Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1187

Hoax sources by Jeff654321

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

---

Jeff654321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has submitted their sandbox twice and I believe it to be hoax material or made-up sources:

• Cited Bazzaz, F. A., & Mudd, R. A. (1991). Crabgrass: An Invader of Disturbed Habitats. Journal of Ecology, 79(3), 849-858. but the Journal of Ecology never published such an article, see that volume here: Vol. 79, No. 3, Sep., 1991 where there is no such title. And what's more, pages 849 through 858 belong to a series Biological Flora of the British Isles with the article "Avenula (Dumort.) Dumort"
• Cite Burton, T. M., & Holt, J. R. (2005). Management of Crabgrass in Turfgrass Systems. Weed Science, 53(2), 267-273. but Weed Science never published that article either: Volume 53 - Issue 2 where there isn't that title either. And again pages 263–273 span "Economics of site-specific weed management" and "Translation of remote sensing data into weed management decisions"
• Cited Radosevich, S. R., & Holt, J. S. (2010). Weeds: Control, Management, and Impact. Wiley. but I can't find a record of this either. But the author Holt looks the same as earlier, so maybe they're related?
• Cited Ziska, L. H., & Teasdale, J. R. (2000). Crabgrass Response to Elevated Carbon Dioxide. Agronomy Journal, 92(2), 237-241. but again, Volume 92, Issue 2 of Agronomy Journal doesn't have that article either. Pages 237–241 span "Water Use Efficiency of Rainfed and Irrigated Bread Wheat in a Mediterranean Environment" and "Relay-Intercropping of Sunnhemp and Cowpea into a Smallholder Maize System in Zimbabwe"
• Lastly, cited Bell, S. S., & Toft, W. D. (2018). Climate Change and Weed Invasions: The Potential for Crabgrass Expansion in North America. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27(3), 400-411.; alas Volume 27, Issue 3 of Global Ecology and Biogeography doesn't have that article either. But maybe that's because pages 400–411 actually belong to Issue 4 of the same volume where they are about "Life-history characteristics of European birds" and "The dark side of Lepidoptera: Colour lightness of geometrid moths decreases with increasing latitude"

References

I was in the midst of looking this up when they came to my talk page complaining about an AFC declination, see User talk:Bobby Cohn § your fake (diff)

I have grave concerns about an editor who will fake sources in an attempt to add material to an encyclopedic project. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I ran their draft through a few different LLM-detectors and got 99%+ results every time. Unless Jeff654321 quickly acknowledges their error and changes course, I think that a CIR block is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. As for the fake sources, they're almost certainly all hallucinated; I've assessed a 100% chatbot-generated draft before and only two of the four books cited existed; the other two didn't come close to supporting the claims they were cited for. Bobby, if there are any legitimate sources in that draft I would strongly suggest checking them against any claims they are cited for; I would not trust them to be any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano the five bulleted ones I've gone through are the entirety of the sources present in the draft. All plaintext formatting, no templates. I suspect AI hallucination as well. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• CIR-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Abusive language on talk page

The user User:2A00:23C7:6239:A401:D1C7:FA37:F45D:416 recently posted abusive language on my talk page, for the second time now. Thanks for your help in cleaning this up. אקעגן (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I was setting up a one-year block but Ponyo beat me to it with their one-month block. Next time it will be several years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In my experience BT cycles through /64s often enough that long-term rangeblocks aren't effective unless expanded to a wider range; I just blocked from about the length that this particular /64 has been used. Anyone can modify the block if they think it would be helpful!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Wlaak

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

---

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

Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. The situation, from my point of view:

• Wlaak made a number of edits to the "Name & Identity" section earlier this month, which was partly reverted. A quite long discussion between Wlaak and three other editors was ongoing, with this being the last version for a while.
  • Note: Among these three other editors, one have been in a dispute (DRN, ANI) with Wlaak prior to this. And so have I.
• I made a comment on the recent additions, suggesting that most of it was WP:OR (or irrelevant). I further suggested that WP:RS secondary sources would be preferable. One of the third party users (i.e. not involved in similar disputes before) agreed;
• I reverted most of it suggesting that new proposals should be discussed first (while avoiding WP:SYNTH and relying on secondary WP:RS).
• Wlaak restored it.
• I clarifed that my initial comment served as a suggestion and notified all users involved; both third party users agreed [1] [2] and one added further suggestions, which I agreed to. I once again suggested that any new proposals should be on secondary WP:RS discussed first here.
• Wlaak restored it again, which is disruptive behaviour in my opinion. Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @Asilvering and @Robert McClenon as the users that if I recall correctly have tried to meditate the previous versions of this dispute. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• As Sesquilinear says, I tried to mediate an earlier version of this dispute. This is a content dispute that is worsened by allegations of conduct, and I think that the allegations of conduct are persistent enough that they are a conduct problem. I usually start dealing with a content dispute by asking the parties what specific paragraphs and sentences they want to change in an article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). I will ask that question at this point. If there are straight answers, maybe progress can be made toward resolving the content dispute. If there aren't straight answers, then maybe we should consider a topic-ban again. What exactly does each editor want to change in an article (or leave the same)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, again:

  I want the section to remain as it is and not be removed because the statements from three consecutive Patriarchates, Mor Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and a 2015 Publication from the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, represent the official position of the Syriac Orthodox Church, not private views. The Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod, which is the highest authority in the Church, and his statements define the Church’s religious, spiritual, and administrative matters (see the article itself), hence they are more than relevant to be included in the section. Primary sources are valid to use here because they are clearly attributed according to WP:ACCORDINGTO, and they concern the Church’s official definition of its own identity. I was adding secondary sources as well to strengthen the section, but this process has been halted because two ANI cases, one of which was reopened after being closed, were filed against me instead of following the normal process through a Request for Comment.

  If there are concerns about WP:UNDUE, additional sourced material about the Assyrian identity can be added, as I stated on the talk page. The article already mentions the use of the Assyrian name by parishes in America, the ethnic composition including both Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians, and the former neutrality stance of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, hence I asked another editor to provide the source of a Assyrian favorable position. Wlaak (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Wlaak, this is going rather beyond @Robert McClenon's ask, at least as I understand it. To understand what the content dispute is, we don't (yet) need to know the whys and wherefores, explanations of anyone's behaviour, or any of that. At this point we're just trying to understand what the basic terms of the argument are. "I want the section under the heading Foo to say 'blah, blah'." "I want it to remain like it was in diff x." "I want to add this particular quote to this particular section." That sort of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  User:Asilvering - First, you have correctly restated what my usual question is. Second, it is true that User:Wlaak went beyond answering my question. However, they did answer my question in the first sentence, and so the extra words can be disregarded. They did say that they want to leave the article as it is. I haven't seen a concise statement by User:Shmayo as to what they want to change in the article. They have said that maybe WP:ANI rather than DRN or RFC is the forum that they want, but I don't understand what they are saying is either the content issue or the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Aha okay, sorry @Robert McClenon for misunderstanding. In that case: I want the section to remain as it is right now. Wlaak (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I brought this to ANI as a conduct issue (which I attempted to highlight in bold). My intention was not to discuss the content of the Syriac Orthodox Church article here; if content discussion is necessary, the other editors should be notified as well. In my initial post, I provided links containing my suggestion for the section "Name and identity": [3] [4]. To summarize my suggestion, if still relevant to this case: 1. Merge or remove content related to "stance" of Aphrem I Barsoum, depending of relevance. If relevant, it should solely be based on secondary WP:RS. I agree with the third-party editor, who suggested that "statements" from individual patriarchs is not relevant and should be excluded. 2. Remove paragraphs concerning the "stance" of the other two patriarchs (per WP:NOR and suggestion from third-party editor). 3. If anything, it should include the Synod's statement (without WP:SYNTH). 4. Rely on secondary WP:RS, avoiding any further WP:OR. This version should serve as basis. Shmayo (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Note:

• A WP:TBAN was suggested here less than a month ago, but closed with no consensus. The user has also been recommended not to edit within this topic area here.

Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• See the previous closed ANI filed, no consensus was reached for you to delete everything in the section. I took in feedback from the three other.

  the other editor who I was in a dispute with unarchived the ANI, he was initially in favor of my edits, in which he himself contributed to and added a quote which you were against.

  the edits i had made was in no sense rejected by the other editors until you came, I worked with the feedback given, hence another editor then said "Thank you, it looks much better."

  you came in, gave feedback in which most was incorporated, your points were:

  to remove "stands as the latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity of the Church's faithful" (WP:SYNTH), this was done.

  you said to merge the paragraph of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I and to remove the quote, in which two editors (me and the other editor who unarchived a ANI) agreed upon having, nevertheless, this was done as well.

  despite this, you came back a few days later, without the intent to help implement your own feedback, but to delete nearly the entire section, which had no consensus whatsoever, i then restored it. that is not disruptive editing.

  you said to highlight the Holy Synod statement, this was also done.

  you also made feedback on using WP:RS, in which has been incorporated in the first paragraph but stopped after the other editor had unarchived a settled ANI for the third time, being disruptive and halting the development of the section.

  5h ago, a reply to the article was made stating "I am proposing for a WP:RFC, It seems we are unable to establish consensus regarding this, any inputs from a third party editor would be really appreciated." indicating that there was no established consensus for you to delete the entire section, this was said from the editor you quoted to have agreed with you, see this, he stated it would be better of without the quote, which was done.

  you took the other editors words as a final say, with no chance at discussion nor reasoning, what you and one other person agrees with, is not consensus if the other parties object to it or haven't agreed with it.

  you also said that you'd have to file for a RfC, not a ANI, this is not fitting and is a unnecessary process which could be handled with a RfC.

  i'd want to request a TBAN on Shamyo as well, not out of revenge but since if these are the grounds for him to request a TBAN on me on, I feel there is a lot of ground in which Shmayo should get a TBAN, I must note that out of awareness to WP:NPOV, a TBAN should be on both parties.

  you have been accused of having been anti-Aramean name on following, see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (goes back all the way to 2008). Looking at your global contributions, it all seems to be on Aramean-related articles, and not in a way of contributing with edits but rather only objecting in talk pages, filing ANI's etc. this raises doubts whether if your objection is with the content or the Aramean ethnic identity.

  for any third party admin or resolver, please see the archived thread (by another editor who has been opposing the Aramean name, both him and Shamyo being Assyrian WikiPedians per their user talk pages) in which I detailed my defense/response, see that here.

  the Syriac Orthodox Church just got its peer-review review and constantly involving me in ANI's (only filed by Assyrian WikiPedians, Shmayo and the other editor) is disruptive and hinders me from contributing to, in this case, the peer-review. Wlaak (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

this is not a Aramean vs. Assyrian related topic, it is a Church and I am not compromising the Assyrian name for the Aramean name, which the warning was about (see the warning issued by admin on ANI you referenced).

a TBAN was not closed without consensus, majority was against and latest comment was "Any sanction should be two-way." since the other editor had POV and following Aramean related edits, please refrain from twisting things. Wlaak (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

While it's true that the latest comment stated that TBAN should likely be two-way, I'll note that such a ban, had it happened, would have been "The Levant, broadly construed"; topic bans are generally broadly construed in order to avoid such arguments over whether an edit "really" counts. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, I find this statement of yours somewhat disingenuous when I find an extended discussion about whether the article should or shouldn't be in WP:Assyria on the talk page. (If this was brought up in the previous ANI thread, my apologies for overlooking it in all the diffs.) This is absurdly tendentious behaviour and I'd like to commend CF-501 Falcon in particular for handling that with far more patience than I would have been capable of. I cannot believe that whether a particular article ought to be in a particular wikiproject was nearly the question of an RfC. If the editors of a wikiproject say the article is in scope, it's in scope. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

already discussed in article page Wlaak (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the history of Syriac Orthodox Church to try to determine why User:Shmayo is alleging disruptive editing or other conduct issues by User:Wlaak. I don't understand what the issue is, unless Shmayo is claiming ownership of Syriac Orthodox Church and so considers four reverts in two weeks to be disruptive. I have not read through all the details of the discussion on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church, nor the details of what was being reverted. I have seen enough to see that there is a content dispute, and that there has been some reverting that hardly comes anywhere close to being an edit war. Is User:Shmayo just throwing spaghetti at a wall, or can they state concisely what they think has been the conduct issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing the few diffs that I provided in my original post would have been useful to determine what I refer to as disruptive behaviour. I never mentioned an edit war; I do not want to engage in one. Now, what I consider disruptive or tendentious:

• I listed my suggestions [5] [6], endorsed by impartial editors [7] [8], but was reverted twice [9] [10]; user ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.
• The user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT; fails to understand why other editors are stressing WP:NOR, the few example I gave were quickly "corrected", which obviously is not the point here.
• Views edits as taking sides [11],

If the diffs provided in my first bullet does not indicate disruptive behaviour or WP:STONEWALLing, I have nothing else to add here. Shmayo (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

See the current version, what you got consensus on was to remove the quote, which was done. I had challenged the removal of all other Patriarchates and argued for why they are important, the article itself states that the Patriarch "is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."

I may be new to WikiPedia, but what you and one other editor may agree on, with me disagreeing and others not participating in said question is not consensus.

Although, the thing you seem to have had one person to agree with you on (the removal of Patriarchates) seem to not have gone by the other editor who stated: "Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with "Although the church is not ethnically exclusive..." needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."

Your removal had no consensus, yet you pushed it, we were fine with it until you came and brought this to attention which later was implemented (quote, RS) and were set to move to the next paragraphs until you and the other WikiPedian part of your project, what I find disruptive, constantly file ANIs. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I agree with you that the diffs do not look particularly bad. I think you will change your mind once you read the discussion on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the discussion at the article talk page that User:Shmayo and User:asilvering have advised me to read. I agree that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. That doesn't answer the question of what should be done next. User:Shmayo has also asked that question without answering it. They wrote: Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. Why not try RFC? Not every case of POV pushing requires sanctions. I haven't reviewed the past record in sufficient detail to determine whether Shmayo is also pushing a point of view, except that their choice to go to WP:ANI without attempting a content dispute resolution is in itself suggestive that they would rather make allegations than present reliable sources to a Request for Comments.
• I am cautious when a filer apparently prefers to discuss conduct before making an effort to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Recurring disruptive behaviour should however, which I think is the case. WP:Third opinion is a way of solving a content dispute. I did recommend DRN or RfC as a next step, one answer suggested ANI, and I agreed that it was probably right to report what I believed was disruptive behaviour. One user (excluding opinions expressed elsewhere) seems to agree, whereas your assessment of it is "POV pushing". Is there any outstanding question for me as the filer? Shmayo (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

what is disruptive? four reverts in two weeks is not disruptive, this is the second ANI regarding this article, with no development, a RfC would be better, what is disruptive here in my opinion is the fact that there has constantly been ANI's filed preventing one from further developing WikiPedia.

@Robert McClenon even on the List of Aramean kings article, Shmayo seemed to have deleted the entire article stating no sources are referenced, instead of trying to put sources, (similiar to the Syriac Orthodox Church, where he deleted the entire section of Aramean mentions) he decides to delete the entire article. [12]

constant removals [13][14][15][16](even images of Arameans are removed), [17][18][19](even removes Syriac mentionings), [20], [21], [22], [23] of Aramean mentionings throughout Aramean-related articles, since 2008 is disruptive. (these are just the ones taken from his talk page)

how long is Shmayo going to get away with this? 14 years and counting. Wlaak (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, please consider this from the perspective of the other editors for a moment: they've been carrying on as normal for quite some time, and then suddenly you appear and start dozens of extremely wordy pov-pushing arguments. It's not them who are being disruptive. This isn't a statement about the issue at stake - it's entirely possible that you're correct on the merits in this content dispute - but how you've gone about it. I've suggested it before and will reiterate it: you will have a much better and more successful time trying to get anywhere with this dispute if you walk away from it now, gain more editing experience out of this topic area, and return to it later. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

english is not my first language, me wording things in a manner of what you think is POV is not my intent, i am not pushing any edits that are POV, although i can understand that you feel i am pushing POV in talk-pages.

when did i "suddenly" appear? if you are talking about to WikiPedia, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it is, in my opinion not "pov-pushing". everybody pushes a POV, it seems as the POV-pushes from Shmayo and the other editor is of no interest to you? does this only apply to me?

i have been carrying on, i left the changing of Assyrian to Syriac (not even Aramean), as you warned both of us in the previous ANI to, however, even me going to a Church article, improving what was already stated, not compromising any names, i still get followed by other parties.

i am geniounly curious, do you not see the suppression of the Aramean name on WikiPedia?

if you are seeing this as POV, then certainly it is not one-way, but rather two-way.

i am not so active in the topic anymore, i am only maintaining the articles (if i see any POV edit as in the case remove/compromise certain names, i revert and advise to go to talk page), other than that i am working on my draft. Wlaak (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

can you cite some of my words which are "extremely wordy pov-pushing", i am curious to see how it looks like/what to not push/write. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak, look how long your comments are. Whether you intend this or not, the effect is to basically wear down everyone else involved in the discussion until they go away and you "win". As for pov-pushing, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it, given the contours of this dispute specifically, is a clear expression of pov-pushing. (In most other topic areas, "this topic is neglected on wikipedia" is not pov-pushing.) Again, for all I know, your pov is systematically undervalued on Wikipedia and this needs to be addressed, but "my cause is righteous" is not a good defense here. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I strongly urge you to go work in another topic area for now. You're picking up a lot of bad habits from working in a contentious topic, and I'm increasingly worried that you will be indefinitely blocked or community banned. You cannot fix the problem of Aramean invisibility on wikipedia if you are blocked. Please reconsider your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

okay, thank you for your understanding. i will refrain from further edit any articles (if not reverting obvious changes that compromise one name for the other, if that is allowed).

i will stick to working on my draft and see other topics i find interesting Wlaak (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've been following this discussion from a distance and have glanced over Wlaak's contributions while this report is in progress. The user seems to have an unusual tendency to eliminate or replace any mention to Assyrians with their own WP:OR, often ignoring WP:RS that support Assyrian identity. A clear example of this occurred just several hours ago as a matter of fact: Wlaak removes a reliable academic source that distinctly supports Shamoun Hanne Haydo's Assyrian identity (see the referenced source, I checked it [24]), replacing "Assyrian" with "Syriac" [25] by citing unknown websites as a main source such as [26]. Apparently Wlaak has been engaged in this tendentious erasure of Assyrian in the article since March, indicating this behavior is not new or even limited to this specific article if you look at their contributions in general. It's not just English Wikipedia either; I know these are different projects, but it's telling that in one project they've been blocked for similar editing patters like in en-wiki [27], and in another they apparently tried to remove mention of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide article there [28], [29]. Wlaak’s main focus of editing in en-wiki/elsewhere within various articles is basically to erase the word Assyrian and replace it with Arameans or Syriacs.

On the whole, I'd say with certainty that this a tendentious one purpose account mostly dedicated to erasing Assyrian mention, violating policies in the process such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and so on. I don't think this topic or even Wikipedia in general benefits from Wlaak's contributions, in fact, it's the opposite. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac. [30] is a Turkish source writing of his biography book, it is actually the website of the author of the book about him [31]. I have not erased the term "Assyrian", regarding the Dutch page, I was restoring a undiscussed move, or at least that is what I thought, we discussed the matter on my talk page and it seems as it was not a discussed move only done on 27th of March but goes back further than that, the reason I did not see the earlier version was, as a editor pointed out on my talk page, it was mistakingly labeled "minor", thus I oversaw it. No worries, I have no issues with leaving it as it is.

Since my warning, I have not compromised any names in favor of the other, you using the article Shamoun Hanne Haydo is absurd to me, I was reverting what a specific user (dedicated to war-related articles between Kurds and Assyrians) did on the article, he had previously been blocked as a sockpuppet and compromised the Syriac name for the Assyrian one, by removing the Syriac sources for the Assyrian ones. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac.

That's just not true, I don’t know how else to say it. If you check the article history [32], you'll see that Haydo's background has always stirred up reverts among users; it’s never really been settled. There are no recent sock edits in the article as far as I can tell, you can't revert somebody for socking if they aren't an active sock. The reliable modern scholarly source I pointed out supports an Assyrian background [33], you can't deny this.

@Asilvering, @Robert McClenon I wonder what others outside this topic think of Wlaak's response above, is it encouraging to you? Because I personally see reoccurring red flags which isn't helped by their recent behavior; apparently (and Robert McClenon seems to have seen this) Wlaak has been taking strange ownership of articles and then lecturing users on their talk pages in a really condescending way. It’s just cringeworthy to read Wlaak's comments in this discussion (link). It's also odd how they lecture about "consensus" during that discussion when they think it aligns with their perspective, yet in the same breath, they have no problem altering long-standing consensus versions of several other articles without having a consensus. Lastly, Wlaak also appeared to canvass a single edit IP to vote in a discussion Wlaak opened (btw the discussion is again about the same subject they're so adamant to push [34]). Doesn’t all this raise some eyebrows? Are we sure we want to give this user that much rope, only for them to likely end up in ANI again? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

One is allowed to edit an article, after it having been edited to Syriac, per the majority of sources (and now a academic source), it was later changed by another editor using a pro-Assyrian website (Hujada) as source and one other source, overlooking the majority of sources stating Syriac.

What ownership? I noticed for 30 minutes edits from a IP came in after a edit from a Wiki User, it changed the lead, the Name & Identity etc.

"Canvass", no the IP asked if there is a possibility of changing the redirect, I informed him that there is a open discussion regarding it... what's wrong with that?

All this feels like a coordinated attack on me, few hours after you commented your first comment, another editor with a brand new account came a few hours later and accused me of harassing him via mail... Wlaak (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright you just refuse to accept any wrongdoing whatsoever, at any rate, I don’t plan to have a pointless back and forth with you seeing the rest of bludgeoning. I don’t know any of the users in this discussion btw, and for you to make “coordinated attack” accusations based on no real evidence is disappointing but not surprising, to me at least. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is free from having done wrongs, both parties in this ANI are guilty of wrongdoing. You also accused me of "soliciting votes" from a [35] but failed to include that the IP asked if he could change the redirect, in which I said if you are in favor of it, there is a discussion, is that soliciting votes? [36] Wlaak (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wlaak I have a quick question for you, @KhndzorUtogh bringing up the IP address on the opened discussion leaves me wondering something. I’ve noticed that a few times now, you seem to attract a number of IP addresses that randomly show up out of nowhere to support or encourage your stance on disputes, only for them to never be seen again. This has happened quite a few times now:

• Back when you were discussing create a separate Aramean people page in March, this Swedish IP [37] made one comment opposing @Shmayo and was never seen again
• This Dutch IP [38] made two comments, one supporting your argument and another about Shmayo. Like the above, they were never seen again
• This other Dutch IP [39] took part in the discussion, supporting your arguments and agreeing with you - they were never seen on any other part of Wikipedia
• Yet another Dutch IP [40] left a message on your talk page with suggestions on your current Draft:Aramean people
• On Güngören, Midyat, once again another Dutch IP [41] shows up out of nowhere agreeing with you and asking if they can change the redirect, which you've opened a discussion for

It's not that this happens frequently, but it's certainly been noticeable that I wanted to bring it up. What make's matters more suspicious is that no IPs have appeared to oppose the Aramean arguments you make in support of Assyrian or other identities. Can you explain the sudden emergence of these IP addresses? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I have zero idea. However, the latest one from Güngören, Midyat had already been active in the talk page as of last year, I replied to him saying I was agreeing with him. He then became active again.

About the IP that left a suggestion on my talk page, I tried replying to him and get him to help out with the Draft:Aramean people he was giving feedback about, but he has not responded.

As of the other instances, I am not sure. I know that this topic has been very sensitive and suppressive of all Arameans, they might have been popping up when seeing new discussions, other than that, I really do not have an answer. They seem to only have been commenting on the Aramean article.

It is words against words, I am not sure if you believe me, you are free to file a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on me, it was done before and I was unrelated to the accounts. Wlaak (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have been watching this unfold and it is extremely disappointing. @Wlaak and @Miaphysis have started yet another long winded debate,and it has not being going anywhere. @asilvering, Wlaak has not done s they said and moved on. I asked for a simple explanation of the changes they wanted to make and have given me roughly 3,500 words. Both Wlaak and Miaphysis have been bludgeoning and in my opinon edit warring, to get their points aross. I will file an RfC for the naming dispute (@Robert McClenon would you willing to help?). To be clear, I have no stake in this other wanting to get the article to GA. I don't want anyone to be in trouble but here we are. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I too am disappointed, and have again proposed a topic ban. You're welcome to comment below. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I am sorry to have disappointed you, but in this case, I was engaging in the talk page rather than edit-warring, the only edits I did was restoring the drastic, huge and controversial edits that lacked consensus, I also pushed a edit where I implemented the agreements me and the other party had in the talk page. I understand the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON, I should have left the discussion and initiated a RfC after realizing we were just going in circles.

  Would a logged warning not be more fitting? Wlaak (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Wlaak, No it would not. @Asilvering, gave you a warning before and now. You have chosen not to heed it. While this may be unfortunate, you should have seen it coming from 100 kms away after the last ANI thread. As the wording of the proposed TBAN says, you can appeal it in 6 months; take the restriction with dignity and edit other areas, show the community that you can be trusted to edit. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't even know what to say anymore. I am failing to see how a talk page discussion can lead to a TBAN. I was reverting undiscussed moves yesterday, and doing so got me tbanned. Wikipedia should be inclusive, not exclusive. The undermining of other identities is worrying, really. Fourteen years and counting, one editor has managed to hinder the development of certain categories on Wikipedia. All of this feels like constant, one-sided, and deliberate attempts to have me gone. Wlaak (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Wlaak, no one wants you gone, certainly not me or the other editors who have tried to help you. In 6 months time you can certainly start to help support other identities, but right now you have been going about it the wrong way. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Further to what @CF-501 Falcon just said, @Wlaak, it's not within my power as an individual administrator to give you a tban from this topic, but it is within my power to block you outright for disruptive editing. I'm confident that, if I had done so, no other administrator would have overturned it, at least not for some time. So please understand that when I say I don't want you gone, that isn't a hollow statement. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  certainly doesn't feel that way. there was even a brand new account accusing me of harassing them via mail. With only Assyrian WikiPedians participating in the Syriac Orthodox Church article, it hurts me to say, but I think it is inevitable that it will fall to their bias. i did my best to hinder any POV, and got banned for it.

  please maintain it and keep it neutral. i have linked all (secondary) sources on the talk page, and the current version includes the references regarding the Church’s identity, so that when there are proposals or changes made to the page, you will have the ones i left. Wlaak (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  You aren't banned yet. But if you are, you will be able to appeal the ban and return to normal editing eventually, and I hope that you do. Again, you'll find it much, much easier to convince other editors that there are problems with neutral pov on these articles once you have more experience with editing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Wlaak, there's no such thing as a logged warning, since this isn't a CTOP. Sorry. I'd have handed one out ages ago if I could have. Instead I warned you several times that you should edit in some other topics until you had more wikipedia experience. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I noticed what was going on while skimming through the SOC page and checking out the talk page earlier today. I agree with @Asilvering that Wlaak's messages could be shorter, it really felt tiring to read a lot of this in one sitting because it seemed to lead nowhere. I don't want to dogpile on Wlaak because this shouldn't turn into intimidation, but I agree that a lot of these edits made by Wlaak have largely been running against the consensus, disregarding WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS - I second @Shmayo as well. An RfC should be filed. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 22:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Socks gonna sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have edited the article under a previous account I lost the password for. This user was extremely disruptive and emailed me with harassing words. how do I report this? TheLiberalWikiEditor (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC) Are you serious? What article are you speaking of and what name was your account under? I just recently got a wiki-mail and I have not contacted anyone via that email apart from the Arbitration Committee. Can you share what I allegedly said? I am more than happy to prove that I have not emailed you anything, these are extreme accusations! Your account is brand new, literally created today and throwing these accusations. Wlaak (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC) @Wlaak, my advice is to respond no further about this alleged harassment, and let arbcom deal with that if necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC) okay, thank you Wlaak (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC) @TheLiberalWikiEditor, you need to email User:Arbitration Committee with this kind of thing. Please do not post about it here. Obviously, Wlaak will be completely unable to respond to these allegations on this board; please don't put them into that position. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

General disruption in the topic area

Could I ask participants in and watchers of this topic area more broadly to provide what they think are the <5 most single contentious articles in this topic area? I don't mean "ones currently being disrupted" or "ones currently involving Wlaak". I am quite sure that what Wlaak wrote above, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic is true, and, given that, it's strange that there hasn't been an arbcom case or discussion about community sanctions in the topic. It would be helpful to see the "most contentious" or "most disrupted" articles as context. Not most important/critical - I'm looking for the ones that make the clearest case that this topic area is problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:asilvering, for asking the editors to identify the specific topics of contention.

If I understand correctly, User:Shmayo has been given bad advice that is wasting their time and the time of the community. They appear to be saying that they were considering DRN or RFC because they have a combination content and conduct dispute, and were advised to try WP:ANI instead. When a case is filed here at ANI without previous attempts to address the content dispute, it often ends up with an exchange of unpleasant posts and no conclusion, and that is what has happened so far, four days after filing, because RFC has not been attempted. I already said that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. It appears that User:Shmayo is also pushing a point of view. I don't think that it is time to topic-ban both editors. I think that it is time to try RFC. Maybe Shmayo doesn't know that the issues are to put in an RFC. If so, maybe they should try DRN. If there is a deadlock over a content dispute, DRN will often ask questions designed to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. I think that Shmayo was almost right in trying either DRN or RFC until they were advised to try ANI instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that if this matter were to go to ArbCom, ArbCom would, among other things, define a contentious topic area, maybe The Levant, broadly construed. So maybe the community should impose a community contentious topic area to avoid an ArbCom case. So I agree that the editors should follow the advice of User:asilvering in trying to define what the area of dispute is. Either that, or RFC, or DRN to formulate the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"The Levant" is what I'd use if I had to tban or conditional unblock someone, to be sure I'd gotten the whole range of issues, but I think the community could probably come up with something more restricted, like Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac topics, which is an absurd mouthful but probably covers everything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is about me receiving a topic ban or not and if I am writing my own sentence, I hope not. But the topic would be most fitting in the Near East, as this includes basically everything regarding this topic. The Levant is very limited, most places of origin amongst all groups is far from the Levant. I am not too educated about this matter (disputes, TBANS etc.) and if "Near East" is a valid one, but that is what I would identify it as. Wlaak (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not say that I would support a topic-ban. I implied that I would support a contentious topic status. I already opposed a topic-ban once before. A topic-ban is necessary if efforts to resole the content dispute fail. There have not been adequate efforts to resolve the content dispute. I will support a contentious topic declaration as a way of demanding that the parties try to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, the article "Arameans" was semi-protected during 2023 due to persistent disruptive editing. It usually attracted a high number of IPs. Other than that, I don't think there is any article that stands out in particular. Articles about places and persons (and organizations/institutions, like in this case) are all subject to the dispute. Shmayo (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, having viewed the ANI from the sidelines I wanted to give an answer. I think "The Levant" as a topic of contention is too broad and would have to factor into account other unrelated topics involving certain groups, countries, people, etc. The topic I would define as contentious would fall under the banner "Assyrian naming dispute", since it is prominently disputes surrounding Assyrian, Chaldean, and Aramean identities.

As Shmayo said above, articles about anything that ties back to Assyrians are all subject to dispute. But I think there are a few articles that stand out, which I've listed below:

• Arameans
• Shamoun Hanne Haydo
• Defense of Azakh/Defence of Iwardo
• Turoyo language
• Basically any Assyrian village in Mardin/Tur Abdin
• Tel Keppe

Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Up at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics now. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Syriac Orthodox Church and General Sanctions?

There appears to be a content dispute involving Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian people and Arameans. I am saying that there appears to be a content dispute, because it seems to be impossible to get the parties to state exactly what the content dispute is, because they want to resolve the conduct dispute first. Rather than trying to resolve the messy combination of content dispute and conduct dispute, can the community assert community general sanctions over the topics of Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian people, and Arameans, and then let uninvolved administrators impose sanctions?

Multiple parties seem to want to deal with conduct first rather than resolving the content dispute, so that normal content dispute resolution will not work until sanctions are imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A long exchange that seemed to have degenerated into name-calling was just closed off at Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church#Name_&_Identity and, in my opinion, illustrates that battleground editing is interfering with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I would love to have the content dispute resolved and have been attempting to do that. From what I understand the actual dispute boils down to is the Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian or Aramean? I think that this requires sanctions, as people are getting very heated over it. I don't think the entire article is contentious, rather that "Assyrian people and Arameans" may need to be a CTOP (community or arbcom). Thank you for the help, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that indeed it's not just the church where these things are being disputed, but pretty much everything related to these ethnic groups in the region. I think "Syriac" as a name has also appeared in these circumstances, and maybe a few others; regardless, I think the names of ethnic groups in the region should probably be labeled as a contentious topic in some form.

I also believe that users have made comments suggesting offsite coordination; if any of them have evidence to that effect, then I think it may have to fall under the remit of ArbCom, so that such evidence can be analyzed. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

_{+1. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}

@Robert McClenon, that's exactly what my post in the section above is all about - putting together the evidence to be able to make a request for GS at AN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read through the dispute presented in the ANI report here, but adding an anecdotal +1 that GS/CTOPs for Syriac, Aramean and Assyrian identity and national politics is warranted based on the amount of disruption and acrimony we see in the topic area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, before I make that suggestion to AN, do you see any difference between the topic as you've described and "Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects", as I worded it in the tban proposal below? -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No asilvering I think your framing is appropriate and likely safer in its inclusion of Chaldean, although (again anecdotally) I feel like most of the disruption we see is specifically over Aramean vs Assyrian _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering If it's of any assistance, I'm currently working on Draft:Assyrian identity crisis, which aims to discuss why this dispute is so contentious. As of now I plan on converting it to my sandbox so that I can publish it directly once it's finished; it's not yet complete and once it is, I want to get it peer reviewed and to ping the active editors in this topic area to hear their thoughts and concerns. For now, though, I think that it would help to consider that perspective in order to determine the extent to which this should have sanctions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Surayeproject3, this is certainly helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Topic ban for Wlaak

I proposed this in an earlier thread here at ANI, and it wasn't taken up. Since the disruption has continued, I'm opening it up for discussion again. I don't want to give Wlaak an indefinite block. I do, however, think that they need to avoid this obviously contentious topic until they are more experienced with collaboration on Wikipedia. I've made that suggestion to Wlaak several times to no effect. Accordingly, I am again proposing an indefinite topic ban from Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects, broadly construed. This can be appealed to WP:AN in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, I was trying to reach consensus on the Syriac Orthodox Church, drastic and controversial edits were taking place before a consensus. Wlaak (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Support - While I've stated that Wlaak has shown positive signs since previous disputes in March and April, the arguments being made on the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church and the other things mentioned above (namely the WikiProject Assyria template and Shamoun Hanne Haydo) clearly indicate a continued Aramean-POV. At the point where it is still being disruptive and negatively influencing the development of the encyclopedia, it's definitely grounds to reconsider the topic ban. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. At the moment, I believe Wlaak is simply not competent enough to edit in this contentious topic area. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Support - I have tried to work with and meditate with Wlaak. However, @Miaphysis should be given a formal warning for edit warring. This was not the best outcome possible but it is necessary. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Comment - After reading what @Robert McClenon wrote, I would only support if this was for both sides. While @Wlaak may certainly benifit from a TBAN , so would @Surayeproject3 . While a closer would certainly look at who supported and opposed, quite a few of the supports are involved editors from the other side of the argument. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon, look at how you originally say it's another editor who should have a warning for edit-warring, then following RMcC point out a different one as needing sanction. The common denominator here is Wlaak. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I do not disagree with your proposal. I just believe that all the involved editors should be given a warning. I was in the process of asking RMcC if he would be willing to propose a TBAN for both of the above editors and after warn Miaphysis and Shmayo. To make it clear I do support the TBAN of Wlaak. Sorry for the confusion, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon Why exactly are you proposing that I receive a topic ban? I have just seen your post on @Robert McClenon's talk page and am confused as to why you are suggesting that. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, I was under the impression that you were doing the same thing as them albeit maybe to a more acceptable degree. Your userpage comes of as POV pushing; which I realize may not be your intent. This was just a suggestion, you have shown that you can edit the Syriac Orthodox Church article productively. Maybe a TBAN is a little bit too strong; a warning would suffice. Considering @Asilvering's comment above, I agree. I would be agreeable to a warning to you and the other three to not edit war (not necessarily you) and POV push. It would be better to wait and see if more problems arise without the common denominator; in which case stronger actions could be taken. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Surayeproject3 - Restoring the previous ANI thread on this topic when the community was ready to let it hibernate is only one example of your disruptive editing. I haven't finished reviewing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Support - I have made my case as to why Wlaak is trying to give a WP:UNDUE impression of the Aramean identity in the Syriac Church giving a certain impression while omitting the details and marginalizing others. Miaphysis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I do think that, deserved or undeserved, it's understandable that the user in question feels a bit piled on, and there should definitely be some way to ensure they aren't completely shut out if there is an RFC or the like (albeit possibly with a word limit to avoid overwhelming the discussion) Sesquilinear (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment- The user @Wlaak should still be able to work, to some extent, on certain categories, such as his draft, to which I’ve also contributed. It would be a shame for him to lose access to everything he wish to do. Historynerd361 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed a great shame. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sesquilinear and @Historynerd361, are you suggesting that the restriction be only for namespace? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That way he can at least continue to work on his draft. Historynerd361 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

He can continue to work on his draft in a text file on his local machine. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

how does a draft hurt you? do you really want me to work on a text file? with no WikiPedia tools such as referencing? linkage to other articles? there will be no noise from me either way, the draft won't affect you. Wlaak (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the area seems problematic for you. You can always use something like Zotero for your references. Let the draft be for 6 months and work on something else. Either way, just let the proposal run its pace; otherwise it may just make it worse for you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

i really have nothing more to say Wlaak (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I was suggesting something more narrowly tailored to an RFC or ArbCom case, honestly. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I don't think I have ever seen anybody get a TBAN for one namespace only (I haven't been here for too long). CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors are sometimes banned from particular namespaces, but I don't think I've ever seen a topic ban about a particular subject formulated as only a mainspace ban. If the topic is problematic it's problematic, regardless of location. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

_{Thank you! That makes sense. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}

@Sesquilinear, if there's an arbcom case, arbcom would probably grant an exemption from the tban for the purposes of participating in it. If there's a major RfC on this topic while Wlaak is tbanned, I would happily support his ability to make a single !vote on the topic as a limited exemption to the tban. Broader participation wouldn't work out (in my view), since we'd end up with the same issues that lead to this discussion in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment- please, allow me to at least work on my drafts. i will not be of disturbance to any of you anymore. thanks to the two of you guys writing comments. Wlaak (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, as a one-sided solution to a problem with at least two "sides". Shmayo, the Original Poster of this thread, and Surayeproject3 have both been gaming WP:ANI. I am concerned that if we topic-ban one editor, we, the community, may think that we have solved the problem for now, and may leave the problem alone instead of trying to address a problem that has been simmering for at least five years. The archives of Talk:Arameans show that a history of sockpuppetry and personal attacks, and an ongoing controversy over whether there should be a separate article on the modern Aramean people. Topic-banning one editor is not an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, who is this "we, the community", you're talking about? Everyone who has taken part in this thread has said the area is contentious. Which of us do you think are going to forget about it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I mean that the community has two parts to its institutional memory: its active institutional memory, which consists of the content of its noticeboards, and its long-term institutional memory, which includes the archives of its noticeboards. Yes, I do mean that when the topic-ban is imposed, follow-up action will be a lower priority, and then this thread will be auto-archived, and then the community will remember it again the next time that an editor reports an issue here or on another noticeboard. We, the community, all take conflicts in Wikipedia seriously, but the level of attention that we give to a particular issue varies, because many of us would rather be expanding Class C articles or reviewing drafts or gnoming categories rather than engaging in drama. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban of both Wlaak and Surayeproject3, for mirror-image histories of POV pushing and stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Support: There's too much risk compared to benefit for the health of this Wikipedia. It's not indefinite, it's not excessive - and many things can change in a few months for better or for worse. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 02:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: As some have suggested, the bulk of his disruptive editing is on this page in specific - so I too don't see the harm of letting him work on his drafts. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 02:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Aramean people

• Comment - The draft to which Wlaak refers has been submitted for AFC review, and is at Draft:Aramean people. I have marked it as under review, and expect to complete my review in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon hi, i just pushed a edit on the draft since its still before i get blocked, and just realized that it has been sent for review. the draft was not finished, i have not put enough sources in it, and some parts were not done. i also did not leave a comment with the draft, it was supposed to say that if it passed, the current Arameans article to be moved to History of the Arameans Wlaak (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  User:Wlaak - Your draft has been submitted for review, and I am reviewing it. It is true that some parts of it are not done. It can be reviewed in its current state. You say that you did not put enough sources in it, but that statement is silly. It has 230 sources in it, which is more than are often seen in Good Article Nominations. Your draft has been submitted for review, and is being reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay thank you, fingers crossed Wlaak (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  On the one hand, I expect that the review will take about another 24 hours. On the other hand, I expect that I will accept the draft, with the knowledge that it will be controversial, and that it may be nominated for deletion, but a deletion discussion should be the consensus process that is needed to resolve the content issue that is being exacerbated by conduct. I will not be trying to guess whether there is a greater than 50% of surviving a deletion discussion, but I am making the judgment that either a deletion discussion or the absence of a deletion discussion will have a positive effect on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have accepted the draft, which is consistent with previous discussion, and with my objective of facilitating resolution of the content dispute via a consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC) draft acc

  thank you, unfortunately, it has already been filed for AfD by the other party of this discussion Wlaak (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have initiated a deletion discussion. Shmayo (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. Perhaps the AFD can be a consensus process to try to resolve this long-simmering content dispute that is being complicated by conduct violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Or quickly turn into a mess. Shmayo (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a risk. If the AFD turns into a mess due to battleground editing, it should be even more obvious that either the community or the ArbCom should declare the topic to be contentious, and the offending parties should be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Denying sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support* , but I think the ban should be indefinite. WikiPatrollingOfficer (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC) do you guys see what i mean? brand new account, banned for sockpuppet and tried getting me blocked for good... Wlaak (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC) Yes, @Wlaak, I see it. That kind of thing is exactly why I've suggested so many times that you leave this topic area for now and edit something else while you build up experience and a reputation for making good edits. As an established editor, you will have very little to fear from this kind of behaviour. As a new editor only working within a contentious subject area, you are extremely vulnerable to various kinds of abuse and tag-teaming bullshit. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Resumption of discussion of topic ban

Support. Disruptive editing, including edit warring since this was filed. I also agree with KhndzorUtogh. Shmayo (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring goes both ways. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment - TBAN should be two way. Surayeproject3’s edits are just as disruptive. Upon reviewing Surayeproject3s edits, I've came across these disruptive edits, such a 4 year disambiguation with no edits done until Surayeproject3 erased the Arameans for Assyrians, despite the disambiguation being about "Aramaic people" See this

Surayeproject also removed the Syriac name from this party, switching it to Assyrian, saying it is a Assyrian party even when the party's name is Syriac.

See: this thisthis

this thisthis this this

Also see talk page discussion here --Historynerd361 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:HilssaMansen19 on 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article

• HilssaMansen19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’m reporting user User:HilssaMansen19 for persistent insertion of poorly sourced, biased, and irrelevant material on the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article.

Examples include:

Citing a Sky News story that relies solely on three unverifiable TikTok videos and opinions from known Islamophobic or unreliable sources (e.g., MEMRI and TRAC).

Referring to 313 as a terrorist symbol, ignoring its religious and historical significance (see: Battle of Badr).

Including unrelated content such as the Daniel Pearl case and alleged Indian involvement, with no reliable sources or direct nexus to the 2025 conflict.

Overall, the user’s edits violate WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, and present a one-sided narrative heavily aligned with one party.

These edits appear agenda-driven and have made the article unstable.

Requesting administrative attention to assess and address this user’s editing behavior.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.159.180 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute - take it to the talk page for the conflict. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment Since the user chose to use IP for this request, I am using comment to address the issue raised towards readers and admins. @MiasmaEternal:, I am thoroughly active and replying in discussions. Their intentions are unclear and I am sure, if they raised a discussion there, I might have already replied to whoever this user might be. Rather than raising another discussion, I am adding my request and reply here.

1) No edit links provided

2) Not even a constructive incident

3) Upon checking the IP, their location asserts they are from Pakistan, also an involved party in the conflict (TikTok videos and opinions from known Islamophobic, ignoring its religious and historical significance) It is not my problem that Sky news reported the claims based on facts. Other outlets proved it further. About 313, a religious symbol as the user said, where did I even used religious wordings here. The source has clearly mentioned a recognised T-group named 313. [42][43][44]

4) Delusional claims and further baseless accusations with no source additions

5) If a source tells and confirms an event shall we call it Islamo or any other phobic just because parties involved are part of that

6) If Sky news is Islamophobic then is Al-Jazeera also Islamophobic? The MEMRI points are proved by secondary source and I have clearly written that I can remove it if needed as the data is already having enough sources

7) Is BBC not Indiaphobic/Hinduphobic according to this user's claims? As BBC, Reuters and CNN claimed that Indian side has lost several jets which is neither verified nor proven?

8) Out of my various edits, point out three edits which are unexplained without a summary

9) Word to word same in both lead and subsection was removed which may have also triggered the IP user. I wrote, "Repeated content" and further explained it with both relevance and irrelavance which was also explained by other users.

10) Point out 3 additions that are poorly sourced, unreferenced and irrelavant. Another edit that might have irked the user could be addition about a Pakistani T who was allegedly involved in the death of an American-Jewish Journalist Daniel Pearl. There are arguments in the discussion as well about Israeli this and Israeli that.

I am not even reporting direct personal attacks on talk page towards me as I am assuming good faith and seeking thorough discussion. It is evident as I have been active on the talk page more than edits on Main article. You can check my logs as well. Total amount of content added on Talk page is 24k b and 6k b on article space.

I have written my reply with enough questions raised. I seek a definite ban against this IP for using this space for personal attacks. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTBAN. Also, this is, as mentioned, a content dispute. Both of you, take it to the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Dam, I must have been furious at the time. I was eating my words. Lol, if possible kindly do both. I have a guess about who this user might be as I have replied to their previous arguments in the discussion several times. I am constantly trying to prevent one-sided propaganda for both sides and a user accused me of vandalising by continuously adding Indian sources (something I never did and easily available on logs of my edits).

There is another user who is doing his bid to promote neutrality and we mutually agreed on several points in the discussion @Truth Layer 123. Points included not using Indian sources, adding verifiable information, fact-checking with third party reliable sources, changing claims/confirms to alleged/reported and several others. He was also brought in an accusation as my friend in alleged mischief and the accuser just praised themselves after that point. Lol.

I literally laughed off that part but they are not even replying there to my replies and now, using this space to make me the bad guy here.

If I take this saintly positively, I mean, a great thing, as my efforts to be fact based are being noticed by those users who are busy propaganda fuelling.

Now, back to being a human, I am really not okay with this behaviour as well. What if I was not active for the day and it would have been assumed that I was wrong. The discussion starter IP user should have provided facts here but went on to blatant accusations and lies. Thus, I request a block (definitely not ban, my bad). HilssaMansen19 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute and should be addressed on the article’s talk page, not here. Truth Layer 123 (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the IPdo sreply

I have an idea who they might be but unless they confirm it, I will wait. I am raising it again as these type of baseless accusations should not go unnoticed and a block is a must. The IP user should have come with the real Id and if they do, then we will talk. Such false narratives with no evidence are nothing but personal attacks. It is to the judgement of an admin. The following is relevant here, Personal attacks include, but are not limited to, false or unverifiable statements that would diminish the credibility of an editor were they true. Thus, I request a block on this IP. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If you suspect the IP is someone WP:LOUTSOCKing, then say so, and say who you suspect they are. Otherwise you are making a false or unverifiable statement that would diminish the credibility of an editor were they true. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger That is only a guess (based upon wordings) and unverified as I said unless they come forward, which might not be the case. I will not get into that.

Please share your opinion about WP:NOPA.

In my original reply, I sought a block (not ban) per the following of NOPA.

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

This is a serious one and their accusations fit in this category. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's only a guess and unverified then you shouldn't have mentioned it at all. The IP may well not be supplying evidence - which they absolutely should, @37.111.159.180:, throwing a grenade and running away isi not on - but your own accusation, because that is what it is, is also without evidence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I see the issue, I have an idea who they might be but unless they confirm it, I will wait started with I am still waiting for the IPdo sreply to other user also involved in related discussions. Why confirm? I want to confirm it to evaluate if my guess is right and per policy, I should not add a direct report it unless I am sure of it. I haven't reported it directly and used to show my doubt which is not the same in any case, thus, not accused them yet. I might report but only based on their reply which I have been waiting for. They might not because I had to check if it meets the similarities of what I am doubting about.

pointing out the obvious here agenda-driven, made the article unstable, Including unrelated content such as the Daniel Pearl case and alleged Indian involvement, with no reliable sources or direct nexus to the 2025 conflict., persistent insertion of poorly sourced, biased, and irrelevant material are against WP:NOPA including assessment edits behaviour or so request statement by IP

This is the request. (I did not add it in my original comment which I am mentioning again here. That already has all the points discussed well, and arguments to the highlighted parts from original accusations. I will stick to the formal discussion from here on directly to that comment) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a guess about was a mention here before replying to you as I genuinely have a doubt which is speculative and a speculation, and not against policy here. Speculations of I have a guess in no way at par with accusations. I don't know if it is still not understandable as Pov matters, thus, I added confirm which itself confirms speculation.

I agree that I have been adding honest-frank replies here which I should have changed to accusations just like the IP user and yes, I accuse them of personal attacks by accusing false blatant lies with no proof and a further check on just one accusation raised by the IP user abot American Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl (mentioned several times now) can prove the whole point. Atleast 6 different sources added, all are non-Indian, with no extra content from myself, followed policy on synthesis, nor, and relevance. All of the sources mention current conflict (subject of the article) heavily. I don't see a reason as why this is getting pushed down towards my words when my original comment covered all the points HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Original comment -

10) Point out 3 additions that are poorly sourced, unreferenced and irrelavant. Another edit that might have irked the user could be addition about a Pakistani T who was allegedly involved in the death of an American-Jewish Journalist Daniel Pearl. There are arguments in the discussion as well about Israeli this and Israeli that.

I was calm enough to assume good faith and understand from their pov by not accusing the IP accuser as to why they are lying about section of Jewish journalist. Should I accuse them of being anti-semite for their dislike and lies about that section just like they accused me of using religious-phobic content which was actually added in SKY NEWS plus in tens of others available and I have also added above. About the other addition next to that one, it is per the source AL-JAZEERA, and others known to be pro-Islamic are there as well. International media includes BBC, CNN, NYT, WJ and many more. Rather than reference cluster, I added the most relevant and those clearly discussing the conflict.

Meanehile, IPs wordings were,

Including unrelated content such as the Daniel Pearl case and alleged Indian involvement, with no reliable sources or direct nexus to the 2025 conflict. Really? Kindly check the page directly 2025 India-Pakistan conflict#Casualities

and about MEMRI being Islamophobic is just an argument because they might be somewhat pro-Israeli. WP:MEMRI says to use it cautiously, I have done it and added it in discussion as well that I can remove if needed (no reply came) as the text is sourced/referenced with other sources that act as secondary. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:TLDR and WP:RELEVANCE. Instead of addressing the actual concerns I raised, your response includes a number of irrelevant tangents, personal assumptions, and ad hominem commentary, which do not help the discussion. I remind you of Wikipedia’s policies on WP:NOPA (no personal attacks) and WP:CIVIL (civility), which are expected from all contributors.

As for my choice to raise these issues via an IP address, Wikipedia explicitly allows IP editors to participate in good faith discussions and content editing. Making assumptions about my geographic location or speculating about my identity does not address the substance of the concern. Moreover, suggesting that you’ve looked up my IP to determine my location is highly inappropriate and borders on WP:DOX and WP:HARASS, which includes doxxing and is a serious policy violation, warranting a block.

For clarity, I did not label any media outlet as 'Islamophobic.' Misrepresenting my statements is both unhelpful and misleading. I suggest carefully reading what was actually written before responding.

Despite your confrontational tone, I will assume good faith as per WP:AGF, but I urge you avoid this untoward conduct. Thank you. 2407:AA80:15:4E61:A40F:2C44:A003:2F15 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, baseless accusations. Your queries have been answered in 10 points. Rather than replying to that first, you go on WP:NOPA.

Wikipedia also allows us to check edits of any IP similar to that of a user and with other tools.

I’m reporting user User:HilssaMansen19 for persistent insertion of poorly sourced, biased, and irrelevant material' on the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article., continuous personal attacks These edits appear agenda-driven and have made the article unstable., Overall, the user’s edits violate WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, and present a one-sided narrative heavily aligned with one party., here the IP is calling others Islamophobic and denying that, behaviour by calling Pearl's addition unrelated, Citing a Sky News story that relies solely on three unverifiable TikTok videos and opinions from known Islamophobic or unreliable sources (e.g., MEMRI and TRAC). to this unrelated with no reliable source? When all the sources are third party and per perennial sources discussion generally reliable, is it because he was an American- Jew? Including unrelated content such as the Daniel Pearl case and alleged Indian involvement, with no reliable sources or direct nexus to the 2025 conflict. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Using agenda driven, Indian involvement, Islamophobic with next comment being I ignored religious connections, heavily narrated on one party go against WP:NOPA, WP:HARASS, I assume since you seem experienced in using incident space to for PERSONAL ATTACKS, you are also fully knowing about religious-phobic claims against anyone's edits are serious claims near equivalent to threats. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith but these are personal attacks aimed at equivalent to threats knowing what the meanings about the wordings are

for persistent insertion of poorly sourced, biased, and irrelevant material on the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article. Overall, the user’s edits violate WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, and present a one-sided narrative heavily aligned with one party.These edits appear agenda-driven and have made the article unstable.

Why haven't you PROVIDED 3 SOURCES of unsourced, unexplained and persistent edits by me or vandalism as you said made article unstable?

Here is the page for administrators to look at,

2025 India-Pakistan conflict

.

Continuous accusations with religious-phobic, personal attacks and again threats of warranting a block but Islamophobic content based additions with ignoring religious claims, Indian involvement, one party, agenda driven are just fine? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

IP, "looking up your IP" is not a problem, and it is not doxxing. If it bothers you that people know where you are because you are editing via IP, create an account. -- asilvering (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Beyond Asilvering's comments, let's be serious. Are you truly suggesting that identifying you as connecting from a nation of a quarter billion people constitutes doxxing? Ravenswing 11:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that isn't doxxing at all. Look at the bottom of your User Contributions and you'll see a link marked "Geolocate". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Asilvering and @Ravenswing for discussing and clarifying it. I still haven't received a reply with 3 unsourced, unreferenced and unreliable/vandal edits on that page. To say the least, WP:NOPA, WP:Harass, per quoting, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.", WP:don't lie. All the IP can do is accuse and not provide any source bit divert the topic and acts a victim while "misusing" this space by raising false claims here. (IP) is obviously irked by my additions of a Jewish connection along with many others, as they added it very clearly and focused the accusations on it. I can suspect them of being anti-semite here but that doesn't help. Just adding - Even an experienced user removed the mention of Jewish without even discussing it or summarising it among many others. A discussion is active also suggesting their 3rrr edits. So some people might not like some facts and think they present their own affiliations to involved parties as wrong or whatever. (A diversion)

Kindly read my original reply if you haven't to the IP' personal attacks (Accusations/lies).

I want a block on the IP at the very least per WP:NOPA that I know about. As you all know more policies than me but I can cite this one among previous ones for now, I wish to see a resolution sooner against those baseless blatant lies of accusations. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I am disinclined to block an IP for a single edit (the one that started this thread). The only edits that IP has ever performed are the ones to start this ANI thread. The /24 has some more, but also doesn't edit frequently. The IPv6 who jumped in and is evidently the same person has also just made the one edit. They've apparently used an LLM to generate some nonsense about you, which you can freely ignore. Just ignore it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

TPA Yoink Needed.

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

---

User_talk:Pedratin is abusing their talk page and a yoink is needed. Thanks. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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