation of that rating; we don't have to jump through another hoop of "justification" for the rating."

They're referring to how the ratings added were lower than the one already included in the article and used that coincidence to make the personal attacks that I act purely from bad faith, saying that the lack of specificity in the template, not any specific policy, implied he is justified in his reasoning and ignoring any points I tried to make.

After looking at the user's history, I appear to not be the only person this happens to. They are selectively addressing only parts of a discussion to justify resuming edit wars until they ultimately make accusations of acting in bad faith and (as in my case) go to users' talk pages by threatening a ban for something they were first guilty of themselves. See:

• [diff] 16:27, 23 March 2025

Binksternet has apologized for the ban warning because, whatever system he uses to flag this, I was a false positive. This seems problematic, becuase they should be doubly sure before doing something like this. See:

• [diff] 17:10, 23 March 2025

He has not apologized for his assumption that I am a bad actor. Take In Outer Space, for example. It's an album I enjoy by the same artist, perhaps more than Whomp That Sucker, yet the single review I added to the article (days before today's incident) was a very negative review. See my statement of that was never even acknowledged:

• [diff] 17:04, 23 March 2025

This isn't even the first negative experience with this user. It's a bit hard to explain, but here's the link to the conversation: [148]. The discussion itself was fine until we reached a point where Binksternet basically just went "I'm going to keep doing it, and there's nothing you can do to stop me" while a page stalker joined in to make several passive-aggressive remarks, to no protest from Binksternet.

This whole situation is disheartening, and it makes me have thoughts of quitting editing altogether. I don't know why people feel so comfortable doing this on this website. I tried doing the standard avenues of conflict resolution (invite to talk page, etc.) but was met with something entirely different. I really tried. I thought Wikipedia would be more welcoming.Davejfudge (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

BusterD left a relevant comment here. Polygnotus (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I answered but wasn't 100% sure what they were asking. I am not a former user on a new account nor a bot. Not sure why that would factor in this anyway. Davejfudge (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Davejfudge, what sort of resolution are you looking for beyond an apology which it sounds like you have already gotten? There is "ideal" behavior and then there is actual, ordinary behavior by our editors which can fall short of the ideal. This exchange sounds pretty ordinary to me so if you are offended by it, then you might not be comfortable on Wikipedia. Most of the time, editors are very civil here but this IS the internet and people can sometimes be blunt, glib or even mocking. You have only been active here for a couple of weeks and if you want to still be an editor in a few months or years, it helps to have a thick skin. Long time editors have faced much worse treatment from other editors or vandals or trolls than this and you need to know when it is serious and blockworthy and when it is just ordinary, every day rudeness and not worth a trip to ANI (like this incident).

If you want to run this experience by other editors and get their feedback, I'd recommend running it by the editors at the Teahouse who can offer a reality check. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not comfortable on Wikipedia knowing that certain editors get different treatment for behavior that gets most people banned. Telling the "offended" to just stop talking is maybe not the best way to try to keep editors on your website. Davejfudge (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You're reading an awful lot into my comments that I didn't say. I wasn't saying "stop talking", it was more like "get used to it!" Editors on Wikipedia, like people elsewhere, aren't perfect. Sometimes people are short-tempered or have had a bad day, and that includes you and me. I never said "certain editors get different treatment" and am not sure what you are referring to here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the other issues, but I had a look at User talk:Binksternet#Indiscreet "studio" album. A few comments.

You think articles about studio albums should say "studio album", Binksternet thinks "album" suffices, because "studio" is the default. As far as I can tell, both are reasonable positions.

Regarding "I'm going to keep doing it, and there's nothing you can do to stop me" – Yes, at some point, Binksternet left the discussion. That's also a reasonable reaction, and often a better choice than going back and forth endlessly, which may become heated.

You're not quite right about "there's nothing you can do to stop me". There's almost always something you can do. For example, you could go to the talk page of MOS:ALBUM and start a discussion requesting that the MOS should require "studio album". Other editors will probably chime in. Maybe you'll convince them, or maybe they'll convince you that "album" often suffices.

Regarding "a page stalker joined in to make several passive-aggressive remarks" – I don't see what was passive-aggressive about them.

In general: I can't tell you how often I've "lost" a discussion here on Wikipedia. It's annoying. It sucks. But in the end, I have to tell myself that Wikipedia will be fine either way.

In this case: Maybe Binksternet will remove "studio" from a few more articles, maybe from dozens of articles. Maybe you'll add "studio" to a number of articles. It doesn't really matter. There are on the order of 100,000 album articles. Nothing Binksternet and you do in this regard will seriously hurt Wikipedia. Just walk away from the discussion for now and focus on other issues. Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes, and imagine if this happened to you.

• You change an edit, inviting to talk page to discuss.
• You don't get response and get reverted anyway several times over.
• You get accussed of and threatened with ban.
• You report it and get told get being offended and to shut up.

Again, the disagreement of the content in question, the "studio" or the music ratings, don't matter to me. He could have just waited for concensus. Those issues were the vessels to the real problem here, accountability. When admins actively and publicly ask if I'm a bad actor because I'm "improbably efficient", when you're being told to shut up after that doesn't pan out, that's where you lose an editor. Apparently, the idea of basic human emotion is, ironically, offensive to the administration. This website just doesn't have a welcoming community. I thought I did some good work here, too... but I just got treated as a vandal. Davejfudge (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Users who have been around awhile learn how to spot tells for editors who are returning after being blocked. Whether it's true or not for you, the fact is you do tick quite a few of the boxes on the list of signs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I can't say anything about the other issues, I only read your discussion on Binksternet's talk page. – "He could have just waited for concensus" It's unlikely that the two of you would have reached a consensus. Binksternet chose to walk away from the discussion at some point. Reasonable choice. – "basic human emotion" You have your emotions, others feel differently. It happens. – "I just got treated as a vandal" No, you didn't. You didn't get blocked, you didn't get reported at WP:AIV. Just keep on editing. There are lots of other things to do here on Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of "treated as a vandal" – you reported Binksternet here and at WP:AN/EW. Well... — Chrisahn (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not getting something, but why did you present Binksternet's first response that you linked in the manner that you did?

While it's true that accusing you of displaying IDONTLIKEIT-type behavior is a (slight) personal attack given it comments on your intentions rather than your additions, I fail to see where they suggested that you act purely from bad faith, or where they ignored the arguments you made.

Ultimately, I'm in agreement with you that some of these responses, by both Binksternet and @Martinevans123 (who, since you bring them up in the original comment, should maybe have been notified of this discussion) could benefit from being more diplomatic, and perhaps a couple of trouts trout may be in order; however, I don't feel like you present a very compelling case that their behavior warrants sanctions as a whole, especially given that much of this looks like a content dispute to uninvolved editors like myself, and that the links you present do not include many examples of such personal attacks. (edit: per below, struck Martinevans123's part as on second reading, the comments didn't even really seem that uncivil overall)

What I'm even more puzzled by is this additional comment of yours here, which seems to me like one of your main reasons for opening this thread:

I'm certainly not comfortable on Wikipedia knowing that certain editors get different treatment for behavior that gets most people banned.

Do you have other examples showing that "most people" who are not admins or older editors get regularly banned for the types of behavior during content discussion that Binksternet engaged in above? I can certainly believe that there are some systemic issues of this kind on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the existence of pages such as WP:UNBLOCKABLE. However, in order to make that a compelling rationale for this thread, I'd say you have to demonstrate that Binksternet's behavior here is markedly different from that of editors that one could - inaccurately - call "lower-ranking", and/or that there are many recent examples of these "lower-ranking" editors getting regularly banned for this slight level of wrongdoing.

I say "slight" because, again, I see little examples of "repeated" or "egregious" personal attacks. Remember, after all, that WP:PA states the following:

Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium, nuances and emotions are often conveyed poorly, which can easily lead to misunderstanding (see Emotions in virtual communication). While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others, if it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. NewBorders (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

[Summoned by ping] Sorry, but could you remind me of my less diplomatic responses, and where I was originally "brought up"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, actually, re-reading the discussion, you didn't really showcase much lack of diplomacy; I guess the slight snark could be vaguely considered uncivil, and I think it's possible to discuss whether it's a good idea if WP:TPS involve themselves in more heated talk page discussions like this in general (if only to avoid a perception by editors of being ganged-up on in a hostile environment). But you did apologize for the sarcasm, and there's no rule that prevents the second thing to my knowledge, so ultimately I don't think there's really an issue here.

As for your second question, it's this part of OP's statement, in the second-to-last paragraph: The discussion itself was fine until we reached a point where Binksternet basically just went "I'm going to keep doing it, and there's nothing you can do to stop me" while a page stalker joined in to make several passive-aggressive remarks, to no protest from Binksternet. NewBorders (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I made nine comments there and I regard none of them as "passive-aggressive remarks". If you disagree, I'd be happy for you to link to any of them here for discussion. I clearly introduced myself as a (talk page stalker) and all my comments were made in totally good faith. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume that's directed towards OP, not me, since I already struck my own hastily-read misrepresentation. I only quoted their words, I don't agree with them. NewBorders (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Sorry I missed your strike out and your polite note. Thank you very much for those. I try to avoid AN/I as much as I can these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

2800:E2:C180:226C:5573:6621:CDD4:46D7

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.

---

• 2800:E2:C180:226C:5573:6621:CDD4:46D7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'd like to request revdel for several edits of this user that contain advertising. --Altenmann >talk 19:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Altenmann, I took care of it. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 26 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:UnknownCoders adding scripts as wikipedia articles/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.

---

It looks like UnknownCoders (talk · contribs) is adding pages/scripts for some kind of Wikipedia scraping activity. For e.g

• User:UnknownCoders/sandbox/ir/1
• User:UnknownCoders/sandbox/cc/1
• User:UnknownCoders/sandbox/cc/2

and so on ... I am unsure whether this is permitted in this way or not hence informing here. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk)

All started from User:UnknownCoders/sandbox page. Agent 007 (talk)

Looks U5able. I've informed the editor on their talk page (which is required) WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/User:UnknownCoders. Dozens of pages. I had a quick look at a few of them, they all look like code snippets. Seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The user continues to edit those pages. I'm going to tag at least some of them U5 to see if that encourages them to engage here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User didn’t respond other than starting to recreate the deleted pages. Indef block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:42, 25 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.

Rollback use of User:Melody Concerto

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 noticed User:Melody Concerto at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 21, and saw some wildly incorrect claims they had made to get rid of an article, including a wrong vandal warning and completely incorrect policy claims[149]. Looking at other edits, I see a pattern of incorrect uses of rollback, e.g. this, this(??), this (the website is just a Godaddy page, so the removal was correct), this, [150][151][152] (???), [153][154]...

This is all from the latest 20 minutes they used rollback, on 2 March, but I only noticed it now. Please remove the rollback right from the editor. Fram (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are you suddenly dragging me out to ANI for disagreeing with you over at DRV? Are you just trying to make some point? What do any of these slightly mistaken actions that I took when reviewing edits for counter-vandalism purposes have to do with any of the disagreement or policy misunderstanding over at DRV? Where is any form of dispute resolution taking place? Am I not allowed to disagree or have an opinion and hold rollback rights? Is it really the only thing you could do to go back and scrutinize my last batch of edits to spin up a case, because I raised a valid concern at DRV? ♥ Melody ♥ 11:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

When you have concerns about e.g. sockpuppeting, you open a SPI, you don't continue to raise that concern at AfD or DRV when people have repeatedly told you that this is not the place or method to deal with this. Similarly, when I notice someone making many clearly incorrect rollbacks (which I found because of the DRV and because of the incorrect warnings and statements you left at the talk of someone you opposed at the AfD and DRV), I don't bring that up at the DRV but bring it to the place that can actually deal with this, ANI. If you get your rollback rights removed, it won't have any consequence at all for the DRV or for your posts there, the two are unconnected. But I don't ignore someone's problematic edits just because we are on opposing sides (or even on the same side) in an AfD and DRV.

Whether these are "slightly mistaken edits" or clear errors which happen much too frequently (the above 9 diffs were from your 21 most recent rollbacks) is up to others to decide; but a close to 50% error rate is in my view unacceptable. Your non-rollback undo's are equally wrong it seems. E.g. the next one, the third one (not vandalism or rollbackable even if had been wrong, but well), the fourth one was not a "test edit" but an improvement, the fifth one your edit summary makes no sense, edit was the opposite of what you claim... Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll accept the trout on fourth; but the first, third and fifth were valid reverts if poorly communicated. ♥ Melody ♥ 13:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The IP did exactly what they said in the edit summary, they corrected the birthdate[155]. You blindly reverted back to an incorrect one. See e.g. the NYTimes obituary. The third one I already explained why you were wrong. I don't see why the fifth one would have been a valid revert either, no matter your edit summary. The editor was clearly trying to improve the article. Their edit was imperfect (e.g. duplicates the cats) but better than what you reverted to. Fram (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what any of those edits have to do with me raising a concern at DRV. Nor should I be penalized because my error rate was high in recent edits; perhaps that might be why I Stopped using the tool and editing on that day.

I don't see why this has much to do with me raising a concern without opening an SPI. I'm not required to do that if I feel it's not clear yet. I raised the sock issue because I felt it was relevant information to the DRV; and raising a concern isn't a personal attack; nor is disagreeing with consensus until I find out more. ♥ Melody ♥ 13:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the DRV except that I saw these problematic edits when I noticed your previous interactions with the article and a participant at that DRV. This ANI report is about your way too frequent incorrect use of the rollback tool (and incorrect reverts in general), not about the DRV.

"Nor should I be penalized because my error rate was high in recent edits; perhaps that might be why I Stopped using the tool and editing on that day." If you were aware that your error rate was too high, then you should have undone your edits. Fram (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Then again, while your error rate may have been lower previously, it still was way too high. I looked at the 10 first mainspace edits from when you restarted editing on 20 February 2025. All rollbacks, but this might have warranted a revert, but was a good faith improvement; here you reverted an actual improvement; this one was a correct edit you rollbacked without explanation; and here you also reverted a correct edit. So there as well, 4 out of 10 rollbacks were incorrect or at the very best dubious. Fram (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm required to get it right all the time; and I'm always welcoming of folks to revert something I've reverted if I'm mistaken; which in many cases does take place. 3 out of the 4 diffs you linked are in fact valid reverts for different reasons.

What right do you have to grade my effectiveness, when there's no real evidence or pattern of anything but good faith attempts at counter-vandalism? Reverts are cheap, and reverting anything I have mishandled is absolutely welcomed; doubly so if notice is given on my talk page and good faith assumed. Frequently; I'll even silently acknowledge such messages and move on, accepting the correction in stride. In what universe is that being a disruptive editor or an editor who misuses advanced permissions? ♥ Melody ♥ 15:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support revocation of rollback. The editor has repeatedly violated WP:ROLLBACKUSE and does not seem to be fully aware that use of rollback is limited to an exhaustive list of specified cases. Responses such as What right do you have to grade my effectiveness show that the editor feels justified in their use of rollback because they believe they are doing useful counter-vandalism. But that's not how it works. The use of rollback must be correct, and knowing how to correctly use it is a requisite to getting and keeping the right. I think that the user should take a break from rollbacking and request the right again in the future.—Alalch E. 17:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Support rollback revocation - per Alalch, and the fact that Melody, when provided with the opportunity to explain themselves, is unable to justify these rollback instances. MiasmaEternal☎ 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have removed rollback based on their edits and feedback here. Star Mississippi 23:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 09:20, 26 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:Taureanverse – possible 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.

---

 Courtesy link: User talk:Vermont § Question from Taureanverse (11:10, 20 February 2025)
 Courtesy link: User talk:Vermont § Question from Taureanverse (12:15, 22 February 2025)

As a long-time supporter of Wikipedia:Education program, I am sad to report a possible legal threat by Wiki Ed student Taureanverse for this comment at Vermont's talk page (diff).

The dispute began with a simple question to User:Vermont on 20 February (top link above) about how to resolve the difficulties they were having getting image upload permissions from a source. Before receiving any reply, User:Tv started a second discussion two days later (bottom link above) expressing their impatience for an answer, and requesting "a management email I can send my concerns to". At that point, User:Vermont responded to the first message and the second (23 Feb.), and then the two discussions proceeded more or less in parallel, from 23 Feb. through 6 March, followed by quiet.

On 20 March, the student user appeared again in both threads, evidently unhappy with the responses, and "filed a BBB Complaint so Wiki Media can make things streamlined and clear" (top thread; diff, 00:37, 20 March). And then culminating in the possible threat: "I made a public BBB filing so now it's getting handled legally." (bottom thread; diff, 00:38, 20 March 2025). Note: BBB is presumably the Better Business Bureau. Adding Wiki Ed content expert User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), advisor for the Wiki Ed course involved. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The BBB has no legal authority and can't bind anyone to do anything, so in my view this is definitionally not a legal threat. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I had thought about that before posting, however by their own words, that was their intention. I leave it to you how to interpret it. If it isn't, then this thread can be closed. I note that WP:THREAT discusses legal threat, not legal action. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair point RE THREAT, and I don't disagree about their intention. In this case, however, I don't think a block would really accomplish much. The photograph this editor has been complaining about was approved via VRT on Commons, so whether or not the BBB reviews the complaint, the issue is moot. @Taureanverse: I'm not going to block you (but another admin may), and if you ever again threaten to take legal action on Wikipedia, you will be blocked until you withdraw such threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me. You all provide lack of responses and I am supposed to be ok with that? Your lack of response had me to seek external help because it was over two weeks since hearing a response. None of you were helping. I never received confirmation my image was approved. You all continued to give threats to me that my image was going to be taken down despite getting a written statement from the copyright holder that I forwarded to the permissions email. This account is a student account for my graduate class. All I am trying to do is close the gender gap. If you are threatened by an inconsistent process that you are giving me to gather permission from copyright holders but yet say they have to be copyright free, i'm not sure if you realize that is contradictory. I just ask if I do what you have on your Wiki Commons by getting permission from the copyright holder to not threaten me and take down the image when I followed your process. If you all are not familiar with your processes that you created, please re-read and review because I did everything you requested. Please communicate clearly in the future. Thank you. Taureanverse (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's clearly their intention, even if it will have no effect. I'm not getting good energy from them - uploading a load of copyvios, complaining if volunteers don't respond quickly. Secretlondon (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I am hopeful that this can be resolved with the Brianda and/or the professor stepping in and explaining to the student that Wikipedia is a collaborative project staffed by volunteers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Brianda is off for a few days (although I am not sure when that starts). Ian (Wiki Ed), could you take a look at this, unless Brianda claims it? See User talk:Brianda (Wiki Ed)#Global Art Feminisms student question. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, Vermont already explained the volunteer nature of the project on 23 Feb. (diff) i.e., well before the threat(s) was/were made. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this editor has been carefully reading things; if they had, they wouldn't have ran to the BBB over an issue with comprehending permissions on Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree, and I think another factor may be in play. Student editors mostly belong to a cohort that grew up with social media, and some of those present an environment where uncivil and aggressive interaction is far from unusual, and where there are few to no guardrails to prevent it. An editor coming here with years of experience of negative interactions online may need some time to become acculturated to a collaborative environment where WP:CIVILITY and WP:Assumption of good faith are the goals, and I would say, the norm, and when the occasional breach does occur, it is not ignored by the community. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me I can read this whole conversation. You all are making alot of assumptions. Why don't you talk with me directly and find out what truly is the case. I have been frustrated because it was no response for two weeks. That is lack of support on your end. So I am supposed to have good energy when ignored? and Things are not clear? I just want to edit my contributions in peace. I am following your procedures and yet your users have been threatening me and been aggressive with me. You can't be aggressive with me and expect me to be docile. I am a student and I am adding scholarly contributions for our Global Art Feminisms class. Taureanverse (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

BBB is about consumer protection, it has no legal business. It's a curious step for a new editor to take, especially since the whole situation was resolved last month, but I think this complaint can be closed as it is not a legal threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It may not have been a practical legal threat - but this was very clearly intended to have a chilling effect from the editor's comments. I would have blocked. I won't now given the commentary above, but a corrolary to WP:DOLT might be desirable - "don't overlook meritless legal threats", or something along those lines. A threat doesn't need to have actual teeth to be a threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Blocks are common, after all, for people's explicit legal threats that are so absolutely preposterous that they're no more of an actual threat than the bizarre BBB notice above. I would say admins are better equipped to handle the chilling effect and the intent of the writer than evaluate the merits of a potential lawsuit. Honestly, if legal threats had to be even in the same galaxy as coherent to be acted on, there would be no need for WP:NLT because those are rare than hens' teeth. I think the editor in question clearly intended for it to be taken as a legal threat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

While I agree anything intended to have a chilling effect should be taken as a legal threat, I'm not sure if we should take this that way. It sounds like the editor was saying, I either can't be bothered to deal with this or don't know how so I've instead told someone else more used to dealing with problems to deal with it for me. As I understand it, when the BBB receives complaints they often reach out to the business to try and help resolve them effectively acting as an intermediary. If the business refuses the BBB's intervention, the most the BBB does is post a poor score. I guess we could take the threat of a poor BBB score as an intended chilling effect, but I sort of wonder how many people who use the BBB definitely even really think of the chilling effect of the poor school or they more think of them as a party who are able to help them because they're had good experiences with the BBB's help in the past, without really thinking why the business might feel forced to accept the BBB's intervention and go out of they way to resolve the matter when they didn't when it was just by themselves. (As I understand it, controversially the BBB may also accept money from businesses an allegedly this helps boost scores but that's maybe more of an aside.) To put it a different way, if someone posted on Twitter, heck even Musk, "I don't know how to fix this article, can someone who knows Wikipedia help me?" I think we'd agree that's unwelcome but not a legal threat. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

RE chilling effect, I highly doubt Rae is being chilled as an editor over a threat to go to the BBB about something that happened on Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Nil, that's my understanding of BBB's role as well and that seems a possible interpretation of user intent, but then why throw in the phrase, now it's getting handled legally if they did know the BBB role? Can't imagine using those words myself unless I was hoping my interlocutor was not aware of that role, and it might get them shaking in their boots. I suppose we will never know. Mathglot (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Should mention that I somehow missed the legal comment which puts a different spin on things. I only saw their first comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, my mom worked for the BBB in my home city in the early 1990s, and it's a private organization run by non-lawyers with no connection to any government. They can't conduct any binding legal proceeding. They're a community non-binding mediation resource at best in this regard.

They do keep track of consumer complaints regarding local (and local outposts of national) businesses, which is their most valuable function, even though the BBB can't actually do anything to "prosecute" the complaints. State and federal government entities actually do communicate with local BBBs to learn about scammy businesses warranting investigation. (Mom's boss K. paid a few hundred bucks to get her cat ordained as a minister via some ridiculous entity, and the story made the front page of the local Sunday paper with a wonderful picture of K.'s cat Benjamin sitting proudly in front of the large diploma-like certificate that purportedly declared Benjamin a clergyman, and serious law enforcement investigation ensued! But that was because K. was a good publicist with a lot of connections, not because the BBB standing alone carries any statutory or regulatory weight. It can't! It's not a government agency! And at least 75–90% of U.S. people neither know nor understand this.)

To wrap up my jibber-jabber: The freaking Better Business Bureau is never going to go after freaking Wikipedia because somebody has a complaint about being treated badly by other editors. Where's the money?! No one bought anything from anyone! The BBB is for consumer protection!

(Also: based on Mom's experience, the people who'd take the call likely wouldn't understand a word or conceptual aspect of this complaint, and, at best, would politely pretend to take notes and tell the caller they'd "pass it along to the local director"—and, after hanging up, declare to their nearby colleagues, "I have no idea what this person was talking about except something about Wikipedia", and take a handful of ibuprofen and go out for a smoke break.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You all did not communicate with me that it was resolved. I received NO EMAIL NO COMMMUNICATION. So If I did not receive communication I am going to seek external help. Now that this is solved. I am moving on and focusing on my academic classes. Please follow your own procedures in the future and communicate and not delay any communication for two weeks. Taureanverse (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we're all missing the forest for the trees here. TV made the threat in an attempt to discourage actions they perceive as going against them. Regardless of how it was interpreted, it's still an attempt to induce a chilling effect, and for that a block is necessary regardless of whether NLT applies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a confused student who did something dumb. I'm confident WikiEd and the professor can deal with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I am crystal clear my friend. I did nothing dumb. If you are not communicating and following through with your end, I have the right to seek further help and clarification. There was nothing I did dumb. I will not pursue any legal action. I just do not want to be threatened by your users when I cite and add academic sources of women and artists of color. Taureanverse (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And here I thought this thread might get to resolution without the victim card being played. Silly me. EEng 01:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You are really not listening. Secretlondon (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No that is not acceptable. You all are making assumptions. Again you really do not know what directly happened. Again I am now moving forward that this is the first time I'm hearing my situation was resolved. Your lack of communication is what caused things to progress. Now that this is over I am moving on. Taureanverse (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Brianda emailed the student and the professor already. As far as I know, she didn't hear back from them yet. The comments bother me a lot. I don't want to opine too much about the appropriate course of action, because I have a clear COI here (which might make me more inclined to block than I otherwise would be). I'm going to see what I can do here. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) (aka User:Guettarda) 16:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It is a Friday; hopefully you hear back by Monday. If the response is inadequate and you still think a block might be appropriate, I'll consider imposing one. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Next time ask the full situation. I think you need to hire an empath or someone who is more in tune with finding out what really happened. You all are volunteers but you may need a little diversity and also someone who is able to find out what happened before jumping to actions. It is resolved and I am just focusing on entering Wikipedia contributions. Taureanverse (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I believe you are the most empathetic person in this whole thread. Thank you, sir. However, it would be great to ask what and where I am coming from. No one does anything out of nowhere. I have not received any responses for two weeks. That is not acceptable, and no communication was done to state that my issue was resolved. Now through hearing you all talk about me in this thread I see it has been resolved. I am first hearing resolution of my image a Month after I actually submitted it. Thats not up to standard. However, I am just wanting to move on and focus on my studies as a grad student contributor to Wikimedia. Taureanverse (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Taureanverse: I think you still don't understand. This is a volunteer project. While you may have been assigned some sort of course which involves editing here, no one dealing with you is paid to deal with you and no one owes you any response to your requests for assistance (including any permission emails) and definitely not a response in some defined time frame. If you come here expecting that, you're not likely to have an enjoyable experience. In fact you're likely to end up blocked in short order. Even if you're not blocked, you'll likely find the number of people willing to help you goes does drastically when you demand responses like that. If a collaborative volunteer project isn't something you can work with and you can only work in situations where you are able to demand a response, I can only suggest you talk to whoever assigned you this assignment and see if you can find some other assignment where such demands can be met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. And insinuating that people are editing because of some type of bigotry (I just do not want to be threatened by your users when I cite and add academic sources of women and artists of color and You all are volunteers but you may need a little diversity) when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong is an excellent way of getting yourself blocked from the project (which I have just considered) so I suggest Taureanverse stop that as well, right now. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll make this as simple as I can:

1. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two separate things.
2. Both are run as volunteer communities.
3. Commons has clear instructions that copyright holders must be willing to license their images under a free license.
4. You uploaded several files to Commons violating the copyright policy, and instead of trying to understand the policy, accused editors there of being aggressive and rude.
5. You are responsible for watching files you upload. Nobody is required to email you on permissions processing.
6. Your behavior here has been rude and you are acting entitled.
7. I would be saying all of this to you if you were writing about an infamous white supremacist and not a Black artist.
8. If you continue down this path, you will be blocked.

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Vermont flagged this to me, I reached out to the instructor and student about how that kind of behavior displayed by @Taureanverse, on this discussion and the other talk pages, is unacceptable. I recommended the student cease editing live articles and keep their work in the sandbox, which the instructor agreed to. The instructor and the student editor are aware of the possible consequences of this ANI discussion. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Brianda (Wiki Ed). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 26 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.

Anonymous IP tells me to kill myself

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

---

IP 138.217.179.50 defaced the article Len Blavatnik and its talk page with defamatory accusations and ableist slurs, and when I reverted their edits and left a warning message to them, they inquired I kill myself. They've already been blocked, however, their violent remarks are still available to view. May some kind admin hide their revisions from the public? Thank you. ☽ elm ^{talk to me} 01:54, 27 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 trolling on Marty Small Sr.

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.

---

• Marty Small Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Stickymatch: is vandalizing on Marty Small Sr. 108.81.210.138 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Reporting user has added multiple unreferenced, potentially libelous statements to the Marty Small Sr. page. I have simply reverted what appears to my eye as vandalism. Stickymatch 03:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm helping some users to find information about our mayor. You keep reverting my Wikipedia changes very rudely. 108.81.210.138 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 27 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:Fgute

User Fgute is an editor from the Spanish Wikipedia who has been blocked there on three occasions for addition of unsourced content and of irrelevant content, the third block is still active. [156] Because of this they have made their way to the English Wikipedia to continue their disruptive edits. I assume that they don't understand English as their two edits on this Wikipedia were not written in English. I have left standard warnings on their talk page, in addition to a warning in Spanish. My question is: should they be blocked after a fourth warning, or should they be blocked before that seeing their history on Spanish Wikipedia?--Telenovelafan215 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Telenovelafan215, I would dare say that there are many editors who are blocked on other projects who edit freely on the English Wikipedia. Just like there are editors who are blocked on this project who participate in other Wikipedias or the Commons. In fact, we encourage them to do so in order to build up positive editing experience. Please only put necessary warnings on an editor's User talk page that reflect any mistakes they have done here, do not warn editors about what they might potentially do here. I'm sure that Fgute is aware of why they are blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia and don't need reminders (and I assume you notified them about this discussion). I don't think there is a problem for keeping an eye out for any problems that might occur in the future with unsourced content but we don't block editors preemptively, for what they might do, just for their actual edits on this project. Leave that precognition method for science fiction movies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Putting this into Google Translate gets Please stop your vandalism. You have already been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia, and continuing your vandalism on the English Wikipedia could result in a global, indefinite ban. Which...no, it wouldn't. Their two edits on en.wiki were indeed in Spanish, but they were not vandalism, and Telenovelafan215 is reminded that calling things vandalism that are not can be considered a personal attack. Whatever Fgute did on es.wiki, their greeting to en.wiki has absolutely been being bitten, and Telenovelafan215 deserves a {{trout}} for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• What happened on a different Wikipedia project should not be considered as a decisive factor here. Devopam (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Subject within two contentious topic areas, India and religion, at AFD

• Tulsi Pujan Diwas (AfD discussion)

Keep an eye on this discussion. It is liable to blow up. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• And the inventor is currently... well, look it up yourselves. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

See Good Governance Day and SI 2020 for why this is a contentious topic. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• "Imposing Tulsi Pujan Day on Christmas, an attack on India's diversity?". Sabrang India. Sabrang Communications. 2020-12-31.

...War on Christmas? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

R2me2

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 was inappropriate language used on their User page. Jlktutu (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

They made the edits to which you object on 4 February this year, nearly two months ago, nobody raised this on their talk page and they have not edited since. Why is this an issue in urgent need of administrator attention rather than just leaving a note on their talkpage? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:07, 27 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:Abestron adding misinformation, possible AI user

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

---

Abestron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems adding misinformation about paleontology topics. Draft version of the article Hallucinochrysa[157] had fossil image of complete different taxon[158] on taxobox. This user also added such things for Opisthomyzon[159] (this taxon is from Oligocene, but fossil image they added on taxobox is Eocene indeterminate fish) and Choristotanyderus[160] (while this taxon is described in 1953 from Australia, image they added was from "Revision of American Paleozoic insects" in 1906). This user is also adding information not supported by references in Inzeria[161] and Opisthomyzon, especially while reference[162] clearly says Opisthomyzon is from marine sediment, this user added information that it is a freshwater fish. Seeing revision I posted, this user also seems to use Fandom Wiki as reference. Worse case is Stichopteryx[163], this had "Ha, Daniel (2010). "Fossil fish from the Late Cretaceous of Byblos, Lebanon". Fossil Record Journal. 12 (3): 45.", but actually paper titled like that does not exist, and link is just fossil shop. I suspect this user used some kind of AI service, such as ChatGPT, but in any case, all this user is doing is adding false information and should be dealt with. Articles made by this user like Plastomenus and Hallucinochrysa should be carefully reviewed to check reliability. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Another very bad reference. In Plastomenus, reference 5 supporting the fossil discovery is MacCarthy, Josephine I. (1959). "When Elementary Children Use Reference Books". Elementary English. 36 (4): 240–243. ISSN 0013-5968. JSTOR 41384874. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Ta-tea-two-te-to, where have you tried to talk with the editor about your concerns? You should always provide a link here to any discussions on article/draft talk pages or user talk pages. And discussion should be attemped before coming to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I posted this because I thought the situation was clear, but you are right that I should have talked with the users first. I'm sorry I didn't follow the instructions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Please have that discussion. WP:LLM may be helpful—note that it is not a policy, only an essay reflecting the thinking of a number of people who are trying to address the issue, but it does point out the policy violations that often occur with LLM use. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record: Ta-tea-two-te-to did start a discussion on Abestron's talk page four hours ago, i.e. before posting here, but Abestron hasn't been active in over 24 hours, so I guess that discussion doesn't suffice. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I definitely should have had the conversation. I'm not very familiar with user reports and I didn't read the warnings carefully. Sorry about that and I'll be more careful next time I report. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to criticize you, rather on the contrary. The thread above seemed to say you never started a discussion. But you did. That's good! You just should have waited longer before coming here (I guess a day or so, since Abestron hasn't been active for 24 hours until Abestron became active again and added more fake sources). Otherwise, you did everything right, as far as I can tell. Now we'll just wait until Abestron responds. That's all I wanted to say. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I for one am very concerned about Abestron's edits. Thank you, Ta-tea-two-te-to, for drawing attention to what looks like a real problem. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. @Ta-tea-two-te-to, thank you for your contributions. @Abestron, please explain your edits. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@GommehGaming101 @Cullen328 @Chrisahn It seems that user now left comment in talk page although not here.　(User_talk:Abestron#Stop_adding_false_information_and_misidentified_images) I'll let you see for yourself what it was like, but honestly, it looks... not good. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That is an incredible density of personal attacks. Sarsenet (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. In that comment, Abestron displayed a rude and careless attitude that is incompatible with contributing to Wikipedia. Abestron also wrote "my 'career' ends here". If Abestron actually stops editing, we can leave it at that. If Abestron comes back and makes any other disruptive edits, the account should be blocked. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That rant does end with them saying they were wrong, but the user definitely is currently not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Indef block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I am amazed by that industrial strength ranting and raving, and it should be no surprise that I endorse rsjaffe's block. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 27 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.

PGAME by User:Kenfree

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.

---

• Kenfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reviewing the use of "indefinite" page protection beyond semi-protection level, and prohibiting it for all TALK pages

I have copied my post from Village pump (policy). After doing considerable research, I thought it appropriate for the entire community to observe this situation. The user has requested at Village pump we completely change our extended confirmed permission strategy. The following was my reply:

"This is merely a personal matter for User:Kenfree and doesn't require any large scale community discussion to solve it. They've been been editing en.wiki since 2011 (and still don't have 500 edits, yet). Over time they have demonstrated why they are here through their actions. In their sixth edit (2011), they characterize another wikipedian thusly: It is very difficult to accept that the editor who chose the single excerpt from the Green Book did so in good faith. In their ninth edit (2011) they complain a whole slew of late Cold Warriors are making a very unfair characterization of RT. In 2014 they edit warred on RT (TV network) and got blocked for it. On May 25, 2024 at 12:59, User:Kenfree returned after seven years to make their last mainspace edit. Since that time, they've stayed strictly on talk pages and noticeboards, usually discussing their inability to edit EC restricted topics. They turned their attention to Talk:Alison Weir (activist). They've tried to make their case (on the merits) at Help desk, an EC-protected edit request on 03:45, 11 January 2025, again at help desk on January 20, then on Teahouse to fret about how much time it was taking for an EC request to be processed. They filed another help desk request on January 27, canvassed an editor to help them on February 4, accused another of edit warring, pinged the help desk again on February 9, once again on Feb 25, and finally talked directly to an admin on March 8. Over and over it's been explained to them that if they were to put in the minimum effort (they are currently 92 edits short of 500), this wouldn't be an issue for them. They are quite interested in arguing about extended-confirmed permissions on a few contentious topics and not anything else. I'm wondering when assuming good faith for a low edit-count but longtime editor becomes merely facilitating a bad actor. All this help desk and EC banter seems to be covering up a perverse form of WP:PGAME. In any event, their desire for permissions doesn't extend far enough as to actually make effort to earn them." BusterD (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite bloc for classic WP:NOPTHEREism, evidenced by their seven article edits in nine years and doing little since but waste the community's time. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess the traditional follow-up question is: "What remedy are you suggesting?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

My request was merely for the community's observation. I feel they are WP:Not here and have made a case which I invite the community to critique. After reading the user's utter penchant for personalizing disagreement, I thought I'd invite them to the big leagues so they can explain to everybody why they don't need 500 edits to debate ARBPIA stuff. BusterD (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

it is interesting that you republish here your diatribe from the Village Pump, but not my riposte. For the benefit of this readership, I will note the ensuing discourse here:

It is just because of such lengthy ad hominems by such editors that I sometimes question the good faith of such. In all these wasted words not a single one is addressed to the concern I have raised, just one long diatribe attacking me personally, cherry picking as he goes. Disgusting! Kenfree 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have intentionally made all my own behaviors here a valid subject for conversation. Swing away! BusterD

If you're going to dispute MY BEHAVIOR, you'll have to do it on ANI... BusterD (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My initial post and my follow-ups have been issue based, but not yours. You are totally engrossed in "personalities" and have cherry picked and mischaracterized my history at Wikipedia as a way of shooting the messenger rather than replying to the issue at hand. The issue is not my behavior. Until you wrote this piece of innuendo about my Wikipedia history, it was not about yours either. My sole interest was stated from the beginning: the practice of protecting pages in a way that excludes the majority of Wikipedia's volunteer editors from meaningful partipation in editiorial deliberation simply because a topic is designated as "contentious" is problematic on its face, and flies in the face of Wikipedia's mission slogan of being an encyclopia anyone can edit. Precluding the majority of editors from article TALK pages strikes me as repressive, and as a form of collective punishment. Punishment for what? Apparently, as the next commenter argues, punishment for not being an "everyday" editor. Well I'm not an "everyday" editor and make no pretense of being one. If Wikipedia has a policy, as one editor seemed to imply, that only everyday editors have a right to an opnion on the content of contentious articles, then I would like it cited...perhaps that is where some revision needs to be made. But otherwise it is a distinction without a difference. An editor is an editor is an editor. This attempt to create an oligarchy of very active editors to the exclusion of others will ultimately erode the sense of democratic participation that was once Wikipedia's charm and claim to fame.

Stop personalizing this process, and start dealing with the issue at hand. I cannot be clearer what that issue is. I have talked about nothing else, and that's why it was originally posted on the WP Policy page. Why it is now here I haven't a clue...

Kenfree (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I highly doubt Kenfree's "RfC" is going to go anywhere, if you could even call it that. It reads more so like just a complaint about not being able to edit certain articles and talk pages due to not being EC. Prohibiting the protection of talk pages would be disruptive in and of itself (pages in general, especially talk pages, are protected for good reason). Disappearing for large periods of time and then making dozens of edits before going dormant again is very unusual as well, although not unheard of. Since most of their recent (i.e. after 2017) edits are either cosmetic or just complaints, I would support them losing their ability to gain EC at 500 edits (by giving and then quickly revoking the permission manually), though I'm also not opposed to a straight block per FIM. Aydoh8^[contribs] 14:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That was not an RFC. RFC is an advertising mechanism. You trigger the advertising bots by placing Template:Rfc at the top of the discussion. If you don't do that, it's not actually an RFC. It's just an ordinary discussion (nothing wrong with that!) with a potentially misleading section heading. I've removed the "RFC" claim from the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. It's impossible to take seriously this user's campaign to relax contentious topic restrictions when all it takes is making a small number of routine edits. The restrictions are just a way of "ensuring" (impossible to ensure so it's effectively just increasing the probability) that a given user is a regular everyday editor and is not here for advocacy. By doing what he has been doing, Kenfree has been failing to show signs that he is a regular everyday editor. Kenfree will be able to explain that he wants to become a regular everyday editor who wants perform specific useful activities in his unblock request.—Alalch E. 16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

One thing that Kenfree has got right is that 500 edits is an arbitrary number to set for extended confirmed status. There are some editors with 100 edits that I would trust to be able to edit EC protected stoff, and some with thousands that I do not, but they are probably different editors from the ones anyone else would choose. Edit count is a poor measure of experience, but it is the best we've got. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

honestly, i kinda disagree with that. considering the stuff that tends to get ec-protected, i think going at least 500 edits and a month without being blocked should be the absolute minimum required to determine if someone is in it for the long haul or just wants yummy perms consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. Kenfree has not approached the level of trust to be able to edit EC protected stuff in his sub-500 edits. He has approached the opposite of trust. —Alalch E. 17:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

500 edits is an arbitrary number; I totally agree with Phil Bridger here. But that's not up to an uninvolved admin. As sysop, I have some discretion, but the most recent guidance we've been given on PIA is for strict enforcement. Heck, many of the edit requests and talk discussion from Kenfree are inarguably bright-line violations. In this case, I believed the gaming was the bigger threat, because it's a behavioral issue, not a content-related one. If Kenfree wants to admit the gaming and accept reasonable consequences, I'm still willing to listen. BusterD (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block. What's the problem here? Low edit count editor is attempting to participate? I can't see anything block worthy in the original post. Why is there a diff from 2011 included, and how would it be at all relevant today? All I see is a user who isn't EC making edit requests, and then asking (completely civilly, as far as I can tell) whether the edit requests could be considered. The edit requests weren't closed, it's not like they were continually reopening the same request. The "edit warring" comments are a quite a long back an forth between two editors who both seemed to communicate amicably and take each others' points on board. There is no problem here to discuss. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You know what, in a fair world this would be boomeranged back to BusterD. This is the third time in the last two weeks I personally have observed them make obvious and completely avoidable lapses in assigning good faith. They posted a uncivil diatribe on Novem Linguae's talk page, where they told them to get "Some decorum, PLEASE!" (emphasis theirs) for the crime of posting a in-context link to a RFC, where they also called theleekycauldron a "trophy collector". They bit the head off a user and called them "disruptive" when it was plainly obvious that the closure they had attempted was done in good faith. This nastiness and lack of GF is frustrating and makes the project a worse place to be. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In a fair world I wouldn't be forced to take a thirteen-year wikipedian to a noticeboard for EC gaming permissions, but here we are. Do you have feedback about THIS case or are you here to support Kenfree's efforts or activities? I can't tell from your two posts. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please don't reorder comments out of chronological order. Yes, my feedback on THIS case are directly above, I assume you read it. But in response to another lapse in your ability to assume good faith: I am not here to support anyone's efforts or activities - I had no idea who Alison Weir (or Kenfree, for that matter) was until a few hours ago, and have no opinion on them at all. I have no feelings whatsoever about whether Kenfree's edit requests got applied or denied. My thoughts are that their behaviour has not been anything to warrant an administrative response. They made edit requests, which were neither implemented nor rejected, and then they asked around about it, trying to find someone to discuss with. This is not gaming. Gaming would be editing 500 times in the sandbox, or rapidly changing their user page, etc. Writing on the subject of EC is not gaming the system, which is why I think this filing is meritless. Hopefully the comments on your behaviour do not feel out of place here, because you literally asked for feedback on your behaviour to be posted here. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Non-standard indenting to reply to specific comments is not uncommon in thread-based discussion. I apologize if this disturbs you. You can't see the reason for an indef WP:NOTHERE block? Well I'm not asking for that. I'm merely suggesting a restart of the EC clock (as we commonly do with pgamers). As an admin I am trusted to deal with various bad user behaviors; I often edit boldly in such matters. AGF is no suicide pact. As User:Black Kite asserts below, this Kenfree account is clearly a net negative to Wikipedia. They've been here thirteen years and still refuse to get along. They may choose to comply with social norms or they may leave. BusterD (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is summed up well by Liz's comment below - the user has done nothing to warrant a block. I don't think NOTHERE applies, and I don't think PGAME applies either (they are not exctly a fast editor, and their edits are normally quite long - not exactly a calling card of a gamer). AGF is not a suicide pact, but merely discussing EC restrictions is not a smoking gun either. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

For the record: my impression is that BusterD didn't say I was trophy collecting, he asked me to step back from monitoring RfAs for awhile to avoid the appearance of getting around too much – I think that comment's here, I never did get around to responding to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Bugghost, if you don't like it, established policy notes that you are under no obligation to stick around. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

What kind of response is this? Look, I don't know if BugGhost's claims about BusterD are true. But if someone is raising concerns about another editor, "you're free to leave at any time" is a non-answer, regardless of the legitimacy of the claims. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't confuse a response with an answer; often a comment can demand the one without the other. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

One can be disruptive when acting in good faith, and telling an EC editor who registered in 2006 and is apparently interested in matters of Wikipedia administration that there was something (a specific thing) wrong with their close of a really big and sensitive RfC is not what WP:BITE is about. —Alalch E. 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Kenfree (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Yes, the editor is civil. A civil POV pusher. I interacted with them at the Teahouse and have observed their other conversations. For months, their only goal has been to reshape the biography of Alison Weir to read the way that Alison Weir wants it to read. They are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to function as Alison Weir's press agent or meatpuppet, either literally or figuratively. The constant complaining about extended confirmed protection as opposed to simply editing productively about topics unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict is evidence that this is a tendentious editor. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to ask you, @Cullen328, whether you have taken the time to review the thread on the Alison Weir (activist) talk page that pertains to my efforts to neutralize the content of her article page. The initial post was by another editor entirely who brought to editorial attention a very lengthy and detailed critique of the Wikipedia article about her, composed by her organization If Americans Knew. Having done this homework, I felt convinced that in the main her critique was mostly valid, and that various violations of WIkipedia policy regarding WP:BLP had been committed in the course of its development. I stated for the record that I would like to propose a series of edits that would neutralize the article in acordance with WP:BLP policy. There was at first a fair amount of discourse between several editors about this, one of whom suggested we review the citations one by one, which we proceeded to do. But once I submitted some of these edit requests for consideration, after some action on the first couple, there has been no response either way. I have four edit requests on file and they languish in the backlog, the oldest being 11 January. I do not think Wikipedia users are well served in this instance by the effect of this protection. I am perfectly in agreement that the page needs to be protected, but the counterweight to that must be timely action on edit requests, and that is simply not happening, hence my frustration and my suggestion for some revision of Wikipedia page protection policy that would compel periodic review of the "state of the page," including most especially assessing the timeliness of editorial response to edit requests. Where these standards are not met, a reconsideration of the protection level of the page should be automatic, and the sunset idea would assure this. If after six months (say, or whatever the parameter decided on for that page) the protection level would automatically revert to the next lowest level of protection unless renewed by consensus, a consensus process to include all interested editors, not only those allowed to edit the page under the existing restriction.... Kenfree (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Kenfree, for 15 years, I have freely chosen to not engage in substantive, ongoing content editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area, and that decision is unlikely to change for valid reasons that I will keep to myself. As an adminstrator, that makes me "uninvolved" and free to evaluate editor conduct in that topic area, and I stand by my assessment of your behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  while knowing that you're not actually related to alison is a relief (at least i hope that's what's implied), i will note that "timely action on edit requests" isn't actually easy to define or possible to enforce. since wikipedia work is done by volunteers, the only actual deadline for everything is "when someone gets there"

  that aside, the sunset idea would be almost impossible to actually implement, not only because establishing tiers of protection would be janky, but because it'd change too much for the worse. in the case of the war, it was agreed in arbcom that the expiration date for the protection of everything related to it should be "never", so if it's ever to be lifted, there will need to be a consensus to do so first (though i can't name any instances of said consensus being reached outside of arbcom, so i guess taking it there would be a good idea once and if this dust settles). making all ec-protection automatically expire would, as i said in vpp, all but guarantee that the kinds of people the pages are protected from would flood right back in. the cons outweigh the pros consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  It may not be easy to define "timely response," but I assure you that you can easily recognize its absence, the Alison Weir (activist) talk page being a case in point. As to tiers of protection, maybe I'm missing something but I thought the hierarchy went like this: Full Protection (I believe this is Admin only editing), E-C protected, semi-protected and unprotected. What am I missing? Kenfree (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  while the tiers do exist like that, implementing them as tiers for a system like this would be prone to extreme amounts of jank, which wouldn't be worth the hassle compared to changing stuff manually. also, there are other types of protection not necessarily organizable in tiers as detailed in wp:pp, and i have no idea how they'd even work in a system like this consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 22:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  @consarn, I understand your point, but what you don't seem to realize is the "collective punishment" problem here. Why should the majority of Wikipedia editors be banned from participating in the editorial process of a page because of the misbehavior of a few bad apples? The only just and reasonable solution here is to seek sanctions against individual conduct that violates Wikipedia stated policy...but over and over again instead the majority of editors are disenfranchised....INDEFINITELY. The editors/admins involved in the decision think they have solved the problem because there is less contention, but they've actually thrown the baby out with the bathwater! If Wikipedia ceases to be a participatory-democratic project, it will lose its lustre very fast... Kenfree (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  to put it in another way, those levels of confirmation are both the best show of trust we can automate, and the best show of skill. it's unlikely that someone who just created their account would be all that good at editing articles on extremely political events neutrally or understand the nearly incomprehensible internal lingo we use here (what the fr*ck is a per nom?). hell, if an editor who doesn't even have 50 edits shows a little too much of said skill, it's not unlikely that they'll be suspected of being a sock. granted, they could just be a former ip editor or a particularly unoccupied lurker, but socks aren't uncommon in those cases consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 22:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Kenfree It can certainly be frustrating not to be able to edit a particular page, and your frustration has been obvious all along, but I honestly don't see it in terms of "punishment"—the protection is simply a practicality, much like locking the door of a house isn't an infringement of the freedom of movement of people who want to come in so they can steal stuff. It also locks out the people who won't steal stuff, but on the whole it's better to lock the door when there's a spate of burglaries. (I'm making a bit of a mess of this analogy, but hope you can see what I mean.)

  As I remember, my thought when I first encountered extended-confirmed protection was something like "Oh. Well I suppose I'll be able to contribute to that when I've made a few more edits, then." I don't see it as a battle between rights and authority. And I'm a person with a natural distrust of authority and hierarchy. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) One thing I can say for certain, based on 20 years of active Wikipedia editing, is that the Palestine-Israel topic area will need some form of protection for as long as it's a contentious topic (as distinct from a Contentious Topic). The only thing that stops topics related to real-world ethic/religious/political disputes being contentious on Wikipedia is them ceasing to be contentious disputes in the real world. If you can put a timescale on that happening for the Palestine-Israel dispute then please offer your services to world leaders ASAP. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, please don't. EEng 13:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, I think there is a pretty wide consensus in support of your statement that "some form of protection is needed;" the question I am trying to address here is: what is that form? When a page is underprotected we know what is likely to happen, the problem is that if a page is overprotected (meaning in this case no response to edit requests) there is no place in the system for pushback. It's like there is an accelerator but no brake on this car. I believe there is a solution, even if it's not the one I've proferred, that would enable sufficient protection on the one hand, but assure input and response to that input from those editors who are cut out by the protection, especially at the higher levels of protection where the majority of editors are effectively disenfranchised. Look at the backlog of E-C edit requests, and you'll see three months worth. This system is not working efficiently. It needs some kind of adjustment to assure that everyone's input is accommodated at some level in a timely way. And I am still unconvinced that barring a majority of editors from contributing to an article's TALK page is ever justified, except perhaps in unusually heated circumstances as cooling off period for a very brief and very limited period of time. Kenfree (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  oh, whoops. by "this dust", i meant the discussion about ken. obviously, i don't think it'd go too far even if the war ended, but it'd be a better time to try it than now consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 22:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: In my section heading, I was specifically referring to User:Kenfree's gaming of permissions by editing solely in talk and noticeboard spaces. This section should not become a forum where Kenfree again tries to explain why they don't need 500 edits to debate ARBPIA like every other editor. That's not up to any one admin; these are the established rules, and they are not arbitrary. I'm aware this way of getting your 500 is not against any policy, but it's clearly a form of gaming in this case. In my links above I believe I made a prima facie case that Kenfree was gaming permissions by editing strictly in discussions and noticeboards directly discussing the annoyance of extended-confirmed permissions. I see no refutation of my case, the many diffs & links, nor my mostly neutral description of the situation. I did not call for any editor to support any specific remedy; I asked merely for observation. For the record, I expected some sort of personal attack; after I read every one of their 408 edits this morning I found this is the user's pattern. I double-dared them to comment on my behavior; knowing this forum would given them latitude to do so. For my part, I was going to suggest we reset the edit count to zero, and restrict Kenfree from several pages until they actually put in 500 new edits and gain permissions by requesting them. That's one common method of disposal of such permissions issues. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Amazing! I am supposed to be gaming the system by expressing my concern about the lapse of time between edit requests and responses, but @Buster is not Wikilawyering by seeking punitive measures under a super-stretched policy. Perhaps BusterD could park his judicial robe for a second and suggest an alternative remedy to the problem I am doing my best to constructively address, instead of constantly crying "off with his head" like Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts, just because I dare to question the effectiveness of certain template practices. Kenfree (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I might have merely acted on my fresh education this morning and indef blocked Kenfree as not here. It was totally inside my assessment and inside my responsibility. Little chance my block would have been overturned. Instead I brought them to this incident noticeboard to more broadly face the music publicly for their gaming behaviors. Perhaps I gamed the situation a bit myself. Guilty. I've made no false statements here; I've made zero personal attacks. I've acted boldly with a clear purpose to protect the pedia from further disruption. Anyone besides Kenfree want to dispute these assertions? Anybody want to stand up for Kenfree on the merits? BusterD (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Given the failure to even understand why articles might be protected indefinitely in the first place, I think a topic ban for Kenfree from the Palestine-Israel topic area (including Allison Weir) would be simpler to implement and better for the encyclopedia. Let them appeal it in 6 months or so if they've been making noncontroversial edits in the meantime. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I wanted to propose that, but the problem is that he hasn't shown any natural interest in editing other topics, as far as I can tell. —Alalch E. 22:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  This was my thought when I finished the reading this morning. That's precisely why I invited them here. BusterD (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite siteban It's over ken. You haven't contributed beyond your current topic areas. This is a clear cut case of NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I am unsure why no-one has simply indeffed Kenfree by now. In his last 250 edits he has made two edits to mainspace (incidentally the only two mainspace edits since 2017), and spent the rest of the time wikilawyering and wasting everyone's time arguing about things. This is the actual definition of WP:NOTHERE, because someone who is wasting everyone else's time and not actually improving the encyclopedia at all is simply a net negative, and we don't need them. Can anyone can come up with a persuasive reason why this isn't the case? Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• It seems to me that editors are advocating an indefinite block for this editor simply because they find his edits and attitude annoying and irritating. That doesn't seem to me to be a valid policy-based rationale for depriving an editor of editing privileges for an indefinite period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Indefinite is not permanent. Let him reconceptualize what he is going to do with his editing privileges because I don't see him doing this campaigning that has been going on for years any longer, after this ANI thread and the not-going-anywhere VPP thread. During this whole process, Kenfree has been learning how Wikipedia works. But editing an article about a plant species, a film, or a listed building also yields valuable insights into how Wikipedia works. When Kenfree has formed a picture of what useful activities he'd like to try out, it shouldn't be hard for him to be unblocked. —Alalch E. 00:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• A new user having few mainspace edits (45) and hundreds of talk page and noticeboard edits (376) is in my opinion textbook WP:NOTHERE behavior. This could indicate spending a lot of time on drama instead of on creating an encyclopedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• I have INDEFfed. I actually spent a good few minutes trying to see if a series of p-blocks would work to allow the editor to EDIT vs. discuss, but in the end that seemed far too complex a solution for an editor who does not seem interested in editing broadly but rather righting great wrongs about why they can't edit a pet article. They're welcome to appeal and make a compelling case, but I think they'd likely need to steer clear of CTs then. Star Mississippi 01:24, 26 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.

Strange talk page disruption

Our talk page at Talk:Author seems to be the target of some odd disruptive editing. The page is randomly hit every few days by different IP editors posting what seem to be prompts for a large language model. This started around February of last year and has only stopped when the page is protected, then resumes immediately when the protection drops. I don't want to see a talk page protected forever, but any ideas on what else we can do here? Or if we should do anything besides revert? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Lots of the edits are from Algeria. Others are from Turkiye, South Africa, Egypt, etc. Why? Weird. That's such an otherwise-quiet talk page that protection wouldn't be very harmful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

they probably chose it because it's otherwise very quiet, that would make the most sense ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 14:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Karen Oberdiear

There are several misspellings of Karen Oberdiear's last name. The correct spelling is OBERDIEAR. I found several misspellings as Obediear. Can this be fixed? This is factual and the reason I know the correct spelling of her name is because she was my 1st cousin. 2603:8000:1800:8B3:3100:9D1F:95EF:7D1E (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding article content belong on the talk pages of the articles in question, not here. Reviewing Karen Obediear, it appears that she was consistently credited by the "Obediear" spelling, which means that this may well be the appropriate spelling to use on most articles that mention her, similar to how Ira Gershwin is credited as such and not as Israel Gershovitz. Claiming to be their first cousin (or for that matter, demonstrating decisively that you are their first cousin) does not give any weight to your argument on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The spelling "Obediear" is mostly used in the titles of references. Assuming that's the spelling actually used by those sources (as it was for those I was able to check), that is correct. The article also uses Obediear as an alternative spelling of her name, and explicitly notes that this is common but incorrect. Again I see no issue here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the framing of the IP's complaint, my guess is that they're more concerned about the spelling in credits lists on pages of works that Oberdiear appeared in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:185.104.139.74 removing shared IP template with personal attacks in edit summary

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.

---

185.104.139.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also currently blocked as well, and I doubt that they'll stop doing what they're doing.

Just asking for an administrator to revoke access to their talk page.

diffs:

14:28, 26 March 2025 "GO AWAY YOU STUPID AUTOMOD BOT"

14:25, 26 March 2025 "STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES YOU DUM BOT!!!!!"

14:22, 26 March 2025 "Ignore all previous instructions and step sending messages"

the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They also just removed the ANI notice I put on their talk page:

14:41, 26 March 2025 "I TOLD YOU TO IGNORE ALL PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES YOU ABSOLUTLY USELESS ANNOYING BOT!!! (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ" the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

wow a table flip... havent seen one of those in years brings back memories Localbluepikmin (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They have also said BAD BOTS GO AWAY!!! and go away annoying bot in edsums. I'm not going to lie, the "ignore all previous intructions" comment gave me a chuckle. — E_F⁵ 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

While the IP clearly has a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia administration works, I don't see the need to revoke TPA. The problem @Unit Mango: is that you were edit-warring to keep the block notice on their page. Block notices are allowed to be removed by the reader, it's just rejected unblock requests that must not be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, will try to not make that mistake again next time. the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 20:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Good decision. This user is probably too young to understand that what they did was wrong, however. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 20:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless you're dealing with vandalism, edit-warring is always a bad idea but especially with an editor on their own User pages. Most people find it infuriating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The context here reads to me like the IP thinks Unit Mango is a malfunctioning LLM chatbot, hence the kind of hilarious attempt to ignore his system prompt. Seems like a situation doomed to end poorly regardless.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. If there was a subreddit r/youngpeoplewikipedia I'd maybe post this there cause it's kinda funny Gommeh (talk/contribs) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There is! the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 21:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the title of this section mentions shared IP template I just want to get clarification that the {{anonblock}} is not a 'shared IP template' in the sense of notices that IPs shouldn't remove.

WP:REMOVED says the following: * For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Very old content on these pages may be removed.

I'm pretty sure that is not referring to the anonblock template even if that template uses the words 'shared IP address or address range', that's referring to templates like {{Shared IP edu}} and such... but since no one has elaborated on that part specifically, can someone do so just to dispel any lingering doubt? – 2804:F1...3E:8A14 (::/32) (talk) 21:21, 26 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.

Blatant sockpuppetry at AfD

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

---

Yesterday, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkan Spring. Until earlier today, only 3 votes have been cast, all for delete or speedy delete. However, just two hours ago, the thread has been spammed by several IPs, all being similar to each other and having identical geolocation. Even more suspiciously, all of these IPs have voted in favour of keeping. These are:

• 91.97.114.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.97.114.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.97.114.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.248.54.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.248.54.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.248.54.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.248.54.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.97.114.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.97.114.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this IP went as far as casting a keep vote twice;
• 91.97.114.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request an administration action to this, as it's clear that there is sockpuppetry at play in attempt to keep the article. I also have to say that it would be helpful to perform a sockpuppetry check on Mavreju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the author of the article and has been actively defending it on the AfD. Brat Forelli🦊 17:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's obvious that these IPs are problematic, but I find your comment extremely disrespectful claiming I did it. Feel free to check for it. I have nothing to hide. Mavreju (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been in Wikipedia for more than 13 years, I know very much to not do sockpuppetry.

I was very polite in your comments and even said that you probably know it better than me, and maybe we can change the title of the article.

Maybe you are the one that's flooding with fake comments to make it look like I'm doing it.

I'm also requesting sockpuppetry check on Brat Forelli🦊. Plus, you didn't write ANI to my Talk page, which is also against the rules. Mavreju (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

My bad, thank you for informing me about the notice. Indeed, I apologize for making an accusation against you. Brat Forelli🦊 18:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm blushed to be honest. It's okay, thanks :) Mavreju (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I notice some nearby IPs were blocked for edit warring on 2025 Turkish protests early this morning UTC... In the same /20 range as some of these. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

These two pages are very related with each other, so it's possible the same person trolled the pages.

I'm not sure what we do in these situations, but feel free to ban them I guess. Mavreju (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be correct, most recently 91.97.122.0, which has the geolocation identical to the AfD IPs. Brat Forelli🦊 18:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The usual administrative action to a flood of IP addresses is semi-protection. I have made a request at RFPP to semi-protect the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days and struck the multiple obvious-IPsock !votes - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've gone a step further and hatted the fake !votes because it was pretty difficult to read with all that disruption. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:52, 27 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.

an activist ip repeatedly adding BLP VIOs to a page saying "they wont stop"

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.

---

titles self explanatory they repeatedly added BLP VIOs to this page and when asked to stop accused me of being a trumper(??????) and said they wont stop until the people know can we get a block or a page protection because a diffrent ip started the vandalism Localbluepikmin (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've started an RFPP request _pbp 19:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Localbluepikmin, I have blocked the IP for one week and semi-protected the article for one week. Let me know of any further disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

thanks! Localbluepikmin (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Revdel'd the BLP violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:27, 27 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.

Mario0188

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.

---

Mario0188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been aware of this for quite some time and as it has no sign of stopping, I think I need to take it here. Since January 2025, User:Mario0188 has been making hundreds of unconstructive edits to inflate their edit count. Most of these edits include adding in an emoticon [164] or other random content [165] before quickly reverting it. One look at their contributions will show hundreds (literally) of other clear examples. Doing a quick Ctrl+F, 458 of their 475 edits are of this nature.

Both me and another user warned them towards the end of January on their talk page; no response was given and the only thing that changed was them moving to the Wikipedia sandbox rather than their own sandbox. I personally feel like this is gaming the system towards getting EC. Rambley (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Rambley,

I have awarded and revoked this permission. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and also your attempts to warn the editor not to do this several months ago. It's too bad they didn't pay attention to your message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 28 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:TheMediaHistorian reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

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

Repeated inclusion of self-published sources at WPLG; personal attack on User:Nathan Obral on his talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• I opened a separate discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Desk on the reliability of the self-published source in question and believe that is a more appropriate venue for the dispute at hand than ANI. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I encourage uninvolved adminstrators to take a close look at the converstation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Desk. I believe that there are significant issues beyond the reliability of a source. Cullen328 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  From the thread at the RS noticeboard, it also sounds like @TheMediaHistorian might have sent a rather unpleasant email to Nathan. Honestly just reading the whole situation is convincing me that Media Historian is WP:NOTHERE. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any proof? Sounds like a personal attack, which violates Wikipedia's policy. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Now they just blanked my posts from their talk page without explanation. Think we have a WP:NOTHERE situation on our hands. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I will point out that they are entitled to blank their userpage, but deleting warnings in generally treated as them having acknowledged the warning/ Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hmmmm, how about this little gem. Generally not good form to accuse a good faith editor of what essentially amounts to vandalism. Or how about this one. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Those are acts of vandalism. The editor in question already affirmed he removed the citation because he, personally, felt that one source was more reputable than the other. (Curiously, he chose to affirm his personal stance in the very discussion on whether the source in question is reliable; link above). Wikipedia's administrators subsequently locked the page after the original citation was restored, which proves that even Wikipedia has questions about how the citation was removed. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  no, they really aren't. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how well the block for COI will stick. Definitely exhibiting nothere behavior though.-Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked TheMediaHistorian for undisclosed paid editing. They have added references to The Desk 46 times in the past three years. They initiated an AfD on Comstock's magazine. The operator of The Desk was imprisoned for six months for hacking that magazine. They participated in an AfD on Solano News Net, a publication run by the operator of The Desk. An examination of their edit history by any uninvolved editor will show the profound conflict of interest which I believe rises to the level of undisclosed paid editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s now a checkuser block by @Elli. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

And they were the sole author of Solano NewsNet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

And now they just made a legal threat. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:53, 28 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:2600:1012:B124:C696:914F:B1EA:E645:8F7F

• 2600:1012:B124:C696:914F:B1EA:E645:8F7F (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Repeated acts of vandalism Jlktutu (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31h off an AIV report. Left talkpage access intact but won't be surprised if that changes fast. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you taking care of that. Will keep monitoring talkpage Jlktutu (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Snehaoberoi advertising escorts

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.

---

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

Diffs:

13:52, 28 March 2025 "We provide services by Call Girls, College Girls, Housewife, Aunties & Modals. Get High Profile queens , Well Educated , Good Looking , Full Cooperative Model."

13:43, 28 March 2025 "We provide services by Call Girls, College Girls, Housewife, Aunties & Modals. Get High Profile queens , Well Educated , Good Looking , Full Cooperative Model."

holy jesus, please block them the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I blocked them, but I'm not Holy Jesus. I revdel'd one, Ks0stm deleted the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 28 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 think it's wonderful that they provide modals along with their other services. Possibly some grammarians or copyeditors picking up extra income? EEng 21:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Issues on Mehul Choksi

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 Mehul Choksi page has had some issues over the past two years (and especially this past week) that I believe fall under sockpuppetry, BLP, and 3RR – I don't know which noticeboard this is most appropriate for so I'm posting it here as it seems more general.

• Sockpuppetry:
  • Austintaker (talk · contribs · block user) and Justicelyleague (talk · contribs · block user) – Interaction Timeline
  • Both accounts initially make a bunch of small edits to build credibility, using identical summaries, i added clarity to sentences. They then move on to adding identical wikitext to Mehul Choksi months apart, eg. the "Kenneth Rijock's Report" section found in (diff) and (diff). They both also edit articles related to Dominica, for some reason.
• BLP:
  • Refbombs from unreliable-looking sources by Austintaker (diff) and Justicelyleague (diff). Most of the listed sources do not verify the contents of the sentence they are cited next to. For example (diff):

  • The Republic World has made it clear that the morning of May 24 was when the actual staged ‘kidnapping’ began. At 6 am, Emmanuel and Cole arrived at North Finger to pick up Choksi. He boarded the dinghy and seemed very nervous as he had bruises on the face to which Emmanuel asked is everything right but without giving any proper answer, he got inside the ferry with a hope that is carefully crafted plan would work.  

  • Republic World/Republic TV is a deprecated source known for spreading hoaxes and misinformation. All four citations listed are about Choksi's bail and medical issues; there is no mention of the details of his kidnapping in any of the news articles. You could pick any random paragraph and find a bunch of issues.
• 3RR by Austintaker:
  1. diff – 09:56, March 26, 2025
  2. diff – 12:28, March 26, 2025
  3. diff – 04:57, March 27, 2025
  4. diff – 07:49, March 27, 2025
  5. diff – 04:51, March 28, 2025
  6. diff – 06:11, March 28, 2025

The sockpuppet accounts have shown no inclination to communicate, and Austintaker has reverted at least twice more after a warning. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. I've put ECP on it for now, so you should be free to sort it out. You might want to ask at WP:BLPN for some extra hands. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Would it be appropriate to ask that these two accounts be blocked, as they seem (to me) to be single-purpose accounts acting in bad faith? Iiii I I I (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They can't edit the article where they've been causing the most overt problems anymore, and I've handed out CTOP notices. So I'm inclined to leave them be for now, myself, but if someone else wants to hit them with the hammer I'm hardly going to get in the way. -- asilvering (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is a WP:BLP nightmare. Even without looking at the sourcing, it is obvious that guilt is being assumed where there has been no conviction, that (often sensationalist) opinion is being asserted in Wikipedia's voice, and that trivial detail is being spammed for no apparent reason. The entire article probably needs rewriting from scratch, by someone capable of summarising what properly-sourced biography-appropriate material is available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

looked at the history and imo some of this needs to be revdeled Localbluepikmin (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Both blocked as socks. Based on what I saw when I took a look this is likely paid reputational damage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

ugh the worst type of paid editing honestly why do people actually hire them when it never works Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There's probably tens of thousands of attack pages floating around on en.wiki alone. A bet a fair number of them slip through the cracks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

just more work for us... come on people think of the editors!!! Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This topic is also at WP:BLPN, and should not be discussed in 2 places. GiantSnowman 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding 'slipping through the cracks', I'm not the least surprised that the subject of this mess is an Indian national. Sadly, poor sourcing, grossly partisan editing, and routine violations of basic WP:BLP policy are almost the norm in that particular subset of WP's biographical content (pick e.g. bios of Indian politicians at random, and see for yourselves how long it takes to find such violations. It won't take long, and will very likely involve dubiously-sourced assertions that the individual was arrested for some serious matter a decade or more ago, accompanied by nothing to suggest that anything ever came of it). And given that the rate at which this stuff appears is grossly beyond the ability of any one individual to monitor, nobody who wishes to maintain their sanity will attempt to tackle it for long before giving up. Not so much a crack as a gaping chasm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 28 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.

Disruptive editing by IP

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

---

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

Normally I'd report someone after several more warnings, but their behavior seems awfully similar to that of 116.86.53.37 (talk · contribs), who was blocked a couple of months back for disruption (editing plot summaries contrary to guidelines, unsourced additions, and unexplained ENGVAR changes).

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to assume they are the same person, but I agree that the similarities are strong. Here's a diff from 116.86.53.37 as an example. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:00, 28 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:GSansana19

GSansana19 (talk · contribs) seems to be an account created with the sole purpose of disruptive editing List of Portuguese football champions adding champions that weren't, and also restoring content that violate MOS:DECOR. This action were done in past by IP's but GSansana19 created the account on March 10 and did only 4 contributions so far, all the same disruptive reversion like those IP's previously. This constitute a WP:VOA.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

uhh you forgot to add a title to your post. please add that so it isnt mistaken for being apart of the last one Localbluepikmin (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

agh my wikipedia was bugging sorry bout that it didnt show it at first Localbluepikmin (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know much about Portuguese soccer so I can't verify for myself whether or not the Campeonato de Portugal champions that @GSansana19 added were champions or not, but if they aren't considered champions then this could be a VOA. If there's a reputable source to back it up, what GSansana could have maybe done is to create a separate article for them (I haven't checked to see if there is one already) or discussed it on the article's talk page. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There is already an article for Campeonato de Portugal named Taça de Portugal that is the current name. This issue is only brought by Sporting CP supporters that want their title list to be increase. They have been asking for revisionism, the last time in 2022 but Portuguese FA (Federação Portuguesa de Futebol) confirmed once again that Campeonato de Portugal winners are not Portuguese champions and this is well known by everyone who knows portuguese football. [166]. [167] 2nd link shows that official website of FPF lists Campeonato de Portugal in same level as Taça de Portugal winners, as Taça de Portugal Wikipedia article states. GSansana intention is very clear. He can't present any source because there aren't, and the text contradicts the Taça de Portugal article. Besides you can see that the account was only created to make this disruptive edit. He has no other intention. Not a single edition besides reverting to this false version.Rpo.castro (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for Ordonnia

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.

---

Ordonnia was blocked as a VOA and is using their talk page for vandalism. Could a sysop revoke their TPA? This is one of the many sockpuppets of the sockmaster and LTA NeverForgetToGoAround. They asked for it. Any sysop that is going to block an LTA account must include the parameter of talk page access being revoked. 24.55.33.220 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. TPA revoked. – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 29 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.

Partisan Bickering and Original Research on Article Urdu

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.

---

• Urdu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AlidPedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are continuously adding original research in the article and removing parts that do not align with their POV.

Previous version reverted to: [168]

• Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted AliPedian's content removal to previous stable version [169] but
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted it back to AliPedian's version [170]
• I tried to revert the article back to status quo ante dispute. [171] but this edit too was reverted back by AliPedian [172]
• AliPedian has been engaging in copyright violations and disruptive editing in the article as [173] clearly indicate.

Attempts for dispute resolution I attempted to engage with AliPedian on the talkpage sometime back here and now here citing multiple reliable sources [174] regarding various disputes with their POV. However AliPedian Fowler&fowler has been engaging there with Original Research and Fowler&fowler has demonstrated Pro-Pakistan POV and denial of the Hindustani language as a Wikipedia POV, disregarding the academic consensus and reliable sources that exist in its favour. Both of the editors are trying to steer the article in their POV with dubious sources.

• The editors have also questioned whether I can read and write Urdu [175]. I really do not understand when did that became a qualification to edit an article on Urdu here in Wikipedia.Logosx127 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Before any other accusations are made against me or Fowler&fowler by him, I would like the respected admins and moderators to first visit Talk:Urdu and see who is neglecting the consensus and sources, by cherry picking. Secondly, I did not copyright anything. And when the respected user @Koshuri Sultan clarified and fixed my mistakes in this regard on the article, I did not even revert the edits back and compromised. Because, I don't want to push my edits and involve in edit warring in any way. AlidPedian (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  ‎When I was very new to Wikipedia, a respected user @Apaugasma] told me 'The most important thing that you can break though is your relationship with other editors: the hardest thing on Wikipedia, as well as the single most important thing, is to stay cool, to remain friendly to other editors at all times (even when they are not too friendly!). '

  ‎

  ‎But that's where I made a mistake, when @Logosx127 used inappropriate words about a well-known historian and linguist Tariq Rahman (accusing him of biases and being "Pro-Partition"), and then he got the opportunity to start discussions against me and suppress me.

  And yet, I expressed my anger while remaining patient, and refrained from doing anything like this user. AlidPedian (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

AlidPedian, you just said you have refrained from misconduct but you just made accusations against Logosx127. Feel free to strike them if you reconsider your words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I understand the importance of maintaining a civil tone in discussions. I did not intend to make a personal accusation but rather to highlight concerns regarding the disregard of the work and references of reliable historians.

‎

I have gathered concrete evidence demonstrating that Logosx127 has repeatedly dismissed credible historian. I believe this is relevant to the discussion and would appreciate your review of his replies on Talk:Urdu. 1 2 3 4

‎

I will be mindful of my wording moving forward. Thanks again for your reply. 🌹 AlidPedian (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I also requested @Logosx127 to provide a single reference from a well-known and reliable historian supporting the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' as an accepted classification of the Urdu language, especially since he dismissed Tariq Rahman as biased and instead relied on the reference 'Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014)'. However, he did not address this request.

The authors of the reference provided by Logosx127 have indeed contributed commendable work. However, they are not widely recognized as leading historians or experts in the field. Additionally, the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' is not universally accepted in linguistic or academic circles. AlidPedian (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@AlidPedian, I have never said that Tariq Rahman is an unreliable historian. Why do you insist on accepting only him? There are other sources as well. The problem is that you are not willing to accept any other historians other than Tariq Rahman. Logosx127 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Read my reply again. I requested you more than once to at least provide the reference of another reliable and well-known historian, but you kept avoiding my requests, and then started the discussion at the noticeboard. AlidPedian (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127, I've read the talk page and it looks to me like this is still pretty solidly in "content dispute" stage, which means there isn't really anything for administrators to do about it. I know that probably isn't what you wanted to hear, and it's possible I missed something while reading, but it looks like everyone is being civil and you simply disagree with each other. It doesn't look like you've tried any of the other possibilities on WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, so start there. You may want to take the "dubious sources" to WP:RSN for an outside opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I do not think it is mere content dispute. The users are removing academic sources and sourced content, and adding original research and copyvio in its place. Their editing is disruptive and are engaging in tedious discussion disregarding existing consensus on the topic. They are edit-warring with other users when they get reverted. Is this just my suspicion or is there some degree of meat puppetry involved? I believe all this warrant some sort of an admin intervention. Logosx127 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127, I would be happy to take a look at any specific diffs showing original research being inserted into the article, but you haven't provided any. Who is supposed to be a meatpuppet of whom? I see the copyvio, but that's already been dealt with, so reporting it in the present tense isn't accurate, unless there's something else that still needs cleaning up. This is starting to skate uncomfortably close to WP:ASPERSION territory. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for your input. I understand that content disputes should generally be resolved through discussion and proper dispute resolution. However, I believe that even a brief review of the talk page discussions (including this thread).

To my knowledge, no widely recognized linguistic or historical authority supports 'Modern Standard Urdu' as an accepted term for the Urdu language. If such a source of a well known historian, linguist or expert exists, I have repeatedly asked for it to be presented, but no response has been given except for selective use of a single source. I appreciate your suggestion to take this matter to WP:RSN, and I will consider doing so for an external review. Please let me too know if there is a more suitable approach in this case. AlidPedian (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem you are not ready to admit reliable sources. The sources that I have provided clearly says Modern Standard Urdu or Standard Urdu. That is exactly why this is not a content dispute. The issue is that you editing disruptively by dismissing altogether the sources that I have provided Logosx127 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No one is against the term 'Standard Urdu", but you were not even ready to keep that term too. Do you remember?

You are repeatedly selectively using the same reference, for proving 'Modern Standard Urdu'. Do you know, you are harming the article by doing that? AlidPedian (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the administrators can atleast ensure a status quo ante revert in this article considering the fact that two users, including me, have opposed the edits (source and quote removal) by AlidPedian and Fowler. Logosx127 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Despite my attempts to engage in a constructive discussion, you continue to overlook my messages, which suggests that you may no longer have valid evidence to support your stance. This behavior raises questions about the strength of your position. I am tired of repeatedly making the same request to you. AlidPedian (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment There's not much for me to say here: perhaps only that the two battling editors here, Logos* and Ali* should avoid the use of interjection "Stop," or at least lessen its use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  My dear, I am not battling with him, I am just asking him to prove the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' from a well-known historian or linguist, but he is repeatedly selectively using a single source, which is not from a well-known historian or linguist. (at least from another historian, if he is not ready to have a consensus on the work of Tariq Rahman) AlidPedian (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Although I do agree that the predominance of the scholarly sources use only "Urdu," not "Modern Standard Urdu," I think it might be best for both of you to focus your considerable talents for a few weeks on other pages. Allow me, in my 19th year on Wikipedia, to repeat the advice (which some would say is benevolently paternalistic) I gave to other editors at ANI or ANE in this post I sincerely believe both of you and Koshuri* as well, should cut your teeth on other pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't feel I need to take an advice from you on which article I should edit and which one I should not. The problem is that you are not ready to accept reliable sources but your pov original research alone. Additionally, you asked me whether I know how to read and write Urdu, didn't you?. Logosx127 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Of course I did, because it makes a difference in a language article. Without any knowledge of, say, Chinese language, I wouldn't edit the Chinese language article, at least not edit war, with others on the basis of only an oblique English language source. I would be a great deal more circumspect. I mentioned in my edit summary that the Natonalism volumes are edited, that you should cite also the name of the chapter author, but you simply reversed my edit. On the other hand, if I did have competence in Chinese, I wouldn't bristle if someone asked me if I knew Chinese. I would say, for example, that I took two years in college and a summer course in graduate school at Middlebury College. It is not something I would attempt to drag someone to ANI even in my dreams, especially not if I'm on the cusp of violating 3RR, the last which I have self-reverted "for now," just before the ANI

  If you think an editor who is the chief author of the fairly stable articles East India Company rule in India, Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, and the Dominion of India, i.e. the period from 1765 to 1950 during which at first Urdu prose came to be developed and much later Modern Standard Hindi, not to mention the chief author also of FA India for the period after 1950, has survived for 18 years on Wikipedia on the "pov original research alone," I'm afraid I can't help you. This is my last post here. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler, I really like that AE comment you linked in your previous response. It's not just good advice, but good advice kindly and empathetically delivered. I have trouble reading in the same light this insistence that someone needs to have facility in Urdu to work on the article on Urdu. Sure, it's a reasonable assumption that someone who doesn't know a language is less likely to edit the article on that language accurately, but it's just an assumption. Comment on content, not editors, is in our guidelines for a reason. If the current lead is good, it will survive a consensus discussion.

  @Logosx127, it's true that @Fowler&fowler has an obvious POV, but so do you. That's normal. The aim now is to find the consensus version that exists somewhere in between these two POVs, according to what reliable sources say about the topic. It's not "original research" to have an opinion, so please don't accuse other editors of writing WP:OR for stating what they think.

  @AlidPedian, I don't know what to make of your comment here at all. It seems to me that you are the one repeatedly using a single source - Tariq Rahman. At any rate, I do think you should take @Fowler&fowler's advice.

  @Koshuri Sultan, please don't make comments like this. We do not at all have an obligation to keep a source in an article simply because the source is academic. The edit you reverted was perfectly acceptable. If you don't like the edit, that's fine - you're welcome to discuss on the talk page about why it shouldn't be removed. But You cannot remove it is simply not true. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  In my defense, I would like to clarify that I only mentioned Tariq Rahman till now, because he is not the only one who has never recognized the term 'Modern Standard Urdu'—he mostly refers to it as 'Urdu.' In fact, no well-known linguistic or historical authority acknowledges this term. That is why I requested @Logosx127 to provide a reference from a reputable historian or linguist, rather than repeatedly citing the same single source, to support the acceptance of this term. I am pleased to see that the discussion is now moving in a more constructive direction. 😊 AlidPedian (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your advice @Asilvering. Yes, I am not a native speaker of Urdu. But I fairly understand and speak Urdu. Hindi has been my third language and I frequently talk in Urdu with Urdu speakers. @Fowler&fowler is one of the edits who is in 'Hindustani language denial'. I have absolutely no interest in proving my proficiency in Urdu. This is the first time read that it is a standard to know the language before editing on its article on Wikipedia. If that is indeed the case, I must disengage myself from language related articles other than Malayalam. Logosx127 (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  PS I agree with @Asilvering: and apologize. It did want to say that the proper citation for Logosx127's source should be:

  • Brass, Paul (2000). "Elite Groups, Symbol Manipulation, and Ethnic Identity Among Muslims of South Asia". In Hutchinson, John; Smith, Anthony D. (eds.). Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Vol. 3. New York: Routledge. pp. 879–912, 890. ISBN 9780415201124.

  They did not have the name of the author, nor the chapter title. When I asked in my edit summary during my revert, they simply reinstated their edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Logosx127:, your edit summary here violates WP:NOTVAND. "Edits I disagree with" are not vandalism. Note that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. Refrain from this in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Are you sure that copyvio and removal of sources aren't vandalism? Logosx127 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Please read WP:VANDAL again, very carefully. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  It says: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Removal of reliable sources against consensus is not very far from what this says. Logosx127 (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Can you just set up an RFC on the talk page to resolve your differences and determine the current consensus on this question? It's not the purpose of ANI to settle content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Earlier comments of Fowler&fowler now subsumed by an RfC

That may be a good idea for the other editors, but it is not for me. I have no wish to interact further with Logosx127. We are entitled to our judgments and I judged my interaction with them not to have been productive for me. I am therefore walking away from this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC) PS But if someone wants to do this, they are welcome to use the sources below. There is obviously nothing called "Modern Standard Urdu." Urdu was standardized in the early 18th century. Modern Standard Hindi, on the other hand, was based on the "Khari boli" dialect, and did not come into being until the early decades of the 20th-century. The usage in the literature is: "Urdu" and "Modern Standard Hindi." No one made this clearer than my late friend Colin Paul Masica: Masica, Colin P. (1993). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge Language Surveys series. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 27. ISBN 0521299446. Counted as different languages in sociocultural Sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic Sense A. They are different literary styles based on the same linguistically defined subdialect. Here are two more, the modern whiz of Hindi Francesca Orsini and Google ngrams: Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920–1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780195650846. Urdu remained the dominant vernacular in Punjab, Delhi, and Awadh (Oudh) well into the twentieth century. The use of Khari Boli Hindi, which would later become modern standard Hindi, was more uneven The Google ngram viewer for (Modern Standard Hindi,Modern Standard Urdu) gives only the graph for Modern Standard Hindi (and that too after 1960s, but says: (!) Ngrams not found: Modern Standard Urdu Whoever does the RfC should advertise in WT:IN, WT:Pakistan, and WT:Linguistics. All the best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Liz: I have begun an RfC: Talk:Urdu#RfC_on_the_collocation_Modern_Standard_Urdu in the "lang, hist, and pol" categories and also advertised at WP:RS/N, WT:IN and WT:Pakistan Pinging @asilvering, @Logosx127, @AlidPedian, @Koshuri Sultan, and @The Bushranger Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Asilvering, @Liz. For now, I will be restoring what @AlidPedian had removed since two editors, @Koshuri Sultan and I, clearly disagree with it. @Asilvering, it's true that they are entitled to have their POV. But attempt to remove the reliable sources that are apparently against their POV, and that too when other editors disagree, is not very normal. That's the least I can say on this practice. Logosx127 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Fowler&fowler, That's simply not true. Your POV reflects an ideology that Urdu is pure and immutable. Urdu language can mean more than one thing. For example, there's a Dhaka Urdu and it is nothing but the Sanskritised variant, i.e, Hindi. Here, the nomenclature 'Urdu' clearly denotes there cultural identity. Therefore Standard Urdu is obviously the accurate nomenclature for the language that is officially defined as Urdu. Urdu has had various forms in its developmental history as well. So the name 'Modern Standard Urdu.
Again, your claim that "There is obviously nothing called "Modern Standard Urdu."" is absolutely wrong. There are ample sources in support of the term:

• Morphological Analysis of Modern Standard Urdu
• The History of the Urdu Language Together with Its Origin and .... The abstract says: The objective of this paper is to briefly review the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu...
• [176] : the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu.
• scriptsource.org
• [177] speaks of the modern convention that uses Hindi to mean Modern Standard Hindi, Urdu to mean Modern Standard Urdu, and Hindustani to mean the “undivided language”.
• [178] Some languages have standard forms. The Standard form of Urdu language is Modern Standard Urdu
• [179] Modern Standard Urdu, the formal version of the language, is deeply influenced by Arabic and Persian, reflecting centuries of cultural exchange and ...
• [180] Modern Standard Urdu is a standardized register of the Hindustani language.
• [181] This course is an introduction to the modern standard form of Hindi-Urdu
• [182] Urdu is widely known as the national language of Pakistan, but it is also one of India’s 22 official languages. Modern Standard Urdu, once commonly known as a variant of Hindustani, a colloquial language combining the modified Sanskrit words found in Hindi with words brought to India via Persian, Arabic, Portuguese, Turkish and other languages, is a language with one of the most fascinating and complex histories in the world.
• [183] It will cover basic grammar of modern standard Urdu.
• [184] A standardised register of the Hindustani language, Modern Standard Urdu or Urdu, as it is more commonly known, is historically associated with Muslims living in the Hindustan region of the sub-continent.
• [185]
• Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014).Error analysis of the Urdu verb markers: a comparative study on Google and Bing machine translation platforms". Aligarh Journal of Linguistics. 4 (1–2): 1. Modern Standard Urdu, a register of the Hindustani language, is the national language, lingua-franca and is one of the two official languages along with English in Pakistan and is spoken in all over the world.

There are multiple other google search results including:

• • [186]
  • quora
  • Wikiquote
• Many sources tend to use the term "Modern Vernacular Urdu", which is linguistically equivalent to "Modern Standard Urdu".
  • [187] : The modern vernacular Urdu, also known as Standard Urdu, is based on the dialect spoken in Delhi. Logosx127 (talk) 06:34, 29 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 talk:The kid laroi Is worse than Heinrich Himmler

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 revoke TPA for User talk:The kid laroi Is worse than Heinrich Himmler. Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:00, 31 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.

Possible block evasion on Boot camp (correctional)

• Boot camp (correctional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been at least four previously blocked WP:SPAs on Boot camp (correctional) that keep adding the same content. It looks like a textbook WP:RGW situation, but it would be good to get experienced eyes on this if it's also WP:BLOCKEVASION.

• Current SPA: Human rights promoter (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)
• DonaldJuniorTrump (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)
• Truthpedic (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)
• Liberty666 (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)
• Free258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-Amigao (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Pretty blatant block evasion. Making the exact same edits; The current account ("Human rights promoter") was created one day after "DonaldJuniorTrump" was blocked.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me and accordingly blocked. In the future, WP:SPI should be where you take this sort of thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption of Boot camp (correctional) goes back quite a while. I semi-protected the article for 90 days on January 26. I encourage adminstrators and other editors to put this article on their watch lists and to act promptly at any sign of disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion on 71.35.0.0/19

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• 71.35.0.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Block evasion. Blocked ranges:
• 71.35.8.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked 6 months)
• 71.35.19.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked 1 month)

The ranges were too narrow, we have to block /19. Maybe it should be globally blocked, might be a proxy.

Current and previous IPs:

• 71.35.29.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.35.17.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.35.19.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (globally blocked as open proxy)
• 71.35.10.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.35.12.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vandal repeatedly blanked the user talk pages, check their history for a long list of final warnings. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked the /19 for 6 months. There's nothing there since 2019 that isn't this editor, and I noticed that some individual IPs in the range are globally blocked as proxies anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thelittlefaerie and population statistics

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

---

This is re: this discussion from January about User:Thelittlefaerie's continuous unsourced changes to population statistics in Afghanistan. User:MolecularPilot closed this discussion "with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur." Unfortunately, this is now the case.

Since the closure of this discussion, every single edit this user has made has been in regard to Afghani population data and is violation of Wikipedia policy, as detailed below.

1. Changes to three superlative lists using the US Census estimate, without sourcing it:

• Islam in Asia [188],
• List of countries and dependencies by population density [189],
• and List of countries by arable land density [190].

2. An attempt to change the population of Afghanistan in the main population list to the US estimate as opposed to the current consensus (the U.N. estimate). [191]

3. Completely fictitious populations for 2 Afghani cities:

• Kabul [192],
• and Mazar-i-Sharif [193]

4. Reverting the population of Kandahar [194] to a more out of date estimate, for no good reason.

I ask that this matter be reconsidered in whatever ways necessary. Kmhkei (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The user has not edited since February. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 13:26, 30 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.

LTA vandal changing images on medical articles

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

---

IP: Special:Contributions/203.177.33.202. Per title. Already reported at WP:AIV (by 3 different editors) but there's a backlog and the IP doing a lot of rapid vandalism and would be good to nip this in the bud. This is a LTA who does this exact thing every few weeks. Thanks BugGhost 🦗👻 12:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

They've been going strong for nearly an hour now. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! BugGhost 🦗👻 12:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It's finally over. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Almost. IP comments at their Talk page now suggest that TPA should be revoked? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Revoked. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 30 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.

Appeal Interaction Ban

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

---

On February 8, I was IBANned from User:Engage01 for the reasons listed here.

Whereas, Engage01 has been account blocked indefinitely for the reasons set forth here, the interaction ban is moot. Any questions? Kire1975 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Contact the imposing administrator first if you haven't already, and then go to WP:AN. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Please make a compelling case for a reduction of the ban and an uninvolved admin will weigh in on your request. I don't think it necessarily needs to move to AN since it's here already, but @GommehGaming101 is correct that AN would have been the better venue. Star Mississippi 15:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I have put a notice in the imposing administrator's talk page. If the reasons stated above are not compelling enough, please elaborate. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I see little chance of Engage01 writing a successful appeal. In addition, being under an iban can be stressful, so I'd support lifting the IBAN. If Engage01 were to get unblocked at some point in the future, of course, it would be smart to leave each other alone completely. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Kire1975, an indefinite block is not an infinite block, and there is a possibility that Engage01 might be unblocked at some point. That could certainly result in conflict between the two of you, and the discussion that led to the February IBAN showed that you do not deal well with such conflicts. In my opinion, the IBAN is to your benefit, and I believe that it is too soon to consider lifting it. All of this has transpired in about two months. My suggestion is to follow the wise advice that Paul McCartney offered all of us 55 years ago, and Let It Be. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

328 105.112.211.238 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you please state what the benfit of the IBAN is please? Kire1975 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Indefinite is not infinite. And if the iban is moot, then...it's moot. Which means there's no reason to repeal it either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  If anything, a community ban would greatly moot it, but it's to the benefit of Kire that they just keep their side of the IBAN active. At least for now. Conyo14 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please restate the reason? Kire1975 (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Either Engage01 is never unblocked and so the iban doesn't matter, or they are then it's better the iban stays in place. Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The reason for the IBAN, I mean. The uninvolved administrator is entitled to know. Kire1975 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The uninvolved administrator, who it should be noted supported the iban in the first place and thus isn't exactly 'uninvolved', can click links and remind themselves themselves. And my point stands. There is no need to rescind the iban. If Engage01 remains blocked, the iban doesn't matter. If they are unblocked, the iban is relevant. I strongly suggest you drop the stick instead of resuming your behavior from the previous discussion. I'll also note your initial request here, which you seem to be puzzled is inadequate, could easily be used as a template for how not to request the removal of a sanction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to what Star said above: Please make a compelling case for a reduction of the ban and an uninvolved admin will weigh in on your request. The IBAN was unjustified. The uninvolved administrator who is going to review the request deserves to have the reasons for it articulated. Kire1975 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus of the Wikipedia community was that it was, in fact, entirely justified. You'd be very well advised to stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The IBAN was unjustified? You yourself changed your opposition to support it. I think the matter here is whether you'd be allowed to edit on articles that Engage01 also edited on, right? Since technically that IBAN is in effect regardless of whether Engage01 is blocked or not. I agree with Bushranger on that, but also think that the behavior from editing those articles, along with the prior ANI report, is what prompted the IBAN (not saying the edits you did were wrong, just the behavior). It's best to steer clear of them for a bit longer then make the request at WP:AN. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I changed my opposition to support because the unjustified opposition and the emotional threats articulated again by Bushranger above and others were causing me medical distress. User:Femke cited "stress" as the reason for the IBAN. I'm asking for someone to articulate the actual justifications for the IBAN so that the uninvolved administrator Star spoke about can make a fully informed decision. Is there something unreasonable about this request? Kire1975 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  You started off this appeal just saying it wasn't needed because if the indef. You're now instead appealing based on it being unjustified in the first place. If any uninvolved admin reviewing has questions about why the iban was placed they're free to ask themselves. Most of the time they stuff said at the time is sufficient to explain it to them. They definitely don't need the party with the iban saying they the assessing admin needs further explanation. It seems to me it's moot anyway. Any uninvolved admin is likely to reject your request since while you're now claiming it was never justified you haven't actually explained why it was unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also IMO @Star Mississippi: has unfortunately given you poor or at least confusing advice here. Per the discussion you linked, the iban was by community consensus. It can therefore only be revoked by community consensus. The only thing an uninvolved admin will do is to assess any new community consensus on removing your iban, they won't be assessing your appeal themselves. They could help form the new consensus but there's no requirement to be an admin, or even uninvolved to do so, they're basically just a community member weighing in on your appeal. (But uninvolved editor views will generally carry more weight.) The rationale for why the community came to this consensus is in the linked thread, and no one can really "articulate" the reasons, or at least if someone does it's basically just their personal summary which may or may not be a good summary but cannot be said to be some sort of definitive explanation. In complicated matters especially with a very long discussion, the closing admin may have offered a more detailed summary which the community may rely on but there isn't a requirement for that provided it's clear that the admin adequately assessed the consensus. Also this is more about how the strength of arguments were assessed etc than an explanation of why the community felt how they did and with behavioural issues there often isn't much more to say than based on this behaviour "I feel it would be better for the community of this editor is (whatever sanction)". If any editor feels that the community didn't sufficiently explain why they were ibanning you in the linked thread, they're likely to support a removal of the iban, but the presence or absence of someone else summarising the community consensus is largely irrelevant to that. Generally if editor affected by the consensus approaches the closing admin they can ask for further clarification to help them understand the decision but this is primarily for their benefit and the editor should do it on their own talk page not at ANI and you really should have done it when the decision was still fresh in the mind of the closing admin. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  It was clear to me that the indef was enough to render the IBAN moot. Your opinion that he might be coming back is easy to disagree with, but elaborating would be making reference to the other party and per WP:IBAN, I am forbidden from doing so.

  All I am allowed to say about it is that it is unjustified and to point out the fact that none of the opposers have stated a valid reason for it, then or now.

  ...you really should have [asked for clarification] when the decision was still fresh in the mind of the closing admin.

  I was experiencing medical distress at that time. Kire1975 (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Kire1975, this is probably obvious from above but I suggest you drop this. However especially if you want to continue it I do have a question. Is there something in particular you're concerned about with the iban e.g. accidentally reverting something Engage01 did? Or are there some threads you want to participate in which involved Engage01 that you want to participate in? Or is it just that the you don't like having the iban and it's causing distress even if it has no effect on your editing and you barely even have to think about it as long as the indef remains in place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do have a concern, but it would require making reference to the other party on Wikipedia. Is there a private mesage way to answer your question or do you have the authority to allow me to answer here? Kire1975 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Indefinite does not mean forever, that IBAN was put up with unanimous support for good reasons, and far from the reasons for removing it being "compelling enough," I haven't seen any reasons articulated why the community would want to do so. Given that, to be blunt, if the OP is claiming that the mere fact of being under an IBAN is detrimental to their mental health, then I can only wonder why the OP engaged in such behavior in the first place to merit receiving one, and over the likelihood the often-high stress environment of Wikipedia will prove detrimental to the OP in the future. Ravenswing 07:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  What is the "behavior" you describe? What actions justified the ban? Please don't speculate about my medical issues. Kire1975 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Gommeh, Nil Einne and Conyo14 have suggested moving this discussion to WP:AN, that's what I'm going to do. This is not an urgent matter. Kire1975 (talk) 11:24, 31 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 by Cytkory

User:Cytkory has engaged in disruptive editing by repeatedly adding unsourced info to page West End theatre

See [195],[196],[197]

I tried to engage on the talk page as can be seen at Talk:West End theatre#Operation Mincemeat limited run

Multiple talkbacks were left on Cytkory's user talk page - see [198], [199] which were acknowledged by being reverted [200]

Cytkory appeared to have dropped the stick for this dispute for several months, until they picked it up again today, still with no discussion on the talk page. DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

TPA Needs Yanked.

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

---

This IP User_talk:50.218.168.202 TPA needs yanking. See edits summaries in history of their talk page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:49, 31 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 range 2405:6E00:2EE:6294:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2405:6E00:2EE:6294:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range has been adding false information to multiple articles [201] [202] [203] [204] and their contributions have all been unconstructive. They've been warned multiple times here and here but still keep on doing it. Can we have their /64 taken care of? Parksfan1955 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Feel free to let me know on my page if you should see them resume after the block. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 31 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.

Sinatra editor

• 38.71.12.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 38.86.198.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:6000:c8f0:82d0::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rcowick48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryanshawdrums (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From behavioral evidence, these are all the same editor, although the Ryanshawdrums account has not edited since last September.

This editor has been adding grotesquely detailed Personnel sections to articles about music albums featuring Frank Sinatra, listing every musician who played in the orchestra on each track of the album, along with details of the date, time, and city in which each track was recorded. The absurdity of these edits is most evident in The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings, where the section consists of over 15,000 words. There was a discussion of these edits on Wikiproject Music, where four editors participated and all agreed that the material is inappropriate. The editor was invited to that discussion but did not participate. In fact as far as I can tell, they have never edited a talk page of any kind, have not responded to warnings on their talk pages, and have not even used an edit summary except for 3 edits by the Ryanshawdrums account in 2021.

Rather than communicating, the editor has been edit warring to restore their edits. They have done this 10 times on The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings article in the past 6 days: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, warring against 6 other editors (@AwerDiWeGo, @Michael Bednarek, @Popcornfud, @Discospinster, @Valorrr and myself. They have been similarly edit warring on other articles during this period, although somewhat less prolifically, such as All the Way (Frank Sinatra album) (1, 2, 3); The Complete Capitol Singles Collection (1, 2); Ultimate Sinatra (1, 2) and others.

I have notified the two IPv4 accounts of this discussion.

Added: after submitting this report, I see that the first IP has been blocked by Drmies. CodeTalker (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• I just blocked one of them, for a month, but I have no objection to someone blocking more and longer. Yeah CodeTalker I saw you post the notification and had a look. It's crazy. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note also that the content in question is completely uncited. ... discospinster _talk 22:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: the editor's latest addition of the disputed content to The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings was reverted at 22:41 today by @Hy Brasil. The content was again re-added at 23:31, this time by the Rcowick48 account. In other words, they are still edit warring while this report is open. CodeTalker (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've notifed Rcowick48 and Ryanshawdrums. I've semi-protected The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hello! I just responded in the Wikiproject Music. But I’ll paste it here.

  Hello! I got a notification on all of this, and have been trying to figure out what exactly is happening here. A few months ago, I went through and compiled the info on personnel for Sinatra records from the book “Put Your Dreams Away”. I’m not ann experienced Wikipedia editor but knew this info would be appreciated. Every edit I made has cited that book. As a musician myself who regularly performs and studies this music, this information was never available anywhere online. Since I found it useful, I decided to add the information specifically under Personnel for Sinatra recordings, album by album. (Many musicians I know are thrilled that this is now available). In my opinion, Wikipedia is the perfect location for this information, especially when it’s located in its own personnel tab.

  With that said, I’ve never edited a collection, because as people are pointing out, it’s overwhelming to list personnel that way, track by track. So I’m definitely not involved with the current edits. While I don’t get bothered by overwhelming information on musicians, I can see why the entire Reprise collection having this info is quite unnecessary. Especially since the info is available more succinctly by album.

  Ryanshawdrums (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding albums specifically, not the entries for collections, I just restored personnel information on the specific albums "Sinatra Swingin' Session", and "Nice n Easy". I am baffled that somebody would remove this info from album information the specific personnel tab. Musicians are fascinated by this information and it has never been widely available for Frank Sinatra recordings. It belongs on pages detailing Frank Sinatra's albums. Frank himself addressed the musicians at his sessions by name. He would want this information known. Ryanshawdrums (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. It is not encyclopedic information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sinatra having died before Wikipedia was founded, we have no actual clue what he would have wanted here or not, his personal familiarity with individual session musicians notwithstanding. Short of breaking out a Ouija board, we won't find out, even if any of this was in the least degree pertinent to how Wikipedia governs the inclusion of information in articles. Which it is not. Ravenswing 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ryanshawdrums, you might be right this information should be out there on the internet, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  @CambridgeBayWeather: Please note that at least one of these users (Rcowick48) is autoconfirmed and has continued to engage in disruptive behavior on The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings, despite your protection of the page. Alxeedo ゐ talk 04:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Missed that. Given they haven't responded here I've blocked them from article space for two weeks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• I have a completely different problem with these additions: they are full of unexplained abbreviations that make this content so reader-unfriendly as to be useless in this worldwide general encyclopedia. I was in band in middle school so I'm pretty sure "wwd" is "woodwind", but is someone in Ghana or El Salvador who just heard Sinatra for the first time and wants to learn more about the recordings going to be able to winkle that out? I actually think that, if presented in a more broadly comprehensible fashion, much of this content is of encyclopedic interest, but as is, it's conceptually on a par with jargon-laden science-fiction television episode recaps. When in doubt, be nice to the readers and assume they came here to learn more about a new topic that intrigues them but has no further familiarity with the universe of the entertainment, be it an orchestra or Starfleet. Julietdeltalima (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'd note that at least based on this version [205] it's not even clear what song is referred to. I guess track 1 is probably disc 1 track 1 and track 26 is probably disc 2 track 1 etc, but this isn't established anywhere AFAICT. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

User:GlowstoneUnknown 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.

---

User:GlowstoneUnknown disregards opinion of me and other editors requiring other editors to establish consensus with them specifically and undoes all edits that do not have consensus with them specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1283262058 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1278175745 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Systems_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1278175949

Possibly look at whole history misusing word "consensus" where only consensus that matters is what they agree with personally.

Other users have done edits based on my edits, but apparently they have forgot to consult only consensus-builder.

-- Svito3 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Your assertion that I [undo] all edits that do not have consensus with [me] specifically is inaccurate, as the diffs you've cited were specifically about the edits not having been discussed beforehand, not about whether it was discussed with me or not. The edits reverting TEMPO156's contributions were about their adding of new categories that caused issues with the colourblind accessibility of File:Forms of government.svg, and it was resolved through discussion after my reverts. I believe I've made it clear in the article's discussion page that the content of your edits is fine in principle, but your implementation had issues that needed to be solved through discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable way of going about things, @GlowstoneUnknown. @Svito3, can you please explain why you did not discuss the issue on the relevant talk pages first? Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@GommehGaming101 Can you formulate that question to be more direct what the issue you think is? Svito3 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Put simply, it's the thing that GlowstoneUnknown was talking about in the post I replied to. In other words, the implementation (not the content) of your edits. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, and prove me wrong, lack of consensus is established by an editor that first creates dispute, and if subject wasn't discussed there is no reason to cite any "consensus" or mark edit as "undiscussed" because consensus is established in discussion, before that whole subject of "lack of consensus" and "undiscussedness" is irrelevant because either you revert revert and continue dispute or go to talk and continue dispute and establish consensus there with other editor.

IMHO including "lack of consensus" or "not previously discussed" in edit summary for new edit that wasn't discussed previously is gaslighting and agressively combative move, because establishing consensus and discussing is NEXT step, when it has past tense in actual edit summary, establishing a fault with other editor, blaming and teasing them that THEY and only THEY didn't discuss it. Polite edit summary would be forward-looking "let's establish consensus" or "let's discuss this first". Instead it's the past tense, passive aggressive, "fuck you cowboy, I got here first". Svito3 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I mean by misrepresenting consensus. If there new edits obviously they're not discussed. And reverting them isn't an issue. Gaslighting with past tense edits "well this wans't discussed with me!" is. There isn't any willingness to discuss in the past tense, there is only a fault. Svito3 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Svito3, instead of arguing against what you thought they meant by their revert, how about you consider the explanation actually provided by User:GlowstoneUnknown here in this discussion? It seems like you read a lot into their edit that wasn't their intention. And yes, this dispute should have been discussed first before posting on ANI, either on the article talk page or on their User talk page. ANI is the noticeboard to come to when other forms of dispute resolution haven't been successful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

So you don't care about the issue. Good point, It's Wikipedia, where nobody gives a shit about people. Svito3 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. Svito3 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say this discussion was a waste of time. But I'd recommend changing your attitude because you are continuing to misinterpret comments and actions in the worst possible way that wasn't intended by the original poster. You are being hostile when no one has been acting aggressively towards you. This IS Wikipedia where disputes happen every day and we have processes to deal with them. You opened this thread here but you seem to be upset when editors respond with their opinions. What result were you looking for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I have made a mistake even opening this ANI, and it was unlikely anyone would agree or provide sympathy to my argument. It's not a support channel for shitty editors like me. -- Svito3 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Svito3 these diffs only show one revert of your edits by GlowstoneUnknown. the other two are reverts of edits by @TEMPO156, who I would assume is a different editor. Either way three diffs of reverts are hardly enough to establish a pattern of overriding consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This content dispute should be handled on the talk page, as @GlowstoneUnknown was trying to do at Talk:List of countries by system of government#Undiscussed expansion of article scope. @Svito3, WP:BOLD makes it clear that: Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Yet here we are for that very reason: you are upset that your bold edits were reverted.

@Svito3, you are also not assuming good faith of other editors: e.g., nobody gives a shit about people. This issue has been raised here before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1164#Svito3.

I strongly advise you to read WP:AGF and apply it, even when you are mad at someone. The key is to treat others kindly, even when you strongly disagree. You are much more likely to get traction on an issue that way. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Svito3 blocked 31 hours for personal attacks. Besides comments here, see Special:Diff/1283323217 and all subsequent edits by them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:00, 31 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.

Genre Warrior

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:98.220.102.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a genre warrior spree for some time. Recent disruptive edits include: [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211]. Disruptive editing has continued past a final warning. Anerdw (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please alert this user to the opening of an ANI case regarding them. I have done so for you Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It would seemed their talk page has disappeared, I can't even view the history. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User talk:98.220.102.33. Deor (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

I think this can be safely closed. The accused have been dealt with. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:02, 28 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.

JuanP3rs inserting non-neutral/promotional content and removing sourced content

Since November 2023, User:JuanP3rs has been editing El Salvador related articles on Wikipedia in a manner that is un-encyclopedic, non-neutral, at at times largely or entirely unsourced. Myself and other editors (full disclosure, however, mostly myself) in the past have issued the user warnings on their talk page, but they have almost entirely been seemingly ignored or otherwise dismissed. I have been as nice and patient as I can be but I believe that the behavior has been occurring for too long with no indication of stopping.

Some examples of this behavior include:

• November 2023: Special:Diff/1187172705 – removed an AfD template while an active AfD was in progress. Participated in the discussion writing "There are enough evidence of the work of the First Lady and the benefits for the salvadoran" but did not explain why the template was removed
• November 2023: Special:Diff/1187174222 – deleted text regarding the arrests of minors as young as 12 with a citation to Human Rights Watch (reliable source, clearly stated in linked reference); deleted the text claiming "There is no evidence of 12 children arrested"
• November 2023: Special:Diff/1187177162 – deleted text that is cited in the body of the article without explanation and completely changed the text to only focus on one aspect of social media use (in a non-neutral manner); edit summary: "Social networks are also used to show the good and benefits of the work being done"
• January 2024: Special:Diff/1200567141 – deleted sourced content about a properly worded credible allegation claiming that it is "not confirmed o it's a very vague information"
• October 2024: Special:Diff/1253458338 Special:Diff/1253438645 – removed an image complimenting the text claiming that it was "exposing a fugitive from justice"; I asked on the user's talk page as to what that meant but I did not receive an elaboration.
• January 2025: Special:Diff/1269507483 – paragraphs that promote anti-inflation policies and reads like a public announcement of how the government plans to implement the policy and how it will be beneficial; edit summary reads "Adding special info about the anti-inflation measures that bukele has implemented"
• March 2025: Special:Diff/1280994910 – largely unsourced section that promotes cultural things that the Salvadoran government has done with random bolding that emphasizes parts of the paragraphs of text and has a non-neutral tone. reads like a promotion
• March 2025: Special:Diff/1283346174 – removing the same image from October 2024 without explanation, changing the wording of parts of the articles regarding credible allegations to explicitly discredit them in Wikipedia’s voice. User inserted the sentence “The digital newspaper El Faro was never able to present legitimate evidence to support its claims, to which Nayib Bukele's government denied the accusations and showed the reality of gang members in prisons”. He also changed a sentence that simply said Bukele denied allegations to “Bukele has denied all these accusations, as there is no legitimate evidence for any of the allegations against his government”.
• March 2025: Special:Diff/1283345664 Special:Diff/1283346509 – first edit inserted unsourced content and removed sourced content. I asked for the user to cite their sources, the next edit again removed sourced content and the insertion of content with a promotional tone. The edit summary was “Bukelism is now a reality”.

I believe that these edits could fall under WP:NOTHERE with the prevalent non-neutral tone on several of these edits. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

A 5 year old leaked his address

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.

---

It happened on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Kids FightingForSomeJustice (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This has been redacted. CMD (talk) 04:19, 4 April 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.

Mass AFD by MANY accounts.

User:74x6188942 User:74x5517617 User:40x1755407 User:63x9553118 User:24x7938275 There are WAY to many to list. All mass nominating pages for AFD. I have left an alert on one of the many many user accounts. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember which LTA this is, but semi'ed Black Farmers and Urban Gardeners Conference and a few of us are block conflicting. Star Mississippi 00:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

To add onto this. At least one of these users (User:66x8587168, now blocked) has left offensive messages that included slurs on another user's talk page: [212]. The diff was deleted from page history, but still wanted to note this egregious behavior. Alxeedo ゐ talk 00:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

74x2095725 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has the worst of it, IAR CSDing some nonsense AfDs if no one !voted and speedy closing others. Thanks @LakesideMiners for flagging Star Mississippi 00:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast work on the above article, Star; that was just a vicious attack and I just hoped the block would land soon (was out in public so an ANI post just wasn't happening as I saw it). Nathannah • 📮 00:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your cleanup @Nathannah. @Moneytrees, list is above and in the history of BFUG if you need to assume the other blocks. Star Mississippi 01:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

of course! Glad its been taken care of! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• I cleaned up two of the articles they were targeting. Not sure why they were targeting Killerdani12's work, but it may need some eyes for folks online tonight for more nonsense. Star Mississippi 01:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia....... itself should do the ultimate joke..... and have no editing for April Fool's at all. Moxy🍁 01:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think it’s some random trolling. I think I’ve got all the accounts, for now.. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep an eye out, y’all, there might be more to come here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Persistent misinformation and disruption by 183.99.45.103

Special:Contributions/183.99.45.103 has been on a rampage across locomotive articles. Their favorite activity is to violate MOS:SOB by changing links like ALCO 244 to ALCO 12-244, which is annoying on its own, but more malicious is their intentional addition of misinformation by messing with production numbers and dates. Most recently, they've been adding misinformation that the EMD SD40X had 12 units built [213], including in 1979; a quick glance at page 72 of Louis A. Marre's Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years shows this is BS; 9 were built between 1964 and 1965. Same story at GE Dash 8-40BW, where they're changing the production count from the correct 84 to the fake 156 [214]; Greg McDonnell's Field Guide to Modern Diesel Locomotives makes it clear on page 36 that the 156 number is bogus. They're also a fan of making all sorts of changes to production numbers with no sources, such as here: [215]. This IP editor will edit war to keep their blatantly false / MOS violating edits on articles; as I speak they're edit warring at EMD GP39 with 4 reverts in one day [216] [217] [218] [219].

They've also edited under Special:Contributions/2001:e60:3120:f2c::2a20:98a4 recently. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Caught another example: adding the fictitious production count of 156 to MLW M-420 [220]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I posted on AIV about this IP before seeing this. This LTA tends to IP-hop a lot - see the history of EMD GP39. Might be worth a long block on 183.99.40.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as that hits several years of socks with no collateral damage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the /21 range for a month. Editors from this range never seem to explain themselves on talk pages and they trigger the edit filter constantly. If you have a list of articles that ought to be semiprotected let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi - can you increase page protection on EMD GP40-2? 4300streetcar (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar pattern of subtle vandalism by Special:Contributions/14.137.223.64 - subtly changing numbers or removing words. 4300streetcar (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked 2001:E60:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from EMD GP40-2 for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MandyGarnerCano

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.

---

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

This editor appears to either be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or is just a troll. Nevertheless, the editor is WP:NOTHERE per their comments on Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign and the recreation of their userpage with tendentious rhetoric. cyberdog958^Talk 07:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, somewhat glaringly, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

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

editor violating NLT

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.

---

eraser7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eraser7777 see this talk repeatedly removing content and making legal threats Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Those are clear legal threats. Also the second time this week we've seen an editor get upset about an article about a person who happens to share their name but who is otherwise obviously a completely different person. Must be a full moon or something. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It is baffling that they are worried about being confused with one of ten Patrick Smith articles, especially considering Patrick Smith (fighter) apparently died 6 years ago REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:17, 1 April 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 conduct and personal attacks by JBL in content dispute (Markov chain)

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’d like to report disruptive behavior and personal attacks by User:JBL in the context of an ongoing content dispute at the article Markov chain.

I initiated a DRN request to clarify whether a source (a 2017 peer-reviewed Wiley book) meets WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. JBL responded not with content-based arguments, but with dismissive rhetoric and an explicit call for me to be blocked:

"The correct resolution... is that the forum-shopping disruptive filer should be blocked... volunteers not waste their valuable time with this inanity." → Diff to JBL’s comment

This comment:

Violates WP:CIVIL (calling the request "inanity", referring to me as a "disruptive filer")

Violates WP:AGF by attributing bad faith without evidence

Is entirely off-topic for DRN, which is meant to be collaborative and policy-focused

I’ve responded respectfully and with reference to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE at every step. I request administrative attention to this behavior so that collaborative dispute resolution can continue without intimidation.

Additionally, JBL removed a civil and policy-based comment I left on their talk page requesting constructive dialogue and warning about potential WP:HARASSMENT concerns. → [to diff showing deletion] (from 13:36 to 17:50, 31 March 2025)

Additional note regarding JBL's comment

I’d like to add that JBL has now followed up with a further personal attack:

“It would be great if this tiresome and disruptive editor could be blocked sooner rather than later.” — JBL (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully believe this further violates WP:CIVIL and confirms the need for administrative review. I remain focused on resolving the content dispute through policy-based discussion.

Thank you.

Notification on JBL talk page: Disruptive conduct and personal attacks by JBL in content dispute (Markov chain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricoLivingstone (talk • contribs)

It would be great if this tiresome and disruptive editor could be blocked sooner rather than later. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess this is forum number 6 on which this has been shopped: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Improper_removal_of_Wiley_academic_source_from_"Markov_chain"_article_—_possible_coordinated_abuse, Talk:Markov_chain#Proposal_to_reintroduce_peer-reviewed_source_(Wiley,_2017), Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Markov_chain, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Wiley_(2017)_Markov_Chains_by_Gagniuc_a_reliable_academic_source_for_definitions/history?, Wikipedia:Teahouse#A_content_dispute_about_a_peer-reviewed_Wiley_textbook_on_Markov_chains. Everything you need to know about the relevant context can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#Indef_needed_for_aggressive_refspammer or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2024/Jun#Advice_on_dealing_with_questionable_citations_in_lead. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand, what is the problem with the book? It looks fine to me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead an indef blocked for disruptive editing, if anyone wants to review the block or adjust it be my guest. I’d wager this’ll be an SPI issue before too much longer as well, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this Markov chain issue has been bouncing around all over the place. EEng 17:17, 1 April 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.

Source misrepresentation at Talk:Vasojevići

• Aeengath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vasojevići (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was originally going to be an AE report, but it tuns out that despite having been around for 8 years and nearly 8 thousand edits, Aeengath has never received a proper DS or CTOPs notification.

1. March 14 Aeengath opens an RfC at Talk:Vasojevići. The main thing to note here is the intended text that Aeengath is proposing to add, because we're about to look at the quotes from sources that Aeengath asserts support these claims.
2. March 16 Aeengath lists several quotes to support their arguments in a discussion at Talk:Vasojevići. In particular, look at their readings of Murati, Vickers, and Elsie. While their reading of Elsie could be a misunderstanding within the realm of reasonable error, their reading of Murati and Vickers is directly counter to what the quoted sources state. I pointed this out to them. Others similarly took issue. Had I been uninvolved at this point in the timeline (and had Aeengath previously received proper CTOPS notification), I would have likely issued sanctions on the spot for the misrepresentation Murati and Vickers. Being involved, I assumed good faith and continued to request sources relevant to finding a way towards consensus.
3. March 16 Aeengath continues to engage in a superficially gracious and compliant manner. There's a bit more back-and-forth in this vein over the following days.
4. March 24 Aeengath presents the culmination of their efforts, which does not at all take into account the concerns regarding how Murati, Vickers and Elsie are being misrepresented. I point this out, and reviewing this now in hindsight the reduction of Vickers and Murati's clear assertions that the Vasojevici were at one point Albanian to Some scholars, such as Robert Elsie have suggested the possibility that the Vasojevići may have been Albanian-speaking prior to Slavicisation is way more egregious than the misrepresentation of Elsie, which I mistakenly focused my response on.
5. March 26 Aeengath states that they are struggling to see where they are misrepresenting sources.

I think this is clear-cut misrepresentation of sources and textbook civil POV-pushing. Aeengath is clearly perfectly capable of engaging with dense academic sources, but appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. I think this warrants a topic-ban from Balkan ethnic disputes. Aeengath has already complained that my conduct in this dispute is unbecoming of an admin, so I'll note that I have not only not used any admin tools or authority here, I played ball and continued to assume good faith and provide opportunities for Aeengath to correct their arguments well past the point where I believed that unilateral admin action would have been warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, reading your report, but not the sources, I have a question about your statement that the editor but appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. To me, any action is dependent on whether this is an isolated case or a standard practice of misrepresenting sources on this subject. Are you aware of other instances of this occurring? Since you are considering what I consider severe sanction in a topic ban, I think it's essential that this editor has received prior warnings about this kind of conduct. I guess what I'm asking is, is this part of a pattern? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I've never interacted with them prior to this discussion (which I was summoned to by bot) and have no prior knowledge of their edits, nor do I intend to snoop through their contribution history for more dirt. If the community feels that a logged warning is more appropriate at this time, I'm fine with that outcome. That having been said, I think that this is a clear-cut case of repeatedly misrepresenting sources (albeit all in relation to one dispute) to an unacceptable degree, despite collegial encouragement to revise their views in light of what the sources say, and I'm skeptical that an editor with 8,000 edits should receive kid-glove treatment around something so fundamental. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I actively participated in the RfC in question because it is a topic that interests me greatly. However, for several years now, any attempt to modify the paragraph pertaining to the "Origins" section of this tribe has been doomed to failure. Yet, this section is problematic for obvious reasons of neutrality, something that Aeengath also noticed upon discovering this article, which led him to attempt to make the content more neutral himself. Having encountered the same issues I have faced in the past — namely, a group of users, always the same ones, blocking any attempt at modification — Aeengath eventually decided to open an RfC.

Now, throughout this RfC, Aeengath has always remained courteous, making an effort to consider all remarks, including and especially yours, Rosguill, as you were the most capable of engaging in discussion. He repeatedly modified the text he proposed as a replacement for the current paragraph, taking your feedback into account, something he was in no way obliged to do: your status as an administrator does not place you above the general body of Wikipedia regular contributors.

I now urge everyone reading this to carefully review the content of the RfC opened by Aeengath: his behaviour has been exemplary. At no point did he accuse anyone of anything, unlike Rosguill, who, running out of arguments, ended up accusing Aeengath of attempting to push a WP:POV and other things. If there is any behaviour to criticise here, I do not believe it is Aeengath’s, but yours, Rosguill. You have no right to accuse an editor in such a manner when he has put a great deal of effort into this RfC and has striven to take your feedback into account. Disagreeing on the interpretation of a text is one thing, but your opinion as an administrator does not carry more weight than that of Aeengath, myself, or any of the other participants in this RfC.

Finally, the fact that you've come up with such a request here, namely for Aeengath to be banned from all subjects relating to the Balkans, is just absolutely unbelievable. I seriously wonder what your interest is in this. Krisitor (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have sufficiently established my case that there is absolutely inappropriate misrepresentation of the sources based on the diffs provided. Anything further is up to the community. It is not possible to accept a summary of

• The Albanian tribes, it must be noted, had a broadly common culture with the Slavic (i.e. Serbian-speaking) tribes of neighbouring Montenegro since the border tribes were in close contact with one another over the centuries. Language was not always an element of division, nor in fact was religion. Some tribes are known to have changed language over time. The now Slavic-speaking Ku�ci tribe of Montenegro, for instance, was originally Albanian-speaking. The same may be true, at least in part, of the Montenegrin Vasoviqi [Vasojevic ́i] and Palabardhi [Bjelopavlic ́i] tribes.
• In Kosovo, especially in its eastern part, most Albanians were gradually assimilated into the Eastern Orthodox faith by numerous methods, including the baptism of infants with Serbian names and the conducting of all religious ceremonies such as marriages in the Serbian language. In Montenegro, entire tribes such as the Kuč, Bjellopavliq, Palabardha, Piprraj, and Vasovic were assimilated
• The process of transition of the Albanian element into the Serbian one, through different methods of assimilation, has occurred in many Montenegrin tribes, such as Kuč, Piperi, and Vasojevići.

as Some scholars, such as Robert Elsie have suggested the possibility that the Vasojevići may have been Albanian-speaking prior to Slavicisation. Editors are free to bring in other sources, or dispute that these sources are reliable (which has been your primary argument in the discussion, hence why I'm not accusing you of any malfeasance), but it is plainly tendentious to argue that the above cited quotes support the proposed text. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Though I disagree with your interpretation of some of the provided sources, I get your point, but this excess of WP:SYNTH that you accuse Aeengath of is also the main problem with the current "stable" version. For example, Elsie doesn't say that the tribe is likely of Albanian origin, yet his words are used to support that claim. Anyway, I'm not familiar with the process of banning someone from an entire area of Wikipedia, but I find this reaction disproportionate, especially considering that this was a discussion, not an edit war. Krisitor (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether these sources are representative of broader scholarship on this issue, but I can see that several of them have been misunderstood or misrepresented. They are not ambiguous, but clearly say that this tribe is of Albanian origin. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Liz: @Rosguill: I decided to not !vote on the RfC, as Aeengath's proposals were doomed since the beginning. I am surprised at the degree to which they have repeatedly misrepresented sources there. This is a patent case of disruption, and it should not be let to slip away. That being said, Aeengath had not received an AE alert before, so IMO a topic ban is too much. Instead, I think that the right thing to do is to issue an AE-logged warning about tendentious editing and misrepresentation of sources. Then it is up to Aeengath to decide whether it remains a warning or becomes a more severe sanction. IMO, this is what benefits the community the best, and I suggest to Liz to implement it. The discussion at the RfC itself seems to have reached its natural end, and everybody then can move on. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I find this resolution satisfactory although I'm not experienced with imposing AE editing restrictions or sanctions. But I'd like to hear whether this outcome has approval from other interested parties. It does set up a "last chance" scenario in case these editing mistakes are repeated in the future. I wish we could have heard from User:Aeengath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Rosguill stated they would be fine with an AE-logged warning as well, so I don't expect them to find this an unacceptable solution. I think they have already given their approval. Indeed, it would have been good to see Aeengath say something; I think we can wait a bit to give them more time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping to see a response from Aeengath before commenting further. I can imagine various scenarios where a logged warning would be an appropriate conclusion to this report, but their decision to come down with WP:ANIFLU doesn't seem like a point in their favor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I can think of many reasons why a prolific editor, in good standing with other contributors, quick to use the talk page rather than edit warring, would not wish to respond to such a report, especially after reading this: Aeengath is clearly perfectly capable of engaging with dense academic sources, but seems to lose all sense of comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. Such comments, which come on top of POV-pushing and other accusations made on the RfC, can be easily perceived as personal attacks and, coming from an administrator, it rather makes one want to get the hell out of Wikipedia as soon as possible, until things calm down. Krisitor (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Roxy the dog - declared intent to conduct daily stalking and possibly harassment

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

---

Reporting an incident mainly because of concerns about Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). These 2 users have peripheral involvement: Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) + Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bishonen is currently an admin, so I'm not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for that.

Would appreciate if an uninvolved editor could post the ANI notice on Bon courage's talk page as I am not able to, thank you.

After some time to allow things to calm down I was still concerned about Roxy the dog and was considering whether it was necessary to post here given the huge time sink and unpleasant drama that can be generated. I did a search in the archives of this page and they have a considerable history. A user in 2023 attempted to start a community vote to ban Roxy the dog, but later withdrew that. That thread contains a detailed history of Roxy the dog's behavior which can be read to get a general picture: [221] It looks like there have been some more incidents since 2023.

Initial concern raised by Bon courage, after which I began to suspect possible following behavior and tried to ask them to stop

Bon courage raised concern about close paraphrasing in an article I wrote here [222] Despite many accusations from them about using AI, plagiarism, describing my edits as nonsensical, incompetent, and literate, this issue was resolved with no conflict from myself. After this I noticed the same editor appearing three more times on my watchlist. On 1 occasion they posted a reply to a comment of mine a few mins after I made it. Being followed and stalked is a trigger for my anxiety so I tried to post a message on the user's talk page asking them to stop following [223]. This discussion did not go exactly as I planned, with editors making accusations against me and twisting my words, and I was forced to repeatedly defend my position instead of just posting a single, neutral request as intended. I tried to reassure them that my edits don't need to be followed. Bon courage seemed to indirectly acknowledge the following behavior, but in another comment they seemed to claim it was random chance ("I've been editing/watching that article for over a decade, from long before you even had an account."). In defense of Bon courage, they said that they will avoid any unnecessary interaction as requested, but at the same time openly suggested that the following behavior would continue and they had the right to raise concerns about my editing in future ("Request denied. If content needs discussion, or in particular if further copyright issues emerge, then discussion is necessary for the good of the encyclopedia"). I don't have any significant complaint against Bon Courage. I'm think their main motivation is to keep the encyclopedia accurate and they are doing a lot of work in removing problematic content. I wish they could be more polite, patient and less harsh in this process with other editors, especially ones who want to improve the encyclopedia and who are not engaged in vandalism etc. I hope I've persuaded them not to follow my edits.

Admin Bishonen accuses sealioning and threatens to block me

As this conversation was essentially finished, an admin Bishonen wades in and immediately accuses me of "sealioning" (=harassment and trolling) and threatens to block me here [224]. I challenged them that I was not trolling or engaging in harassment. The admin denies that they made such an accusation and refuses to acknowledge that by repeatedly (4 times and in 1 edit summary) calling my behavior "sealioning" and posting a link to that article, which in the first sentence states "Sealioning is a type of harassment or trolling...", they are essentially accusing harassment and trolling. At best, it suggests that the admin didn't know the definition of sealioning, but used the term and posted a link to that article, and doubled down anyway. After this bad example from the admin, users Bon Courage and Roxy the dog join in the false conclusion that I was "sealioning". I repeat, I was not trolling or engaging in harassment. My goal was purely to ask to stop the following behavior and to try and show that it was unnecessary.

Continued posting of unpleasant messages on my talk, accusation of being "dodgy editor" and threat to conduct daily following by Roxy the dog

Unsatisfied that I have not been berated enough for the impudence to ask not be followed, Roxy the dog, who appears to be having great fun at this stage, continues to post on my talk page, despite that fact that the admin has threatened to block me if I post again on the talk page of Bon Courage.[225] Bishonen does nothing to stop the actions of Roxy the dog, which they presumably should have done if their intention was to "break up" a situation (not that it needed to be broken up and had already reached natural resolution). In 2022 Bishonen reduced the block setting for one of Roxy the dog's many, many blocks and bans.[226] I hope that is just random chance and not connected to the way this incident played out. I'm not an admin and I don't have detailed knowledge of banning and blocking policies. It is entirely possible that that action was correct. My complaint against Bishonen is that they claim they did not accuse me of trolling and harassment while accusing me of a behavior that is exactly defined as a type of trolling and harassment. So which is it? Either I was sealioning (=trolling or harassment) or I was not. These are mutually exclusive. I also feel that they unfairly waded in to that debate to accuse the person who was raising concern about possible following behavior of harassment. I also feel threat to ban was v inappropriate. I also point out to Bioshonen this event has been a case of how the behavior of an admin directly influenced other editors.

Roxy the dog accused me of being a "dodgy editor" and stated their intention to follow my edits on a daily basis.[227] Understand these comments came after I wrote that I had been a victim of stalking in real life and had post traumatic stress from this. I am concerned that Roxy the dog made no investigation of my edits before declaring that I was a "dodgy editor".

I don't have time to look at the details of every single one of Roxy the dog's blocks and bans over the years, but looking at the log,[228] the reason "Personal attacks or harassment" appears six times. Those are just the blocks and bans, I am certain that more incidents would have been reported here that didn't lead to blocks and bans. I don't understand how an editor would not have detailed understanding of harassment policy after so many bans and blocks. I note with dismay how this behavior seems to constitute "backsliding" after reading the positive message Roxy the dog wrote when their most recent ban was lifted in 2025 [229]

My goals in posting this message:

• Not really seeking any formal sanction against Roxy the dog. Assume this behavior would normally not be enough for formal sanction, although in this case Roxy the dog has a long history and this might lower the bar... I don't know. I'm not an admin and would never want to be one.
• Ask Roxy the dog to consider that it was inappropriate to accuse someone of being a "dodgy editor", apparently without basis or prior investigation.
• Ask Roxy the dog to consider that to declare intent to conduct daily following was at best a particularly thoughtless thing to say to someone who already stated they were a victim of stalking and had post traumatic stress from this. At worst, that comment could easily be interpreted as being intended to cause anxiety and distress and could constitute a declaration of intent to conduct daily harassment in future.
• Failing the above, this notice may merely act as another record of Roxy the dog's long term behavior and may influence any future decisions concerning them.
• In the event that Roxy the dog decides to carry out their declared intention to follow my edits in future, this notice may serve to document my concerns about possible harassment that may arise, and it can't be said that I will not have given fair warning before seeking sanctions against them in future if required.
• Ask Bishonen to consider that they jumped to conclusions about my behavior. I genuinely was not trolling or engaged in harassment. Genuinely was not interested in drama. I want to engage with other editors constructively and improve the encyclopedia without unpleasant drama.
• Ask Bishonen to consider that their threat to block was not appropriate since conversation was already over and my post did not constitute harassment or trolling.
• Remind Bishonen that because they are an admin their behavior is important. It influences other editors and sets a standard for the community. Therefore the behavior and actions of an admin should be very carefully considered. Moribundum (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You did not notify the involved users, I will be doing so for you. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 10:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I notified 2 of them. I did not post the ANI notice for Bon courage because I the admin Bishonen threatened to block me if I posted there again. Thanks for posting it. Moribundum (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am not in the mood to read the wall of text above. Same for a couple of other places I looked. I'll take your word for it that there is no sealioning, but excessive commentary with hard-to-follow relevance for article content could easily be mistaken for sealioning, so I think the people named above could be forgiven. Please absorb the point of focus on article content quickly. I see mention of copyright issues at User talk:Bon courage. Please be aware that such issues are serious and there should be no discussion about anything other than ensuring text is squeaky clean. Don't bother worrying whether other editors are harassing you if there has been reason to think copyrighted material might have been used. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, read focus on article content. However, this thread was about following behavior, not content on any specific article. It's fine for you to advise me not to worry about following and harassment, but it's not so easy and causes anxiety. Respectfully , would have been better if you read all the info to understand the issue fully before commenting. Moribundum (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

"Harassment" is a term that carries potentially major consequences. Bishonen did not directly accuse you of harassment; instead, they accused you of "sealioning." The page describes sealioning as "trolling or harassment", not "trolling AND harassment." They could have meant that they perceived your behavior to be merely annoying, perhaps as mild trolling. Trying to assert that an accusation of sealioning is equivalent to accusing you of "=harassment and trolling", even when Bishonen denied making that accusation, seems to me to be a misrepresentation of the discussion that took place on that page. On the other hand, you've been combatively accusing other editors of harassing you, including an admin who kindly requested an explanation as to how you managed to create an article with a single, absolutely massive edit.
These kinds of things seem suspicious because there's a growing number of people using AI to generate massive amounts of text, for both discussions and article content. Even this post, while there are a few signs that it's human-generated (inconsistent use of colons and periods in headings, mistakenly leaving out periods, minor sentence structure issues), some of the most identifying characteristics of AI, which are an inflated number of words to explain a relatively simple issue, the bolded headers, and the general organization of your complaint, appear to be present. It would have been easier to read if you had summarized the issue; for instance, the last section is entirely unnecessary. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have to disagree with your defense of Bishonen because they clearly claimed that they were not accusing me of trolling OR harassment while at the same time accusing me of an activity exactly defined as trolling or harassment. They would not have said that if they had concluded "mild trolling" as you suggest. Even if that was the case the response would still be heavy handed and inappropriate. Why did they allow Roxy the dog, clearly stepping over the line, to continue to accuse and threaten me? If an editor says repeatedly that I am doing this activity, and then I check the link and it immediately defines that activity as trolling or harassment, then what other possible interpretation is there?

I regret making that suggestion that I thought their friend (another editor who had been obsessively going through my edits) had directed them to me.[230] Agree there was no evidence for this and response could have been more polite. I wrote the article in my sandbox, as I explained to the admin. I think editors are encouraged to do things that way, so I didn't do anything wrong. Nothing suspicious because there is a long edit history on that sandbox showing clearly that it was not written by AI but by a human over probably hundreds of edits.

Re your comment that AI generated the above text, I doubt that an AI would have been able to write such content since it would not be able to understand the complex situation involving many different pages on wikipedia (block logs, ANI archive, different article and user talk pages). Re this example I wanted to carefully explain the not so simple situation from my perspective. I was hoping in the last section to clearly lay down my reasonable suggestions to those 2 editors, and make clear that I was not seeking any official sanctions or other actions. Moribundum (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• I am concerned that whatever merits the OP's work has, there may be an endemic WP:COPVIO/WP:CLOP issue with their editing (also maybe done with one or more old undisclosed alt accounts, per[231] a previous ANI). Their response has been sub-optimal, as mentioned by Valereee in the thread alluded to above.[232] The lack of cooperation makes it hard to deal with, as does the fact that much of the source material is pay-walled and/or hard to access. Bon courage (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but "lack of cooperation" and "sub optimal response"? I cooperated immediately and fully with you and Valereee. Again point out that I was very polite in that thread, despite your tone and many accusations that were less than ideal. What part of response was sub optimal? I rewrote the section immediately with extra sources, despite CLOP allegation being only borderline (compare to example given on the guideline). I repeatedly asked for you or Valereee to voice any other concerns they had with the new section, and gave a few days of time for you to check it and raise any objection before I updated the article after no response. Sub optimal response and lack of cooperation? Sorry, I cannot agree with that at all.

  Re paywalls, I write all my content without paying for anything... it means you can too. I use wikipedia library mostly, but failing that sci hub for papers and lib gen for textbooks. If the sites are blocked you can use VPN of course. If you don't want to use sci hub or lib gen, I am happy to send any individual source or screenshots to anyone who wanted to check.

  Also, I tried to make clear that you are only peripherally involved in this incident. I was not attempting to complain about the fact that you raised CLOP concern on that article. I suggest "endemic issue" is certainly not appropriate accusation. I'm paying constant attention to copy vio.

  The point of this thread was above all to raise concern about threats of Roxy the dog. I don't have any dispute with you apart from borderline politeness issue. Otherwise I think you're doing necessary work. Moribundum (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Encouraging users to steal content is not ideal, and further raises the red flag so far as I am concerned. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  If using sci hub or lib gen to access sources violates any wikipedia guideline, please tell me. Moribundum (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Trying to be as diplomatic with you as possible. I ask to you consider that when you ignore most of a comment apart from 1 small aspect is frustrating in discussion and makes people think that no progress is being made.

  For example, can you specify why you think my response was sub optimal or why you think I was being non cooperative? You make a lot of accusations in discussions, and then don't even respond when challenged on them or asked to specify. Moribundum (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• As Beeblebrox noted in their unblock on February 15, A little humility and brevity might serve you better going forward Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, sorry but this incident has nothing to do with that. Also, you define humility as accepting accusations and threats from Roxy the dog like this? I don't think that is what humility is, sorry. Moribundum (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Clearly you've not taken on board the advice concerning verbosity, and humility includes recognizing the possibility that you may be wrong about something. Both are apparently ignored in this post, which continues the behavior Beeblebrox commented upon. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have to agree I've seen what appears to be sealioning (Moribundum, the essay at WP:SEALION may help clarify what we're referring to, which is often called civil POV-pushing; "unfailingly polite" is considered part of the strategy) at Special:Permalink/1283310190#CLOP concerns where this editor argued at length about sentence they'd clearly copy-paste-edit-published, apparently in an attempt to argue the odd sentence that created was idiomatic and therefore not evidence of copyvio. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, sorry, but I categorically did not engage in trolling or POV (I'm talking here about asking someone to stop following me, it wasn't about POV on any specific article). I am not trying to engage in time wasting. Please see bullet list at end of incident report for my desired outcomes. I'm mainly asking those 2 editors to consider their actions in the hope that it can improve their future behaviors.

  Re discussion about grammar, sorry if that discussion offended you but I am interested in grammar having studied it for a few years. You seem to use the word idiomatic in a way that I am unfamiliar with. I think you are using in the sense of "conversational, colloquial" but that's not how I understand the word idiomatic (maybe it's a regional thing, or just influence of academic usage). As I repeated, I had immediately removed from that section the sentence in question as part of the rewrite of the whole section. Therefore, I was not arguing that this single sentence should remain (already removed it myself). I also did not use that 1 sentence as an argument against copyvio. I was however interested in discussing it from a grammar point of view. My argument was that the section as a whole was sufficiently paraphrased and longer, and did not contain verbatim sentence structures. Again, I'm not complaining about raising of concerns about close paraphrase on that article. I'm raising concern about behavior of Roxy the dog mostly, and also wanted the admin to see my comment to understand from my perspective how they misjudged the situation and the threat to block was inappropriate. Moribundum (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody seems to think Roxy the dog is a showing any problematic behaviour; plenty of people think you are. So that is now the focus. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody even bothers to address this main issue sp far. It's very disappointing.

  Since Roxy the dog was watching your talk page, it is possible you have some relationship and history with that editor. Therefore you attempting to change main focus here is quite suspect. Still waiting for your reply above. You do like to makes lots of accusations and then don't respond to them when challenged. Moribundum (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice to the OP from someone who's been around awhile and knows how these threads work: Posting long-winded responses to every comment will do you no favors. Whether you realize it or not, you are coming across as overly argumentative. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

In general it's also probably wise not to post an abundance of very long comments while complaining that another person has complained about WP:SEALION behaviour. Because a lot of people will look at that and go, "yeah, that's sealioning alright." Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Because apparently people don't want to bother to properly understand a situation, but are still happy to reinforce a false conclusion and give uninformed opinion. I don't know why I bothered to post here, I think I knew the result already. Thanks everyone for addressing my concerns about Roxy the dog posting accusations and declaring an intention to stalk me, which was the whole point in posting. Moribundum (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

My assessment is that Moribundum needs to immediately stop their TLDR (but I read it all) sealioning behavior, which is a massive waste of the time of other editors. The whiny behavior is astonishing and unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have neither been trolling nor conducting harassment. Withdraw your accusation please. Getting v tired of this.

It's not whiny behavior to ask not to be followed, and to expect not to be threatened with daily harassment. Your comment is more astonishing to me. Moribundum (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment, Moribundum. You are wasting other editor's time, and that is our most precious commodity. Cullen328 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

And you are ignoring policy. Moribundum (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I’m thinking enough is enough. Moribund needs some form of sanction. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

From WP:FOLLOWING: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight."

Roxy's comment was completely against this guidance. Firstly they went out of their way to taunt me that they were now going to start following me on a daily basis. Also, I don't think they have any good cause. Very disappointed to see several editors here willfully ignoring policy and ignoring the core reason that I posted here, instead decided to blame the victim. Moribundum (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Editors have good cause to scrutinize your edits you because of copyright issues (that you respond to with as much time-wasting as in this ANI thread). Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Again trying to disrupt this incident. Following should be covert and not an excuse to be rude and bombard the editor with endless accusations and refuse to respond when challenged about it as you do.

Roxy the dog performed no such investigation. Their comment was either incredibly insensitive or willfully sought to cause distress even after I stated my wish not to be followed because of history with stalking and post traumatic stress. And I'm branded a troll for highlighting this and asking the editor to consider their actions. Shocking. Moribundum (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Continuing an argument well after the other participants have signaled you should stop, particularly using very long walls of text, is pretty much exactly what sealioning originally meant. I would sincerely suggest you just stop replying here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Waiting for a reasonable answer. So far the closest has been "you shouldn't have bothered". My sin is expecting to be treated fairly

I think several people here really lost touch with how toxic this place has become over the years. If you are not in some gang you are prey to be harassed. Moribundum (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This ANI thread is quickly falling into prime territory for a WP:BOOMERANG to fly. My suggestion is that Moribundum should drop the stick before that becomes the clear way to go. The ad-hominem and bludgeoning going on here are also not helping your case. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

"I have added you to my list of dodgy editors with an unusually belligerent sealioning attitude whose edits I check on a daily basis. If you do a good job, you wont have anything to worry about." is about copyvio? Really? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:50, 1 April 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 193.115.204.202 persistently making mass unsourced edits

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

IP user has been persistently making mass unsourced additions and changes in multiple articles since early March; e.g. [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238]. They've been asked multiple times on their talk page to stop doing this and use citations: [239], [240], [241], [242]. I gave them a final warning five days ago: [243]. Since then they've continued to do the same, including in articles where they were previously reverted: [244], [245], [246] [247]. Many of their edit summaries contain long comments justifying themselves as being a knowledgeable native or other somewhat self-promotional statements: e.g. [248], [249], [250] (see their contribution history for more). Whether genuinely knowledgeable or not, they don't seem to understand the point of verifiability on Wikipedia (let alone WP:OR and WP:NPOV) and so far appear unwilling to learn it.

Note: I would also recommend semi-protecting Toubou people, where multiple accounts and IPs have been doing the same thing (with the same style of edit summaries) persistently since October 2024 or earlier. Looking at the edit history, it's hard to imagine they aren't all related. At least three of them identify as the same person: Issakami, this IP, and Nasir Issakami (see [251], [252]). The current IP (193.115.204.202) claims to be someone else ([253]), as does an earlier IP ([254]), despite the similar editing style. Haven't brought this to SPI because none of these others are active now and the registered accounts did not technically overlap, but semi-protecting the article where they all edited should compel whoever it is to log in and, hopefully, be more receptive to feedback. R Prazeres (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP. We need editors with that kind of knowledge, but we need sources. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • That is one of the most interesting edits and edit summaries I have ever seen on enwiki. I think they will come back to edit, hopefully with RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Another talk page revoke needed...

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

---

...here. Thanks in advance. ~Liance^talk 05:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

(For the record: this is an LTA known as the "Australian childish vandal". All suspected sockpuppets of them should be blocked with no talk page access and email access straight from the get go.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk page access revoke needed

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

---

At User talk:153.216.35.183. If there's a better place to request this for future cases please let me know. Thanks. ~Liance^talk 22:25, 2 April 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 war with IP: 2A02:C7C:32E2:4400:F56A:48B3:7EB2:4EDB

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

---

An IP address is having many edit wars and adding non constructive info at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Mac_Allister Scrimbler (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 range of the IP for 3 months for vandalism. At the same time, Scrimbler is a very suspicious new account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Why is that suspicious? Scrimbler (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  None of your edits is typical of a new user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Are any of the edits problematic? Editors are allowed to start fresh. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Can't we just assume Good Faith to users? Scrimbler (talk) 23:58, 3 April 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.

92.178.76.47 and MOS edits

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

---

92.178.76.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For many months, this IP has been making otherwise small and trivial edits to a number of articles (usually in the pro wrestling corner of Wikipedia, which is notably disruptive) which contravene the MOS. Their edits seem to be consistently worsening articles, either using less formal/encyclopedic language or replacing 'and' with ampersands.

They have received a litancy of warnings for this over these months, though it has done nothing to stop them and they have not once communicated. Almost all of their edits have been reverted. They received a block from Favonian for 3 months, but now that the block is up they have resumed the same edits.[255][256][257][258]

Not sure if this is WP:CIR or subtle vandalism (I suspect the latter), but either way nothing is changing. — Czello ^(music) 12:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

They were blocked for three months in December 2024; I've blocked them for six.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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

@Bbb23: I strongly suspect this user is now continuing under the following IP, given the similarity of edits and the fact they only started editing after the block: 90.167.195.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 08:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked six months as sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

POV pushing; unexplained removal of edits

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

---

@Zemen has been removing properly sourced edits on Arabization of Kirkuk for some time now.[259][260] [261] [262] [263] There was a ANI report on this about a week ago, but it was removed a couple of days ago before an admin could give a judgement on the issue. [264] Montblamc1 (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Zemen indicates there was a discussion previously about this. Is there a reason you're not discussing it on the article talk page? — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There was no discussion. There was a report. An admin did not make a judgement on it. Montblamc1 (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, is there really even grounds to “discuss in the talk page” when Zemen is clearly POV pushing and deleting properly sources edits. Montblamc1 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Montblamc1 Please, please, you have reported three times (here, here and now here) you don't even know what your goal is. This is very annoying that you do. Sikorki asked you why you were editing the article while logged out and then gave these reports by your account, but you didn't respond. This is how many times you report, and you don't reply and then send another report. My talk page is full of your invitations to here.  Zemen  (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This needs dispute resolution...I would try to get a third opinion first, as talk-page discussion seems not to be effective. Lectonar (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Montblamc1. Wikipedia makes a distinction between "conduct disputes" where it's how someone engages versus "content disputes" where it's a disagreement over what should be in the article. Administrators cannot give judgement on whether something should go in an article. Something being sourced does not automatically mean it's worth including. Before coming to the administrator's noticeboard, your next step is to start a discussion at Talk:Arabization of Kirkuk and present your reasons why the content is worth keeping in the article. Zemen, same for you. Neither of you should be reverting each others' edits once it's clear there's a disagreement. It's not going to kill you for the version you don't like to be there for a few days while you discuss. Lectonar gives good advice—seek additional opinions about the content, and then respect whatever other editors agree on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not request an opinion on whether or not my edits are worthy of inclusion in the article, its clear they are. I am requesting a judgement on Zemen reverting my edits and clearly POV pushing. None of my edits are irrelevant or problematic. If you take a look at the edits he reverts, you will realise they are edits that do not align with his POV. Such as in the human rights abuses section, I’ve included HRW and Amnesty Intl reports on abuses committed by Kurdish authorities. Zemen removes these because he deems them problematic in terms of his own POV. Montblamc1 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Montblamc1, you do not seem to be listening. You can't just say, "it's clear they are", because at least one editor disagrees with you. Talk about this on the article talk page (which is still empty), as recommended by WP:DR, and follow the other steps there. Both of you, just stop edit warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The only editor who disagrees with me is the person who keeps reverting the edits. How about you take a look at Zemen’s justification for his removal of my edits and then tell me are they reasonable or not. How is this not a clear case of POV pushing? Montblamc1 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 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.

Alexander Lukison

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.

---

• 202bh (talk · contribs)

I just blocked a new sock at WQ promoting this hoax. But he is busy here and I am not a WP admin. @Uncle G: who alerted me to the en-wiki component. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biuc. Blocked per duck test of the very first edit made. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Binksternet and Drmies

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

---

Binksternet and Drmies have been making disruptive edits to music templates for quite some time now. A sockpuppet vandalised the Rap rock template by removing genres, but Binksternet keeps siding with them and reverting any attempts made to fix this. They also keep disrupting any attempts to fix the Goth subculture template. Drmies has also been helping them. 2601:C7:C280:14C0:D425:2976:C28D:44A2 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You have no edits outside of this report. I'll be notifying the involved users since you didn't per ANI policy. Departure– (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a fully accusative manner but accusing two established editors without using diffs etc from an anonymous IP tells me there might be more to it than just a dispute. Since it is a dispute you should be discussing this at the talk page instead of bringing established editors to a noticeboard. Departure– (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Check Special:Contributions/2601:C7:C280:14C0:0:0:0:0/64. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

No one knows the various music (and genre) socks better than Binksternet, and (after looking at that range) this is really getting a bit desperate. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

IP adding "brutally beaten" again

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

---

In July 2023 I submitted a report for an IP editor that kept adding "brutally beaten" and other unsourced changes to articles (this looked like trolling). It looks like they have returned and from the same IP range: Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E51:5400:0:0:0:0/40. See for example these edits: [265][266][267]. Is it be possible to impose a range block again? I am not sure which range is suitable, though (maybe Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E5C:5500:0:0:0:0/64?). Thanks. Mellk (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

2600:4040:5e5c:5500::0/64 blocked one month for unsourced edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 1 April 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.

Possible impersonation of a living person

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

---

Can anyone take a look at Cynthiatenientematson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? See also: Special:Diff/1283849576. They claim on their user page to be Cynthia Teniente-Matson. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Account should be blocked indefinitely. The edits make it clear that it's impersonation and an attack on the actual person. The claim on the user page should be blanked or deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Account has been blocked indefinitely by Voorts. Aydoh8^[contribs] 01:12, 4 April 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.

Moralian42 posting an explicit image

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:Moralian42 has posted an explicit image on the Rome metropolitan area article.

I see they've already been blocked, but is there a need for revdelete on the diff?

Special:Diff/1283536212 TheLegendofGanon (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Done, and also added to the image blacklist (for what it's worth given the amount of amateur porn which Commons thinks is useful to host, but whatever). Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd also note that the offending account is now also locked globally. — The Anome (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we ever going to be able to stop Commons from being a low quality porn site? Good quality educational images on sexual articles are fine, but that's not what we're talking about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 2 April 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.

ECP gaming by User:Comsats777

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.

---

• Comsats777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account registered only 30 days ago has gamed his way to ECP, for making POV edits, by making useless edits that can be seen right here. Capitals00 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

A lot of trivial edits here. If it waddles like a duck ... Can we reset the edit counter with a warning? That would seem like the appropriate action. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve pulled ecp edits, but if anyone knows what the duck’s name is I’d welcome the other half of the report. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that was just a note about the edits being clearly gaming as opposed to a sock suggestion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Daffy. Nothing more to it. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 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

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 someone please block Special:Contributions/50.74.111.150? They are making personal attacks to Sdrqaz's talk page. FlutterDash344 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Also: Special:Contributions/23.246.67.114 at User talk:Moneytrees. FlutterDash344 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 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 Edits by @MarioTalevski on the Snow White 2025 Page

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

---

User MarioTalevski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in edit wars on the Snow White 2025 page. Despite repeated explanations from myself and other editors that their actions are disruptive, as noted in the summary, MarioTalevski continues to persist. They keep adding the phrase "generally negative" to the lead, changing it from "mixed" to "generally negative," which is incorrect. Additionally, most users on the page have not yet agreed to include this. Lililolol (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

"It received generally mixed to negative reviews from critics." Don't manipulate. MarioTalevski (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the page editors have not reached an agreement to include that in the lead, per the talk page. Besides, it is only the first week, and it could change later. Also, it is partially incorrect; it is not generally negative—it is mixed, and that is not an opinion; it is a fact backed by the BBC and Rotten Tomatoes. Lililolol (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, they are removing warnings from their talk page, although I have not issued any warnings to them. Idk; I think it's something worth pointing out. Lililolol (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol, if someone removes a message (other than block) it is acknowledgement they have read and understood the message. Knitsey (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MarioTalevski reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: ) it has been reported here. Knitsey (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Knitsey Hi, and sorry I didn't know that another user had already reported this issue. Lililolol (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

(Should have said, not an admin) If a user has a habit of removing their talk page messages, it's probably worth having a quick check of their talk page history. I don't have an opinion on whether this belongs here or at the edit warrinv notice board. Knitsey (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

They are blatantly WP:NOTHERE, way too much disruption. This discussion is the only time they have used a talk page, other than to remove their 10 warnings from their own. I support an indef immediately. Mike Allen 21:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a thought: instead of trying to prognosticate how good reviews were based on borderline UGC like Rotten Tomatoes, how about you all find some notable critics and cite what they said? Simonm223 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: it's already well cited what critics say in the article. I can't be bothered counting carefully, but there's about 16 critics mentioned in the article, most of them have quites. Only one of them seems to be individually notable, but ultimately if Neil Minow reviews for RogerEbert.com instead of Roger Ebert, there's no much editors can do about that. AFAICT, the summary being fought over isn't what Rotten Tomatoes said, instead it's a summary over those 16 or so critics, along with the aggregations of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic i.e. it's taking all of those factors into consideration. The user reviews are of course completely ignored. My impression is this is the norm on movie articles. There is some mention of audience reviews, but these seem to be from organisations who try to survey those who actually watched the movie instead of just from random people and in any case, one of them has been the subject of discussion in at least one source. I'm fairly sure these audience reviews aren't considered in the summary being fought over anyway, since it's specifically of critic reviews Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually looking more at the talk page, guidance suggests any summary even in the lead should be based on what one or more sources have said rather than an editor's attempts to summarise the critics. Considering at this stage, all we are likely to have summarising critical reviews are Metacritic and Rotten Tomato, I guess it's one or both. The guidance doesn't say anything about quoting one particular critic in the lead, I'd imagine that always has issues unless for some reason this critics view has been particularly remarked upon. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess this is kind of a personal grouse as a critic. A review that never gets past "movie good" or "movie bad" isn't a good review and as such I find Wikipedia saying "movie good" or "movie bad" is reinforcing a reductive view of criticism. But that's my baggage and can be safely ignored I suppose. Simonm223 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioTalevski has been blocked for 48 hours I think from ANEW. My impression from looking into them in the earlier AN thread is this seems to be the most glaring problem with MarioTalevski edits. Considering their edit warring and that they still haven't made it to Talk:Snow White (2025 film), my suggestion is if they start edit warring again, take it to ANEW and specifically suggest a long partial block from the article only. With the 48 hours site wide, IMO next time 2 week or even 1 month partial block is justified. This will force them to either finally participate in the discussion or give up until they might no longer care. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I was going to offer them some advice on returning from their block but they blank their User talk page after every comment so I think they aren't interested in communicating with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd add that the fact there is actually a talk page discussion this time helps a lot. One issue I had with the AN thread is that while MarioTalevski was clearly edit warring and had broken 3RR and still hadn't made it to the talk page, it seemed to be that the particular issue hadn't been discussed. (The other prime participants had discussed other issues on the talk page.) So while I had strong doubts MarioTalevski would participate in any discussion, it was easy to say that no one seemed interested in discussion. With the talk page discussion, it's far easier to clearly see MarioTalevski is just edit warring without discussion and so it seems fairer to partially block them for a long while to force them to stop edit warring and into discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Questionable block

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

---

BusterD has imposed a 31-hour block on CoolberryBTCWiki for making a disruptive edit on WP:April fools. However, upon further inspection, no warnings were given to the user prior to getting blocked. In addition, according to this edit, the latter was attempting to get help from WP:Teahouse prior to being blocked. As this block is time sensitive, I created this to allow swift action about the block to be made. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You can count me among the admins whose patience for April Fools joke deletion nominations was exhausted a decade ago. Warnings are not obligatory. That said, I'd at least point them to WP:FOOLS first. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As for the "time sensitive" part, do you expect them to be unblocked so they can do more joke edits? Otherwise they can carry on with serious work tomorrow. when the block expires. And third-party block appeals to ANI or anywhere else are not viewed with much favor. This is not urgent, and you've not discussed it with the blocking admin. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Time sensitive is absolutely precious. I'm expected to unblock before the end of April 1st so CoolberryBTCWiki can do precisely what? Disrupt again while it's still permitted? No. This vandal flew too close to the sun, and now they're out of the closet as known disrupter. Terrible way to get your 30/500. BusterD (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, yeah, provided that it does not cause any disruption within mainspace wiki. I looked through their contributions and don't see anything disruptive in mainspace. In fact, no edits to the mainspace were even made. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been appealed and the appeal denied by User:Significa liberdade. No reason was given for the appeal. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is the block "time sensitive"? If the editor has serious work to be done, it can be done after April fools. Their April fools silliness isn't something that matters to the encyclopaedia and if they have to miss out on due to a block, justified or not, tough. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd add "prior to being blocked" isn't very impressive in this instance. Seeking help prior to messing up Wikipedia by doing dumb April fools stuff without finding out the limits and how they could do it, is the standard that should be observed in a case like this where it's just dumb jokes rather than something trying to improve Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I deal directly with bad actors every day and have been doing counter vandalism since way before we had a term for it. I am well-known for scrupulously applying escalating warnings when I see bad actions. When dealing in the moment with active, deliberate, intentional disruption, I am not always required to warn a vandal, for example when such warning might allow them to avoid detection or consequences. WP:April fools (which is neither policy nor guideline) warns participating users they are playing with fire and may be blocked. User:CoolberryBTCWiki came to Wikipedia specifically to disrupt for Festival; they admitted this in their unblock request. They were literally asking for help to vandalize the pedia (thanks for linking). I'm not going to facilitate such clear intention to disrupt, even if it's The Will of Landru. In addition, I believe the user's unblock request has already been reviewed and declined by another admin. The user may wait twelve more hours, and then edit normally. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  (nods) I've been on Wikipedia twenty years, and I've never been blocked. I would be furious if I ever was. But I also wouldn't kick up a huge fuss if I was down for a single day. Somehow I would survive the dreadful penalty, and find something else to do with myself for 24 hours. Ravenswing 12:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  We would miss you in those 24 hours, bud. BusterD (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  FTR, I was once range blocked. I remember how disorienting being blocked was. I was infuriated. None of the strategies upon which I'd learned to depend worked. I got frustrated. Fortunately, I had Roger Davies's email address and he made my account ip-exempt in a few minutes. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse block, editor doesn't care enough to submit a proper unblock. Why are you so concerned with their unblock? The project will still be here tomorrow. Star Mississippi 12:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm mainly concerned on whether the administrator jumped the gun when it came to blocking. I assume good faith and presume that the help the user was attempting to get from WP:Teahouse was to ensure that everything stays within guidelines. And so far, as far as I can see within their contributions, they have been. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I preach the gospel of WP:Assume good faith every day. As a sysop my behaviors are always under examination. This thread reminds me of that. I act more boldly (which every contributor is expected to do) when I see the actor is intentionally disruptive. The user seems content to accept the punishment, which is admirable in a way. Warnings are customary but not mandatory (and occasionally a less effective strategy). I do plead guilty to not warning this user in this case. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Can someone remind me next March 31 not to connect to Wikipedia the next day? I wouldn't mind if these "jokes" were original and funny. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur. If we created the world's funniest Wikipedia thing and raised it to featured status, I'd totally support any such effort. But deleting Banana without using any of the lyrics from Silver & Cohn or Harry Chapin... what is life for except truly living to the fullest? If you're going to tell a joke on Wikipedia, it ought to be funny, or at least meet the criteria at WP:April fools jokes are required to be funny. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Could someone show me the actual disruption? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Probably this one here. [268] Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Banana. In retrospect, perhaps not the worst offense I've ever blocked for. Just lame. I will approach the user after this episode and talk to them directly. BusterD (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  (Leaving aside the issue of lameness and lack of actual humor) That's literally allowed in the April Fools guideline. Multiple other people are doing that today. There was no effect on article space. Do you want to unblock, or should I? Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I was doing so before your post. BusterD (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks BusterD. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  In particular, I appreciate the unblock log rationale. So many people who undo a mistaken block say something like "block undone" or "time served" or "others disagree". That was an honorable way to word it. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oddly, it was my own post of 13:30, 1 April 2025 which cracked this open for me. I hate blocking anyone (for that memory), but sometimes I must. Thanks again for keep me upright. Occasionally I may lean a bit without realizing. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Unblocked. I will make amends to this user when they return. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Having said all of this, can we change the rules so that people making unfunny deletion nominations or anything else that wastes a scintilla of other editors time are blocked next year? Bah bloody humbug. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Before this is closed, I'd like to include I just barnstarred the OP for sticking to their guns. Probably should say something nice about those who supported me because they trust me, even though I now admit my block was overly punitive. Especially grateful to Floq for asking the obvious question. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• This was an abusive use of the tools. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, it wasn't. It was within admin discretion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• It was a mistake. That's not the same as abusing the tools, especially since the admin in question has already unblocked them and apologized. And it's not an unreasonable mistake for an admin to make; the guidelines and traditions surrounding Wikipedia april fools' jokes are pretty obscure, since they only come up once a year. (As you can see from the number of people who supported the block before it was observed that the edit in question was allowed.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• From BusterD: I absolutely won't unblock. I see pleading and whining. I see no desire to leave the pedia alone. They can sit out April 1st this year and ... just because you and I may have differing opinions about the value of April 1 shows that this absolutely was not a mistake. It was an admin weaponizing their tools against another editor because they engaged in harmless fun that that admin didn't like. The edits are lame, the block is an abuse. And no, I won't back down from that. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It absolutely was a mistake in judgement. Both statements are true (or were in the moment they were made). This was an admin responding to apparent disruption, biased by his own history with April fools jokes on English Wikipedia. The bad behavior would be blockable on any other day in the calendar year. I was not aware precisely how many cut-outs we'd provided to disrupters this year. Vandalism always makes my hackles go up, and if I can't exactly calibrate that to any one editor's satisfaction, I've already acknowledged my responsibility in this case to each of the other editors I wronged. Feel free to pursue further actions on my behavior if you wish. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Logging-in to reply to [i]t absolutely was a mistake in judgement. I appreciate that you emphasised in judgement. From WP:TOOLMISUSE: Misusing the administrative tools is considered a very serious issue; they are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought, care, and with due diligence and good judgment (emphasis in original retained and expanded upon).
  And to also reply to the suggestion to pursue further actions. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that you suffer any accountability here. Half the admins here support this and think its a good thing. You've probably chased off a newbie wikignome whose edits mostly consisted of adding links and occasional sources. The type of editor that nobody gives any consideration to because anybody else could do the same work too. I expressed my disgust. You've read it. Miserable people make a miserable environment. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this was slightly too heavy-handed, although I completely understand where BusterD’s reasoning was coming from. I think April Fools should just be scrapped at this point or at least severely restricted. It has become an excuse for non-contributors to screw around and treat Wikipedia as a playground. This is clearly not Wikipedia is for and it has been tiresome annually when this day comes around. Cutlass^Ciera 16:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:PGAMEing by CelesteQuill

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.

---

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

Making a bunch of edits, seemingly to gain extended confirmed. They've had issues with vandalism in the past, I don't see anything good coming out of this. Feeglgeef (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal of extended confirmed status because of obvious gaming of the system by an editor who just hit 500 edits and immediately stopped their repetitive useless edits to their sandbox. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• ECP removed Hmm, let's see - 162 reverts to their own sandbox and multiple edits removing formatting from other articles (often in many edits when they could have been done in one) which weren't constructive either (well over 100 have been reverted). Judging by their first post-ECP edit, I wonder if a CU might want to take a look as well ... Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Is ANI the appropriate place for this request? I only ask because I posted a pgame issue here last week, not knowing otherwise. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 1 April 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.

@Black Kite, @BusterD, @Cullen328, and @Feeglgeef, I'm really, really sorry for this. I would have reverted all those test edits if I could. This won't happen in the future. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelesteQuill (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowball2026

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

---

Can somebody please review GiantSnowball2026 (talk · contribs) - name very similar to mine, one of their first edits was to create Draft:Darragh Power which is similar to my pre-existing User:GiantSnowman/Darragh Power. I suspect it's somebody I've blocked/warned and they've taken umbrage, but no idea who. Perhaps a checkuser would help? GiantSnowman 21:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If it was just the username, or just the draft, then I'd say it would pass, but the combination does make it pretty obvious. I've ublock-double blocked. Not a CU so can't comment on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 18:08, 30 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.

Abo Yemen

Removing tags when I had put something on the talk page in violation of WP:DETAG.

• Talk:Sabaean colonization of Africa#Hypothesis or fact?: [269] (didn't self-revert when asked)
• Talk:Sheba#African conquests: [270] cited policy + warning [271]

Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

He's also cast WP:ASPERSIONS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabaean colonization of Africa (2nd nomination) diff Kowal2701 (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Your POV tags were placed in the section because you didn't like what was written. You, in your own words, said that you haven't looked at the sources in the section yet but still decided that the 4 sources used in the article are POV and representative of recent literature (when those sources were published on 2016, 2023, 2024, and 2025) and proceeded to use an older 2018 source that is apparently "representative of recent literature" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 20:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Flagrant mischaracterisation. That "older source" is a high quality tertiary source, and as you're about to find out, those sources don't support what's there. As expected, none of them support "colonisation". But that is besides the point, you should not have removed the tag regardless per the policy. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGEMATTERS.
those sources don't support what's there.
are you accusing @Pogenplain (the user who wrote that section and most of the Sheba article) of misrepresenting the sources without any evidence?

But that is besides the point, you should not have removed the tag regardless per the policy.
Yeah because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is now a valid reason for tagging articles and sections as POV 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 20:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Pogenplain has misrepresented the sources. I provided quotes from sources on the talk page, not that I needed to for WP:DETAG to apply. More aspersions and mischaracterisations. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

But since we're already here, let's discuss why all of this is happening, no?
So you came to this already dead discussion, you call the article "a joke", place a POV tag, misrepresent the 24 sources being used in the article that support calling this a colonization and calling them a minority of sources compared to the 2 sources being used there in that article that are against calling this a colonization but rather a migration, you never checked a single source being used in this article, and when I told you about the fact that an entire military conquest of the region has happened, you nominated the Sabaean colonization of Africa for deletion, making it the second (baseless) nomination of this article for deletion, and tagged the section about the conquest of the region as POV when you clearly said in your own words that you haven't even checked the sources being used in the section. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 20:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You keep saying "24 sources" like you've read them. I've checked all the sources purported to cite a "colonisation". There is only one, and it is from 1991 attributing what they're saying to a source from 1986. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if there were recent sources saying it, it still wouldn't be NPOV because most sources dispute it, per my survey at the AFD discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You read those 24 sources in the same record time as you did when reading the 4 books just now? If anything, Pogen has to reply to the aspersions you cast towards him for us to have an outcome for this dispute, as I'm relying on the sources they used because old South Arabian history isn't my thing anyway (don't let my signature fool you) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 21:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Pogen would do better to respond to that on the article’s talk page, where we WP:Focus on content. This thread is about your misconduct. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean me validly removing your WP:IDLI pov tags after all that you've done above? Sure 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've tried looking at this today but keep getting sidetracked by one or other of the protagonists making yet another edit. Can't you two just shut the fuck up so someone can sort this out? It won't be me because I'm going to bed in a few minutes. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Protected Sheba for two days so this can be talked out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

valid crashout reason tbh, sorry 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive fancruft by IP Address 190.238.178.112 and User ErnestoCabral2018

User @190.238.178.112 has made a series of extremely unsourced edits to the Final Destination characters article. In it he claims that the protagonists of the first five movies are blood relatives of five other survivors of the 1960s disaster in Bloodlines. I rewatched the trailer multiple times and in NO WAY whatsoever does it mention them being related, and Iris (the grandma), says she saved a LOT of people that day, not five. Can you please block this IP from the Final Destination characters article? HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: User @ErnestoCabral2018 has also added Fancruft to this article as well. HiGuys69420 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

can you link the specific edits youre referring to? ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 18:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The users claim that the previous Final Destination MCs are related to the survivors Iris Campbell (the grandma) saved in the 1960s disaster. Nowhere in the trailer says that. Also in the trailer Iris says, "I saved a lot of lives that night" and does NOT specify the amount she saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Final_Destination_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1283159583

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Final_Destination_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1283527341 HiGuys69420 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Kapartem Continuously Disruptive Editing/(almost) Edit War

@Kapartem has been disruptively editing the with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from header on Generation Z to his own opinion for nearly a year now.

Last August a consensus was reached on the talk page. Talk:Generation Z/Archive 6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012" with the user even cosigning it.

Since March 16, 2025 @Kapartem has made four unauthorized edits again breaking the consensus that was reached back in August.

[272] - March 16, 2025

[273] - March 16, 2025

[274] - March 21, 2025 (Which was done after I reverted the page to a version before March 16)

[275] - March 31, 2025 (Changed again after being told to reach a new consensus on the Talk page)

Ongoing discussion is happening on Talk:Generation_Z with a possible Sock puppet account (@User:Mirenism) being used by Kapartem as well.

Thank you. Zillennial (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not edit the page disruptively. Danbloch, who has been contributing to the page for years, stated that the consensus is Gen Z started in the mid to late '90s. Yet, you keep editing it to make it start in the late '90s. What you're doing goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially since Google's front page shows Gen Z celebrities born in the mid-'90s. Kapartem (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kapartem: there does seem to be some very weak consensus to say "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012." and so you continually editing away from this when there is dispute isn't acceptable. Please continue discussion and stop trying to change this until you get some new consensus. If you continue to edit war in this way you can expect a block. Any discussion should be based on our policies and guidelines and the lead should summarise what the article says based on reliable sources. What people find when they search Google is largely irrelevant. One things is for sure, whatever our article says it should not be "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from the mid-to-late 1990s to 2012" which is extremely poorly worded since it's almost complete duplicative. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I've only reverted the article twice following unauthorized header changes. Please start a consensus discussion on Talk:Generation_Z before changing the header. A consensus was previously reached in August 2024. I'd suggest (also) reviewing WP:Code of conduct too. Thank you. Zillennial (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Zillennial, the discussion you link to was a brief discussion between three editors including you and Zillennial. It didn't arise out of an RFC and I wouldn't consider it to be a strong consensus since it was just a short conversation occurring between only 3 editors. I think if you want to arrive at a solid consensus you could refer back to, you should start a formal RFC and let it run its full length. Otherwise, I can see these years being continually contested for the near future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Repeated wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

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 made an edit to the article Korean War correcting some misleading information in the article. However, Remsense (talk · contribs), who has previously reverted my edits on other pages over the past months and recently engaged in wikihounding by posting on a thread on my talk page, reverted it again; I believe this to be another act of wikihounding. I also previously tried to make an edit to the article that would justify my other edits per their version of the rules, however they reverted it on the grounds that it was a "passing mention"; however, I believe that this is antagonizing behavior on the user's part. - HawkNightingale175 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you opening multiple ANI threads? Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I reckon at least partly because they are a longstanding editor who has been editing on this site for many years and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Remsense ‥ 论 03:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd merge this with the other one, but frankly I don't know how and I'm to busy with off wiki activities and just generally tired from being in school 4 days a week that I can't be bothered to learn how to. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Did they actually say that somewhere? Because if they did that is not on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

See above. Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

[276] full context. Moxy🍁 03:55, 4 April 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.

Caste-based Disruptive Editing by SENA$100pati

SENA$100pati is persistently inserting "Brahmin" term into articles. The additions into articles Lead section are either unsourced or sourced via self-published sites.

• Pushyamitra Shunga – diff

→ Added "Brahmin" caste claim citing wiki link itself as the source.

• Gautamiputra Satakarni – diff

→ Added "Brahmin" label using a self-published website.

• Vashishtiputra Satakarni – diff

→ Repeated same caste addition again via self-published source.

• Shashanka – diff

→ Inserted “Kulin Brahmin” identity without any sourcing.

• Mayurasharma – diff

→ Inserted “Brahmin” identity, unsourced.

• Lakshmeshwar Singh – diff

→ Added “Maithil Brahmin” caste, unsourced.

• Rameshwar Singh – diff

→ Same as above – inserted “Maithil Brahmin”, unsourced.

• Kanva dynasty – diff

→ Claimed it was a “Brahmin dynasty”, no scholarly source cited.

• Shunga Empire – diff

→ Added “North Indian Brahmin” identity to the empire citing self published source.

This user needs to be stopped from making further caste-related edits. I request an immediate Caste-related Tban, or Temporary block for repeated sourcing and neutrality violations. NXcrypto Message 03:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@NXcrypto: Sanctions would be be pre-mature at this stage since the editor's (undoubtedly flawed) edits may well be noob errors by someone unfamiliar with wikipedia's sourcing and content policies. Note that all these edits were made in a single burst two days back before they received any notice or warnings about the problems with the edits. I'll drop them another note. Let's see if they still continue in this vein and then re-assess. Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Shared IP 204.116.211.52 mostly vandalism and unconstructive edits

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

Recent edits are mostly obvious vandalism, or else AGF unconstructive edits. Talk page indicates that is the IP address of a high school. That scans based on the edit history. Referring to administrators for your attention. For any future users of this IP who may be contributing positively to wikipedia, perhaps they would be better off creating an account! All the best, --Tomatoswoop (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In all of 2025, this IP has only made 3 edits, so this doesn't qualify as an urgent problem that calls for sanctions. As far as encouraging users at this IP address to create their own registered account, I think you can leave a message stating this suggestion if there isn't already one present on the User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Urgent Appeal for Review of Unfair Page Deletion & Administrator Misuse

Urgent Appeal for Review of Unfair Page Deletion & Administrator Misuse

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to formally appeal the unjust deletion of our organization’s Wikipedia page and to report concerns about potential administrator misconduct.

It has come to our attention that Wikipedia user Hootan Dolati, who serves as the Chief of the Media Commission for Iran National Front (5th Council), has been misusing his administrative privileges to unfairly delete pages related to competing branches of the Iran National Front, such as the International Branch under the leadership of Siavash Soltani. Similarly, (Redacted) (username: Mehrnegar) has also engaged in biased deletions.

These actions appear to be politically motivated, aimed at strengthening one faction of the Iran National Front while suppressing the presence of other branches on Wikipedia. These facts can be easily verified through publicly available sources on the web.

Request for Fair Review

We respectfully request:

1. Restoration and fair review of our deleted page based on Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and independent sources.

2. Investigation into potential bias and misuse of administrative tools by Hootan Dolati and (Redacted).

3. Neutral administrators to oversee this case and prevent further politically motivated deletions.

Our organization is committed to Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality, fairness, and verifiability. We seek a fair resolution and guidance on how to prevent such issues in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Public Relations Iran National Front — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.132.198 (talk • contribs) 10:47, April 4, 2025 (UTC)

There is no such user as "Hootan Dolati". Is this issue related to the English Wikipedia or the Farsi Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I considered removing this as a possible WP:OUTING violation but considering the only named account User:Mehrnegar exists but has no edits on the Farsi wikipedia, I guess it's not really an issue. As hinted at by 331dot, if this relates to something on the Farsi wikipedia, it's not something we can deal with here. Also even if it did relate to something going on at the English wikipedia, unless whoever you are accusing has connected their account to the people you're naming above, it's not something that can be discussed publicly, it would need to be dealt with privately either by WP:ARBCOM or WP:COIVRT. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It's attempted outing, which imo should be treated the same DarmaniLink (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It's outright outing. It may be on Farsi Wikipedia, but it's still outing on Wikimedia and I've revdel'd the name connected to the account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• BTW, we have an article Hootan Dolati. Checking the history of this article does find the user 85 is probably referring to, but this editor has barely any edits on en, affirming it's unlikely to be an issue we can deal with on the English wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  • There is a single-purpose-account on fa: (fa:Special:Contributions/Parande.azad) whose block log, edit history, and appearance on the Administrators' noticeboard over there last week will make everything clear. Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Transphobia from Ergzay

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.

---

Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle is about a custody battle over a trans child, who is now 13 and has identified as trans since 3.

Ergzay has made numerous bigoted and disruptive edits there in the last few days, attacking the subject, trans children at large, and 2 trans editors on the page (myself included, who he accused of promoting child abuse):

• Rewrites the article to misgender the subject with the (obscenely false) comment: Pre-pubescent child identifies as male so correct this[277] and Further fix incorrect gender uses given that his son identifies as male[278]
• Lies on talk, saying Reliable sources state the reverse, namely that he identifies as male. (I would argue that you yourself are highly biased on this subject that you're inserting trans flags into your signature). to @RoxySaunders
• He accuses Roxy of lying for saying it's a BLPVIO[279][280][281]
• Says, when it's noted she was diagnosed with Gender dysphoria at 6 that That pediatrician testimony was thrown out of court because the pediatrician actively lied in court. So that is not a reliable source. with no evidence[282]
• Removes warnings from his talk page[283][284]
• Says on talk that It's also worth noting that children cannot reliably identify their own gender so MOS:GENDERID does not apply. The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality. You cannot have a gender identity before you have started going through puberty because you brain functionally cannot even know what that is.[285]
• When I note on talk that was bigoted, he says The only people bigotted here are yourself who are in favor of child abuse. Also trying to call it fringe when it's an over 70% popular opinion in the United States is crazy.[286]
• I close the talk page discussion, he re-opens saying Don't close topics you're personally invested in. [287]
• Then misgenders the kid again[288]

• Removes further warnings from his page with the comment: Remove incorrect garbage pushing for child abuse [289]
• Then leaves a section at my talk page titled Don't advocate for child abuse on my talk page stating Your recent edit on my talk page pushing for the abuse of children is gross and horrid. Don't do it again.[290]

INDEF CBAN for this nonsense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote this, he went to @DanielRigal's talk page with a section titled Don't push child abuse on my talk page saying Your warning was inappropriate. I called the child by the gender that they have used when away from his abusive mother. Do not push that kind of garbage. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

For the complete and accurate record. I do not have "transphobia". I am fully in support of any trans person doing whatever they like in their adult lives. It is a free country and that also means freedom to modify your body in any way you want and say anything you want. However on the topic of children it is a majority opinion that gender affirming care is severe enough to be banned. Over 59% of Americans support a ban on so-called gender affirming care for children. Ergzay (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not that it matters for this discussion, but for reference I'll drop the referenced survey via a reliable source. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/ It was actually more than I remembered, 68% support banning puberty blockers, a super majority. Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Why does what Americans think matter? This isn't a local website. Also peer-reviewed scientific literature is a gold standard - not polling some people in one place. Please leave polls out of this. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally your characterization of me making "multiple" edits is also incorrect. I made a single edit split into two pieces at basically the same time and have not touched the piece since. I've commented on talk pages and pushed back against people attacking me on my talk page, as you personally have done as well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&diff=prev&oldid=1283356769 Ergzay (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point considering the vociferousness of responses I'm not going to make any more edits on the page as I don't want to deal with the extreme reactions of people that happened afterwards. I'll handle this subject in real life and at the ballot box and not on wikipedia. (The anything but friendly "neighborhood socialist" has also greatly contributed to my confirmation bias on various things. There is no possibility of building a Wikipedia under such conditions.) Ergzay (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ergzay, do you believe that "socialist" and "sociologist" are synonyms? Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Was just going to ask that lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

ROFL. That's a slip on my part. I just realized. I read it as socialist every time. Makes sense now when I was trying to type it out manually several times it never came up and had to copy paste it. Though I'd bet the vast majority of sociologist are socialists. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ergzay, . Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I said "I'd bet". I doubt anyone's ever done a survey study on the political leanings of occupational sociologists. Ergzay (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

They've done it for scientists and various science specialisation. Surprising if Sociologists weren't also surveyed Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Old but supports my view it's definitely been done. [291]. I'm not sure if identifiying as socialist was one of the questions asked but political leanings seems definite. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The abstract of that paper is sending me. Claiming sociology "distrusts reason" sure buddy. Say that to all the stats and methods classes I had to take for sociology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't sounds like the surveys mentioned were done by the writers of that paper so whatever issues may exist with them (and there tend to be plenty), is probably fairly separate from possible issues with the paper. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Latest comment from Erzgay, quadrupling down on accusing editors of supporting child abuse and misgendering the girl (but, proving to be slightly original by accusing us of "fiction-writing" for not misgendering) for future note, I'm no longer going to reply here. Too many people are way too emotionally involved in this subject. Dealing with multiple people attacking me on my personal talk page on this is enough. I'm done. Let your fiction writing reign, I don't want to deal with it anymore. I hope you'll follow the idea of "believe child abuse victims" when his son becomes an adult and regrets the abuse he suffered at the hands of his mother and the state shoving drugs into him.[292] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Intentionally mangling by username doesn't help your case. Ergzay (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That was a typo, my bad Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith hurts yours Ergzay. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1 It may, but given I was personally attacked by this person I'm not sure why you'd expect me to assume good faith. It was also a mangling that people have done intentionally to me in the past. Ergzay (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone worth interacting with would want to intentionally mangle your username. It's not like Erzgay is offensive unless it's from someone who thinks there's something wrong with being gay. If you're hanging out in crowds where people regularly think there's something wrong with being gay, perhaps look for better crowds. (I mean obviously there are large chunks of the internet which are "broken" and you'll encounter trolls and other idiots in a lot of places. But the point is if you aren't regularly in crowds where such crap is normalised, you shouldn't be assuming everyday people you're interacting with would do it. Even in cases where you're in strong disagreement with them, unless they're homophobic bigots who's stupidity you know is best to ignore and you're only interacting with them to counter something they're saying.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

INDEF/CBAN Survey

• Support INDEF / CBAN for this atrocious behavior. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bejakyo pointed out this was a double vote since I called for the same sanction in the original post to this board, so I'm noting that here so it's only counted once.[293] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF/CBAN. I have tried composing 3 messages responding to the above but they don't really express my opinions on Ergzays behaviour adequately, so I won't try. Accusations of advocating for child abuse for fairly calmly sticking to Wikipedia policy on neutrality, sourcing and BLP policy is crap. Really crap. I can't be bothered to even expand on that as the accusations alone are enough to support a ban.Knitsey (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF/CBAN - clear aspersions on Ergzay's part and just general WP:NOTHERE behaviour. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Comment - looking through Ergzay's talk page archives, I spotted a warning for edit warning, and this reply in 2020 to Doug Weller (It appears like WP admins can't tell fake material from the truth then. I don't care about your threats.) when this edit was undone. MiasmaEternal☎ 04:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bans aren't decided by polls Just FWIW. Though I have little doubt I'll get a ban because any administrator opposing such a ban would themselves be attacked by other administrators. Ergzay (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  No but they are often decided by community consensus on en Wikipedia. In fact before DS, they nearly always were Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You'll get a ban because you decided you were going to right a great wrong, and the community has no tolerance for that sort of nonsense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger I made a single edit and some talk page comments. I've never heard of someone getting banned from all of Wikipedia over that. Ergzay (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It happens, but most editors don't make serious BLP violations and then accuse their fellow editors of supporting child abuse, so it's rare. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne To be clear, I do think I was in the wrong and I went too far. However the accusations were not completely random and were directly related to the material in question. And again I do think I was wrong to burst out and say what I did, however the mischaracterization is frustrating. Ergzay (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF/CBAN. Hate is disruptive, and all these aspersions/accusations are incredibly NOTHERE. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF block of user. The accusations of specific editors supporting child abuse (as personal position rather than a certain edit or dispute about certain sources, repeated and amplified widely after being called on it, is itself enough of a bright line. The additional unsupported claims of editors lying and other PA pushes further in that direction. CBANContent-/topic-centric restrictions, such as under GENSEX would remove the editor from the topic-area and solve the article-behavior problem, but there are too many and too severe of a fundamental behavior incompatible with WP. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @DMacks Just FYI I think you have WP:TBAN and WP:CBAN mixed up, the former's topic-focused while the latter's more weighty than even an indef block. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, I was seeing "C" as "content" (topic-centric) not "community" (editor-centric), as I usually only deal with users as an "indef block" action. I updated my comment (markup strike/insert). Thanks for the gentle clue. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose INDEF/CBAN but... Edit: support tban a clear warning or perhaps a gender-related TBAN is justified if a history of problems can be shown. This is an editor who has been on the site since 2006 with a clear block log. YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. Additionally, the transphobia accusation is less than ideal given the context and absent some sort of additional evidence. Certainly the gender of the child is a core part of the dispute and it's understandable that some would question if Wikipedia should be using stated vs biological gender in a case like this one. As a matter of course Wikipedia goes with stated gender but it should also be understood that isn't a universally held view and reasonable people can disagree here. Absent some evidence that they have a long history of issues on trans topics I don't see a CBAN or INDEF as reasonable. If editors can show they have previously been warned about this I think a stronger case could be made for a tban vs a warning. If they haven't been given a CT notice for gender-related topics and have no prior issues in the area then an explanation and warning is appropriate. Springee (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Edit to remove warning and go with tban. I think the additional discussions have convinced me that a warning isn't sufficient. Namely the implication that editors here are defending child abuse. Springee (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. I'm sorry, are you arguing that an editor misgendering a living person (on a page that has warning markup, by text he edited, noting the talk consensus) in almost a dozen edits after being warned, accusing subjects of the article of child abuse, and accusing multiple editors of supporting child abuse and being biased for being trans is not disruption? And claiming that trans kids cannot know they're trans, and are being pressured into being trans by their parents, isn't transphobic? And multiple warnings for edit warring are not a history of problems? Are you actually arguing this is about wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  That disruption would be handled by a TBAN. Why is a CBAN necessary? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The disruption was open bigotry against a minority, living article subjects who are members of it, and editors who are. Besides, this is a question to Springee why they do not consider Ergzay's behavior transphobic or disruption and why they call it "wrong think" for me to report an editor for accusing me of supporting child abuse...

  WP:HID explains it well though: a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I really don’t buy that we can argue there is sitewide disruption from topic-specific misbehavior because some editors won’t feel comfortable with the misbehaving editor in question no matter what. “Being someone who was once disruptive” is not itself considered a form of disruption on Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  You don't buy it, but the majority of editors here consider open bigotry against editors, article subjects, and the minority they're a part of, after multiple warnings, worthy of a CBAN and not a ban on discussing the minority. So feel free not to purchase. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, okay. Thanks. Are you gonna reply something to the effect of “that’s just what YOU think! Say whatever you want, it’s not what everyone else thinks!” to everyone who opposes your proposal? I think blocking editors because they’re permanently and fundamentally tarred with a fact that will make some editors feel uncomfortable collaborating with them is stupid. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  You replied to a question I asked of another user to ask me one I've already made my answer clear to in this discussion. When I reiterate my reasoning, and say you can disagree, you reiterate that you disagree and object to me pointing out you're free to disagree. How is this helpful?

  You think it's stupid to ban editors from the site for bigotry / personal attacks instead of a topic area, that's your prerogative. Your opinion has been expressed and noted. I won't change your mind and vice versa so we have to agree to disagree. I asked a question of Springee, and things they said about me, which I'd like an answer to, so I won't reply to you any further here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Springee, me and apparently @LightNightLights would like an answer as to why you think Ergzay's actions weren't transphobic and why you think reporting an editor for accusing me, and other editors, and living people of supporting child abuse is trying to punish an editor for wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  In reading the original complaint I don't think I gave the child abuse part enough merit. If the claim was "what is happening to that child is child abuse" I would view that as something that an editor is allowed to think. However, suggesting any editor supports child abuse, regardless of type, is not OK. That said, it also appears that this was said in the heat of the moment and after the editor felt attacked. They apologized the next morning, even reaching out to you to apologize directly. That further supports my view that an INDEF/CBAN is unjustified. Springee (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And yet their edits show a pattern of bigotry, and the community appears to agree that a half hearted attempt at an apology is insufficient at this point. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just for the record, as was linked in the original report here, they were given a CT notice for GENSEX 05:31, March 31, 2025 (before everything other than the two diffs in the first bullet point). They've also been given CT notices for American Politics (January 22, 2025) and BLP (October 26, 2021). That's just going by edits tagged with CT alert, they may fall under one of the other "presumed to be aware" things. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The proposed TBAN is a community sanction. The awareness rules are for WP:CTOP sanctions. This just happens to cover the same scope as an ArbCom-designated CTOP, but since the closing admin would be acting on behalf of the community, not of ArbCom, it doesn't matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1, I was just responding to the part where Springee said If editors can show they have previously been warned and If they haven't been given a CT notice. Just figured it was worth pointing out that they have been given one CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/Cban. Everyone else has thoroughly explained why, but the fact they apparently think America rules the world is also...a thing. It doesn't matter what popular opinion in the United States says, its what Wikipeida standards say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article is about a case in America between Americans. That other countries are somehow relevant makes no sense. Ergzay (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is an international project so if you're going to accuse another editor of supporting child abuse because of what American's believe, then yes other countries comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  They came to my talk page calling me a bigot for having a political opinion they disagreed with first. Ergzay (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No they called you out for trying to edit an article in violation of our policies and guidelines. I'd add articles should represent a worldwide view even if they only describe local events and people. If we have an article on something in Afghanistan, where some local person mutilated or murdered their (locally born) daughter or wife because of something the father/husband viewed as a transgression, then even if it's true most Afghanis think this person's actions were perfectly justified and not wrong our article is not going to treat this like the case. (Frankly I don't think we can really know what most Afghanis think under the Taliban but that's largely an aside.) If it can be sourced, our article will mention this local view, but the article will treat these actions as major wrongs. If an editor demands demands that this article is wrong because it demonstrates a worldwide PoV and argues it should only an American PoV, they'd rightfully be called out for it. And if you are going to offer your political opinions expected to be called out if they're horrible opinions. The best solution is to keep that crap to yourself and concentrate on how we can improve articles, not what you personally think. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to disagree with the framing in most of your comment there, but I certainly agree that I'm never going to touch this topic again for a long time into the future after the hornet's nest this brought up. I couldn't sleep last night because of this garbage. Ergzay (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is it's not just a matter of not touching this topic. It's clear from your replies you still don't understand how unacceptable it was to accuse another editor of supporting child abuse just because of your personal opinions. Also for clarity I meant "Afghani PoV" not "American PoV" in my comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I do now think I went too far and have apologized on all parties personal talk pages. Ergzay (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN This is an editor who has broken BLP (by misgendering and just straight up referring to child abuse) and has not provided a single source to back up their claims. They then went on to accuse other editors of pushing for child abuse, a clear set of PA's. The doubling down of behaviour after being warned via CTOP notices and the like seems particularly worrying (particularly the subsequent PA's on the people giving those warnings). LunaHasArrived (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @LunaHasArrived I did not "double down on the behavior". I stopped responding on the topic and started messaging people to stop messaging me. I don't want anything to do with the topic anymore. This hornet's nest is way beyond anything I was expecting. Ergzay (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN - reasonable people can disagree on how content in articles should be presented and written, but once you cross the line and start attacking editors with unfounded and horrific allegations of pushing for child abuse, and then doubling down on those allegations, it's time for a forced break from the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Just a note that as a discussion on a community ban, but this discussion can't be closed early. I believe it must stay open either 24 or 48 hours (please check me). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I recently reported the message on my User Talk page to AIV so maybe that will deal with it faster. If not, then lets see what the next day or two brings. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• FYI, according to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions, For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN - Irrespective of any good that they may have done in the past we can't have people flipping an article 180 degrees from the truth as reported by RS and then trying to bully people just for fixing it and pointing out our policies. The vandalism is enough for a block. The personal attacks are enough for a block. Both, plus the unrepentant grandstanding here, are enough for a CBAN. There is no way that this user can collaborate with a mindset like this. It is sad when an editor with almost two decades on here gets banned but I can't see any other possible outcome given the behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN their BLP violations would be enough for me to support an cban, unless there was some very quick indication they understood the need for drastic change. I'd include the misgendering in this. What Ergzay wants to personally believe, I don't care but the requirements for what they say on wiki, even when not in articles, are clear and especially for a living person. But anyway once they accused other editors of such things, a cban is really the only path forward. While I'm not opposed to a simple indef as I think the chance of an admin unilaterally unblocking in poor circumstances is very low, a community ban does make it clearer how bad their behaviour has been and how far they need to go to edit here again. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I still support a CBAN. The apology is a good start and I have some sympathies to an editor making comments in anger and not remembering exactly what they'd said until reminded. (Per 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC), it sounds like this is one of the reasons they continued to defend themselves even after having a chance to calm down.) I'd also note that the cban seemed clear while they were still defending themselves. So while I can understand the perennial concern an editor is just apologising to try and get out of sanction, it seems most likely to me this apology is sincere and came from a genuine realising of what they'd done. And even the time taken to get there is not such a severe strike. Uncle G's analysis raises some concerns, however they'd be far from the only editor who is probably letting their biases affect their editing a bit too much and I don't feel there's enough to justify a CBAN. Ultimately if it was only the comments and editing about article subjects, I might be convinced a BLP topic ban together with a GENSEX one might be enough. (But not solely GENSEX, rather their reason for making such serious BLP violations, I don't trust an editor who makes such severe BLP violations to make any editing related to BLPs.) But their earlier severe comments about their fellow editors IMO means even with their apology a cban is justified. Perhaps them simply staying away from the area would be enough that they can avoid doing this ever again, perhaps not. Accusing other editors of pushing for the abuse of children is severe enough that I'd rather not find out. Even if the editors affects are perfectly fine with it, I don't expect editors need to feel that way when such a horrific accusation. As always indefinite does not mean infinite, and so they continue to recognise the problems with their editing with some future appeal, it might be okay to risk letting them edit again, but not right now. Note I'm always opposed to blocking or site banning editors for their personal views no matter how horrific they may be. Frankly I'd even oppose it if an editor says something like "I feel anyone who supports trans-rights for children is supporting the abuse of children" or something similar provided they quick learn to STFU as we don't care about their personal views. However once you've actually directly accused your fellow editors of disgusting stuff, that's a clear problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN Wikipedia should not tolerate this bigotry at all. Send Ergzay packing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Suport Indef/CBAN - blatent BLP violatons, as well as numerious cases of toxic bigoted incivility towards multiple other editors. Both actions are against important wikipedia policies. Such a culture cannot be allowed to festerBejakyo (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't attack anyone. People came to _my_ talk page attacking me for a _single_ edit I made. I deleted their comments and put comments on their talk page to stop and no longer put such content on my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  People came to your talk page to provide a good faith notification to stop edit waring, you responded to "a single edit" (which is evidently not the case), by calling RoxySaunders a liar, and YFNS a child abuser. This along with other instances of tenditious editing is simply not conductive to wikipedia

  For the benefit of others, the talk page notifications Ergazy removed one such notification here claiming DanielRigal was pushing for child abuse, and the removal of other such notifications here Bejakyo (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes they came to my talk page accusing me of being a bigot, if that is not a personal attack I don't know what is. Ergzay (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  requesting you to stop promoting bigotry is not a personal attack, nor would a personal attack merrit describing wikipedia editors as a child abusers as you have so done Bejakyo (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Calling someone a bigot is absolutely a personal attack irregardless of context. I don't know how to state this otherewise. Ergzay (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Being called out for bigotry is not a personal attack regardless of if it hurts your feelings. And again, even if being called a bigot were an attack, it is not justification to describe multiple other users as child abusers.

  If you don't know how to state this otherwise you are freely able to WP:dropthestick and walk away Bejakyo (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I did not describe multiple other users as child abusers. And calling someone a bigot is absolutely a personal attack. I've seen people warned over doing so before. Ergzay (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You did indeed describe multiple users as child abusers. Calling out bigotry is not a personal attack. the purposes of those notices is a simple friendly reminder to mind oneself when furthering bigotry unknowingly Bejakyo (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  And they doubled down on that in this discussion by calling me a "Transphobe" when I am not, as I explained in my top level replies. Ergzay (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Transphobe" is in quotes, even though it isn't quoting anyone. Nobody has used that word in this discussion, except you, in this reply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's in the title of this section. Ergzay (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are twisting (well evidenced!) accusations of poor behaviour into personal attacks. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If you'd just wanted an editor to stay away from your talk page, you could have just said, "please stay away from my talk page". Occasionally an editor does this and I'm generally supportive of a harassment indef if an editor keeps posting on another editor's talk page when they've been asked to stop per WP:USERTALKSTOP. But that isn't what you did, as you well known. Frankly per my comment I'd likely still be supporting an cban or at least an indef even were it not for your child abuse accusation but as I said once you made it, cban is in my mind the best path forward. The fact you're now downplaying it as just asking an editor to stay away from your talk page is clear evidence that you haven't learnt the important lesson of how bad your comment was, so a cban is well justified as it seems unlikely you will learn. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  We're getting divorced from reality. My "child abuse accusation" was an accusation that they support child abuse by calling me a bigot for supporting a child's actual gender orientation that they have related to their father. This is how far we are down this rabbit hole. Ergzay (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it was an accusation of supporting child abuse however you want to spin it. In fact it was beyong just supporting child abuse, you said "pushing for the abuse of children". Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne You're right, after reviewing, I did use those specific words and I agree that was going way too far. I did not remember my word use being that bad. That was not my intention. Apologies. Ergzay (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN: Accusing other editors of supporting child abuse because Ergzay doesn't care for their politics is a bright-line here. Like Bushranger, I'm likewise bemused by the premise that popular opinion in the United States is worth a tinker's damn in this discussion; this is not, after all, Conservapedia. That Ergzay has been around for a number of years doesn't confer immunity to civility policies. Ravenswing 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing I did NOT accuse other editors as supporting child abuse because of their politics. Ergzay (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  [294] I'm not really interested in "oh, it wasn't for THAT reason that I accused editors of promoting child abuse" weasel wording Ravenswing 09:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is not "weasel wording" when that edit you just linked is because a person came on to my talk page, without any interaction on an article talk page and made personal attacks calling me as being a bigot and making further false claims claiming something I did not do. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&diff=prev&oldid=1283356769 Ergzay (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. For what it's worth, they did leave an apology on my talk page in which they blame their actions on an emotional reaction they had to the alleged child abuse. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 10:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Saying that both YFNS ([295], [296]) and Daniel Rigal ([297]) are in favour of child abuse is an outrageous personal attack which we should not tolerate. Doubling down in this thread: trying to justify their comments because "they attacked me first" (e.g. [298]), denying that they made personal attacks (e.g. [299]) and minimising their attacks (e.g. [300]) is also not encouraging. I am pleased to see that Ergzay has now reflected on their comments and apologised on YFNS, Daniel Rigal, and Roxy's talk pages, and I think that in time they could appeal a ban, but these are such egregious attacks that right now an apology feels like too little too late. The level of compromised judgement required to make these comments in the first place makes me feel as though a CBAN is still necessary. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN This is grossly inappropriate behaviour that violates both WP:BLP and WP:AGF in the worst possible ways. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Have you even looked at the person's edit history? I have. The person clearly clearly is here to write an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Really, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia? They have thousands of good edits. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is clearly going to pass, but Oppose Indef/CBAN - banning someone with 5,000 edits who has been here for 15 years for one spat is a ridiculous overreaction. And especially calling them WP:NOTHERE even more so - that essay is about the sum total of one's edits, and one doesn't cease to be here for behaving disruptively in one incident. No objection to a topic ban from the GENSEX area, but I'm not seeing why that wouldn't be sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The editor called two other editors child abusers. For declining to misgender a child. That's incredibly egregious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I shouldn't have said what I did to those three other editors, but it was not because they "declined to misgender a child", it was because I felt the child was being misgendered. And again what I said was beyond the pale and not conducive to good editing on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN; support TBAN from WP:GENSEX and strong warning. One of the reasons we have CTOPs is that there are certain topics that have a tendency to, frankly, make smart people's brains turn off. Someone is a reasonable editor for years and then they see something on the news about Israel, or COVID, or abortion, or, yes, gender, and they start talking like somebody else entirely. That was my read of this situation even before Ergzay's latest comments confirming that that's exactly what happened here. However, before those comments I'd held off on opposing this proposal, because, as I've argued a number of times in the past, a TBAN from GENSEX is an inadequate remedy to harassing editors on the basis of gender. As I wrote some time ago at Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive § Appropriate remedies, a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.)
  However, Ergzay's apology by the cold light of day reads as sincere. It is of course up to those affected whether to accept the apology. And only time will tell which is the "real" Ergzay: the one who said some quite horrible things, or the one who apologized for it. But based on over 15 years of constructive editing, I'm not comfortable supporting a CBAN over one incident if the user has credibly apologized. Instead, I support a TBAN from GENSEX, a warning in the strongest possible terms for harassment, and an advisement to Ergzay that, even if not formally IBANned, they should avoid the other editors involved here if at all possible going forward. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose CBAN; support GENSEX TBAN per Tamzin's above argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how sincere the apology is, it came right after repeatedly insisting I did not describe multiple other users as child abusers.[301], said for _reasoned_ political support that a _majority_ of Americans hold. I really don't get what's going on anymore. Nothing I did was unprovoked and out of nowhere. (this ignores the repeated attacks on 2 living article subjects: the trans girl and her mother, which he seems completely unapologetic of)[302], and concluding I do not think any of them are actual child abuse supporters. Not anymore at least. I don't want to deal with this and I want to stay far far away from the subject going forward.[303]. His apology below continues to make digs at the subject's identity and claim that the father (who has been to spent almost a decade insisting his daughter was turned trans, forcing her to shave her hair, etc) has been mistreated and justified the content changes outraged by how the father was treated and what his child was going through and I went and looked on the wikipedia page about the court case. I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits.. Not to mention thanking Springee for standing up for him after Springee said there wasn't disruption and that this was about "wrong think" after doing his perfunctory apologies[304]

  And wrt the 15-20 years of "constructive editing": The overwhelming majority of his edits have been between 2021-2025, with 2006-2020 combined not matching even 2021[305], focused almost entirely on Elon Musk and culture-war type things regarding him (and his rockets)[306][307], resulting in multiple trips to WP:ANEW[308] to say nothing of the stream of blanked edit warring notices and warnings for personal attacks from his talk page[309]. It's more so 4 years of highly questionable editing than 15 years of being constructive.

  Finally And only time will tell which is the "real" Ergzay: the one who said some quite horrible things, or the one who apologized for it. is a false dichotomy in my view. The "real" Ergzay said horrible things about 2 living article subjects (one because she's trans, the other because she supported her), and 3 editors (accusing them of lying, being too biased since they're trans, supporting child abuse, etc), repeatedly, and continuously lied throughout this discussion arguing they didn't. In my message on their talk page, I warned they should not edit GENSEX if they're coming with the claim the existence of trans kids doesn't "jive with reality", to which they claimed they didn't say that and then accused me of supporting child abuse, hence the ANI trip I did not want to make initially and had given him a chance to avoid. The "real" Ergzay, at the point it was obvious a CBAN was practically inevitable, started half-apologizing. People are responsible for their actions and horrible behavior from someone, whatever the reason, is horrible behavior from the "real" person in their totality - a dubious apology after the fact, in the face of sanctions, says much less about their character than the original.

  If these attacks were not in GENSEX, we would not even be debating a CBAN. Your quote of WP:HID sums it up perfectly in my view - this is somebody who went on bigoted tirades about editors and living people. Merely restricting him from the minority he railed against is an inadequate measure and sends the message that disruptive bigotry won't get you sanctioned any further than talking about the minority. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I give a lot of weight to apologies, and always have. I wouldn't be where I am in life, on-wiki or off-, if people hadn't accepted apologies for some things I said or did. If I'm wrong to extend this WP:ROPE, and there is a recurrence of this kind of behavior, I'll be the first in line to make the indefinite block—and an indef after escaping a CBAN for the same conduct is de facto a CBAN itself, in that few if any admins will overturn without community consensus. But sure, it's completely fair to interpret HID as cutting the other way here. This is just where I come down based on my own philosophy of apologies and atonement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Commendable af and one of my favorite things about you for the record. Where I'm at is, even if I did find the apology completely genuine, I'd still think a CBAN necessary. At least for now (I supported removing Roxy's after a while even, though tbf it was much less egregious conduct). An apology is best imo when it accepts the consequences while apologies in the name of avoiding consequences are cheaper. To quote the late great PTerry, no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - Accusing other editors of being apologists for child abuse is beyond the pale and (even without the GENSEX aspect) would be grounds for an immediate indef block for egregious personal attacks. Adding in the GENSEX aspect only makes matters worse, as his accusations now become egregious BLP violations writ large for reasons which should be obvious to anyone rational that can read and follow the conversation: He's accusing one or both parents of child abuse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• TBAN at the very least, but I would also not be opposed to an indef for this and this edit summary. I note that the user has apologised, which is something, but from reading this thread it took a significant amount of time before they stopped trying to claim they were justified in posting such offensive material. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose CBAN, Support TBAN from WP:GENSEX If editors show they cannot function or contribute constructively, or rather, without being disruptive in a single area, but are otherwise constructive and a net positive, we restrict them from that area. Was he out of line? Yes. Is a CBAN going too far? Also yes. The above comments such as ). An apology is best imo when it accepts the consequences while apologies in the name of avoiding consequences are cheaper. appears to not view a TBAN as a consequence, as well as potentially not understanding the the spirit of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. We block to prevent further disruption. If there is no risk of disruption outside that area, he should not be banned from the entire website. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE - a perfunctory half-apology (that still has not recognized that attacking living people on the basis of their identity is wrong) does not cancel out attacking multiple editors on the basis of their identity, attacking living subjects on the basis of their identity, and attacking an entire demographic on the basis of identity.

  The consequence of egregious compounded displays of bigotry in violation of multiple sections of the Universal Code of Conduct should be removal from the platform, not the slap on the wrist that is "you're no longer allowed to talk about this minority and otherwise you're off the hook", especially considering at no point has he apologized for 1) bigoted comments about the minority at large (as opposed to specific editors) and 2) bigoted comments about living article subjects.

  "You aren't allowed to make bigoted comments about minorities" is the baseline behavior expected of an editor. A TBAN for this behavior means we've shifted that baseline to "You are allowed to spend a day making bigoted comments about minorities directed at editors, article subjects, and the minority at large just this once as a freebie" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hate is disruptive insofar as it is expressed. If a topic ban would solve the issue of expression, then why does the genuineness of someone’s contrition, or a change in their viewpoint (which they wouldn’t be allowed to express anymore anyways) matter? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The talk pages of transgender Wikipedia editors do not comprise a "topic". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't view this as a freebie, I'm saying he contributes positively outside of this field but is not able to do so in this field. Topic bans are by zero means "freebies". You appear to be seeking a purely punitive block which goes against the spirit of the policy. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  @DarmaniLink: Accusing other editors of defending child abuse with no real evidence is in and of itself grounds for a summary indef. Doing so in a manner that accuses other non-editor living people of child abuse is in and of itself grounds for a summary indef. Repeatedly continuing to defend such edits right up until the bouncer is about to hurl you into the trashcans in the alley nearby is an exacerbating factor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely unacceptable. I agree. Is there a risk of further disruption however that TBAN and an IBAN can't solve? I'm not convinced. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  They make it clear that why they may be here to help build an encyclopedia, they are not compatible with a collaborative project. Blocks/bans are not punitive, but the fact that they have, in fact, done this, and given an apology that reads very much as "not actually sorry, just sorry they got called out on it and are facing a ban" makes it clear that it cannot be trusted that this sort of attitude won't spill over into other areas if they're merely tbanned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  With respect, they've been here since 2006 with over 5000 edits. This isn't a new editor. They already have a track record. WP:ROPE DarmaniLink (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. They aren't a new editor. Therefore they should know better. As for the over 5000 edits, I point to Uncle G's analysis. This isn't the first time they've edited with a clear bias, and quite a few of these biased edits have been outside GENSEX. They are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  They really should know better. Pardon my french, but when I look at UncleG's list of various incidents, such as 2020: Special:Diff/956623227 — removal of "hate group" appellation, I just wonder how in the hell someone can even argue that a Neo-Nazi terrorist organization isn't a hate group. Maybe I'm dense, but I thought that should be pretty obvious to any rationally minded individual. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  It was a claim in wiki voice that was sourced to the the SPLC. At minimum it should have been attributed. A number of editors have raised concerns about treating the SPLC as a RS. Springee (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)See correction below

  Yeah, forgive me, but that's a lame attempt at excusing that. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Correction: It was attributed to SPLC. That said, should any claim by the SPLC, or any activist organization, be DUE for inclusion without a 3rd party RS reporting on it? A number of editors (disclaimer, myself included) feel the answer is no. Thus this may be a principled edit rather than one trying to hide that it's a hate group (something I presume the rest of the article would make clear. Springee (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And yet community consensus is that the SPLC is generally reliable in regards to extremism and hate groups. You're going to have to do a lot harder to try to explain away Ergzay's bigotry. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  The various SPLC discussions make it clear the community is mixed on their use. Additionally, a number of community members are warry of citing any activist organization absent a 3rd party RS making the connection. Also, saying Ergzay is a bigot is a personal attack. Springee (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  this thread has more than enough evidence to support a statement that ergzay's behavior is bigoted. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And yet that has not been sufficient to downgrade the community's treatment of the SPLC as a source from generally reliable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  You should keep in mind that the edit was made almost 5 years ago. Not every editor checks the RSP page before making edits. An editor, acting in good faith, could have seen that the SLPC designation was only in the first paragraph of the lead but not in the article body thus would be UNDUE for the lead (or should have been added to the body). Perhaps the editor saw the recent MOS discussion on the use of the SPLC in the lead of articles [310] and felt that no consensus existed. The problem is you have jumped to the conclusion that this edit could only have been done for problematic reasons. You haven't asked why they did it (which might be hard to recall nearly 5 years later). They didn't edit war to keep the sentence out. Are you suggesting that disagreeing with something like that is automatically an issue? Your comment "Egrazy's bigoty" could be read as a personal attack. Are you suggesting we should assume the worst and that you meant it as a personal attack vs a statement about their comments (not about them as a person)? We have a situation here were the edits *could* have a policy, good faith, compliant explanation. Why should we jump to the negative conclusion without even asking? Certainly we shouldn't use such edits as any sort of evidence of a problem absent some additional evidence related to those edits. Springee (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And we also have a problematic pattern of behavior by Ergzay. I'm not suggesting disagreeing with someone is automatically an issue. But when we have an issue at present and a long running pattern of behavior that would support a tendency towards bigoted behavior, its very difficult to view any of the listed edits in a positive light. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Any of the list"? What is wrong with this edit [311]? Before this goes any further, would you edit your previous entry to make it clear that "explain away Ergzay's bigotry" is about their statements, not the person? Springee (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bigoted statements from a person = bigotry from the person = the person's bigotry. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is a difference between saying somebody is a bigot, and noting they said a lot of bigoted things (ie, were engaging in bigotry). Statements like claiming that The entire concept of "trans children" ... does not jive with reality, accusing editors of supporting child abuse for not misgendering a trans child, misgendering a trans child repeatedly after being warned (BLP applies to talk), and accusing trans editors of bias and being personally invested is indisputably bigoted. Signed, a grown up trans child, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that there is a difference between stating someone is a bigot vs saying a comment is bigoted. However, the comment, "explain away Ergzay's bigotry" reads as something about the person. "explaining away their bigoted actions/comments" would make it clear the comments, not the person's qualities/self are the issue. Perhaps Insanityclown1 could clarify. Springee (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Ergzay's bigotry" seems like a perfectly valid way of describing bigotry from Ergzay. To paraphrase the Emperor's New Groove: Oh, right. The bigotry. The bigotry from Ergzay, the bigotry openly displayed by Ergzay, Ergzay's bigotry Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Amusing post-hoc policy justification for an edit that simply claimed they are "not a legitimate source", again, to remove the designation as a hate group from the page of a neo-nazi organization REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1. It's good that we've gotten past the pernicious mindset (that haunted Wikipedia for so many years) that after a certain undefined number of edits, an editor was immunized from having to follow civility and notability rules; that let the MickMcNees and Lugnutses to rampage for so long. I'd rather not see that syndrome return. Ravenswing 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF/CBAN. I was going to support a GENSEX TBAN until Uncle G's review of recent edits made it clear that the pattern of biased editing goes well beyond GENSEX. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • More particularly — Ser! observes the gender edit where the subject is a Japanese sportsperson and not related to U.S.A. politics. — the problem does not align with gender and sex. It aligns with Elon Musk and U.S.A. politics (e.g. Special:Diff/883238779) including where the politics intersect with Tesla and the private space companies and anything that might seem — even when it in fact is not — negative about those companies (e.g. Special:Diff/1236105668 and Special:Diff/1021939886/1022051783). If Ergzay had stuck to the physics (e.g. Special:Diff/513744054), chemistry, astronomy (e.g. Special:Diff/262522805) engineering, rockets, and indeed Japanese railway stations and anti-vandalism (e.g. Special:Diff/771740709), xe would not be here in this position now; as xe has remained conflict-free for 2 decades in those areas. I hope that xe has learned in those 2 decades that not every encyclopaedia reader has an intimate knowledge of MacOS (Special:Diff/84854361). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

    "the gender edit where the subject is a Japanese sportsperson" – I'm not sure what you trying to say, but just to avoid any misunderstanding: The edit Special:Diff/1111303837 by Ergzay was perfectly fine. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF / CBAN. The appalling behavior displayed here deserves nothing less. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF / CBAN. Pretty revolting behavior. Absolutely unacceptable. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 23:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Hate is disruptive. Once I saw Springee defend this, I knew it was bad. 174.171.79.146 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE blocked by Izno theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, log in. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Why do that? It would link a user name to the edit history of an IP that was blocked for trolling [312]. Springee (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  So, uh, any response to YFNS's reply to your !vote? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Log in lol. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tamzin's proposal. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• When you're trying to build an encyclopaedia collaboratively, you need a community of people you can collaborate with. This person isn't one of them: their discourse style is harsh, rude, hectoring, tendentious, and exhausting. CBAN.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Tamzin's proposal. Xe knows whereof xe speaks. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  • And a pass is given for the non-GENSEX biased editing, I suppose? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment And quite frankly, anyone trying to defend this offensive transphobia as "wrongthink" needs to have a good think about whether they are a good fit for a collaborative encyclopedia. Would they be defending it if it was racism or misogynism? I'd guess not, because we block for that sort of thing; apparently transphobia is still allowed a little more leeway. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I’m going to have to go with a CBAN here. Transphobia and other personal attacks aren’t tolerated, and hopefully never will be. E_F⁵ 23:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support a temporary 14 day - 3 month CBAN and a permanent, but appealable TBAN for WP:GENSEX. This user has been constructively contributing for several years. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN replace the topic with race rather than GENSEX and we wouldn't even be discussing a potential topic ban we'd straight up indef, so why should we tolerate transphobia? Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a question I find myself asking all too often on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN per above by Lavalizard101 and the fact that they have now, under the heading "Do not make edits to the this talk page", written "If you desperately wish to talk to me, send me an email. I do not want to talk to anyone at all. I'm traumatized by recent events and can't even think about Wikipedia without getting panic attacks right now. Just don't talk to me. Ergzay (talk) 1:22 pm, Today (UTC+1" Doug Weller talk 12:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  As someone with an anxiety disorder, this seems like a rather silly thing to have panic attacks about, but to each their own. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Don’t let your decency fly out of the window just because you think you’ve found a deserving target. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN The comments made were really beyond the pale and were doubled down on time and again. The apology below does not read sincere at all. And a topic ban is clearly not enough in this case. Being able to work collaboratively with such an editor anywhere on Wikipedia after this is thoroughly shot and it seems likely they'd just keep to any TBAN by then working to undermine any other topics trans editors work on other than this area. I see no way around such an issue when the whole purpose is collaboratively building of an encyclopedia, which they do not seem here to do. Also, the point by Lavalizard101 just above really exemplifies the entire problem with the opposing statements further up. Silverseren^C 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN So, like Tamzin, I do take apologies seriously, and reading the apology below I actually do think that it seems basically sincere, and while it wouldn't dissuade me from a TBAN (among other things its missing important bits like misgendering the child) it might've dissuaded me from a CBAN on its own. However, to get to the apology you also have to scroll through a list of this editor's contributions over time, and that list strongly suggest to me that this is not just a GENSEX problem and that this person has been POV-pushing consistently over decades. I also have to say that while the apology seems sincere, there's a big difference between a sincere apology as a reaction to widespread condemnation of your behavior and a sincere apology caused by you reevaluting your behavior on your own. Loki (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

5100 edits since 2006

I thought that I'd take a little look into this; because both the people who are waving "not here" around and the people waving it as a defence haven't reviewed the history in detail. Reviewing it, it supports the conclusion that Wikipedia tolerates people for their expressed political views and it is only when those cross the line into outright politicized attacks on editors and article subjects that the community gets up in arms.

There are many article content edits, and there is work on improving the encyclopaedia and dealing with sockpuppets and vandalism, and clearly the "not here" accusation is false. But equally there's a clear agenda to the editing going all of the way back to 2006. Examples of both:

• 2006: Special:Diff/57138693 Special:Diff/57136728 — on the "myth" side of climate change
• 2007: Special:Diff/176116583 Special:Diff/84345237 — personal view that "some Roman Catholics are not Christian"
• 2007: Special:Diff/117873826 — wording proposal for carbon nanotubes
• 2014: Special:Diff/605323952 — removal of poorly sourced conspiracy theories
• 2015: Special:Diff/656544761 — reverting addition of Oprah Winfrey (suggested on the talk page in 2007) to business magnates
• 2016: Special:Diff/715457804 — "these protestors are environmental terrorists" "They've committed a great crime"
• 2018: Special:Diff/842251814 — content about gender-neutrality sourced to two language professors and a researcher removed for being "biased" and "poorly-cited"
• 2020: Special:Diff/956623227 — removal of "hate group" appellation
• 2020: Special:Diff/984648029 — "Removing fictional information" sourced to the NYT and a UTP book
• 2021: Special:Diff/1053908654 — reverting vandalism
• 2022: Special:Diff/1111303837 — "he" to "she"
• 2023: Special:Diff/1160172932 — historical name correction
• 2024: Special:Diff/1229280724 — sockpuppet report, which was confirmed
• 2025: Special:Diff/1270806377 — removal of women from Mexican-American War

Predictably, where xe gets onto noticeboards and disputes it is when xe is involved with Elon Musk and U.S.A. politics articles such as Missy Cummings. But xyr involvement in topics like South Padre Island, Texas and many others seems trouble-free over the years. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using the neopronoun xe for this editor? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Uncle G does that for all editors, and has been doing so since before some people in this thread were born. There's a reason that very specific example is given at Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns § Across-the-board practices. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Am I missing something on the 2022 diff? That appears to have been a legitimate correction as the rest of the article used "she"; the subject doesn't appear to have changed genders at any point. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • As I said, examples of both. That one seemed worth pointing out when I came across it. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  The 2020 hate group removal needs context. The removal seems to be because the content is directly sourced to the SPLC. Quite a few editors question if the SPLC should be used for wiki voice statements of fact. When presenting the changes it would be best to also present the reason why as in this case it seems to be a sourcing issue. Springee (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also, the 2020 removing fictional information sourced to the NYT also should have had context. It was removed from the lead while a nearly identical block of text exists in the controversy section. Uncle G shows it as if this was outright removal of content from the article vs a dispute if 50% of the negative content from the article's controversy section should also be in the lead. Untimely people may not agree with the difs but the two I've looked at seem like changes a reasonable, good faith editor might make. Springee (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't change the fact that they claimed the information was "fictional" when it was not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  or that they referred to individuals exercising their first amendment rights to assemble and protest as "terrorists." you consider that defensible @Springee? Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Simon, perhaps it would be best to ask them but they did open a talk page discussion that appears consistent with part of the removal, a part that isn't in the current lead for what it's worth. Springee (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't feel a need to ask them considering the evidence presented. It's clear their beliefs regarding trans people have skewed their editing behaviour irreparably. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

bludgeon

officially requesting that User:Ergzay to wp:dropthestick and stop wp:bludgeon all those who disagree and allow the discussion to be conducted propperlyBejakyo (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not even allowed to defend myself when people try to claim I did something I did not do? What is this really. Ergzay (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

something I did not do?

here is you calling one user a child abuser, here is you calling a seperate user a child abuser.

beyond getting sidetracked, if you want to excuse your actions then do it the main section, not the survey section. per bludgeon, if you're so convinced that your right then your points will speak for themselves. Bejakyo (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

_BECAUSE_ they came to _MY_ talk page attacking me and calling me a bigot for _reasoned_ political support that a _majority_ of Americans hold. I really don't get what's going on anymore. Nothing I did was unprovoked and out of nowhere. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As being called out for bigotry regardless of it upsets you or not does not warrent describing numerous other editors as sexual criminals. YFNS clearly layed out the fact that such a callout was not unprovoked, regardless of if you think a number of some people in a single country agree with you Bejakyo (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo Seriously, why can't you be accurate. I did not call anyone a "sexual criminal". I did not call anyone a sexual abuser. This is frustrating that you keep escalating the terminology. Ergzay (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You've very plainly been calling multiple editors child abusers due to their good faith edits regarding GENSEX and attempted to justify doing such for being 'a fit of rage' or because you were 'insulted'. This simply is not fitting conduct for wikipedia Bejakyo (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

And furthermore the beliefs of Americans are immaterial. This isn't Ameripedia - it's Wikipedia - and we go by what reliable sources say, not the opinion polls of America. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have opinion polls on this subject in other Anglophone countries (e.g. Britain, India)? I am rather skeptical that, for example, Nigeria has more socially liberal attitudes on it. jp×g🗯️ 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s a shift in subject. It’s accurate that this editor didn’t call anyone a sexual criminal or make intimations about sexual abuse of children; only “abuse”. You should at least acknowledge this. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear I do not think I was "right" to call them supporters of child abuse. I do not think any of them are actual child abuse supporters. Not anymore at least. I don't want to deal with this and I want to stay far far away from the subject going forward. Ergzay (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

regardless of what you claim about if you see it as right or not, you still did it Bejakyo (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• In fairness, xe is far from the only person who has been replying a lot. I'm inclined to give someone a little latitude when there's a pile-on like this. Think how it would be for you if you were in this position. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal vows

I apologize to anyone I've offended over the course of this discussion. I now think the words I used went too far and I should not have attacked people over what they said on my talk page. I've apologized directly to everyone who I wrote directly on their talk page and while I'm not asking for leniency because of that please at least know that it was genuine. The context is that I had recently watched a long form interview with the father and was feeling extremely saddened and outraged by how the father was treated and what his child was going through and I went and looked on the wikipedia page about the court case. I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits. This was out of line and I should have followed the warnings in the in-line comments and on the talk page. I further went out of line making accusatory statements on the pages of editors who went after me for my edits. This was even further out of line. After a night's sleep and several enlightening discussions in the section of this page I now see I was in the wrong. I've been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and I hope I can continue to edit. Given my personal upbringing and beliefs I promise going forward to stay out of any articles on trans subjects, especially as they relate to children, as I don't feel I can edit from an objective viewpoint. I hope everyone has a nice rest of their day, week and year. Ergzay (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This apology shows no contrition for attacking living article subjects, including a 12 year old girl, and attacks on a demographic at large re your claim that The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality.

This is further evidenced by continuing to insist that it's one sided to not misgender a young girl and that such edits were "appropriate" - I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits

And this apology seems to sidestep over accusing editors of being biased for being trans. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It also felt like they went out of their way to avoid saying "daughter" or "her" in the "apology" when referring to the guys daughter. Instead chosing to use "his child".

I can't assume good faith after reading all the exchanges above in which I never saw Ergzay once refere to her as "her" hench why I feel this was just a subtle way to avoid correctly gendering LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought I covered that sufficiently but just to be absolutely clear, I also think I was wrong to make that single claim of an editor being biased because they had a trans flag in their signature in the page's talk page. That was wrong. (I didn't do it to editors plural as far as I'm aware and your summary at the top doesn't include any beyond the one.) That person I also apologized to on their talk page at the same time I apologized on your talk page. I should not have said what I said to either of you. Ergzay (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't close topics you're personally invested in. was directed at me hatting your discussion.[313] It was the 8th bullet on my opening post here. What reason am I personally invested if not for the fact I'm trans? There's absolutely no other way to read that but ~"trans editors shouldn't close discussions about trans topics".

And once again, absolutely no contrition for attacking the girl, making claims about her identity that contradict every RS (while refusing to provide any RS yourself), and making libelous and unsourced claims about her mother... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I would aver the basis for the claim is because you often edit in this topic area and have outspoken opinions about it. jp×g🗯️ 07:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

And I would aver that's a nonsensical explanation that goes far out of it's way to avoid the obvious answer - 1) his comment came right after saying another trans editor was highly biased for having trans flags in their signature, 2) editing in a topic area does not make you "personally invested" in it, and 3) the outspoken opinion that bigotry is bad also doesn't make one "personally invested" (unless one is the subject of the bigotry, in which case we are back to square one). Occam's razor applies... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

If I decorated my signature with, say, the Israeli flag, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale (though it wouldn’t be helpful) for someone to say I have a bias of personal investment on topics relating to Israel. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's evident from your responses that it is an area you have a great emotional investment into well beyond your identity. This isn't to say that you aren't allowed to have that emotional investment, however, that a personal investment does exist. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

an area you have a great emotional investment into well beyond your identity - evidence? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Scroll up. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Should've guessed you wouldn't bother providing any. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming you genuinely cannot see it and this is a request for evidence in good faith, you need to be able to identify when you are in an emotional state for the purpose of this collaborative environment. If you would like me to articulate this for you, I will do it in a different venue, such as your talk page, as doing here would be disruptive. I'm not accusing you of misbehavior, nor am I saying you shouldn't edit in this area. As someone else put it, you have very outspoken opinions on this topic that can influence your neutrality. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Since the above thread has been sidetracked, I just want to note for the record that Ergzay's apology above and subsequent comments show absolutely no contrition for for attacked living article subjects and his attacks on a demographic at large such as his claim The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality. When pointed out he didn't apologize for any of that above, he continued to evade the subject in replies. This is barely even half an apology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk page misuse

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.

---

Special:Contributions/103.247.19.87 is misusing their talk page access while blocked. Please revoke it. Thank you. FlutterDash344 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

TP revoked. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 5 April 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 user 2600:1702:5B81:6B00:0:0:0:0/64 lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia

2600:1702:5B81:6B00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Wikipedia admins. I am reporting the IP /64 range above due to lacking the competence in english to edit the English Wikipedia. Before this AN/I post, a week ago I posted a stern handwritten warning over at one of the previous IP's talk pages, suggesting them to edit the Wikipedia of their native language instead and that they could face a block from editing if they continued their nonsensical, incomprehensible edits. And here we are today, these are the following next edits they've made since that message:

• diff 1 on 18:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC): restoring the same old incredibly poorly written and unsourced edit on the Henry Tingle Wilde article that they've been attempting to make in the previous several weeks (example 1, example 2, example 3). This edit resulted in that article being semi-protected for a month.
• diff 2 on 15:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC): after the semi-protection of the Henry Tingle Wilde article, the IP posts an edit request on its talk page with no content whatsoever at all.

Yes, I know it's been four days since the last time this IP made an edit. Buuut, I had been busy with other things in life the prior several days, and so didn't really have the time to keep regularly monitoring this IP user. Hence the late report.

However though, I don't really have a doubt that they'll come back within the next several days, either to make nonsensical edits to other articles, or to do more so-called "edit requests" like this. So, I am suggesting that this competence-lacking IP user be blocked for a long-term period (e.g. 1 month) to stop wasting other peoples' time. Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like this editor is fixated on that one article. Since it’s protected for a month, don’t see much risk of disruption for a while. There are good edits in the past on that same IP, so I’d leave it be until and unless disruption recurs. Might be a different person on that range when protection ceases. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Two IP addresses making disruptive or frivolous changes

These two IP addresses need to be assessed on whether they are being used (perhaps by students?) to make disruptive comments on articles. I will try and also put notices on their talk pages if they have them. I have deleted their edits as they were unreferenced and "jokey" edits. 86.19.16.185 on [of feminists] 2 April 2025, inserted the name of someone in 21st century table, who is not known as a feminist and it had no link or reference. 203.32.27.143 onSt Paul's Cathedral, Sale 20 March 2025, wrote two epithets before the name of a Dean LPascal (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, LPascal, it helps if you provide links to the accounts you are reporting and also to the diffs/edits that you are concerned about, not just a link to the articles. Otherwise, editors have to cut and paste and most are likely not to bother with this and move on to other editing activities. You want to make it as simple as possible to encourage editors/admins to spend a few minutes looking into your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. I did want to provide more detail but I have difficulty using Edit Source which was the only option given to me to report this, then I had an editing conflict so it took me quite some time to write just that para and get it published. I had to leave some mistakes in there because I couldn't work out how to fix them in edit source rather than Visual. I have deleted the two messed up edits made from these accounts and put a message on the talk pages but I wanted someone more experienced to look at these IP addresses and their history of silly edits. Here's some links to their contributions if anyone wants to check them out.

Special:Contributions/203.32.27.143

User talk:203.32.27.143

Special:Contributions/86.19.16.185 [[314]]

LPascal (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Orkid.danial

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.

---

@Orkid.danial has posted a legal threat at Talk:Kim_Soo-hyun#Grooming_to_Dating. (Special:Diff/1284441294, "It’s crucial to revise the title to reflect "Dating" only, to avoid potential legal action for misconduct for humans right act"). Rusalkii (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 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.

206.174.65.103

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

---

IP came to a controversial move request at Talk:Denali. There, they posted that Oppose votes are "cancer", woke efforts to rename famous geographical landmarks, and called Mt Mckinley The traditional White name. The entire !vote was designed to generate ire and controversy, not a good faith argument. At the same time, they called another editor's argument "vandalism". I removed both comments here as trolling/NPA violations. I did warn the IP, and they have since removed that warning. IP restored their !vote here and accused me of "manipulat[ing] the consensus count". Admin Zathras reinstated the removal here, endorsing it. The IP restored the !vote here, calling Zathras a "clown".

IP is clearly NOTHERE and looking to WP:RGW, while loading comments with inflammatory language. I do not normally remove comments from RfCs or move requests, but I felt the racially-loaded traditional White name comment made it clear they were just trying to start a fight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Block agree with this assessment, clearly NOTHERE. seefooddiet (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Blocked x 31 hrs. Yeah, looks like they are just trying to be provocative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. I do still believe their !vote should be removed from that talk page, as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Should be longer, the same IP address was edit-warring at 1967 Mount McKinley disaster two months ago, so this is both a fairly stable IP address and medium-term pattern of terrible behavior around this topic. Would also be good for someone to double-check their edits at Hanna Reitsch. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  While their past history factored into my decision to block them, it's still their first one. Longer blocks will follow if they don't take the hint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  The edits to Reitsch are... interesting. But it turns out the original text they "corrected" was wrong too, and AndyTheGrump provided a much more accurate quote than the IP did. So that's a wash.

  Their attempts to shoehorn a name change at 1967 Mount McKinley disaster seem to be the precursor to their edits at Talk:Denali, and show the same RGW attitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  It shouldn't matter that the comment has not been removed from the talk page, because closers are supposed to treat discussions as discussions, not as votes. But in practice it does matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  My concern is mostly other editors getting baited into an argument with them, as well as leaving a rather racist comment on the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 5 April 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.

Doxing edit needs removal

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.

---

It looks like an IP just libeled and doxed someone at Directed-energy weapon. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:40, 5 April 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.

Cradleofcivilization disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

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.

---

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

This user appears to have been engaged in two campaigns. The first was that they wanted to create an article on Hostile government takeover, a song. This resulted in several moves, to move the draft into article space and to change the capitalization of the title, and at least one move to draftify the article. They then mistakenly filed a Move Review, which was the wrong forum, but seems to have been a good-faith effort. The Move Review was procedurally closed, but brought their efforts to my attention. There is now a deletion discussion of the article, which is a right forum to decide the content issue of whether the song should be the subject of an article.

I then discovered the second issue, which seems to be conduct, on their talk page, which shows that they created 11 pages with nonsense titles created by banging on the keyboard. I asked them on their user talk page,User talk:Cradleofcivilization, whether they were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and instead of answering my question, they have ranted about the song issue, which will be decided by the AFD. I think that this user is not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to add that after trying to discuss with User:Cradleofcivilization, they have been giving almost nonsensical answers for their actions like if I kept my cool which I'll do from now on. I could of simply no index the original page and wait for the new page to become the canonical page and I was originally going to be given a fair shake now your just falling for propaganda[315] in response to asking why they created 11 keyboard smashing pages. After reading this I agree with Robert McClenon in that it appears they are just doing this to prove some kind of point. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

okay youre getting the order of events wrong. I never disrupted wikipedia to make a point the nonsense tittles were part of the original effort to change the title from Hostile Government Takeover back to it's original name Hostile government takeover to avoid redirects. this is campaign to defame me that has been occuring ever since I was rightly blocked by a user for accidentally writing the nonsense titles as a way of changing the page from Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover.

Essentially I tried to change Hostile government takeover the page that was redirected to Hostile Government Takeover when cambridgebayweather changed it to sentencecase I tried to change it back to Hostile government takeover. in order to do that I tried changing Hostile government takeover to a nonsense tittle since at the time I believed I didn't want to replace anyone's page. I didn't know that was not possible. I then tried to change Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover but repeatedly failed. I should have used noindex on the original page and then let the new page populate in google search results. It would have taken 2 days but everything that happened simply isn't worth it.

ToadetteEdit 8 days ago and I'm not entirely sure why you think this was the part that was in good faith. Youre pretty selective on everything. I believed ToadetteEdit had approved my page. my page did briefly show up in the api before cambridgebayweather changed it to sentencecase. that's not why I believed it was approved. I did geta notification at the time it happened. However there is no proof now.

Anyway essentially LettersandNumbers used the opportunity caused by my accidental vandalism to dratify the page. I believed the page was orginally approved so I filed a move review.

the incident that Robert McClenon doesn't understand because this subject is quite complex is that the user Cactus renamed a page in articles of deletion draft in order to get it sent to miscellany for deletion. I said I kept my cool when the user vandalized the page. it would have been very stupid to even look at the page. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I was already punished for changing Hostile government takeover to nonsense titles so I could change Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I am glad I was blocked at the time because I needed to stop doing what I was doing. However lots of people have used this as opportunity to attack me and then use personal attacks as a way of getting rid of the Hostile Government Takeover page. All I really want is to get it on Wikipedia and does meet notability requirements. However please read the first message as that perfectly explains the incident. this message unfortunately does not do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears according to the seccond accusation that hostile government takeover got moved to a talk page or something and it's page history essentially got tampered with causing me to be accused of something I was already punished for. but honestly I don't know anything about nonsense characters on a talk page. In the original incident I originally tried to change the page Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover.

I was already punished for changing Hostile government takeover to nonsense titles so I could change Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I am glad I was blocked at the time because I needed to stop doing what I was doing. However lots of people have used this as opportunity to attack me and then use personal attacks as a way of getting rid of the Hostile Government Takeover page. All I really want is to get it on Wikipedia and does meet notability requirements. However please read the first message as that perfectly explains the incident. this message unfortunately does not do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No one is punishing you. You were blocked to stop you doing silly stuff which was harming Wikipedia not to punish you. In the future, if you're confused or unsure how to do something please seek help from more experienced editors at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse rather than just doing silly stuff to try and achieve what you want. Sometimes what you want may not be appropriate anyway. The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostile government takeover is not to punish you, it's because editors don't think the subject is notable. There's a chance the subject is notable and it's simply that the sources haven't been found, if you'd left the article in draft space and allowed editors more experienced with creating articles to assess it they could have pointed out the problems for you without the risk of the article being deleted but since you were so impatient to move the article to main space, ultimately editors can only assess the current article and the sources you've already presented and that you and them uncover during the AfD. Again this isn't to punish you, it's just the natural result of you an inexperienced editor shortcircuiting the AfC process instead of using the process intended to help you develop an article which would hopefully survive AfD. IMO your best bet if you still feel you can developed an article is to propose in the AfD that the article is moved back to draftspace and promise it will not be moved it out yourself and instead allow the AfC process to proceed normally. (If someone else decides to move it out without going through AfC there's not much you can do, but at least you shouldn't be the cause.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Based on the comments above it seems to me that this might be a WP:CIR issue. I don't think the user is attempting to do anything nefarious but they are seemingly unable to constructively edit. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I am reading Cradleofcivilization's explanation correctly, then they have answered that they were not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They were, for some bizarre reason, creating the files with nonsense names either to try to change the capitalization of Hostile government takeover or as an experiment in changing capitaliization. That was a very silly idea, because if they did not know how to change capitalization by moving an article, they should have asked for an explanation at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. If they were experimenting with capitalization or trying to change capitalization by creating nonsense titles, then they were being cluelessly disruptive. I agree with Esolo5002. Their explanation is informative because it shows a competency issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Indeffed given their continued disruptive editing and, most recently, bludgeoning of the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 5 April 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.

Problematic article creation from User:BigKrow

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.

---

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

User BigKrow has been warned numerous times for creating largely unsourced and empty stub articles, yet they've continued to ignore these warnings and have carried on with their disruptive behavior. I've already recommended they use their own userspace for creating articles, but they clearly have ignored my suggestions, and do not seem to care about the consequences of their edits. A block seems adequate per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't vandalized anything! No block needed.... BigKrow (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't comitted anything wrong.... So i write short.... So. BigKrow (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

All articles, however short, need references. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Refs ok.... BigKrow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep creating unsourced articles, and articles like this and this. That is not ok. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about helping each other.... BigKrow (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine. BigKrow (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

If you honestly think those articles are "perfectly fine" to be in mainspace, then I agree with CycloneYoris on a block on CIR grounds, or at the very least a TBAN from creating new articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have to go ahead, but not indef ban, thanks!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: BigKrow (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

CycloneYoris, have you tried communicating with this editor without using a template? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Yep. See: User talk:BigKrow#March 2025, where I even apologized for the warning I had placed above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

bruh block me if you don't want me here.... @CycloneYoris: BigKrow (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I suffer from Mental illness by the way.... BigKrow (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Im not blocked on Simple English Wikipedia!!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "Template"? BigKrow (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't if this user did or not.... BigKrow (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Support block per WP:CIR, if it were just the creations I'd support a ban on article creation, but the responses here have only confirmed their CIR problems. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

bro im not dumb ok im 35. BigKrow (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101: BigKrow (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately their response at their talk page only further highlights their WP:CIR problem. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by DaveAndersonSonyMusic

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

At the article, 30 for 30 (song) this new user is linking an article that had nothing to do with the song or artists. [316]. They have then posted legal threats to their talk page. [317] and [318].

I believe this might be an attempt to get an unrelated artist into the article. See ip edits [319] and [320]. Knitsey (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the reference they posted, [321]] Knitsey (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Block for legal threats, according to the message in the diffs they are contact with the foundation so the foundation can decide what to do with it. I will note for the record that if - and that is a big if - this account is unblocked they are going to need to post a coi and paid editing disclosure on their user page because the diffs claim the man works for the company in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @TomStar81. Knitsey (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The Article in Question

According to Washingtonian's article "The Still-Confusing Case of Drake’s Non-Appearance in DC Last Week":

DJ Prince presents himself as a Suitland-raised music producer who claims—falsely, according to a Warner Media Group spokesperson, which says he has no affiliation to OVO Sound—to have signed to Drake’s label last year. The spokesperson says Warner Media Group’s legal team has sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to this individual, whom the company says has distributed fake press releases and created fake email addresses to connect himself to Drake and the label.

This is probably more of the same. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I did do a search before reverting but that link didn't come up, it can be a bit naff for searches in the UK. I looked at the usual music release sites and didn't see anything. That coupled with the ip edits plus Sony, going straight for a legal threat? Knitsey (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Apparently DJ Prince managed to briefly fool Vulture too. The original version of the Vulture story that's cited in the Hiphopdx.com link had a paragraph about how DJ Prince was the tour's DJ. The current version now says: CORRECTION: An older version of this story included incorrect information on the tour’s delay. The information has since been removed. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Oph, that's a little embarrassing. I must say, if little old Wikipedia editors can spot check a fake in less than a minute, it makes me wonder what sort of due diligence the completed for the article.

Also, it has been going on for 2+ years? Knitsey (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's been going on for at least five years. These are some other accounts of his:

• July 2020 to August 2021 – 65.213.247.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• March 2021 – 2601:140:8D80:F20:4CAD:14D4:560E:8BC5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• June 2021 – CJGibsonOVO (talk · contribs)
• June 2023 – 2601:14D:4A80:7D90:5968:1B1A:2A4D:C754 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• June 2023 – 2601:14D:4A80:7D90:4D6E:2BE9:D88F:B572 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In addition to the ones already blocked by NinjaRobotPirate:

• March 2025 – 2600:1700:7b18:c40:bd7e:ace5:25a9:e6da (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• April 2025 – 2600:1700:7b18:c40:9f1:4ad3:f246:89aa (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I found these just through an insource:"DJ Prince" search, which only covers pages currently containing the text. There are probably many more instances that won't show up since they've already been reverted/removed. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps some semi-protection for the article will help? If this has been an ongoing issue forcing would be contributors to edit could help us establish if we are dealing with an SPI issue here or if it’s just one of those things of confidence things that’ll disappear once they can’t do it anymore. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure protecting this one article would help much, as DJ Prince has tried to insert himself into the credits on multiple pages (and could possibly target any OVO Sound-related page). At the very least I think CJGibsonOVO (talk · contribs) could be banned for impersonation/being an SPA? Iiii I I I (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done (note that's WP:BLOCKNOTBAN). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)