Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184

Deva1995 pushing English variety changes and violating MOS

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

---

Deva1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly ignored MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET despite at least four recent warnings from three editors. They have a clear pattern of pushing British English and DMY date formats into articles. They also often fail to mention the change in edit summaries and have never discussed these changes before making them. In their first 549 edits, they've:

• Added {{Use British English}} 186 times
• Added {{Use dmy dates}} 118 times

The main behavior change after the warnings seems to be a burst of editing yesterday to unnecessarily add {{Use American English}} about 88 times to articles that have a blatant connection to the US (along with some {{Use mdy dates}} templates).

Examples:

• Edit to Barinas (state): one of dozens of Venezuela-related articles changed despite mostly using American English
• Edit to Gown: added {{Use British English}} with edit summary space (perhaps American English due to "nightgown", but it doesn't need a template at all)
• Edit to Valtellina Orobic Alps Regional Park: added {{Use British English}} to article with a slight American English leaning
• Edit to Banco Pan: added both templates without justification
• Edit to Carlo Zangarini: added {{Use British English}} despite unclear variety usage

Or check any random 10 edits other than the US-centric ones yesterday.

Despite saying they would stop, the pattern continues. While some of their template additions are technically fine, this kind of relentless campaign is disruptive and unhelpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan This looks very much like a sockpuppet of Marginataen who was community blocked in January. You're welcome. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's odd, HappyBeachDreams, you have only made 27 edits on this project and many of them involve User:Marginataen. What is your connection here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Just trying to do the right thing for the good of the 'pedia. Don't shoot the messenger. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That does look just a little fishy, not gonna lie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what makes you say that Deva1995 is a sockpuppet of Marginataen. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@TheLegendofGanon Do I still need to answer that? HappyBeachDreams (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring that the report was good after Daniel Quinlan shipped this to SPI, this discussion should be considered. Izno (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this one was direct and accurate, as opposed to baseless-to-marginal... sigh. -- asilvering (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Izno I took that advice very seriously and stopped saying things about Marginataen shortly after their community ban. I would never have mentioned them again if this topic hadn't been started. Perhaps next time I find myself here I can fix a spelling error or two. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel Quinlan. I did to get above 500 edits. Banco Pan was bad and I have undone. United States also has US templates, despite "blatant" US connection, so it may be "unnecessarily" but do not see how it is disruptive. Please, I will stop. Deva1995 (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I did to get above 500 edits So, WP:PGAMING. WP:XC has been accordingly revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. Deva1995 (talk) 19:51, 6 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.

Issue with the sandbox 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.

---

Hi, I am trying to add references on the reference list found in my usertalk page for an article I assigned myself on WikiEdu. After I'm directed to that page, it tells me I'm not allowed to write there and that I have to ask permission to write on it. I am including a shortened URL from that page for easier access. https://w.wiki/DjeK I also tried using the redirected link that was offered in the same banner, but everytime I click on it I'm taken to another tab that says the server cannot find the page and that it doesn't exist. Anyway, I appreciate the help so that I can write my references there soon. Thank you for your time. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dalierysanchez (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Dalierysanchez, I think that there is probably an error in the link you are clicking. This noticeboard is not the right place to get it fixed, as it is largely for dealing with editor behaviour issues. I suggest asking at User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed) as he suggested on your talk page. TSventon (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Dalierysanchez (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dalierysanchez You are trying to create User:Dalierysanchez/Https://w.wiki/Dfex/Bibliography but the correct title is User:Dalierysanchez/Spanglish/Bibliography (I assume you are looking at the Spanglish article since Https://w.wiki/Dfex leads to Spanglish). The title blacklist prevents people from creating pages that look like URLs starting with "https://". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh that explains it! Thank you for the help. Dalierysanchez (talk) 20:52, 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.

Abused power

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

---

I'm user:YellowMonkey here. Yes, I haven't used my account since 2010. I've since forgot the password. I've been falsely accused of being a sock by 2 administrators User:Ganesha811, User:Izno with absolutely 0 proof. It's funny. Not everyone who disagrees with them is automatically a sock. I'm the IP here (2600:6c44:117f:95be::/64). SheryOfficial lives in Pakistan. I know because I went to his user talk page to check it out. I live in Wisconsin, US. How can anyone explain the fact that the /64 IP range is a real Wisconsin IP range that has been editing since 2022? Claiming he and I use the same language and phrasing is laughable. He used broken English while I'm much more articulate as a native English speaker.

I'm requesting my current IP range to be unblocked. This is an absurd accusation due to a simple coincidence. I've promised myself to only use IP ever since 2010, and I've kept that promise. I've used various IP ranges since because I moved a few times. Last time I checked IPs are allowed to edit. 68.117.106.54 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The recent user to consider here would be Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk · contribs). Looking at the contributions from the /64, it does seem implausible that it is the same editor. However, the content at Talk:Osama bin Laden (Special:Permalink/1283994918) does read like the IP is the same person as Thirurang Cherusskutty. It could well be an honest mistake. Of course, the CheckUsers can't discuss whether the IPs match, but the SPI doesn't suggest that was a reason for the block. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 03:26, 6 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.

Misuse of talk page

The IP address Special:Contributions/62.20.62.209 is misusing their talk page access while blocked. Please revoke it. Thanks. FlutterDash344 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done and extended the block on this extremely long-term vandal for another two years. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the number of simple TPA revoke requests that ANI seems to be getting, would it be worth having a noticeboard similar to AIV for that? QwertyForest (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a short-term surge, so not really. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Spwanaju

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

---

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

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Appears to be harassing another new user (User:L$Aiden$L):

• [1] Blatant personal attacks. You, though, you will never get to be an admin. And when you die, all the Wikipedians who left you insincere platitudes will be reveling in their cruelty.
• [2] "I look forward to making sure that Donald Trump is portrayed as negatively as possible, I know I’ll be welcome".
• Already been given a level 4 warning for a now-oversighted edit at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I see they have been blocked, however the mass pinging is still continuing so I would suggest TPA be revoked as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 6 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.

Eminİskandarli; persistent personal attacks, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

1. 11:42, 8 March 2025 shut up
2. 19:17, 1 April 2025 It seems you're used to lying
3. 13:44, 4 April 2025 I don't take you seriously, sir.
4. 13:47, 4 April 2025 But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages
5. 14:10, 4 April 2025 Even though I'm telling the truth, a liar is being listened to just because he has rewards.
6. 14:25, 4 April 2025 You are the last person who will teach me wisdom. You can shut up. (comment made in response for me asking them to adhere to our policies ("wisdom") WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.
7. 14:25, 4 April 2025 I said I don't take it seriously. Another comment in response to being asked to adhere to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA.
8. 14:31, 4 April 2025 😂🤣😄😀 Laughing emoji in response to receiving their last warning for their constant attacks, very mature.

This just their behaviour. I could also get into their disruptive edits; them disregarding WP:NOTABLE so they can score easy victories or rather "points" for the faction they fancy. But I guess that is not going to be needed. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, not caring about the policies of this site at all, hurling abuse as they please. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Having gone through the diffs, i am inclined to agree with your interpretation of events, and think that at minimum a short block should be applied to @Eminİskandarli so that they can take some time to think about how they treat other members of the project. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

[3] their reply to the ANI notice sums up why they are WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Childish response, but may warrant pulling TPA? 123.16.155.0 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be an overreaction ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:01, 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.

Nationalists, POV and I Don't like it 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.

---

Hello i want to report Croatian ip @89.172.250.9 for Nationalist, POV and I don't like it editing on Article Eastern Slavonia front. He is removing Serbian victory because he doesn't like it, he also removed that Serbs control Eastern Slavonia from 1991-1996 and removed that Croatia failed to abolish Slavonia in some operations, clearly pushing his POV, saying how source doesn't mention Serbian victory. I also want to report Albanian Nationalist @Diti04ZOP because of Yugoslav offensive on Kabash. The result that stated that VJ won offensive had 2-3 refrences, it had 3 refrences stating that Yugoslavia captured Kabahs and had 2 refrences how VJ captured Hospital and siezed weapons, he removed all that and put Kla victory(with only one source) only because one reference that was stating how Kla was defeated didn't say that, he also said that Battle of Ješkovo is page created by Pro Serbs or something like that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=125th_Brigade_(Kosovo_Liberation_Army)&diff=prev&oldid=1282171207 77.111.101.22 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 77.111.101.22, there are notices all over this page that you have to notify editors you discuss on noticeboards. Please post the appropriate notification on 89.172.250.9 and User:Diti04ZOP's User talk pages so that they can participate in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh yea right, sorry i will do it now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.205.154.189Special:Contributions/77.111.101.22%7C77.111.101.22]] (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

77.111.101.22 you are blocked [[4]] and its edits [[5]], [[6]] and its edits [[7]] or proxy [[8]] Your edits are the same, you just change the IP. Everything is explained here on the talk page [[9]]. The war ended with the Erdut Agreement, as stated at the beginning of the article. In English language , and from a reliable book: Galbraith, Peter (12 October 2006). "Negotiating Peace in Croatia: a personal account of the road to Erdut". In Blitz, Brad K. (ed.). War and Change in the Balkans. Cambridge University Press. pp. 124–131. ISBN 0-521-86042-3.78.3.61.244 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I just edit and bring back edits that were reverted by Vandalist and Nationalist, I dont care if edit is created by blocked user or not the book that i again included stated that HV failed to capture Slavonia but i can bet you didn't even open the source. 77.111.101.22 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

77.111.101.22 Stop insulting me, that can only be you. You don't respect anything, not even reliable sources, you just write whatever suits you. I even found in some source that it was a Croatian victory, although the Erdut Agreement is sufficient. Read here Yih-Jye Hwang; Lucie Cerna (2013). Global Challenges: Peace and War. Brill. p. 123. ISBN 978-90-04-25326-1. 78.3.61.244 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I included very valud sources, and no you can't say it was "Croatian victory" and fail to capture Slavonia in two operations and withdrew, no it cannot be victory. And Slavonia was occupied by Serbian forces until 1996 and late by UN and Serbian forces until 1998. So no it wasn't victory 77.111.101.22 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You're talking your own thing again, Wikipedia is based on verified books and sources. I didn't write this like you write all sorts of things on Wikipedia. Read what the book and historians say. I don't want to argue with you anymore, I'm just spamming here for no reason.78.3.61.244 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article, after reverting to the earlier Wrong Version. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 6 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 serial llm usage in blp space

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

---

• Ironfist7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user:Ironfist7 has been rapidly creating, and substantially editing, articles for various artists using what appears to be an llm.

Lil' Eto, Percy Keith, Mob Figaz, A-Wax, Nyomi Banxxx, X-Raided, and more created or edited on the 5th alone.

try to follow nearly any citation and it 404s, the text is full of WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:PUFFERY; this combined with the rate of edits strongly implies use of an llm to synthesize unverifiable facts about living persons. many of their recent articles have been nominated for afd but administrator intervention would likely be for the best here.

started a discussion in the blp noticeboard and was advised it may be better to take this here instead. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Mmm yeah that's bad, blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 01:23, 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.

62.28.10.10 copyvio pattern in comics related 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.

---

• 62.28.10.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP editor has a pattern of WP:COPYVIO - first time warning in 2023 along with RDVLs in March 2022, April 2022, May 2023, June 2023 & September 2023. In terms of recent 2025 edits, I removed a copyright violation at Krakoa (copied from a CBR article) & when adding a warning, noticed the IP editor had been previously warned for copyvio at Jean Grey in March 2025 (edit was RVDL). Spot checked a few more recent edits & had to tag the 3 comics articles with copyvio issues (Lilandra Neramani, Cyttorak, Power ring (DC Comics)); I've added a request for a contributor copyright investigation since the IP editor has been editing comics articles since 2019. IP editor does not interact with talk pages (including their own) & has not acknowledged the various copyright violation notices. Not sure how else to get their attention about this issue beyond blocking them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an extremely stable IP - they've been editing on these topics since 2021. So there's no excuse for not noticing the talk page notices. I've blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 01:39, 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.

User doesn't seem to get it and slow edit warring

User:KLIFE88 persists in restoring the same sentence to the Übermensch World Tour despite containing grammar mistakes. After informing her that she should not rely on other editors to clean up after her, she continues to restore her edit to the point of slow-motion edit warring, which is just unacceptable. Additionally, the user has accused me of bad faith and "vandalism" on multiple occasions for reverting her edits, despite my explanation on her talk page from 3 years ago that she is misusing the term. However, she continues to disregard the warning and continues to use the term incorrectly up to today. The user's behavior leads me to believe that she just does not get it. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I see that Talk:Übermensch World Tour is empty. Both of you should use it, and discuss things there without unwarranted charges of vandalism, rather than in edit summaries or user talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Bridger. When you are in a dispute about content on an article, you should start a discussion on the talk page BEFORE coming to ANI. ANI is the last stop after other forms of dispute resolution have been tried and failed. That doesn't seem to have happened here. It almost always helps to draw in other editors to a discussion where it has become "Me vs. You". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Apep the Serpent God responding with blatant AI chatbot messages

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

---

• Apep the Serpent God (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today a new user, Apep the Serpent God, challenged an edit I had made to BanG Dream! Ave Mujica. The dispute they brought up has been brought to the Anime WikiProject talk page by Solaire the knight for a consensus here, but more concerning is their persistent apparent usage of generative AI to write their talk page comments. Their comments carry the stiff tone of the conversational outputs of an LLM, and appear to have been minimally edited before posting (if at all). Additionally, their messages repeatedly fail to properly respond to the arguments brought up to them, and show a surface-level understanding of Wikipedia policy which is often expressed in a contradictory and confusing manner. Their responses are incredibly over-verbose and difficult to keep up with, and quickly bloat talk page discussions, making it difficult to follow the conversation with other users. When the policy that their messages misrepresent is quoted directly at them, they fail to respond to the substance of the argument and persistently continue reiterating their previous arguments, with little substantive variation. When these patterns are pointed out and they are asked to desist in their AI usage, they assert they are being personally attacked.

Diffs showing this behavior:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

GPTZero consistently gives an over 70-80 percent likelihood that their messages are AI generated. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic and frankly audacious that you've chosen to create this topic when I am the one being repeatedly attacked and misrepresented, especially when I have refrained from escalating this to administrators myself. The irony is not lost on me, as it should have been you who was reported for your repeated personal attacks and attempts to discredit my arguments through baseless accusations.

Let’s address your claims point by point:

1. Use of AI: Your repeated assertions that I’m using an AI chatbot, and your reliance on GPTZero’s analysis, do nothing to invalidate the solid reasoning and Wikipedia policies I’ve presented. Accusing me of using an LLM does not change the facts, and it certainly doesn’t change the policies I’ve cited, which are clear and unambiguous. The substance of my argument is based on Wikipedia’s own rules, and not on who or what is writing the message. It’s laughable to think that your personal attacks on my supposed use of AI somehow invalidate the policies and reasoning behind my arguments. Wikipedia policy speaks for itself — it’s not about the messenger, but the message.

2. Misrepresentation of My Arguments: You claim that I haven’t responded to your arguments, yet when I’ve addressed your points directly with clear references to Wikipedia policy, you continue to mischaracterize my responses. I’ve laid out five well-supported reasons for why the information should not be added, all of which align with Wikipedia’s core policies: verifiability (WP:V), no original research (WP:NOR), reliable sources (WP:RS), and the integrity of translations. Rather than engaging with these points, you’ve resorted to vague criticisms about "verbosity" and "lack of engagement," which are not reflective of the actual substance of my replies.

3. The Matter of "Bloating" Discussions: It’s ironic that you would claim I’m “bloating” the discussion when I’ve been the one trying to maintain a level-headed, policy-based approach, despite your repeated attempts to derail the conversation with personal attacks and irrelevant criticisms. My goal has always been to keep the discussion focused on facts and policy. If there’s any bloating, it’s coming from unnecessary diversions — such as your repeated attempts to undermine my position by questioning my character and actions rather than addressing the actual policy concerns.

In conclusion, I’ve already explained my position thoroughly, and I’ve provided clear policy-based arguments that directly address the issues at hand. I’m not here to engage in personal attacks or irrelevant debates about AI usage. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but the thing is, I have responded to your arguments. I informed you about the policy on WP:NOTENGLISH (WP:NONENG edit: yeah I kept linking to the wrong thing this one's my bad) sources and the exemption in the OR policy for translations, to which you responded,

Per WP:V and WP:NOR, information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable by all readers, not just by those who read Japanese or are willing to trust an image or a personal translation. Without a reliable, published English translation or confirmation from a reliable secondary source, the material still fails basic verifiability standards.

Which directly contravenes WP:PAYWALL, WP:NOTENGLISH (WP:NONENG), and WP:TRANSCRIPTION, as I've told you numerous times. You've also claimed that As per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by any reader, not just those who can access a Japanese magazine and can read the text, which is blatantly untrue per those same policies. I mentioned to you that the notion that sources should be easily verifiable for free by anyone has been historically discussed and shot down by editors, and you said,

As for Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Require_free,_online_sources, I agree that content does not need to be free or easily accessible. But it does need to be verifiable in accordance with policy — which means we still require either: A reliable third-party source summarizing the material, Or a verifiable, professionally translated excerpt.

Which contradicts not only the WP:NOTENGLISH (WP:NONENG) and WP:TRANSCRIPTION policy sections, but also your own arguments. Is it "content does not need to be free or easily accessible" or is it "all content must be verifiable by any reader"? The lack of consistency here strongly suggests that you are using an AI, which would not be able to follow the overall context of the discussion, and thus would not maintain consistency of opinion.

I have responded to your arguments repeatedly and level-headedly, and of course, I don't think you actually wrote any of this- I think you're just copy-pasting the output of a machine that has no clue what it's doing other than that you've told it to argue with me.

I think this evidence all speaks for itself. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to address the points you raised and clarify some key issues based on Wikipedia's core policies. It seems there’s a misunderstanding regarding the application of WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:TRANSCRIPTION, and WP:PAYWALL, so I’ll break them down:

1. WP:NOTENGLISH

This policy advises against the inclusion of non-English language material that is not accompanied by reliable English-language sources. However, it does not prohibit the use of non-English sources if they are verifiable and accompanied by reliable translations. The key is ensuring that non-English material is verifiable and meets Wikipedia's reliability standards.

WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states:

"Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources."

In this case, the material you’re suggesting must be accompanied by a reliable English translation or reliable secondary sources for verification. Without that, it cannot meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards.

2. WP:TRANSCRIPTION

In the context of Wikipedia, transcription refers to the process of converting spoken language into written form, such as interviews, speeches, or audio recordings. The policy emphasizes the importance of accuracy and reliability in transcriptions to maintain the integrity of information.

WP:TRANSCRIPTION clearly states:

"Transcriptions should be accurate and verifiable, and should not contain original research."

This means that if a transcription or translation is presented as evidence, it must meet accuracy standards and be verifiable. Personal translations or screenshots, which are not independently verified, cannot be considered reliable without proper sourcing.

3. WP:PAYWALL

This policy addresses the use of sources that are behind paywalls. It acknowledges that while some reliable sources may not be freely accessible, their content can still be used on Wikipedia if appropriately cited. The policy suggests that editors should not reject reliable sources solely because they are not freely accessible.

WP:PAYWALL allows the use of reliable sources that are behind a paywall, but that does not mean that screenshots or unverified fan translations can be accepted. The policy stresses the importance of reliable sources, not just access to the material itself. In this case, a screenshot or fan translation, which lacks independent verification, does not meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards.

You can access a paywalled source, but unless it's a reliable third-party publication or verified professional translation, it does not meet the standards of verifiability or reliability required by Wikipedia.

Addressing Misinterpretations:

You’ve suggested that insisting on verifiable English translations or secondary sources contradicts these policies. This is incorrect. Requiring reliable, verifiable sources aligns with Wikipedia's core principles of verifiability and reliability. We cannot accept unverified fan translations or screenshots as reliable sources, as these are prone to misinterpretation and lack independent validation.

The emphasis on providing verifiable, reliable sources — whether original or translated — is consistent with Wikipedia's core principles. Misapplying policies like WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:TRANSCRIPTION, and WP:PAYWALL does not change the fundamental requirement for verifiable and reliable sourcing. It is critical to ensure that information on Wikipedia is backed by sources that can be verified and are considered reliable by independent, third-party standards.

To summarize, the rules of Wikipedia remain clear, and ensuring proper sourcing, whether translated or not, is necessary to maintain the integrity of our articles. Without a reliable secondary source or professional translation, this material simply cannot be included. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Apep the Serpent God, I ran your message through GPTZERO, a website which (most of the time) acurately guesses whether a piece of text is generated by artificial intellegence or not. It was almost 100% certain you are using AI / LLMs to communicate. — E_F⁵ 13:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If I had the time I'd start a RFC simply outright banning AI/LLM, with immediate block for anybody who uses it (whether in article space, talk pages etc.) GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I used my eyes and can confirm these textwalls bear the hallmark of chatbot output. It's disruptive to make people respond to walls of machine generated text.Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck @CX_Zoom @EF5 @Simonm223 @GiantSnowman

You are not administrators, and your personal claims about my use of AI do not invalidate the actual Wikipedia policies I’ve cited. The focus should remain on the policies themselves — which clearly support my stance. So your accusations about AI usage change nothing about the validity of the arguments I’ve made, which are grounded in Wikipedia’s own rules. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

As you all can see, Apep seemingly can't even ping people or wikilink to the policies they're citing. It's very obvious that they are doing very little other than copy pasting between browser windows. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no obligation to ping users or wikilink every policy name — these pages are publicly accessible to anyone who wishes to verify them. Shifting focus to formatting nitpicks is just another deflection from the policy-based arguments I’ve laid out.

Furthermore, your continued attempts to rally others into accusing me of using AI, along with these dismissive remarks, are veering into harassment. If this behavior continues, I will have no choice but to escalate the matter through the appropriate channels. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This… is the “appropriate channel”? E_F⁵ 13:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't bothered to write your own arguments then you don't actually know that. You are effectively putting faith that an overglorified update to Clippy has accurately interpreted policy for you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the assertion that paywalled or non-english sources are unreliable for the reasons of being paywalled or non-English is non-compliant with Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, you missed that GiantSnowman literally is an administrator. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Whether I’m an administrator doesn’t matter. E_F⁵ 13:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. GiantSnowman 13:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

ASG, I note you have not said one way or the other whether you use AI in you responses. Please unambiguously do so now. Per WP:LLMTALK, your alleged use of AI is not an irrelevant debates about AI usage. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. It is very much evident that you are, in fact, using LLMs to make your points. It is not a personal attack. The exceptionally long essays, language style, and use of emdash in a talk section pretty much gives it away. All they are asking is that you need to read the policy pages and make your points in your own sentences. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Apep the Serpent God, let me address some fundamental misunderstandings you have about English Wikipedia policies. You keep on referring to WP:NOTENGLISH when dismissing translations of references. WP:NOTENGLISH is about dealing with translating foreign language in articles, not in sources. The policy you need to look at is WP:V, specifically WP:NONENG, which states that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance, and does not have any requirement for professional translation.

You also don't understand WP:PAYWALL, which states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries...If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf ...

Your use of policy to reject those references is incorrect. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, I kept linking WP:NOTENGLISH when I meant WP:NONENG. This one's my mistake. In fairness, I have the capacity to make human errors and Apep had my head spinning trying to keep pace with their nonsense. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Apep the Serpent God: - please answer this question in one word: do you, or have you recently, used AI/LLM to write your responses here? Please note that your answer will determine whether or not you are blocked. GiantSnowman 13:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify, while I may use tools to help organize or reference Wikipedia's own policies more clearly, every response I post reflects my own intent and understanding of the discussion. I am fully responsible for the content I contribute, and my focus has always been on adhering to Wikipedia's core guidelines — not on the method of composition. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Whelp, that's not one word. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for being honest. Secondly, please do not use AI/LLM to write your posts again. GiantSnowman 13:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Apep the Serpent God: Can you now confirm that you will engage in discussion on talk pages without using LLM text in discussions, and that you will directly read and comprehend the policies relevant to the matter before doing so, and respond in your own words to any questions or comments? silviaASH (inquire within) 13:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Apep the Serpent God, since you seem to care whether or not people are administrators, let me confirm for you that I am an administrator. Attempting to communicate with actual human beings by posting incompetent TLDR blather created by brainless robots speaking AI-ish is a waste of our most precious commodity, the valuable time of volunteer human editors. That's disruptive editing. Will you stop now? The alternative is that you could be made to stop with a block. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that this user was seemingly very chatty right up until I asked them to explicitly confirm that they would not do this anymore, I have no confidence that they will stop. I've had enough of my time and energy wasted by them already and if they do not explicitly respond in their own words within a reasonable amount of time I would support instituting a preventative block and seeing if they can figure out how to write their own unblock request from scratch. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that their prior replies in this thread alone are indication that their ability to engage with English language written discussion other than by just putting blind faith into an LLM is nonexistent. A block seems overdue, and the only reason people seem to be hesitating is that people seem to have wanted to at least give some credit for admitting that they were using an LLM. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I'm with you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that the only edit the user has made since saying this was the removal of all my warnings and attempts to engage them in discussion about this issue from their user talk page. Looks to me as if they're playing possum. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• I was holding off blocking to give them a chance to respond to the request for assurance they would no longer use LLMs, on the chance they were simply logged off for the day. The talk page blanking without any further response has banished that hope, so I've blocked (WP:DE seems close enough). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 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.

Continuously disruptive editing by User623921

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

---

User has previously:

• Attempted to restore [15] forks of blocked users [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] regarding the page Arameans

• Changing text on pages that formerly said "Assyrian" to "Syriac" or "Aramean" and/or removing mentions of Assyrians despite expanding articles (please note that "Assyrian", "Aramean", "Syriac", "Suraye/Suryoye", "Chaldean", and other terms are used to refer to the same people)
  • Örebro school shooting - My edits [21] [22] [23] and user's edits [24] [25] [26]
  • Defense of Azakh - My edits [27] [28] [29] [30] and user's edits [31] [32] [33] [34]
  • Defence of Iwardo - Other user's edits [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] and user's edits [41] [42]
    • Please also note the posts on the talk page [43] and this ANI report from the user [44]
  • Haberli, İdil - My edits [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] and user's edits [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]
  • Öğündük, İdil - My edits [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] and user's edits [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]
    • Please note that on the talk page of this article, there was a discussion relating to content on the page and the sources, which is why the edit history may look a bit messy
  • Shamoun Hanne Haydo - My edits [72] [73] [74] and user's edits [75] [76] [77]
  • Mhallami - My edits [78] [79] [80] [81] and user's edits [82] [83]
  • Smaller instances on certain pages, such as...
    • Ethnic groups in Europe - My edits [84] [85] [86] and user's edits [87] [88]
    • Suryoyo language - My edits [89] [90] and user's edits [91] [92]
    • WCA (disambiguation) - My edits [93] [94] [95] and user's edits [96] [97] [98]
      • Please note this talk page discussion here [99]

• Improperly explained removal of football teams on List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden; User has attempted to justify these as "sports, not politics", which lead to this [100] talk page discussion and the involvement of an administrator
  • Before editing [101]
  • After editing [102] [103]
    • Please also note the created article Aramean (Syriac) football clubs and category by the same name as well as edits on the pages for Arameans Suryoye football team [104], Arameisk-Syrianska IF [105], Örebro Syrianska IF [106], Syrianska FC [107], Syrianska IF Kerburan [108], Syrianska KF [109], and Valsta Syrianska IK [110]

• Previous report for edit warring on the article Ricky Rich [111] and similar editing actions on Ant Wan [112] and Gaboro [113]

A previous ANI was made for this user but it ended up being a content dispute resolution for the article Ant Wan instead [114]. User623921 has propped up a stance of battleground editing and gaming the system to assert a specific POV, and deflecting that onto other editors (including myself) throughout the past two weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs)

To address point one, I mistakenly restored it. This was also brought up by Shmayo. It was marked as a sandbox when I accidentally restored it, but I immediately reverted to the original version and marked the revert as a mistake.

Now, regarding the Örebro school shooting, the referenced sources do not mention "Assyrian" at all. They only mention the Syrianska Riksförbundet, yet you inserted the Assyrian name into the article despite my previous corrections. I clearly marked my edits, stating that there was no reference to Assyrians.

Regarding the Defense of Azakh and every other edit I made, they were solely based on the referenced sources. I urge any administrator to review the sources, as none of them mention anything Assyrian-related, yet Surayeproject3 continues to push the Assyrian name.

As for the artists, Surayeproject3 already filed a dispute, and the admin ruled in favor of no one.

Surayeproject3 is accusing me of "gaming the system," even though I am not pushing an Aramean name. I am reverting/editing to "Syriac," as stated in the referenced sources. "Syriac" is considered a middle ground between both names, which is why I am using it, as the sources indicate and for the sake of compromise.

Additionally, Surayeproject3 has been inconsistent multiple times, going against WP:C2D by changing "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide," which I pointed out and warned him about on his talk page. User623921 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have closed a dispute at DRN to which User623921 and Surayeproject3 were parties, concerning the article Arameans. DRN does not work on a case that is also pending in another forum. There were two other editors involved in the case at DRN who are not named here. If they wish to reopen the DRN case without the two combatants, they may file a new request here. This is the second case between User623921 and Surayeproject3 to end up here at WP:ANI in two weeks. Does something need to be done to keep these two users from disrupting the development of the encyclopedia? Interaction bans are difficult to administer, but may be less difficult than finding areas to ban these users from. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I will respond to all of the new points that have been made since I filed the initial ANI. Please note that I aim to simply state my side of the argument and in no way intend to aggressively or overtly attack or argue with anyone, and I hope that I state all of my points while still going alongside Wikipedia's guidelines. With that said, I will start with User623921's statements.

I intend for this ANI not to turn into another content dispute, however as they have primarily addressed their response by discussing my previous edit history on several articles, I feel I have to address them individually and that these help to prove my point. For context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity, which is reflected in other articles relating to modern Assyrians (though not to delve too much into the now closed DNR). I am open to providing more details about the naming dispute if anyone wishes, but with this being said, allow me to address the edits:

• Gutersloh - The change from Aramean to Assyrian has been a previous issue for the article. The first time the community was mentioned was in 2011 [115], but then this was changed to Assyrian [116] and Aramean was noted as a common designation for Assyrians in Germany [117]. This was changed to Aramean in December of that year [118] before being reverted back to Assyrian [119], changed the next month by a German IP [120], and in 2013 was changed to "Assyrian/Syriac" [121]. It was changed to Aramean again in 2015 [122], but than I changed it back in 2024 [123] which caused a small dispute with another editor but nothing big. It was changed back to Assyrian in late February [124] and I added more information from the German version of the page earlier this month [125]. Please note that the German page labels the community as "Suryoye" with parentheses (Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean) to couple all three identities [126]. As you can see, this is not the first time that this dispute has been on the article, but as Assyrian encompasses all three groups, I changed the name while adding more info about the community in the town.
• Isa Kahraman - Regarding the removal of the Aramean category, that category is used for ancient Arameans, and not for people who identify as Aramean today. The only source that mentions identity or ethnicity is the one linked [127], which labels him as Syriac (the news publication typically uses all the labels together when identifying the community and people).
• Syrians in Sweden - For this one no mention of Assyrians/Arameans was made until this edit in October of last year [128], but I changed it in January because they're used to represent the same people and it was redundant [129].
• Al Jazira (caliphal province) - About this article, I don't have access to the source so I can't say what it says about Tur Abdin. However, as will soon be seen with Place name changes in Turkey and two villages in the Tur Abdin area, the people who originate from there have roots to ancient Assyrian history and modern Assyrian identity, while noting that many from there identify as Aramean in diaspora. Plus, the article was linked to the ancient Arameans, so I changed Aramean to Assyrian.
• Syria - No mention of Tamurlane was made in the article that was sourced where I made my edit, but it did use all of the names and referred to the community as ethnic Assyrians. The fact that Syria has ancient Aramean origins is irrelevant.
• Place name changes in Turkey - The issue with this article seems to be the name to describe the village names changed by Turkey. It was previously called Assyrian but changed to Aramaic [130] while still noting its inhabitants were ethnic Assyrians. This was reverted [131] but it had the main page for the people written as "Assyrian/Syriac" [132]. As far as I can see, this wasn't changed to "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" until 2023 [133] but I changed it back the following year [134]. In any case, the section of the article was previously just Assyrian and noted the various names are used to recognize the same people.
• Haberli, İdil - This article hasn't existed for long, so it didn't deal with the naming dispute until recently [135]. When I expanded the article, I found quite a few sources that label the community as ethnic Assyrians, and the Assyrian genocide as...well, the Assyrian genocide [136]. However, User623921 made various edits afterwards that only changed the name to "Syriac" or "Aramean" [137] [138] [139] [140] and also removing any mentions of ancient Assyrian history or modern identity. His argument is that the Turkish word "Suryaniler" and "Suryani" translate to "Syriac", however this is not entirely the case and there are many instances where the word is used to mean Assyrian (even by Turkish sources) [141] [142], [143] page 183 of this link, [www.aina.org/books/stgabriel.pdf] pg. 103 of this link, [144]. While there are sources that correlate Suryani with Syriac, it has a greater connection to Assyrian identity and name and therefore I edited the article based on that.
• Öğündük, İdil - Same as above, see the pasted links in my first ANI post in relation to this article. All sources use the terms interchangeably, but given that Assyrian was used in English and Turkish, I wrote Assyrian
• Ethnic groups in Europe - When I first edited this article, I removed Aramean [145] because it was redundant and didn't represent two unique peoples. However, this was added back by User623921 a week ago and I was accused of POV [146]. When I re-edited the article I changed the section in "Non-indigenous minorities" on Assyrians to add the various other identifications [147], but User623921 changed this once again [148]. I added this back while expanding the "Indigenous minorities" section [149], and that's where the article stands. Something else to note is that User623921 did not remove the mention of "Chaldean" from the Assyrian section, only "Syriac" and "Aramean" and than linked them together elsewhere. But again, the only edits that were made were coupled with the two terms and nothing else.
• Örebro school shooting - User623921 is arguing that because the sources of my edits on the Assyrian victim of the massacre mention a federation with the name "Syrianska", that the victim should be labeled as "Syriac-Aramean". However, across the cited sources, I could find no such mention of a federation or an organization with the name that they are stating. The Reuter's source [150] describes the victim as a "Syriac-speaker" and the community as "Syriac-speaking", while the Japan Times source I added [151] names the victim and the community as "Assyrian", while the Assyria TV source [152] is a recording of his funeral. The CBS News source makes no mention of his ethnicity [153], but states they are Orthodox Christians.
• Shamoun Hanne Haydo - The issue of the name has been previously present on the article for Shamoun Hanne Haydo. When it was first created, he was labeled as Assyrian [154], but was changed to Aramean in late 2009 [155] before being reverted [156] and causing an edit war for the month of October. In November it was changed to "Aramean/Syriac" [157], and it was a back and forth between this dispute in 2010 [158] [159] [160], 2011 [161] [162] [163][164], 2012 [165] [166] [167] [168], 2013 [169] [170] [171] [172] [173], 2014 [174], 2015 [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186], up until the present day in a list of edits so long that I don't have the time to link to all of them. The talk page has the exact same disputes [187], while linking to a source that calls him both Aramean and Assyrian [188]. As you can see, this has been a frustrating back and forth for MANY years now, and up until now, the article did not have any modern sources that went into detail with the subject's legacy. All of the sources I added use all three of the names, but User623921 changed only text that called him an Assyrian and also removed one of the sources that called him an Assyrian (the source dealt with one of his descendants who is currently writing a cookbook, admittedly it may have come off as an advertisement but I can of course change this). All in all, User623921 continued the previous pattern of disruptive editing that this article has seen since it was created by simply changing the name without any constructive edits to the article.
• Regarding the naming of Seyfo - The common name for the events of 1915 is "Assyrian genocide". After having just done a search on Google, the number of results that appear for "Assyrian genocide" is 1,620,000 for a regular search, and 278 for a search in the news tab. Meanwhile, the number of results that appear for "Seyfo" and "Sayfo" is 363,000 for a regular search respectively, as well as 30 and 27 news results respectively. Additionally, the article for the topic itself was only renamed to Seyfo in late 2020 without an RM procedure, making it a controversial move [189]. Noting that Google Scholar was also mentioned in the linked talk page post, we see 1,280 results for "Sayfo" [190], 659 for "Seyfo" [191], and 16,500 for "Assyrian genocide" [192]. Since "Assyrian genocide" is the more common term in English, this is what I have used when linking to the article.
• I haven't researched Sodertalje mafia and Ignatius Aphrem II in depth yet to comment on them, but Sodertalje mafia has sources referring to it as an Assyrian/Syriac mafia while Ignatius Aphrem II has previously commented on distancing the name debate from the church and being united as one "Suryoye". I can make a more detailed clarification later if need be.

As you can see, in all of the edits that User623921 has linked, I had a clear and viable reason for changing the name Aramean and Syriac to Assyrian while noting that previous disputes have hindered and upset these articles for so long that they were never expanded until recent edits, and even after that, the only actions that they made on any of them was changing the name "Assyrian" to "Syriac", and sometimes linking to the ancient Arameans page. Because I was outright accused of edit warring and disruptive editing, I personally focused on expanding these articles and found many sources that affirmed the Assyrian identity and origins of article subjects or edits, and noting that the people who call themselves "Aramean", "Assyrian", "Syriac", or "Chaldean" are one and the same. I am confident, therefore, that as opposed to User623921 stating that I am pushing an Assyrian POV, they are pushing a Syriac-linked-to-Aramean POV that is acting disruptively on many of these articles.

Now to briefly address @Robert McClenon's points. I should mention that while this is the second time an issue between myself and User623921 has appeared at the ANI, it was not filed by either of us. Another user who was involved in the DRN for Arameans filed it after noticing the edit warring that User623921 was engaged in, as well as with the restoration of the forks, see this link here [193]. This is the same ANI I mentioned in my first post. They also filed a sockpuppet investigation against them for editing patterns from another account on one of the same articles mentioned (although it was determined they were unrelated) [194], and they also filed another sockpuppet investigation into the fourth user of the DRN, Kivercik (which is as of this moment still open - I noticed it around the time it was filed and added some of my own points that I felt were worth mentioning) [195]. As you can see, this level of disruptive editing has been noticed by and has impacted other editors besides just myself, which is partly what prompted me to file another ANI.

By the way @Robert McClenon, do you happen to be able to perform CheckUser or know of a user who can? I previously emailed the English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I haven't gotten a response and it appears I need to address my concerns sooner than later. If you can guide me in the right direction on this, I'd appreciate it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Surayeproject3 - The way to request CheckUser investigation is to file a Sockpuppet Investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, regarding changing from "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide", please stop doing that: we already have consensus for the appropriate title of that article, which is Sayfo. This is a Featured Article - it's been under a lot of scrutiny, so that's a pretty strong consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Do you know where I can see the consensus for the appropriate title, if it's not the already linked renaming discussion? I can imagine it may have been chosen during the discussion to make Sayfo a featured article, but I haven't come across it yet. Otherwise, if it's the consensus for the appropriate label, I will stop changing that text. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of related discussions if you look at the talk page archives. Following the links in the most recent move request will get you to a handful of them without having to dig too hard, but buidhe's comment there explains the reasoning pretty thoroughly. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to point out the "common name" argument you are holding against Sayfo:

A google search for Assyrian genocide does not give 1.6m results, simply because it is targeting any result that is mentioning the word "assyrian" and "genocide" separately in the same page. You've got to quote the word so it literally becomes "(the) ASSYRIAN GENOCIDE", and on a standard google search this gives 77 900 results.

Sayfo gives 225 000 results and Seyfo gives 389 000.

Same thing applies to google scholar, "Assyrian genocide" gives 563 results.

Sayfo gives 1280 results and Seyfo gives 659 results. User623921 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Making a reply to this as it's still currently the case that User623921 is changing article content to remove mentions or links to Assyrians, most recently on the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, even after expanding it's content: compared to previously, there are now more sources that affirm the village's Assyrian identity (including the Turkish word Suryaniler), and noting again that "Syriac people" redirects to Assyrians.

My recent edits - [196] [197] [198] [199]

User's edits - [200] [201] [202] [203] Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, you need to stop changing the terms in that article. You're edit-warring, and you'll be blocked if you continue. There's an open conversation on the talk page - discuss your edits there, not in repeated edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see the edit summaries of relevant pages, Surayeproject3 goes against the established fact that the population is referred to as Syriac. Please see the sources yourself, it's literally saying "speaking of the Syriac population". Mugsalot also changed it to Syriac but Surayeproject3 goes against it. User623921 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering i also want to point out that the open conversations on the talk page are being ignored or not answered by Surayeproject3, @Surayeproject3 can you answer the latest reply... User623921 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What User623921 seems to be doing is taking statements that others say in relation to his arguments for how things should be on Wikipedia, and than apply that as if it's a final consensus and say on his editing. This has occurred in various instances:

• When me and User* were debating over the ethnicity for Ricky Rich, I suggested leaving it as Assyrian/Syriac because it factored both identities we were arguing for [204]. User* seems to have taken this to mean that "Syriac" is by default the middle ground and started changing other pages [205] [206] for the artists Gaboro and Ant Wan
• On the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, another editor sorted the page's content and happened to mention that "The sources do overwhelmingly use "Syriac"" [207]. He has since taken this as if it's a final consensus that other articles, if not all, should say Syriac instead of Assyrian to refer to the same people, even if not directly on Assyrian villages in Turkey. See these [208][209][210][211][212][213] and other examples can be found on his edit history. These instances occurred both before and after I expanded these articles.
• User* seems to also be arguing that because an outside organization named "Syrianska Riksforbundent" represents the community as Arameans (with the label Syriac applied) through certain terminology, than by default it means that a subject should be represented under the Syriac-Aramean label. This is in some of his talk page posts but see here [214][215][216][217]. I'm mentioning this because User* is throwing in the organization in edits on articles that aren't even related to it, only being used in arguments for the name.

User* is continuously assuming that there is consensus on these topics without broader agreement or input, violating Wikipedia's need for not only just consensus, but also a neutral point of view. It has continuously appeared that User* is also cherry picking select sources and statements in forums and present those to support his side of editing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

to answer point one: Ricky Rich was referred to as Syriac, I tried getting Aramean, you tried Assyrian, neither one got their opinions, thus Syriac was seen as the most middle ground, as this is what all relevant sources in Sweden state, same goes for the other artists Gaboro and Ant Wan, who actually are both referenced and known to be Aramean, yet Ant Wan was left without ethnicity after a comment from a admin, and well, Gaboro is literally representing his ethnicity on his mask, thus making it into the lead per MOSBIO.

--

About Beth Kustan, you're the one not seeming to understand that the references and sources overwhelmingly use Syriac, not Assyrian. The censunse of the population explicitly mention a "SYRIAC POPULATION", you are trying to push the Assyrian name on a population that is described as Syriacs. For example, the two references about the population on Beth Kustan writes the following:

"Helmut Ritter provides figures for the number of families and persons in all the villages (43 in all) which had a Syrian Orthodox population." - note that he writes this and references this: "H Ritter, Turoyo, die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen der Tur Abdin" (literally says Syriac Christians).

the other reference on the article writes the following: "The Beth Qustan village was a flourishing rural center, part of the food basket of the Fertile Crescent at the turn of the 20th century, with approximately 200 families living in the village; however, in 2017, only an estimated 20 families remained inhabitants of Beth Qustan. The Qusneans still speak a specific dialect of Neo-Aramaic, which is better known to the community as Turoyo, the language of Tur ‘Abdin. Figure 2 is a picture of the center of the Beth Qustan village."

there is no mention about a Assyrian population other than Syriac Christians on the two references in the lead.

the third reference to the population, in the history section writes the following: "The list only deals with the Syriac population"

--

What I am using the organization for is as a source to describe what Syrian means in Sweden, we could very well also use a study by Atto, read this: "A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation Assyrier and by doing so any links to an Assyrian past. Among the Syrianer in Sweden, especially people who are active in secular organizations and many of the clergymen, it is stated that the ‘amo Suryoyo has Aramean roots." [218]

You're accusing me for POV, yet I am not even pushing POV, which I am assuming you're thinking to be Aramean, I am literally seeking middle ground at Syriac, since it redirects to Assyrians and is the most accepted name amongst all groups, besides, Syriac is what the sources state. User623921 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

User* is continuously assuming that there is consensus on these topics without broader agreement or input yes, this appears pretty clear to me. @User623921, your edits have been challenged, so you need to seek consensus for them. Yes, that does mean every time. If you want a consensus that applies across multiple articles, you have to get that consensus. I recommend starting with a discussion on Assyrian people, as @Robert McClenon suggests as a possibility below. An RFC may be a good idea at some point, once you've come up with a clear and neutral question to ask. You may first want to take various sources to WP:RSN. What you cannot do is get a local consensus on one article and then apply it across all kinds of other articles, over other editors' objections. If an experienced editor were doing this, I would be calling for a topic ban. Since you are a relatively inexperienced editor, instead I strongly suggest editing somewhere else for a while, so you can get experience with wikipedia editing about something you feel less strongly about. Personally, I can recommend WP:BOOKS topics. You'll never run out of notable books to write about, and it takes a pretty contentious book to get real arguments going. -- asilvering (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I mostly do it on the villages, since they all use same sources for the population. But sure, I'll keep this in mind, sorry. User623921 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving the discussion because User* (now named Wlaak) is going against the previous discussions of the ANI and is continuing to apply a pre-conceived consensus on one article onto several other articles on Assyrian/Syriac villages in southeastern Turkey. This is despite no consensus being present for this at all, and still categorically removing any mentions of Assyrians or sources that use the name. They have done this on the following articles:

• Haberli, İdil - [219][220]
• Gülgöze, Midyat - [221]
• Dargeçit - [222][223]
• Altıntaş, Midyat - [224]
• Bağlarbaşı, Midyat - [225]
• Bardakçı, Midyat - [226]
• Elbeğendi, Midyat - [227]
• Arıca, Gercüş - [228]
• Bülbül, Yeşilli - [229]
• Mercimekli, Midyat - [230]
• Narlı, Midyat - [231]
• Ortaca, Midyat - [232]
• Yemişli, Midyat - [233]
• Kayadere, Ömerli - [234]
• Ömerli, Mardin - [235]
• Çatalçam, Dargeçit - [236]
• İzbırak, Midyat - [237]
• Hasankeyf - [238]
• İdil - [239]
• Karagöl, Dargeçit - [240]
• Taşköy, Nusaybin - [241]

Additionally, after expanding the article for Södertälje mafia [242], leaving Assyrian/Syriac as a compromise, he went ahead and changed only the ethnicity portion [243][244]. After noticing a direct callout on Jimmy Durmaz [245], I added some more sources for the ethnicity and also restructured the article with expansion [246], only for him to change (yet again) only the ethnicity and revert my previous edits [247][248]. For this article, he added a Youtube video as a source but I couldn't retrace it to anywhere outside of that one video.

On the article for Beth Kustan, the consensus was to keep the article stating the people "Syriac" while linking to the page for Assyrians, corresponding with the redirect and the previous discussion in the ANI. That was for the one article only. Wlaak has applied this to 23 articles just today consecutively without prior input, consensus, or starting discussions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

ok so for all the villages, it's really simple: all if not the big majority of the sources that spoke of the population wrote of a Syriac population, since when do you need a consensus to edit anything? pretty sure you're performing dozens of edits a day without any consensus.

it's not like i am restructuring entire articles, i am literally seeing the sources and correcting what is stated about them... the linkage to Assyrian people as well as the category of Assyrian communities in Turkey are still there!

regarding the Södertälje maffia, there was no source stating they were Assyrian, rather on the Swedish page, it is only stated Syriac with a citation to a newspaper in Sweden confirming it.

regarding Jimmy Durmaz, you wanted to change the referenced source to apply to Assyrian, not correct what was stated. the source had been stable for a year/months, however it contradicted the source, it was stated in the source he is Aramean, in the Wiki article it said Assyrian, I corrected it, you then reverted, I then said that the source does not support what you are writing, and you then went ahead and substituted a stable source to get your Assyrian name on the article.

speaking of "no-consensus", you changed these without reaching consensus:

• Midyat Guest House, a newly created article where you only changed the Aramean name to Assyrian, seems as you also tried to get "Assyrian/Syriac" in, and by your logic, that consensus was only reached in one article, now you are spreading it to other. [249]
• again Midyat Guest House, you tried applying Assyrian culture category, with no consensus or mention of Assyrian. [250]
• on Düzgeçit, Midyat you added Historic Assyrian communities in Iraq. [251]

• same done for Yünlüce, Lice. [252]

for dialects, you put in a infobox about a people... for languages... with no consensus.

• you did so on Neo-Aramaic in Urmia [253]

• for Neo-Aramaic in Qaraqosh [254]

• for Koy Sanjaq [255]

• even on Mhlaso [256]

• you did so on Barwar too [257]

• you did so at Senaya too [258]

• you did so Heretvin as well and this time deleting Chaldean Catholics [259]

• you also did it on Bohtan [260]

• you also did it on the language, whos speakers would greatly disagree with you on and disagree with you if you tried to get a consensus, Turoyo [261]

• you even did so on the Neo-Aramaic languages article [262]

• you also did so on Suret language [263]

doesn't stop there, you also did so on Churches!

• you did so on the Ancient Church of the East [264]

• on Assyrian Evangelical Church [265]

• on Assyrian Pentecostal Church [266]

• you did so on the Syriac Catholic Church, known to not be claiming Assyrian descent or advocating one. [267]

• you also did so on the most controversial one, whos Church has officially stated they are not Assyrians and stated they are Syriacs, descendants of Arameans, the Syriac Orthodox Church [268] i also want to note that on this edit, you were reverted by CF-501 Falcon who said it is "not about Assyrians, refrain from pushing POV", yet you implemented this POV on all other Churches after the Syriac Orthodox Church.

• you also did so on the Chaldean Catholic Church [269], who the big majority speak of being ethnic Chaldeans, you proposed to delete the Chaldean Catholics article and merge it with the Church, you then labeled the Chaldean Catholic Church as being native Assyrians and put the infobox about Assyrians, completely unrelated to faith and religion to it.

• you also did it on the Assyrian Church of the East [270]

i could keep going and bring up more example where you've put changed the article, not corrected what's stated about sources but you get my points with the examples of the languages and Churches, the difference between us here is that i am only correcting what is stated on the article in contrast to the source, while you are literally inputting a Assyrian POV infobox on all articles, UNRELATED articles, a language? a Church? they've been stable for years, and you're now injecting a Assyrian infobox on them all? even though some have explicitly said they are not Assyrian, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church, see source.

and yes, I am now going under the name Wlaak, thought it would be more personal/easy to refer to me than User....

thanks Wlaak (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering said "...your edits have been challenged, so you need to seek consensus for them. Yes, that does mean every time. If you want a consensus that applies across multiple articles, you have to get that consensus." You did not achieve this consensus for Assyrian villages in Turkey prior to editing them, nor are you making any substantial edits to expand on article content. This is instead extremely similar to your previous patterns of editing despite you replying "I mostly do it on the villages, since they all use same sources for the population. But sure, I'll keep this in mind, sorry." The difference between me writing "Assyrian/Syriac" is that I have written it on two articles, elsewhere I'd just say Assyrian. You wrote it on 23.

Most of the edits you've linked are for an infobox, the point of an infobox is to be put on articles that discuss Assyrians. And yes, that includes our churches, dialects of Neo-Aramaic, culture, etc. A source from Ephrem Barsoum or your personal experiences with Syriac Catholics doesn't change that; the article literally has the Assyrian people template at the bottom of the page. The Chaldean Catholic point is irrelevant either, I requested a merge all the way back in December after making a comment and seeing others in support, nobody objected. I am not about to justify edits for articles that point black mention Assyrian history or people, and you are still categorically removing mentions of Assyrians on these articles. Surayeproject3 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

okay, i must have forgotten that. doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you either, your edits have been also been challenged, yet you pushed your edits, that statements refers to anyone whos edits have been challenged. your edit about the Church was challenged, yet you proceeded with putting the infoboxes, and no, a Church is not about a series of Assyrians, like CF-501 Falcon said it is "not about Assyrians, refrain from pushing POV".

its not irrelevant, did you seek consensus for categorizing them as Assyrians after the merge? did you seek consensus for the infoboxes on the Churches and the languages?

"I am not about to justify edits for articles that point black mention Assyrian history or people" — your edits have been challenged, people don't agree with them, you are not correcting anything, you are changing the articles. same logic applied to the articles point black mention a Syriac population for the villages... your logic is contradicting yourself.

i am not done on the villages, i will be expanding them, i was starting off changing what was stated by the sources, which was incorrect and contradicting the sources.

i am not removing mentions of Assyrians from articles that have sources supported to be Assyrian, i am leaving the linkage to Assyrian people as well as the Assyrian categorizations. you, on the other hand, do remove mentions of Arameans and Syriacs, as shown in a warning on your talk page, despite sources stating Aramean, one example is the other day when you reverted Jimmy Durmaz to Assyrian, even though the source stated Aramean and was corrected.

this is not a one way dispute, you are doing the same things you are accusing others of. Wlaak (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

i also came to realize after scrolling down this page that you also have a open dispute against Kivercik, who also have challenged your edits, unhappy with how you have pushed the Assyrian name and reaching no consensus. Wlaak (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

three people other than me is agreeing with you pushing POV, if you'd scroll further down the ANI page. @Black Kite they also brought up the most problematic issue here, in regards to what i have corrected in the villages, the citations don't mention Assyrian, yet you push for a Assyrian name upon them, every citation uses Syriac population and people.

(sorry for ping, Black Kite) Wlaak (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

you are expanind the article, its great, however, while doing so, you are changing the already established terms for the population to Assyrian. Suryaniler means Syriacs, please see the Oxford dictionary of the Turkish language. [271] User623921 (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and POV by Surayeproject3

Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to push a POV favoring the Assyrian name, contradicting the sources. I have tried to revert or change his edits to reflect the more accurate term used in the referenced sources, which is "Syriac."

About Gütersloh: Surayeproject3, without providing an edit summary, changed the Aramean name to his preferred term, "Assyrian." [272]

About Isa Kahraman: Surayeproject3 edited the article without a summary or consensus and removed the Aramean category. [273]

About Syrians in Sweden: Surayeproject3 altered the article, which had remained stable for nearly a month, to refer only to "Assyrian," removing any mention of Arameans. [274]

About Al-Jazira (caliphal province): Surayeproject3 modified the article, which had been stable for over a month, changing "Aramean" to "Assyrian" and deleting the Aramean mention. He did this without adding any new references or providing an edit summary. [275]

About Syria: Surayeproject3 removed the phrase "Assyrian and Aramean population," replacing it with only "Assyrian," despite the fact that the article referred to the Middle Ages in Syria, which is known for its Aramean origins. [276]

About the Södertälje mafia: Surayeproject3 changed "Syriac-Aramaic" to "Assyrian," contradicting the available sources. The article had remained stable for more than two months. [277]

About Place name changes in Turkey: Surayeproject3 altered "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" to only "Assyrian," even though the article had been stable for over two months. [278]

About Haberli, İdil: Surayeproject3 kept fighting me over the correct population name. The referenced censuses and sources stated "Syriacs," but he repeatedly reverted the article to say "Assyrian." [279]

About Ignatius Aphrem II: Surayeproject3 replaced "Aramean" with "Assyrian," even though the source explicitly stated "Aramean" and Ignatius Aphrem II himself identifies strongly with his Aramean heritage. [280]

About Ethnic groups in Europe: Surayeproject3 removed "Aramean" from the article, keeping only "Assyrian." [281]

About the Örebro school shooting: Surayeproject3 described the casualty victim as "Assyrian" and referred to the federation in Örebro as "Assyrian," even though the referenced sources clearly stated the victim was "Syriac" and that the federation was "Syrianska Riksförbundet," a Syriac-Aramaic organization. [282]

About Öğündük, İdil: Surayeproject3 fought me over the name of the population, trying to push the Assyrian name despite sources and censuses explicitly mentioning a "Syriac" population. [283]

About Shamoun Hanne Haydo: Surayeproject3 attempted to label him as "Assyrian," despite all sources [284][285] stating that he was a Syriac folk hero. [286]

Surayeproject3 also seems to label anything related to Sayfo as the "Assyrian Genocide," despite there being a speedy renaming request to change the categories from "Assyrian" to "Sayfo" for consistency with the main article and WP:C2D. I have also warned him about this on his talk page. [287]

With all this said, it seems that sources are being contradicted in order for him to push his POV and have the Assyrian name displayed. His user talk page even states that he wants to "increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean."

I have repeatedly tried to fight this vandalism, POV pushing, and contradiction of sources, but it does not seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)^<diffs>

• I believe this should be merged with the above report, no? ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 15:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Nathannah • 📮 16:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Do you two realize that you have offered over 130 diffs for editors/admins to review? This is excessive and no one is going to put in the time required to evaluate all of this material.

Could you briefly, in a few sentences, summarize the basis of your disagreement and the policy-based disruption you are claiming is happening by the other party? Otherwise, I think this complaint will just be archived with no action taken. Be concise, not exhaustive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Liz - This is a naming and splitting dispute. The question is about a group of Syriac Christians, and whether they should all be called Assyrians or whether there is a separate ethnic group who are called Arameans. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the content dispute. I haven't tried to determine what the conduct issues are. I was trying to mediate the content dispute before these reports were filed, and my objective was first to determine what the content dispute was so that we could ignore the conduct issues. But here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t really call it a dispute over ethnicity, but rather a matter of modern Arameans having WP:NOTABILITY and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, deserving their own article. This has been a topic of discussion for decades, as their identity is different from that of the Assyrians, with a unique historical claim, continuity, literature, traditions, and more. User623921 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that my posts appear excessive, but I am just detailing them so that anyone who may wish to review can better understand my point. I'll summarize the above, hopefully in a more concise manner.

User623921 has taken a stance on battleground editing and gaming the system to advocate for a certain POV while deflecting this onto other editors involved, including myself. So far, they have attempted to restore forks made by blocked users on the page Arameans, improperly explained removal of various football teams from List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden, and they have also previously been warned for edit-warring and investigated for sockpuppetry. The biggest disruption they've made is change various amounts of text on articles from "Assyrian" to "Syriac/Aramean"; they have listed examples where I've done the same thing vice versa, but in my recent post, I explained that I expanded those articles with sources or content while User623921 only made edits to change the name again or remove mentions of Assyrians. This has impacted all the articles they listed and some more, and has been disruptive to more editors besides just myself. In my last paragraph, I mentioned that I emailed English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I have not yet received a response and it appears that sooner than later I should get my points across to one of them.

I hope that this is much more concise, quick, and easy to follow. If more details are needed, please refer to my above posts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, who do you think is a sockpuppet of whom? -- asilvering (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering After re-evaluating I had greater suspicion of meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry, so maybe CheckUser is not the best for this situation. I noticed you were on the Wikimedia Discord from your user profile, and given the urgency I joined it and just sent you a message, if you're able to check. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Surayeproject3 has consistently engaged in name-based POV editing across a wide range of articles, often replacing terms like "Aramean" or "Syriac" with "Assyrian"—even when the sources cited in those articles clearly use the original terminology. These changes are frequently made without edit summaries, consensus, or the addition of new sources, and they’ve disrupted articles that had remained stable for long periods.

This behavior isn't isolated to one or two pages; it's a pattern that spans many articles, from biographical entries to discussions of historical regions, modern communities, and even the Sayfo genocide. In many of these edits, references to Aramean or Syriac identity have been either downplayed or removed outright in favor of an Assyrian framing. Surayeproject3 also appears to apply the label "Assyrian" to people or organizations that are clearly described in sources as "Syriac" or "Aramean."

Their user page openly states an intent to increase the visibility of the Assyrian name, including for those who identify as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean. This self-declared mission has translated into a persistent editing approach that often overrides or misrepresents cited material to fit that narrative. The issue has led to repeated reversions, edit conflicts, and broader disruption to other editors working on these topics. User623921 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, I really quite strongly advise you to avoid using LLMs at all on Wikipedia, but especially in discussions about conduct and policy. LLMs do not understand Wikipedia. You are harming your credibility and everyone else's ability to assume good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

im Sorry, I was not doing so for them to write my responses for me but rather fix grammar etc. Ill make sure to not use them going forward. User623921 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. Don't worry about grammar too much. Authentic mistakes are better than staid silicon perfection. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

User:User623921 - Use the grammar checker to check grammar. Using an LLM to check grammar is like using a jackhammer to drive finishing nails. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, vandalism has a pretty specific meaning, and this does not meet that bar. See WP:VANDAL. I don't see any indication whatsoever that @Surayeproject3 is a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Dealing with the Content Dispute

This dispute, like many cases at WP:ANI, consists of an underlying content dispute and conduct issues. We should work to start resolving the content dispute while the conduct is dealt with. The underlying content issue appears to be whether there are a distinct ethnic group at the present known as Aramean people, who are not the same as the Assyrian people and should be the subject of a separate article.

Another DRN request has just been filed about Arameans. The existing article Arameans is about the ancient Arameans, and is probably not really part of the dispute. However, I don't think that DRN is the right forum for the content dispute, because a consensus process is needed to decide whether to create the new article, and DRN would probably conclude that a consensus process is needed. I see three possible routes to a consensus decision on whether a separate article is in order:

• 1. A split discussion in Assyrian people.
• 2. An editor can prepare a Draft:Aramean people, which can then be accepted, and editors who disagree as to its separate notability can nominate it for deletion and let the AFD be the consensus process.
• 3. RFC.

Which consensus process should we use? Then the community can decide whether there still are conduct issues, or whether they will subside when a consensus content process is pending. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I support option 1. This is ultimately a debate as to whether the umbrella term (Assyrian) should be divided into separate articles. I'm not an administrator so apologies if it is not my place to comment. Mugsalot (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I support option 2. It’s the most neutral option and the one that fits best with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Arameans have tried for decades to get their own article, but it keeps getting blocked by opposing Assyrians, even though Arameans meet all the necessary guidelines, like WP:NOTABILITY.

Have a look at the Dutch and German Wikipedia pages. They are good examples of how two separate articles can work just fine.

Check my comment proving Aramean notability here.

I also want to quote what Sorabino said on Archive 14 of the Assyrian talk page: "It is quite clear that modern Arameans do not want to be put under Assyrian "umbrella" (as you have put it), and it is my impression that large section of academic community is favoring modern Aramean self-identification. Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community."

I also want to refer to what TurboSuperA+ said: "First of all, Wikipedia is not a court of justice or arbiter of what exists, we are not here to decide what those who call themselves Arameans today really are."

I, and I'm sure the other participant, Kivercik, involved in the previous dispute, can most likely work together on an Aramean people draft. And like you said, if anyone contests its notability, they can nominate it for deletion. User623921 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I support option 3. I feel like options 1 and 2 are basically affirming the other side of the argument and allowing them to create a separate article without a formalized consensus on if it's even necessary. As I and the other Assyrian editor noted in the first DRN, previous forks have been made for the group identifying as Aramean, and they have basically the exact same aspects of their culture and history. The same ethnic group does not need to have multiple pages about its identity, especially when it has previously been the focal point of edit warring and various disruptions in the past. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, no one needs consensus to make an article, unless there has already been consensus to delete that article. Is there a previous deletion discussion available? -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

In regards to a deletion discussion, there was a WikiProject that originally existed called WikiProject Aramea, however I requested a deletion back in September because it was created by socks and blocked accounts [288]. I also noted that it had the exact same layout and several articles that fit under the scope of WP:WikiProject Assyria, and this is something that User* has previously suggested that "there are people working on" from this discussion (corresponding with the idea of potential meatpuppetry I mentioned to you as well) [289]. For articles, there was previously an article Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, which was eventually merged into the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church [290] (the discussion uses all the names, btw), and the article Syriac people also had similar content and was eventually merged into Assyrian people [291] [292].

I also suggest comparing the previous forks from blocked editors (this can be found in my first point of the whole discussion) with the article for the ancient Arameans and Assyrian people, as well as this former version of Syriac people [293]. Because there is so much overlap between these variations and the continuous disputes and edit warring that has been caused by them, it's not only unnecessary to create a new article but it will cause much more disruption from its creation. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon was also one of the commenters of the WikiProject deletion request from the looks of it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I voted to Delete the WikiProject because it was stillborn. Most of the work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page, and no one had posted to the talk page of the project, so the project never had any activity. I was not voting on whether reliable sources discuss the existence of a modern Aramean people who are distinct from the modern Assyrian people. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I restore the WikiProject? Now that i am active on here and might invite some people that have contributed to Aramean related contents. @Kivercik would you be down to have a WikiProject? For structure and communication? User623921 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's precedent you might want to point to in an AfD, but it's not a discussion specifically about Aramean people, so the same thing I've said above to @User623921 about a local consensus not applying to similar topics applies here as far as I can tell. There's nothing preventing anyone from making Draft:Aramean people and putting it through AfC for a neutral check, and there wouldn't be anything preventing you from taking that article to AfD once that had occurred. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3 your arguments that it will be a fork based on previous attempts should not really matter when trying to create a Aramean people page, there are enough differences between the modern Arameans and modern Assyrians for it to not be a fork. And, if you're really against a Aramean article, you are free to challange the notability of modern Arameans, but until then, as it stands, modern Arameans meet the notability criteria for its own article.

@Asilvering since there is nothing stopping one from creating a Aramean people draft, is it possible for me to start working on it? And if so, what was the purpose of the 3 options for consensus, should option 2 therefore not be the naturally chosen one? It also seems to be the easiest one to work with instead of yet another discussion in Assyrian people page or a RfC, since we already have had multiple of those. Nothing seems to be stopping one from creating:

• "2. An editor can prepare a Draft:Aramean people, which can then be accepted, and editors who disagree as to its separate notability can nominate it for deletion and let the AFD be the consensus process."

User623921 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion as someone who is trying to help get this dispute to a reasonable conclusion, creating the draft is the simplest answer, and you're welcome to do so. But if I were in your position, namely the position of someone actually intending to write the content, that sure isn't the option I'd try first. I would start by expanding the relevant section on Assyrian people using the best possible sources, then go for #1 in the list of options. #2 is pretty high-risk. You could spend a lot of time and effort on a well-crafted draft and then have an AfD rule that it should be deleted. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering User* already made the draft [294]. Also note that 10 minutes after, User:Kivercik added similar content to this previous fork [295], so this makes me more skeptical of potential meatpuppetry and also ties back to my point on the consensus issue from earlier today. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

i have been inactive for the past hours on wikipedia, he may have found it because of the tag i did, i dont know. but please, stop with these accusations and stop always dragging me into accusations, both you and shmayo have tried it before but were dismissed.

i will delete the fork he published. User623921 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

ah okay, i understand. perhaps going for option 1 might be smarter, but it might also get denied a split. would there be some kind of admin intervention in that case? because from previous experience and from what i have seen, i already know Surayeproject3, Shmayo (been rejecting anything Aramean related for decades) and Mugsalot will be against it and it will just be words against words... User623921 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There would not be admin intervention unless someone involved in the dispute does something that requires admin action - that is, there would need to be a conduct issue in play as well. As for the rest, this is precisely why I have advised you to work elsewhere on Wikipedia until you have more experience with content disputes in general. They are indeed words against words; and experienced editors tend to be better at choosing the most effective words. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, it most definitely was "specifically about Aramean people". The content of the old "Syriac people" article linked to above, is basically what is asked to be restored here, see parts of this this or this. "Aramean-Syriac people" was actually protected until last year (protection removed as there were "no disruption to related topics in a long time"). Shmayo (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Shmayo, you haven't linked to a consensus discussion about Aramean people, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

the old Syriac people article is 16 years old and you are using it as a argument against a Aramean article page? it will be nothing like it, just looking at it i can see how inadequate and very poorly written/structured and content wise.

we are not asking to restore it, we are asking to create a Aramean people page per WP:NOTABILITY. User623921 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, the deletion discussion for "Aramean-Syriac people" is found here here. There was also another discussion for a split here.Shmayo (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say that both of those are far too old to be useful. Our notability guidelines have changed significantly since then, and furthermore the general trend in history over the past two decades has been towards greater acknowledgement of various minority groups, so we have significant grounds to believe that a new consensus needs to be established. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering What about this deletion endorsion? [296] About 10 years old but it was reviewed 6 years after the original deletion of the article, noting that such an article creation was more politically charged than about representation and that many who advocated for separation were socks or blocked accounts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a 11 year old review. It seems that you are trying everything in your power to be against a Aramean people article, I am genuinely curios as to why? I am pretty sure this is POV in favor of not having any other identity than your preferred Assyrian one on WikiPedia. User623921 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, you don't need to respond to everything in the discussion here. Just a tip. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that one is still old, @Surayeproject3, but in that one @Future Perfect at Sunrise gave a very clear summary of the problem, along with a clear suggestion: fix the parent article. Since I more or less suggested doing that with I would start by expanding the relevant section on Assyrian people using the best possible sources, then go for #1 in the list of options., I imagine that the encouragement to fix the parent article was not taken up, and so I expect FP still holds that opinion. And so long as "fix the parent article" is not done, it certainly looks like any consensus discussion would end there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Hey again, hope you're doing well. Since the ANI has died down a bit, I wanted to respond and say that I think that expanding the current Assyrian people article is a great first step to resolving the issue. However, I'd like to know if there are any sections in particular that could use editing to better account for the various identities and diverse history/culture of the people. If you have any suggestions, please let me know!

By the way, Happy Kha'b Nissan and Assyrian New Year to everyone. April 1st is a traditional celebration for us and we are celebrating it today! Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't be enough to simply write more about each identity, because doing so would also require expanding on the Chaldean identity, their historical claims, as well as the Arameans historical claim. To be honest, the article should be renamed to what it was before: Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac-Aramean, just like the Swedish Wikipedia has done. Wlaak (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, I've been doing my best to avoid forming an opinion on the content so I don't have to recuse myself from taking any necessary admin actions, so I don't have much in the way of specific content suggestions, but looking around at related articles it seems to me that Terms for Syriac Christians already covers most of this issue? So my general suggestion would be for participants in this discussion to work on that one first, since it's more in-depth, and then see what might need to be carried over to Assyrian people. Right now, the Assyrian people article states Syriac Christians of the Middle East and diaspora employ different terms for self-identification based on conflicting beliefs in the origin and identity of their respective communities. Regardless of what reliable sources say about the subject, given the fact that this content dispute exists in the first place, it's clear that this sentence is insufficient. Even if it's found that reliable sources overwhelmingly support "your side" of this dispute and the position held by User623921 etc is hopelessly WP:FRINGE, the article doesn't do a good job at present of explaining that the dispute exists, let alone why people care so deeply about it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

i just came to realize that for option 1, a split discussion would be more fitting in the current Aramean article, as it only deals with ancient Arameans, not modern. the current Assyrian people page only has three sentences about Arameans, there is not much to split there. User623921 (talk) 10:24, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cardi_B

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

---

Relates to 176.216.237.28 an IP address that is already be blocked. Could someone delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cardi_B? it was correctly speedy-closed by EvergreenFir but the entire thing (apart from Valorrr) is a nasty piece of racist abuse with a side-salad of tasteless reference to the Murder of Selena (the link underlying "became"); it doesn't deserve to be preserved as a record of a deletion debate. Elemimele (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Deleted as vandalism, which it effectively was. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That was quick! Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 16:41, 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.

Talk : Sukavich Rangsitpol

Why the same person kept deleting his achievements

In 1995, Thailand's Minister of Education, Sukavich Rangsitpol, introduced significant reforms aimed at improving the quality of education and contributing to national development in an increasingly interconnected world. The reforms, which began in December 1995, focused on four key areas:

School Reform: Standardizing education quality across all levels, expanding access to education, and improving learning environments. Teacher Reform: Overhauling teacher recruitment, training, and professional development in both public and private schools. Curriculum Reform: Updating curricula and teaching methods to enhance overall education quality. Administrative Reform: Decentralizing decision-making and empowering local educational institutions, with a focus on community and family involvement. In 1997, School-Based Management (SBM) was introduced, decentralizing education management and promoting community involvement, with strong representation from local Provincial Education Councils.

Key Outcomes: Expansion of Schools: By 1997, 40,000 schools had undergone reforms, improving educational access and increasing community involvement. Education for All (EFA): 4.35 million children from underprivileged backgrounds enrolled in schools, helping to establish the Education for All initiative. International Recognition: Thailand received the 1997 ACEID Award from UNESCO for excellence in education. UNESCO Findings: The reforms led to increased education spending, the introduction of English and computer literacy in early grades, and the establishment of free 12-year education for all children, as outlined in Thailand’s 1997 Constitution. Economic Impact: Following the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, education reforms played a key role in economic recovery. From 1998 to 2001, income in northeastern Thailand rose by 46%, and nationwide poverty dropped from 21.3% .

https://books.google.com/books/about/Education_Economics.html?hl=th&id=wGHqEAAAQBAJ

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=wGHqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT92&dq=sukavich+rangsitpol&hl=th&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL4pHqnbmMAxWid2wGHfb_H6IQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=sukavich%20rangsitpol&f=false

ISBN: 9791222095110 Number of pages: 290 Published: December 17, 2023 Format: Electronic book Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable Language: English Author: Fouad Sabry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:89A7:166D:2D01:7500:21C1:AD71 (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. AN/I is a place for reporting user misconduct, and it's not clear who you're reporting here. Can you elaborate? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Context here, page was semi-protected for 1 year on 21 March 2024. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Boomerang

I just took a look at the page history of Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol, and it turns out that this whole poorly comprehensible, forum-y, spam post thing from the OP is something that has been going on for quite a few years now. Examples of talk page abuse: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5. Some previous IP addresses include 2403:6200:89A7:D762:8D10:E399:F008:FADB, 49.228.64.97 and 171.6.193.137. Alongside an abandoned account, User:สตาร์บัคหัวหิน. User:Paul_012 has been taking care of these abusive edits on that talk page for quite a while now. So it looks like we'll need to WP:BOOMERANG this through rangeblocks, semi-protection of that talk page, or perhaps an edit filter to take care of these types of edits. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So far there haven't been edits to the article itself, so a renewal of the semi-protection hasn't been necessary yet. Not sure about semi-protecting the talk page, as it seems to be a rather extreme measure, though I would support it if policies allow. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, they're now resuming their old behaviour of spamming mentions in articles such as Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) and MRT (Bangkok). Maybe an edit filter blocking IP editors from adding text that includes "Sukavich Rangsitpol" would be a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Content blanking

Wayn12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wayn's been here for ore than a decade, yet recent edits include such basic enwiki flagrations as this clearly motivated removal, [297] (the user's previously also gotten in trouble for shenanigans at race-related categories) and this POV driven removal [298] in a sanctioned topic space. Both of these without any edit summary (this behaviour [inexplicable blanking of content without consensus that they probably didn't like] goes quite a while back if we go by the editing history).

Thought of leaving a mere warning at the user Talk but see that there have already quite a few warnings multiple times over disruption and edit warring among other things. Since the user's been here for quite some time now and has even gotten in trouble for socking; bringing to ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Wayn's been here for ore than a decade – Sounds like he's overdue to WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng 11:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just saw this - well played, sir. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Whats worse is they marked the POV driven content removal at Randy Fine as a minor edit while removing 11,000 bytes worth of sourced content. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just to point out that Wayn12 is not WP:ECP (having only 419 edits) and therefore shouldn't be editing anything in the ARBPIA area anyway. But yeah, whitewashing the article of a seriously nasty piece of work like Fine is not good (and does fall under PIA, if you look at what he removed). Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Given them a WP:CT/A-I notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1273428203 is pretty egregious. + editing to add the follow edits by Wayn12 and an IP following in the same vein. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds: Personal Attacks & NPOV 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.

---

@HandThatFeeds (an 'oppose' !vote) deleted a (trollish, but in my opinion not unusually so for that discussion) !support vote in the contentious RM discussion over at Talk:Denali. This predictably riled up the 'support' !votes, and it degenerated into a 5-way edit war (in the RM discussion, not even the article!) that eventually dragged in the admins.

I (a 'support' !vote) tried to talk this over at User_Talk:HandThatFeeds and see if we could find a better way forward (e.g. restore only the parts of the comment we both agree are not trolling or delete the trollish 'oppose' !votes too), got told that my objections were "really fucking telling" (WP:PA) and "you need to seriously stop. Do not post on my talk page again."

It's a contentious discussion, everyone's emotionally invested and unfortunately it does frequently cross the line into trolling, but I think this editor in particular needs a timeout. Jbt89 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. This is a retaliatory filing for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#206.174.65.103 above. Note that more than one admin agreed with my action, but Jbt89 has taken it upon themselves to drag it back out again. And yes, when someone says the argument that Mt McKinley is The traditional White name is actually germane to the RM[299] , I find that really fucking telling.

I asked them not to post on my Talk page again, so they filed this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with HandThatFeeds that the comment is clear trolling. Say with a straight face that someone who says The indigenous name for the mountain has been deleted - its currently nothing more than a quaint unofficial nickname. The traditional White name, Mount McKinley, has been restored by Trump's Department of Interior. Persisting in using the indigenous name will be confusing to younger and casual readers that invariably get misdirected here by Google's failing search engine is not a troll. Do you want me to walk through how that is trolling? This whole comment is full of unveiled dog whistles and is 1000% NOTHERE. <sarcasm>I almost hope someone re-adds it so I can have a chance to remove it.</sarcasm> 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That vote should not have been removed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Please explain the reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that a comment that contains the phrase "traditional White name" is an attempt to discuss the issue in good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I definitely didn't say that. But to explain my above comment, the vote contained some bullshit (like what you quote) and some relevant argumentation. There was no need to remove the relevant part. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a big part of your problem is thinking it's a vote. As I said below, it's not. The comment will be discarded by anyone closing the RM as it should, so is useless in determining consensus. None of it seems to be supported by any of our policies and guidelines, indeed it doesn't even mention them. I'd add that generally, barring the removal of personal attacks, selectively editing comments is controversial. If the IP actually had anything useful to say, they could have rewritten the comment without the crap. Since they didn't and instead earned themselves a block, that's on them. If anyone felt they said something useful that wasn't already said, they were free to remake whatever point the IP had made in their own words, as I did with the survey thing. In doing so, they'd hopefully ensure their version was more likely to advance the discussion rather than harm it as the IP's comment was more likely to do. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

As a point of order, it is against Wikipedia guidelines to just edit part of someone else's comment. That can be seen as misleading. So I couldn't just remove the trolling. Striking out the trolling would also violate the guideline. I could potentially have HATted the comment, but that leaves us with the same problem of visibility for the racist commentary. So I took the WP:DENY route by removing it entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I intentionally have not read the comment but I'd note that since this is indeed !vote, if a comment is completely useless in determining what is the consensus supported by our policies and guidelines, it seems fair to delete it. Especially if there's any risk of off-topic digressions from the RM from responses to the comment. I don't think we should be aggressively deleting comments but any which are so extremely useless in determining consensus can fairly be deleted whatever the direction. For example as indicated by the responses above, the comment left by the IP 206.174.65.103 is definitely one which is reasonable to delete, as they were blocked partly over it. So if the comment which concerns you is similar, it's also fair to delete. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a good comment for me to point out why I removed this particular !vote but not others: it was the very blatant racist dogwhistles. I felt that crossed a line other !votes hadn't. That's why this one was not salvageable by comparison. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The !vote HtF deleted contained, per my reading at least, a mixture of unambiguous trolling and arguments (some novel) that were relevant to determining the correct choice of article title for Denali / Mt. McKinley. It was a fairly long comment. There are legitimate reasons to delete it but also, in my opinion, legitimate reasons people were upset with that decision. I wanted to discuss the best way to proceed before throwing more gasoline on this by, e.g. deleting this trollish 'oppose' !vote or reposting the arguments I felt were relevant from the deleted !vote under my own name.

It is HtF's choice to respond to that invitation to discussion with insults and derision rather than laying out (except in an extremely cursory manner) the reasons for deletion that I felt couldn't just be swept under the rug. Jbt89 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I've now looked and found that you're referring to 206's comments. It sounded like people were saying that above but I decided I must have misunderstood since I really don't understand why you're complaining about removing them. I mean they're so obviously useless I cannot imagine anyone who understands our policies and guidelines would be in favour of keeping them, even someone who support the RM.

Again please remember as you yourself said this is !vote so such comments will be ignored by anyone closing the RM. They will not actually make it more likely support will "win". Further, if they lead to pointless drama, this might be offputting to further participants and derail the RM making it more likely for a no consensus. As for you feeling the removal was not adequately explained well I mean there is an ANI thread above where the IP was blocked. So even if you feel The Hand That Feeds You did not adequately explain the removal, the ANI thread above surely does.

Looking into your complaint, you seem to feel the survey of Alaskans was useful to the RM. I personally feel it was useless since WP:COMMONNAME doesn't come from surveys of people's name preference. But whatever it's not clearly harmful so it seems fine to mention it at the RM. However instead of trying to keep such a useless comment just for that one minor point which would probably be missed by 80% of people reading the comment, the solution was surely to just remake that point in your own words.

Since you spent all that time pointlessly arguing I've done so for you [300] to try and stop this silliness. Next time, you could just do it yourself. I'd note that even when making this point, the IP still couldn't resist being misleading since they failed to make it clear opponents of the name change outweighed supporters by nearly two to one. (As is often the case with these sort of things, there was also a large number of people who did not care. I'd also note that while I didn't look at the particulars, since the numbers add up to 100% it's quite likely the 20% don't care includes a number who refused to answer rather than explicitly said they didn't care.)

Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

(Uninvolved non-admin): I think this is a fairly frivolous filing and that a WP:BOOMERANG should be strongly considered. HtF was right to remove the !vote entirely for what it was, WP:NOTHERE. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 19:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia is under no obligation to feed trolls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 7 April 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.

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.

---

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

Satyabrat Shanu has been edit warring on Hindu rate of growth, and misrepresenting the sources because he believes that "Hindu rate of growth was a mis coined termed targeted on a special community".[301] No evidence exists for this false claim.

Upon getting his edits reverted by me, he is telling me that I am engaging in "Fraud, Vandalism, Religious hate",[302] and that I "need a psychiatrist".[303] Capitals00 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Satyabrat Shanu, this is a collaborative project where we must work together alongside people we disagree with. Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. Saying that another editor needs to be treated by a psychiatrist is an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of policy. Consider this a warning: Any further personal attacks may result in you being blocked. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That should probably go on Satyabrat Shanu's talk page, not here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have copied over the warning to the editor's talk page. Both places is fine. Cullen328 (talk) 16:39, 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.

IP breaking links, introducing trailing spaces despite warnings

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

---

Despite three warnings on their Talk page, 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:34D5:E60E:9C6:247F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on introducing trailing spaces before footnotes. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Robby.is.on,

I see warning notices on their user talk page but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong. They just warn them about "disruptive editing" which could be anything. How about forgoing the templates and write out a personal message explaining to the editor what is problematic about the way they are editing? I don't think you can expect them to change until they know what they are doing incorrectly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong I admit I could taken more time to explain the issues in detail, for example like Meters has done since (Thanks, @Meters:!). But in the first warning I did write "Please stop introducing trailing spaces". I also explained all my reverts in edit summaries except one. After half a dozen reverts, the editor could have stopped editing to ask what was wrong with their edits instead of persisting. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

After Meters' kind explanations, they're still at it, now

• at 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:A4FF:8306:5E7:2D8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [304] and
• at 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:A016:1263:1835:9C78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [305]. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And now at 2a00:23c4:aa80:e201:d0f8:4b19:19d0:edd3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), still breaking links by placing commas inside them: [306], [307]. @Liz:, could you have a look, please? Robby.is.on (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

And still, from 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:DC9D:B54A:800B:DC15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [308], [309] Robby.is.on (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What do I need to do to get someone to listen? This is an ongoing problem ([310]) and wasting editor resources ([311]). Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Liz (or other admins): Please block this IP range. Have a look at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AA80:E201::/64. Over 1100 edits since 14 February 2025. Some parts of these contributions are useful, but roughly 90% of them had to be reverted or cleaned up. The most egregious disruptions are the broken links – the IP habitually changes [[Foo]] to [[Foo.]], turning working links into garbage. Another habit of the IP: replacing {{death date and age}} by the text generated by the template, often breaking dmy/mdy date format. Less disruptive, but still annoying and useless: Inserting spaces before <ref>. It looks like these habits have been getting worse lately. The IP has been warned again and again and again and again and again and again etc. etc. for six weeks, but never reacts to any talk page messages and never changes this behavior. Unfortunately, this is a case of WP:ICHY and WP:CIR. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The IP kept going with the disruptive edits, was warned again, and was blocked for 31 hours. Let's see how it goes. (I wonder who or what is behind that IP range. Why would anyone break dozens of links – I guess around 50, maybe more – in a single edit? Is the IP running a script that moves punctuation into links? Strange.) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The vandal came back in full force as soon as the block expired. All edits had to be reverted. Reported at WP:AIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked again. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:09, 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.

For future reference: Because it so consistently mangled so many links, I thought the IP might be running a script to do that, but here it changed [[Bodas de odio]], to [[Bodas de odio],] – a script wouldn't make such a mistake. Looks like manual labor. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Jabbarsingh89

I think this account is gaming the system to get autoconfirmed, and their tenth edit will be something far worse than the first nine. Before I run off and indef block them, however, could I get a second opinion on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything unconstructive about their editing, all the {{uncategorized}} tags are valid. I'd say assuming they are gaming the system just because they are adding tags doesn't warrant a precautionary block. — E_F⁵ 15:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It reminds me of Special:Contributions/Xylophonist Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It could be, but I still don't think it's worth a prec. block. I'd say let's wait till that tenth edit, and if it's immediate vandalism then a block is warranted. — E_F⁵ 15:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they’re trying to patrol new articles. Obviously an experienced Wikipedia editor in spite of having a new account, but i don’t see this as gaming. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen more obvious pgaming lately, but the templates being applied do not normally find themselves in the quiver of newbies. I'm glad you're checking in on it. I'm now watching the contribs in case you choose not to indef. This is an arguable case, but I believe your read is ultimately correct. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, it could be a WP:CLEANSTART as opposed to a sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Politician trying to get themselves added to article.

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

---

Recently I have found myself reverting User:High Chief Editor's edits to 2026 California gubernational election. Their most recent edit has gone unreverted, and I don't quite feel confident enough to revert it just yet. This in of itself isn't as important, as the statement that the fellow (Kyle Langford) is running for governor, is sourced. What I am more concered about however is the following tweet made by the politician (link here) where they are trying to get themselves added to wikipedia. I am not quite certain about how to move forward with this, or if this particularly needs to be moved forward, but I think it is a good idea to discuss this, as I fear that even if we remove the mention (if it deemed to be not well sourced enough) that it will be readded considering the politician is specifically asking people to do so. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the mention to its correct position in alphabetical order by surname, as seems to be used here. I think the mention in the source is enough for him to be mentioned in this article, but a separate article on him would need more in the way of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

alright sounds good Gaismagorm (talk) 13:17, 8 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.

Wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

This user has been making major edits to Wikipedia pages, especially those pertaining to Chinese military history, in an attempt to "enforce" the Wikipedia "rules". He has reverted my (and other users') constructive edits by claiming that they go against the rules of Wikipedia. I do not believe that my edits are explicitly breaking any rules, only that they are contradicting what this user's own interpretation of the Wikipedia rules entail. Most recently I attempted to make a constructive edit to the First Sino-Japanese War page to make it more consistent with other Wikipedia pages, to which the user quickly reverted. When I tried to confront the user on this, they decided to go to my own account's talk page and comment on another user's post on that page to denounce me personally. As such I feel as if this was an action of wikihounding, as the user went out of their way to harass my account personally, and I feel that this user should be dealt with accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNightingale175 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Please notify the subject (which, by the way, you'd be looking for Remsense (talk · contribs) rather than [[User/Remsense]]) and also please sign your complaint. Furthermore you'd need to provide diffs demonstrating that Remsense was, in some way, systematically misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with regard to Chinese military history in order for this complaint to be actionable. I'd caution you that anything to do with 20th and 21st century Chinese history is about as fraught as you're likely to find on Wikipedia outside of official CTOPs and, as such, it is sometimes a bit of a challenging space to edit within. I do regularly participate in that area and would say I'd be quite surprised if Remsense was actually misinterpreting policy here as they're usually pretty good at that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• (Not engaging with this one unless someone else has questions they want to ask. AFAIK, they don't know how their edits went against any rules because they don't care to know any rules—as they were linked to them, and the issue with their edits was explicitly outlined for them. FWIW, infantile vandalism of the kind we generally only see from middle school IPs is well worth denouncing when it inexplicably gets emitted by an established editor. It's much easier to do right by the rules when articles you don't care about for whatever reason seemingly aren't protected by rules at all.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Adding to this, I ran the Editor Interaction Analyser and the picture it paints absolutely is not consistent with the wikihounding accusation. [312] I don't think there's even smoke here, let alone a fire. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1264583054 Special:Diff/1283025131 Talk:First Sino-Japanese War#Infobox flags — I am a bit confused, Remsense. Do you want the infobox flags or not? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• In the hopes of getting them to stop trying to get edits in edgewise one day, I've adopted a 100% WP:BMB tact with BlueDIAMOND20s, except if I'm restoring blatant errors or BLP vio somehow. I'm not sure flags are really material to the issue here, but I generally avoid them if they're not necessary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • It does mean that the article has been flapping back and forth for the past 3 months with you apparently on both sides of the talk page issue. And if HawkNightingale175 were that sockpuppeteer, that would have been discovered by now, given how many CheckUser investigations have been run. So blanket reversion on those grounds seems quite wrong, especially when your edit summary instead says that you are making an article adhere to "site policy". Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

    I wish I would have been able to get this and many other articles into a more polished state by my own positive effort—I haven't expended none, but again that seems mostly immaterial here—but I understand how that pattern can be mistaken with this one.

    They are distinct situations, though: here, I had and gave specific, fairly ubiquitous and uncontroversial reasons as to why their additions were wrong—it wasn't blanket reversion at any point. I can't help that this article also happens to be a favorite target of one of the more insistent LTAs onwiki. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

    Cant have this type of editing over multiple pages. looks like multiple talks need to be started. Moxy🍁 01:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

    @HawkNightingale175 has shown no interest in engaging with site guidelines that I can detect. Rather, I've only seen indications that any they haven't seen are of no interest to them—(I do not need to adhere to your own interpretation of what the rules entail.)—but if they indicate otherwise I'll try to rearticulate them. I'm not going to chase them down and beg them to listen when they've already told me flat out they don't care what I have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 23:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can something please be done about the egregious bad faith behavior that @HawkNightingale175 somehow finds tenable to express towards every other editor who's disagreeing with them across these articles? This is the worst such conduct I have seen so far from an editor with some level of experience—seriously, I'm capable of it, but that's not hyperbole. Remsense ‥ 论 02:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• @HawkNightingale175:, your commment here is utterly incorrect. The Wikipedia rules are not designed for users who are new to editing, and content that is [not] biased or factually inaccurate can still fail policy. They are designed for everybody. You are required to follow Wikipedia policy, and wilful refusal to do so can lead to an indefinite block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure why you claim that I am refusing to follow Wikipedia policy, because as far as I am aware, I am not explicitly breaking any site rules, and I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users. The editor that you replied to was the very editor that engaged in multiple actions of wikihounding against me and just openly admitted that they are capable of engaging in misconduct, and as such their arguments should be taken for question. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) You are WP:EDITWARRING on First Sino-Japanese War, along with your WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS of Remsense WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Also, your statement I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users is incorrect, as you stated and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  @HawkNightingale175: Forgot to ping. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are clearly misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say that I did not need to follow the site rules, I merely said that I have enough experience editing on this site and as such do not need beginner's guides to learn how to edit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  That was not a beginner's guide. It was the manual of style (MOS:IBX). It states Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. People have been blocked for ignoring the manual of style. Are you saying you can ignore it? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  They certainly have acted as if their view trumps that of multiple editors who have cited it as pertains to whatever article, while providing no meaningful justification why there should be an exception in that context. That's key here—whether they choose to acknowledge site guidelines as representing generalized editor consensus, they certainly choose to ignore evidence of direct consensus they think they know better than. Their knowledge of "the rules" is seemingly obtuse enough to ignore the primacy of consensus altogether. Remsense ‥ 论 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I am aware, I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited by the "manual of style". I do not know why you are so insistent that my edits are supposedly against the rules because I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Only if you choose to assume everything it says supports your prior intuitions with no friction or further introspection. That is,

  The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

  isn't a problem for you because you've already decided you're right and no one else can dispute your notion of what are "key facts". I suppose there's still the explicit problem that you're intent on including material that isn't mentioned anywhere in the actual article, but at this point I don't think you'd admit that that's a violation either, even though it's a pretty clear deduction for most other editors who read this guideline. Given you've already declared no one else should dare challenge your own interpretations of policy, what else am I supposed to come away with here? Remsense ‥ 论 09:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  While I usually feel that you are not worth responding to due to the fact that you engaged in actions of wikihounding against me, I do not see at all how my edits supposedly violated the rule you listed in the above reply. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am willing to explain, if you're willing to potentially accept my interpretation of what the rules entail. It is also worth reiterating that if you equate any third party noticing and commenting on your poor conduct – which you freely expressed in public and still have yet to even acknowledge – as wikihounding, that is likely not a mindset that is viable for an editor in good standing to maintain in perpetuity. It's your fault that you did bad there, not mine, and it's not harassment for someone to connect the dots as regards your character with the purpose of informing community expectations going forward. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 16:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  You explicitly stated you do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing, with regards to the Manual of Style. Also saying I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited...I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them is Wikilawyering. And you continue to cast aspersions regarding "wikihounding". Consider this a warning: do not continue to unfoundedly accuse Remsense (or anyone else) of Wikihounding. Continuing to do so is a personal attack and a violation of policy that can result in a block. Also agree to respect consenus even when it against you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure why you are accusing me of personal attacks when the primary reason I posted on this page was because the user in question personally attacked me by going to my user talk page and responding to an unrelated thread. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  (1) You haven't provided a diff that I can see of this (2) that's not a personal attack or wikihounding. The content might be (without a diff, not saying that it is or not), the action is not (3) "They did it so I get to" does not fly here and (4) you weren't accused of personal attacks. You were warned that continuing to accuse Remsense of wikihounding without evidence of actual wikihounding would be a personal attack. Also by posting here your conduct is open to scruitny as well, not just the editor you accuse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  This edit constitutes my entire wikihounding campaign on their talk page – aside from the ANI notice I posted afterward, which I presume they're also counting since they themselves have been too polite to hound my talk either time they filed a report about me here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thought so. @HawkNightingale175:, that is not a personal attack and it is not Wikihounding. I strongly suggest you withdraw this ANI complaint, as continuing as you have here cannot end well for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are excusing improper conduct from someone who claims to be a strict follower of the Wikipedia manual of style. Notice how they pointed out that I was too polite to hound their own talk page. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  A single comment to your user talk page does not constitute hounding. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Because I would genuinely feel a bit bad if this wasn't made clear to you: too polite to hound my talk was me expressing my distaste that, as one item amid an expanding collection, you twice ignored the plain, highly visible instructions on this page requiring editors to post on others' talk pages when reporting their conduct here. Your talk page is for others to have public communications with you; it is not acceptable to treat others' appearances on it like invasions of your private space. You're not entitled to that, just like you're not entitled to reiterate improper conduct when, like many other things seemingly, you simply cannot be bothered to justify yourself in what policy actually says. Remsense ‥ 论 15:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  HawkNightingale175, consider this a last warning: stop Wikilawyering and drop the stick. There was no hounding. If you continue to insist that there was, that is a personal attack and - as you have been thoroughly advised of this and accordingly warned - will result in your being blocked from editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Title warrior and WP:OWN

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

---

Realjohnpaul (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit warring on titles and short descriptions of South Korean officeholders past multiple warnings on talk and worse, making WP:OWN edit summaries that led to me filing an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AaronFresco for similar behavior. Posting here because no action continues to be taken there and they have continued to double down since report was filed.

For WP:OWN see [313] [314] [315] [316] [317]. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

For edit-warring, see [318], [319] [320] [321] [322]. Borgenland (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a topic or temporary block would be appropriate. This has been going on for weeks now and it's just draining to deal with. They refuse to use proper edit summaries, they keep begging others to not revert instead of listening to feedback, and a degree of WP:CIR going on with numerous typos and grammar errors in most edits. Not helping, almost all edits have been pointless or harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article-space for a month. See block notice for details. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 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.

• Possible sockpuppetry in this malformed unblock request [323]. Borgenland (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sockpuppetry (posted by the blocked account) but a distinct whiff of WP:ROLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Chris-at-RCS

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

---

• Chris-at-RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rochester Community Schools (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don't know if I should post this at COIN or here, so I just chose this.

ChrisRCS has a very obvious COI for Rochester Community Schools (Michigan). They've been editing and disrupting the article for a few hours now (including copy and pasting text from the school's website which is now revdel'd). A lot of people have been reverting and warning them, but it doesn't look like they are aware of the notices on their talk page. They keep editing back the stuff that gets reverted. Perhaps a mainspace block would work?

Revision history [324] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby: Crap... have I done anything wrong? If I have I profusely apologize... wait, am I considered involved because I reverted a couple of his edits a few hours ago? Sorry if I sound dumb; I'm still caught in a brain-fog. elm ^(she/they) arf! 19:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Being alerted means you are related to the problem, not that you did anything wrong (and yes you did revert them). Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby: Ah, okay; got it. I propose we hit him with an indef block. There's no sign of him stopping anytime soon... I mean, just look at his edit history. He keeps adding and erasing content in the name of "accuracy"; not to mention, well, everything else... elm ^(she/they) arf! 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from that page for edit warring and coi, invited them to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm 95% sure this account is a sockpuppet of User:Caring Friend MI - both accounts have exclusively edited Rochester Community Schools (Michigan); both have made large removals of content including, repeatedly, removing the "Controversy" section calling it "outdated" (CFMI: [325]; CaRCS: [326]). I'm leaning towards blocking as it  Looks like a duck to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree on this.. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it to me too. Feel free to convert block if you wish. I had not bothered with the sockpuppet issue because I was hoping that, given the sequential nature of the use (only CFMI, then 5 day break, then only Chris), that there was potentially an innocent reason for this, such as lost password. But this does meet the criteria for improper sockpuppetry — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve indeffed as a confirmed Sockpuppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 8 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.

Anonymous99747 and repeated WP:BLP violations

• Anonymous99747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For an elongated period, Anonymous99747 has been adding completely unsourced content about the wealth of Eurovision Song Contest singers to their articles.

• 11 March 2023 - added "wealthy" to Blanka (Polish singer), with a source that did not back this up
• 30 May 2023 - added that Mia Nicolai is the daughter of "the rich and very well known" politician Peter Nicolai (the "rich and very well known" bit is the issue here as totally unsourced)
• 8 January 2024 - added a claim to Silia Kapsis's article that her father was "wealthy", totally unsourced
• 12 June 2024 - added a claim that Angelina Mango grew up in a "wealthy" background, totally unsourced
• Also 12 June 2024 - added a claim that Luna (Polish singer) was born into a rich family, totally unsourced
• 18 June 2024 - added a claim that Jerry Heil's parents were "rich", totally unsourced
• 1 August 2024 - added a claim to Nemo's article that their father was a billionaire, totally unsourced
• 1 August 2024 - I leave a message asking them not to add unsourced content to these articles.
• 2 September 2024 - added the category "Cypriot billionaires to Theo Evan and that he was born into a wealthy family, with the source provided not mentioning this
• 20 September 2024 - with the previous claim having been removed, adds "relatively rich" to the article of Blanka (Polish singer) again
• 4 October 2024 - I leave a message asking them not to continue doing this for the second time.
• 15 October 2024 - added a claim to Theo Evan that he was from a "wealthy" family, with the source being a Fandom article (not reliable)
• 26 January 2025 - added a claim to Laura Thorn that she was born into a family of billionaires, totally unsourced
• 30 January 2025 - added a claim to JJ (singer) that he was from a "wealthy" family, totally unsourced
• 10 February 2025 - I leave one final message telling them to discontinue this.
• 14 March 2025 - added a claim that Miriana Conte's father works as a businessman, totally unsourced
• 9 April 2025 - added the category "Austrian billionaires" to JJ (singer), again not sourced in the body

After repeated requests not to add this seemingly unsourceable information about Eurovision singers being "rich" or from "wealthy" backgrounds, the user has refused to stop and after these repeated BLP violations, enough is enough. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have pblocked them from the Article namespace. Let's see if they respond to this (they have only made five edits to talk pages in over 2,000 edits). Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Golikom edit warring at Cisgender

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

User:Golikom has been extensively edit warring on the page for cisgender.

Early on, I deleted an unsourced sentence in the lede.[327] He restored it by saying that the criticism section occupies a significant amount of the article's body.[328] A talk page discussion was opened by myself in line with BRD to address his reasons for reversion, which he did not engage with. What I would characterize as a loose consensus was then achieved on the talk page against the sentence. Given these facts, several days later I removed it again. He restored it, saying the consensus to remove is not strong, showing that he'd looked at the thread, and agreed that there was a consensus, he'd just refused to engage with it.[329] He has since been reverted by two other editors and each time he re-reverts.[330][331]

When I added a message to his talk page asking him to stop edit warring, he deleted it without comment, and then continued edit warring.[332]

Requesting administrative action.

EDIT: I looked through his talk page history after @LakesideMiners kindly pointed it out. He was warned for behavior I'd argue fell into BLP here,[333] and immediately deleted it without comment, and he was warned for edit warring on a BLP here,[334] and immediately deleted it without comment. Then later he was warned for disruptive editing on the page anti-gender movement, which he immediately deleted with the comment "RV disruptive editor".[335]. He was then given a formal warning for edit warring, which once again - can you guess?[336]. He was warned again for edit warring here, which he immediately deleted without comment.[337]. He was then warned for blanking article content. Deleted, no comment.[338]. He was THEN given a formal warning for aspersions in contentious topics, deleted without comment.[339] And that brings us to now. Given this, I am now seeking a CBAN and wondering if I should escalate to AE

Snokalok (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)".

I'm not heavily involved in this but I did tweak the wording of the content in question without paying much attention to the discussion. In my view, I changed it from annoyingly pretentious to merely blandly mediocre. I'd be quite happy to see it removed, even with my mediocre improvement. If kept at all, it should go somewhere in the body as an introduction to further explanation, not kept as a glib and uninformative stand-alone statement in the introduction. But that's not what we are here for. We're here about the edit warring and, yeah, that's definitely not great. It's not breaking the 3RR as this has gone on for longer than 24 hours but Golikom inserted it four times and it has been removed by three different people a total of four times. (Not counting my tweak.) That's either slow edit warring or damn close to it. I'm not sure that it merits more than a warning at this stage but any continuation after that would be a more serious matter. DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

looking through Golikom's talk page history I notice that lack of engaging seems to be a pattern. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

See my edit above Snokalok (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• I just thought I'd mention that most of the notices on the User talk page were from January and February of this year and the editor was archiving their User talk page at User talk:Golikom/Archive 1 but they blanked that page in February. But that's a little different than just deleting all of their talk page messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Entirely fair, but I'd also ask that you consider that it shows that the edit warring and immediate disregard of requests to stop or discuss is part of a consistent, longstanding trend Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's not really helpful to cheerry pick bits of my talkpage history. You first example isn't a warning and was infact a drive by from someone trying to change an age in a BLP without a source. Tataral and I got into a couple of editwarring disputes - and generally I was discussing on page talk when they were doing nothing but warring and tossing out warnings - we both got a formal warning. Deletion from my talkpage counts as acknowledgement of a message - there's no requirement to respond and split a discussion - where necxessary i discussed at the talk page for the matter at hand where it's actually useful and others can see and contribute. It's not disregarding and there's no require,ment to discuss on my talk if there's discussion elsewhere. Admittedly i should have done better on this one. Golikom (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I've not breached 3rr. I think the talk page consensus is weak, but given that i've been reverted by multiple editor I'm not going to pursue it any further. Golikom (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all good. But just to be clear, the 3RR rule is not the definition of edit warring: it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough Golikom (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Troubling edits from user, engaging in disruptive editing and addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content.

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

---

I am here reporting HomBomms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their ongoing edits across articles, especially pertaining to Sugababes. User has history of adding in unsourced or poorly sourced content into articles. User was issued a caution warning concerning the addition of unsourced content into articles. User did not respond to this warning, and instead, continued to make the edits again. User also was reverted on "Weeds" (Sugababes song) with speculative information placed in, as well as original research not found in the source provided; user proceeded to revert the edit by taking an in-prose citation, which did not support their claims, and attempt to use it to validate their inclusion. They were given a light warning (for newcomers) concerning their continued reverts, with note to take it to the talk page.

Then, at Sugababes '25 Tour, the user added in content, which failed per WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and was again warned for the addition of poorly sourced content to an article, with notation of Setlist.FM being unreliable, per the previously-linked article, while also noting their continued ignoring of the warnings being given was alarming, given their continued editing habits. User then continued to add in two sources in the article (1/2) of which neither support their claims, thus resulting in unsourced claims being placed into articles. In response, user has accused me of having a vendetta against them (which citing the notability of music page?), which I do not. And then, in edit summary, referred to me as Abysmal editor with a vendetta, which could be seen as a violation of WP:NPA/WP:AGF, as it speaks on editor and not edits. And while I don't question this editor's intentions—as I feel they do want to improve articles—their behaviour suggests otherwise. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Could the warnings have been a bit hasty? Admittedly, sure. However, their continued behaviour on those articles does not excuse the editing patterns exhibited by the user. It would have been since, instead of resorting to [false accusations], they could have responded to the warnings on their talk page, asking what was wrong; perhaps, this could have been avoided altogether. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if they are a sock of ZestyLemonz whose sockpuppets have been caught editing the Sugababes articles multiple times. They also seem to have a grudge against you, livelikemusic. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too, Liz on both accounts (sock/grudge). I'll have to check out ZestyLemonz, and see what that is about. But yes, their behaviour is giving WP:DUCK. But DUCK of what? 🤷 livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

A-ha, seems like it might be, given the history at Nicola Mitchell. That would suit WP:DUCK well. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:36, 9 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.

User with 20 edits blanking pages of sockpuppets of User:RichardHornsby

The following discussion is closed. 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:RandomeditWiki, a user with 20 edits as of writing, is blanking user pages belonging to sockpuppets of User:RichardHornsby with no reasoning. Account made today, seemingly a SPU?

Update: 29 edits - currently watching and ready to revert any more Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 03:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

User blocked, would request a checkuser request if i knew how :P Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 03:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think checkuser is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

fair enough, considering they were specifically targeting Richard's sockpuppets i had a gut feeling they might have been trying to brute force their way into, idk, a fresh start? up to you guys tho 👍 Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 03:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Or Richard himself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not related specifically to this report, but RichardHornsbys user page says – This user is banned from editing the English Wikipedia and globally locked - which states: A global lock is a way by which stewards can technically prevent Wikimedia accounts logging in, and thus, no editing can be done through that account. When an account is locked and attempts to log in, it fails on Wikipedia. And then they have four unblock requests on their talk page, all denied because - No requests will be considered unless you sign in to this account. Seems like a Catch-22 to me, you're prevented from logging in, but your request to be unblocked can't be considered unless you log in. Anyway, as the world turns. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have left a note on his talk page telling him what procedure to follow if he wants to be unblocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 9 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.

block request

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

---

@Yamla, @Elowa, @Sitush @RegentsPark Please block this user, he uses very derogatory words to insult only one caste. See that [340] [341] etc..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with castes and do not speak Tamil (?), so I am not the one to make a ruling on this. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Google Translate comes up with Puta Devitiya Boya School Pussy You are dead. How can I see your eyes and ears? for the first passage but fails on the second. Not definitive but indicative of someone who is probably not here to improve the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I broke #2 down into fragments, and ran some of those (not all) through Google Translate from Tamil; a trick I've used before in difficult cases. "naa vena aval vaaile vindhu vidure" and "avan vaila vadire vinthu nakki kudeen" are obscene; I couldn't work out whether insulting or pornographic. In either case, NOTHERE imo. Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 9 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.

Vandal-sock cycle of User:Kairakairav

The following discussion is closed. 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 is a very persistent sockmaster Kairakairav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — who from past 4 years have been adding hoax and fanfics of her own fancy to the Mahabharata related articles, with her favourite target articles being Mahabharat (2013 TV series) (adding unrelated actors in cast list), Pandu, Kunti and Madri (for this particular one, she just tries to erase the characters’ existence by blanking info about her, or change entire story of hers). Her latest sock is User:NairaRahi01.

• As of today, this user literally made more than 40 sockpuppets— out of which 25 are confirmed and 16 are suspected, and there seems no stopping. Not to mention her ip range, that is User:2402:8100:26f1:199b:f4f9:1aff:fe24:8e0d, User:2402:8100:2748:c6c4:5c6a:2bff:fe06:c6ce, etc.

• It's not that she is ignorant about the topics or something, she is doing all these because either she is a troll or an actual lunatic who seriously needs help or a mindless brat (sorry but she has just tested my limits). I and several other users have tried issuing warnings and guidance on talk pages of her previous sockaccounts, see [342], [343], [344], [345], but all seem fruitless.

• With no response on any of her accounts on which I tried to pursue her stop, a cycle has been created —she gets banned, learns nothing, just makes new accounts and does her usual hoax-adding. Recently the articles were vandalized by following sockaccounts of hers— User:NairaRahi, User:NairaKairav01, User:NairaKuhu31, User:Naira Kairav Sirat and User: SubhadraArjuna, User:NairaAadhya01, User:NairaKuhu31. Literally she doesn't seem to care about anything, doesn't even bother to think about a username which would make it harder for us to identify her.

• There have been previously ANI reports, but all just lead to the block of her latest sock. This method is useless, as she makes new sock every new week. Is there a way to stop this cycle once and for all, like account creation block for the ip, it is really irritating, as this sockmaster has to potential to vandalize 100s of articles in matter of hours. Eg1, Eg2, etc. Thanks, Seyamar^💬📜 07:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment AC block for the very wide IP range is difficult, as many other people use that range. I have however extended the partial block on the IP range to all the articles you mentioned. If there are any others that are common targets, please let us know and they can be added. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thank you, yes there are more common targets — Suryaputra Karn, Nakula, Sahadeva, Ekalavya, Bhima, Yudhishthira, Arjuna, Draupadi, Subhadra, Duryodhana, Dushasana, Vikarna, Dhritarashtra.Seyamar^💬📜 08:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've watchlisted those - I'll add them as necessary (there are too many there for individual partial blocks). Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 9 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.

Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte

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

---

Chud-h4z keeps reverting an obvious troll edit at Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, but it would have helped this old, poor-eyesighted admin if you'd described what the "vandalism" actually was. On initial inspection the images looked the same to me. It was only looking at their first edit that I realized what was going on. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 8 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.

More disruption at RfD

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

---

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

This user immediately resumed making disruptive nominations at RfD after the block from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182 § Disruption at RFD expired today. For example, they renominated Nana (entertainer, born 2001) with an incoherent rationale, even linking to their equally incoherent nomination of the redirect last month (closed as keep) as a "similar" case. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked one month. Probably should have blocked w/o TPA. They'll just be disruptive post-block as they have been in the past.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 8 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-cruft NOTHERE

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

---

ISHWARSENA (talk · contribs) disruptively pushing their caste-cruft POVs related to Abhiras by casually replacing the pipe link [346] which is a classic link vandalism, adding unsourced caste promos [347][348][349][350] in order to portray certain dynasties and its monarchs emerging from Abhira cast.The user has been disruptive all along by removing images without giving any explanation [351], thankfully reverted [352]. Citing [353] an archaic work by Alexander Cunningham for casting push, this is a clearly a WP:RAJ violation. Not to mention the draft they were working on ie. Draft:Abhiras is full of copyvio mess. The user has displayed enough ignorance and disruptive behaviour that it can concluded--they are WP:NOTHERE.Shakakarta (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I have filed this SPI involving the Abhira caste pushers: HSAVRALLL (talk · contribs), ISHWARSENA (talk · contribs), आभीरवाटक (talk · contribs) whom I think closely working to gain advantage over good faith editors, please have a look. Shakakarta (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  The SPI resulted in @ISHWARSENA as unrelated. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Now blocked. Shakakarta (talk) 17:00, 9 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.

PA on User talk:ShirtMonopoly

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

---

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

I believe this is absolutely unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Drmies, agreed. I said the same thing two sections above at WP:ANI#Personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

What do people have against psychiatrists and their patients? Both of these were definitely intended as personal attacks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Given them a One And Only Warning regarding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 6 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.

Vandalism and CIR concerns regarding 50.209.62.201

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

---

• 50.209.62.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Their edits in recent days/weeks/months seem to be at best lacking a clear rationale/explanation, and at worst outright trolling/vandalism. They also appear to somewhat lack the English-language competence needed to edit productively:

• Malformed addition to ITN/C - "Trafis pauseed" [sic]

• Unexplained removal of an entire section of List of built-in macOS apps, with edit summary "This section is not removed."

• Fairly obvious political vandalism.

• Fairly obvious vandalism.

• Completely unexplained removal of content from MorphOS.

• Removal of source, with edit summary "citiain [sic] has no mention of hfs."

• Another unexplained source removal.

And so on. Their talk page displays multiple vandalism/disruptive editing warnings from the past few months, which they don't seem to have heeded. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours. As this is the first time they've been blocked, it's a suitable starting point. If the disruption continues, the next block can be longer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 9 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.

Repeated use of LLM/AI writing to add "content" by 2a00:23c4:1594:a601:3401:8674:66c4:cc61

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

---

• 2a00:23c4:1594:a601:3401:8674:66c4:cc61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've just reverted (Special:Diff/1284815503) this user's repeated additions of AI-generated content on First Eastern Counties past last warning on their talk page, with no response. See also the recent history of Norwich Park and Ride.

Sorry if this is the wrong noticeboard since there's so many of them and this is the first time I've seen something like this. Fork99 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In the contribs I see egregious edit warring against multiple users. An AN3 report may be more suitable but I don't see why, based on the circumstances, it can't be on ANI as is. Departure– (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 9 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 IP at various 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.

---

• 188.146.190.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Various vandalism edits, openly flaunting/shrugging off warnings at talk page, openly referring to self as a spammer. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and honestly, they did ask for a block. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:44, 9 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.