Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188

PackMecEng

The following discussion is closed. 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:PackMecEng is disrupting many numbers of articles related to Hatewatch by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Although there are many different edits, this latest edit is particularly egregious.[4] As you can see they are restoring old sources from 2022 while ignoring newer sources from 2025. That is exactly the opposite of how we use reliable sources, as the currency criterion is paramount. In addition, PackMecEng is going from article to article, calling Hatewatch a "blog" as a way to diminish its credibility.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] It is not a blog. This is the current version of the site:[12] It no longer uses the old term "blog" from 2022 and does not use the old description that PackMecEng keeps adding. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

At the time of the edit and when the information in the articles that they are referencing was placed there Hatewatch was clearly labeled as a blog. See here for example or passed discussions at RSN. The issue with all those edits is they are misrepresenting the source, the articles at the time they were made, were labeled as blogs. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you replacing newer sources from 2025 with old sources that were originally dated from 2020 (and archived in 2022)? That's not how any of this works. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Because they removed the word blog from their main page does not mean that all their past articles are no longer blogs. lol PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's now how sourcing works. Please familiarize yourself with how we evaluate sources and rely on the currency criterion to edit articles. User:Dlthewave tried to correct you and you reverted them across many articles. I did the same and you mass reverted me. Your response up above is not acceptable. You are currently citing a quote from their website from 2020 that is no longer current. Further, you are using the term "blog" in a way that is derogatory, as a POV push to diminish their credibility. It is not a classical "blog", it is a highly curated and edited magazine-like site. I don't think you should be editing in this area until you learn how to use sources correctly. We never replace newer sources with old ones to push a POV. You're committing one of the cardinal sins of basic editing. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the SCUM Manifesto example, it is perhaps ironic that the "blog" part was added in 2013 by you [13]. It was only removed less than 24 hours ago. So PME was restoring something that was stable for 12 years. Springee (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

How is it ironic? That edit was from 2013, and the 2025 source no longer uses the term blog or the quote that was added. This is known as currency, and content changes over time. Basic reliable source 101. Nothing ironic here. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@PackMecEng @Viriditas you're both edit warring over a content issue. I have no interest in blocking either of you, so please use Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Hatewatch. @PackMecEng, "Lol" is not an appropriate response to another editor's concern. Star Mississippi 01:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC) ETA: Or Talk:Andy_Ngo#SPLC_Hatewatch_"blog", it doesn't matter which as long as it's discussed Star Mississippi 03:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Works for me, struck. PackMecEng (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that this is an issue affecting multiple WP articles, perhaps someone should start a discussion at WP:RSN if they want to continue with this? TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not really any different from the rest of the SPLC content, which already has an RSP entry. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that there is a contention that it is different to the rest of the SPLC content. TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think RSN is probably the place for it. Here certainly is not the place for it. Also, it does seem reasonable to stick with the long standing version of the text. PME wasn't running around adding "blog" articles. Instead, another editor appears to have moved from a talk page where this was being discussed and proceeded to removed "blog" from stable text that, presumably, referenced material that was originally published under the "hatewatch blog" banner. If "hatewatch blog" was correct at the time the SPLC content was published and when it was added to the Wiki article in question I don't see a reason to change it now. PME was restoring the stable versions of articles, not adding something new. Springee (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of what occurred based on the above diffs in my initial complaint. PME replaced new quotes and content from 2025 with old content from 2020 (archived in 2022). Since those descriptions of the source and the quote are no longer accurate, PME should not have made the changes nor reverted multiple editors to force them in without discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether the citation is from 2020 or 2025 can be discussed but this edit war can't continue, it's disappointing to see among experienced editors and editors seeming to pick sides. Focus on policy on referencing, not content right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors on one side of AMPOL have long been unhappy that the SPLC is regarded as an RS as often it is the only source for information on the more obscure right-wing hate groups. This is just a continuation of that, from what I can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:49, 22 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.

Self-admission of block evasion

Rachel Zenggggg self-admitted to evading a block in this teahouse diff. "It's my second account, the first account has been blocked permanently."
I will apologize if I'm doing this wrong or if I should've gone to a different noticeboard; this is the first time I've done something like this. I've notified Rachel on her talk page. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oop, appears I was too slow - someone already blocked her for sockpuppetry. Thanks @331dot! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Redux

This is likely User:UNCMS Editor, who is only soft blocked. If so, creating a new account would not be evasion, nor socking.

I also note that there was no block notice placed on UNCMS Editor's talk page, advising them how to proceed. Misread, sorry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Pigsonthewing: Nuh uh. Worgisbor (congregate) 18:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I also note the advice given in the block notice: "To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've pinged the blocking admin to Rachel's talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Rachel has been unblocked by 331dot. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

78.81.123.235

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

---

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

I explained on their talk page on 19 May that they cannot make any edits related to the Russo-Ukraine war due to WP:RUSUKR. This is the same IP editor as 91.122.22.140 and this address was recently blocked due to persistent violations of the restriction. You can see multiple editors explaining on the talk page there why their edits violated the restriction.

Since I gave them the alert again, they have already violated the restriction multiple times. In this edit, they voted at AfD for Battle of Basivka which is clearly about the war. In this edit, they added a link to North Korean involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here they left a personal attack at Talk:North Korean–Russian Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Here they made an edit about the Russian/Ukrainian divisions of Crimea ("Jurisdiction clarified"). This is only after a quick glance at their contributions since 22 May.

At first I thought this was a case of WP:CIR but it is clear now that they simply do not care. Can we get a longer block this time? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk Thank you for letting me know of ANI at my talk page. Let me explain my edits one by one as mentioned by you.
1.Discussion pages (i.e. Basivka) doesn't seem to be covered by CT.
2.Providing clarifying Wikipedia links for the the articles, AFAIK, doesn't violate the restriction.
3.Jurisdictional clarification update for Crimea considered a CT broadly construed?
4.Should I consider an attack on an obvious troll (one and only edit for an IP user) a personal one? It doesn't about CT in any way
As you brought up my incidents to ANI, obviously, you consider all my understanding above wrong. I've read suggested WP:CIR and would be much more careful from now on, least to say, caring: you impression of my not caring is erroneous. I do care. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that you previously edited with 91.122.22.140?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23Yes, it was the previous IP address assigned by my ISP. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The previous IP address was blocked due to this edit to Russia–North Korea relations. You now make the extraordinary claim that this edit to the same page does not violate the restriction. Mellk (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As edit you mentioned was not reverted or removed, my understanding is it was not covered by the ban. I just added wiki links to it without new content whatsoever. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I have said enough times that the restriction applies to all pages. My last suggestion was to not even add a link if it has anything to do with the war, but here we are. Mellk (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Just because an edit you made to a RUSUKR topic article did not get reverted doesn't mean that it isn't covered by the restriction; contentious topics and general sanctions restrictions apply to all edits in the topic area, not just to unconstructive/controversial ones. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 24 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.

Noobcrafting thinks he can enforce his WP:OR by threatening to report

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

---

First [14] he came with this WP:OR edit saying Any further changes will be considered an edit war, then: Further reversions without consensus may be reported to WP:ANEW as if his edit stood there long time and I'm removing it. Then: according to the rules if you undo the edit for the 3rd time I will be forced to issue you a warning and report which is WP:GAME. Beshogur (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User has added OR and non-RS's at other flag aritcles e.g. Flag Ff Croatia, [15]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Note also this is not the first time the user has edit warred over flag colours [16] Multiple reverts without consensus can lead to blocks. Instead, please discuss your changes on the article's talk page per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. not per BRD it was on Noobcrafting to gain consensus as it was his Bold edit which was reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this editor is doing this in good faith, as over the years they've changed the colors at Flag of Croatia, Flag of the Czech Republic, Flag of Georgia (country) Flag of Honduras, Flag of Jamaica, Flag of Morocco, Flag of Myanmar, Flag of Romania, Flag of Sweden, Flag of Tunisia, Flag of Turkey, and Flag of Vietnam. However, all of these should be checked for the same level of original research by someone who knows what they're doing with regard to flags. Their edit at Talk:Flag of Turkey#Pantone colour to me smacks of wikilawyering BS written up by an LLM (keeping in mind they have a cumulative 148 edits across all Wikipedias and that their subsequent edit abruptly drops the verbosity, formal tone, and perfect grammar). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:55, 23 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.

Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych [unarchived]

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

---

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

I'm kind of at a loss of how to proceed. Perhaps there is a better forum for this? I suppose this is a breakdown of the BRD cycle.

I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [17], [18], [19] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[20] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [21] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[22] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [23] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [24] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [25] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [26] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [27], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

In conclusion, I don't know how to engage with this user and need some help figuring out how to engage. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.

he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.

It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .

It's the opponent who returns [28] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.

On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [29][30][31] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.

In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.

Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.

I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[32] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.

I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC) sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC) You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Your IP Block failed dismally old man, I'm way too tech savvy for you🤣🤣🤣. 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Your block attempts will fail like every other admin before you you may as well just block my entire City 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC) We could continue playing this game forever or we could come to a deal where my original account is unblocked, you should look at the reasons why I was blocked, it was because I opposed manyareasexperts nonsensical contribution to the BRICS article but if you don't want to unblock me then I will continue doing this for many years to come. 41.144.1.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I don't think I blocked any IPs, just some accounts. I guess a few IPs might have ended up autoblocked. Anyway, I've now put in place a couple of range blocks that might have an effect, and won't have much collateral - that might be more effective, I guess we'll see. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.

ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.

Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.

All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ping to keep this open awhile longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support making the block permanent unless they return to address the above allegations Andre🚐 05:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  The pblock is already indef until they address them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  It’s possible it’s more of an extreme pro-Ukrainian POV rather than antisemitic/Nazi POV? One can only hope they don’t appreciate what they’re doing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Why would an "antisemitic POV" argue against the censorship of sources criticizing "Gaza Ministry of Health" numbers Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#c-Manyareasexpert-20240311111300-Selfstudier-20240311110700 . Or expressing an opinion that Palestine-sourced numbers should be attributed Talk:Gaza war/Archive 34#c-Manyareasexpert-20231206003600-Crampcomes-20231205200100 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Even if it is "extreme pro-Ukrainian POV", you might still be looking at a topic ban, whether that’s from Jewish history or even Ukraine-related articles. Please address comments admins are about make Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The argument that you can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticize Palestinian perspectives is laughably bad, and itself evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am gobsmacked at this response to my concerns about Holocaust revisionism. You aren't antisemitic because you took a pro-Israel point of view in a content dispute? In addition to not being related to my concern at all, this reeks of a battleground mindset. isa.p (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you don’t address the concerns, the indefinite article-space ban will probably stay in place. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally misplaced. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose CBAN, but though I would support COI-esque restrictions. What I see is preference to use more familiar (and in this case archaic) language, not deliberate whitewashing. JayCubby 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC) I assume you meant to post this in the section regarding Davidbena below? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) @JayCubby: The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Goodness, yes, I am, @The Bushranger. Thanks a bunch! JayCubby 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Looks like I already did. JayCubby 22:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC) No worries. We've all been there and done that! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Giving this one final ping to keep it open another 72 hours, since MAE has apparently gone on unannounced Wikibreak. If they return after this rolls off ANI, the pblock will remain until they address the concerns that led to this, and their vanishing immediately afterwards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I've requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're past three days on the warning above and are trying to shift the conversation elsewhere; please comment here rather than forcing a forum shop in a clear last-ditch attempt to evade scrutiny. Nathannah • 📮 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • That said: MAE, you need to respond here to the allegations raised above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
  First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
  Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
  With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
  I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
  With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
  MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [33] [34] [35] [36] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
  @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
  @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.

  Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [42] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [43] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([44]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([45]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [46] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.

  Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.

  No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).

  With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.

  What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  concern with is a combative attitude
  I heard that. I would appreciate some examples of that, and how the communication could be done better. I need to learn a better more diplomatic approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert You should consider some of the issues people have raised, such as: the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent", acknowledge that you brought up issues unrelated to the issues at hand, making dealing with the present issues raised more difficult and confusing, and acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence.

  Some behavior of other parties is also not great, however it's important not to get into the mindset of letting that justify substandard behavior in yourself. In general, if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation.

  There's also been a fair bit of miscommunication going on, more than people may realize (this is partially related to your level of ability in english). So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it.

  I hope you appreciate this advice. Like, I said, I think outlining where the way you've done things hasn't been great, and how you can do better in the future, would be a good idea. Tristario (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent"
  Thank you, I appreciate the feedback and will not use these

  acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence
  That would confirm I went "lurking" with some evil intentions to introduce disruptive edits into Wiki articles, which is not the case. Very serious accusations of "evil behavior", supported by the community, really curb the motivation for volunteer work.

  if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation
  Thank you for the advice. Will do that, and will look for the 3rd party feedback more often.

  So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it
  Thank you, will look for the 3rd party feedback more often. I will also look for a mentor to work contested edits and discussions with them and to help my discussion be more diplomatic online. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re vanishing, see WP:ANIFLU, it’s pretty common for people to avoid editing Wikipedia when there’s an ANI case open against them, hoping it passes and gets archived Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like my responses here are working against me. So the case could be very well concluded without them.

  And even with the case archived, would you be called an atrocities supporter, get this designation supported by the community, and return back to the topic? I don't know where would I get such a motivation. The correct approach is to step out if your edits are not appreciated, regardless if you are thinking you are right. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.

  I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.

  A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:

  However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.

  What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.

  Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.

  Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is valid discussion for a talk page and editors should be allowed to discuss it, without accusations of "Holocaust revisionism". I've already agreed with the questioned content removed.

  Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism?
  No, I asked [47] to check if the article contend corresponds to sources provided. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was).
  

  It's not just the Roman Shukhevych page. On a lot of articles on Ukrainian neo-Nazis (sorry, ultranationalist, far-right people and groups aligned with Nazi Germany or linked to Nazi ideology), you are there questioning sources or introducing sources that whitewash their Nazi connections:

• Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B. On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert and then question the reliability of Le Monde. Another editor questions your motivations: if your claim is that Stepan Bandera was not Nazi collaborator, it is hardly tenable, as it was discussed here zillions of times.
• Here you introduce a source that argues that "Slava Ukraini" is not a neo-Nazi salute "imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity" while at the same time arguing to remove statements that connect the salute with its fascist roots.
• Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party).
• Here you remove a Newsweek source titled "Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes" citing WP:NEWSWEEK as a reason to remove it, ignoring that it actually says "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
• Here you argue for removing Nazi Germany as an ally of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
• Here you start a discussion on the reliability of sources regarding the "controversies" of the 3rd Assault Brigade and when editors try to meet you half-way and address your concerns all you can say is "Perhaps...".

And on and on...

Your defense against allegations against you is to dig up previous disputes I and others have had with other editors and suggest that we're the problem and that we simply throw accusations around without good reason. This leads me to believe that you actually see nothing wrong with your behaviour and think that everyone else is the problem.

Based on the evidence I laid out above, I think you are here on Wikipedia to whitewash far-right, ultranationalist, fascist (take your pick) people and groups, to remove information that links them to Nazi Germany and (neo-)Nazi ideology. For that reason you should receive a TBAN from any area where you might continue these efforts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B
... and then I add that ... being well informed about the violence, was however "unable or unwilling to instruct Ukrainian nationalist military troops (as Nachtigall, Roland and UPA) to protect vulnerable minorities under their control". As German historian Olaf Glöckner writes, Bandera "failed to manage this problem (ethnic and anti-Semitic hatred) inside his forces... [48] sourced to academic book.

On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Maryna Shevtsova not an expert .

and then question the reliability of Le Monde
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Le Monde an unreliable source .

Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party)
... and then I replace sources containing no such designation with the actual academic source [49] containing such designation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... one of edits I would like to bring attention to is [50] , where the editor removes content referenced with UN, EU Council, ECHR reports, academic books, academic articles, instead adding WP:TASS, unknown "civic-nation.org" , WP:RIANOVOSTI and such, under the description of "sockpuppet account". How can I politely note that such an edit is not an improvement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note that as MAE has returned and is engaging with the issue, I have lifted the pblock from articlespace. I'd suggest they hold off on editing the topics suggested in the tban discussion below until it is resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

This has been going on for some weeks now, and the current one vs. the world contest of wills does not seem to me to be accomplishing much at this juncture. There seems to be clear (indeed, pretty uniform, outside of ManyAreasExpert themselves) consensus that there are colourable concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism.

These issues may very well have been resolvable short of a sanction, with proper discussion and engagement with community concerns, but I believe there is also an extremely clear consensus that MAE has themself consistently thwarted those avenues for resolution through an WP:IDHT attitude towards the concerns raised, compounded by efforts to evade scrutiny through abuse of process. Therefore, to bring this discussion around towards some sort of useful outcome rather than the unfocused castigation it is presently trending towards, I propose the following sanction:

ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history, broadly construed

SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: per consensus by all respondents up until this point, up to and including Kowal2701's !vote, the original proposal has been amended to refine its focus. Additions appear in green. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support We've seen similar problems from ManyAreasExpert before and their responses here make it seem likely we will have similar problems in the future unless action is taken. A topic ban on these topics seems a reasonable preventative measure. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism
  Editors should consider that most of my edits (Stepan Bandera [51] [52] [53] [54] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others , Azov Brigade [55] [56] [57] ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

MAE, for purposes of explaining the thinking behind this proposal, I'll just assume that you're correct about the assertion that most of your edits in this area are regarded as non-controversial and non-problematic by other editors of the related articles. I don't know that that is actually true, and I'm pretty sure the respondents here would not agree, but for the sake of argument let's take that truism. I believe that even if that concession were granted, consensus would still be that your tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits constitutes such a source of disruption and drain on community time and manpower (much of it from how you approach the criticisms raised and those who raise them) that allowing you to contribute in this area would still be a clear net negative. I don't think these issues can just be set aside because you are convinced your overall performance average is decent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation, which is actually quite friendly.
tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits
Had to look it up, it means "fierce fighting". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you MAE; I'm very gratified to hear that the observation was taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN - holocaust denial and revisionism is a huge red flag for community, and the lack of real apology and willingness to address shortcomings in this thread sealed the deal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN although I'm not entirely sure about the proposed scope. "Modern European political organizations" is vague, with differing definitions of when modernity starts (and/or ends). Most of the problems on display also seem to narrowly concern Ukrainian history, or more broadly Eastern European history, rather than "European political organizations" writ large. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the battleground attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict expressed in this thread, and would thus want to consider a Jewish history scope as part of the proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I considered multiple variants of that last entry, as narrow as "Modern far-right European political organizations" and as broad as "modern political organizations". I believe the "broadly construed" probably removes any real concerns about the "when does the modern era start?" insofar as any broad definition of the modern era includes the entire period in which the Nazi party was created and rose to prominence (the 1920s and 30s) and thereafter. But I admit that leaves reasonable concerns about the scope. Having seen a lot of TBAN discussions, including those arising from editors playing at the edges of their ban, I felt it was best to prevent temptation by circumscribing all topic matter that might be reasonably connected to direct influence by Nazi ideology, and went as broad as I could without completely shutting MAE out of socio-political topics, which would be too broad in my opinion.

All that said, I have absolutely no issues with anyone re-defining the focus of the proposal if there is even basic consensus for it. It should be changed sooner, rather than later, if it is to be changed, so as not to frustrate any eventual closure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN with the wording of ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed per Rosguill. @Rosguill: does the clarification regarding the history topic work for you? <s>{{ping|Snow Rise|</s> @Simonm223: @Bluethricecreamman: does this tweak look alright to you?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Snow Rise:. Curse you typo'd pings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    works for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes this is fine as a refinement of the proposed ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    I was uninvolved in the previous discussions, but as other editors have pointed out, restricting this to Eastern European political organizations post-1941 misses a big chunk of potentially problematic history. In the discussions mentioned above a prominent role is played by debates rergarding the Nazi ties of the OUN. One of our sources for that article, Per Anders Rudling's "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications", describes the group thus: Founded in 1929, the OUN was the largest and most important Ukrainian far-right organization. Explicitly totalitarian, the movement embraced the Führerprinzip, a cult of political violence, racism, and an aggressive anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of Ukrainian statehood at any price, and utilized assassination as legitimate means to this end. A typical fascist movement, the OUN cultivated close relations with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Falange, and the Croatian Ustaše. A footnote adds that Melnyk assured, in a May 2, 1939 letter to Joachim von Ribbentrop that his organization shared the Weltanschaaung [sic] of the National Socialists and Fascists, and offered to help in the ‘reorganization’ of Eastern Europe. In other words, not only did this organisation exist before 1941, but so did its racism and its ties (political and/or ideological) to Nazism, which are the core issue. With this in mind, the proposed cut-off year sounds both artificial and inadequate. Furthermore, from a more practical standpoint, this excessive tailoring of the TBAN could easily lead to future arguments over what exactly falls into the ban or how broad "broadly construed" really is, leading to more heat when what is intended is to lower the temperature, if only slightly, of a perennially hot topic. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    I don't know if it is appropriate for me to weigh in on potential sanctions, if it's not I'll strike this. But, I agree with this. I don't think the cut off year is clarifying, and I am not sure if OUN would qualify under the TBAN proposed. isa.p (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    So, I also don't think the 'post-1941' was the best amendment to the wording (without meaning to criticize, I'd speculate that it was proposed and gained consensus because this date is central to a number of previous CTOP designations connected to global political history, and I think the familiarity brought it into the formula). That said, between the fact that the 'post-1941' is attached only to the one noun phrase of the proposed TBAN, and another noun listed is 'Nazism' as a proscribed topic without any qualifiers (so Nazism of any era or locality), enhanced by the "broadly construed", I think we're alright. If the proposal passes and MAE attempts to skirt the edges by contributing to articles about pre-1941 organizations with even tenuous links to Nazism, I do not believe the community would give a free pass on try to leverage technicalities to keep engaged on these topics. Rather I think the response, considering the tone of the consensus already established here, would be quite severe. Perhaps I should have pushed back a little stronger against the 1941 date on the day of the proposal, but we're at a point now where we're right on the bubble for whether the proposal will pass as is. Rewording at this point would probably result in this discussion being archived without action. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

    Okay that makes sense. Under that logic and those assumptions, I agree, the current proposal has my support. No point in prolonging this. isa.p (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, this is more to do with Ukrainian history and I am not sure the proposed scope is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that works, although there is a far amount of redundancy among those topics. "Jewish history and Nazism" nominally covers all of it, although I know that sometimes we include extra prescriptions in order to preempt lawyering over gray areas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's a workable solution, though it is worth noting that Nazi ideology was influencing central and eastern European groups (in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, for example) well before 1941. Still, those topics are probably covered by the rest of the wording? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Eastern European political organizations post-1941
  That means TB on Russia, Ukraine and related political parties and so on. A state is a political organization as well, right? Would editors please be so kind and post some disruptive diffs in the area so we can see the specifics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBan with Bushranger's edits. I agree there's some redundancy in the proposed TBan range, but, other than for esthetics, I don't see any reason to fix that, and fixing while preventing loopholes may make the definition of the ban even longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as Bushranger's proposal. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Reading this whole thread it seems clear that MAE's perspective on Ukrainian nationalism and the Nazis is, at best, heavily skewed, and that they are unable or unwilling to change that. Therefore a ban from editing on the topic seems necessary.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ping to avoid archiving, and request a close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Further anti-archiving ping while awaiting closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

    Anti-archiving ping of the day, could we please get a closure? Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 1 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.

Clarifying question to participants

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

---

So, this was closed invalidly. @Industrial Insect: For future reference, only admins can impose community sanctions, even when consensus is clear.

I was going to reclose this, but, as is being discussed on my usertalk, it is not at all clear what "political organizations" means. That is a vague enough phrase I am not comfortable enacting a TBAN from it, and would not be comfortable enforcing a TBAN made by someone else. So I have a question specifically for people who participated above. When you said "political organizations", did you mean

#	Answer	Clarified scope I would close with
A	Any sort of group that organizes for a political cause, excluding political parties	Organized political movements in Eastern Europe since 1941, excluding political parties
B	Any sort of group that organizes for a political cause, including political parties but not these groups' members	Organized political movements and parties in Eastern Europe since 1941, not extending to edits about individual members unless the edit concerns their membership in such an organization
C	Any sort of group that organizes for a political cause, including political parties and these groups' members	Politics in Eastern Europe since 1941
D	Literally anything that is political in nature and organized, which includes both the above and, among other things, any kind of governmental unit	Eastern Europe since 1941
E	Honestly, Tamzin, I'm not sure what I meant	No sanction; others are still imposed

Pinging @Snow Rise, Simonm223, Bluethricecreamman, Rosguill, The Bushranger, Ostalgia, Rsjaffe, Kowal2701, and Tulzscha. No need to re-!vote on the TBAN or anything. There is clear consensus for a TBAN; the only thing unclear is exactly what y'all meant by this ambiguous phrase. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My intention was along the lines of C, although both my intent and my reading of the wording of your proposed C text is that this also encompasses governments and their activities. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So, given the nature of the concerns raised and what I perceived to be the consensus of that discussion, I believe that the scope of this element of the ban should be as close to all-encompassing as possible, without otherwise frustrating the wording or intent of the overall language. So I would say that the summarizing answer in row D is as close to representing what I perceived the intent of the sanction (and the consensus therefore) to be. But I will also say that I personally would probably render that with the wording of row C, as I think the wording in row D would lead to a subject matter ban that is broader than intended. So use your discretion in interpreting those two slightly at odds responses in weighting my portion of the input into the final wording. Sorry to complicate the response; I do like what you did here to make sure feedback catches these nuances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My reasoning for that being the scope if the answer is D is that it's basically impossible to write about an area without even mentioning the polities in it. Often the first word after "is a(n)" in a Wikipedia article is a demonym for a polity. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say C is closest to what I was envisioning at the time: it covers all the areas affected by MAE's problematic edits (that aren't covered by the other conditions of the tban), without (in my opinion) being overly broad and preventing them from editing in less problematic areas. Tulzscha (talk)

C was my intent. D, while attractive in that it is the clearest, is overly broad. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant C. I prefer a relatively broad scope here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming military and paramilitary groups are considered political of course. As they should be included in the ban. Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

...I don't read that as prohibiting non-administrators from closing sanction disucssions. It says, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, but doesn't say non-adminstrators may not. If that's the intended interpretation, the wording there should be clarified to reflect such. Regardless, I read the intent as B, but if we're re-closing three weeks later wouldn't oppose C. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I read it as requiring an admin to close if applying a sanction: If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for. That's prescriptive language: don't see a need for further wording. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 22 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.

Violation of NPOV

I’ll get straight to the point. The Wikipedia page of Bedros Kapamajian is subject to censure. A user is trying to remove my sourced edits which he tries to justify by linking it toWP:GS/AA. The problem is that this has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is an ottoman major of Armenian origin which lived between 19-20th centuries whereas the General Sanction status is about the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan (which they managed to link to 1915 events for a reason I still don’t know).

The user deleted my sourced content because he consider them to be only « denialists » one. Ironically, he even deleted a Armenian source along with french one (I am saying this because he’s certainly of Armenian origin and may have prejudices against Turkish people).

But I have to know something. Is Wikipedia a neutral website ? Isn’t a neutral website supposed to allow every point of view about a subject (especially when this one is controversial) ? Why this user (which is an « extender confirmed » one) close his eyes when it come to something that is likely not pleasing him  ?

If he has something to say against he must come with sources that says the opposite of what I gave (even though I don’t think he will be able to…)

I call for justice. Let me still hope for Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia… Bosphore9 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In lieu of any formal input, I'll draw attention to this edit by Bosphore9 on the Bedros Kapamajian page with this summary: Suppression of sourced contents without any valuable justification. This subject has nothing to do with Azerbaijan nor Armenia. Also this happened before the so-called "Armenian genocide" so it's nothing have to do with this. You can not delete sourced content like that. (bold emphasis mine). Departure– (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA is not limited to only 1915 and clearly applies to this article.

The article is also under extended-confirmed restriction, you would need to have 500 edits to be able to edit it, because of it's relation to a contentious topic. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I doesn’t. The subject has nothing to do with 1915 events nor Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. Why does the user from this community put the article to extended-confirmed restriction ? I guess that you know the reason. Even though I don’t have 500 edits I am not a newbie. Because he likely can’t contradict me with sources he’s using his power to avoid me to express. This is nothing but censure. Also as I said he even deleted an Armenian source (Kapriel Serope Papazian’s book). Does this user even consider Papazian as a « denialist » ? Maybe he does, I don’t know… Bosphore9 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

"Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction." (emphasis mine) The article is not required to be explicitly about the genocide or the Armenia/Azerbaijan wars to be subject to GS/AA. If you do not have 500 edits, you should not be editing that article, full stop, whether or not you think you're right. Ravenswing 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't want it to apply, that does not mean that it doesn't. The user you reported is not the one who put it in restriction, please stop making vague accusations about conspiracies.

You have 12 edits. You are a newbie, that's why you don't understand WP:GS/AA and how it applies.

Many people attended Mayor Kapamajian's funeral, including foreign consuls, Van Armenians, and residents of Van who weren't Armenian. He was buried in the Armenian cemetery in the Bağlar district.

After Kapamajian's assassination, all opposition to Dashnaks and their policies by Armenians ceased

Being assassinated by one of the sides in the conflict does indeed mean that the article is related to the conflict. Nothing in the restrictions say it has to be 1915 events specifically. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

From their talk page: I know that I don’t have enough edits to reach 500 but I’m a member of this website for years and I can assume that I’m not a newbie at all [...] I’m almost sure he will find a way to make me stop editing which is against NPOV principe of Wikipedia.

Bosphore9, sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee overrule community consensus and any individual editor. They are not bound to policy in the same way that editors are, and editors are expected to edit around their sanctions, in this case 500 edits / one month old account. The editing restriction is to prevent disruption and to help strengthen policies of verifications and the handling of consensus claims (per WP:V and WP:NPOV), and ArbCom has determined that restricting access to editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed, including Bedros Kapamajian, is the best outcome to uphold this. You don't have the edits required to work within this sanction. The page should be formally protected per CTOP, though. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: applied ECR protection. I'll note the OP's edit susmmary This subject has nothing to do with Azerbaijan nor Armenia. and part of the edit ARF leader Aram Manukian and his ARF fellows. 'Nothing to do with Armenia', though. Thanks for demonstrating why ECR is applied to this CT, I guess? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we just circle back to this edit summary which is pretty unambiguous genocide denial? 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

83.121.2.172

• 83.121.2.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Though they did edits under IP 83.121.2.172, it seems like they posted, using IP 89.196.90.237, on the Talk Page of IP 83.121.2.172. Pibx (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range at IIHF World Ranking

An IP range has made repeated insertions of unsourced material at IIHF World Ranking. Please see the page history from May 19–22, 2025. The IP has justified its actions with baseless accusations in edit summaries that two separate users (User:Flibirigit and User:18abruce) are the same. page history

List of involved IPs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:DF3:2680:A00B:7:0:0:200
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:DF3:2680:A004:4:0:0:169
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:DF3:2680:A004:4:0:0:170
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2401:C900:2001:6E:0:0:0:B

Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that they are inserting editorial, and unsupportable, commentary into a sourced section. Edit summaries, to me, confirm that they know the edits are not valid and that there is no defence of them, but they are continuing anyway. However there is valid criticism of what the IIHF is doing. If the IP would conform to working with others I would welcome adding it, in the appropriate section, if their is some source that helps.18abruce (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

indef me and user:Seattle

Can you indef me and user:Seattle? I am User:Seattle but I did a WP:CLEANSTART. I edited articles affiliated with User:Seattle as TIG, namely Mark Baldwin (baseball), Chris Gragg, Billy Bates (baseball), Mike Capel, etc (I'm sure there are more).

I also keep getting emails that someone is trying to get into the Seattle account.

Sort out my arbcom restrictions and see if this violates that too.

Not sure if this violates CLEANSTART or not. Anyway, I'm out. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you log in and confirm this as user:Seattle? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw Seattle hasn't edited since 2017. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I knew Seattle hadn't edited recently as the editor identified themselves as a cleanstart account. But they still might have access to their former account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not touching the ArbComm piece of this, but out of an abundance of caution I have blocked Seattle as potentially compromised given @Therapyisgood's comments above about someone trying to gain access. If this needs adjusting, feel free to do so without consulting me. Star Mississippi 01:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That seeems completely wrong to me. We should never block an editor who isn't editing on the say so of another editor who only claims to be the same person. Meanwhile the editor who actually asked to be indeffed is not blocked? Fram (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

And in general an account isn't compromised because someone tries to gain access surely? Fram (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My logic was that how would they know someone was attempting access if they didn't control Seattle's email account. No objection to an unblock. I didn't touch Tig as I'm unafamiliar with their Arbcomm restrictions. Star Mississippi 13:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

But we only know someone was attempting access (which in itself is meaningless, may be annoying but not a sign of anything else) from the claims of Therapyisgood. Since when do we block an editor based on unverified claims from another editor? Fram (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

For potential compromise, I don't see it as an issue but anyone is welcome to unblock. Star Mississippi 00:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: There is more than enough confirmation in the arbcom list archives that you have access to -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't interested in pursuing this confusing request, just offered my thoughts when it was originally posted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

DataNomad is WP:NOTTHERE

ok, lots of stuff to unpack here. So when I was scrolling thru (Redacted), I found this nationalist edit ((Redacted) archived link just in case they delete the video) where a user named "(Redacted)" claimed to have created an article on a Kurdish massacre which resulted in the deaths of 60 people. Then, out of curiosity, I went here to read about that event and to see who this editor who creates nationalist edits from Wikipedia articles that they create on Wikipedia is. I found the article (Sulaymaniyah massacre) and it was created by DataNomad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I went to their user page, and it was created but was empty. I opened the userpage's history [58], and would you look at that, DataNomad's old username was Kuripenjwen. I don't see how a user who creates pages on Wikipedia just to make edits about them on (Redacted) is doing any good here. I'm in the middle of going through their article creations, and multiple articles made by them are already nominated for deletion, with others already deleted, most notably their Deportation of Iraqis article. That is not to mention the fact that he stated on that video's description that his account is (Redacted) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your input but, i make pages so that history or stuff can be remembered. Or so people can discover new topics, and the Sulaymaniyah massacre is indeed real i used reliable sources to back it. I do not understand what your goals/point is here by commenting this, just because me and this person are both from Penjwen it does not mean we are the same person. And if someone claims to be me or something similar i dont understand how this can be used against me. I do not glorify any harmfull actions etc DataNomad (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen’s assertions appear to be based on statements made on another website by someone claiming to take credit for edits performed by your account, and are not based on your geolocation _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The first half of your message implies that it is you who runs that account, and the second half of it is denying that it's you. But in reply to the affecting your wiki career part, it very much does have lots to do with that, you literally created an article just to post it on your TikTok. The fact that lots of your articles here are about anti-Iraqi sentiment (just like the posts on your tiktok) and the list of articles that you've created [59] (and then deleted) has 5 articles that are deleted now, and 3 more are listed for deletion for the same reasons says a lot. Not to mention the fact that your TikTok profile has a link to a Telegram channel where you post gore. Also, would you look at that, the video I linked got taken down from tiktok. Anyways ill be sending an email of the archived link to arbcom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You’re jumping to a lot of conclusions. I’ve just been trying to write about stuff that doesn’t get much attention. What someone says off-Wiki isn’t proof of anything here. Thanks DataNomad (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to express concern based strictly on this user’s on-wiki behavior. There’s a visible pattern of creating or heavily editing articles in ways that promote a narrow political narrative — often with weak sourcing and a confrontational tone toward certain ethnic or national groups. This kind of editing undermines neutrality and violates core Wikipedia principles. Regardless of what’s happening off-wiki, what matters here is the disruption and the intent behind these edits. Wikipedia shouldn’t be used as a platform for activism or propaganda, and this case deserves serious administrative attention. R3YBOl (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Without having dug through diffs much yet, DataNomad's responses here are concerning. When multiple articles created by them have been successfully nominated for deletion, we're way past the point where I don't see the issue is an acceptable response. They need to engage with the criticism that editors are raising. Repeating over and over that they don't understand the problem is just going to end up being grounds for a CIR block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have my own input on this.

First of all, yes DataNomad absolutely does run the tiktok account (Redacted), and I've seen him post stories about the new pages he has made (such as Sulaymaniyah massacre). As for his pages, as has been said many pages have been deleted or nominated for such, but I'd also like to judge how he makes these pages. In other words, for many of his pages he grabs maybe three to five sources and makes a page, doing the bare minimum to not be deleted. It's clear he makes pages based on nationalist views, and does not bother to learn, by which I mean his pages tend to have made-up sources, the sources don't support content, unreliable sources, duplicated sources, etc etc, something that if he did care for the platform he would've tried to avoid by now.

So overall, I strongly support this decision. Setergh (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why it’s being made out like I’m trying to do something wrong. I just make pages on stuff I think should be covered, and I use sources that are solid. If something needs fixing, that’s part of editing — I’m always open to that. Yes my articles have been deleted in the past since i was new to editing i had no clue about what i was doing, although now i am getting used to it, and i have improved. DataNomad (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're getting used to your articles being deleted, then there is still a problem with your editing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If "sources that are solid" include made up books and websites (like whatever "yazidigenocide.com" is), then I think Wikipedia needs to start fresh. Setergh (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've sent an email to arbcom with the archived tiktok link 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Has already been done before, and it resulted in not requiring intervention, therefore there's no point. Setergh (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen, I sent this issue to ArbCom in detail via e-mail but they told me to take it to ANI, you acted faster than me, anyway, Kurdish activity has increased incredibly in recent months, 3 separate cases like this were on ANI since last month (I started one of them) and now this user already has a CTOP notice on their talk page. Let's see what will happen Kajmer05 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

For the record, here is the reply that was sent (I can publish this, as you have declared you had an exchange with ArbCom on this topic and it was me that replied):

Thanks for your email. The Committee has reviewed the evidence you've provided, and assessed that the conduct here does not rise to the level of requiring intervention and/or sanctions at this time.

If there is disruptive editing not relating to the off-wiki evidence, you are welcome to present this at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents> for review by the community and administrators.

Emphasis isn't in the original, for the record, but worth highlighting now. A general statement to all in this thread: please only focus on the on-wiki evidence here. Daniel (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll help outline the problems:

• Pages drafted: Draft:Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration, Draft:Barwar massacre
• Pages deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deportation of Iraqis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Kocho killings
• Currently proposed deletions: Dağlıca ambush (2015), Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016), Khole Piza
• Pages with major problems: Battle of Haj Omran (1966)

If this isn't problematic, I don't know what is. Especially paired with the fact that all of these are pro-Kurdish, many of them involving humanitarian crimes or war crimes and the fact that he spends his time flexing these events on tiktok, there is no way this user wants to contribute to Wikipedia in a fair way. Setergh (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have already put battle of haj omran into draft since it needs working on, the daglica ambush article itself has no problem, the issue is that there is already a page which i didnt know about. Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016) is well sourced i dont see the issue in this. DataNomad (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You cannot claim your pages are perfectly fine where there seems to be lots of criticism around them. The Daglica Ambush page was also criticised for POV forking, and the expulsion page is criticised for not passing notability guidelines. Either way, no point in further arguing, better to wait for others to assess the situation. Setergh (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Saying “I don’t see the issue” doesn’t address the fact that the original article was deleted for clear policy reasons — likely due to sourcing, neutrality, or POV pushing. Reintroducing the same content under a new title without consensus or substantial improvement isn’t acceptable. R3YBOl (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes i did improve it? This article Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016) is an improved version of Draft:Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration because someone on wiki recomended that i could make it. DataNomad (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016)... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

What you did was reuse the same sources from the previously deleted article "Deportation of Iraqis", mirrored the approach in your Draft:Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration, and then bundled them all into Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016). That’s not meaningful improvement — it’s repackaging the same POV content in a different wrapper. R3YBOl (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Because the first one is about Expulsion of Arabs under the KRG in all times while the 2016 one is about just that year as the person who nominated it for deletion recomended that i could make it into a seperate article. I also added a few more sources, with more and accurate info DataNomad (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

One aspect that seems inconsistent in the discussion of the Draft:Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration is the claim that "those displaced by the KRG were relocated to other KRG-administered cities". This raises questions about the characterization of the situation as displacement. Could someone clarify how this movement qualifies as displacement if the individuals remained within KRG-controlled areas?  Zemen  (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay this is so funny. @Suraya222 has admitted that there is meatpuppetry in play here 😭🙏 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The page history at Bedir Khan Beg also suggests that there may be an overlap with broader sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdîmHeval, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MHD1234567890, and/or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tishreen07. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I cant believe that the TikTok algorithms foiled a meatpuppetry farm 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It could also just be a confluence of activity on a contentious topic, I don't think we can quite jump to conclusions yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

oop. Maybe 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Skimming those cases, I'm not seeing a match with the behavioral quirks identified in recent reports; maybe a more thorough investigation would turn something up. At this point, however, I think there's significant cause for concern even when just looking at the quality of edits and editors' ability to engage constructively with criticism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Suraya222 for one week for DE which is an extant issue independent of the SPIs. No objection if someone thinks a longer block is needed. Star Mississippi 01:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

crazy — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

What are you even Talking about?? Some guy asked what is the "The American Missionary Dr Grant" Source and I gave him proof of what is this source, and you're Yapping about Meatpupperty or idk what??? Suraya222 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen if you are talking about the “there are other People I know, who also Knows this Battle, and even Made the Page better “ that I said, This only means that other people knows it, And by "made the page better" They didn't change no Source or anything, I am still a beginner at making pages in Wikipedia, And they just Made the Page better, they didn't change any source or Anything Suraya222 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• After reading through this entire complaint, I see a lot of accusations but not much tangible proof especially regarding an association with off-wiki accounts. If you have evidence of those accounts existing and affecting activities on this project, then that is information to send to ARBCOM as it can't be dealt with at ANI. If the main criticism is of POV or problematic content or sources, then let AFD determine whether these articles should stay or go and I encourage editors interested to make an effort to thoughtfully participate in these discussions. I must say though that I'm still unclear on what is the connection between DataNomad and Suraya222 which isn't spelled out here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that Daniel above shared the reply ArbCom sent to the private evidence that was sent to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought there was additional information since that note was sent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User:GirlScout28

• GirlScout28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has persistently been adding wrong wikilinks across dozens of articles. While not all their additions are incorrect, in my brief audit of their edits it's enough to be considered disruptive and careless and possibly a WP:COMPETENCE issue. They're mainly adding links to TV writers and/or directors and are just assuming if someone has a same or similar name as someone with a Wiki article, then they must somehow be the same person. Please look at their talk page where issues have already been addressed. I've come across dozens of mistakes after just briefly going through their edit history. Even after posting on their talk page, they did not reply and continued to add wrong links. Some examples:

• List of Yellowstone episodes - adding a link for "Ian McCulloch" to Ian McCulloch (actor), a Scottish actor born in 1939 obviously did not write an American TV episode in 2019
• List of Treme episodes - adding a link to a person that died in 1968 that somehow directed a 2013 TV episode
• List of Deadwood episodes - adding a link to a person that died in 1950 for someone who wrote a 2004 TV episode
• [60] - multiple wrong links added to this article which I fixed

They need to cease adding any further links until they correct all their previous mistakes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked from mainspace. Communication is not optional. Star Mississippi 01:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Deliberate behaviour like this drives WP:BPAT participants up the wall. Narky Blert (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Little Chinese Engine - refusing to engage in discussion

Before I start, I’m holding my hands up right now that I breached 3RR without realising until it was too late… so first question - what’s the best course of action… leave as is or self-revert my 4rv?

The Little Chinese Engine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around for a while now (since late 2023). In that time, they have made precisely zero edits to the User Talk namespace, and no meaningful edits to Talk namespace save for some cosmetic changes and page moves. There have been numerous warnings left on their talk page, including for edit summaries (16% is a rotten score IMHO).

Recently, they have begun edit warring and continue their refusal to engage.

Note that I am including the IP editor 37.248.177.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here, as I strongly suspect it is the same editor logged out (same editing pattern, editing in the same areas, and their edits started at the same time as The Little Chinese Engine fell silent).

• Line 10 (Xi'an Metro): Infobox image change, which was reverted by myself. They reverted back to their preferred image with no edit summary or discussion. Two more reverts by the IP - [61] and [62]. This is where I’m wanting to come clean and admit I broke 3RR, for which I’m open for a trout slapping and advice on how to make good the mistake.
• British Rail Class 701 - Infobox image change, again reverted by myself as in my opinion it was an inferior image. Again, re-reverted with no edit summary or communication.

I’ve left a message on their talk page, which has been summarily ignored… How do we get someone that chronically ignores talk pages to engage with the community?

In terms of my own conduct, I agree I’ve been too aggressive on reverting some of these image changes - I’m very much open to advice on how to better handle these things. Danners430 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Since you caught yourself violating 3RR, self-revert the violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wilco. Danners430 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Self-RVed and started a discussion on the talk page, which they should really have done themselves per WP:BRD, but I’m not in the mood to argue. Given their track records with using talk pages, the reason for my opening this ANI, though I’m not optimistic about them actually engaging. Danners430 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to get some advice on getting the user to engage in discussions? So far no response at all to the talk page notification... Danners430 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from articlespace (for 72 hours) to encourage them to come here and discuss. Communication is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Given their sporadic editing history (frequent gaps of a week or more) and that they haven't done anything since the 17th, I'm afraid the 72 hour time of the block is unlikely to be sufficient. I'm suspecting that English is not their primary language which may be why they refuse to communicate. This is an editor I've noticed a few times doing questionable edits but that's the extent of my interactions with them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This may be a controversial opinion, but not using English as your first language shouldn’t be an excuse not to engage in discussions… this is after all a community project Danners430 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is a valid excuse at all, I'm just speculating as to why they refuse to comment. In any case, the block has expired now and this editor still has no activity since May 17, so the block appears to have failed to encourage any change in behavior. An indef partial block will likely be needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Applied an indef pblock, hopefully they'll notice it before this section rolls off the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Pointed legal threat

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

---

User:2600:1700:8544:9810:9CC4:1E6C:F96B:7BB0 legal threat, mild, talk page. Augmented Seventh🎱 23:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Clear enough. Gave the IP a 1-week vacation. As with any legal threat involving BLP issues, please make sure the article involved does not violate BLP rules. Sometimes the legal threats are about real issues. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:36, 25 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.

Appeal of block. Unjustly blocked

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

---

An admin on Azerbaijani Wikipedia called Wertuose blocked me and accused me of engaging in edit wars for listing scandalous incidents regarding a government institution using government and non-government sources. Here's the article, you can check the numbers of sources in the history: https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Attestasiya_Komissiyas%C4%B1_(Az%C9%99rbaycan) Then another admin called Nemoralis deemed it wrong and unblocked me. Yet I was immediately blocked again and the article was placed under protection. Wertuose clearly has agency regarding the institution. They are unfit for the neutrality principle of the site. I can't even edit my own page now.Dazai0 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has no control over the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. --Onorem (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this project has no authority over what happens at Azerbaijani Wikipedia. There is nobody here who could override an administrative action there. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Onorem@Simonm223 What could I do about it? Dazai0 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. Because every wiki sets its own standards the process for appealing an administrative action at the Azerbaijani Wikipedia may be very different from that here. And I don't read Azerbaijani so I wouldn't even know how to direct you to the correct resources. I'm very sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there somebody with the highest authority whom I can talk to? Like if admins decided to go full pro-gov on Aze wiki, somebody will necessarily step in, right? It's not like Aze wiki is the fiefdom of Azerbaijani admins Dazai0 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The place that looks after all WMF wikis is Meta:. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Should I appeal in blocks/locks section? Dazai0 (talk) 13:15, 23 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.

Disruptive IP range across television articles

• 2A00:23EE:16B0:7D23:2D76:A5B:FE7E:6D11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23EE:2570:7D4:F881:401D:5955:D07B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23EE:19F0:3AA:A183:9E8E:131B:3854 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These IPs and likely others, part of the range 2a00:2380::/25 (not sure how blockable that would be...) has been disruptively editing across many television articles, most recently with me needing to revert their edits removing reliable source(s) from articles. We certainly should not be removing sources supporting things such as titles, airdates, etc. This will only lead to more possibilities of vandalism in the future, only making it more difficult to figure out what is/isn't correct. In addition, this IP range tends to add sections for future television shows' seasons WAY too far in advance, such as here. As noted at MOS:TVUPCOMING, "When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that season until such time as an episode table can be created." - adding hidden sections when the upcoming television season is months away and has virtually no information currently to add to the article is pointless.

Additionally, given their editing behavior and looking at the articles they've been editing, I'm suspected to believe this may be block evasion of 82.46.25.83, which is currently blocked as a result of an ANI literally just a month ago, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Long-term abuse (gaming the Article for Creation process). Pinging YoungForever, the original filer of that ANI, to here as well, as I believe they may be more familiar with this than I am and may have more useful information to share here.

Either way, these IPs are just disruptively editing across all these television articles, and if a large range like that is unable to be blocked, I'm not sure what more can be done here apart from just continuing to revert their disruptive edits. Should also be noted that the currently-blocked IP doesn't appear to be their first, as they appear to have been at 82.43.61.158 in 2024, and there are likely many more IPs I have yet to come across. For all I know, the best solution might just be to create an WP:LTA report/case regarding this (if there's not one already existing that I'm unaware of), keep an eye out for any related IPs, and revert as necessary. Magitroopa (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging asilvering, 82.46.25.83 maybe IP hopping, evading block. They are all in Birmingham or near there. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

And indeed, they're even working on the same drafts. Good thing I left them. Thanks for the ping. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem. They may IP hop again. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Bronson Fotiadis1 and AI use

• Bronson Fotiadis1 (talk · contribs)
• Universe of Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While browsing edit requests, I came across this talk page request from User:Bronson Fotiadis1, asking to add a couple of links to a new Star Wars article they had created (they had previously added them but were reverted). I checked the article and noticed a bit of a disconnect from its polished state and the somewhat unpolished manner surrounding the edit request. After looking through their contributions, I became reasonably sure they were using AI to at least some extent in their article creations (beyond using it to find sources, which itself is obvious from the numerous URLs in the Universe of Star Wars article's references that end in "source=chatgpt.com").

I decided to do some verification checks on the offline sources in the article, of which I have access to two. Of the nine times those two sources are cited, every single one failed verification, and most of the cited pages were not discussing anything close to what they were supposed to be supporting. Only then did I notice that yesterday Bunnypranav had added an {{ai-generated}} template to the Universe of Star Wars article, which Bronson Fotiadis1 removed and noted on the talk page that all information references verifiable sources (well, no) and I will continue to make changes to this page so that it matches the appropriate Wikipedia style, which, to be fair, they have continued to do (one edit summary reads in part, removing any " hallucinated information" with reliable sources).

After I asked on their talk page, Bronson Fotiadis1 admitted to using AI, though only For much of the "in-universe" information, and said This is the first I have used AI for drafting an article, both of which I doubt. They have since said For now, I have purchased the books you said had failed verification (so that I have full access), so that I can make the right changes, which considering those are only two of the many offline sources in the article that very likely have similar issues, makes me concerned that they still don't grasp the scope of the issue. Having previously read about some of the issues we've had with users spamming LLM articles, I figured I should bring this case to the community's attention to decide what should be done. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

If they listened to your concerns and went out to buy books to fix the errors, I don't think anyone needs to do anything. This seems like it's on the ideal path. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Does this page have to be nominated for deletion? I hardly think this is the appropriate response. Bronson Fotiadis1 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sock puppetry - Elizium23 self-reporting

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

---

Greetings!

A few months ago, an IPv6 editor explained how, after an indefinite block was imposed by @Salvio giuliano, Elizium23 deliberately lost access to his account credentials. He can no longer log in.

Elizium23 has continued to edit as a WP:LOUT. His ISP is Cox Communications in Phoenix, AZ. The corresponding IP ranges are:

• 98.186.216.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) — blocked by @Ohnoitsjamie for LTA.
• 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) — appears to encompass all edits since 10 March 2025. Please block per WP:BE
• 2600:8800:1E96:E900::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) — blocked in 2024 by @Ponyo and @Bbb23.
• Every time my Chromebook sleeps, or I use my Pixel phone instead, the IPv6 SLAAC reassigns a new /64 (Interface ID).

Elizium23 has not attempted to create a new account, not here, and not on any other WMF project. Elizium23 has strictly been using IP anon editing facilities. Elizium23 affirms having no intention to appeal his blocks. Thank you. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:BB97:C6B6:3F48:558E (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

For background context: see this diff on User talk:GloryToCalifornia.

This thread seems rather bizarre to me. The IP who posted and signed it, is in that current 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00::/64 range listed above. And they are apparently admitting that they are User:Elizium23 themselves evading their block by logging out??? — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am admitting.

As an IP anon, I am unable to directly create the SPI report.

You may refer to User:Elizium23 where he has personally documented prior ISP-assigned IP address ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:AEE9:5AA:59DF:2D42 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

HMU if you need me to compile behavioral evidence. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:AEE9:5AA:59DF:2D42 (talk) 12:32, 24 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.

Vandalism by Leninscat

The following discussion is closed. 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, and thank you for helping me in address this issue. On the Wikipedia page for Haz Al-Din, Leninscat (talk · contribs) has continued to insert their own ideological perspective, violating NPOV, and continuing even when asked to stop on the talk page of Haz Al-Din. They have ignored everything that I have said that establishes pretty basic stuff like "yes, there can be mention of the American Communist Party having an elected official because even non-partisan elected officials can count. See the Wikipedia page for the Green Party." Despite me acting in good faith and trying to resolve this with Leninscat, they have completely ignored what I have actually said, gone on ideological diatribes, and reversed my edits which were just me fixing the page, thus failing to reach consensus, and vandalising the page. They have also accused me of being a conspirator of the American Communist Party. They refuse to listen to reason from me.

One other example is that they kept on changing the name of the American Communist Party on Al-Din's page to "American Communist Party Inc." This is just bizarre though, as other political parties like Reform UK have previously been corporate entities before, but it did not change their in use party name at the time. Any party is referred to by its organisational name.

Additionally, Leninscat has only edited on Wikipedia pages about Haz Al-Din or directly related ones. ApricotAvalanche037 (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• At the minute this looks like you are simply informing of a content dispute, which is not something you should be doing. If you are coming to ANI, you need to provide diffs of edits where you think Leninscat has broken the rules and an explanation which relates them to a specific policy of wikipedia. It looks to me like you would be better to go down the route of a Request for Comment on the specific differences you have on content of Haz al-Din related pages.

Having had a quick look at the pages in question, it gives me a sense of nostalgia to see that the American left of the 2020s has the same penchant for circular firing squads as the British left of the 1980s and 1990s.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever Leninscat has been doing here is not vandalism, and should not be described as such. The only wrongdoing by anyone here is to edit the article before a conclusion has been reached to the talk page discussions. I have no knowledge of the content dispute, but do know that Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable sources say about the subjects, not Wkipedia editors, and I know to my cost that communists can be very conservative. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism here either but I am putting the Haz page on my watchlist - looks like it could use some TLC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 24 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.

Editing on Azercell

• Azercell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this covers multiple noticeboard topics, so I'm posting here hoping it works as a catchall.

Over the past year, various IPs and users have tried to erase unflattering information from the article on Azercell, an Azerbaijani telecom. User:Thenightaway first added this OCCRP investigation into the telecom's ownership by the ruling family in January 2024 (diff). Since then, there have been many attempts at removing those sentences by different accounts, notably:

• May 1, 2024: (diff) by 93.88.83.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Jul 11, 2024: (diff) by Almazique23 (talk · contribs · logs), with the edit summary "Azercell’s public image is very crucial issue for us as it has direct impact on how our customers, partners and other stakeholders perceive us."
• Jul 11, 2024: (diff) by 93.88.84.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Dec 14, 2024: (diff) by 176.216.124.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Dec 29, 2024: (diff) by Sofi289 (talk · contribs · logs)
• May 11, 2025: (diff) by 5.191.90.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the false edit summary "The article doesn't mention any reference that would confirm the veracity of such statement ..."
• May 12, 2025: (diff) by 5.191.112.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the false edit summary "Removed information not justified by any reference."
• May 16, 2025: (diff) by Farhadibra (talk · contribs · logs), with the edit summary "OCCR supported references are strongly biased and are the subject to political propoganda."

Some or all of them presumably have a conflict of interest. For example, User:Almazique23 works for Azercell, judging by the edit summary above, and all but one of the IPs geolocate to Azerbaijan (with some of them having Azercell ISPs).

The latest tactic is to assert that OCCRP is secretly a state-funded mouthpiece of the US government, which actually has basis: see this Mediapart investigation. Normally I would say User:Farhadibra has a point, but considering the page history I think this is a bad faith argument. His LLM-generated talk page message (diff) inaccurately states that it was replaced with a neutral source covering the same topic, mis-applies Wikipedia policy, and does not mention Mediapart's conclusion that the quality of [OCCRP's reporting] is not in question here.

What is the move here? Is this an RSN problem, COI problem, SPI problem, or something else? Iiii I I I (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I want to clarify my position and address the points raised.

First, I’d like to emphasize that I am not making a blanket claim that OCCRP is a "state-funded mouthpiece" or questioning the quality of its journalism in general. I fully acknowledge that OCCRP has produced important investigative work, and the Mediapart article rightly emphasizes this.

However, Wikipedia policy requires not only that a source be of high quality, but also that it be appropriate for the context in which it is used, especially for politically sensitive or potentially defamatory statements.

My key concerns are:

Funding and Perceived Bias:

According to OCCRP’s own funding disclosures and public records, more than 50% of its budget is funded by USAID and other Western government agencies. This is a matter of public record, not conjecture.

Furthermore, in a White House-published document outlining U.S. foreign policy strategies, OCCRP is explicitly mentioned as a tool for advancing "pro-democracy narratives" in target regions. That raises fair concerns about editorial independence in cases where their reporting intersects with U.S. strategic interests.

I will make changes in order to restore information which is aimed to provide objective POV, please consider that.

Wikipedia Policy:

Per WP:RS, state-funded sources can be used with attribution and caution, particularly when they report on topics related to their funder's geopolitical interests.

Also, WP:NPOV advises avoiding undue weight from sources that may have a conflict of interest — especially when used to make assertions of wrongdoing or political connections.

The replacement source I added was selected because it does not have known direct affiliations with state-funded agencies. I'm open to further improvements if someone suggests a more balanced or higher-quality citation — but using a source funded by a government that has a political interest in the topic should at least be discussed carefully.

I am happy to revisit the wording and ensure neutrality, but I think it is not unreasonable to expect attribution or context when using such sources.

Kindly ask you to review the following document where it is being mentioned that OCCRP work is comprised of spreading disinformation for political reasons. Testimony by Michael Shellenberger for a hearing on “Eliminating Waste by the Foreign Aid Bureaucracy” before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on February 13, 2025 Farhadibra (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely pblocked Farhadibra from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would like to raise a specific and well-documented concern regarding the editorial neutrality of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). In 2025, OCCRP named Indonesian President Joko Widodo "Person of the Year in Corruption." This designation was made without any formal charges, court rulings, or independent investigative corroboration. The methodology reportedly relied on anonymous internal polling, including Google Forms.

The announcement sparked serious criticism from Indonesian civil society, political analysts, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Political scientist Faisal Chaniago of UIN Jakarta called the designation "unscientific, biased, and damaging to the country’s image without a legal basis." Even liberal-leaning Indonesian media questioned the objectivity and purpose of the report.

Source: Okezone News (Jan 1, 2025) – "Penilaian OCCRP pada Jokowi Disebut Tidak Ilmiah dan Bias"

While OCCRP has made notable contributions to investigative journalism, this incident illustrates that its editorial decisions are not immune to political bias or methodological flaws. In contexts where neutrality is paramount—especially in politically sensitive articles—OCCRP should not be treated as an unquestionable source, and its use should be carefully scrutinized under WP:RS.

I also want to note that the removal of OCCRP-linked content from the article in question did not introduce promotional language or favor any particular party. On the contrary, it brought the article closer to a neutral point of view, in line with Wikipedia’s core principle of WP:NPOV. No claims were added that glorify or sanitize the subject; the removal simply prevents undue weight from being placed on a source with contested neutrality. Farhadibra (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Coolcolney and AI-generated edits/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.

---

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

This user has added a lot of obviously AI-generated content - replete with fabricated sources - to articles (or created AI-generated articles) today. Examples:

1. This edit to Bilkhawthlir
2. Creation of the article West Phaileng (I have since trimmed the fabricated or unrelated references and the information cited to them; I request a review of whatever is left, since I have not checked everything)
3. Creation of the article Mat River, Mizoram (I have since trimmed the article)
4. Creation of the article Aizawl Adventist Hospital, which was earlier deleted at AfD. I checked the three sources cited in the article and found that they did not exist

And so on. I encountered this user's creations in course of new pages patrol, and gave them a notice after cutting out most of the Mat River article's content. Their response to was add back more AI-generated content (with additional non-existent references) to the article. I then gave a second notice, which was followed by this edit - again, clearly AI-generated. At this point I found that the editor had made several large edits of this style today, and spot checks on a couple of articles indicated that those edits had also been made using a LLM. I issued a final warning at this point, which was followed by the user blanking their talk page.

While I wait for a response from Coolcolney, I want to bring this user's edits to the attention of the community, due to the large volume of potentially problematic edits, so that the content they have added can be checked properly for issues. Due to the large number of edits, I am unable to check all of them myself. JavaHurricane 20:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a longstanding user with several thousand edits who suddenly started making major changes to articles today. I checked one (Special:Diff/1292022419) and found they were using Wikipedia as a reference and included non-existent links, which I assume are LLM hallucinations. Sounds like they found LLM and are liking it. I will block from p-space: communication is mandatory, and to prevent further damaging edits. I've invited them here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

User just blanked their talk page, including the warnings and block notice from today. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It's looking worse and worse. They made a huge number of very large edits and many page creations in the last 2 days. Not humanly possible to personally write that much stuff. I've tagged as LLM and moved to draft the new articles and reverted what I could. There are a large number of suspicious edits that cannot be reverted, as someone else has edited the page in the interim. Can anyone go through and review those edits? I believe there is a lot of damage remaining. I've also blocked user from draft and from page moving until we get good answers. Blanking their user page is not a good answer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed (and reverted) some additional edits; but plenty remain to be checked. JavaHurricane 22:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted a few, there seemed to be one particular village that kept coming up, along with a tourism board link. And yes, that's an astonishing number of edits for two days. Does the rollback tool work better for this? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I rolled back every significant edit that I could. When there are subsequent edits, rollback is unavailable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is how wikipedia ends if we don't introduce automatic LLM checking. The amount of damage one person has done here in a day is astounding.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  +1, as the kids say. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia hasn't been able to correctly implement 2fa in over a decade. They'd be much better off providing a byte limit for new users than joining the AI race. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks to all who have worked to revert these edits. If it were possible to ban someone twice, I would do that in this case.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Posthumous execution. EEng 05:03, 25 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.

Drbonjing

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

---

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

Account is being used only for promotional purposes. WP:NOTHERE and have a conflict of interest of their own to advance anti-Members Church of God International activism. Their username is a reference to a founder of the new religious movement Daniel Razon (DR), and "bonjing" is a moniker which could be pejorative. User has only created attack pages to Bagong Henerasyon and other tangentially related pages (Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr. and DV Boer Controversy) by synthesizing valid reliable sources along with their personal commentary and self-published blog site https://www.mcgiexiters.org/

They are blind to their own conflict of interest, that it goes both ways not just to anyone perceived to be affiliated with BH and MCGI. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not a waiver to freely add content to expose corrupt politicians, businessmen, or cults.

I have cleanup their edits on Bagong Henerasyon. To their credit they have proposed excluding the MCGI Exiters source on a "proposed draft" but I've told them it won't do cause of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues. (diff on my talk page - May 20). Also they started an older ANI on May 20 when they tried having the Bagong Henerasyon blocked from editors who are perceived to be pro-MCGI/BH. Nathannah has rightfully told them off for trying to shoehorn MCGI Exiters which is a non-neutral source which depends on Reddit and other testimonials from former MCGI members.

However the creation of Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr. (diff) and DV Boer Controversy (diff) both on May 25 still insisting on including the MCGI Exiters citations demonstrates intent to expose the relevant subject matters using MCGI Exiters exclusive expose or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

The user's response on the Bagong Henerasyon talk page therefore could be concluded to be a compromise cause the user concerned "got caught". They still continue with their WP:POVPUSHING using poor sources (MCGI Exiters) and support their own editorial commentary using valid sources (WP:SYNTH) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Would like to add that I think they may have used an LLM to write that ANI as well. Haven't looked at their edits so can't say the same about them though. »Gommeh 14:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked Drbonjing (talk · contribs) indefinitely for not being here to build an encyclopedia and for persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy. The repeated use of undisclosed LLM-generated text in articles and talk page discussions falls under two examples of WP:NOTHERE: "General pattern of disruptive behavior" and "Dishonest and gaming behaviors". The emoji in Special:Diff/1291291455 is a telltale sign of LLM usage, as is the excessive boldface and misuse of title case in Special:Diff/1291835491. — Newslinger talk 18:53, 25 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.

Continued disruptive editing by IP

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

---

213.172.241.121 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 December for 3 months for disruptive editing, with the last edit made before their block being to blank a large section of Antisemitism in Russia with an edit summary of "fixed error".[63]

Shortly after the expiry of their block the IP returned to "fix more errors". Removal of sourced content, removal of mention of Jewish ancestry, removal of mention of Jewish ancestry, removal of mention of Jewish ancestry, removal of sourced content, removal of sourced content, removal of sourced content. All with edit summaries of "fixed error". IP was warned[64][65][66] after the expiry of their block three times, then made this edit today, earning another warning. The IP appears stable, I think another longer block would be a good idea here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Almost all edits were reverted; most edits violate NPOV--emphasizing Russia over other nearby countries, obscuring Jewish heritage, etc. Blocked one year. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:55, 25 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.

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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

---

• JohannaWyatt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 23:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Non-cooperation and disruptive editing

User @AE182 has been making questionable edits to the Operation Herof 2.0 page. I edited and asked him to come talk with me in the talk page where we could come to an agreement [1] but they did not come and proceeded to revert my edits and not cooperate.

What is even more stranger is that two other accounts by the name of @123btm and @12345btm made the exact same edits as AE182, and are new accounts made at the time of the edits. Which makes me suspect that there could be a case of sock puppetry here. [2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVagabond (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Ukrainian election vandalism again

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

---

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

Hello, I noticed this user adding unsubstantiated dates for Ukrainian elections ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]). A similar thing happened with a different IP at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#IP_user_re-adding_unsubstantiated_dates_for_next_Ukrainian_elections. This user also has several warnings on their talk page about vandalism to other articles, particularly Ukraine-related articles such as United News (telethon) and Leonid Kuchma.

Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for three months because they have been blocked before and are hitting the edit filters with unexplained number changes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:00, 26 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.

Range block requested on East London IP editor

• 2A00:23CC:E806:E01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

All edits from this IP range are changes to East London articles that started on 10 May. They're mostly boundary or definitional changes about which area of London a particular street or building lies in, focused on a small part of East London. No sources or edit summaries are given, and so far 18% of these edits have been reverted by different editors for being inappropriate, unexplained and/or incorrect.

2A00:23CC:E806:E01:16C9:2A23:C1D5:F099 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2A00:23CC:E806:E01:11B2:69D0:E4EF:729A (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2A00:23CC:E806:E01:BDB8:1F56:A315:1D4A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:23CC:E806:E01:5B45:DD73:3AA8:F02B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have all received warnings for this. The last two IPs received level four final warnings.

Today, these edits are continuing under 2A00:23CC:E806:E01:85B0:3DA7:98A6:377F (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

This person may be deliberately ignoring talk page messages and hopping to different IPs by choice, or they may be oblivious to talk pages with their IP simply being changed automatically every time they log in to their ISP. Either way it seems like a short block on the IP range would be appropriate to get their attention. Nobody else is recorded as ever having used the range. Belbury (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive harassment on my talk page

Hi, I believe this is the right place for this - but I have a cross-wiki troll who is venting their frustration with my administrative actions on the English Wikibooks and English Wikiversity by leaving "retired" and "deceased" templates on my talk page here. Please impose a protection on my talk page, thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:RPP is the correct place, but no problem: I’ve semi-protected for one week. Go to WP:RPP to request again if vandals come back after protection ends. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Just noting, Atcovi, that your WikiMedia User page states that you are Retired. When you don't have a User page on a project, this is the page that appears. So you might want to edit this page since it's your default User page, it's the user page that appears on this English Wikipedia project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Sagatorium

The following discussion is closed. 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 several years, Sagatorium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made unsourced edits to NFL roster templates and player positions. Several other editors have repeatedly told them that they do not have consensus for these edits which contradict sources. Sagatorium has made other edits that they have been repeatedly informed are against the MOS and are grammatically incorrect. They frequently respond to correction by calling the user trying to help them a "bot" or by complaining about being "bullied" or deprived of their "free speech", and have continued their disruptive editing.

Diffs of users informing Sagatorium that their NFL edits are improper: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

Diffs of users informing Sagatorium that their preferred (lack of) hyphen usage is incorrect: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]

Sagatorium attacking those who correct them: "Ya'll are just looking to pick fights with me." "These are picky people who wanna pick and choose the players" "You really are picky about everything" "Ok, bot" "You aren't a person. Leave me alone, bot" "How many times are you gonna be a bully to everyone. Go bug somebody else, you bot" "You and (user) must be tag teaming to get people that are trying to contribute." "You people are so picky and are now pro censorship and anti free speech." "Now I know you're one of them that will gang up on me or whoever else you wanna pick on"

Sagatorium edits from the last 24 hours improperly changing player positions on NFL roster templates: [110] [111] [112] [113]

Sagatorium edit from the last 24 hours improperly deleting a hyphen: [114]

The community has been extremely patient with this user, but unfortunately they seem to have no intention of stopping their disruptive editing. This is my first time having to do this, so please let me know if I've done anything incorrectly. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that @Hey man im josh: has been trying to counsel @Sagatorium, so I’ll ping him. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Rsjaffe, I've been extremely patient with them, and I've given them so many instances of where they were providing incorrect information... But they've just accused me to of being AI or other silly things. If this user won't communicate properly, and continues to push unsourced information, we don't really have much of a choice but to eventually block them unless they're willing to cooperate with others on the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yet mods get to determine what's deemed disruptive editing. It's subjective. If edits are unsourced, that's fair. In the past I have forgotten to back up some of my edits with a source and some of those times I took the correction and even thanked the mod for correcting me. Now you mods are just picking and choosing how I have responded to mods who were even being picky, bullies that insist on having the way they want. Sourced material is more than fair. Anything outside of that is subjective. Any human has the right to be critical of the mods responding back and questioning if they're real. Mods today could actually not even being human because AI has taken over. I'm learning that maybe I am talking to humans on the other side. Sagatorium (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that you are describing editors who have to spend the time to correct the errors you keep putting into articles as being 'too picky' and 'bullying' you because you don't think getting things right is as important as they do?

That may not be the best way to approach being reported here for disruptive editing. From a quick look through all of the warnings on your talk page, I see that you refer to 'depth charts' for your sources very often, but other editors do not consider them to be reliable sources. One possible way forward, instead of complaining that admins are asking you to follow the rules, would be to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and start a discussion there asking if the policy could be changed to allow for using depth charts. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Depth charts are sources of information about teams and players. I'm following them as sources to back up my claims of position changes. Depth charts are put in place to where teams will play their players on game to game basis. These mods are nitpicking that source. Again, it is being too picky. I think I'm challenging these mods and you can deem me as a complainer or a disruption when I'm doing my best to follow the guidelines on this website. Sagatorium (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that Sagatorium has been informed that depth charts are generally explicitly unofficial and should not be used as the sole source to change a player's position. OceanGunfish (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add that while depth charts show how a team currently ranks a player in terms of their chances of getting on the field, they don't show whether or not the team considers the player to have an alternative position and can sometimes be too specific. A player who is listed as the team's second-ranked right guard might be just as capable of playing left guard, but they wouldn't be listed there because teams don't list players twice in their depth charts. However, Sagatorium lists them as "RG" because that's where they're listed on the depth chart. It's ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sagatorium: Are you aware that about half of the NFL team's depth charts explicitly state that they're unofficial? It makes far more sense to take the officially listed roster position than to take the position from a depth chart which states it's unofficial. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sagatorium I looked at your latest template edit here. It doesn't have an edit summary, and doesn't seem supported by the existing links on that template. Can you explain your rationale for that change? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Justin is an outside linebacker in the Cowboys' 4-3 defense. He's too light too play MLB Sagatorium (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This is usually considered original research unless you have reliable sources to back it up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that Sagatorium is still continuing these edits, here and here. OceanGunfish (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this together @OceanGunfish. I think you're right, we've been extremely patient with this user. In many other cases, a user would have been blocked for being disruptive and using WP:OR. I get the connections they're making in some cases, but it's not for us to make these guesses and assumptions. We have to go by what's officially listed in relevant places. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 User blocked In the interim, I've partially blocked Sagatorium for 1 week on the template namespace, namely due to continued edits in the same disputed area while this discussion is ongoing. It can be removed/reduced/increased based on continued discussion here. The OPs report on attacks need discussion, as there are WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC) It's also unclear if edits in the article namespace are also an issue.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, just before the block Sagatorium brought these edits into article namespace, changing Jim Parker's position at Indianapolis Colts from "OL" to "OT" with no source even though he's listed as both tackle and guard on his page. (Parker has been retired since 1967 so Sagatorium can't even gesture at an unofficial depth chart on this one.) Not to mention the user's message they left for you on their talk page. OceanGunfish (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

They've been changing positions on a lot of past seasons as well. Fact of the matter is players on the line sometimes play multiple positions over a season. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

More unexplained, unsourced changes to player positions in article space. It seems this isn't going to stop. OceanGunfish (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Noted. There is a concern with main namespace going forward too. Their lack of responsiveness and other behavior also goes against WP:CIVIL:

Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.

We can see if others have suggestions on how the community should proceed. They've not made more related edits in a couple of days, and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, so a bit of hope that this is resolved. —Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are a bunch more from this morning: [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]

While it hasn't been discussed as much here, the deletion of hyphens is still continuing too: [129] [130] [131] OceanGunfish (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A partial block was too generous. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

He responded to the temporary block with a personal attack accusing the admin of dictatorship and censorship, and saying the rest of the admins are "evil".[132] I'm mystified why they were not given an indef at that point. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Noting that he continues to modify player positions... seemingly failing to recognize and respect that there are players who have played in two positions. [133][134][135][136]

I think, at this point, we should move forward with an indef. They're making articles less accurate, refusing to listen to feedback, and not providing sources for the changes that they've been making. It's been going on for years now, and there's no signs of it getting any better. The disruption needs to be stopped. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Background Sagatorium's previous block was an edit warring case, similarly over a football position being changed from the generic defensive back to a more specific position. They were partially blocked on one article and one template page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that that was me that made that report. It seems that their issues regarding attitude and WP:CRYSTALBALL have been a problem for quite some time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 22 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.

User:Fiction Fanatic III

• Fiction Fanatic III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regularly uses misleading edit summaries (such as "Grammar", when the edits are anything but). Has received several warnings on their talk page, which they have seemingly ignored. Seasider53 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Other than the incorrect edit summary, I don't see any actual issues with this edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Everything about that edit reads as proper editing, including cleaning up the source. And the lack of clear diffs here (I tried to trace your 'final warning' to them from the 20th but didn't see where it was cross-examining between each of your contribs) definitely does not help at all. Meanwhile this first warning diff from the 14th definitely didn't deserve a warning (adding links, merging a duplicate source, and removing abbreviations) and they were doing proper cleanup. Nathannah • 📮 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Seasider53: This silent final warning removal/summary snark is not appreciated; FFIII should expand their summaries for sure, but what I said above is not cause to just dismiss ANI comments entirely and try to disappear the issue. Please provide the other diff. Nathannah • 📮 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism in article Medical abortion

The following discussion is closed. 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 some vandalism happening in article Medical abortion. I undid two changes, but I have to go do some IRL stuff, so I cannot keep monitoring it. Can some admin protect the article with "Pending" or something? Or maybe block the vandal-editor? [PS: I'll be off WP for several hours, so I cannot immediately reply to questions.] Noleander (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

There were two promotional edits (which you reverted) by a single editor who has been blocked. I've added the article to my watchlist temporarily. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 26 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.

Subtle IP vandal adding non-existent future events

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

---

2607:FEA8:FE00:7DEF:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been adding non-existent future dates/events [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] to children's entertainment/theme park/animation related articles. I attempted to warn them here, and were previously warned here, but no dice.

I previously monitored this user on an adjacent /64 2607:FEA8:4E5C:C500:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) (same editing pattern, this range stopped editing when new range started) and previously warned them there, but also no dice.

Requesting a /64 block of the active range. Parksfan1955 (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRAVEL? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The content inserted by the user isn't verifiable even as a rumor. This diff [142] when quote searching "Universal Cartoon World" only links to this fandom article about fictional theme park ideas. [143]. Or this edit [144] adding ship names for future Disney ships. "Disney Hollywood" and "Disney Paradise" show zero related results when quote searched. [145] adds "Mickey's Birthday Carousel" as an upcoming attraction in 2028, which again returns zero results. Parksfan1955 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:FE00:7DEF:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 26 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.

User:M1rrorCr0ss disregarding long standing convention to mass-move articles without consensus even after being warned

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

---

M1rrorCr0ss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had, on 15th May, moved List of members of the 1st Lok Sabha through 18th LS to the format "List of MPs elected in the yyyy Indian general election" disregarding the fact that the articles list all members ever elected to that sitting of the parliament across its 4 years (including by-elections). I warned them at their talk page to use WP:RM or discuss beforehand at WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics before making radical changes like this.

Yesterday, they moved a total of 208 pages, typically of the form "nth [state] Assembly" to "[state] Assembly, yyyy–yyyy session", without any discussion. Even the summary "Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator" is canned and doesn't explain the moves performed. Their moves not only disregard longstanding convention used by the concerned Assemblies themselves, they also disregard longstanding Wikipedia convention of identifying legislatures by ordinal numbers. Furthermore, it fails to recognise that the whole 5-year term is not a single session, but that every year is typically divided into 3 sessions: Budget, Monsoon, Winter, with provisions to enable the state Governor to call emergency sessions when appropriate, which means that one full term Assembly actually has 15 or more sessions.

I hope that they meant well, but their total disregard of all conventions and standards when moving articles is causing considerable damage to Wikipedia, and also to those who have to clean all the mess after its done. I request that M1rrorCr0ss be banned from moving any page, and that they be required to go through WP:RM for each one of their moves. Thank you. 14:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Edited: —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, they should have stopped moving pages once you objected. Not that it is an excuse for their behavior, but they are a fairly new user, since April 2025. If they won't stop voluntarily, then sanctions may be warranted. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@M1rrorCr0ss: Doing moves BOLDly will be subject to reverts and potential sanctions, so I'd suggest you stick to RMs with discussion to avoid that. I'd suggest taking a look at WP:RMCM; it has instructions on how to request a move on multiple pages in a single nomination. Departure– (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this — I’d like to offer some context behind the moves I made and also clarify a few points that may have been misunderstood.

Let me start with the Lok Sabha article renamings. The main reason I moved those pages from titles like “List of members of the 1st Lok Sabha” to “List of MPs elected in the [year] Indian general election” was because I believed it would improve clarity and accessibility for a broader audience. Most casual readers — especially those unfamiliar with the ordinal numbering of Indian legislatures — are more likely to search for and understand a title that references the election year, rather than “18th Lok Sabha.” This is a common editorial choice on other Wikipedias as well. For example, in the UK, there’s “MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election,” and in the United States, “Members of the United States House of Representatives elected in the 2020 elections.” These articles, just like the Lok Sabha ones, continue to include by-election winners and members who joined mid-term. The title simply reflects the legislature as shaped by the general election, which is what most readers associate it with.

On the issue of state legislative assemblies, there seems to be a concern about my use of the word “session” in page titles like “Punjab Assembly, 2022–2027 session.” I want to be very clear here: I was not referring to sittings like Budget or Monsoon sessions, which happen within each year. I was using “session” the way it’s used in many established legislatures — to mean the full legislative term. This is not unusual. In fact, U.S. state legislatures regularly use “session” to refer to multi-year terms. For example, the California State Legislature refers to its full term as the “2023–2024 session.” It’s a standard naming convention in many places, and it’s accurate in context.

I understand that in India, the term “term” might be more commonly used than “session” for a full five-year assembly, but “session” is also perfectly valid — especially in a global encyclopedic setting where consistency and recognizability matter. The goal was to modernize and standardize titles in a way that aligns with global practice while making them more reader-friendly.

There was certainly no intention to disregard consensus or disrupt existing structures. I acted in good faith, believing that the existing naming conventions had room for improvement and that these changes could be helpful. That said, I absolutely understand the need for discussion and will be more careful to seek wider input in the future. If the consensus is to revert or adjust, I’m happy to help with that too.

But I do hope that this explanation makes clear that the changes were thoughtful and informed, not careless or disruptive. I’m always open to collaborating to find the best possible outcomes for Wikipedia and its readers.M1rrorCr0ss 15:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Not another Chat-GPT answer please. There is no such article as Members of the United States House of Representatives elected in the 2020 elections, its your LLM hallucinating. Secondly, Indian state legislatures are not situated in California, and fwiw even the US Congress terms are ordinally numbered, eg, 118th United States Congress. And in any case, these titles are not written in an archaic variety of English, your moves do not "modernize" the titles whatsoever, that's another Chat-GPT garbage point. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This response at least contains I absolutely understand the need for discussion and will be more careful to seek wider input in the future, which, AI generated or not, should be taken as accepting responsibility for finding consensus for any future moves. This does not preclude any potential direct page-move sanctions, however, especially given previous warnings (could you link the diffs for those, CX Zoom?). Departure– (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1290551927#Please stop making disruptive page moves. "I’ll be more careful with moves like that going forward and will go through proper discussion or RM". —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that. I found this in the revision history, them removing the notice, which means they've seen and acknowledged it (with or without the AI-generated response), but the removal came before another large batch of undiscussed moves. I'd be in favor of sanctions as they've been given more than enough WP:ROPE in my eyes. An AI response saying they'll stop does not in any way mean they've proofread or have any intention of actually stopping, so for that, I'd support a ban from directly moving pages for now, with any potential moves needing to go through RM discussions from now. That's what they said they'd do before and it's now disrupting the project. Departure– (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that the controversial moves came after @M1rrorCr0ss agreed to go through discussion or RM first, I have blocked them from moving pages to prevent further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

User:M1rrorCr0ss creating articles with fake sources, possibly with LLMs

The following discussion is closed. 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:M1rrorCr0ss was just here above for undiscussed page moves, but the problems go deeper.

• 10th West Bengal Assembly - Five of six sources don't go anywhere, the sixth (#4) doesn't go to the claimed content.
• 11th West Bengal Assembly - Of six sources, two link to nothing, two link to content that doesn't match the cite
• 12th West Bengal Assembly - All sources go to different material than claimed to link to. The four links to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly official page go to member lists for other assemblies.
• 13th West Bengal Assembly - The first cite actually exists and goes to relevant material. None of the other five do.
• 14th West Bengal Assembly - None of the six links go anywhere.

CX Zoom requested that M1rrorCr0ss not use AI in ChatGPT [146]. M1rrorCr0ss assured that they were using Grok, not ChatGPT [147]. M1rrorCr0ss then stated that they would take a break and rethink how I contribute — no AI, just me [148]. They also admitted using AI in articles when when the section(s) are missing or creating the full infoboxes. Of course, in replies to the "big" editors [149].

And it's not just words. Gorkhaland Territorial Administration#Geography is clearly AI-written, easy to tell even before seeing 100% on GPTZero.

I don't think M1rrorCr0ss should be in article space right now, and think they should be restricted to making edit requests until they learn how to contribute sourced information, not merely mass generate low-quality AI-written articles that pass muster on the surface until you realize they're sourced from nothing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think M1rrorCr0ss should be posting anywhere if all this is true. Since thy have already acknowledged they are using AI text generation tools, I've blocked them for one week to allow all this to be evaluated properly. I suggest an indefblock as a result of this, and a mass-rollback and mass deletion of all their edits and article creations. They also seem to be still blithely unaware they are doing anything wrong - we need to make policy on this very clear, as this looks likely to happen more often in future unless it is stopped. — The Anome (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

A sidenote: this editor has fewer than 500 edits, not the 2330 they claimed in talk [150],[151]. It gets ever harder to AGF here, and this looks more and more like a breaching experiment. — The Anome (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

2,449 live edits according to XTools. Is it wrong? (I agree with everything else you wrote.) Zero^talk 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a speedy delete tag for AI-generated bullshit? If not, could one be added? Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Anome Respectfully, I am confused about that part, as the link you provide does show several pages of edits on my end, and their XTools page does count 2,331 edits on English Wikipedia. Of course, that doesn't change anything about the blatant AI use problem. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You are quite right, I mis-read the contributions output. — The Anome (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome. Having seen more and more of this over the last few months I have come to the conclusion that we need to ban AI from LLMs completely from both articles and discussions. Anything less that this seems to be used to justify its use. This is probably the most urgent issue facing Wikipedia, because the horse is bolting right now and it is getting harder and harder to get that stable door shut. LLMs have their place, but that is not on Wikipedia. Anyone who wants to know what an LLM has to say about a topic can ask it directly without using Wikipedia as an intermediary. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting watching the editor in question trying to weasel their way out of this on their talk page. They are quite an experienced debater, and not the naif they claim to be. At this point, I suggest an indefblock and total reversion of all their contributions: do others concur? — The Anome (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The Anome, I saw where you sent their articles to AFD. It's unfortunate that we have to clog up the system discussing obvious garbage like that. A speedy delete for using AI would, pardon the pun, speed up the process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we have consensus here that these articles are a vandalism/hoax combo, so I will now speedily delete them as such. Since we have a horrific 2000+ edits to clean up now, the more page deletion of pages by them the better, at this point. — The Anome (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Given they all scrape the 'pedia, the potential for multi-layered AI citogenesis is very real and not a little scary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention model collapse. I'd also mention that AI-slop-bombing would be quit an effective way to poison Wikipedia and undermine it as a source of truth. — The Anome (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

In a very real way, far more damaging than blatant childish vandalism. Someone changing the name of a prominent politician to Farty McPoopface will be caught and fixed nearly instantly. A plausible sounding sentence that coudl be real but is completely hallucinated can silently fester. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that Wikipedia now has well-resourced adversaries who would like to take it down, or, from their point of view better, to discredit it. Stopping this now should be high on not only our priorities, but also those of the WMF. I've blocked User:M1rrorCr0ss indefinitely - this sort of behaviour should result not only in blocking but a WP-wide community ban. — The Anome (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I really feel for the admins who patrol the unblock requests and have to sort through a billion requests that acknowledge that [my] past edits may have violated Wikipedia's policies and promise to contribute in a constructive, policy-compliant manner and ensure [my] edits adhere to the standards expected. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:26, 21 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.

Cleaning up after User:M1rrorCr0ss's mess

User:M1rrorCr0ss has made over 2000 edits to Wikipedia, and it looks like a significant number of them were LLM-generated bullshit (see above). We now need to do a mass cleanup of the damage, and a short enough time has passed that simply reverting every article back to the last known M1rrorCr0ss-free revision, and simply deleting the article if M1rrorCr0ss created it, should do the job. All their page moves also need to be reverted. If all they've done is to create an infobox, that would also suffice.

Having said which. this is an absolutlely massive chore.

Where should this be orchestrated, and are there any automated tools that could help? — The Anome (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been busy offwiki recently but before the above thread had been opened and closed, I had been keeping an eye on this user and seen some DATEVAR changes which I had cleaned up. Didn't think to spotcheck any of their added sources. Willing to help with cleanup in whatever way I can. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

They added dates in MDY format in an Indian article because they had been using Grok all along. I wonder if any of their sources actually work. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The only answer at this point is mass-deleting everything they've ever added, and it's a huge amount of work just doing that. — The Anome (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I had been cleaning up their page moves since yesterday. But since there's so many of them, I could only handle half or so. I will handle the rest today. But, a mass-move-revert tool restricted to admins (and possibly page movers) will be welcome. Currently, I had been fixing all of them by hand. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted most of their moves, and while at it I reverted their edits on such pages. I did not touch around a 7-8 moves that were actually constructive and abided by Wikipedia's guidelines. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The central project for cleaning up AI-generated content is Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup (WP:AIC). I've posted a message on the WikiProject talk page at WP:AINB § Request for cleanup assistance at ANI. — Newslinger talk 12:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll take a look at the situation this evening if there is still stuff to clean up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It took a while, but I think almost all of M1rrorCr0ss's edits in article space have been reverted. I'm not sure how to approach redirects that they created, so I've left those alone. --bjh21 (talk) 13:38, 24 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.

Multiple violations - Nitroerg542

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

---

Greetings. User Nitroerg542 has been actively reverting mine and another editor's edits and engaging in grossly uncivil behavior on talk pages. He claims I alongside another other editor, Governor Sheng are engaged in a "fascist and genocidal campgain of dehumanizing the Bosniak nation along with genocide denial, teaming up with other fascist and genocidal Wikipedia editors under the fake guise of promoting NPOV." Both mine and his edits I do not believe violate any policies in the slightest, and the edits he accuses of promoting "genocide denial and fascist Wikipedia vandalism" are simply most of the time edits to opening paragraphs to, for example, follow MOS:CRIMINAL. Thank you. Srpska1992 (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how this edit follows MOS:CRIMINAL? Ratko Mladić is a convicted war criminal and his war crimes are a large contributor to his notability. He got more coverage while on trial, being convicted and during the appeal, than he did as a military commander. Arrest [152], conviction [153] [154], conviction upheld [155]. Therefore calling him a war criminal in the WP:LEAD is WP:DUE per MOS:CRIMINAL.

ANI isn't a place where editors side with whomever made the report (although it seems that way sometimes). I think you are at least partially in the wrong. I haven't checked your other edits, Ratko Mladić's name just jumped at me as he is known worldwide primarily because of his war crimes. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, and thank you for the response. I do think the half of the opening paragraph covering his conviction is enough. Both of the examples in MOS:CRIMINAL perfectly fit the article. Both of these:

"Booth was a noted actor of his day, but his theatrical fame is far eclipsed by his notoriety as an assassin."

"Fualaau was not notable prior to her crime, but establishing her profession first gives helpful context."

The former helps plenty. Ratko Mladic was not well-known globally as commander of the VRS prior to his arrest, but establishing his role in the war first gives helpful context.

I would also like to add that this is only one of many edits made by him that fall under my request. If you go deeper into his edit history, you can see that the vast majority of his edits fall under WP:NOTHERE and WP:POVPUSH.

"ANI isn't a place where editors side with whomever made the report (although it seems that way sometimes)."

And I am not presupposing that it is.

Thank you. Srpska1992 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I only looked at Ratko Mladić because the name stood out to me. In this edit you remove "war criminal" descriptor from the first sentence, but Slobodan Praljak is referred to as a "war criminal" by WP:RS in their own voice [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] (and so on).

I'm not saying you're in the wrong or Nitroerg542 is in the wrong. This is a content dispute and looking at two (admittedly cherry-picked) examples, Nitroerg might have a case for some of the edits.

On the other hand, this comment by Nitroerg is not OK and at the very least they should be warned/reminded of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Srpska1992 main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be whitewashing details about the wars in former Yugoslavia.[162][163][164] A tban from the topic area is at least required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You cite three summaries rewording article content (that mind you retain information on war crimes perpetrated by the groups) and see this as proof that my main purpose on Wikipedia is "whitewashing details about the wars in former Yugoslavia." These edits do not "whitewash" their crimes in any way. In addition, the content of these edits mostly come from the Sebrian Wikipedia's pages on the respective topics. While I do not attempt to invoke a whataboutist argument here, may you also look at Nitroerg's edit history? Srpska1992 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Defining someone as a war criminal goes against MOS:CRIMINAL, no question about it. Mary Kay Fualaau who was known to the public exclusively because of her felony was shown as an example. Ratko Mladić or Slobodan Praljak might be known to some people as exclusively war criminals. However, both of them were notable military commanders, and in case of Praljak, post-war businessman. If this rule is applied to Fualaau, it should be applied even more to Mladić and Praljak. On the other hand, @Nitroerg542 accuses editors rather lightly and clearly has some agenda here. Governor Sheng (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed this, this, this and this edit by @Nitroerg542: "GovernorShang is engaged in a comprehensive fascist campaign of covering up the Ustasha genocide and dehumanizing Bosniaks", "Shang and Srpska - your fascism and genocidal intent is poorly masked by your purported NPOV attempts", "GovernorShang is engaged in a comprehensive multi-page campaign of dehumanization of the Bosniaks along with genocide and war crime denial of Croatia fascists during the Bosnian War. His edits are not in good faith and follow a Croatian fascist pattern" and "fascist Ustasha GovernorShang engaging in a campaign of Bosniak nationhood denial"... Really? --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

If you observe GovernorShang's edit history, almost all of the recent edits are focused on denying the Bosniak nationhood by reducing them to a religious (muslim) community - an old, widely known and washed up tactic of fascist actors in the region that have perpetrated at least two genocides against Bosniaks, because by denying the Bosniak nationhood, you deny their right to a nation state i.e. a homeland - this has been done throughout the 20th century and continues to this day as regional actors continue with their hostile campaigns.

I will not maintain that I didn't make errors in terms of Wikipedia rules, but I do ask for some understanding because as a Bosniak, with a very intimate knowledge of all these decades if not centuries long attempts of the destruction of the Bosniak nation, I have zero tolerance towards those narratives that have contributed to mass deaths, genocides, rape campaigns etc.

The same goes for Srpska1992. Just observe his concerted campaign of covering up the existence of a notorious rape camp Vilina Vlas near Višegrad. Just because fascist Republika Srpska authorities after the war are doing their best to cover up the crimes of mass rape, opening up the spa after the war without mention - this would be like opening up a WW2 concentration camp as some other legitimate business, as an attempt to cover up the genocidal crime. I'm not even going to comment on their other edits - the campaign of Bosniak nationhood denial, war crime and genocide coverup its unmistakable.

In any case, I express the most severe suspicion and doubt in the purported neutrality and good faith of aforementioned users. I remain convinced that they are abusing Wikipedia as a propaganda tool in a campgain of dehumanizing the Bosniak nation especially towards Western audiences, another washed up tactic aimed at the destruction ot the Bosniak nation. Nitroerg542 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

All three users informed of WP:CT/EE. Sesquilinear (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Nitroerg542 for one week for personal attacks and harassment, specifically for repeatedly calling a fellow editor "fascist" and "genocidal". My block does not mean that I consider the behavior of the other parties in this dispute blameless. Ethnonationalist POV pushing is a plague on this encyclopedia. The question of how much weight to give a criminal conviction in the opening section and the lead of a biography of a living person is fraught, especially in cases of ethnically motivated warfare. Editors are reminded that our role is not to push an ethnonationalist point of view but rather to cooperate and collaborate to create content written from the Neutral point of view. That is a core content policy and adhering to it is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 25 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.

User talk:MyEnchantedLeader

The following discussion is closed. 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 first thought this was a newbie with some WP:CIR issues (see older reverted edits or User talk:MyEnchantedLeader, but after seeing how they created File:Andile_Lungisa.jpg and added it to an article here, I think it is just plain vandalism we can do without. Note the original image here, which they just photoshopped or AI altered, creating a copyvio plus a BLP violation. They did the exact same thing, though more subtly, with File:Julius Malema 2025.jpg (also added to article) taken and altered from this. Fram (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know that AI images are not allowed on Wikipedia, please help me instead of punishing me. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

MyEnchantedLeader, well, now that you know, you can always tag pages that you created and were the sole contributor for speedy deletion, either CSD U1 for pages in User space or CSD G7 for pages in other namespaces. If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies, just bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Noted, I will do that going forward. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 17:20, 26 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.

Surprise, surprise. A new account, "SouthAfricanPhotographer", then uploaded new images of South Africans to Commons as "own work" (sounds familiar), which MyEnchantedLeader then immediately added to the articles (e.g. File:Thabo Mbeki latest.jpg, uploaded 02.27, added to article 02.35[165], but also another). The socking is Commons' problem, the continued insertion of copyrighted works into our articles only hours after this ANI was started and closed is ours. Do with it what you want... Fram (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

142.126.191.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has persistently posted personal attacks and incivilities past a fourth warning. First offense on Talk:Amo (Bring Me the Horizon album). Further offenses: [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]. Anerdw (talk) 22:53, 26 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.

Concern Regarding User:Skitash – Persistent Reverts, Ignoring RSN and Consensus

It is unfortunate that I have to bring this forward, but I believe User:Skitash’s pattern of behavior warrants administrator attention.

Despite prior discussions and a resolved RSN confirming that certain sources (of the same nature as the ones recently removed) were reliable ([174]), User:Skitash has continued to remove Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) and/or Tifinagh script from Moroccan administrative region articles:

[175] removed User:176.3.37.247 addition.

[176] removed User:Lankdadank addition.

This occurred even after consensus had been reached-just a few weeks ago-to include SMT in the lead and infoboxes of articles of the very same nature, since Morocco recognizes it as a co-official language alongside Arabic.

The same user previously carried out a mass removal of Tifinagh script from relevant articles without consensus. These contribution lists, for example, are all from a single day-one day-all purged: [177] [178] [179]

I had hoped this was done in good faith. However, the behavior has persisted, including repeated deletions of sourced additions by other editors, and wikilawyering around multiple Wikipedia policies to justify removals. For example: [180] and [181] which was originally added by User:Aguzul. In the earlier-referenced talk page discussion of oriental region, the user repeatedly shifted from one WP rule to another to oppose inclusion, even when the sources had already been deemed reliable ([182]).

This ongoing disruption appears to violate WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:IDHT and possibly others, and is stalling legitimate improvements based on policy and prior agreement. I believe further administrator input is necessary to determine how to proceed constructively, as the same user has continued this behavior despite sourced additions being made by multiple editors. ElijahUHC (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This report concerns a content dispute and does not belong at ANI. I have acted entirely within Wikipedia policy.

"Despite prior discussions and a resolved RSN confirming that certain sources (of the same nature as the ones recently removed) were reliable" Yes, the RSN affirmed that primary sources can be used in some circumstances, but it also emphasized that secondary sources are needed to establish which Tifinagh name is correct. In the case of Oriental (Morocco), we were dealing with multiple conflicting primary sources that presented five different Tifinagh names for the region. Without a secondary source confirming which is accurate, adding any of them amounts to WP:OR. I've already explained that editors are not supposed to interpret ambiguous primary sources or decide which name is "correct," which is precisely why secondary sources are essential. Notably, you have repeatedly changed your stance in that discussion as to which Tifinagh name is supposedly correct,[183][184] which only shows the lack of verifiable consistency.

"The same user previously carried out a mass removal of Tifinagh script from relevant articles without consensus" That content was removed over a year ago and was entirely unsourced WP:OR. It was all was added by 85.148.129.62, a disruptive block-evading sock of the LTA known as Lala migos. Removing unsourced material added by a sock was appropriate.

This has never been about removing Tifinagh arbitrarily. As myself and multiple editors have pointed out, verifiable and reliable secondary sources for Tifinagh names are rare,[185][186][187] and the lack of consistency makes it extremely difficult to include them without violating WP:NOR.

I have cited MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV and WP:OFFICIAL for good reason: the former asserts that only "a single equivalent name in another language" may be included in the lede, while the latter states "The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: ... Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official." Skitash (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the "purge day" contributions. No? I see a lot of things you removed that weren't even from said user. Here are some of the first I opened:

[188]

[189]

[190]

[191]

As for the rest, I’ll leave it to the administration if they wish to read the article talk pages and the rest, since I believe they already show the entire issue. I apologize for not arguing each point individually, but I’ll do so if necessary-just trying to avoid making this incident notice too long to read. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute rather than a behavioral issue. R3YBOl (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, and I understand how this could be seen as a content dispute on the surface. However, I respectfully submit that this has gone beyond mere editorial disagreement.

While content is the trigger point, the pattern of behavior is the real concern:

Persistent reverts of sourced contributions from multiple editors, even after consensus discussions and RSN determinations were made.

Use of policy (e.g. WP:OR, WP:OFFICIAL, MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV) in a selective or shifting manner to justify removals, even when sources were comparable to those already discussed and accepted.

Ignoring or undermining consensus reached just weeks ago on similar articles, without reopening those discussions or seeking broader input.

Historical removal of large volumes of material without consensus, some of which was not from the block-evading user cited, as confirmed in my follow-up post.

If this were simply a disagreement over a single article or interpretation of one guideline, I'd fully agree this is just a content dispute. But the ongoing, systemic nature of the removals, lack of deference to community decisions, and dismissal of sourced input from multiple editors have created a disruptive editing environment. Editors feel stonewalled, and progress has stalled, does each user needs to name the same user who reverts these edits and go over it in each article for a new rule each time?

I'm not seeking sanctions - only asking whether administrators can facilitate a productive way forward, especially if standard DR methods are being circumvented or rendered ineffective due to entrenched behavior.

Happy to take this to a more appropriate venue if you advise it - I just want to ensure the underlying concern isn’t minimized due to how it's framed. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but I still don’t see evidence of misconduct here. The concerns raised appear to stem from policy disagreements and sourcing standards, not behavioral issues. R3YBOl (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

"Persistent reverts of sourced contributions from multiple editors, even after consensus discussions and RSN determinations were made" The RSN discussion did not affirm that the Tifinagh names in question were verified. It stated that government sources can be reliable for official names, but also emphasized the need for secondary sources to determine what is correct - and in this case, such sources are absent.

"Ignoring or undermining consensus reached just weeks ago" I'm not sure what "consensus" you're referring to, as multiple editors challenged the primary source you were relying on.[192][193] But even if some level of agreement was reached on Oriental (Morocco), consensus is not universal. It applies to that article.

"Historical removal of large volumes of material without consensus" Those removals happened over a year ago, involved unsourced content, and were made largely by a block-evading LTA sock. No concerns were raised at the time. I was enforcing WP:BLOCKEVADE and WP:NOR appropriately, as would be expected of any editor. Skitash (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You are not required to cherry-pick a single comment and selectively interpret it to dismiss the RSN discussion. The RSN reached a broad consensus-as seen in the thread I previously linked-that government sources are reliable for use in articles specifically about administrative regions designated by the same government. This includes official names of Moroccan regions, where Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) in Tifinagh is used alongside Arabic. Despite this, you have continued to remove such content-even after participating in that very discussion and being one of the users who initiated it.

Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, I urge you to revisit the linked Talk page and scroll down to the section where the issue was resolved. It was clearly established that both the government source and the secondary academic source are interchangeably reliable. If one is not available, the other is still valid for use in infoboxes and leads. This conclusion was supported by multiple editors and is publicly documented. I will not be repeating this if you reference another comment that was mostly a "concern" which was discussed later on the page.

Additionally, your removal of Tifinagh content spans a wide range of articles and contributors. These edits were not made by sockpuppets or blocked users, but by legitimate editors across different years-some as early as 2021, and others in 2024. On a single day alone (as shown in the linked contribution history), you removed over a hundred instances of Tifinagh on that day. This does not include the many additional removals you’ve made before and after.

Furthermore, I have personally experienced situations where you nominated an article for deletion immediately after a Tamazight addition was made, despite having never edited the article beforehand. A clear example of this behavior is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karima_Gouit. The deletion nomination came directly after the inclusion of Tamazight content, raising a concern from me about your pattern of behavior.

I would like to remind you of WP:NOTBURO — Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you believe there are issues with the accuracy or sourcing of a specific translation, the appropriate response is to raise the concern on the article’s Talk page or to help improve the sourcing collaboratively. It is not acceptable to unilaterally mass-remove content-especially from one specific language-based on speculative or shifting criteria. In many of these cases, your removals targeted sourced material.

You have been reminded multiple times that government sources are considered reliable for government-designated names. Yet you continue to violate WP:IDHT by reverting these additions on articles where prior consensus had already been reached in one of the very same nature, these edits you removed come from users you have previously debated the topic with.

This behavior is disruptive and runs counter to the principles of consensus, collaboration that Wikipedia relies on, it is not a place where you wikilawyer as many reasons (and move from one to another) to invalidate those additions. ElijahUHC (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

"you nominated an article for deletion immediately after a Tamazight addition was made" This is baseless. The article in question was rightfully nominated for deletion because it failed WP:GNG; there were virtually no reliable sources, and numerous editors duly voted to delete it. This report is trying to reframe normal policy-compliant edits as disruption. As @R3YBOl pointed out, this is clearly about content, not behavior. This just reads like an attempt to escalate content disputes to ANI because some edits didn't go your way. Skitash (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• If this discussion is truly about behavior, then I think it's worth looking at where the actual pattern is: the OP's contributions.
  The vast majority of their less than 400 edits show a clear single-purpose focus, centered on repeated additions of unreliably sourced Tifinagh text (in many cases anachronistically added to articles about ancient figures)[194][195][196][197][198] while simultaneously removing Arabic[199][200][201][202][203] in Morocco-related articles.
  They've also engaged in WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying editors aligned with their views,[204][205] (this includes stealth canvassing[206]) and have made efforts to cultivate a group of editors aligned with their perspective through a WikiProject (which gives the impression of WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior).[207][208][209][210][211][212]
  Looking at this, it becomes hard to not view their account as an WP:SPA. It also raises concerns of WP:ADVOCACY, since they seem to be editing to promote a particular political/identity-based POV.[213][214]
  Additionally, this is not the first time the OP has reported me (and others, such as @M.Bitton) for simply disagreeing with them. These repeated reports across numerous noticeboards, including ANI, AN, MOS, DRN, ARV, AFD, etc, began to resemble WP:FORUMSHOPPING.[215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222] Skitash (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I must respectfully address the characterizations made here, many of which appear to misrepresent both my intent and my editing history.

  your claims on WP:SPA and “single-purpose editing”

  Yes, I have a strong interest in Berber- and Tamazight-related topics - this is not unusual. Many editors contribute based on areas of expertise or cultural knowledge. That alone does not violate any guideline, and Wikipedia encourages editors to improve underrepresented topics. I'am new on wikipedia and developing, and I have made edits in other areas as well, though naturally fewer (less than 400 edits). The claim of being a WP:SPA is not a policy violation in itself and is being misused here as an insinuation

  your claims of “unsourced or anachronistic” additions

  Many of the edits you cited as problematic were open to further sourcing if flagged. No efforts were made by you to tag or improve them, only to delete. If any particular edit is genuinely problematic, I would welcome a talk page discussion or template tagging, not wholesale removal. If errors exist, collaboration-not deletion-is the solution. I continue to raise this issue.

  your claims that I removed Arabic?

  The diffs cited do not demonstrate bad faith removal of Arabic. In some cases, I raised valid MOS and language policy questions, particularly in language-related articles, not place names. None of the removals were arbitrary, and in fact, I have never removed Arabic from dual-language lead sections when both languages are official or contextually valid. These accusations seem exaggerated or lacking context. Please check the articles he listed, they are berber-specific.

  WP:CANVASSING / WP:MEATPUPPETRY

  The users I notified were those who had previously edited or expressed opinions on the same topics (berbers), The two i raised as the main last issue i reported in the first place, those users are the ones you've deleted their additions, i notified them, not hard to understand. This is consistent with WP:APPNOTE on appropriate notifications. Also, attempts to revive or participate in dormant WikiProjects are not evidence of bad faith or “recruiting” That suggestion is speculative and misrepresents community-building efforts as somehow malicious. Please anyone reading can go see for themselves who I have invited and read the report and judge if they are to be included or not.

  WP:ADVOCACY

  I stated that Berbers are not Arabs? that is a culturally and academically recognized position, what is the poltical issue here? I’ve not edited articles to insert political claims, but to include official language forms and naming - supported by Moroccan law, official government sources, and consensus in prior discussions. That is not "advocacy"; that is source-based editing in line with WP:DUE and WP:RS... What are you on about?

  WP:FORUMSHOPPING

  Issues were moved across noticeboards due to either process recommendations, requests by other users, or when initial venues proved unproductive (check them). This is not “shopping” for a favorable outcome, but seeking resolution when needed, as per WP:DR.

  Reports

  Yes, I’ve submitted reports - and yes, so have "you", infact you went as far as to report me for "sockpuppetry" [223], and again you reported me for sockpuppetry a second time [224]

  That’s how dispute resolution works. Reporting conduct is not retaliatory when it's done with clear grounds, and I’ve only done so when I believed behavioral guidelines were being disregarded. As I hope you have done with your reports.

  These accusations appear to be an attempt to divert attention from the core issue: a repeated pattern of policy violations, including WP:IDHT, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR. I remain fully open to collaborative editing, compromise, and clarification where necessary. However, the continued behavior, and now the deflection through broad off-topic accusations, only reinforces the need for administrator attention.

  This is not the first time that the discussion has been sidetracked to the point of becoming unreadable or unresolvable. For those interested, I encourage reviewing the prior report he cited as well as the relevant Talk page discussions, particularly Talk:Oriental (Morocco). ElijahUHC (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is not about other user’s behavior but about yours. Your explanations so far have been weak. 2A02:3037:46C:362A:49F6:5159:A80A:8770 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment For the records, other experienced editors have expressed concerns about Skitash's editing : [225].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s really interesting that in that case it was again @Skitash and the only user supporting him so far on this @R3YBOl how does that come? 176.6.55.173 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion may explain why that's the case. --Aguzul (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment concerns have been raised about Skitash's good faith regarding the removal of content in Berber, particularly following the discussion on Oriental (Morocco)'s talk page [226] [227]. --Aguzul (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Note R3YBOl, who was previously called out in a canvassing incident with Skitash (discussion), has commented on this report in a manner that presents it as a content dispute (diff). This may constitute further canvassing. --Aguzul (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Within 20 minutes of my last comment on this report, my (sourced) edits on two separate pages were reverted (diff1, diff2) with the edit summary "failed verification." --Aguzul (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Note More removals have occurred since the initial notice:

[228]

[229]

[230]

[231]

[232]

These, along with the edits noted by Aguzul[233], He repeatedly shifted between different policies to justify each revert-citing MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, WP:OFFICIAL, even claiming "failed verification" and in some cases providing no explanation at all. These reverts targeted edits by different users, and at no point did Skitash initiate a discussion on the article’s talk page.

-

Also, Skitash seems to misunderstand that Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) is a single, nationally standardized language. In a past objection, he shared personal views[234], citing unrelated issues in Algeria and claiming standardization is impossible due to dialectal variation-ignoring that SMT is standardized by IRCAM. It's also worth noting, without making accusations, that he has repeatedly mentioned M.Bitton in this context for over a year[235] [236] [237] (there are more), aswell as collabariting with him beyond it [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244][245] [246] [247] . despite M.Bitton currently facing his own conduct issues. [248] who previously also emailed editors during his block to make edits [249]. This is a point to note as he mentioned M.Bitton again during this report [250] ElijahUHC (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't canvassed. I was already reading another section on ANI regarding a different user. While refreshing the page, I came across this report and decided to take a look, especially since I’m familiar with Skitash as a generally constructive editor who operates in good faith. While reading user's report or concern, it didn’t seem to rise to the level of a serious conduct issue in my view. R3YBOl (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve read it, people suspect you of canvassing there yes. However, I prefer to assume good faith on your part. That said, it is quite questionable to be mentioned in a different dispute or talk page as possibly cooperating with another user, and then appear in an administrative dispute involving that same user on an entirely different subject.

-

However as i was writing this, I saw that you have even asked Skitash for his discord [251] ElijahUHC (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if I did ask for someone’s Discord, there's nothing inherently inappropriate about that. Editors sometimes reach out off-wiki for clarification, brief collaboration, or to ask a simple question or request. As long as on-wiki policies are respected. R3YBOl (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but given this thread this rather Sounds like meatpuppetry.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Dumpster Fire at Talk:Ó Comáin

There appears to be what started as a content dispute at Talk:Ó Comáin, but has collapsed into two editors accusing each other of violating Assume Good Faith, which often means that the accusers are themselves not assuming good faith. One editor is taunting the other to go ahead and file at WP:ANI and wait for the boomerang. The two main editors involved are:

• Kellycrak88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bastun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had no involvement with this dispute until I read a nomination at MFD of Draft:OComainDraft, which is an effort by Kellycrak88 to rework Ó Comáin. Bastun has nominated it for deletion as a content fork of the original article. At best, this has aspects of forum shopping. At worst, it looks like an attempt to "win" a content dispute by asking the regular editors at MFD to delete work in progress. I think that some of the regular editors at MFD have no knowledge of the details of this dispute and do not want to be have knowledge of the details of the dispute. A voice of reason in the MFD dispute is that of User:asilvering, who writes: This is the latest salvo in a content dispute where both sides have, for a long time now, continuously assumed the worst of each other, making it completely impossible to reach any sort of consensus.

Based on that comment by asilvering (and what little research I have done confirms it), this may be a chronic, intractable conduct dispute. I don't know what the community should do, but I don't like being asked, as a regular editor at MFD, to settle a content dispute arbitrarily by throwing away intermediate work. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Some background can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#User:Kellycrak88. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Further background can be found at Talk:Killone Abbey, where this all began in April 2024. 2024 is not a typo. -- asilvering (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yikes, looks like all three of these discussions referenced are dumpster fires. Not sure what the solution is, but it seems to me it is clearly disruptive to let this go on and on. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The Killone Abbey content dispute was resolved by May 2024, so not sure what the relevance is? Apart, possibly, from illustrating problems with reliable sourcing? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears to me that Kellycrak88 is suffering the same IDHT issues that they did in that previous ANI. Right at the start of that thread Bastun lists the issues that their edits are causing and instead of engaging, KC88 simply lists an alphabet soup of the policies they believe Bastun is violating, without much or indeed any evidence to show that. It doesn't get better from there. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

"One editor is taunting the other to go ahead and file at WP:ANI and wait for the boomerang"

KC threatened I do hope I don't have to refer this matter to administrators board but I will await your final response before doing so (in the same reply as a baseless personal attack Your reply clearly reflects a negative bias towards Gaelic cultural organisations) Bastun warns of a boomerang and asks that they instead use the talk page and get advice from their mentor. How is that taunting? Where in that exchange did Bastun [assume] the worst of Kellycrak? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's time to block Kellycrak88, there is no improvement since the previous ANI discussion, they are still adding copyright violations (text and images), POV text, misrepresentations of sources, and so on. User:Guliolopez may have some useful input here as well. Fram (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Clans of Ireland#Lead claims / Failed verification / SYNTH is the discussion with Guliolopez and Seor from this month. It ended okay, but reading it shows how difficult it is to get even the most basic things accepted by Kellycrak. Fram (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have told Kellycrak88, who is now personally attacking Fram at asilvering's talk page, to stop it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I edit conflicted, my post was this: WP:CIR: [252]. How they succeeded in reading my post and getting the exact opposite meaning from it is not really clear... Fram (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Response by Bastun. I confess to becoming frustrated with Kellycrak88's editing and what I regard as WP:IDHT behaviour. Given the other talk pages referenced, I am clearly not alone in this. Issues that are pointed out to them have been ignored; or, they are possibly acknowledged, but then get repeated anyway. That's illustrated by the various talk pages linked above, so I'm not going to repeat them again unless somebody wants diffs, but they include things like copyright violations, poor sourcing, including references that fail verification, and so on. As to the issue that prompted this report by Robert McClenon, the MfD: the draft article is a content fork. I know of nowhere else on Wikipedia (and I'm here a while) where it's acceptable that editors are expected to find, via a live article's talk page section, that there's also a draft article, and that they're supposed to work on the draft, too, as well as on the live article. I did advise them that this isn't how Wikipedia works and that POVFORKs were against policy. It was only after nominating the draft for deletion that I noticed the instruction on MfD Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article, but just redirecting would likely have been seen as more provocative. In any case, I absolutely have no objection to the inclusion of reliably sourced information on Irish surnames, families, and clans. Where there is poor sourcing, speculation, and/or WP:OR, then it would be best hosted elsewhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Input from Guliolopez. I'm only contributing to this ANI because of the prompt (here) from Fram and elsewhere (at Talk:Ó Comáin) from Bastun. I have no particular interest in the issue ostensibly covered by this ANI thread (the "Dumpster Fire at Talk:Ó Comáin"). And have not contributed to that discussion. And made just a small number of syntax, fixes, tagging, and MOS copyedits to the related article almost 6 months ago. However, as with Bastun, I share a frustration with Kellycrak88's approach to editing and discussion. And recently threw my hat at a pointlessly repeated assertion (on an issue that was already closed about photos being used to make interpreted/editorial claims about government endorsement of the activities of private org). Of the exact type noted by Bastun above ("Issues that are pointed out [..are ignored or acknowledged..] but then get repeated anyway"). While I'm unsure as to whether some form of sanction is necessary, it is clear (from reading this ANI thread and the article Talk page thread in which I was pinged) that the community has perhaps reached the point where more time is being spent trying to educate the editor and "manage" the editor's contributions than is typically reasonable... Guliolopez (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves by TinkerTown73

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

---

TinkerTown73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All of this user's edits should be reverted, also time for a permanent holiday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 27 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.

AlfieRosa

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

This user is repeatedly making edits to recently deceased individuals adding a line to state the age at time of death then sourcing it to random and unrelated sources, most recent examples (a), (b), (c). As recently deceased individuals they still fall under the bounds of WP:BLP so I have been reverting/removing their edits as they are effectively unsourced. I have provided warnings about this editing but they have continued. I have not taken this to WP:AIV as it is not obvious vandalism but it is disruptive editing. Their user talk page suggests this account may have been set-up to avoid a block to a different account. Please can an admin check this user's edits and advise on what action should be taken next. JP (Talk) 09:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that exchange of "I've been blocked / No I can't remember anything about it / Please ignore the comment about having another account, I wasn't thinking straight" was let drop. Seems damn convenient to me. Ravenswing 10:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

In particular, "the reason I was blocked on Wikipedia was because of distractive writing. Please ignore the comment about having another account", when the AlfieRosa account doesn't seem to have actually been blocked. Brunton (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see if this has already happened, but this seems like it may be worth discussing at WP:SPI. Especially given the comments they made. »Gommeh 13:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until we get a decent explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: If your only reason for blocking Alfie is because of possible socking, the matter was addressed at Ponyo's Talk page here, and I don't think the block is fair. OTOH, if your block is at least partly based on the user's edits highlighted above, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I should have looked at your block notice on Alfie's Talk page. I just did, and it's clear you blocked them for the disruption to articles of "recently deceased" subjects. Sorry about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not being clear here. (If it had been a sock block, I would have blocked outright, not partial.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Slow-motion/quiet edit warring at Pig Goat Banana Cricket

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

---

• Grownarwahl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pig Goat Banana Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been some Slow-motion/quiet edit warring going on at the article Pig Goat Banana Cricket for the past month or so. Grownarwahl continues adding the same unsourced information into the article, despite being warned several times, reverted several times (including by editors other than myself), and even after being blocked for 24 hours as a results of edit warring (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive495#User:Grownarwahl reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: Blocked 24h)). The user has also recently blanked their talk page of messages/warnings, but seemingly none of the warnings or even the block has done a thing, as they are still continuing to edit war with the same unsourced information.

This user also does not appear to be communicating whatsoever, only three or so edit summaries used at the start of said edit-warring on the Pig Goat Banana Cricket article, and apart from this one response, the only edits they've done on any talk page is removing old warnings from their own talk page, which clearly don't seem to have done a single thing in the first-place, as the user is just continuing on with the same behavior as before.

I'm not quite sure what more can be done here apart from a longer block/trying to actually get them to communicate, but any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that they removed the warnings from their talk page signifies that they read them and disregarded them. I'd support a longer block for disruptive editing/edit warring. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 48 hours this time. We'll see if that gets the message through. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 27 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.

Is this an appropriate edit summary?

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

---

A user recently re-added some content on the Zamindars of Bihar article that I previously deleted but I am slightly concerned by the threatening tone of their edit summary which reads “dont even dare to vandalise again” (diff: [253])

I have not interacted with this user before and it seems they’ve taken exception to some of my edits without discussing them on the talk page first. Unfortunately I’m getting the impression that they no longer want me to edit that article and are threatening me to do so.Ixudi (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me upon first glance that the editor either doesn't understand the vandalism policy, or that they aren't assuming good faith. I agree that they should have discussed the issue with you on the talk page. However, I also think there was a valid reason why they made the deletions, as you could say they weren't notable enough to be included in the list. Still, they should have discussed the issue with you. »Gommeh 13:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gommeh,

It was actually me that made the deletion and the user in question is the one who is reinstating the content. I was following the reliable source and only including ones from the list in the notable section. Ixudi (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, I must have misread it then. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm disregarding the content dispute, as we must here. No, it absolutely isn't acceptable language. If it is part of a pattern of behaviour, discussion here might be warranted, if not, not so much.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with Boynamedsue. I have dropped the editor some notifications and a note. Can consider the matter closed unless more issues come up. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 27 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.

Ydlp19 making unsourced changes

Ydlp19 (talk · contribs) has been persistently making unsourced changes to articles relating to South Asian soccer, and also ignored warnings on their talk page telling them their English is not up to the standards of the English Wikipedia. They also do not seem to know how to use their talk page. Likely a case of WP:CIR.

Diffs include but are not limited to: [254] [255] »Gommeh 16:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Gommeh, over a period of about 20 minutes today, you posted 3 warnings on their User talk page AND opened this ANI complaint. Although they don't respond often on their talk page (or those of other editors), that is not much time to react to your messages. There was no need to immediately come to ANI after posting multiple warnings to them, they haven't even been editing on the project for the past 12 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That is true, but given the warnings this person has received over a decent amount of time, I figured there's no way they haven't seen the notifications on their talk page unless they were violating some sort of rule; hence why I believed coming to ANI was justified. I just wanted to make sure an admin was aware of what was going on. Additionally, other editors voiced concerns about this editor years ago but it seems like nothing was ever done, see User talk:Ydlp19#English language in prose, User talk:Ydlp19#Message and Following template guidelines for player articles. The user had more than enough opportunities to check their talk page for concerns about their edits raised by others. In other words, this has been going on with Ydlp19 for years. Additionally, someone else (@Cenderabird) spotted the issues and wanted to fix them, but must not have felt that their English was good enough to fix Ydlp's mistakes either, so they came to me via my talk page at 11:12pm CST (at least eight or so hours before I even looked at the edits, since I was sleeping). »Gommeh 19:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We native speakers of English are usually privileged to speak the predominant language of business and further education, but that privilege comes with the downsides of everyone wanting to cummunicate in English rather than their native language and many people overestimating their ability with the language and being over-sensitive to any criticism. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That's true I suppose, and I think that's also part of the problem with Ydlp. They overestimated how good they were at English. If they had taken the time to read their talk page, they could have come up with a solution, e.g. using machine translation to participate in discussions here, or asking a native speaker to proofread for them. »Gommeh 19:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I warned this user and have corrected some edits in Swiss football articles specifically. The user makes some constructive edits with general data information, but all substantive content added uses poor English, and even some edits from years ago, as the OP mentioned. I have yet to get any response from them. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't gotten any responses from them is to be expected I think, given they haven't responded to my or @Liz's messages either. They have made several edits since then, which to me means they've had more than enough of an opportunity to go on their talk page and discuss the issues we have with them. At this point I'd say we should apply WP:CIR or block them. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

HarveyCarter active again?

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

---

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter
• 2A00:23C5:C419:D301:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I'm seeing a possible return of banned HarveyCarter who may be using the London IP range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C419:D301:0:0:0:0/64. The topics of interest are the usual HarveyCarter fare including questions of Jewishness,[256][257] secret societies,[258] various fascism[259] and WW2 topics,[260] film stars,[261] cigarette smoking,[262] cancer[263] and pedophilia.[264] Lots of talk page trolling.[265][266]

The nearby range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:6380::/43 was blocked in 2017 and 2018.

Even if it's not him, we should block the range as unconstructive. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history. It's consistent back to December 2024. Blocked 6 months for sockpuppetry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:46, 27 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.

Jh1096

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

---

Jh1096 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user, who has been blocked, is repeatedly removing the block notice from their Talk Page. They are currently blocked for 31 Hours. They ought to be blocked indefinitely, and it needs to be the case that they cannot edit their own Talk Page. Pibx (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Weirdly you left out the part about how you’ve been edit-warring on that talk-page with no valid justification. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pibx, users are allowed to remove block messages or other warnings from their own user talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Block messages can be removed, declined unblock requests cannot be. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pibx, you are edit warring. Normally, I'd block a user for the behavior you've shown. However, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and I can see where this plausibly was the mistaken actions of a new user believing they were reverting improper behavior. However, if you revert once more on @Jh1096's talk page, you should be blocked.

I strongly recommend you read WP:EW, WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Furthermore, I suggest you step away from interacting with @Jh1096 for a while, as after reading that talk page I suspect some emotions have also entered into your decision-making. That happens to us all. The key is to remove yourself from that situation when that happens, and not return to it unless you have to, and only after you've calmed down. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize. Now that I think about it, it was I who was edit warring. And yes, some emotions did enter my decision-making. I can see what you're saying. I'll stay away from Jh1096's talk page. Clearly, when the Editor were posting things, I responded, though I didn't need to. As you said, I ought to remove myself from such situations. About reporting to ANI, yes, I am new. I started editing Wikipedia just this month. I thought that what Jh1096 was doing on their Talk Page was improper. Now that I've read WP:EW, WP:OWNTALK, and WP:BLANKING, I see that what the Editor did, in terms of removing block messages and other warnings from their Talk Page, was well within the Guidelines. It does make sense to me. And I hope I can keep it in mind going forward. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. And if you see anything else that I do that is not proper, or if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. I want to learn so that I can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Thanks again. Pibx (talk) 05:22, 26 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.

Right off their block, they're disrupting again, this time in a loop of restore/undo on Cartoon Network (Japanese TV channel) and Disney Channel (Japan); I'm assuming since they're at 482 edits, they're trying to get to extended/autoconfirmed status as some kind of 'invincibility' to continue to disrupt. They aren't doing anything technically wrong here so I don't know how to warn them (and from their last incident I assume they won't hear me out anyways). Nathannah • 📮 16:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just taking a quick glance and seeing their repeated edit/manual revert loops on those two articles, all it does is spam the edit histories of the both articles, and is adding more to their filter log. Apologies for the ping, but Drmies? This seems to be a continued behavior of disruptive editing just after your recent block against them, even after this comment of your's. Magitroopa (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I indeffed them to prevent further disruption. I also disabled automatic EC rights, so if they successfully appeal the block, they'll still have to show a good editing history before requesting the EC right. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you rsjaffe. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 27 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.

IP disruption on George W. Bush shoe-throwing incident

The following discussion is closed. 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 see 207.195.80.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) using slurs against Pakistanis at [267], and also 207.195.80.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appearing to vandalize George W. Bush shoe-throwing incident at [268]. Normally I'd just go to RPP, but given the fact that one of the IPs used a slur I felt the need to come here instead.

Edit: looks like /.150 is vandalizing pages now. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @GSK so they're aware. » Gommeh (he/him) 20:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be this one as well, 207.195.80.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - TLJ7863 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The entire /24 is practically nothing but vandalism since its very first edit in 2012. No need to link individual diffs here, just take a brief look at the contribution history. Since the range is described as "Government of Saskatchewan Communitynet", maybe this is a school or library? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:18, 27 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.

Repetitive Disruptive editing from a previously banned editor

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 was temporarily banned for disrupting the Marty Supreme page after a general consensus was reached. A previous dispute resolution came to this decision not even a week ago. And yet as soon as the temporary ban was lifted, User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 is once again back to disrupting the page. Please do something about this user. It is not right to have editors like this ruining everyone’s peace and constantly harassing pages/editors. They’ve been warned for disruptive editing on numerous occasions but it is always the same thing with no permanent solution. It’s been weeks now of this chaos and I’m truthfully drained mentally. We reached a consensus on the talk page but they have vehemently refused to accept this consensus and instead keep throwing around baseless accusations of biased personal relations with other editors as well as nonstop harassment. 2 editors agreed to have this information removed, 1 editor was neutral and yet agreed to have it removed if we saw fit. Leaving the majority agreed on removing this information. I truly cannot comprehend why this back & forth is still ongoing. Please help. Soe743edits (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• It appears this is already ZanderAlbatraz1145's fifth trip to ANI in the past 6 months (1, 2, 3, and 4) and sixth overall. Seems to be a pattern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like @ZanderAlbatraz1145 needs to read WP:CONSENSUS and probably WP:EW or WP:DE. If anything else, it looks like this is at the very least a WP:CIVILITY issue. If Zander has been warned about this several times in the past and has not learned their lesson, my guess is that they're incompetent.

  @ZanderAlbatraz1145, can you please explain your POV on this? »Gommeh 14:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  It should be known that I only added content, not reverted back to my old information. I adjusted it. There was no true consensus either from unbiased editors. Only consensus from those which Soe743edits canvassed for. Even then, one user opted for a page compromise, for some of the information to be included. Even that wasn't good enough for Soe743edits. See entire Marty Supreme page history to see what I am talking about. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Soe743edits, you should have posted a User talk page notification about this discussion on ANI when you started it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. I should have, also, but I did not foresee investing this much time into this issue. I judged incorrectly. They did not post on ANI likely because they did not want unbiased agreeance with my stance for the page. To be clear, the information I added isn't "disrupting" anything. Not one editor seems to feel that way besides Soe743edits, not even those who have tried to resolve the issue. I was satisfied with a previous resolution/compromise for the page that was done by one editor (again, see page history), and would have left the page alone as is. However, Soe743edits meddled yet again, and tailored the page to their liking. They also have a history of only editing Timothée Chalamet pages, removing information, and I'm afraid Marty Supreme also falls under that category. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  As previously mentioned, I have no intention to keep going back and forth with this editor. One read through on the Marty Supreme talk page confirming consensus, should clarify this discourse. If one editor having over 5 cases of disruptive editing and harassments in the last 6 months is not enough grounds for a permanent ban then wikipedia may indeed need to review their guidelines and rules. Every reply of theirs in these unending dispute resolutions is always an excuse to justify their own “POV” or further harassment filled with lies and false allegations. It’s extremely draining to say the least. I really hope something can be done about all this soon. It’s becoming too repetitive Soe743edits (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Concensus from canvassed votes should and does not count. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  It has not been that many counts; not in that timespan. Also those were over having to deal with other difficult editors such as yourself. I'm actually fairly agreeable; just as I was when one of the users reached a compromise for some of the information to be included. I was actually fine with that. But you had to drag it out ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also not sure why you're talking with such authority. You're a new user. You even admitted it yourself. Act like it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @ZanderAlbatraz1145, I really recommend you read WP:CIVILITY. It's an essay on how to behave towards other editors. Some of the things you've said, in particular your choice of wording, can be taken as acting uncivil toward other editors, even if you didn't mean it. Please make sure you read and understand Wikipedia's policy on establishing consensus as well. In short please be more careful, even if you have an issue with an editor's behavior. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 20:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I just don't like being accused of things that are untrue. To me, that is uncivil, and it is difficult to be civil in return. That said, I have taken what you have said into account going forward with this issue. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, there is still edit warring going on with the page. Soe743edits can't seem to take a hint, nor do they seem able to wait until the issue has been resolved here or elsewhere. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate what you said, and in situations like that it's generally best to take a breather and get off of Wikipedia so you can calm yourself down. Take a walk or something. That way when you come back to editing your mind is clearer and not bogged down by anger.

  In regard to your second comment, I've gone ahead and requested page protection on Marty Supreme so that @Soe743edits and any other editors can discuss the issue here or on the article's talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 20:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. I appreciate your involvement. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is my last direct reply to this editor. I refuse to keep indulging their accusations and harrassments.

  As I just stated in the edit summary box, “Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way” As evident on the talk page, I have done no such thing. Both these editors came to the page after being informed on their talk pages of the situation, and very clearly stated their stands. if anyone should be accused of canvassing here, that would be you, considering you very clearly tried to influence formed decisions.

  Furthermore, 5 cases of disruptive editing in a short period of time are definitely a lot and speak more to your behavioural tendencies. Hopefully this is resolved soon so no other editors have to put up with whatever issues you have going on. Soe743edits (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  You canvassed by notifying those users on their talk page as concluded by the user Doniago. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but that's very much not what I concluded, though I did express concern that Soe's approach might present the appearance of canvassing. Given that they're a relatively new editor and, as far as I know, they've not done that again, I think we can give them a little leeway.

  Since you've brought me into this, though, I'll note that you left this unhelpful comment in response to a thread that had ended over a week earlier and which I felt had been resolved. Why you felt there was any need to interpose yourself into the discussion in this particular manner is a mystery to me; I wish, if you had to say something, that you could have said something with less WP:BITE to it. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's hard for me to believe that I need to explain this, but even if there was canvassing at the Talk page...and I'm unconvinced that any intentional canvassing occurred...that wouldn't magically invalidate the Talk page discussion and give you carte blanche to reinsert your edits as you've now done three times since you came back from a block for edit-warring'. ([269],[270],[271]). I don't know how you can feel this conduct is appropriate after such a recent block for exactly this kind of behavior. DonIago (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why not? The same thing has certainly happened to me in the past. Why does that not fly here? Certainly seemed like common practice in other cases from confirmed users. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  And I also ask you, currently, what reason is there that the information should NOT be on the Marty Supreme page? There certainly hasn't been proper concensus. In fact, let's even say those users were not canvassed, and truly were unbiased; one of the users reached a compromise/agreement for part of the information to be included. I was entirely fine with that. Soe743edits changed it again, and removed information again to their liking. And I'm the one who's being accused and being threatened for banning? I don't understand. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have had past history of dealing with difficult editors in the past, and not dealing with it/reacting well. That is not the case here. I'm trying to be as civil as possible. It is also not that many in the last six months. Two of those cases have been disregarded by users. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Tagging the admin who previously blocked Zander, @QEDK. » Gommeh (he/him) 21:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Zander has now violated WP:3RR and stated in an edit summary that he feels like he's said everything that could be said on the Talk page.

He might need another break from editing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not true, and I have added more comments on the talk page as of right now. I'm willing to discuss it currently. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but that's another untrue statement, people can see the edit summaries you post. Please be more careful about how you describe things that people can see for themselves in page histories, you seem to have made a number of statements that are directly contradicted by the history. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: I said that in an edit summary BEFORE you added a new section on the Marty Supreme talk page. Please see my most recent comments on the talk page. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

You still roared past 3RR, and this was after you just came off a 72-hour block for edit-warring elsewhere. Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

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

---

• Tottenham Hotspur F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any admin around to strike this very rude comment? I really don't feel people need to see that. Regards. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill, I think I was thinking more about protecting the article than the actual user that did that comment. And I wasn't sure of any other way for how to remove a comment like that other than post here. Regards. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Govvy, IMO WP:AN would have been slightly more appropriate (or reaching out to an active admin directly), but at the end of the day WP:NOTBURO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:11, 28 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.

Disruptive "7 millionth article" 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.

---

Jhoncena1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created Tidal wave gd in order to reach the 7 millionth article (and recreated it after it was speedily deleted), and has since repeatedly edit-warred to push it on the relevant page (diff 1, diff 2, diff 1) and on its talk page (link), to a level that comes close to disruptive editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t even say that it’s close to disruptive editing, it is disruptive editing. ^EF⁵ 16:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone keeping a count of when Wikipedia will make its 7 millionth WP:NOTHERE block? Or has that already been passed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot with nobody covering themselves in glory. Let it be. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Other disruption Oh, I thought this would be about User:Altenmann's WP:MASSCREATION violation of creating nearly 200 low quality articles in 10 minutes just to make sure that they would have the 7 millionth article. I guess that wasn't the only disruption related to that arbitrary number then. Fram (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I do think a wider discussion needs to be had on that; if it had happened any other time it’d be straight to ANI. EF5 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC) There was no WP:MASSCREATION violation: every article was created manually. Sorry I didnt think to get a bodycam to defend myself against such outrageous accusations. Next time I do this, I turn my cellphone on. And the quality is reasonable. This dismissive attitude to someone's work is really worrisome. --Altenmann >talk 17:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Yes, we need to have a discussion about that; articles like Asipavichy, Vileyka district rural council effectively contain no useful information for an English speaking reader, and a couple of hundred of them were created in seconds. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Yes it contains useful information, only not for an arrogant English lady/gentleman. --Altenmann >talk 17:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC) This is the English Wikipedia. If the useful information isn’t for English speakers, why make it? EF5 17:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC) That's what I keep saying: why would a Randy in Boyse be interested that a population of Ilishchevichi was 79 in 2009 and 69 in 2019? Why do we even need to cover Zanzibar or San Escobar or Ivory Coast or Tajikistan? --Altenmann >talk 17:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC) They may be interested in the population of Ilishchevichi, they will not be interested in the population of Илищевичи though. Rapidly changing the appearance of the article under discussion doesn't really help your case, this is what you published to "win" the race[272]. Fram (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC) The only English content that these articles contain could be condensed into a singular list article listing the rural councils. The only thing these articles add on top of it, are the individual villages, but those are in Belarusian. That's the point. The articles you listed above are all in English. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Rapidly fixing of a pointed drawback is for blame now. Good grievance! I thought y'all hit the bottom of the barrel of insults of my work. Now a new low. --Altenmann >talk 17:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC) No, rapidly fixing it so you can pretend that the article was in English (or Latin characters) all along and people are complaining from some Anglocentric worldview and not about getting articles they can't read, is the thing you get blamed for. The drawback was pointed out to you hours ago about all these articles, you just picked the article now which was given here as an example by accident I suppose. Fram (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I've fixed an apparent transliteration error introduced by said edit. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Mass creating hundreds of low quality, low effort articles over the span of a few minutes in an apparent attempt to win brownie points on the internet isn't a violation of WP:MASSCREATION; the correct policy excerpt for this scenario would be WP:MEATBOT. RachelTensions (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Go ahead, invent more ingenious ways to insult fellow wikipedians. Now even wikignomes under the threat of extermination. --Altenmann >talk 17:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Would you mind reopening or creating a new subsection? There was an ongoing and related discussion. EF5 17:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC) If you want the bickering to continue I suggest you find a new venue. If there's an actual intractable conduct issue that isn't addressed I suggest a fresh report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I've moved the close to above the ongoing discussion. Fram (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Sure, but the creation of hundreds of stubs with syntax errors is a serious unaddressed issue. I’ll let someone reopen a report, as mobile source editing is dodgy as best. EF5 17:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC) There was no syntax errors. The articles were using valid html syntax. your lint thingy is akin to enforce coding style with c++: open/close brackets, indents, comment lines. Yes, we use these in our software company. But it is a company policy and are supplied with the corresponding tools. Now, please cite me a WIkipedia policy that every b must be followed with /b. If yes, what tools are recommended for an average non-java-savvy wikipedian to use? --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC) There was no syntax errors. Pardon me? Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Every html element once opened should be closed, that's very basic XML thing. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC) No it should not. In many case they are closed by default. I agree this may be a sloppy practice, but I ain't not no html guru. The display looked OK. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Yep, these errors were pointed out to them early this morning already, User talk:Altenmann#New articles have syntax errors. This is on top of the "most text is in Cyrillic" issue. Fram (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Yep, and initially I agreed to fix them, but then I told myself go to hell, with all this vicious attacks on my work. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I tried to look at the sourcing used at the stubs, but pop-stat.mashke is not loading for me, and the provided ISBN for the book source goes to the 2003 edition, predating the figures cited. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC) The numbers are not footnoted by the book. FYI the whole gov.by domain is blocked from access, I guess this is American war on Belarus, so I could not double-source with refs to original census data. --Altenmann >talk 17:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) That doesn't appear to be the case, I was just able to access president.gov.by signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I did try to access several local administrations, such as https://cherven.gov.by/ru/rukovodstvo/selskie-ispolnitelnye-komitety/chervenskij-selskij-ispolnitelnyj-komitet.html, to find firsthand information, such as who is the current head, but never success. Since it was not a single occurrence, I assumed it was a global block. --Altenmann >talk 18:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I can't access pop-state.mashke either, but www.belstat.gov.by/ works fine. There is some very fancy work at census.belstat.gov.by/, although playing around I couldn't find the Asipavichy, Vileyka district rural council/Асіпавіцкі сельсавет. CMD (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Someone retrieved the archive for pop-state.mashke. --Altenmann >talk 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Looks like it's listed using the Russian transliteration, Osipovichi. I wasn't able to find the line by line totals for each locality, but given that the sum total adds up, I'm assuming I just didn't find the right info level in the database. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Ah well done, I forgot Russian is preferred officially. CMD (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Another factor is that rural councils use the -itsky ending for corresponding -ichy city names: Асіпавіцкі literally transliterates to "Asipavistky", but really means "of Asipavichy". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Circling back to the conduct dispute: having now confirmed that the information is in fact ultimately verifiable, I think it is clear that this is a mountain made of a molehill. Would I advise against rapid-fire creation of locality articles? Yes. Is it actively harmful to the encyclopedia in a way that requires some sort of intervention? No. Was this escalated to ANI too quickly? Yes. Was Altenmann's general response here subpar? Also yes. To the point of requiring an intervention? No, particularly given that this was escalated to ANI too quickly. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Altenmann Addressing the baseless accusations in disruption. I wrote this in several places already, but people keep coming after my ass. I did not use any bot or twinkle. The articles were created manually during several days. Yes, I decided to have some fun and they were sitting in my browser. Not much worse that checking status every second, in order to post an article at the very right exact moment. My articles are not stubs and not low-quality. Did you ever hear the words "work in progress" and "friendly cooperation"? English Wikipedia has a worldwide target, unlike, say, Armenian Wikipedia, and it is not obliged to cater the interests of an average American teenager. Sociologists and geographers interested in Belarus will readily find my articles useful. --Altenmann >talk 18:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Did you ever hear the words "work in progress" Yes, this can apply to literally any article. What about these hundreds of poorly-made articles makes them WIP, and more importantly, acceptable? EF5 18:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC) What about these? I stopped working on these, to hell with them, with this massive attack on my dignity. But some people do patiently help me out, while others vandalize disrupt my contribution. dgaf now. --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I don't appreciate you casting WP:ASPERSIONS and saying that I vandalized your contribution. I removed an unreadable table and replaced it with readable information. Vandalism is a very serious accusation and my edit does not qualify as vandalism by any definition. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC) OK, I changed the wording. The information was perfectly readable, and you, instead of requesting translation, disrupted my article by deleting verifiable significant information. --Altenmann >talk 18:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC) It's not "your article". All articles published in the mainspace are open for all other editors to edit. I saw a table that was not comprehensible to English speakers so I removed it. That is not disruptive and nobody needs to request permission from anyone to edit any other page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Yes it is "my article" in the sense that I have a copyright to my contributions to it (that's why we have these attribution rules when copying texts from here to there), but per Wikipedia copyright policy you have a right to disrupt it. --Altenmann >talk 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC) That’s… not true. When you edit you release all contributions into the public domain EF5 18:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) This is the point where you may want to put the shovel down and step away. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC) No, you have no "ownership" in any way over your edits. MallardTV Talk to me! 18:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC) P.S. For example, right now, I am working on Eskista article. I could have deleted 90% of it. Instead, realizing that this subject (culture of Ethiopia) is underrepresented, I am slowly adding what I am finding, not being discouraged by our attacks on my dignity. --Altenmann >talk 18:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC) You should stop calling anything that people do that does not perfectly align with your views about the articles which you have written "attacks." I can see both sides of the discussion: the articles may just barely be notable, but they are also almost incoherent for the average reader. MallardTV Talk to me! 18:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC) If I might suggest, what we should do is go straight from article #6,999,999 to #7,000,001. That way there won't even be a seven-millionth article, obviating all this nonsense. EEng 20:17, 28 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.

Repeated threats/harassment by IP

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

---

The IP 62.3.64.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaging in threats to an editor, Not-Roy-Jay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both on that editor's talk page ([273], [274]) and at Talk:Roy Jay ([275], [276], [277]) . I reported one of the more egregious threats to the emergency contact address over a week ago, which was acknowledged, but if they were blocked, it has expired - they're back today with another threat. It seems to be a static IP - can the IP be blocked for a couple of months, please?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:57, 30 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.

Special:Contributions/184.22.243.138

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

---

• 184.22.243.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please revoke TPA for 184.22.243.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), LTA (mass pinging sysops). Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Daniel Case beat me to it. Should've added it was part of a /64 rangeblock. Thanks Daniel. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:29, 30 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.

Violations of COI, logged out editing and tag teaming

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

---

Michael Palance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

12.6.219.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Over the past few days, User:Mpalance and IP editor 12.6.219.27 have been reverting properly sourced information that they percieve as libel. Additionally, the IP appears to be a sock of Mpalance given the way the edits line up. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I support opening a SPI, I was going to but given this ANI I won't. Just filed an WP:AIV regarding 12.6.219.27 who should be blocked. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition PP should be considered. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:12.6.219.27 has also removed good-faith comments from the article's talk page, calling them "spam": [278]. Perception312 (talk) 02:07, 30 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.

Disruptive pinging by blocked user, TPA removal 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.

---

Washi189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This blocked user has repeatedly been using their talk page to ping a variety of editors with no context at all, which rises to the level of disruptiveness requiring talk page removal. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

yeah, further info to the user's disruption and socking can be found at User talk:Tamzin#Spotted some suspicious editing. I pinged Tamzin and two other Admins right as CE reported this, but they may not get to this ordeal as quickly as another Admin here. BarntToust 18:36, 29 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.

Review of my conduct: does this userbox violate WP:POLEMIC?

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

---

Before I begin, I'd like to state that my personal views are not relevant to my editing here (and in particular, nor are they relevant to my actions below), and I do not personally edit articles on political topics (owing to mainly focusing on anti-vandalism and anti-disruption; where I do edit articles on these topics, it is either related to anti-vandalism or uncontroversial copyediting). Furthermore, I am conscious of the fact that discussions of this nature tend to lead to unrelated political discussion and heated debate, and so I would like to state that regardless of anyone's individual stance on the matter, I would hope that anyone wishing to comment on here from a purely political perspective will refrain from doing so, and keep to the topic instead (which concerns whether displays of this nature are a violation of WP:POLEMIC, or whether they are in any way relevant to Wikipedia editing in such a way that they should belong on a user page). Thank you.

I recently came across the user page of Bluethricecreamman, which features a userbox with the following caption: This user supports one democratic state in historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.. This is a user who is a part of WikiProject Palestine, and thus frequently makes edits to related articles, which fall under the contentious topics scope.

I decided to be bold and remove this userbox per WP:POLEMIC, as several of the criteria for this were fulfilled: that it was a contentious statement statement unrelated to Wikipedia, that was attacking or vilifying a group of people (there is plenty of discussion in the real world surrounding this, but the article From the river to the sea specifically states for many Jews it is seen as a call for the destruction of Israel, and Some politicians and advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and American Jewish Committee consider the phrase to be antisemitic, hate speech and incitement to genocide. They suggest that it denies the right of Jews for self-determination in their ancestral homeland, or advocates for their removal or extermination.) - specifically, in this case, a group of people of a certain religious and/or ethnic background. Furthermore, WP:POLEMIC states that reintroduction of divisive material is considered disruptive: Bluethricecreamman reintroduced this userbox, telling me do NOT edit my user page again here.

I am therefore asking for a review of my conduct and whether or not I did the right thing in removing this content per the WP:POLEMIC policy. If I have done wrong, I will apologise. Thank you in advance. Patient Zero^talk 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You should not have done that. If you have not already been reverted I suggest you self revert and apologize. Simonm223 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit has already been reverted, and the editor in question said that if I still believed the userbox was a violation of WP:POLEMIC, I should come here to discuss the matter. I am more than happy to apologise for my actions if I have stepped out of line, but out of curiosity, why is your stance as such? I don't mean to badger you or anything, but your response is very vague to me and I would benefit from some clarification. Patient Zero^talk 22:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You effectively accused another editor of antisemitism on the basis of a definition of antisemitism so compromised that we don't even treat the source as reliable specifically for that description. Frankly if you are unwilling to apologize you should probably pull a block for incivility until you are ready to do so. I am honestly aghast you would treat another editor such for this specific topic. Contentious topics require respect for diverse viewpoints that you completely failed to demonstrate here. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I am more than willing to apologise. I am therefore not sure why you have reached the conclusion that I am unwilling. I have plenty of respect for diverse viewpoints, but displays of contentious statements on userpages are contrary to Wikipedia's goals. Patient Zero^talk 23:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

When your statement about apology contains both an "if" and a "but" please forgive me for thinking you don't really believe you should have to apologize. Simonm223 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this back-and-forth is benefitting either of us and so I will await further responses from the community. Patient Zero^talk 23:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It would have been far more courteous of you to simply attempt discussion on their talk page rather than make an edit to an experienced editor’s user page. After the revert, you still had the opportunity to open a discussion with them directly and chose the ANI route instead. That’s not ideal. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that (at least in my view) the userbox was a violation of WP:POLEMIC on multiple counts, I felt it best to be bold and remove it, as discussion might've led to an unnecessary political argument on the user's talk page, which would not have served anyone well. As I said, my reason for removing the userbox is unrelated to my personal views on the matter and I feel any discussion of that is, and will continue to be, irrelevant. Perhaps my being bold was somewhat problematic, but I'm more than happy to explain my thought processes if that helps anyone. After the reversion, I then had the impression from the edit summary provided that further discussion might not have been achievable, plus the explicit instructions from the user to come here and discuss the matter also led to this decision. I do not like to report matters to ANI unless I feel it is absolutely necessary, and would honestly have rather avoided it if at all possible, but as I said, I had a feeling from the edit summary that matters needed to be clarified, and I felt also that having an outside opinion (perhaps from an administrator) would be of benefit. Patient Zero^talk 00:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

as discussion might've led to an unnecessary political argument on the user's talk page - You shouldn't assume bad faith. Before making the edit you decided you would not collaborate with this editor. That is not OK on Wikipedia. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not beyond the pale to think that could have an anti Israel implication. However, the user box also doesn't inherently mean that. There have been user boxes that people in the past have found problematic. I recall the "traditional marriage" user box was a concern. I can see how one might take any river to the sea comment in a negative way but the correct action is never going to be editing the user talk page. The best action would be to talk to the person who has the box and if you feel that doesn't address the issue, raise the concern here. I don't think their reply was over the top but perhaps an apology and explanation of your concerns might help. Springee (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I wish to thank the community for their feedback. I have now apologised. I am sorry to the community for my disruption to this project, and for my actions, which were wholly unacceptable. If an administrator wishes to block me for my misconduct, per WP:BOOMERANG, I will not object. Patient Zero^talk 01:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. Are you planning on more edits like this? It certainly doesn't seem that way so why is a block needed? Springee (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No. I will stay away from this area in future (not that I have ever contributed to PIA articles/matters here before, unless for anti-vandalism or copyediting reasons - this was a one-off). But as a reporter, I am not immune to scrutiny, and my behaviour was unacceptable. I shouldn't be able to avoid a block for my conduct simply because I apologised. That would be unfair to Bluethricecreamman, who I have clearly upset, and whose time I have wasted. Patient Zero^talk 01:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have apologized then I agree there's absolutely no need for a block. Just, like, don't do it again. That'd be fine. Simonm223 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I never will do it again. I know just saying I won't do it again is not enough, but as you have requested that of me as a condition for my remaining unblocked, I want to make that exceptionally clear. As I said, my conduct was unacceptable. I will not object to a block if an administrator decides it is necessary, or if, for whatever reason, I find myself in this position again, which, in my firmly held opinion, will not ever be the case. Patient Zero^talk 01:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Saying you won't do it is enough. Doing it again would be a problem wanting a solution. Having done it, apologizing, and moving on is not something that anyone needs to do anything about. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 01:37, 29 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.

Extreme uncivil behaviour and personal attacks by Jmkrangers

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jmkrangers has engaged in multiple personal attacks and uncivil behaviour, and showing no remorse for one's actions nor repect for fellow editors. Examples here and here. Flibirigit (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This explosion resulted in a 31-hour block for personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:06, 28 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.

Disruptive editing from Praiawart

The following discussion is closed. 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: Praiawart has for sometime been making some rather disruptive edits.

1. 26 May 2025 Changing an article to refer to a trans woman BLP subject as a biological male who identifies as a female
2. 26 May 2025 Changing the article on trans women to call them men.

1. 2 December 2024 Changing Rosa Parks' page to call her a convicted criminal in the opening sentence.
2. 3 October 2024 C·hanged the intro of White Nationalism to present a characterization so glowing that I really cannot see how this doesn't contravene WP:NONAZIS.

Snokalok (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• There's also this BLP violation in an edit-summary and another edit which I don't want to highlight. I#m going to be AFK for a while but I'd suggest that they are warned that anything more like that is likely to be met with a block. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  There's also a very odd back-and-forth edit war on their user page: [280] Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• It appears that User:195gadowikchxbdjr is actually responsible for declaring them to be a troll on their userpage, rather than that being a self definition. Difs in which User:195gadowikchxbdjr alter the content of Praiawart's userpage in a way that could be construed as abusive include [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286]. These edits are in effect acknowledgement of a campaign of harassment and threats to continue it indefinitely.[287], [288].

I strongly suspect that Praiawart will need banning from the site in the not too distant future, but they should be warned and given the WP:ROPE. 195gadowikchxbdjr should be banned immediately.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Boynamedsue Snokalok Simonm223 Black Kite

Hello. Allow me to explain myself.

As for the gender-related edits on May 26, 2025, both of those are bold edits that I made which are both technically true. I was unaware of the fact that there is already a settled consensus to not include this information, but Boynamedsue has since made me aware of this.

As for the edits to Rosa Parks' article, my source (https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/was-rosa-parks-convicted/) says that she still is a convicted criminal and that her convictions were never reversed or vacated. Why are you not complaining about the diff where I changed Donald Trump's page to call him a convicted felon ([289])? Perhaps because that better aligns with you political views? All I'm trying to do is is bring an unbiased point of view to Wikipedia. Plus the only reason I didn't cite that source was because I wasn't sure whether or not a citation was appropriate in the first sentence of the article.

And your criticism of my edit to the white nationalism article is also telling. This edit was basically making the intro to the article the same, word-for-word, as the article on black nationalism. This shows Wikipedians anti-white bias---according to you all, it's perfectly fine to describe black nationalism in that manner, but describing white nationalism in the same exact words somehow makes me a "Nazi"?

I also want to point out that none of these edits, if they were reverted, resulted in any sort of edit warring. It's not like I was insistent on my edits of these articles being accepted regardless of what anyone else had to say. This is simply bold editing, plain and simple, albeit some of it accidentally going against some Wikipedia policies which I wasn't aware of at the time.

I admit that the Florida State Prison edit summary was a bit inappropriate, but that was an edit summary and didn't vandalize the actual page. And is it really that unreasonable to insult a convicted cold-blooded murderer? And Black Kite, why do you not want to highlight the edit of mine that you find problematic? Please do so, because I cannot respond to your grievances on my edit if you won't even tell me which edit upset you.

The bottom line is that all I've really done is make some edits that you guys disagree with (two of which violated the gender identity manual of style, which I was unaware of at the time of the edits) and now you think I should be banned? I think it should be clear as day from all my other edits that I am a good faith editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, who sometimes makes mistakes due to not being 100% knowledgeable and up-to-date on all of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is about open discourse and discussion, not banning anyone who makes an edit that you disagree with or that hurts your feelings. Praiawart (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

OK so based on the above I'd say that Praiawart is WP:NOTHERE to constructively build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Specifically because they doubled down on the transphobic edits, calling them both technically true, they defended calling various American subjects "convicted felons", and they claimed that the negative response to their white nationalism edit was indicative of an anti-white bias. This is not constructive and collaborative comportment. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Before you writing here, nobody had suggested you should be banned. In fact, in my above post, I specifically said you shouldn't be banned. I said I think you probably will be eventually, and the above answer makes me suspect that even more strongly. Our job is to report unbiasedly what the mainstream sources say, not to take a position which considers every opinion to be equal. So, we don't call Alexander Solzhenitsyn a "convicted subversive criminal" even though we can source that viewpoint quite easily. Your job is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on wikipedia, if you try, you won't last long.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue block them both. I sense some people playing childish games here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

[290] The edit summary here is a complete failure of collegiality and introduced an unnecessary error into the Canada Post strike article as the strike action being addressed is the resumption of the 2024 strike and not a new strike action. Frankly it has all the hallmarks of a bored high-schooler messing around. The reason I pointed out the back and forth on their user page is because that, too, has the hallmarks of a couple of bored high-schoolers messing around. Otherwise I'd have expected User:195gadowikchxbdjr to have been reported for their abuse a long time ago. This is what I meant when I described what's going on as playing childish games. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Both should be indeffed. This has gone on long enough. King Lobclaw (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about both, but Praiawart has got to go for sure. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, they should both be kicked off the site. Also, pinging the editors who reverted Praiawart's May 2025 edits so they can weigh in if they want to: @Laura240406 @Matinee71 » Gommeh (he/him) 15:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I would've argued for a temporary block for Praiawart based on the fact that they haven't been blocked before but I'm pretty sure that they are acting in bad faith based on their defense for their edits so I support an indeff. Laura240406 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have indeffed 195gadowikchxbdjr for their NOTHERE behavior, edit warring, BATTLEGROUND, and harassment of another user. I'm looking into Praiawart now. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Praiawart certainly engaged in edit warring and should have been blocked for it. They also have made disparaging, inflammatory, harassing, and WP:POINT edits such as:

  • Insisting that Scott Joplin isn't African-American because "he wasn't born in Africa"
  • Adding "convicted criminal" to Rosa Parks
  • Referred to prayer as "schizospeak" on Jeanne Calment
  • Used an edit summary to call a living person "literally worthless piece of human shit"
  • POINTily edited Bathroom bill, Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen, and Trans woman
  • Disruptively removed sourced material in the lead of White nationalism
  • Included "DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" in an edit summary
  • Cried censorship at 8chan
  • Engaged in false balance by adding info about Soros' financial support of Susan Crawford (also [291]) to match her opponent's article's coverage of Elon Musk
  • Removed well-sourced information about Donald Trump describing him as authoritarian claiming they were "opinions".
  • Told 195gadowikchxbdjr to "stay triggered, buckaroo"

  I'll leave it to another admin to decide if a block is warranted and for how long. I am torn between 2 weeks for the behavior but also recognizing their useful contributions in other areas and indef for long-term disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Where have they edit-warred? The incident with the other user was removing abuse from their own talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

[292] This page has evidence of the same two edit-warring over civil vs civilian. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Boynamedsue the link Simonm223 provided is the one. I count 60 unambiguous reverts over the past year on that page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• That all sounds like WP:NOTHERE to me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that the claim that the rejection of their edit to white nationalism shows an "anti-white bias" and the edit to Rosa Parks actually adds a WP:CIR addition to it. I can't think that an editor who would ever have thought that adding "convicted criminal" to Parks' article is here in good faith, and the white nationalism (not to mention the gender issue edits) proves it in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite having just now counted the number of unambiguous reverts on Sectional center facility, which is 60, I think indef is warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, and I've gone ahead and done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm a little puzzled how they both managed to avoid getting here earlier, which ironically would likely have led to a lesser sanction. Probably just because neither of them knew enough to report the other.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:51, 28 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.

Lost access to all my account

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

---

Moved to WP:AN § Lost access to all my account

 – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I am User:Linkin Prankster. I lost access to my account as well as other account User:Roman Reigns Fanboy as Wiki is asking me to enter the verification code they sent on my email address. Problem is, I don't remember the emails for either of the account. I have messaged Wikimedia yesterday, but still haven't heard back. Please get my accounts restored to me. Supreme Rankling (talk) 04:42, 28 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.

Ecrusized again

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

---

• Ecrusized (talk · contribs)

So they're not stopping even after getting p-blocked for 48 hours in violation of unilateral changes [293]. Guess what, they're still repeating the same tendentious behaviour by outright removal [294] of well established satellite imagery, verified by multiple independent media houses. No sign of WP:BRD but falsely cites it in edit summary to remove [295] the table by misleading editors. I had previously proposed topic ban but WP:NOTHERE indef is now a favorable option. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is something of an inaccurate description of the conflict. Ecrusized has been trying to remove images that contain non-neutral headers as parts of them. Specifically they refer to specific locations as terrorist camps. This is a matter that has been disputed - the characterization of the sites as terrorist camps is the POV of the Indian authorities and should not be communicated in Wiki voice. Text hard-coded into an image does not allow us to insert the nuance necessary to demonstrate that the character of the sites described in those images is disputed.

This is an insertion that has been disputed on WP:NPOV grounds by at least three editors, including myself, however there has also been quite a lot of pinging editors on the talk page with a clear aim of putting a finger on the scales of the discussion regarding this inclusion. [296] and more than a little bludgeoning [297] (not by Ecrusized, I should note). I would suggest that both @Rightmostdoor6 and @Truthprevails999 (who has done much of the aforementioned bludgeoning at article talk) should both be cautious about raising AN/I complaints that appear motivated by WP:BATTLEGROUND reasoning. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

And I would suggest that Truthprevails999 should change their username if they want to be taken seriously. I haven't checked their edits specifically, but I have not in 18 years of editing come across any user with "Truth" in their name who comes anywhere close to abiding by WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've already indeffed them, so chalk another truth username onto the tally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wareon, opened by Rightmostdoor6 as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That leans me to a boomerrang TBAn, not forum shopping as such, but a clear misuse of notice boards to try and shut down opposition. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The issues raised regarding user Wareon on AE are concerning and raised by other users as well. There's no deliberate attempt to weaponize noticeboards to "shut down opposition". Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Rightmostdoors6 is showing battleground mentality to get rid of his opponents, be it this thread or the one on WP:AE,[298] where admins suggested boomerang for Rightmostdoors6. It was unwise to file this report on ANI at this time for Rightmostdoors6. His claim that issues were "raised by other users as well" is false because every other user also agreed that the report was totally unwarranted. @Rosguill: - Considering that this report was filed in spite of the fact that there is already a rough on that AE report for a boomerang it speaks volumes of their battleground mentality against his opponents. Orientls (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Those images seem to have some NPOV issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep, also there looks to have been canvassing, POV pushing and general lack of civility and AGF from SPA on both sides, might be time to lock the page, and PP then talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

For an example of what I mean by battleground activity, this is the response I got to warning Truthprevails999 regarding their canvassing. [299] Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

And I will add most of the SPA's are clearly wp:nothere accounts. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I would concur. And would suggest that for many of the editors doing severe talk page bludgeoning a topic ban would likely improve collaboration. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Lets just PP the talk page, and see who goes away. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a pretty extreme measure but it might honestly be warranted here. That page is a mess and it's frankly hard even to know where to start with resolving a lot of very heated disputes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and everything to do with competing nationalisms. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have never been engaged in bludgeoning for pete's sake. Simonm223 You need to revisit the policy pages if you think these progressive comments [300][301][302][303] are bludgeoning. There's no need for talk pp as well, maybe semi. No proper justification given for XC pp. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you will note that it was (the now blocked) Truthprevails999 who I said was responsible for most of the bludgeoning. That's why I used the singular tense who has in my statement. I did say that I believe your complaint to be motivated by a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I stand by that assessment. You were far too hasty escalating this matter to AN/I against someone you seem to perceive as an ideological rival. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rightmostdoor6: This is not even the correct noticeboard for this. Ecrusized (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

They have just been blocked, but I doubt that will work, as there are still a shed load of like-minded SPA's on the page, and more will show up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering they admitted to having a second account for "tests and personal editing" I would say blocking them alone won't even prevent them from editing unless a CU is run. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been basically a hair's breadth away from imposing either autoconfirm or XC protection on the talk page, but have held off each time I've investigated because I was able to find recent comments by IPs that were actually sound (although ironically often in contention with autoconfirmed accounts being less constructive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, most of today's topic starters were non-autoconfirmed users [304][305][306][307][308][309]. OTOH autoconfirmed+ users were actively reducing the backlog by querying with them. I still don't think there's any basis for XC protection. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That talk page feels like the WWI battlefield in Belgium. Lots of back and forth over a very little area (minor points compared to the big picture). I think that there would be no great loss in restricting the conversation to extended confirmed users. Yes, improvements would slow down, but it would be no great loss to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I too support an EC protection for Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict, and related talk pages, for (say) 1-3 months. Right now the talkpage is such an unreadable mess with same issues being raised/bludgeoned in redundant sections, that even good-faith editors are spending most of their time tending to the latest fires. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict under ECP for 1-month as an individual admin action. I haven't examined Ecrusized's conduct per se, and so am not closing this ANI report in case some admin deems further action necessary (the OP, though not Ecrusized, will be affected by the ECP). See also my comment at the somewhat related AE. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Finally, we can have consensus without those sockpuppets. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Well regarding Ecrusized, I think these aspersions [310][311] could really be problematic. Heraklios 20:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. Along with that, their undiscussed removal of the image was concerning as well. Despite I having clearly stated [312] that sources do, in fact, confirm the movement of Indian carriers during the event. On Template:2025 India–Pakistan conflict infobox, further disruption can be seen [313]. Considering the series of problematic behaviours by the reported user, making boomerang demands on me (OP) certainly won't be helpful. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  Gonna be honest those aspersions at RSN aren't just aspersions, they're straight-up racism in the first, and the attempt to walk it back by claiming "it was just calling out COI" in the second diff is disingenuous at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is genuine, although there may be a misunderstanding. There is a difference between racism, and perceived COI, which is what I was trying to point out. I have also emphasised that I am not from that region because of severe personal attacks and accusation made against me a day earlier. (Accusations of adding Pakistani language source, which is why strongly emphasised that not only do I speak that language, nor have I ever been there etc.) The mentioned attacks. I did not point that out because I am racist against Indians or Pakistanis. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter from which regions do editors belong, so you need to stop repeating this. What you posted on RSN was exactly a racial jab to good faith editors and trying to defend it citing COI isn't gonna help. The topic page link is not any kind of personal attack, nor the OP is issued any personal remarks. Heraklios 15:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  There was no misunderstanding. This is not remotely COI, and the heavy implications that Indian editors should not edit Indian topics is, in fact, racist. Doubling down on this at ANI is the opposite of a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not doubling down on anything because I have not said that Indian editors should not edit Indian topics, I have said that it may be considered COI, afterwards of which I was informed that COI only involved personal, or business dealings (WP:WHYCOI). Of course you can spin it off as racism if you wish to do so. Ecrusized (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger: If you want me to apologise or confess for something which I did not do; I am not going to do that. I am really bothered by your sentence "Doubling down on this at ANI is the opposite of a good look.". Do you want a false confession from me to admit that I was being racist? Do you want me to say something like: "Oh I'm sorry I was being racist". Because I am not. Also I think the fact that you calling be a "racist" not stop is indeed offensive towards me, because what I said was a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I don't see how any reasonable person can otherwise take editors who have Indian flags on their user pages, as well as those whose account contributions are entirely focused on editing Indian-Pakistani conflict, and other subjects related to India...I don't think these users should be allowed to comment on this...I am yet to see a single editor so far, who is not Indian that has supported using Indian media sources. (emphasis in original). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Such a paragraph from me will not be repeated again in the future, now that I have been informed of WP:WHYCOI. My mistake was to presume that WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST would extend to editors from a country. Ecrusized (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Rightmostdoor6: You clearly have strong views towards editors who make changes that you don't like. You've accused me of not being here to build an encylopedia. (Despite the fact that I have made thousands of major contributions to several different topic areas. By contrast your contributions are almost entirely limited to this one single article, and battleground with other editors at that). Two editors have thanked me for my edit which you describe as being a permanent block reason. And two other restorations of that same revert have been removed once again by two separate editors. The fact that you've open an incident noticeboard for this, instead of a edit war notice, shows that you're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia policies. Ecrusized (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, this is the right venue to raise concerns regarding your editing behaviour and I would make it clear that I'm not an SPA, it wouldn't take too long to verify my claim, have not made more than 30 edits out of my 300+ on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict. Thanking editors could not be meant for endorsement. You have crossed the line again, abide by WP:NPA. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I never said you were a SPA. I never said your "Thanking editors could not be meant for endorsement neither." Ecrusized (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Noting here for the record that the OP has been indefinitely tbanned for battleground conduct. See this AE request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the fact that the editor wasn't extended confirmed, I don't see how this discussion was allowed to go on as long as it did with their participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: IPA, unlike PIA, is not under WP:ECR and so non-EC editors can participate unless particular pages are EC-protected. So the OP's complaint was not verboten although IMO it was an attempt to weaponize the boards to get "rivals" blocked. Abecedare (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Since the OP has been blockedTBanned and Ecrusized has been inactive for a couple of days, I propose closing this w/o any further action. I would advice Ecrusized though to slow down and be more thoughtful if they participate in this contentious area in the future because their boldness has previously created a minor mess and this comment was indeed objectionable.

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Rosguill, Rsjaffe, The Bushranger, Firefangledfeathers, and Liz:: any objections to such a close, or alternate suggestions? Abecedare (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I think the issues presented have been addressed as well as they could be at this time. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection, although this thread should perhaps be added to the ARBCOM evidence pile. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive, abusive user

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

---

Shahshagoose appears to be solely dedicated to purveying disruption and vandalism: tries to insert an insensitive HOAX into a conflict article; self-admits with no remorse; adds personal attacks in the form of racist stereotypes (knowing full well what he is doing [314]). Other not here behaviour: [315], [316] ("stinky admins" etc). I think we need a block here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes true @Gotitbro Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Note:Possible sock already blocked for disruptive editing. Struck. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I see no attempts to discuss any issues with the user on their talk page. (...and no required notification that this post was made.) --Onorem (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Forgot the notice, posted. From the replies and content of the user's comments, it is apparent that he is trolling and trying to not to hide it. I would not like to discuss racism and trolling with vandal users. Gotitbro (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

While the comportment in many of these diffs is definitely sub-standard I would suggest you are over-egging them by doing things like calling a single talk page comment an attempt to insert an insensitive HOAX into a conflict article. I would recommend that contentious topic pages are places where a more dispassionate approach to discussing behavioural issues would be apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That is exactly what it was, the name originated as a trolling campaign on X etc. and was limited to that space with no coverage beyond it. That it was brought here says much about what the user was/is trying to do.

Dispassionate, yes, but with the recurrent disruptive behaviour and I repeat being completely aware of what he is doing, we need a break. Gotitbro (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

See the thread above about Ecrusized for additional context; that talk page is a battleground mess. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 23 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.

2401:D800:238:26B4:1841:8508:1F38:9DD0

2401:D800:238:26B4:1841:8508:1F38:9DD0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account, but appears to have admited socking [[317]] has satted they will continue to sock [[318]] (with a sock, and a bit of PAing). What to do? Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, we can consider a range block. Have you identified any other IP accounts they may have utilized recently? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably a User:Phạm Văn Rạng sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There are other editors in the /40 who look to be innocent, so that range may be too wide. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Usual block for IPv6es is the /64, isn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, but there was discussion of a larger range, and the editor in question noted that they were going IP-hopping, so I was looking at whether a broad range block would be ok. The answer is, not really, unless things get really bad. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Blatant attack page 'biography'.

John McIlvogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Please see the brief history of John McIlvogue a very brief purported biography of a Scottish businessman, which clearly fails to meet notability criteria (the only remotely plausible justification being that McIlvogue was majority shareholder in Livingston F.C. in 2023-2025, though there obviously isn't the in-depth coverage required) and gives every appearance of being created to draw attention (top of article body) to a legal issue dating back to 2005 - in other words, an attack page. The creator of the article, User:ScottishFootballObseasive recently started thread at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, complaining that a User:McIlvogue had edited the article, removing the 'legal issue'. [319] A brief inspection of the article was all that was needed to indicate to me that WP:BLP policy would mandate removal of the disputed content - we had no way to determine from the source whether the individual named is even the same person. I thus removed the content, and WP:PRODed the article. [320] ScottishFootballObseasive then responded by restoring the content, with a clearly WP:OR justification that the individuals apparently have the same birthdate, citing a primary-source Companies House search (see WP:BLPPRIMARY for why this shouldn't have been cited at all). [321] I have since removed the content again under WP:BLP, but under the circumstances, given ScottishFootballObseasive's apparent blatant disregard for core Wikipedia policy, I feel that further action may be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with the label 'attack page'. I'm a Livingston supporter, creating articles about individuals related to Livingston. No motivation to attack people connected with the club. Reported the conflict of interest with good intentions. I can accept if the individual isn't notable enough but the accusations of attack pages etc is very heavy handed IMO. ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Your 'biography' consisted of 5 very brief paragraphs, only 2 of which were more than a single sentence. Only the lede and the last 2-sentence paragraph even discussed the supposed claim to notability at all. The article body began with the 'legal issue'. If that isn't an attack page, it is a damn good impression of one. And furthermore, basic common sense would suggest that when WP:BLP concerns are raised over article content, immediately restoring it is grossly inappropriate. There was clearly no urgency to restore subject matter concerning events unconnected with the supposed notability of the subject, dating back to 2005. Had you shown the slightest willingness to discuss this first, I would not have reported you. WP:BLP is core Wikipedia policy, and CoI violations, real or imaginary, are no justification for violating it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The legal issue was the focus of the first source/news article that exists about John McIlvogue - the content of the Wikipedia article was written in chronological order. I thought that was obvious. I think you're looking for something that isn't there tbh. I restored edits with a summary of why and noted that I added a source to try and back up my point. As I've said, I can accept if John McIlvogue isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. But for further action to be taken on a contributor with good intentions would be disappointing. ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

'Good intentions' are clearly not demonstrated by restoring disputed content removed as a WP:BLP violation, without discussion. You have entirely failed to give the slightest justification for your behaviour, and you appear to be either unfamiliar with core Wikipedia policy, or under the impression that it can be edit-warred over. I'd add that given both the large number of articles you created (mostly biographies) you have had deleted, [322] and the way your talk page is covered in nominations for deletions and proposed deletion notifications, it might very well be surmised that you have very little understanding of Wikipedia notability criteria either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The notability criteria seems flexible. I could immediately navigate to at least a dozen footballers that have Wikipedia pages, created by other users, with one source from a record archive site or something along those lines, and have been active for years without any deletion nominations. Yet pages with several news articles specifically about the subject are removed. So hopefully you'll forgive me if it's not clear what would appease the Grand high masters of Wikipedia, and what won't. ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't wash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I can see no point in continuing this back-and-forth with ScottishFootballObseasive, and would instead ask that uninvolved contributors familiar with relevant policy chip in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Not going to say much else here, but I think it may be better to use WP:AFC for things like this instead of immediately moving it into mainspace if you are unfamiliar with notability guidelines. I've had issues with notability guidelines myself (see my discussion on User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 9#Nahida draft) but it's generally best to ask another editor for their opinion if you're not sure about whether something meets the guidelines or not. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Simosalex7poli in denial of Turkish name of the city

• Simosalex7poli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Context: Alexandroupolis This name was given in 1920, while the original name was known as Dedeagach in English at that time. (source)

At some point he decides to remove the name then doing again, then again. Then he decides only to remove the bold letters[323][324][325]. This is just a disruptive behaviour. Tried to warn him first but saw that he did the same before. Beshogur (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I've requested page protection on Alexandroupolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so interested editors can discuss the city's name on the article's talk page instead. @Simosalex7poli, please make your case there. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually the name was discussed several times on the talk page. This user has just other intents. Beshogur (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor ignoring and undoing edits on Alabama political article

The user @AlabamaConservative has been repeatedly adding content in 2026 Alabama lieutenant gubernatorial election that violate the MOS:DOCTOR policy. I have warned them twice, with no response or acknowledgement. Rather than continue to escalate with warnings that seemingly have no effect, I brought the discussion here. Diffs of repeated additions of violating content: [326], [327], [328], [329], [330]. The subsequent education titles violate the same policy. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You are right on the content, of course, but both AlabamaConservative and you are close to violating WP:3RR, and may have done so already. I see that Talk:2026 Alabama lieutenant gubernatorial election has nothing about this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I had not left a message on the talk page since it seemed that the user page would be the best place to contact them. To be truthful, I was not aware of 3RR until I began looking into what I could do, which is why I did not revert any more content. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks

@User:Jedorton made couple of personal attacks against me (here and here), actually they tagged me to insult me. When I asked them to withdraw the insult (here), they claimed it was by accident (I will leave you to judge on that) and then attacked another editor (here). After that they stated: look dude go ahead & try and ban or block me (I have other accounts) trying to get me to say something out of hand ain't working for you (here and again here). Admitting Sockpuppetry

This is not the first time using insults (see this and this), but last time I and another editor (who interfered after I started an ANI) were able to get them to remove it (here and here), this time they actually went further. Not to mention the long history of edit warring (here), copyvio (here and here), and distributive editing (here). FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oof. Going over those diffs, this is definitely a WP:NOTHERE case. Whatever contributions they're making are dwarfed by the incivilities. I'm all for an indef. Ravenswing 23:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I never made personal attack against this person the * was an accident as stated to him I'm using my phone, the person i called crazy f(not directly to him BTW) fuzzyMagma also called for that person to be banned, also fuzzyMagma kept threatening me (with banning or suspending me) for no reason and erased my edit repeatedly without justification as I used sources hope you hear me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedorton (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The links FuzzyMagma posted says it all. That torrent of vicious insults with which you hit @Kryako is blockworthy all in itself, and to claim that there's No! Reason! for you to be blocked over it is absurd. (And yes, FuzzyMagma called for Kryako to be blocked. For making personal attacks against you.) Ravenswing 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Both Jedorton and Kryako deserve a block. Wikipedia just isn't the type of place for that. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Something I failed to mention, this person obsession with using the word “Zionist” pejoratively. It all started when they complained about the information form the Jewish post which documents atrocities and the article was about Simon Deng, a Sudanese who was enslaved, something that is well documented and happened (see Muraheleen#Dinka enslavement, Slavery in Sudan#Modern-day slavery, HRW report and many other sources)

But this editor left the substance of the source and got fixated on the name of the website, and start using the word “zionist” as a slur (here, here, here, and here) FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User has posted a claim regarding the cause of their behavior. I'm not sure if this is a variation on the theme of WP:BROTHER, or WP:NOTTHERAPY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Eh, since blocks are preventative, not punitive, an indef here would insulate us against the next time Jedorton was in a bad mood, didn't take his meds, whatever. Ravenswing 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Sock/troll

The following discussion is closed. 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, if someone could remove User:CornettoFrancese from the room please. Their sole activity is BLP violations [331],[332],[333] and trolling talk pages [334],[335] etc. —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Done, see also User talk:Croissant202. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 31 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.

Move page

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

---

Hi, When my move page suspending will finish? For a year is suspend are you crazying that you will not finished it? Who are you decision for me what should I behave? Your sanctions is enough for enough Wholy shit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by July2806 (talk • contribs)

@July2806: Your rant here does not inspire confidence of your competency in executing page moves. The block is indefinite and will remain so until you can demonstrate the need and competency for the right by making requests at WP:Requested Moves. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 30 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.

User:Seppi333 incivility/harassment

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

---

Seppi333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reverted Seppi333's removal of content from an article [336].

Then they left this message on my talk page: "I can tell you and I are about to have a big fucking problem. But after looking at your local and global block logs, I was just wondering, are you a white supremacist? Don’t be bashful. Represent what you believe"

A bizarre accusation given I was blocked on German Wikipedia because two users disapproved of me removing anti-gay misinformation about pedophilia, nothing to do with 'white supremacy'. My subpar grasp of German likely contributed to my block too.

Seppi333 again removed the content [337], and began undoing other edits of mine on completely unrelated articles [338]

"Going to have a big fucking problem" and smearing me as a "white supremacist" is an extremely aggressive and uncivil overreaction to me reverting them a single time. I feel nervous about what this user might do next, and would greatly appreciate administrator intervention before this gets out of hand. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC

After I opened this ANI, Seppi333 is now casting baseless aspersions on my talk page [339]. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: yes let us immediately take this to ani without discussing this with me. trust me bro, you are the bigger problen for not talking this out and discussing this with me me. I may be pissed but i'm still being civil. If you want to escalate,let's go. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence I am not a white supremacist: [340]. Not going to engage with more threats. Your message warranted an ANI, and your reply is confirmation of that. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think most people would not feel that accusing someone of being a white supremacist for no apparent reason is not terribly civil. Having said that, the talk page for the article makes it clear that this content is absolutely not from a reliable source, it's a blog post discussing another blog post. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but Seppi333 did not remove it because of RS concerns, they removed it because they think it is "misleading". There are other RS sources that cover the same concerns about Zisblatt's testimony, such as this book published by historians. And some outlets blogs are acceptable as reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

(Ignoring the content issue tangent) "I can tell you and I are about to have a big fucking problem." is not conducive to beginning a discussion nor is it civil; it's aggressive and intimidating. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is shockingly poor conduct from Seppi, whom we trust with multiple advanced permissions. I'm not sure what response would make me not support a block, but I hope to see it soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• One thing that needs pointing out here, regardless of other issues, is that Zenomonoz's "this isn't a BLP" edit summary [341] suggests a lack of awareness of what WP:BLP policy actually says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.... Irene Zisblatt is still alive, and accordingly, WP:BLP policy absolutely applies here. That doesn't mean that appropriately-sourced content can't be added, but it is absolutely essential to err on the side of caution. Which involves discussing things on talk pages, and not reverting on the basis of misunderstood policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful BLP clarification. Seppi argued it was "misleading" (Zisblatt says she escaped Auschwitz after a man threw her over the fence, and she landed in a moving train 100 feet away [342]). Other RS have covered this, so they might be worth using to bolster this. The ANI concerns the incivility. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks andy. ur right. i was indeed a complete dumbass last night because i was drunk when i committed that edit. clearly everyone is against me right now without actually looking into this issue. thanks all. you're increidble admins for ignoring my concern. unless you didnt. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Drunk last night? You called me an extremist on my talk page 40 minutes ago [343]. The first attack was just a few hours ago. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

“Attack” lol. No worries man. I’m done with wp. This shit is too toxic for me. Ironically I’m almost certain someone is going to make an asinine comment about me being too toxic. Whatever. Bet no one even cares what they just lost. Im out. My last edit on Wikipedia Ever. Peace. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Fare thee well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block: The drunken non-apology and "retirement" are not what I was hoping for. Seppi has retired and unretired before, so I don't think the community can trust that he won't just wait out the scrutiny and return without making any commitment to avoid extreme incivility like this again. I propose an indefinite block. I don't want him to stay blocked forever, but I do want any future unretirement to be accompanied by a sober apology and constructive plan for future disputes. I'm also not necessarily looking for a cban here, just an uninvolved admin who can make the call. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved and making the call. Blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 13:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC).

  Thanks B. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I just hope no one restores the BLPVIO material in its current form. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:57, 30 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.

Harassment and block evasion

This 2A01:E0A:5EA:17E0:B8AF:3972:74BC:4D43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started harassing my talk page, this IP is definitely a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MHD1234567890. I have already filed an SPI case against them and now they continue to harass my talk page with many IP addresses. 2A02:8440:8124:20C6:D5BF:B15:CCC5:54B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 37.167.45.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I reported him for vandalism but it's been almost 1.5 hours and no action has been taken and they continue to harass my talk page. Please do something against this. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ultra 348 mass editing without edit summaries, after repeated warnings

• Ultra 348 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user's talkpage is replete with warnings to use edit summaries [344][345]. They are not, and today are making several edits per minute for hourslong span. I didn't add another warning, instead went to ANI. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That very much appears to be automated editing. I haven't looked at all the rules on using bots, but don't they have to include a note in the summary about what tool they're using? Even leaving aside the normal 'what is being changed' summary? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe bot, but maybe semi-automated going from "what links here" results. But we should hear from the editor themselves. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well it’s been a couple of days now and nothing yet (keeping this thread from being archived) Danners430 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't recall edit summaries being a strict mandatory requirement? I don't think I used any until about 2018 or so? What is more concerning is doing bot-like editing without approval. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP:EDITCON: All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this needs attention?

Rikky is dead

Rikkie is dead

Rikkee is dead

Dikky is dead

Dikkie is dead

Dikkee is dead

Riki is dead

Riky is dead

Rikie is dead

Rikee is dead

Rikeey is dead

Rikkeey is dead

Rikey is dead

Dikkeey is dead

Dikeey is dead

Diki is dead

Dikki is dead

Dikee is dead

(I've spread out the names as they are all so similar, it might make it easier if you need to do something with them) All created within the last hour. Knitsey (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This might be linked as well...

Wikki is dead

Wikky is dead

Wikkie is dead

Wikkee is dead

Wiky is dead Knitsey (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikee is dead

Wikie is dead

Wikeey is dead

Rickeey is dead Knitsey (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a crime/mystery novel called 'The Dyslexic Hitman'. Not helping...sorry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

indeffed them all, I wouldn't know whether or not they need a lock without a closer look/doing a CU, which i don't have time for at the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ricceey is dead

Ricc is dead Knitsey (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland I'm dyslexic, I would have given up after 3 tries lol.

@Theleekycauldron thank you so much. I felt there was a lot to deal with so I posted here as well. If they're bots, it seems like an odd choice of names? Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Only a couple more:

Its ongoing, not sure how to handle it. Maybe wait a while and sweep up later? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Knitsey: Maybe they really just wanna be the next Willy on Wheels? Worgisbor (congregate) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Good work so far, but, rather than playing whac-a-mole, I would advise people to leave any further users be under the principle of the "I" of WP:RBI unless they edit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Worgisbor Don't give them ideas! @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I'm glad I didn't go back further.

@Phil Bridger, just report to AIV if any more pop up? Knitsey (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd just ignore those. I noticed those too, when looking at username creations. In my opinion, someone is just having fun. And in the process those usernames get wasted and unused (which in this case, is a good thing). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem @Rsjaffe. Knitsey (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if the backend has a username filter like how there's an edit filter, but could it be set up where "is dead" usernames get automatically blocked by a filter if this continues? ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There is such a filter (m:Title blacklist), and ordinary edit filters can also block account creations, but keep WP:NOSALT in mind here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Apparent CoI editing, refusal to communicate etc at 'BC Fourteen' 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.

---

• BC Fourteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Fourteen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Faktmagik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The BC Fourteen article - a biography of a filmmaker - has long had issues with promotional editing, lack of sourcing etc, and was recently the subject of a thread at WP:COIN, where the editing of User:Faktmagik, the latest in a long series of single-purpose accounts responsible for most of the content, was discussed, with particular regard to the addition of unsourced content, and the removal of notability and CoI editing templates. [346] Despite notification, and despite the same discussion being linked on the article talk page, Faktmagik has failed to respond in any manner beyond once more removing the templates, while suggesting in an edit summary that "It is our professional opinion that wikipedia's assigns can kiss our (apparently) trivial ass." [347] And while I'm reluctant to propose a block for the subject of the biography (which seems this almost certainly is, from edit summaries), I really can't think of anything much short of that which might get the message across that the article needs to comply with Wikipedia standards, that this isn't a webhosting service, and that if a biography is merited (which is open to debate, given the apparent lack of the sort of WP:RS in-depth discussion of the man himself needed to demonstrate notability), we need to see evidence for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

60 edits, 58 to BC Fourteen and two to edit filter false positives. I'd give them a day to respond here. If no response, then I believe an article space block is in order, as they must WP:COMMUNICATE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Between the vanity edits and the venomous edit summaries, it's clear to me the user is WP:NOTHERE in any serious sense. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

PS. The user also fails to respond even on the usertalk with all the greetings and warnings. Only defiant and nasty edit summaries. JFHJr (㊟) 21:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to NOTHERE block them, tbh. Uncalled for rudeness and clear promo. Secretlondon (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be perfect. The best use of WMF bytes today. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I see your point about the seriousness of the problem. I'll pblock from article space so they can still respond here or at COIN if they so desire. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that worked. For now. This is someone who's had multiple previous accounts, does not mind editing logged out, and will almost certainly sock at this namespace after block. Unless this is deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 29 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.

Would WP:GS/UYGHUR apply to this section blanking

Page: Public security bureau (China) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This appears to be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and would very likely fall under WP:GS/UYGHUR given the contents of what this user is section-blanking. Would be good to get other sets of eyes on this to see if WP:GS/UYGHUR applies. Thanks.

Edits in question:

1. [348]
2. [349]
3. [350]

- Amigao (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would think that yes, descriptions of contemporary administration of Xinjiang are related to Uyghur topics broadly construed. Even if the editor in question were to ultimately be correct that this material is not appropriate for the article in question, the question of its inclusion relates to the topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that I half-way agree with you. WP:GS/UYGHUR absolutely applies. I'm less certain about WP:NOTCENSORED this is a bit odd because I don't think I've ever seen an international reception section for a domestic police force. As such I think the blanked section raises a legitimate WP:DUE question. Now @Thehistorianisaac may have been a little hasty and absolutely should discuss this edit rather than just reverting it over you. But the edit, itself, is not entirely without potential merit. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If you look at what was blanked outright, it also covers Chinese police overseas service stations, which is not solely domestic in nature. No explanation was given for this part and it does like a WP:CENSORED situation. - Amigao (talk) Amigao (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I may add Overseas 110 in see also, though I really would suggest reading WP:AGF. Not everything you disagree with is a WP:CENSORED situation. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill@Amigao@Simonm223

Have you even read what the article is about?

The article is on the use of the term "Public Security Bureau" itself and the functions of police departments in China, and not for individual controversies or allegations. It is not WP:NOTCENSORED, it is simply the info is on the wrong page. This has nothing to do with WP:GS/UYGHUR other than the fact that the info is related to the topic. Removing info in the wrong location does not constitute as WP:NOTCENSORED. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I was only commenting on whether GS/UYGHUR applies, and noted that it does apply even if you are entirely correct that the content is not DUE for inclusion. No comment on NOTCENSORED or the state of the article. N.b., nothing in GS/UYGHUR prevents you (or any other editor) from editing these articles, the only thing it provides for is that uninvolved administrators are given greater freedom and encouragement to impose editing sanctions they deem necessary to address disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac yes I did read it. I've also been working on and off in the Xinjiang article set since the 2009 Urumqi riots. And I have further experience with contentious topics (and the only reason GS/Uyghur isn't a CTOP is because it predates that system.) When dealing with contentious topics unrelated pages that contain information regarding the CTOP are affected by that CTOP to the extent the information being interacted with is in the CTOP. That means adding or deleting content about the Xinjiang conflict is always within the purview of WP:GS/UYGHUR.

Now, this being said, if you look at my response to Amigao you'll see I think your edit had a point in that a "reception" section (and let's be honest, it's all negative stuff so it's a renamed "criticism" section) about a national framework for police services is... bizarre. And frankly it is, in my opinion WP:UNDUE because it's just out of place ChinaBad cruft.

I agree with you on that.

Where I disagree is with reverting a major change from WP:STATUSQUO without discussion. Going to article talk and saying "no you're wrong" before reverting again is not an appropriate discussion.

I've said this more than once today - nearly nothing on this project is urgent and it's OK to leave up a bad edit while a discussion of it is in progress. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

(To be honest I don't completely know what is going on here and what is being argued, just trying to show context)

I agree with you on the reception section. it's just more of a controversies section that is renamed, and it ignores the involvement of many public security bureaus with the local community etc.

My point is, I don't think this is really involved with uyghur topics (it's like if the law enforcement in the united states article was contentious due to US politics) nor is contentious, I'm just kinda mad that my edit was constantly reverted when I clearly showed that the article was meant to be for the term Public security bureau, not some allegations one of them was involved in. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that Law enforcement in the United States is definitely covered by the American politics CTOP insofar as it falls within its temporal scope (post-1992, at the moment). But more to the point, the question of whether something is in scope of a CTOP is always with respect to the actual content that is in dispute, not with respect to what is ultimately determined to be WP:DUE. As an illustrative example, suppose that a consensus is reached that Uyghur-related content is not DUE at that article: re-adding Uyghur content would be subject to GS/UYGHUR, as would any further discussion concerning its removal or reconsideration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Point is, it's not really contentious if it ain't meant to be there in the first place. The previous articles for Public Security Bureau, People's Police and Ministry of Public Security were huge messes that need to be cleaned up. Anyways, sorry for being too blunt on my first comment, it's 2:55 AM over here and I'm barely awake. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I think a clearer way to understand it is that "contentious" in "contentious topics" refers to the topic in abstract, not to the edit in particular. A designated contentious topic remains contentious even if the edit in question isn't or shouldn't be controversial _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill - that was very well said. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; Still, I don't think it falls under contentious topics, since the content that made it a "contentious topic" was not meant to be there in the first place. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That does not matter. The content may or may not have been supposed to be there, but it was there, and that content is contentious. Therefore it falls under the CT. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is, it's like saying if somebody adds russia ukraine war stuff to an unrelated article (Say, the slovakian armed forces article), the article instantly becomes contentious. I'm not the most familiar with the policies in this aspect, but I don't think articles where contentious topics were incorrectly added are contentious content Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thehistorianisaac, I think you are missing the forest because you are focused on the tree. I would move on and not debate whether or not this edit concerned contentious content. That will cause this dispute to continue on and on. Don't focus on the labeling and just argue that it was inappropriate content for this article (which I think it was) and hopefully this discussion can be closed and any further discussion on your edit can occur on the article talk page where it probably should have happened/been resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

IP abuse of Owen Tangavelou

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

A number of IP addresses, most recently "2A02:8424:BCC8:4C01:E80F:C3C7:7520:8797", have been continually adding nationalistic and unencyclopaedic content to the Owen Tangavelou article. Tangavelou is a French citizen who competes under the Vietnamese flag, but the IPs are rabidly (and without sources) maintaining that he is Vietnamese and any corrections are rabidly reverted. A rangeban might be necessary. 2001:8003:268E:A800:4815:64B4:791A:D066 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Do any of the sources confirm that he is French (I don't read Vietnamese)? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I recommend all parties read MOS:NATIONALITY and discuss on the talk page. Sesquilinear (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007

In Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles several people accused me of violation of Wikipedia rules, namely WP:MASSCREATION and WP:MEATBOT. Therefore I removed myself from Wikipedia:Seven million articles and started process of moving my stubs into draft space where I can quetly improve them to reasonable quality. (The stubs were very short and the sources were inadequate (one is old book, another turned out to be inaccessible; I just happened to have a part of it in my sandbox). Wor that user:Gonzo fan2007 threatened me with an immediate block. I think this admin was abusing their powers. --Altenmann >talk 19:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) P.S. While threats are technically not actions, just bad taste, but this admin reverted my moves to draft space using the admin privileges, and this is definitely a misuse of the powers. --Altenmann >talk

Boomerang - This user was grossly uncivil all of yesterday; an ANI sub-thread about them was closed under "this is for everyone's benefit". Statements by them at the talk page of WP:7M include:

• "BUT IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT I AM WRITING USELESS ARTICLES, okay?"
• "but meeting with this dismissive attitude I no longer give a fick and continue writing something like Yatzanu at, Fire Hunt with Beaters, or Moskalik, which nobody reads, but at least nobody denigrates",
• "Yes, populations of villages are from census, but tell me buddy, where the heck else I am supposed to get them? From Washington Post?,
• "Calling a meatbot a person who put in several days 20 years of volunteer's work for Wikipedia and created 0.1% of its articles is thoroughly disgusting."
• Well, that's your opinion of a person who does not give a damn for history, geography and sociology of Belarus.,
• And that was only the first half of the page.

Following Operators and Things being announced as 7M, they decided to remove a community-decided entry (on the talk page too) and draftify several of their articles. It's been noticably disruptive and has taken time out of what should be a simple and straightforward process. I personally don't think the WP:MASSCREATION issues are a WP:BIGDEAL, but the civility issues persist over from yesterday. — ^EF⁵ 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Calling a meatbot a person who put in several days 20 years of volunteer's work for Wikipedia and created 0.1% of its articles is thoroughly disgusting. --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I support the biggest boomerang anyone has in their arsenal. This is ridiculous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be fantastic if Altenmann stopped spiraling over this and just took a break for a while. He did something that annoyed people, they said things that seem to me unnecessarily mean, and he responded in kind. It would also have been fantastic if people hadn't kept poking at someone who was clearly upset. But at this point, Altenmann, no one is continuing this except you. My uninvolved perspective is that insisting on draftifying your articles is veering towards disrupting to make a point. Please just disengage, even if you feel unfairly treated.

Also, can I salt Wikipedia:Eight million articles to proactively prevent this from happening in the future? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• "'are unlikely to be greatly expanded any time soon' - ignorant snub-nosed opinion. Take a look at Khorastava rural council now. And I only started digging into history and geography." another diff of some uncivil behavior.

If people need me to dig up diffs, I can. But the gist is that Altenmann mass created articles on small municipalities in Europe to try to "achieve" the 7 millionth article. Throughout the entire discussion, they were combative, argumentative, uncivil, and disruptive. When consensus formed that they were unhappy with, they then moved a number of the articles they created back to drafty space, without reason, blanked their user page, blanked their talk page, removed the article they wrote from WP:7M, and complained on the talk page. Overall the behavior has been disruptive and they have been given a long leash. At this point though, they are on a final warning, because the community is done with this behavior. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I resent this accusation. Two months ago I created some 400 stubs on elderships of Lithuania, such as Taujėnai Eldership, without any expectation of reward. This is what I am doing or 20+ years now: conterbalancing of the flood of "pokemon and pornstars" (a wpmeme from old times). --Altenmann >talk 20:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I fail to understand tow civility issues caused the admin to revert my perfectly valid moves to draft space. Right now I am in process of cutting my stubs with edit summary: "rm copyvio from /pop-stat.mashke.org/belarus-census-2019/minskaja.htm; sorry, I was not thinking clearly" - Indeed I cut and pasted the html texts from sources. While technically census data are in public domain, their form of presentation is copyrigted. After that all pages will be useless one-liners, like Paplavy rural council, akin to cricketer stubs the community decided to get rid of. I decided not to wait for an extra insult and draftify mine mself. --Altenmann >talk 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Altenmann, if you look at the list of editors with the most edits to their name, you'll see some of our most productive editors have been indefinitely blocked, not for violating content guidelines but because they are simply too rude to be on this platform. I think much of these complaints would be lessened if you were just not so hostile and defensive to your fellow editors. Consider the complaints dispassionately, is there any grain of truth to them? If there is, alter your behavior. If not, then politely explain yourself.

But being abrasive and going on the counter-attack can only lead to a block. I'm sure we both know of some editors who were once great editors here but who are no longer active because they couldn't work nicely with others. Not being civil can result in even the best of our ediors no longer being an editor. I say this not as a threat but I see you digging yourself into a hole that might be hard to climb out of. I recommend dropping this and getting back to the work of editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

<sigh>Yes Liz, I know that, and if blocked for incivility I would not contest the block. To the end of discussion I started cooling down and edited some my responses. But in response I got "I appreciate you revising your comment above, which is still easily found in the page history" - very polite and very big-brotherish. I was a cornered rat. --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of my drawback and last several years I am editing subjects nobody cares about, but sometimes shit happens. --Altenmann >talk 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Still, this does not answer my complaint. Me being abrasive can make me blocked, but reverting my perfectly valid draftification is another thing. Heck, Liz, you draftified one of these mine yourself a day ago! Do you want a diff? --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Because you were making a point. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Really? I was accused of meatbotting, right?. Under the pressure of many, I addressed the accusation. Still, this does not justify your intervention as an involved admin (yes, I missed this another sort of your abuse of admin's powers). As Liz rightly pointed out, many good people were desysopped, including myself when they started feeling too powerful. --Altenmann >talk 21:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Support boomerang per EF5, yeah. Also, per continuing WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. Their answer to Liz was very positive. Unfortunately, their subsequent replies show it to be an aberration. Altenmann was out of order on the thread, but that was then. If they'd left it at that, well, everyone gets het up, even over something as dumb as article count (is quality < quantity in the postmodern?). Although editing-warring over your own stubs/drafts is pretty specialist. But to then have the stones to bring to ANI says NOTGETTINGIT more than anything they've said so far. Which itself is saying something. It's Time for a Time Out. (For everyone else as much as Altenmann.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• You are saying that misuse of admin's powers may be fended off by boomerang? By this logic no one can contest an abusive admin. I saw it happened in the past all the time (when I was edting controversial topics). There is a revert war. An admin who edited the page a week ago blocks one side they think is abusive. And whack, an admin gets punished. --Altenmann >talk 21:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• I never mentioned article count. I am sure you are sure that it was a deliberate joke on my side. Yes it was. But I pulled it while spending an inordinate amount of time, and being accused of being a bot and an abuse of Wikipedia really ticked me off. Several times before I was accused of making life of good people more difficult by creating new articles. I was silently chuckling before. But this time the straw broke camel's back. --Altenmann >talk 21:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• WP:BATTLEGROUND - just answer yes/no: Did the admin abuse their powers? --Altenmann >talk 21:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

this admin reverted my moves to draft space using the admin privileges Moving articles is not admin privileges, so I'm inclined to say no. Deleting articles - which was necessary to move the articles - is, but seeing as you had tagged the redirects left by your pointy moves to draftspace (which should not have existed in the first place, as you should have unchecked the 'leave a redirect' box on the move form) with db-author (which technically doesn't apply because redirects are not articles, but R2 does, so we'll leave that) they were technically honoring your deletion request, so I'm very much inclined to say no, there was no abuse of admin powers here - indeed what we have is yet another case of WP:OWB #37. Given that and your other conduct here, what I am very inclined to say is you need to drop the stick and move on immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Actually no, technically he was not honoring my deletion request, just the opposite. But thank you for answering on the subject matter. This gives me an opportunity to deny your judgement of my intentions; just see my edit here. This has nothing to do with the stick, but rather with the quality of the article. Whereas the admin reverted my moves without asking me why I moved them, apparently having preconceived notion about my intentions, just like you have. --Altenmann >talk 00:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Now, preventing a possible desire to revert my edit as well, let me explain why I think it is a copyvio. As I wrote, two days ago I was not thinking clearly. Now I realized that while the data of a census are indeed in public domain, however their presentation is not, because presentation is a creative act. I brainlessly copied the html tables creatively arranged by a non-government person. Therefore please do not revert my edit without confirmation from our copyright gurus. P.S. I ama aware of the phonebook copyright case, but IMO it is not applicable here.Altenmann >talk 00:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Alright, since apparently I wasn't clear enough the first time, this is a final warning. Either drop the stick or be blocked for disruption per WP:IDHT (with a side of WP:OWN). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger This isn't related to the matter at hand, but FYI only users with the suppressredirect right—bundled within page mover rights, part of the admin toolkit—may untoggle that checkbox and move an article without a redirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

TIL! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Per Floquenbeam's comment, I think everyone should disengage, and this thread should be hatted. I can only barely imagine anything good resulting from keeping it open. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I want my good name cleared. I am willing to accept a big red "Last Warning" on my talk page regarding my civility and watch my tongue or else (my end of the boomerang), but I want a clear message from the community about the opposite end of the boomerang, namely whether it is OK for an admin to act based on their presumptions about someone's intentions. See my answer to Bushranger if you didn't pay attention to it. --Altenmann >talk 00:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In my world, your name is as clear as crystal. I think a lot of misunderstanding, misconceptions, differing notions of what Wikipedia is about, lack of the assumption of good faith, lack of empathy, lack of letting things go and so forth contributed to this turning into the mess it never should have become. I don't think your reputation or name are tarnished, but I don't think people are going to give you exactly what you are asking for either. Budging is not one of editors' core skills here at WP:ANI, and I think moving on may be the best way forward. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support this assessment. Not opposed to Floq's salting plan either. CMD (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support a WP:SALT so the community can figure out where to go from here. There's actually quite a bit of pushback to an 8M commemoration. — ^EF⁵ 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: your complaint here is that you received a warning from Gonzo. Instead of responding to that warning and civilly asking for an explanation, you reverted the warning; blanked your user page and talk page, changing both to Taking a break to quiet my shattered nerve after persistent accusations of me being a bot; and then opened this ANI thread half an hour later. I think that you should ask for a 72-hour WP:SELFBLOCK to take some time to objectively assess the situation, come back, and apologize. Otherwise, I would support another admin imposing such a block for your disruptive conduct leading up to and in this thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• The conflict between Altenmann and Gonzo_fan2007 does not warrant a threat to shut down the potential commemoration of the 8 millionth article. On current projections, that won't happen for five years which is not a pressing problem. These milestones have usually been recorded in a reasonably collaborative and congenial way and so one incident is not significant. In this case, for example, I created an article to participate in a small way. It wasn't close but still seems a positive and productive addition which will be useful in other ways. Other editors have likewise contributed in various ways which mostly seem commendable. Please assist this productive process rather than punishing it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no "conflict between Altenmann and Gonzo_fan2007", only Altenmann [doing all those things that have been stated above]. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007 created the WP:7M page and is the #2 contributor of text to its talk page. They are quite involved in the process for the seven millionth article and this is obviously a factor in the clash with Altenmann. And, as they have been tussling over the draftifications of the rural councils, that's a plain content conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, tussling? Please re-read the comment by voorts. I reverted pointy page moves once, with the only warning being about their civility (a warning they had received multiple times, from multiple editors). Yes, I was the editor/admin that "closed" the discussion at WP:7M, but I took this role because I had no real skin in the game. I very specifically did not create any articles at the time and all of my commentary was focused on trying to find consensus while one editor was disrupting the process, both in mass creating short stubs and being rude and uncivil. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Average kurd

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

---

Average kurd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hi, I am reporting this user in which they go with the name of "Average Kurd". Average kurd has insulted me twice. Here they insulted me in arabic:([351]) and in case he tries to remove the message ([352]). he wrote in arabic " علاوي" I don't think we can use arabic here because it's english Wikipedia and as I know we all here have to contribute with english in the English Wikipedia paltform. since I know arabic, average kurd here called me "Allawi" and it's an insult against iraqis because most of the population of iraq follows Shiasm that's literally a religion and nationality disrespect . here Average kurd insulted me again in his edit summary, Pushing their point of view: ([353]) saying in his edit summary: "Unless you are mentally retarded or blind", They have been warned for being civil before. I really don't know what to say anymore. I want an administrator action to solve this Situation here. I forgot to say that in the last 3 months (Including this month also) There is a huge amount of articles that are being created lately and the topics are about conflicts between kurds and Iraqis. Best. R3YBOl (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Endorse that block; the "retard" comment is not acceptable here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:16, 30 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.

User ignoring WP:USERNOCAT

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

---

I want to raise the actions of a user, Finn Shipley, who repeatedly tries to file their sandbox page in article categories in defiance of WP:USERNOCAT. The page has had to be removed from categories 16 times over the course of its history, including twice in May 2025 alone, despite the fact that I've already posted five prior messages to their user talk page to advise them that user sandbox pages can't be in categories — and the last time I posted to their talk page, I did advise that I would report them to ANI if it continued.

So I'm just not sure what to do. I don't think it rises all the way to the level of requiring a total editblock — prior to the two times this month, it hadn't been readded to categories since April 2024 — but it clearly has to be escalated somehow, since they are disregarding or ignoring numerous prior messages on this matter. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm astonished that someone can have over 50,000 edits without a single edit to their user talk page or article talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That information would be impressive if nobody had found reason to contact him in that time. Unfortunately plenty of people have contacted him with valid questions and observations on his user talk page, but he has totally ignored them. Usually the reason an editor behaves like that it is because they are editing from a phone and don't know that their talk page has been edited, but Finn doesn't even have that excuse. Let's bring back the orange bar of doom. It was ugly, but effective. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

For @Bearcat: - in this case, it looks like good-faith drafting without realization of USERNOCAT - in that case, commenting out the categories would be better than outright removing them. That said, the lack of response regarding this (or any) issue is a serious concern - a pblock from articlespace to drive communication may be called for as communication is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your recommendation, The Bushranger, but in this case, the problem is in their User space, not article space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair, but...mm, pblock from Userspace then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the main problem is a failure to communicate, rather than the WP:USERNOCAT issue described in the original post. I don't envisage a long block, but simply until this editor undertakes to start communicating, so it should be from whatever space(s) grab their attention most quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I know several ways of making notes for categories in a sandbox article, which i learned after making the same mistake as Finn Shipley. (I'm posting here rather than on their TP to avoid forking discussion.) IMO the best are (1) comment them out using <!-- ... -->, or (2) insert a colon (:) between "[[" and "Category". Narky Blert (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have indeffed them, given the concerns raised above and the fact they have still failed to communicate despite very generous comments like this. A user space block will not deal with this fundamental issue, given they continue to edit away in mainspace, and continue to ignore this thread. GiantSnowman 18:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

His block appeal (and the first edit he's ever made to his talk page) runs "I apologize for the lack of lack of response because I have not checked my talk page thoroughly as I have been preoccupied with other activities outside of the site, and wish to cooperate with other moderators to fix the issues addressed." Riiiiiight. Somehow his preoccupation with "other activities" hasn't stopped him from making several hundred edits over the last week, 2400 edits this month, and over 15000 edits since the first of the year [354], many of them bunched in the course of only a couple hours at a time. His communication with us ought to start with a little less by way of BS. Ravenswing 20:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It also sounds like it was written by AI. GiantSnowman 08:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The unblock request is a run on sentence. That is an indicator that it isn't AI. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Their most recent unblock request looks like a good indication that they are aware of the concerns and intend to do better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said when I blocked them - I have no issues with the block being lifted once they have started to communicate and deal with the issues raised at ANI. GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Their most recent unblock request says that they are willing to communicate and they have responded to numerous old messages on their talk page. @The Bushranger and @GiantSnowman, is there any reason why they are not unblocked yet? Toadspike [Talk] 08:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I've unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the categories on my sandbox so I should be good so let me know if there's anything else I need to do Finn Shipley (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please continue to communicate with the community. GiantSnowman 18:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Will do just that Finn Shipley (talk) 19:06, 30 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.

IP range 2A04:CEC0:1923:757A:0:0:0:0/64 engaging in genre warring and original research after final warning

2A04:CEC0:1923:757A:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been referred over to this noticeboard after I had previously reported the above IP range over at WP:AIV. The user behind the IP continues to genre war, as well as make unsourced / original research content additions after a final warning they received on their user talk page. Examples of such edits: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. Thanks, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like 2A02:85F:E475:9BF3:B5F0:D004:AFC9:5B5A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been doing the same. Diff: [355] » Gommeh (he/him) 15:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

A bit of a late followup, but this /64 IP range has been already taken care of several hours after I made this report. Thanks User:ScottishFinnishRadish!

And to be honest, the other IP reported above by User:Gommeh is unlikely to be the same person, especially given that it belongs in a completely different IP range that also geolocates to a different country (Greece instead of France). Though they haven't made any edits since 29 May at 15:14 UTC. I went to the /64 of that other IP and reverted one more genre-changing edit that had been missed. I have a suspicion that they are Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techno genre warrior from Greece. Looking at the page history of Everytime We Touch (album) article, the revert of an identical edit (diff 1 vs diff 2) from User:Binksternet seems to confirm this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of reliably sourced content by User:Buidhe on Acquired homosexuality

The following discussion is closed. 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 would like to raise a concern regarding User:Buidhe who has reverted my edits twice on the article Acquired homosexuality, specifically removing a reliably sourced statement about Irving Bieber’s view that homosexuality may develop due to social factors, including family relationships.

I have engaged in discussion on the article's talk page, provided additional reliable, peer-reviewed sources (including Statista, Science, Cambridge University Press), and requested specific explanations for removal of any citations.

However, User:Buidhe has responded dismissively, claiming "most of these sources do not mention the article topic" without identifying which sources or addressing the content in context. Despite this, the reverts continue without consensus or clear justification.

According to WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISPUTE, repeated reverts without meaningful discussion are discouraged. This situation appears to have escalated into a content dispute requiring administrator intervention.

Evidence

• Reverts:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acquired_homosexuality&action=history

• Talk page discussion:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acquired_homosexuality#c-Buidhe-20221223192300-Python_Drink-20221223190700-DoesNotExist-DiscussionToolsHack

I respectfully request administrator attention to determine if this constitutes disruptive editing and to assist in facilitating consensus on this article.

Thank you.

--Echidna Lover (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Since this touches on a contentious subject area, I'm sure editors will look into this complaint but I need to correct one misapprehension on your part. Administrators do not make decisions on content disputes, that is left to editors to arrive at by consensus. We do look at conduct problems which might be involved here. But admins aren't like the final judges on who is right and who is wrong when it comes to different interpretations of content and sources. If we express an opinion, it's as a regular editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no edit war – buidhe made two reverts of completely different content [356][357], with the second revert coming after both editors engaged in talk page discussion of the content of the first revert. I have weighed in on the content dispute on the talk page. I encourage someone uninvolved to close this thread ASAP. Toadspike [Talk] 07:24, 31 May 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.

Edit summary assertion of vandalism

Alainprost2 (talk · contribs) recently accused RyanW1995 (talk · contribs) of vandalism here at Pope Leo XIV (with this a week ago apparently being the vandalism) in an apparent slow-motion style edit war (see also this revert from a bit prior). I'm bringing this to AN/I because Alainprost2 has a recent warning from CycloneYoris for edit warring at Pope Benedict XVI, and a level 4 warning from Darth Stabro on MOS disruption in addition to a few other discussion points on style - see their talk page. The first diff I linked has the summary Vandalized by RyanW1995, and given the context I brought this here. I'm not involved in this conflict but that edit summary strikes me as an inherently disruptive accusation of a long-time and established editor. (Side note: I'm having a bit of trouble getting the proper diffs - if what I link seems irrelevant, check the next diff on the page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.) Departure– (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: What I did was simply removing the (what I felt was excessive and unnecessary) spaces between the parameter names and the entries in the infobox (in the source editing mode).

Instead of:

:{{Infobox Christian leader
:| type             = Pope
:| honorific_prefix = [[List of popes|Pope]]
:| name             = Leo XIV
:| title            = [[Bishop of Rome]]
:}}

I prefer:

:{{Infobox Christian leader
:| type = Pope
:| honorific_prefix = [[List of popes|Pope]]
:| name = Leo XIV
:| title = [[Bishop of Rome]]
:}}

I feel that this was just a minor edit, which certainly didn't qualify as vandalism in my opinion. It didn't even affect the appearance of the article itself (or even the infobox)! RyanW1995 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, and here is the diff with the accusation in question. It may be possible that Alainprost2 doesn't understand that vandalism has a very specific meaning, and shouldn't be used unless it is indeed vandalism. That being said, I wouldn't edit-war over it either. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I'm calling for anything here, but Alainprost2 spends a lot of time making edits that are entirely cosmetic or nearly so, which has generated nonzero friction with other editors on numerous occasions. They've been talked to about it before. Remsense ‥ 论 10:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Gcenty not communicating about dozens of unsourced lists

The following discussion is closed. 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 requesting a partial block of User:Gcenty from mainspace and draftspace until they communicate with us. They are creating a large number of "List of [country name] singers" pages with zero sources. These lists have been draftified by seven different NPPers at this point, yet Gcenty continues to create new unsourced lists, including three today [358][359][360]. They have only edited their User Talk page once, a year ago [361], and have never edited an article Talk page; a pblock may be the only way to get their attention and stop them from creating more unsourced lists. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Pings for NPPers who may want to weigh in: @FuzzyMagma@CoconutOctopus@MPGuy2824@QEnigma@JTtheOG@Zzz plant, who draftified these lists; @Dclemens1971, who marked ten as reviewed; @Abo Yemen and @JSFarman, who each marked one as reviewed.

If the inclusion criteria of the list is "Wikipedia notable" it is possible that sources are not required (hence why some were marked as reviewed), but that doesn't sit right with me. This volume of editing may also require community approval per WP:MASSCREATE. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Tbh, I reluctantly marked it as reviewed since I found nothing related to "don't create a list of notable x", plus the list that I marked as reviewed had singers who all have a Wikipedia article, technically meaning that they are notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am willing to mark the list as unreviewed if the criteria that I've used are wrong 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure if these lists, individually, should or should not be marked as reviewed. I don't think you made a mistake here. I am mainly concerned that so many are created so quickly, with no acknowledgement of the problem that caused half of them to be removed from mainspace. Toadspike [Talk] 08:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a perennially debatable area, and arguably these list pages don't add much value beyond the categories that already exist. I wouldn't have bothered to create these kinds of lists but I also don't see the point in deleting them once created since WP:SIRS inevitably cover singers of a particular nationality as a group (see e.g. for Cameroonian singers: [362], [363], [364]). I would suspect for 90+% of them one could find an WP:NLIST pass and that's the basis of my decisions for the lists I marked as reviewed. However, I wouldn't object to any consensus to delete these list pages per WP:CROSSCAT. As for them being unsourced, the requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY are met by the links to the articles themselves. Whether a singer belongs to a particular nationality is generally going to be the kind of uncontentious fact that does not require an inline citation if it's verified in the subject's article. I agree with @Toadspike that @Gcenty should respond to communication, but I also don't see any evidence that Gcenty's talk page received any messages other than automated templates prior to this ANI thread being opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that notability is likely not an issue, but I don't see WP:LISTVERIFY giving a carte-blanche exemption from providing sources for BLP claims, which nearly all of these are. It says "statements should be sourced where they appear", which I read as saying statements should be sourced in the list itself. Toadspike [Talk] 13:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NLIST also says that - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - so I've always taken that to mean that at least one source must be provided in the list article that discuss this particular group or set, but that every entry on the list doesn't have to be in that source that discusses the group or set. Having said that, if a reasonable objection to their mass creation of these List articles has been raised with the editor, then they should stop creating them and discuss, not sure if all the standard notifications of articles being moved to draftspace counts, but on the other hand, surely they can see the reason for the multiple moves to draftspace is because it has no sources.

I've worked on several LGBTQ-related list articles that had citation needed tags, for instance, List of LGBTQ rights activists, and I've always provided a source because I feel it is required per our policies and guidelines for List articles, but I've also seen other people that disagree with my interpretation, and that a wikilink to their article is enough. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Somewhere (I think in WP:LISTVERIFY but I don't have time to look it up), there's guidance that uncontroversial statements do not need to be sourced in lists (i.e. "apple" in "list of fruits"). A list including living people is different, but I don't think it's contentious to say that John Doe is a Moldovan singer if the first sentence of his bio says "John Doe is a Moldovan singer," and thus that would constitute verification for purposes of inclusion in such a list. If there was a debate over inclusion, then the topic would be contentious and inline citation would be required. I of course think inline citation is a best practice for verification but not a requirement if it's uncontentious or not one of the four circumstances when it is required.

Separately, I should elaborate -- it is mildly unfair to bring this editor to ANI without any effort first to explain the concerns. The draftification auto-notices don't explain why there might be a broader problem, and editors with concerns should have posted a note seeking to articulate why so many pages were being draftified and asking for a response before opening a thread here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 31 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.

MinorProphet

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

---

I think MinorProphet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could do with a break after this. Even if he is the son of a hugely successful lawyer and "no-one has ever thrown WikiRules at me and survived". DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully they are just having a bad day. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

72 hours seems, exceptionally lenient for saying you've been convicted of violent crimes before, and warning an editor they aren't safe from you.

I can never travel to the USA because of my criminal record, which involves knife crime, bladed articles etc. That may be a good thing. I reckon you don't even live in this country (ie The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because of your wildly inaccurate view of the justiciary and how it works in reality. I strongly suggest you fuck off and die. Yeah, complain, bitch. Whatever you might think, this is not, repeat NOT a "safe website". There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone.

We should believe him, and improve the safety stance of the site through an indefinite block. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that 72 hours is exceptionally lenient; this isn't just run-of-the-mill incivility due to frustration. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy for anyone to extend the block, up to and including indef. I blocked for 72 hours to prevent ongoing disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll note that last time I indef'd an experienced editor for making threats, I was immediately reversed over my objection; perhaps that unconsciously resulted in me limiting the block length (I just thought of that incident now). I hope that other admins care more about the safety of the community than defending a "net positive". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand - and it should have been an indef - but hopefully this will give them time to cool down and understand what exactly they did wrong. I'm not making this an indef in the spirit of WP:NOTPUNITIVE. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocking an editor for violent threats isn't punitive, it's preventing real problems. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure - but an indef - at this point - where the user is already blocked and not disrupting the wiki is punitive. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Replacing a block that expires with one that requires the editor to communicate isn't punishment. Punishment would be accepting his apology, believing it won't happen again, and blocking him for 72 hours because he broke a rule. This is preventing an editor who is telling other editors they aren't safe, because of him, from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia. Do you have any reason to believe the threats are over and the editor understands the problem? 12.75.41.115 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that the threats are completely real and the editor has not understood the problem? If you believe so, you should email T&S at WMF. I don't encourage that but it's an avenue that anyone can take. My reading of WP:NOTPUNITIVE disallows me from placing an indef. Other admins are free to do as they desire, it's an open community after all. This will be my last reply on this matter, as there is nothing else for me to do here. qedk (t 愛 c) 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think upping the block would be punitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

(Not an admin) (Edit conflict) I'm an infrequent visitor to the admin noticeboards.

It looks to me that MinorProphet drops in (out of the blue) a comment about their criminal record involving knife crime (what has that got to do with the edit), the the son of a hugely successful lawyer and "no-one has ever thrown WikiRules at me and survived" , the ACAB edit summary, fuck off and die, and There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone to me indicates an inability, or lack of will, to work on a collaborative project. Their excuse of being drunk is just that, a poor excuse.

I do understand voorts reluctance to go further than a temporary block. We do however, block editors for less. I realise this editor is an established editor and that that is taken into consideration. I would also expect the safety of other editors to be taken into account as well which would suggest a longer block wouldn't be unusual for this type of behaviour. Knitsey (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is the second time this week we have had longtime Wikipedia editors write out-of-character, aggressive comments and then mention they have been drinking. I think, if it doesn't already exist, we should have a Wikipedia essay with the title, "Wikipedia:Don't Edit While Intoxicated" (and that goes for all intoxicants, legal and illegal).

It's tragic that an editor can toss away 16 years of solid editing experience with one drunken rant. I'm not condoning these comments, they are vile, just trying to put them in context with the rest of this editor's history. I almost want to ask if this account is compromised because when I look at this User talk page, I don't see anything else like it and the editor was posting a remark to a message from months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: There's WP:DRUNK. You can also hijack WP:EUTI to make it serious. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Given their previous comments in early April, themselves following an article edit in late March adding "lazy fuk" in a hidden comment, I am sad to say that it might not be a one-time thing.

Regarding that essay, we have it: Wikipedia:Editing under the influence it is! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I see we already have Wikipedia:Editing under the influence but it's tagged as a "humorous essay" when I think it's actually deadly serious. Thank you for the links. I imagine that over the 24 years of the project, we have blocked many once solid editors who vandalized or botched up when they edited while drinking or wasted and now they are too embarrassed to appeal their blocks.

I see looking into their User talk page history and seeing this edit and this one, it wasn't one drunken rant but probably one of a series focused on this one User talk page message that seemed to set them off. Still, it seems out-of-character for them. I see a message there from Duncan to them so maybe he has some familiarity with the editor and their competency. But I don't think you can edit here for 16 years though without getting some things right. I'll be interested in hearing their response to this block when they sober up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I know MinorProphet from the RefDesks, and I've helped fix a reference error or two in articles they have written. The comments today seemed extraordinarily out of character. I think it's best just to leave things as they are and see what happens when they come back. With that said, I'm sure there are some here who will go out of their way to stir it up again given half a chance, by demanding apologies and retractions and self-criticism sessions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGF is for everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have no doubt that those I meant would be certain they were acting for the best. It it possible to have the best of motives and a terrible sense of proportion. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I just want to add to what DuncanHill said. MinorProphet helped me on the RefDesk with questions about science fiction literature in the past, and they were extremely helpful and encouraging. Their recent comments sound unusual, and could be easily explained by some kind of drunken bravado or cultural machismo, or perhaps one of any number of explanations. They have been a net positive here in the past. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry. With all due respect to Voorts, threats of violence, or implied threats of violence, merit no lesser response than an immediate and indefinite block. (I can never travel to the USA because of my criminal record, which involves knife crime, bladed articles etc. That may be a good thing ... I strongly suggest you fuck off and die. Yeah, complain, bitch. Whatever you might think, this is not, repeat NOT a 'safe website'. There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone.) Yes a user's positive contributions need to be taken into account when sanctioning, but the safety of all editors needs to be our paramount concern. Indefinite is not infinite, and if MinorProphet can give a satisfactory explanation for this aberrant comment, in such a way as to resolve the legitimate fears of physical violence that editors would at present feel when interacting with them, then I would not object to an unblock. But you do not get one free threat of violence per 10,000 edits. I have extended the block to indefinite. If those who've defended the leniency of the original block object to this, I am happy to defend the indef at AN, XRV, RECALL, wherever. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Good block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Unnecessary, as there was no immediate threat to anyone or anything, and unkind. You are exactly the sort of person who I mentioned, with the best of motives and lousy judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

An unrescinded threat of violence—or at least the strong implication thereof—is absolutely an immediate threat, both to the editor targeted and to the wellbeing of the project. No editor should have to worry that someone could brag about their weapons convictions, say "fuck off and die", and say that they should feel unsafe, and never have to address what they said. MP appears to understand this, and has made an unblock request that is absolutely a step in the right direction, and is an illustration of why it's important to block indefinitely in cases like this: A threat hangs in the air, and with only a warning or tempblock the air is often never cleared. What MP has said so far has gone a long way toward addressing that, although I'd still like to hear more from them about how we can be sure this won't happen again, and have told them as much. If their response to that is as thoughtful and reasonable as their initial apology, I won't have any problem unblocking or commuting to a tempblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You made the right decision. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Good block! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine with an indef. Not indeffing here shouldn't be taken as me not supporting one. As I said above, I think it was just me subconsciously internalizing the bullshit that happened last time I indeffed an experienced editor who made what I and others perceived to be a threat. To reiterate what I said I hope that other admins care more about the safety of the community than defending a "net positive". voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Voorts. I shouldn't have made it sound like I thought this was deliberate leniency on your part. I understand the position you were in. I have more thoughts about the dilemma you describe, but that's off-topic so I'll put them in an email or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I live in the UK, like MinorProphet, and, as anyone who knows me will tell you, I enjoy a drink (or eight). However when I have been drinking I tend to fall asleep rather than getting aggressive. Tamzin seemed to take the right approach here. I think this matter can be settled at User talk:MinorProphet without any more input from here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:32, 31 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.

Disruptive and persistent biased AMPOL editing from an IP editor

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

---

The IP editor 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 became involved with two AMPOL articles that I wrote—One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Donald Trump's memecoin dinner—and one I did not, $Trump, over the weekend. Their edits have been particularly inflammatory towards both pages and have resulted in an array of reverts, even for innocuous edits. The most disruptive of these efforts has been at the formermost page. Their work is correlated with a series of edits made by Special:Contributions/The Final Bringer of Truth User:The Final Bringer of Truth; in particular, this revision and this revision. In addition, The Final Bringer of Truth edited the lattermost page, though I am not familiar with that situation and will discuss it in less detail here. The Final Bringer of Truth's large edits both involved portraying the bill and the dinner negatively by excessive citations. In the original revision for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, The Final Bringer of Truth empirically stated that it was the "largest upward transfer of wealth from the working and laboring classes and the poor to the rich ... in human history" by using citations largely from op-eds. On the dinner page, The Final Bringer of Truth wrote in the second sentence of the lede that it had been "described as 'an orgy of corruption' and 'the Mount Everest of American corruption.'" While not technically erroneous, the claim lacks attribution and is relatively undue given that it was previously a one-sentence lede.

The IP editor has edited in the same areas and defended the same text—a particularly striking correlation for Donald Trump's memecoin dinner, which had received no edits from other users until that point, leading me to assume that The Final Bringer of Truth and 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 are the same person. Amid a contentious topic designation for these articles, the IP editor has been combative and unresponsive in terms of their edits. Chronologically, their efforts began by accusing me of being unfamiliar with policy, asserting that the content must stay to another user, and suggesting that I am incompetent after discussing the article with other editors and deciding to merge it as the primary author. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has repeatedly claimed, "Leads are required to mention topics of significant controversy related to the article topic," but has so far failed to give any indication that the content in their edits is worth inclusion beyond stonewalling.

The edit summary that encouraged me to seek ANI as an avenue was from the talk page, where 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 decried the "pro-conservative bias of this article" as "truly sickening"—a blanket assertion that lacks no basis, especially when considering that the vast majority of the article describes the history of the bill. The comment itself seems to suggest that a crusade against "propaganda for the Trump/Musk administration" is necessary; lacking substance or specific examples, this comment seems to suggest that the IP editor is unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. It is my impression that, given this edit summary, the talk page comment, and The Final Bringer of Truth's username, that this user holds a clear and unshakeable bias. More broadly, they are unwilling to cooperate with other editors and appear unrelenting in adding this content.

There exist four comments discussing the lede on Talk:One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In "Criticism in lead", 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 did not directly address concerns that the content violated NPOV, instead only opting to change "note" to "argue". The IP editor added, "I hope this works," a strange comment that suggests that they are unfamiliar with the process and are simply seeking to make slight changes but keep the broader content without discussing the critical argument writ large. While 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has moved the section "in the spirit of compromise," it is clear that any attempt to follow WP:BRD has been forgone. That is dangerous on a contentious topic.

In addition, it would be worth noting some minor edits made to other pages, particularly in regards to the "See also" sections of $Trump and United States Department of Homeland Security. In both cases, 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has made insinuations that $Trump is a host of financial crimes and that the Department of Homeland Security is the Schutzstaffel without adequately defending their edits in an edit summary. When the IP editor does use edit summaries, they have misrepresented the edits at issue, including claiming that a move was a "removal" or describing their edits as the "clean version" while removing the {{POV}} tag. I am suggesting here that the IP editor be banned from editing in this topic for several months if they are unable to show that they can be constructive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that CheckUsers can't publicly connect an IP to a user account. However, that being said, I support the idea that the IP should be topic banned until they can show they can be constructive. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• ElijahPepe, what was this "off-wiki discussion" that led you to decide to Merge this article? Where did it happen? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion occurred on Discord. I merged the article after a user proposed merging into an uncreated article about Trump meetings and an administrator suggested that $Trump would be a better target. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

...merge discussions should not take place on Discord. We have article talk pages. That's one reason they exist. Doing it off-wiki is a stupendously bad look that, y'know, shuts out the majority of the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Discussing a merge on anywhere other than Wikipedia, especially on a platform with private messaging like Discord, has an effect that runs contrary to the principle that Wikipedia is an open, free encyclopedia. Granted I don't know exactly what was said, who it was said to, or when, but this may be some sort of canvassing as well. Pretty much any discussion of that type needs to be conducted on-wiki to preserve the project's integrity. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This was not a formal discussion, it was an off-handed comment that I agreed with. The decision to merge rested solely with me. Regardless, focusing on the merge here is missing the forest for one branch of a tree. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, you used off-wiki discussion as your sole rationale in your edit turning the article into a redirect! That's a bad idea for reasons that I assume are now obvious - if someone disagrees, it doesn't give them much to engage with beyond reverting and saying "no". --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not missing the “forest for the trees”, since the reason we’re here is that you’re upset that I suggested you might be incompetent for not realizing why you shouldn’t delete an article with the explanation being “Per private communication.” Indeed you even admit openly in the above to canvassing and off wiki coordination and planning and conspiring with other editors to push your Trumpist agenda. My god, if this isn’t a bannable offense, what is? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what was said, who it was said to, or when - This. We don't know it was [only] an off-handed comment, especially since you explicitly said there was a discussion. Which was it? A discussion or an off-handed comment? And either way, we assume good faith, but it'd be nice if there was a paper trail (so to speak) one way or another. If somebody comments, or discusses, off-wiki, and you agree with it, the next move is to start a move discussion on-wiki - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

By my read of things: elijahpepe asked for advice in the Discord server, and he ultimately decided to do a unilateral bold merge per WP:MERGEINIT, but he wrote a poorly-thought out edit summary that made it look like he was invoking consensus when that's not what he meant to do. Regardless, even if there had been an offwiki merge discussion, it doesn't count toward anything and this is effectively a standard bold merge. Now, if people had been canvassed and came to !vote on his behalf onwiki, that would be a different story. But that's not what's happened. Regardless of the Discord issue, the IP is pretty squarely WP:NOTHERE except to push a POV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• You focused heavily on @The Final Bringer of Truth: in your comment but didn't notify them; you're required to do so in this situation, I think. I've gone ahead and notified them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I made some edits while logged out. What of it? It was not intentional. My page kept crashing and logging me out. This seems to be a case of Boomerang, as the reporting editor’s conduct shows many egregious violations beginning with 1) Literally and unironically claiming ownership of articles “he dared edit MY articles I wrote myself with my bare hands” go read the way he phrases it, very sad stuff (many people wrote those articles; did you think no one was going to make an article on the congressional budget bill without you, hero? No one owns articles) 2) coordinating off wiki by his own admission , which i had to reprimand him for (he literally disappeared a page with the justification offered being “per private off-wiki communication”-outrageous!); 3) repeatedly displaying competence issues. Writing the article originally did not grant you special privileges to delete it once others had contributed to it based on an Off-wiki discussion. 4) Additionally, you seem to be unwilling to listen to my reasons for including that content , but I explained slowly and carefully to you many times why it was appropriate for Big Beautiful Bill article to include 1 sentence (I’d like to make absolutely clear to all of you who may have been fooled by his endless stream of verbiage that this editor is objecting to my including 1 sentence in the article lead) that stated that critics of the Big Beautiful Bill have said it is a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which was voluminously referenced. First it would lack balance if our article failed to mention such a notable aspect of the bill in the lead. Second, lead policy requires significant matters of controversy to be covered in the lead. Third, as to your spurious assertion that it does not belong in the lead because it is mentioned in the article, this is the opposite of how things work, since content must be present in the main article to be in the lead, which obviously should be connected to the article. 5) Not everything is about you. The change from “noted” to “argued” was in response to another commenter on the talk page who made a reasonable claim that “noted” was inappropriate, and so I made the change in response to this persuasive objection. 6) You are intentionally trying to deceive the other editors here, since you know very well that the sentence debated over said that "critics said that it was the largest transfer of wealth" and that I did not state the criticism as an empirical fact. Very dishonest and dishonorable. 7) The name is obviously tongue in cheek. What’s wrong- i thought comedy was legal again? (Should you really be critiqueing the user names of others when yours is a symbol of white nationalist trolls? Again, Boomerang applies) 8) It gives me no pleasure to say that the reporting user Elijah whatever must be banned (though his talk page evidences a long, sordid history of misdeeds) as they have openly admitted to off wiki coordination, canvassing, and conspiracy to promote a particular political viewpoint (and in a quite organized manner, on a discord). Cheers, friend. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to first reiterate that I used the wrong term to describe what occurred off-wiki. I was given advice by another editor to merge the dinner page into another article that did not exist. An administrator joined in and suggested $Trump as a viable target. That was the extent of the conversation. I should have said in my summary that I was merging the page because there was not enough content to sustain a separate article, and I still believe that most editors would come to that conclusion if I were to open a merge request or an AfD right now. I apologize for the confusion.

As far as the rest of this comment goes, there is much exaggerated here. The back-and-forth was limited to moving the sentence below the lede—as you mentioned, "content must be present in the main article to be in the lead"—on the bill page three times, the second time because I was falsely accused of vandalism. I did not revert you on the dinner page; merging an article that was not a redirect previously is not a revert. I did not "[l]iterally and unironically [claim]" to have owned either article, and I haven't been involved with either article enough to even falsely assert a claim of ownership.

Including excessive citations to prove a point does not necessarily mean that something is worth including. I felt that the article was biased against the bill, rather than being a neutral space, and I was reaffirmed in that conviction by several other editors who expressed concern at this particular sentence. You still have not put down the stick when it comes to this sentence. Combined with your statement that the article is biased, that led me to believe that WP:POVPUSHING may be occurring, in addition to inflammatory statements that you have made against me—even now, insisting that I have "competence issues".

In terms of the purpose of the lede, statements made in the lede do not necessarily need to be "duplicative". I often write biographies of living people and I rarely need to directly copy and paste a sentence unless the subject's article is so small that it is necessary. Karoline Leavitt, for instance, provides a summary of what follows, not a verbatim report. Aquillion addressed this point very well here.

Here is what I will suggest. Rather than flinging accusations for the next day or so, let's return to the talk page and discuss this, which I arguably should have done in the first place. If there is such a strong response to this bill—I wouldn't be familiar with that as I do not read op-eds or think tank pieces—then that should be reflected in sources beyond what I just mentioned. I am going to WP:AGF here; I suggest you do the same. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Given this [[365]], this seems to be very much an advocacy account that is here to right great wrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This editor has removed the POV tag from the article One Big Beautiful Bill Act twice now and is repeatedly reverting edits to the lead, reinserting the same content multiple times without consensus. I’ll raise this issue on the talk page but I felt it was necessary to mention it here. 206.57.166.53 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now made them aware of wp:3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act#%22Voting_by_Democratic_Representatives%22_section_is_misleading

This editor is incredibly aggressive in their tone and approach, accusing fellow editors at random and taking unproductive approaches. Tofflenheim (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s just frustrating discussing the article with you since you don’t understand [[WP:Synth]]. It’s an excellent read. I promise you’ll learn something new you don’t know now. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't care how frustrated you are, the way you express yourself is way out of line. You have tons of people in disagreement with you over your conduct and can't seem to self reflect at all. Your only move is to accuse others of being ignorant, incapable of reading, or other random insults. Tofflenheim (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

No one is here to make friends. This isn’t about your feelings. Wikipedia:Competence is required. You can’t just keep repeatedly arguing on behalf of a synthesis that isn’t present in sources. Bring sources not pointless tone policing. Great, you’re offended by my tone. Then listen when I explain to you the first time about why you can’t make synthesis that isn’t present in a source. Cheers, friend The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree that competence is required. Which is why its puzzling that you jump into the talk page accusing me of that when your own sources literally explain the hypothetical I was giving: "Two Republicans missed the vote early Thursday — and if they had voted, three additional Democratic “no” votes could have fought it to a tie, blocking the bill, at least at that moment. The GOP would have had to win the votes of one member who voted “present” or flip one of the two who voted “no” on the bill. Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier."

Now what? What's the next insult? Tofflenheim (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you should work on your reading comprehension. The passage you cited supports my point not yours. Think about it what that passage actually says. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hint: it is saying that the democratic deaths were decisive, which is the claim you keep trying to remove. Think about what you read, and think about what you write next time. Cheers, friend The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you replying here instead of the talk page? This is not the right place. Happy to prove you wrong in the proper area, but you won't reply there for some reason. Just here and on other Arbitration pages. Tofflenheim (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

In what way is the article NPOV or poorly sourced? Can anyone just add tags to the article at random without offering justification? I asked you to justify the tag and you were unable to justify it as NPOV beyond “I don’t like it!” The claim that it will remove 14 million Americans health insurance is not “partisan” or my “opinion” or “NPOV”. It comes from the congressional budget office. The page is “owned” by a number of right wing editors who think they own the article and that anything not taken from congressional republican press release is NPOV. I challenge any uninvolved editor to review the page and assess the spurious claim that the page has any left bias or is inadequately sourced. Interestingly I was also accused of using too many sources; my opponents accuse me of both using too many sources and too few; they object to material in the lead for not being present in the article, and being duplicative of material in the main article, etc. These arguments are meritless and lack basis in reality. Please review my contributions to said article: you will see I am one of the only editors there scrupulously sourcing their claims and not uncritically adopting the perspective of the bill’s writers. Cheers. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Final Bringer of Truth, just today you restored speculation that is tagged "source needed" but wrote in your edit summary Restore factual and well sourced information from reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It was not speculation. It was sourced information. You know very well there were multiple references appended to that sentence. I’m shocked at this open dishonesty. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Where is your diff if I added material that did not have multiple references? Since you don’t have one, retract your slanderous claim The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The addition is right here. I don't see any references in it, are they somewhere else in the article?

The narrow passage led to internal backlash and division in the Democratic Party, which lost the vote due to three elderly Democratic representatives having died in the first five months of 2025. If any had voted the party line, the tie vote would have sent the bill back to committee. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see what happened. Someone removed the sources, tagged it with citation needed, and then removed it because of no citation. When I wrote the sentence, there were sources. This is very shady. I would never add a line without multiple sources. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1292200178

See here. The sentence had multiple reliable notable sources. Subsequently, an editor deleted the sources, then tagged it as uncited, then deleted it for being unsourced. Do you not all find this kind of underhanded editing outrageous? It is absurd to delete references and then claim that the underlying material should be deleted as unsourced. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it was actually (also) moved to *Voting by Democratic Representatives*. Similar text, with references is there on the current version of the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes you also bring up a good point that material in the lede that is cited elsewhere in the article does not require citations in the lead anyway, showing even more clearly that the removal of this content was done in bad faith. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you bringing the vandalistic removal of sources to my attention. I have reverted the vandal. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

And now their user page talks about wanting to kill wiki-lawyers. I don't like commenting at ANI, but I think it is time for an indef. This is completely unacceptable at a level well above their already-problematic comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I have started an AE thread regarding the registered user's behavior in this topic area. I haven't been keeping up with this thread, I only noticed it when I was going through their contributions to gather evidence for the AE thread. But if people think there are other editors (whether IP or registered) connected to this, please comment there as well. And if one of the threads (this one or the AE thread) are closed, perhaps the other one can be closed too. Just noting this here so everyone is aware. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

After having read through this, I would especially request anyone with evidence that the IP(s) may be the same editor provide such at the AE thread, so that all of them can be topic banned (or blocked) as admins decide are appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You just revealed you didn’t read the thread in your statement announcing you had read the thread . Irony! The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should focus on improving articles rather than pursuing vendettas and wasting administrator and arbitrator time ? You do understand arbitration is not the relevant venue to raise complaints about tone right? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• WP:OWB #72 strikes again: The Final Bringer of Truth indef'd by @Tamzin: for the edit referred to here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 31 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.

IP user 82.47.54.185 pushing idiosyncratic views re the US

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

---

An IP user, Special:Contributions/82.47.54.185, has made quite a few edits of which a few are all right but also many of which involve an ongoing discontent over nations and nationalities and languages and language varieties, the terms used for them, and often the identification with them of various foodstuffs, based on idiosyncratic ideas of what they should be. In some cases the edits are to harp openly about the fact that some term in use is specifically English. These edits have largely been reverted. A number of communications about this (not formal warnings, but still) on the user's talk page, but there has been no response and the same behavior has continued. Many of the edit summaries have been combative and in some cases vulgar. Examples:

• 2 March, at Tripe, [366], changed a reference to "Mexican tacos" to "Mesoamerican tacos".
• 30 March, at Corned beef, [367], changed the infobox name parameter value from "Corned beef" to "Corned beef in the United States" and left the edit summary "murrikunts".
• 6 May, at Curry, [368], changed the lead from "Curry is a dish with a sauce or gravy seasoned with spices ..." to "Within the English language the term Curry refers to a dish with a sauce or in the USA, a gravy in seasoned [sic] with spices ..."
• 14 May, at Stuffed peppers, [369], felt the need to add to each mention of "Bell peppers" (which was linked to the article) other names by which other English speakers in the world know them.
• 28 May, at John Bertrand Johnson, [370], I don't think anything was wrong with the edit, but the edit summary "why is wiki so USA centric on THE world wide web?" seems a free-floating rant unrelated to the edits that were actually made.
• 31 May, at Equestrianism, [371], changed the lead "Equestrianism ... commonly known as horse riding (Commonwealth English) or horseback riding (American English) ..." to "Equestrianism ... commonly known as horse riding (Commonwealth English) or in the USA simplified English horseback riding (American English) ...".
• 31 May, at Americans, [372], made several additions harping on how each term is only the English term and how the United States is the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", and left the edit summary "MURRICUNTS".

A fair number of this user's other edits within the last couple of months have been reverted by a number of other editors for other reasons.

What's the best next step in dealing with this user? Largoplazo (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Idiosyncratic" is a rather over-polite way to describe this. I've handed out a block for WP:DE, but I doubt that will change their approach, so feel free to ping me if they make another edit like that on their return. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 31 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.

User:MyOttawaNumber - allegations of undisclosed paid editing

MyOttawaNumber (talk · contribs) became very defensive in two separate instances, Special:Diff/1289448910 and Special:Diff/1293216589, when asked about undisclosed paid editing at Radio Africa Group and Gondwana Ecotours, respectively, insisting that there are no financial stakes involved. I also suspect this user of being a meat puppet given that they could not have recreated Gondwana Ecotours without knowing that it has previously been deleted. I asked this user on their talk page about why they recreated Gondwana Ecotours but did not get a proper response. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 22:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The drafts aren't substantially similar, so you've no smoking gun here. The new one does look a lot like LLM output though, if anyone wants to have a deeper look to see if that characterizes most of their edits. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Without looking at this closely, I question whether disclaiming participation in paid editing is evidence of paid editing. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

That and any editor can know that a page was previously deleted. Knowing the content of that deleted page isn't accessible, but the fact it has been is. I sense a WP:BOOMERANG here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, where do you see them saying they know about the content of the previous page? I don't see that in these diffs or on their talk page but could easily have missed it. Given the heavy UPE involvement in these articles previously, obviously we should be realistic here, but I don't think we should be surprised that someone responding to UPE concerns is irritated (that's how I'd describe the tone, more than "defensive"). If someone had accused me of UPE early on, I'd have been miffed too. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: That was in response to the OP's they could not have recreated Gondwana Ecotours without knowing that it has previously been deleted.. I was noting that they probably didn't know about the content on the previous page, but could easily know there was a previous page - sorry if that was unclear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

OP here. I assume you took a look at Special:Diff/1293216589. What I meant was that they could not have recreated the page without some intention as they have claimed on their talk page knowing that the page has previously been deleted, twice for that matter, by one User:See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d and one User:Gedbesasa. I am not saying that they were able to see the content of the previous page(s). Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The page has a track record of UPE so I do hope you know where I am coming from. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the UPE history of that article is obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Icewhiz is planning to end Wikipedia

Hatting because stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Usually I wouldn't post something like this to a public board but this is too serious to not mention here. Icewhiz just told me that Wikipedia has 24 hours left. I'm shaking right now and we need to back up everything on this website if it is actually going down permanently. I can't say anything about what he told me except that he's going to expose Wikipedia's connections to the Albanian mafia after it goes down. Btw we share a discord server. Quivered (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Can you ask him to spare the Star Trek articles please as I like looking up old episodes on there. — Czello (music) 16:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC) THIS ISN'T A FUCKING JOKE. WIKIPEDIA MIGHT DIE. FOREVER. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:B4EB:BFA2:D19F:EF72 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unconstructive grammar simplifications and a refusal to communciate from 74.47.33.84

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

---

By @74.47.33.84. Hit the 3 revert limit on this one. User will not leave any edit summaries and refuses to communicate or address reversion reasons (e.g. repeated violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, that many of the grammar simplifications they make are bad (Including unsourced date changes?) [373] [374] [375], or dubiously related see also edits [376] [377] [378] among others). Despite being reverted by multiple editors they refuse to stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the unhelpful IP user described at User:Beyond My Ken/Bad copyediting IP. Blocked the IP range for 6 months based on the activity from that range. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:29, 31 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.

2600:1700:7CF0:5600::/64

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

---

I suspect that the IP range 2600:1700:7CF0:5600::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is being used for vandalism. They keep making changes to numbers without sources, and I checked two of them and found them to contradict the given sources. 99.155.36.136 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. If they resume afterwards, WP:AIV is where this should be reported. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 31 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.

User:Nyam Nyam Tiger's incredibly disruptive WP:BURDEN-fundamentalism

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

---

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

Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk · contribs) abuses the wording of site guidelines and removes all material tagged with {{cn}} in a completely arbitrary and destructive manner. This comprises the majority of their contribution history, and amounts to meatbotting on their part. They have started socking in the range 2603:8000:E800:5F4E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to avoid scrutiny about it, where they already received a block by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I have already warned them about the sockpuppetry/editing logged out, but it has now continued.[379]

They seem to believe "citation needed" means "dubious", and as I made very clear to them on my user page, they are not entitled to unilaterally decide unsourced material isn't allowed on Wikipedia and go on sprees removing it without expressing any discretion whatsoever about the citeability of individual cases. The only case-by-case specifics they have ever acknowledged in their reasoning is the age of the citation tag, which is totally meaningless and insufficient by itself. (If it were sufficient reasoning, we would let actual bots do this nonsense instead.) They've even knowingly removed sourced material because the section still had an {{unsourced section}} tag.[380] They plainly do not understand what the term "original research" means.[381] It's a severe competence issue at a minimum. Remsense ‥ 论 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is a great time to remind editors of the following provisions of WP:V (main text plus Note [e]):

  When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable ... When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material ... it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

This can't be overstressed: the test for removal is a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified -- not just "I'm removing it because I can". (BLP exceptions apply, your mileage may vary.) EEng 23:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@EEng thank you! Jahaza (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense:, While - as EEng points out - the lack of explanation is a problem, the removals are not. Any uncited information in Wikipedia may be removed at any time by any editor, regardless of whether or not (a) it's tagged with {{cn}} or (b) the age of that cn tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No, because the lack of explanation in this case clearly reflects a lack of valid reasoning. Again, it's incredibly disruptive, bot-like behavior that's incapable of actually improving the encyclopedia. As stated, your permission requires toleration of people enforcing hard rules that do not exist across a large number of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 23:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

As WP:V points out, it's not only that such material "may" be removed, it's also the case that "Whether ... material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Furthermore, WP:PRESERVE is also policy. On Popcorn, for example, material was removed by @Nyam Nyam Tiger that was covered quite explicitly by sources already listed in the article. Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm with the Bushranger on this one. Unexplained mass deletion is a problem because it's unexplained and overly rapid, not because things were deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Except that's what the complaint is: these edits are unexplained and overly rapid. "I'm removing it because it has a {cn}" isn't an explanation. I might also add, to what I said above, that what V requires is that content be verifiable, not verified. EEng 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet unverified content, especially content that has a CN tag attached and is therefore material that needs an inline citation but does not have one, may be removed. 'I'm removing it because it has a cn' may not be a very good explanation, but the removal of content that was uncited and tagged with a CN is entirely within policy: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed. Should it have been cited instead of removed? Probably. Was there a violation in doing so? No. Was there an ANI-worthy violation in doing so? Absolutely not. That said, it seems that's not the only concern, given the mention of removing sourced material because the section had an unsourced tag that should have been removed instead, which is a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue is their chronic pattern of unjustified, dogmatic behavior. They are not merely bad at explaining their edits, as far as I can tell they are accurately explaining their motivations. They are just bad motivations that are incompatible with site policy. "Uncited" is the actual reason they have expressed repeatedly and at some length. This post would not be made in response to a few edits to a few articles made over a brief period. Again, you are in effect saying we must allow users to enforce a personally-felt rule that uncited material is not allowed at all on Wikipedia. That's absurd. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger, have you had a look at their contributions? I believe these are, aside from talk page discussions, the only edits they have ever made that are not a straightforward removal of content: [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389]. In their entire edit history, they appear to have added two sentences to the encyclopedia. We don't need to be getting into a philosophical discussion about when to remove uncited content here. This is pretty plainly not productive editing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the problem with many gnomes: they have no experience in the adult world of actual content editing, and therefore no concept of how a policy like V operates in practice. Bumbling around the project they happen upon a hammer, and after that the world is nothing up a collection of nails for them. EEng 02:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm, laid out like that, that does point to a problem, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not a rhetorical question, but I do really want to file better reports here: what about this characterization made it click that was lacking in mine? I tried to emphasize at the top that this behavior was the majority of their editing history. Remsense ‥ 论 09:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You lack the magic touch, that's all. EEng 01:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense, I'm not sure anyone can really answer that question helpfully, since, out of all the topics that tend to nerdsnipe Wikipedians into philosophical debates, this is probably the worst. That we as a group easily lose the tree for sight of the forest is not a thing a tweak to an ANI report is likely to ever be able to solve. -- asilvering (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

They seem to believe "citation needed" means "dubious" turned out to be something of a red herring. After all, "citation needed" has spread beyond Wikipedia as a way of expressing doubt and our own {{Citation needed/doc}} says used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation (my emphasis). It's great if people use more precise tags sometimes, but best not assume such tagging doesn't express doubt - and without that assumption, your report might have been effective a little sooner. NebY (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

With regards to how I do things, I consider myself a deletionist. In this case, I remove content of questionable authenticity. The longer a content wears a cn, the more its verifiability comes into question. If I remove something, people can add it back, but they must include a reliable source. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you look for citation(s) yourself, for example in this pair of edits where you removed a tagged account of a legend and a mention of price which had not been tagged? NebY (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As to whether I should find a source myself, or have someone else do it, I think that is optional. Deletionists mainly focus on deleting. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @NebY and @Asilvering. Remsense ‥ 论 22:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I am no gnome, and have some experience with content creation. I know the frustration content creators have with unsourced material. I find it easier to write from scratch that to search for references for unsourced material. All unsourced material must be regarded as dubious and treated with caution even if you know it to be true. If you don't know where it came from, then it might well be a copyvio. For that reason, you have to rewrite it when you add a source. I have had to deal with a lot of material that looks convincing but when examined closely turns out to be incorrect. Caution is also required when looking things up online: citogenesis is a real danger. WP:PRESERVE: Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. I personally take a dim view of gnome drive-by taggers. I can and will excise unsourced text, which is not acceptable at DYK, OTD or GA, and expect admins to block anyone attempting to restore unsourced material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Of course you do that -- so do I, and so does every responsible, experienced editor -- but with judgment and discretion, taking account of the overall state of the article and the nature of the assertions involved. You don't just blindly delete willy-nilly like a robot. EEng 23:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7, please see my comment here: [390]. We're not talking about a general philosophical exercise. We're talking about a single disruptive editor. -- asilvering (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  No problem! I have no issue with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletionists mainly focus on deleting has to be one of the most pathetic rationalizations I've ever seen at ANI. Deletionist is term of aprobrium leveled by so-called inclusionists; it is not a badge of honor. In any event you're not a deletionist, you're a wrecking ball. If what you're doing gives you a sense of accomplishment at improving Wikipedia, we're here to tell you that that's not the case: your edits are actively destructive. Find something constructive to do or the calls for you to be blocked will begin. EEng 16:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaaah, being a self-admitted "deletionist" is...oof, that is not a good look. At all. @Nyam Nyam Tiger:, I'd strongly suggest you take a step back from your deletionism and read up on a variety of Wikipedia policies regarding verification, notability, and citations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, Nyam Nyam Tiger teaming up with other deletionists, would look more like consensus. It is arguably only the behavior isolated to a solo effort, which makes it stand out more or is more readily contested. Nyam Nyam Tiger within a team, could overwhelm like fait accompli. Where the deletionist team's numerous and various actions, especially if done quickly, would make resistance to their effort appear futile or a forgone conclusion. Wukuendo (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that by removing unsourced content, editors would be more committed to verifiability. That way, readers can be certain that what they're reading is genuine. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Your belief does not follow from reality. We have plenty of "sourced" content that is not actually verifiable - because the citations are incorrect, because the editor made a mistake or because they intentionally twisted them. What improves the veracity of Wikipedia is a careful adherence to verification. You are not verifying, nor are you creating verified content, so your edits are not helpful in this regard. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, so you're on a one-man crusade to teach other editors -- editors with experience and judgment -- editors who do actually useful stuff -- that they need to be more "committed to verifiability". What arrogance. It's one thing that you somehow developed these wrongheaded ideas in the isolation of your complete lack of interaction with other editors or constructive work on articles, but it's quite another for you to continue arguing your high-handed position here, where everyone is telling you that you're way off base.

Note well: Assuming you don't get blocked as a result of this thread (and they way you're going, that's a distinct possibility), if you ever try to teach me to be more "committed to verifiability" via any article on my watchlist, I'll see to it that you're blocked so fast, it will make your head spin. You have been warned. EEng 18:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyam Nyam Tiger:, as I mentioned above, you may, technically, by the letter of policy, be right in making these edits. But being right isn't enough. The way you're going about these edits is disruptive, and the reasoning doesn't fit policy at all, and could indeed be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. So consider this a warning: the community does not trust you to remove unsourced content from articles. Stop doing so, or you will be sanctioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Let me ask you something, Nyam Nyam Tiger. Do you honestly think that this text constitutes dubious material requiring removal [391]?

  A coffee percolator is a type of pot used to brew coffee by continually cycling the boiling water through the grounds using gravity until the required coffee strength is reached. There are stove-top percolators and standalone units which contain a built-in heating element. Percolators were popular until the 1970s, when they were widely replaced with other techniques. By the mid-1970s, many companies ceased production of percolators.

I could maybe see an argument for removing the last two sentences (in the same way, I suppose, you might remove an unsourced statement that as autos became common, horses fell out of use), but the rest? Are you kidding? How about this [392]?

When the popcorn has finished popping, sometimes unpopped kernels remain. Known in the popcorn industry as "old maids", these kernels fail to pop because they do not have enough moisture to create enough steam for an explosion. Re-hydrating prior to popping usually results in eliminating the unpopped kernels.

Yes, it's a good thing you're on the alert for dodgy stuff like that. EEng 21:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I hardly have any opinions on both statements. But whoever added the cn tags probably thinks they're dubious. One thing to consider is that after they are tagged, they have not been dealt with in years. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyam Nyam Tiger, editors are expected to exercise their judgement when editing. If you have no opinion on the merits, simply don't make the edit. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyam Nyam Tiger, you are assuming that the person who placed the tag knew what they were doing and made a sensible decision. That's not a reliable assumption. Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nyam Nyam Tiger, all we know is that the person who added the tags thought they ought to be provided with citations - after all, the statements are reasonable and if you'd examined them you'd have found that they were verifiable. They only needed citations. But you like deleting, so you deleted good content. NebY (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I did a quick google search for Percolators were popular until the 1970s, and easily found this source:

• Sheumaker, Helen (November 3, 2017). Artifacts from Modern America. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-4408-4683-0.

So why not do a quick search first and help improve the encyclopedia with content that is reliably sourced and verifiable. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• WP:V is clear that there are some situations that allow uncited-but-uncontroversial text to remain, and deliberately vague about what constitutes a legitimate "challenge"; this is necessary because whether to remove or leave tagged with {{cn}} is a contextual thing dependent on a lot of factors, and not something that is well-handled by an ironclad rule (outside of a few cases like WP:BLP where more ironclad rules are necessary.) Going through and mass-removing cn-tagged things in a clearly indiscriminate manner the way you've been doing breaks that and is effectively an attempt to change the way we handle such material by WP:FAIT in a way that isn't really compatible with collaborative editing. --Aquillion (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban or block

I think we've had enough WP:IDHT for one day. I'll start by proposing the following. But please, let's work out the details of it before people start supporting/opposing. I'm fine with people editing this proposal in place -- just make mention below that you changed something.

NNT is indefinitely banned from removing unsourced material from articles. This ban may be appealed after one year, during which time it is expected that they will have engaged significant article editing of other kinds.

EEng 22:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn in favor of a straight block -- see below. EEng

I think this would be basically impossible to adhere to for any genuinely productive editor, so I don't think it's a good idea here either. If they choose to go back to their old habits, I'll simply indef them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I was imagining expanding to "unsourced and insufficiently sourced", to encompass {{more citations needed}}, {{Medical citations needed}} and the like, in case of argument - but you're clearer. NebY (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

NebY, not sure whether you're talking to me or to Asilvering. But I'm happy with with Asilvering's sword-of-Damoclese approach as well. But first we'd have to hear from NNT that he understands why his editing to date has been inappropriate. So far he's been unable to do that, and if no progress is made on that front, I think he needs to be blocked until he can articulate how he's going to mend his ways. EEng 23:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I was responding to asilvering, liking their approach better than my thoughts about fine-tuning your draft. But yes, this is also a textbook example of a preventative block being appropriate, pending - or only to be averted by - clear understanding and acceptable assurances. NebY (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Well, at this point all we can do is wait to hear from NNT. He knows this thread is ongoing. I'd say 24 hours is more than generous. EEng 00:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• I support a general block. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• @Nyam Nyam Tiger: I fully agree with everything everybody except yourself has said here. But you don't have to. You just have to show you understand. I would strongly recommend that you do what I did on the one occasion I was brought here, state that you disagree with the interpretation of policy that users critical of you have outlined, but promise you will no longer make the kind of edit that is causing problems.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• I realize another point needs to be highlighted: NNT's extensive use of logged-out editing to avoid scrutiny [393], beginning immediately after he was first warned to stop and continuing practically until the moment this ANI thread was opened [394]. So they've long known this activity is inappropriate, but kept doing it anyway. EEng 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that's a ban, surely? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't call me Shirley. [395] EEng 14:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this you?--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That's right, Sue. EEng 17:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, editing while logged-out to avoid scrutiny is a blockable offense. And doing so when they knew their disruptive behavior was an issue, shows they have no intent on stopping their disruptive behavior. Support indef. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, despite my reputation as heartless and unforgiving, my better angels are telling me there's a sliver of a chance that NNT can yet be guided onto a better path -- he's gotten sucked into this deletion monomania, but maybe his eyes can be opened. One approach would be an immediate indefinite block from article space, with the provision that he can be unblocked via the usual unblock request process, assuming he can show he understands the error of his ways. Or maybe he can convince us here, while this thread is still open, that he should be unblocked.

So that's my proposal: an immediate indef from article space. EEng 14:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m good with this too ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Logging out in an attempt to avoid detection when one's edits are under scrutiny is all but an admission of intentional disruption. Support indef. --Sable232 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I really want to keep pushing the idea of an indef from article space. That way he has an path by which he can start contributing usefully (e.g. posting sources he's found for unsourced statements) with zero risk he'll be able to resume his old activities. The IP range should also be fully blocked for, say, a year. EEng 15:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Is it really likely to happen though? The user clearly principally derives pleasure from removal of text. Also, would anyone notice the addition of sources?Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Not likely, I agree. But look how clean it is: he's blocked from the space in which his activities were disruptive and, whether we think it's likely or not, left open the paths by which he can redeem himself, and subsequently make an unblock request. Re finding sources: what I'm suggesting is that he find sources for {cn} material, and post them to the talk page of the article involved; some other editor can add the source to the article. Or he can draft a few new articles in Draft: space. If he does stuff like that enough times over a few months, then there'd be good reason to give him a new lease on Wikilife by unblocking him.

I really feel that partial blocks (from a given article, or all of article space) should be used way, way more at ANI. EEng 17:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks EEng, a pblock is certainly a better idea than an outright indef and I'm a bit ashamed that wasn't my initial suggestion. I still prefer to wait to see if they go back to their old habits first. In the meantime, I've blocked the IP for a month. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's see if they go back to their old habits first – That would make sense if they came to this thread and articulated an understanding of what they've been doing wrong. Assuming they don't (and I propose we give them another 8 hours to get over their WP:ANIFLU) then some kind of block is in order. I'm a broken record on this: a block for a week just freezes everything, and then we see if he just starts up again, but a mainspace pblock gives him a chance to demonstrate he can contribute usefully, and learn. It'd indef because we'll want to hear him articulate what he's learned. EEng 18:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I beg to differ [396]. EEng 19:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please. Don't sell yourself short like that. Our arguments are free and open-source. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, my support is for an indef p-block or site block. Either one works, but given the user's attitude I wouldn't have high hopes that it would matter in the long run. That said, a p-block is worth a try in situations like this. --Sable232 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Options outside of an article-space pblock seem hard to enforce, and an article space pblock seems like a big jump. That said, it is problematic to remove unsourced content without much thought and at a rapid rate, and if that is not taken on board then something preventative will be needed. I would also say this interpretation of cn tags as dubious tags is similarly problematic, as well as forging too strong a link between the presence of a tag and the concept of being unsourced. I have seen articles gutted through the deletion of all cn-tagged text, while leaving untagged but actually dubious text, which leads to a net decrease in quality. CMD (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by article space pblock seems like a big jump. EEng 17:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just seems high in the potential escalating block staircase. CMD (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  They've already been blocked for disruptive editing on the IP. I found this out while going to block the IP myself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  seems high in the potential escalating block staircase – But everyone else is talking about a full indef, so it seems to me a mainspace indef is mild by comparison. To repeat: a mainspace indef will allow him to demonstrate competence in other ways before requesting an unblock. EEng 18:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Time-limited blocks can work well for aberrations and giving contributors a chance to adjust. Deleting content's been NNT's sole activity (nearly 500 instances, 80 in the last month) and they think it's justified; it's how they define themselves here. I don't see how we can let them loose in encyclopedia mainspace without some credible retraction and assurance. NebY (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  A timed block p-block may be a lighter step, I had the "indef from article space" suggestion on my mind. CMD (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear on my thinking: an indef from article space, until he can articulate an understanding of what he's done wrong, is the right move. A timed pblock from article space, under which he can just not respond in this thread, wait out the block, and then go back to what he was doing, is clearly an inferior way of (a) avoiding more trouble, and (b) giving him a chance to learn to operate in other areas of the project. EEng 19:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• My apologies for the wait. I'm getting busy these days. Anyway, I vow that I'll give more consideration when dealing with content lacking citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

In what way? What else do you see yourself doing, other than deleting stuff? And most importantly, please explain why you were editing while logged out when you had been told to stop with the deletions. Personally I believe you should still be blocked from article space until you've demonstrated an ability to contribute to the project in other ways. Why shouldn't we do that? You've caused a lot of editor time to be wasted with your childishness, and we're going to need more than a vague single sentence from you. EEng 22:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

As suggested by other users, I'll check the web for sources when it comes to the unverified things. As for editing while logged out, I forgot about that. But that won't happen again. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. You "forgot" about editing while logged out, which you were doing two days ago?

We've wasted enough time on this and I've heard all I need to. Since NNT doesn't have any plans to do anything but delete stuff, I now call for them to be indefinitely pblocked from article space. They can find sources for stuff lacking sources, and post them to article talk pages, and they can do anything else useful -- outside of article space. When they've demonstrated an ability to do such stuff for three months, they can request to be unblocked. EEng 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. EEng 22:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked indef from article space. Based on the comment above from Nyam Nyam Tiger (in which they also admit editing the same way while logged out) I'm heeding discussion consensus to indefinitely block the user from editing in article space. This is an entirely preventative block to prevent undue blanking. They are welcome to edit anywhere else for now. Nyam Nyam Tiger is welcome to continue this discussion if they wish. I hope they make a more serious case than they have done so far. Any edits in any wiki-space by this user while logged out will be treated as an attempt to go around the block. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I noticed that Nyam Nyam Tiger has just clicked over 501 edits, giving them extended confirmed status. Given over 95% of their edits are mere blankings, I'm wondering whether this was just a rather unusual gaming of EC privileges. BusterD (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest you remove EC. They can request it back separately at some appropriate time. EEng 23:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

   Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  OK, now get Trump to resign. EEng 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• There's seems to be some misunderstanding. In my previous two posts, I pretty much commented about my removal habits because that is subject of the thread. But frankly, I can do anything besides removal. In fact, I once added a sentence to a restaurant article, and even added a link. I could switch to that type of editing if I have to. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you think that your mass deletions were the only subject of this thread, then you haven't taken this matter seriously enough to read this thread. I'm probably the only reason you're not site blocked indefinitely, and so far you've made me sorry to have gone to the trouble. Take my advice above as to things you can do to restore the community's confidence in you, and after at least three months think about making an unblock request (on your talk page). EEng 02:50, 2 June 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.

Multiple unsuccessful account login attempts today

Anyone else receive multiple warnings about someone trying to log in to their accounts but being unable to in the last hour or so? I do have 2FA so they aren't getting in, and changed my own password just to be cautious, but receiving this twice in one day is certainly a bit concerning, even as a perennial issue, and I do wish I'd know who was doing it for clarity to see who it possibly could be. Nathannah • 📮 19:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Not me, but I have been unexpectedly logged out a few times in the last few days or so. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have that issue right now, but I have received it countless times in the past however. On at least two occassions there had apparently been 27 unsuccessful login attempts into my account, and my email would also literally get bombed full of those login attempt notifications. Though for me it may have started after I dealt with a specific LTA (who I won't name) on Wikipedia. But after a week or so, it seemed to have died off. This all happened last year, from what I remember.

Since you have 2FA enabled, I honestly wouldn't worry a single bit. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Your email was literally bombed? Don't people know it's illegal to send a bomb through the mails? EEng 03:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

95.70.115.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) conducted multiple personal attacks towards an editor in edit summaries. See diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3. Also I did warn the user of personal attack (level 4im, considering the direct accusation of an editor, multiple times), but another user (mistakenly but in good faith) removed the warning. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Remsense didn't "mistakenly" remove your L4 warning. Their edit summary was "egregious". This means they thought your warning was—per Mirriam-Webster—"conspicuously bad". Similarly to how you misrepresented their edit, I think you have misidentified personal attacks. Now, the anon's edits may not have been constructive (I don't know). But who were they personally attacking? An editor called Wikian, apparently. I don't know who that is either. But they haven't edited the articles you link to. Were they perhaps complaining that Wikipedia congenitally misrepresents that particular information (again, I have no idea as to the merits of the complaint)? But saying 'Wikipedia consistently misrepresents this topic' is not an unusual view, and indeed, is one which many established editors would probably endorse in various areas.

However they are probably editing warring. But it takes two to tango, as they say. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor called Wikian exists. Here is an example (it's editing the article referred to in diff 1; also note that the editor had majorly edited the article). In any case, the anon didn't need to extensively and personally attack Wikian, accusing them of violating multiple policies (such as WP:NOR), and certainly didn't need to do this multiple times. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Aaah. It's Wikain then. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for my typo. But my point stands, the editor from that example is Wikain (no typo). Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• I looked at those cited diffs by User:Alpha Beta Delta Lambda, and I do not consider those edit summaries "personal attacks". They read to me like the typical language you would hear when an editor disagrees with an edit. As someone who's been editing for nearly three years (and lurked around for several years more), I have seen people say far, far worse things than that.
• User:ToBeFree has now blocked the IP for 1 week for edit warring, as well as semi-protected most of the affected articles for 3 months.
• User:Remsense (who not only deleted the level 4im warning rightfully but also reverted most of the IP's edits) has started a talk page thread at Talk:History of the transistor § Clarity on claims / who's socking where and why? asking for help/input on the actual content dispute behind this edit war. — AP 499D25 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh

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

---

The user called "KhndzorUtogh" is canvassing admins and directly ordering them to block users he doesn't agree or simlply dislikes them just because they are Turkish. (KhdnzorUtogh is armenian and he openly shows his hate towards Turks on many of his actions on Wikipedia.) He falsely claimed that a user is denying armenian 'genocide' and ordered an admin to block him and the admin did it moments ago. He removed a sourced content without adequate explanation from the Iğdır Province article just because it was mentioned a massacre against Turks by armenians. I think it's time for real admins to investigate the relationship between "KhdnzorUtogh" and several senior Wikipedia admins, especially Bushranger.

Look here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&diff=prev&oldid=1293179611

he directly ordered the so-called "neutral" admin Bushranger to take action against a Turkish user. I guess KhdnzorUtogh and Bushranger have a bribing relationship or something like that in real life. Because armenian far-right lobbyists are notorious for bribing people for their own nationalistic agenda. Something like exposed to the public when U.S. 'senator' Menendez imprisoned for taking bribes from greek and armenian lobbies. Ironically, that's why "armenia" is in a miserable situation right now, because they spend millions and millions of dollars for anti-Turkish propaganda on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet.

This person called "KhndzorUtogh" orders the admin Bushranger to "take action" against some users (who are always Turkish users for some reason. I wonder why??) and the admin immediately carries out the order. How is such a thing possible? I thought Wikipedia was "neutral" but it has apparently fallen into the hands of armenian nationalist and fascist lobbies who bribe the admins. I think we need to investigate in detail what KhdnzorUtogh is doing. Tell me this clearly if bribing an admin is allowed on Wikipedia, let me give admins some "gift" in exchange for spreading Turkish point of view here. If not, then stop the user called KhndzorUtogh. He is using Wikipedia for spreading misinformation and his own nationalistic agenda.

In April, I demanded another investigation for KhdnzorUtogh because he apparently used a IP address for sockpuppet. But no admin take action so far.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285554604&diffonly=1 37.155.47.4 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Notify both editors please. You better have proof of bribery taking place for the assertion you have made. – robertsky (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh I don't have a proof but think for a while, what kind of interests does Bushranger got by blocking some users or "protecting" some pages after KhndzorUtogh demanded it. Maybe they are real-life friends, maybe bribing, maybe they are part of the same nationalistic agenda. Whatever the reason, it is UNACCEPTABLE that an admin does "favors" upon KhndzorUtog's requests. KhndzorUtogh's demands have no justified reasons. He is just pushing his POV and using admins for this purpose. It's clear he is not a good guy and not working for free and neutral encyclopedia. 37.155.47.4 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Accusing an admin of accepting a bribe in exchange for doling out a sanction is an extremely serious accusation and this entire post violates WP:ASPERSIONS. Your post essentially admits that this accusation is entirely speculative and that you have no evidence to support this - "Armenian lobbyists bribe people, so I guess The Bushranger has been bribed" is not evidence. I hope an admin reading this strikes this post immediately and that you exercise more judgment and caution before making these sorts of accusations in the future. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Let me unpack this. User A makes edits he is not allowed to make as the article in question is covered by special rules given that it is a contentious topic. User B informs the user that he should not edit the topic. User A continues despite this. B brings the activity by user A to the attention of an administrator, who posts a more "official" warning regarding the rules on contentious topic.

How does this suggest bribery or a conspiracy by "armenian [sic] nationalist and facist lobbies"? Please, do yourself a favour, withdraw the complaint, and you may yet avoid the WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

noting that there is a discussion about the user(s) involved here above (#IR-TheFirstSoldier) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 1 June 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.

Greenwinch, transfer rumours and CIR isues

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

---

There are some chronic issues with Greenwinch (talk · contribs)'s on-wiki behaviour.

Per their talk page, in February 2025 they were warned for addition of unsourced content repeatedly, being told that they needed to add a source to BLPs. Every single response to this was completely incomprehensible word-salad and no acknowledgement of the need to cite (as such), a pattern which continued with their ongoing editing. The same again happened when a user politely asked them to stop updating details on Wikipedia during live matches per WP:LIVESCORES; they continued to respond with completely incomprehensible nonsense.

It was however through their edits to football player pages that I encountered this user; edits such as this to Liam Delap claimed that the player had moved clubs, when this was patently not the case. The same for this edit to Mark Flekken - in reality Flekken had not moved clubs yet and officially moved a day later. Again, no source was provided. I left them a talk page message to ask them to stop adding this unsourced content to BLPs until they were confirmed. The response I got, of course, was even more word salad and demonstrated a further lack of understanding of Wikipedia's core policies. They continued to re-add this content to Liam Delap's page without a source in spite of this.

I really don't like having to go to ANI over an editor who seems to be attempting to contribute in good faith, but when a response to repeated requests to add citations and stop adding content based on rumours is, and I quote, You check the details of the graphical display you going to know that has been since yesterday and the official declaration of the transfer has been attached to the channel, it's only necessary you adhere to official processes so you can have the graphical display so you can check it out. Due processes highly needed in ethics of works and moral disciplines. Wikipedia as a channel that backs scientific procedures with optimum confirmation of reliable sources., it's evident that this continued pattern of editing is a timesink for other editors. Competence is required, and repeated requests to add sources have been met with strings of words which are all-bar impossible to understand. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support CIR block based on user's inability to communicate; the word salads cited are especially egregious. User talk:Greenwinch reads like someone has invented a new variety of English but not told anyone before they started using it. Reminds me of Footwiks, who edited on similar topics and also ended up being a WP:TIMESINK on this collaborative project. Adequate communication is not optional. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Indefinitely blocked from article namespace. They can make suggestions on talk pages. Their talk page makes it clear that they are defiant regarding this issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Rsjaffe. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:44, 3 June 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.

MyEnchantedLeader, again

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

---

So, last week I posted about User:MyEnchantedLeader, which was rapidly archived after promises of improvement. My followup that siad improvement was rather dubious didn't generate any response, so apparently my misgivings about this editor weren't shared for some reason: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#User talk:MyEnchantedLeader.

Checking up on whether they have indeed improved, I see that their most recent edits are to Oral sex[397], where they felt the need to post a large image purported to be of themselves and a woman (without any indication that she has given permission to be featured on Wikipedia like this at all).

Like before, do with this editor what you like. My opinion would probably be considered a personal attack on them. Fram (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That picture is with my girlfriend and she is cool with it, I honestly don't understand what your beef is with me, I make good faith edits only, please get off my back. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Every issue with MyEnchantedLeader has had to do with the insertion of images. These include:

1. Posting images without the appropriate licensing
2. Posting images that have been modified, apparently with "AI" tools to circumvent necessary licensing
3. Posting images that are out of place compared to their context
4. Posting images that are duplications of other images already on the same page
5. And now we have posting images of identifiable people engaged in a sex act for which there is no clear evidence of consent to share

They've been cautioned by multiple editors to try and resolve these issues and instead of doing better we've seen an escalating pattern of problems. As such I propose an indefinite topic ban from images. MyEnchantedLeader can learn to contribute to WP in areas that don't involve inserting images into articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

How can I learn if I don't make mistakes?, whenever I'm notified of an error I don't ever repeat that. MyEnchantedLeader MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

And also I'd like to push back on your assertion that "I've been cautioned by multiple editors to try and resolve these issues" I haven't been cautioned, I've only been corrected which are two very separate concepts. I'm sensing some collusion or ganging up here and a nefarious agenda to silence a new voice from a different part of the world. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You ask how are you supposed to learn but the least time you appeared here, you promised to @Liz that you would ask questions at the Teahouse, but from your contributions it doesn't look like you've done that. And continuing to make problematic edits and only changing when brought to ANI does not appear to be a sustainable way to learn. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've had only 3 edits that have been challenged, the other 100+ edits I've made since the last ANI was closed have not illicited any response which shows that I've been reading the guidelines and I naturally assumed that asking questions at the tea would be unecessary and a waste of people's time since my edits are being accepted by the the community. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been one week since the last time you were brought to WP:ANI. In that time, images you added have been reverted seven times ([398][399][400][401][402][403][404]), plus other edits too [405][406]; most of these were due to serious objections. That's the overwhelming majority of articles where you've edited! Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and simply getting into disputes alone wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that you keep making the same mistakes and, most crucially, refuse to acknowledge them is a problem. If you're still unable to understand our image policies and how you keep violating them at this point then we have to treat it like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the same mistakes, each time I was notified of an error it was for different reasons MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not up to us to inform you of every single guideline here. They are all easily accessible. Your refusal to abide by the rules and guidelines is your problem alone. We can't be blamed for your actions. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have been reading guidelines and almost all my edits are accepted, ocassional oversight on anything especially if you're new is not to be unexpected. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Those 7 reverts are not 7 images, the first revert of an image went unexplained thus I unreverted that, then afterwards the editor who had done that revert explained why they did it in the first place, but once again you deliberately ignored that to paint a narrative that the Enchanted leader is the devil incarnate. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You said "And continuing to make problematic edits and only changing when brought to ANI does not appear to be a sustainable way to learn", this is simply not factual, no other other editor except for @Fram runs straight to the ANI whenever a user makes an error, the standard practice that I have observed in my short time here is that experienced editors notify newer users of errors, but for some reason that I don't understand @Fram is simply not applying that norm when it comes to this African editor. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Posting images that have been modified, apparently with "AI" tools to circumvent necessary licensing - not just to circumvent licencing, but also to introduce new details which weren't present in the original. This has included giving Julius Malema a pencil moustache (I can't see that he has ever had one), giving someone else a heavy beard, and adding obviously fictional flames to a video still of a politician throwing a jug of water during an argument. Belbury (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That was an issue that was resolved in the previous ANI, like I said in my previous reply there is clearly ganging up here, I trust that the admins will see right through the dubious attempts at censorship that is happening right here. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know about the "Adding flames to a jug of water" photo. I was assuming the mustache on Malema was to circumvent licensing requirements by making it appear to be a unique photo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That issue was resolved in the old ANI, some people are just digging stuff up because they are trying to paint a false narrative about me. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• An indefinite topic-ban from images is the bare minimum. Honestly, given that they don't seem to understand what they're doing wrong, and given how they keep insisting that they're being persecuted, I'm skeptical that they'll do any better anywhere else but at the very least they need to be prevented from adding more images if they're going to do stuff like this. The position of Photographs of identifiable people, especially as it relates to sexual content, isn't strange or surprising; it ought to be common-sense that "trust me bro, she gave consent for me to upload this image" is not sufficient. They say that they need to be given a chance to learn, but that's not a place where that should be happening; and the prosecutorial framing, coupled with the fact that their comments above seem to deny or downplay the very broad pushback their edits have received, makes me skeptical that they're actually receptive to feedback. --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm defending myself because I'm not a coward who just lets a mob with an agenda run over me, I've made it abundantly clear that I fully understand the errors once they are brought to my attention and I've never repeated any of them after I was notified but you deliberately chose to ignore something I have been vehemently repeating today because you a clearly part of that mob that's trying to silence anyone that's different from you. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's not common sense that I need to provide evidence that my girlfriend has no issues with our images, it is something that needs to be taught which I have learnt today after it was brought to my attention. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge that it's inappropriate is incredibly concerning. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  They have also added it to the top of the Zulu language article. They should probably just get a global indef. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I added that before this ANI MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would strongly suggest that you remove it. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah I don't like doing things too punitive on new editors but this situation is getting worse, not better, so we do need to prevent the disruption. I figured a topic ban from images was the smallest possible intervention. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Reading this whole thing and the subsequent replies makes me think this is either a gross attempt at trolling which we've all fallen prey to because of good-faith attempted at offering leniency the previous time, or a serious shortfall of CIR. Commons and global issues be what they are, a permaban is easily warranted here, I have yet to see a reason that this editor would make a beneficial contribution to the project that would be missed by a block; but at the very least a topic ban from adding images is a must. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's trolling or CIR, but any way you slice it, it's disruptive. Blocked indefinitely after reading back through the contribution history, not just images. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't wait to read the inevitable appeal. A type of cabinet (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In light of the specific language of the (inevitable) appeal I'm going to note that I support SarekOfVulcan's administrative action. I didn't look at the non-image edit history so if there's more disruption there too that would make my proposal insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's here! Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Basically "I can't appeal like I currently am because I am blocked. I need to be unblocked to appeal my block, even though I'm writing this as an appeal."

Par for the course. A type of cabinet (talk) 16:41, 2 June 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.

Apparent revenge edits

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

---

• Achirpingbird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:645:e7d:4650:1ca4:ea70:cf76:d478 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:645:e7d:4650:7036:c4be:bb6a:9c87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:645:e7d:4650:f402:3827:4643:571e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sam Bloch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nat Gertler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 24-hour comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am an active Wikipedia editor who also has an article about me at Nat Gertler. That page, as well as others mentioning me, have recently been the target of what appear to be revenge edits over my editing of Sam Bloch article, which is the focus of much of Achirpingbird's editing effort.

On April 25, Achirpingbird posted a message not to my editor talk page, but to the talk page of the article about me, accusing me of bullying and calling on me to resign. She instantly deleted the message, so no harm, no foul; I bring this one up only because it relates to things that came later.

On May 5, IP ending in 78 and then IP ending in 87 entered into a discussion regarding some poorly-sourced content I'd deleted, the latter IP including an unsupported accusation of WP:WIKIBULLYING. I reverted the second of these as the page in question is marked with an arbitration notice that forbids users not logged in from editing the page (yes, I should've reverted both of them.) Then the similarly-ranged IP ending in 1e removed sourced information crediting me on 24-hour comics and repeatedly removing both some sfandard biographical information about me (where I grew up) and positive review quotes. Having an obvious WP:COI on both pages, I placed an appropriate edit request on each page, and only once given permission, restored the information to the pages.

Today, in the wake of my editing some non-third-party sourced statements off of the Sam Bloch page, Achirpingbird restored the material and then proceeded to the article about me and removed the positive review statements about my work, in a manner similar to the IP edits of that page. These appear to be revenge edits intended to harass me, and I would like this to be stopped. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to fully investigate at the moment but my tolerance for people using articles to annoy people is very low. I will watch Nat Gertler for a while and, after a warning, will block anyone who appears to be using an article as a weapon. If required, please ping me from article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The lack of tolerance should go both ways, right? I have simply tried to learn from the process and remove boastful content that this user had removed from multiple pages I have created. Rather than creating talk pages to discuss first, he removes content. This person has literately goaded users to add content onto his page and I am now calling out the COI that this represents. Also look at the toxic stuff on his own talk page and you’ll see him bullying others constantly unless they approved boastful stuff. This is not revenge—these are simple wiki standards that I am holding up. I am a fairly new user and i have felt bullied by Nat, tracked by him on multiple of my pages. Begin new, I don’t know all the methods to bully someone like even this notice but let’s create a safe space for everyone. And please watch for further revenge edits on all my created pages too…or is this some sort of collusion? Achirpingbird (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed non-independent, generally self-sourced, boastful content from articles you've worked on. That is not the same as a review quote from USA Today on the page about me. And no, these are not "simply wiki standards" you're holding up. Requesting a change on an article talk page is not inappropriate, it is literally what is recommended in WP:COI for conflicted users ("COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.") If you wish to accuse me of "bullying" you, I request that you put forth the evidence. Similarly, if you want to suggest that I'll be making "further" revenge edits, put forth the evidence that I have made revenge edits against you in the past. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked. Edits like this ("Is emptying Wikipedia of actual facts your goal in life?"... "why don’t you retire?") are simply utterly unacceptable, as are these obvious revenge edits (compare Nat Gertler's proper use of the talkpage to insert the material). I have blocked Achirpingbird indefinitely for harassment and aspersions, including some weird accusations here on ANI ("This person has literately goaded users to add content onto his page... Also look at the toxic stuff on his own talk page" — what goading, and what toxic stuff??). I believe the IPv6's listed here are Achirpingbird editing logged out, but since they cover more than a /64, I'm unsure what to do about it. Could a CU possibly check and take action if required? Bishonen | tålk 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC).

  Very poor conduct on their part; that block is absolutely warranted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: The three IPv6s listed above look to all be in the same /64; I've blocked it for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, so they are, sorry. Thank you, The Bushranger. Bishonen | tålk 21:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC).

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

Revoke talk page access for User:Wawforall

Please revoke TPA for Wawforall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they are using it for promotion. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit, which appears to be re-posting the text they'd originally posted into articlespace that got them blocked originally. Not 100% sure TPA yoinking is necessary yet, if they repeat though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User 79.151.82.147

Edit-warring on National Movement (Poland)--PawPatroler (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

For edit warring, you'll get a faster response by filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not ANI. We have admins who regularly patrol that noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

LTA again adding "brutally beaten"

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

---

Please see this report for context. There is an IP editor who has for a long time been making unsourced changes, including adding "brutally beaten" and other similar changes which at this point is clear trolling. 2600:4040:5E5C:5500:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked (again) but now there is another range, 2600:4040:5E53:5F00:0:0:0:0/64. Can someone block this range too? See for example the following edits.[407][408][409][410] Thank you. Mellk (talk) 22:24, 3 June 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:Maxwhollymoralground's undue removal of sourced content from multiple articles as "a violation of WP:NPOV" and being of "undue wieght" on PIA topics

Maxwhollymoralground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been disruptively removing sourced content from multiple articles, citing WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, when there are no problems with the stuff that you've removed.

There is nothing wrong with the text removed in those edits, and, in fact, is removal of the pro-palestinian pov and is creating a WP:NPOV issue [411] [412] [413] [414] [415] [416] [417] [418] [419]

but when they got reverted, they reverted the reversions with similar vague edit summaries [420] [421] [422] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Noting that there may be a similar instance in Gaza war protests. Borgenland (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

its already in the diffs above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on the imperfect-but-better-than-nothing model we use to generate statistics for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, Maxwhollymoralground has only made 16 revisions to pages within the topic area since registering in 2020. This suggests that they are probably unfamiliar with the interesting and complicated dynamics and the special rules there. They should probably be given a chance to become more familiar with things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A user that has been here for 5 years should at least know that removing sourced and relevant content from articles (regardless of the topic of the article is), falsely citing WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, should know that what they're doing is wrong. All they paragraphs that they've removed had no issues but instead of at least trying to fix the issues they claim to have found, they just deleted the whole thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A paragraph being well-sourced doesn't magically make it "undeletable". Too address two examples, the article "Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war" is about incidents of Anti-Palestinian racism related to the Israel-Hamas war. IMHO neither some guy relocating to another country or some students getting arrested at a anti-tuition fee protest qualifies. And even if they supposedly did, I don't think they warrant inclusion compared to the other examples. "the historical realities of the Nakba" is clearly NPOV, because the "historical realities" and interpretations are very much disputed. Honestly, that article is a mess and would be better served by a list-style Wikitable. None of my editing was disruptive, this seems to be just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that your editing is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Removing the image of the logo of the Arabic wiki per "undue weight" when it is relevant to the paragraph of text about it is just a IDLI arguement. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Heavy-handed editing is pretty common when people start editing in the topic area. Apparently, this editor is "continually amazed at the level of Anti-Israel bias on the English Wikipedia" and decided to address this by erasing the reported death toll. Quite a novel approach. I have no idea why because they didn't say. I think a simple solution for these situations is for editors to be required to follow BRD. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Have only looked at the first couple of links, but have noticed that there's clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE on Gaza war protests, considering it's 18,000 words long. A quick scan through the article shows that at least 90% of its contents describe pro-Palestinian protests, so any attempt to actually follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TOOBIG will end up cutting more pro-Palestine content than pro-Israeli. With this in mind, the cutting of bloated "reaction quotes" and tangential information might be the most actual improvement the page has seen in a while. Considering doing a large-scale trim of that page, like I did for Gaza war a few months back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with what's going on that article, but there are still issues with their edits on the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war articles 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I've already explained myself in regards to the "Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war" article above. As for the "Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" article, nothing about my edit summaries was "vague". Only including a pro-Palestinian solidarity picture is obviously a NPOV violation. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would advise getting familiar with articles before opening ANI sections in which you explicitly state there is nothing wrong with the article, Abo Yemen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The Gaza war protests article is a strong example of the larger issue across Wikipedia that we are written far too much recentism information about news events without considering the encyclopedic quality of the article, eg fundamentally against Wikipedia:NOTNEWS . Trimming down to be more a summary that such protests exists and long term effects of the protests is necessary, and as noted by Abo above, this likely will remove more pro-Palenstine content simply due to the relative weight of the content already being mostly pro-Palenstine in the first place. Masem (t) 16:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, the "Gaza war protests" and "Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war" articles are disjointed tallies of news articles. I don't even think there should be a per-country-summary, there should be one article covering all protests. It has gotten a bit better though, there previously were articles about specific protests. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I was not expecting to have this opinion but after reading the diffs, I actually agree that some of the removed content in diffs 155, 158, and 163 do have potential WP:NPOV issues. To be honest, I was a bit surprised that in an area as tightly regulated as WP:ARBPIA that non-NPOV language like in those examples exists within the article. On the other hand, however, diff 156 seems pretty self-evidently inappropriate. I can't see any valid policy reason for removing "anti-semitism and anti-Palestinian racism" from a sentence about the negative consequences of the war. The remaining diffs were too complex for me to make an assessment on face value without additional research or reading the rest of the article (to see if it is WP:UNDUE, I would need to read the entire article).

All this to say, I think it would be inappropriate for ANI to stick its head into an ARBPIA content dispute based on whether there is "nothing wrong with the text". That discussion should be happening on the article talk pages. Rather, the main issue here is the editor's drive-by removals of content and then subsequent reversions when challenged, instead of seeking consensus on the talk page: has Maxwhollymoralground shown a willingness to change that behaviour and move to talk instead? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

To explain diff 156: The original sentence read "Some of the protests have resulted in violence and accusations of antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism". I removed "and anti-Palestinianism" because it gives undue weight to accusations of anti-Palestinianism, which have been far less, naturally, as there have been far less pro-Israel protests. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"in an area as tightly regulated as WP:ARBPIA that non-NPOV language like in those examples exists within the article" have you read the Pallywood article? Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat and COI

Elleishere / 14.137.47.230 deleted a paragraph from this article without providing any Edit Summary - 1

I reverted their edit 2 and posted on their talk page asking them to please provide edit summaries, using the uw-delete1 template.

Their reply to my message on their talk raised a number of issues, including;

• An implication that they have pending legal action against the subject of the article, a clear Conflict of Interest
• Accusing me of online harassment.
• The threat of legal action against myself/wikipedia for reinstating the information.

I disagree with their assertion that the information is inaccurate, as it can be verified as being reported by a public, reliable source. My next step would have been to invite them to discuss further via the article's talk page, following WP:DISPUTE. However, as per WP:THREAT, my understanding is that it needs to be raised here with admins instead. This is not an issue I've encountered before, so would appreciate any admin guidance.

Thanks, Nil NZ (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The information provided by Nils NZ is known misinformation as is acknowledged in the media source that Nils NZ cited. Please inform of the correct procedure for reporting misinformation and harassment at Wikipedia for resolution accordingly. Elleishere (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the user while the legal threats remain. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like the legal threats have been taken down. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So it seems, but their unblock request is otherwise a sterling example of WP:NOTTHEM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Mobile Oasis

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

---

Mobile Oasis (talk · contribs) created this draft about a company that makes "Mobile Oasis" products. But they disclaim undisclosed paid editing on their talk page. I started this discussion here because, given the draft's promotional nature, it is unlikely that this is not undisclosed paid editing. I would like to hear what User:Mobile Oasis and others think of this. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked per WP:Username Policy violation regardless of promotional writing, given that the user continued responding without addressing the username. – robertsky (talk) 09:25, 2 June 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.

Hackathon

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

---

• 49.36.208.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Hackathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user keeps adding poorly sourced material, and the way he adds that content to the article is disruptive. I reverted his edits multiple times, and he keeps adding them. He is also adding sidenotes like this and this, which is improper. I left a message on his talk page and warned him to refrain from being disruptive, but he just ignored it. What should I do for this? Please look at the article. - ArćRèv • talk 08:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Those "side notes", including "Here is your paragraph rewritten with properly formatted Wikipedia-style inline citations using reliable external references, ready for Wikipedia" and "Great! Here's your Wikipedia-style paragraph with the **correct link to Vasant Valley School**, internal Wikipedia links for key terms, and formatted references—perfect for use on a Wikipedia **user page**, **draft**, or **sandbox**" are obviously parts of AI-generated responses to prompts, and shows that the user has been using a LLM to write content. CodeTalker (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at the Russo-Crimean Wars page

The User:Skibidi36 keeps removing content I have added on the page of the Russo-Crimean Wars. I asked the user to use the talk page before removing content/reverting my edits, but he simply reacted to my talk page and within minutes deleted the content I added without having reached any consensus. he basically just shared a source and then a argument from himself that don’t even align with each other. I clearly explained to the user, with my sources, the reason of my edits. But he just removed it either way. His argument of ‘’which was the the annexation of Astrakhan and Kazan’’ is simply not true. That was not even the purpose/goal of the Fire of Moscow (1571) nor at the Battle of Molodi. I would appreciate it if a admin could warn this user so that he first reaches a consensus with other editors at the talk pages before removing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woxic1589 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Both Skibidi36 and the OP have been discussing this content issue on the article talk page but have not reached agreement. In such a case don't edit the article, but follow the dispute resolution steps. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problem." If it is a dispute, then you need to read WP:ONUS as you're the one trying to introduce disputed content to a stable article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I added content to a incomplete article as it ignored the result of the Fire of Moscow (1571). I also again explained everything regarding my edits, with sources, at the talk page of the Russo-Crimean Wars. I see that you also removed my content again despite having explained everything, with sources, at the talk page as the User:Skibidi36 has not reacted to my latest comments yet. Also I would like it if you could explain the ‘’disputed’’ part of the content I added. I clearly mentioned the reason on the talk page with sources and clear arguments. A incomplete article is not really that ‘’stable’’. Woxic1589 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, you need to read WP:ONUS. You boldly added material in good faith. It was disputed in good faith by another editor and then the burden was on you to either convince others who disagreed of your position or form a consensus that the text was an improvement. You participated in an ongoing discussion on the talk page. If disagreements become untenable, that's what WP:DR is there for.

That was all good. But you also insisted on your version being in the article in the mean time. The article had been stable; I didn't say complete or done because there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Being right (I'm not making any judgment) is insufficient; that's not how Wikipedia works. Again, the burden is on the person adding the disputed material to demonstrate to others that it ought to be included in the article.

And escalating it here was completely inappropriate. If you want to make a content issue into a conduct issue, I believe it's your conduct that would be found wanting. Continue to discuss your proposed edits, and don't edit war in your preferred version. I can tell you for certain that Wikipedia editors and admins tend to have little stomach for the nationalist edit wars that arise in the "result" section of infoboxes of actual wars. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

‘’ I can tell you for certain that Wikipedia editors and admins tend to have little stomach for the nationalist edit wars that arise in the "result" section of infoboxes of actual wars’’ completely agree with you on that part hence why I reported the user I mentioned above. You might wanna check his first revert of my edits then as well: [[423]]. He’s simply reverting back my edit because he thinks that that is not how it works? What even is that supposed to mean? My edit was a very simple one, basically explaining and summarizing the results of what happened in the years of 1571 and 1572 as the Invasions were two separate raids/battles. Not a very complicated topic to even open a talk page section about it. But the User:Skibidi36 literally reverted both of my edits back without having allowed me to respond to his first comment at the talk page section I had created at the Russo-Crimean Wars page. Thats the reason why I came here. How is that not a form of disruptive editing? He’s also not responding to my replies for now (both here and at the talk page, and yes I don’t expect other editors to respond within a few minutes/hours, obviously), which is gonna slow down this entire process about a small result edit at the infobox that was already explained by me with all sources and facts I shared at the talk page. I just think that it is a bit of a waste of time. But if a third editor could help speed up some things regarding this issue, I would appreciate that. Woxic1589 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not disruptive editing. Editors aren't required to give ample time for discussion before reverting something, only explain their reasoning, which Skibidi36 did. Again, the WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for your changes. You've made your case; Skibid36 and now I were not convinced by it. If your argument convinces other (uncanvassed) editors that your version is better, then it ought to be included as a result of a newly formed consensus. If your argument doesn't, then it shouldn't. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So I can just start reverting back edits of other users by simply saying ‘’that is not how it works’’? And editors can just stop replying at the Talk Pages like Skibidi36 does so that his reverts just stay like that, and slows down the process to reach an consensus? Talk:Russo-Crimean Wars Woxic1589 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If this is what you think, it explains why you have more edit-warring warnings on your talk page in six weeks than most editors earn in six years. If you want to see your edits be adopted, you should drop the stick, show some patience, and act like this is a collaborative process rather than adversarial. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think that anyone asked you to mention or to take a look at what happened on my talk page in the past, which is also completely irrelevant to the current discussion/topic on this and the other talk page on Russo-Crimean Wars page. Skibidi36 is not responding anymore after more than 24 hours on that talk page after he reverted back 2 of my edits. I replied to him with arguments, sources, examples etc and then waited. If he is not willing to continue with this discussion then he should let it know. I don’t think that I have to wait for a month long or so to restore content back I already explained with sources and arguments on the same talk page over and over again, simply because the editor who removed it is not willing to respond anymore.Woxic1589 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No. A user has disputed this. Follow WP:DR rather than reinstate your edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have writing multiple walls of text here with arguments, sources and examples at the Talk:Russo-Crimean Wars, in response to the content that was removed by User:Skibidi36. But even that doesn’t seem to help as neither he nor anyone else is responding to that talk section. I opened a RfC and the only user who responded there was User:CoffeeCrumbs, who earlier removed the content I added, for a third time on the Russo-Crimean Wars page. I don’t know what else I can do about this when both of them just keep removing it, and then one of them just doesn’t respond anymore at the talk page itself. Like do I need to make a request for Arbitration or something like that?Woxic1589 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:DR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

References

IR-TheFirstSoldier

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

---

IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IR-TheFirstSoldier was canvassed by a sock stalker IP to undo my edit [424]. The sock IP canvassed IR-TheFirstSoldier after failed attempts to undo on their own using a different range, which led to the article being protected.

After all of that, IR-TheFirstSoldier took upon the canvassing request and reverted me, claiming I didn't give a reason and that my edit was "vandalism". I opened a talk discussion and explained everything to them [425], asking them to not restore extraordinary claims without extraordinary sources and that I clearly gave a rationale. This led to IR-TheFirstSoldier denying the Armenian genocide, three times [426], [427], [428]:

Armenian genocide also claimed not proven

Im not obligated to accept everything in the history that specific nation or group of people claim to be fact.

IF everybody agrees that this genocide happened and it is accepted internationally, then we can start to revealing every genocide in history too as fact if the victim countries want to, and not just claims. But somehow armenians love to brag about everywhere about their genocide like it is only they are the victims.

It was a bizarre turn of events but here we are. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The IP user asked my help that someone was deleting sourced texts in this article, i didnt see your explanation while making the edit, which was exactly deleting, and you said its an extraordinary claim with the source itself while its was also claimed genocide by the Armenia against Azarbaijan which what you deleted. Then you accuse me being political and denying Armenian genocide, while you are doing the same claiming. If you explained to me why the sources you say are not trustable and just extraordinary claims instead arguing with me over this and complaining about my edit maybe i would have listened you. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@IR-TheFirstSoldier the existence of the Armenian genocide is universally recognized by the sort of reliable, scholarly sources that Wikipedia uses; the kind of conduct Utogh highlights here is putting you on a fast track towards getting kicked out of the Armenia topic area, if not Wikipedia as a whole. Think very carefully about how you respond to this.

@KhndzorUtogh I realize this may be slightly frustrating, but a more in depth explanation of why those cited sources are unreliable would be helpful to outside observers. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is place that everybody have to accept something like Armenian Genocide ? But you cant accept any other genocide as reliable source ? Think about what one sided solution coming up with. What Wikipedia uses mostly is sources provided by both sides. If its not reliable as you say then come talk about it what makes it unreliable with facts, not with threats. Im not in any armenian topic you claiming that i am, just escalating converstaions thats all. Besides this is not any good reason to be kicked out. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

What i did its only revert edit and thats what happened. The user KhndzorUtogh escalated the situation in my talk page and we talked it out even we dont agree with each other. I didnt edit anything else in that article, and the genocide acceptance or not its on me as my view, im not editing anything about it like KhndzorUtoght edits other genocides im just talking with him and he comes here to accuse me with it like its a policy. Wikipedia have policy to let users with different views. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I would read this discussion then, @IR-TheFirstSoldier. Forget what Utogh is doing; you're missing the point of what I'm saying and misunderstanding the point of Wikipedia; to build an encyclopedia based off of reliable sources. It is not about expressing your view of the world. There is an agreement among real world experts that the Armenian genocide did happen. These academics, scholars, reporters etc. do not give credence to the theory that the genocide did not happen; to say otherwise is to promote WP:FRINGE sources, who Wikipedia does not give much weight to (never mind that editors of an Armenian background will likely find denial to be a hateful view point; you could very much be easily sanctioned under Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive). I'm not trying to personally go after you or whatever; I'm trying to help get you off a bad path you're set on. But if you don't understand what I'm saying, then you're not going to be editing in this topic area for much longer. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand and im not doing any editing about it either, i just demanded the user for explanation of the why he thinks the sources are unrelaible, because he was editing with no explanation and im not promoting any unrelaible sources, because im not the one who cited them. Maybe i was wrong doing the revert edit and the arguing about it, but i was right about asking and explanation for it. I cant just trust blindly someone's words. Real world experts could be right or wrong, some accept as a fact, some not, im not obligated to accept everything as a fact, but that doesnt mean im doing hate talk about it while sharing my view on it. Because i didnt neither do any editing about the genocide in the Wikipedia, or went writing hate messages. He asked my view and i just shared it, but coming here to report me for it its not in Wikipedia's policies either. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees, IR-TheFirstSoldier restored a disputed edit that lacked quality sources. The hyetert 2003 news article based on state sponsored Anadolu Agency is openly denying the genocide (“claims of so-called genocide on Armenian”) and uses a lot of language common in Armenian genocide denying sources like “Armenian gangsters” and a vague mention of “archives” that allegedly support genocide negationism (more context on this phenomena for unfamiliar outside observers). The other source is in Turkish, published by a Turkish organization, and accuses Armenians of being the ones who committed genocide against Turks, another common genocide denial narrative (see Igdir Genocide Memorial and Museum). WP:REDFLAG.

Just to clarify, I didn't "escalate" anything on their talk page (I merely informed them about general sanctions [429]), I didn’t even revert them once; I went directly to the talk page without mentioning the Armenian genocide when I initiated the discussion. It appears that IR-TheFirstSoldier just couldn't help but deny it when replying to me for the first time [430]. When I asked them to clarify their stance on the genocide, they embraced it and continued to assert their hateful views [431], even after another user chimed in [432]. WP:NOTHERE WP:NONAZI. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Again with accusation of me being hateful, but in matter of fact i was asking the reason only, but you didnt write it like this as response in my talk page explaining why do you think is its unrelaible then i will take you more seriously. Then you came here reporting me just for one 1 edit and my personnel views that i expressed in our discussion, which is allowed under WP:TALK and WP:NPOV. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere useful. I've now topic banned IR-TheFirstSoldier via CT from subjects related to the Armenian genocide, broadly construed. If anyone feels as though a harsher sanction is needed, please feel free to levy one. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Imo this is a mild sanction considering the insistence on genocide denial even in ANI, and continued groundless accusations [433]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @KhndzorUtogh, some other admins thought I should just indef them, so I have. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:21, 2 June 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.

False music sales figures and certifications by Indiana IPs

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

---

• 2603:6013:A640:8700:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Indiana has been adding false music certifications and inflated sales figures.[434] They often refer to some authority in their edit summary ("The album went platinum according to the RIAA") but a citation is never added, and the slightest research into the matter shows that the claim is false.

More of the authority claims in the edit summaries: "I found Cherry Pop records archives and it reportedly said...", "I got my info from DJ Daryl...", "according to Irv Gotti", "according to Trutanksoldiers.com", "according to the Internet archive".

This same style of hoaxing was evident in previous Indiana IPs Special:Contributions/74.128.122.0, Special:Contributions/74.129.99.106, Special:Contributions/208.119.84.194, Special:Contributions/208.119.81.194, Special:Contributions/174.214.49.61 and the 3× blocked range Special:Contributions/2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64, going back to 2020. Before that, 5× blocked Kentucky IP Special:Contributions/74.131.218.198 had been falsely inflating sales figures and certs in 2018, also claiming authority in the edit summary: "These sales figures were in a vibe magazine" and "According to BET J..."

Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2603:6013:A640:8700:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done indef 6 months. The range was previously blocked last year for a month as well. – robertsky (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and disruptive edits

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

---

Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) had made personal attacks, disruptive edits on Gaddar Telangana Film Awards and justified themselves making personal attacks.

• They have called me "blind" and then removed the word. When asked above the same they have justified themselves and said, "ur blindfolded and ur a fool". See here ([[435]] and [[436]]).
• This is not the first time, they have previously made comments related to a particular region of India on the discussion on their talk page, saying "telanganite" (referring to be favorable towards Telangana topics). This shows their bias towards a particular region. When asked about it, they have replied "I have deleted telanganite word stop bothering me", which shows their don't care attitude. (See here [[437]])
• The edit disruption started with the edits made on Gaddar Telangana Film Awards. After my valid points, they have agreed to change the content. I have removed the "National" from the Paidi Jairaj Film Award name, as per the "only" offical document available on the internet([[438]]).
• I have clearly said in the discussion that there is no official website for the award committee, so I have only provided the link to the document. I have never quoted Facebook or Mango News as the primary source. There is no other document available, as the above document is the official and the only one available. In the mean time, they have started making abusive comments.
• Some of the comments are in "bold", which shows their attitude.
• I have several times asked them to have a proper and civilized discussion, and refrain from adding abusive words. But, they are not ready to have a proper discussion.
• During a comment they have clearly said "whatever I dont care" ([[439]]).
• I have suggested saying "Anybody can create and edit articles here, there is no ownership. Refrain from using racist and abusive comments. This is not a social forum to discuss our opinions. Go through the guidelines and understand about article creation and others", at the discussion on my talk page. They have in reply commented "stop teaching me, you go through the guidelines at your end" and "you are abusing me Stop your nonsense in Gaddar Awards". Stop your nonsense in Gaddar Awards is in bold. Not just that, many of their comments are in "bold" ... Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• They have removed the entire discussion at their talk page and as said above made changes on my talk page.

Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/MangoNews/posts/gaddar-telangana-film-awards-best-films-from-2014-to-2023-gaddarawards-gaddartel/1158969919592011/

What about your disruptive edits and abuse on wikipedia. In your talk page you have been previously blocked for torturing and abusing other editors.

Stop disrupting Gaddar Telangana Film Awards which was originally sourced and created by me and stop edit warring, and stop changing award names as you like. You have to strictly follow the award names mentioned in above document. I am citing the same reference cited by you. You have changed the content and text provided in reference document? Then what should u be called? You have indirectly abused and tortured me since 3 days. You have trotured me non verbally what about that? you have harrased me and personally attacked me repeatedly through you long meaningless replies and edit warring, and also stop changing award names as you like. You have to strictly follow the award names mentioned in above document. I am citing the same reference cited by you. You have indirectly abused and tortured me since 3 days. You have trotured me non verbally what about that? ::In the entire story you mentioned above there is only one word "blind". You have the document infront of you and your arguing what is mentioned in document is incorrect and abusing that your personal preference is the right way? then what do u call such abusive behavior? did u check ur edit war and abuse edit history in the article sourced and created by me? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

To me this seems like a case of WP:CIR and/or WP:CIVIL. @Sukshmadarshinisrilanka, while I believe your edits to be in good faith, judging by the wording you used in the aforementioned discussions I doubt you were acting civilly. Respectful communication is not optional on Wikipedia. If you can't communicate respectfully and civilly with someone who disagrees with you, then it may be best to not edit here. As someone who has had to go through something similar in the past, I think a block (~24hrs) may be best.

Additionally, for future reference you can report edit warring at WP:AN3. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). » Gommeh (he/him) 15:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In the entire story you mentioned above by Jayanthkumar there is only one word "blind". You have the document infront of you and your arguing what is mentioned in document is incorrect and abusing that your personal preference is the right way? did u check ur edit war and abuse edit history in the article sourced and created by me? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, Facebook is not a reliable source because it is a self-published source (see WP:RSPFACEBOOK) and would not have been accepted anyway. Thought I should let you know. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Then kindly block the article from editing for 3 weeks, with last version contributed by me as I am the original sourcer of the article. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Creating the page doesn’t give you any special privileges regarding the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

then move the article to draft space, or delete the article, I have to face accusations from fellow editor for creating and sourcing articles? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No, User:Sukshmadarshinisrilanka, you are facing charges of being uncivil, and I will add that this dismissive gen-z style talk is also a sign of disrespect. Please use an appropriate level of formality. No, we are not going to lock in your desired version of an article just cause you're asking for it. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your words. Will be careful and use appropriate level of formality as advised by you. I would request to move it to draft space instead if deletion of article is not viable. I am not saying my version I am saying original first version created by me and then moving to draft space. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't do that as I am not an admin. Next, I'd like to let you know that you don't own any articles you write. Other people have just as much of a right to contribute to them as you do. Also, you should be a little more careful about your wording — "torture" is a loaded word and can be interpreted as a personal attack which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Good way to get your account blocked, so don't do it. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

then move the article to draft space, or delete the article, I have to face accusations from fellow editor for creating and sourcing articles? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That is what I told that respected editor, that it is not reliable source, still I agreed to retain what exactly was mentioned in the cited document. Again he denies that document which he originally cited, and instead of coming to consensus with me by agreeing on common point keeps on messaging me? he keeps on indulging himself in edit warring and article abuse? is this the right behavior? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to discuss on the talk page in situations like this, not get into a heated argument. Trouble is, I think they may have been dissuaded from having a respectful discussion with you due to your past comments, e.g.

• "you are abusing me",
• "STOP YOUR NON SENSE AND STOP ABUSING ME",
• "are you blind?", etc.

Those are all worded rather disrespectfully if you ask me. A more respectful way to word it would have been something like "Hello, can you explain the changes you made to X page? I'd like to discuss them" followed by the reasons why you made the change and any reliable sources you have on hand. In situations like this, it's important to take a breather and to assume that the other editor is acting in good faith. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

He has tortured me since 3 days on the article meticulously sourced and contributed by me what about that. For edit warring he should be blocked too for 24 hrs. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not torture. Reading this juvenile back and forth, and y'all's somewhat inept and combative edit summaries, that's closer to torture. I'm going to block the both of you from editing the article: you may both true to be civil adults who discuss things on the talk page, and I am hoping that this discussion will attract knowledgeable and seasoned editors--who may also help decide whether the topic is notable in the first place. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you and will be extremely civil going forward.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Well User:Jayanthkumar123, that's interesting: you are already partially blocked from editing RRR, indefinitely, and I added this article to it. That's in part a technical matter, since I don't think I can add a temporary p-block to another article (your opponent is p-blocked for a week), but that's also kind of right, since you seem to have a history of disruptive behavior. If I were you, I'd be more careful. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Drmies interesting thought. I wonder if the protection bot can handle pblocks of varying lengths as well... Hmm.. – robertsky (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)~

Robertsky, if this were another case (with a p-block for arbitration reasons for instance) I'd entertain that question (to pass it on to someone who's technically capable) but in this case I don't care. The editor can always, after a week has passed and they have shown they can edit in a collegial manner, place an unblock request for one or even for both. Thanks, Drmies (talk)

Thanks @Drmies. @Jayanthkumar123 and @Sukshmadarshinisrilanka, if you have another issue like this in the future, please post it at WP:AN3. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism by repeated inclusion of an edit with false information at Derwick Associates

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

---

Involved users:

• Righteousskills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darwin Naz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user righteousskills was involved in edit warring in this article years ago see here and was asked to stop editing the article see here.

He edited the page again claiming that I, Crystallizedcarbon, had a conflict of interest see here I responded clarifying why that was false see here.

The edit in question was inserting false information in one paragraph, partial incomplete information on two dismissed suits in another and used Wikipedia's voice to state a disputed claim as fact in another.

The main problem with the edit is the false statement that in 2019 the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Derwick Associates. Sources talk about two directors of the company being under investigation for a different matter. Derwick is mentioned as background, but nowhere is it claimed that the company is under any kind of investigation or that the Trump administration imposed any sanctions on it. A quick search for Derwick at the US Treasury sanctions search can certify that the unsourced claim is 100% false.

I restored the page, but editor Darwin Naz added back the edit with the false information. I explained why the information was false and asked the editor to provide references. I also asked for WP:BRD to be followed to reach a consensus on the other problems of the proposed edit. I restored it various times informing Darwin Naz that knowingly adding falsities to an article is considered vandalism. All my repeated pleads were ignored.

In response, I posted this request Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/05#Derwick_Associates at the page protection noticeboard. The admin Daniel Case Responded asking me to:
"Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Preferably the latter."
Darwin Naz added the edit with the false information again ignoring my warning, so I added the subtle vandalism template at his talk page, see here and asked him again for discussion at the talk page. Ignoring that and all the previos warnings he added the edit yet again. I have restored the article once again to the status quo revision removing the false information and opened this incident following Daniel Case's instructions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Both editors at this point would have been temporarily blocked for edit warring. But we are far past the 3rr line, and the article now is however admin locked by another admin. So trouts for both parties. Both of you, please use the talk page to discuss and analyse the contended content before re-adding the content. If the content is added/removed before a consensus is achieved, the editor(s) may be blocked for continuing the edit war. @Crystallizedcarbon, while you encouraged people to search government records, do note that government records are also considered as primary source. In such contentious claims, it would be better to focus on whether third party sources supports the assertion or lackof. @Righteousskills @Darwin Naz please do not blindly revert and restore content. For example, I just gone through the last paragraph that was removed and the sources failed verification. Nowhere in WaPo and Miami Herald talked about this entity being sanctioned. Related entities and persons yes, not this entity. The removal of the content may not be without basis. I have not looked at the other content that was removed and I encourage both sides to determine if the sources used can substantiate the statements or if other sources can be found, rather than throwing red herrings of COI (WP:AGF) or encouraging the use of primary sources. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

my bad. I saw the usernames wrongly. ​ – robertsky (talk) 16:13, 3 June 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.

Single-Purpose Accounts Inserting Unsourced Material at Drag Pageantry

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

---

This was reported to DRN as a content dispute, and I would almost always prefer to have a dispute resolved as a content dispute, but it appears to be rather clearly a conduct dispute. Three accounts, two of which are single-purpose accounts, have been persistently inserting large unsourced tables at Drag pageantry:

• Drag pageantry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rob97dc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UALRSSR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Actualdragarchivist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When User:ZimZalaBim removed the large unsourced tables, their removal was reverted by User:Rob97dc with the edit summary that they were undoing vandalism; that edit summary was a personal attack.

The persistent insertion and re-insertion of unsourced material after being challenged is a violation of the policy of verifiability and is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I have pageblocked the three accounts from Drag pageantry for persistent addition of unsourced content and edit warring. I have also semi-protected the article for a month. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 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.

TPA revocation req

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

---

Indef'd user insulting another editor [440]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, I suggest not creating reports here for insults on a talk page directed towards a blocking admin. If there is really a problem, the admin most likely has the user's talk page on their watch list and can handle it quietly. If the admin who is the target of the insult, ignores the insult, then it's probably best for everyone else to do the same thing. 173.163.152.222 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 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.

Range block re-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.

---

• 2A00:23CC:E806:E01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Re-requesting the consideration of a rangeblock I raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Range block requested on East London IP editor last week.

This IP range has been making a consistent pattern of edits to East London articles since May 10, with a steady 18% of their edits being reverted by different local editors for being inappropriate, unexplained and/or incorrect. They've now had three level 4 warnings on different IP pages (1, 2, 3), but they switch to (or are automatically assigned) a new IP address in the range every morning. They're making no edit summaries and not engaging on any talk pages.

The range stopped editing when I made my previous ANI post about this on the 26th, but resumed a few hours after it was archived with no response on the 29th. Belbury (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User:2a00:23cc:e806:e01:6685:8bb1:4cc1:c183 stopped editing immediately when I posted the ANI notification on their talk page this morning, so perhaps they are reading their talk pages.

Two other IPs in the range have since resumed making partly erroneous edits this afternoon. Belbury (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Individual IPv6 addresses stopping editing, alas, doesn't mean much - they're much more variable than IPv4 addresses (to the point that even warning them is borderline pointless, as they're highly unlikely to see their talk page). I've applied an articlespace pblock to the range for a week, in hopes that one of the addresses will attempt discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Editor using different IPs engaging in Vandalism targeting a specific person

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

---

The IPs

1. 2600:387:15:1114:0:0:0:8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 2603:8001:9700:26:FA29:B071:8576:4BF2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 2603:8001:9d03:b506:3916:bdf9:7e86:25a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have all been adding statements mentioning "Jordan H. Lubeoff" to pages including revision 1293525276, revision 1293525409 and revision 1293524378, linking their usage. They are also performing other disruptive edits using these IPs. Since they appear to still be active and hopping IPs, I figured this would be the best place to report it. — BE243 (about | talk) 06:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I blocked 2600:387:15:1114:0:0:0:0/64 + 2603:8001:9D03:B506:0:0:0:0/64 + 2603:8001:9700:26:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. Let me know if more return. One of the edits added "Luboff". It's probably just a bored kid but it is damaging. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 2 June 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.

Kentuckyfriedtucker

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

---

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

This user has made an unwarranted accusation of COI against me at Talk:Adam Milstein and I've asked them to remove it on their talk page to no avail.

81567518W (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Update: The user has appeared to remove the accusation of COI in favor of a claim of bias. 81567518W (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like some action taken here. 81567518W (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone made an overly hasty accusation of COI and then retracted it on request, I'm not seeing what action needs to be taken. Saying that someone is "biased" isn't typically sanctionable unless there's an additional pattern of bad behavior, which I'm not really seeing. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it appears marginal but the user has continued to allege "drama" (?) on their talk page upon notice of this issue.

Happy to move on. I just wanted it made clear to this user that it's not ok to make allegations against another user for diligent and reasonable efforts toward consensus. Thanks for your reply! 81567518W (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Banned User resurfaced (this report is very late)

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

---

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

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

SPI Archive of Fraberj's Socks

I'm very late in filing this because I've had a lot of life things going on, but the user User:NEWCOLLINS is either a (suspected) sock of the user User:Fraberj, or a very good impersonator. I am aware of socketpuppet investigations, but the account is far too stale to do anything with in that regard. Still, it remains active and not blocked. Given the nature of the case, not to mention that the suspected sock fits the MO of the main account down to a T, and the status of the original account User:Fraberj (which has been banned), here is a request for an admin to review the data present, if not possibly act on it. Original AN/I Ban discussion. It’s been a bit since I've been active here, but please highlight anything I need to provide that I've missed. Daedalus969 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Inspected the account’s two edits against the claimed banned account, both out themselves as the same user which is good enough for me. I’ve indef blocked the new but haven’t officially tagged it as part of the sock farm (don’t feel quit right doing that without a look under the hood as it were), however I did leave the links to the previous ban discussion and the SPI case in question in the block log in case others elect to pursue the matter or in the unlikely event of an appeal. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

With the block in place, we've just had a reappearance of the user in question via an IP sock on the affected page. Should their talk page be editable by the person in question (NEWCOLLINS) to allow CU to take place? I only ask this as CU doesn't link an IP sock to the main user unless extreme circumstances are in play. I don't know if this qualifies as an extreme circumstance. Daedalus969 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 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:Nuttyprofessor2016

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

---

Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Initially wasn't sure whether to take this here or over to WP:COIN, but I decided on here. Anyway, this is a long one.

Nuttyprofessor2016 has, for a while by the looks of things, been making undisclosed COI edits to a few articles. The first of these was to Draft:Vaibhav Maloo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a since deleted draft (note the mainspace page Vaibhav Maloo has been salted due to being repeatedly recreated and A7'd). Nutty was warned in 2019 for COI edits to the draft, however in March 2020 (using an IP) subsequently declined having any connection to Maloo. In 2022, the mainspace page Vinay Maloo was deleted and salted (see AfD), with many related titles also being salted due to large amounts of UPE and socking taking place. Nutty was also warned by the closer of that discussion for making these comments.

We now come 'round to 2024, where Nutty created a new version of the Vinay Maloo article in draftspace. It was subsequently declined three times in April 2024, January 2025 and today (by me). I'm not a sysop so I can't view the contents of the deleted mainspace article, but I'm not convinced it's too dissimilar to the deleted article. In February this year (and what made me decide to place this here and not at COIN), Nutty added this to the draft talk page, and left an identical comment on the Vinay AfD, managing to sprinkle in a legal threat and attack in one go, stating that he was Vaibhav, Vinay's son, completely contrary to what he said back in 2020, before then proceeding to blank both the draft talk page and his own UTP. I'm not going to delve into whether Nutty has engaged in any sockpuppetry, but given the history surrounding these articles (which goes back over a decade), someone can connect the dots in one way or another. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It been more than 3 months since Nuttyprofessor2016 edited on this project and even after that spurt of editing in February, they really hadn't been editing the project regularly since 2022-2023. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems so why did you file this complaint today, June 1st, about this editor? What about this situation needs immediate attention? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 June 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.

Newsjunkie Part 4

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

---

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

I'm very sorry to bother you admins about this user again. She is unwilling to stop with her WP:REFCLUTTER, adding of unreliable sources, and pinging us on talk pages when she disagrees with us and then WP:BLUDGEONING the discussions with WP:WALLSOFTEXT.

According to @Butlerblog, who filed the first ANI report on her, she doesn't listen to most arguments or objections. She continues to disruptively edit even though she has been explained why her edits are disruptive. It's a bit tiresome to have to repeat the same things she should already know. If this were a single instance, it might be overlooked, and no one would care. But it seems that her primary purpose here is to WP:REFCLUTTER and WP:OVERCITE articles all over the encyclopedia. It does not improve the encyclopedia even though she thinks it does. The same thing has been explained to her, but she continues to do it. 99% of her edits are adding sources, and a significant number of those are low-grade, soft media that falls somewhere between marginal and fancruft, so it is quite concerning. At this point, it's either that she's unable to understand it, making it a WP:CIR issue, or she simply doesn't care, which makes her WP:NOTHERE. Either way, it's a problem. Her block was for disruption. That should've inspired a change - instead, she hasn't changed - she just shifted the same behaviors to different articles. We don't have the time for these endless wall-of-text discussions on every low-grade source and overcited statement she put up. In fact, she was WP:NOTLISTENING on a discussion involving this site. [441] She has made constant false statements on the discussion and multiple editors (including me) said that the site is a fansite run by 3 fans of television. Butlerblog tried to make a message for her to improve, but she disregarded it, and continued her disruptive behavior. @EducatedRedneck warned her about WP:BLUDGEONING and Silently Editing Replies. @Wound theology (who filed a second report), Butlerblog, and I have advised her numerous times to stop, but she will not. She thinks Wikipedia is her own playground. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This user is disregarding guidance to minimize and avoid interaction with users they don't agree with or and are going after me by tracking my edits and editing pages they have never edited before. While some of the concerns may be legitimate, they decline to engage in substantive discussion and instead constantly rehash accusations and they also don't understand all the policy they are citing themselves, for example that is permissable to add social media links in the External Links section: Talk:Abigail Hawk#Social Media Account or that Youtube links from official sources are acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&oldid=1291556363 I reverted and they went here instead of discussing where all I did was cite applicable policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FBI_(TV_series)#c-Newsjunkie-20250521235700-Youtube_links_are_permitted WP:REFCLUTTER is an essay, not a policy. newsjunkie (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

(Just adding the diff I meant to add above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291556363) newsjunkie (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In the other instance with the Merlin instance I started a discussion on the Reliable Sources page which did not have an official conclusion outcome and I haven't done anything about those sources since, and this user also discrupted it with a non-substantive argument that was not based on the substance of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_477#c-NacreousPuma855-20250515190400-Newsjunkie-20250515180200 The incident with Educated Redneck was one instance where I didn't know the policy and I did it the correct way since. I believe the user above is holding a grudge based on a previous dispute on the CBS Page and is making personal arguments about the editor, rather than substantive ones about the content and is turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND newsjunkie (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s turning into a WP:BATTLEGROUND because of you. Not us, your disruptive editing. WP:HOUNDING "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" I have been trying to correct their problems, however given their history, it is clear that they haven't learned from their past behavior. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

"This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." newsjunkie (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors opposed to her changes at the Merlin site, and I told her to drop the stick when she kept egging the discussion on when her site was opposed. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It was a substantive discussion based on policy as it was supposed to be, and the guidance for talk pages is: "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." newsjunkie (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is ANI. Substantive claims have been made above and this is the place to focus on those claims. Stop quoting waffle because that looks like a deflection technique. Please either say nothing or respond to the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are the links to the previous reports: [442], [443], [444]

And here are the links where Butlerblog has warned her numerous times. [445], [446]

Also, here is a link to the fan site discussion: [447] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There has been no prolonged edit war on my part today and the reliable sources discussion was a legitimate discussion for the other instance where I brought it up as is the policy. I did one edit today on the page in question where I added legitimate information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291499614 and then I did one revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291561764 and also brought it up as a discussion where I briefly quoted policy in question with no response Talk:FBI (TV series)#c-Newsjunkie-20250521235700-Youtube links are permitted, which instead was reverted again by the other user instead of engaging in discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291561764 and then they brought it up here. And in both the other discussions cited above, there has been no further edit warring either, there was no active dispute currently and there were somewhat different circumstances in each with somewhat different issues being at stake where I made an effort to address concerns substantively even when others were making it personal. And in all the recent cases above, the editor who made the report here never edited the page before and only made an edit or got involved in the discussions because I was involved.newsjunkie (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Briefly looking at this discussion and the edits by newsjunkie (talk · contribs), this seems like a WP:COMPETENCE issue, mainly, newsjunkie's apparent inability to drop the stick. wound theology◈ 03:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Wound theology, can you provide some diffs? CIR is a serious charge. I see a lot of complaints about Newsjunkie but no diffs until towards the end of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

See the other ANI threads about newsjunkie:

• [448]
• [449]
• [450]

I haven't delved super deep into this particular discussion, but it seems like a continuation of their general modus operandi: adding large lists of low-quality sources (see [451] and arguing the point when asking for clarification and then receiving it (see [452]). I'm too busy to get involved in the content dispute between these two, but if they're continuing to act like they did elsewhere (even after receiving a topic ban), then I do think that this might be a WP:CIR issue. A persistent inability to collaborate is unfortunately a no-go. wound theology◈ 06:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have always been open to collaborate and *always* been civil which I think especially the diffs from the back and forth today should illustrate: i started a discussion and the other user did not engage or make any substantive argument as to why these particular sources were inappropriate in this instance (I know ANI is not really for content disputes so I'm not going to go into the details of the sources at the moment) and is just making accusations, including previously telling me to read policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Hawk&diff=prev&oldid=1291238695 that they clearly did not fully read or understand themselves: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-NacreousPuma855-20250520001200-Newsjunkie-20250520000100 Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 The other user is criticizing me for starting talk page page discussions based on policy and then refuses to engage themselves or to see how an exception to a policy might apply in particular instances: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600-Newsjunkie-20250519233300 I told the other user that they should consider minimizing interaction rather than seeking out conflict repeatedly Talk:Larry (cat)#c-Newsjunkie-20250510231500-NacreousPuma855-20250510231100--- I had abstained from making an ANI report myself because I felt it would escalate things and have been trying to treat these issues as the content disputes they are based on substantive arguments which they seem to have some trouble doing.

Also just to clarify there has been no topic ban: both the reporting user and I were initially blocked for 24 hours from the CBS page which is I believe where this dispute originated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#c-The Bushranger-20250425235600-Claiming consensus when there are only two involved and personal attacks This was then extended in my case due to a specific page/talk block in connection with a separate dispute on the Harry Potter page where the reporting user was not involved at all, and since then I have been trying very carefully to follow the dispute resolution process by engaging in substantive discussion as much as possible and addressing specific concerns, including by going to the Reliable Sources Notice Board or doing a Request for Comment, where in both cases the reporting user left comments that did not really engage with the substance or were unhelpful Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS#c-NacreousPuma855-20250426235300-Newsjunkie-20250426172100 newsjunkie (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you linked this because it totally illustrates my point. I'm going to reproduce what Butlerblog (talk · contribs) (sorry for the ping!) told you there:

I'm not going to be drawn into another extended sealioning discussion (which is why I did not respond to the first comment). If it were a single instance, it might be overlooked, and no one would care. But it seems that your primary purpose here is to WP:OVERCITE articles all over the encyclopedia. If you think this improves the encyclopedia, it doesn't. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors in multiple discussions, yet you persist. I don't think I could be any clearer than that. At this point, unless there is some visible change, there's zero point in further discussion because you're WP:NOTLISTENING.

Edit wars about overcitation (as you clearly were here) and tedious sealioning (continuing to spam multiple replies across several edits) seem to be themes with you. I have not yet seen you demonstrate the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. wound theology◈ 10:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

A review of the most recent content discussions might give the appearance that this is just a content dispute between newsjunkie and NacreousPuma855. However, I think the reason for that is other editors are simply fed up with it and don't have the time for the ensuing textwall discussions. The problem is that what newsjunkie views as improvement to the encyclopedia is not seen as an improvement by other editors. I have yet to see a content discussion in which a single editor agrees with newsjunkie's position. In the interactions I have had, it is easy to see why some editors just give up on it. I have struggled to put my finger on the exact nature of the issue, but I would certainly consider wound theology's CIR suggestion. Here are some thoughts and examples:

• After a drawn-out discussion on use of primary sources and notability being thoroughly explained in this discussion, newsjunkie immediately followed that in other articles with more editing of the exact nature that was shot down in the discussion.[453][454]. Seeking input after edit warring, having standards explained to you by multiple editors, and then, going off to insert more of the same exact type of edits into other articles is either WP:NOTHERE or CIR.
• The reason for citations is verifiability, not simply a way to insert external links as in this example of 14 primary source citations newsjunkie added to a single bullet point (Blue Bloods) here:[455]. Subsequent discussion,[456] was no different than any other content dispute with this editor - but I think the point that this one emphasizes that if there is not a clear black-and-white policy, newjunkie see these types of edits as "allowed" - essentially, if they are not "disallowed" then that means they are "allowed".
• At Larry (cat), as per newsjunkie's typical editing pattern, there were 7 citations given to a single sentence - several articles, a youtube video, and two X.com links. I removed the most egregious items over three edits:[457], leaving 3 sources that were the most tightly focused (for a sentence that really didn't need more than one or two). One thing I noted in my edit summary was that The New York Times article cited was was superfluous and unnecessary as it made one single sentence mention of the topic being cited. The response to that was to edit the sentence to specifically quote the NYT article[458], later noting that The New York Times is reliable[459]. This gets at the crux of what newjunkie is unable to recognize - yes, the NYT is a reliable source - however, in this context, it is superfluous, and force-fitting the text so you can use a specific source doesn't actually lead to article improvement. The source, even specifically quoted, is still just a passing mention of what the source is citing.

An uninvolved editor or admin trying to determine what's what here may simply see this as a series of content disputes. The problem is that these are consistent patterns, and the ensuing discussions follow the same consistent pattern. The same things are being explained as objections, and in every case, we get sealion responses like this: My only point is that arguments or objections should be substantive[460] - even though substantive arguments and objections have been consistently raised numerous times over the same types of issues. So what the core of the problem is, I'm not certain. But I do know that it is consistently disruptive. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

All I will say is that yesterday in the edit that prompted this particular report I did seek consensus by opening discussion and the other editor who filed this report did not. Overcitation and the use of particular sources has to be considered case by case in each context. In the Larry the Cat case as I explained, I only added an additional citation to address a very specific edit by another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289462762 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&oldid=1289463661and so I was asking how that policy applied in that case in that context which was barely addressed by the other users. In the final edit did that has stood since then I explicitly removed several references to address the overcitation concerns while also trying to address the original issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289828045 In the other instance I also sought input at the no original research board several days ago to try and understand how common knowledge specifically applies for geographic places that one recognizes though I have gotten no response (I just realized today that I had forgotten to sign it somehow by mistake, though I think it was clear anyway:Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#c-Newsjunkie-20250522144300-Using TV Series or Film imagery or video as Primary Source for filming location) There has been no ongoing edit warring in the older examples cited. Most of my edits across multiple page have clearly been reliable sources for the claims made with no objection, the main objections have been coming repeatedly from only two editors who have been explicitly seeking out my edits, with the reporting user in this instance being the most disruptive. newsjunkie (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

People aren't seeking out your edits to make objections. You've been adding low-quality linkcruft across the encyclopedia and refusing to put down the stick or get the bigger picture. wound theology◈ 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is why it is a CIR issue. You seem to think that each of your edits must be considered case by case, but as noted in my post above, many editors (myself included) simply do not have time to address every edit that is problematic. Once it has been explained to you as it has been multiple times, you should have the competence to recognize the difference between what is expected/acceptable and what is refclutter. As to seeking out your edits, yes, there are editors that are going to do that because has been no change in your established pattern, as very clearly indicated by my first bullet point example above. As wound theology noted above, this isn't simply to make objections. It's to fix the mess. If your edits were productive, no one would object. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

(Adding the correct diff for the Larry the Cat edit) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=next&oldid=1289464721 newsjunkie (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I did not file this report because of the FBI (TV Series) article. I filed this report because of Newsjunkie's CIR and sealioning (false responses) issues. When she disregarded Butlerblog's Article Assessment message after a discussion where she added a fan site that credited her, that's when I considered a fourth report. And then looking at her continued messing up of articles was the final decision. She is pretending that what she did in the past didn't happen. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

They filed the report immediately after the FBI article interaction yesterday when I reverted and they declined to engage.

I brought up the website in question at the Reliable Sources noticeboard as is appropriate and explained repeatedly that I had zero editorial control over the page regardless of what the other issues may be and hadn't done anything with that source following the discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Stop with the sealioning please. I'm not going to explain why I filed the report again. I didn't engage because the same editing of unreliable sources, overciting, and sealioning discussions has been consistent from her across multiple articles. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It may help to reflect on your history with that reference in particular: you added the NYT article named "New prime minister or not, Larry the cat is here to stay." Jan 25 where it stuck for a while. Then when it was removed on May 9 you added it back again two hours later, then it was removed again on May 10 but you added it back yet again three minutes later. Finally, we come to your May 11 final edit you mention above, where the article was allowed to lack that reference for just over four hours. I didn't find any other editor who added that reference.--Noren (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I added it specifically with an attributed phrase in the end to address this edit by another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289462762 and also to a degree also this previous edit https://https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1286593498 so that the characterization of the account is attributed to a specific source rather than written in Wikipedia's voice as before. I removed other references (including one that was citing another) to address the overcitation concerns and because they were all about one priime minister versus multiple. I was trying to find the most fair way to characterize the account with attribution/sourcing since the existing phrasing had gotten challenged twice. newsjunkie (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

One, please learn to use the [example.com link text] format. Two, you're only proving that you are unable to drop the stick. Noren (talk · contribs) outlined a clear example of a slow-burn edit war. Your response is to simply justify your actions with an mindnumbing series of raw links that don't actually pertain to the problem with your editing style. In every content dispute I've seen you in, the pattern has been exactly the same: make an egregious, overcited statement, wage a slow-burn edit war when it gets reverted, then sealion or wikilawyer when policy is explained to you (often through walls of text). wound theology◈ 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Pretty obvious that her behavior isn't changing. This has been consistent from her for 1 almost 2 months. What started with a Harry Potter disagreement has now turned into a site wide WP:OVERCITE and sealioning WP:WALLSOFTEXT discussions, all because she can't drop the stick and agree to WP:CIR. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. Newsjunkie seems to have a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. However, they struggle with certain community norms (WP:OVERCITE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:VNOT, WP:BLUDGEON). They have had limited success in aligning their behavior with these norms. (E.g., I have seen few WP:PRIMARY sources from them in recent edits, but the long arguments continue.) Their desire to understand why something is not accepted can come off as WP:BADGER and WP:WIKILAWYER, but I do believe it's done in an attempt to improve. However, this drains significant volunteer time responding to them. If they could learn to notice when they're the only one convinced of something, and then disengage, I feel that would reduce the issue to a manageable level. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That had been my original assessment as well, which is essentially WP:NOTHERENORMS. And if they could learn to notice when they're the only one convinced of something, and then disengage that would help. However, lest it be lost in the mess above, the origin is that newsjunkie believes these are case-by-case issues and that if no one objects to a specific OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT edit, or there is no clear black-and-white policy that states something is not OK, then it's OK. Most of their main space edits are of this nature, many of which have not yet been addressed (the massive cruft added to Blue Bloods and Boston Blue for example) which indicates that either there isn't a desire to align their behavior with these norms or they are simply unable to understand them. The OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT editing is what has to change. I have not seen a shift in editing style that would indicate either an understanding of our norms or a willingness to align with them. As WP:CIR notes: A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up. What, then, is the path forward? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting to clean up those 2 pages. Also, she recently added a YouTube link and am wondering if it’s acceptable or not [461]. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

What, then, is the path forward? Since we haven't had any reassurance from Newsjunkie that they'll change, I think the best path forward is an indef as a regular admin action. If they can convince an uninvolved administrator that they'll change their behavior, all the better. Otherwise, it stops the disruption. I suggest regular admin action rather than community indef/CBAN to make it easier to appeal. If they promise to change and don't, reblocks are cheap and easy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. Since she hasn't been changing her behavior, administrator action is the best course of action to take. I support an indef block by an admin. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have made an effort to change as I have always tried to engage in discussion and trying to follow the dispute resolution process as best as I could and there have not been any ongoing edit wars on any of the affected pages. There was no policy violation in the edits that sparked this report and there is no policy violation in adding Youtube links that are official, which again is an example of the user singling out and tracking my edits on pages they have never contributed to before for what seems to be personal reasons and causing me distress. How I am I supposed to show the correct behavior? By not discussing at all in any individual case when each case (or link) is a bit different and in some cases the other user isn't fully correct about policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abigail_Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 newsjunkie (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop sealioning. We're not going to ask you again. You say you believe you made an effort to change, you said that before and you didn't. As Wound Theology mentioned above, we are not seeking out your edits for personal reasons. You are still adding low-quality fan sites and overciting across the encyclopedia and Sealioning discussions. And stop pretending that what you have done very recently didn't happen. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

That you continue to insist your edits were fine when- as far as I can tell- not a single other editor has agreed with you, is part of the problem. It sends the signal that the problems will continue unless you are blocked.

I understand that your interpretation of policy supports your actions. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't a court of law, it's a social club. Even if your read of policy is correct, if it is rejected overwhelmingly by the community, it's called disruptive editing and results in a block. Put another way, if I went into a Flat Earth Society meeting and preached that the world is an oblate spheroid, I would be right, but I also would very quickly be shown the door. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The example I cited above here is exactly an example where another editor did agree with me: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 . I understand your argument, but there have been plenty of edits on multiple pages where there has been no objection at all or no discussion of anything, and if the objections always seem to come from the same two people, is that the overwhelming community? newsjunkie (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Your last 2 responses just reinforce my point that you see each edit as case-by-case issues and that if no one objects to a specific OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT edit, or there is no clear black-and-white policy that states something is not OK, then it's OK. At this point, you should be capable of editing productively, yet every OVERCITE addressed results in a drawnout discussion to justify it. Just because you have plenty of edits on multiple page where there has been no objection doesn't mean there are no objections. There are plenty of instances that are not OK, which I pointed out above, but there simply isn't time in the day to have a drawn out discussion of Every.Single.One (which inevitably happens each time). If you believe [you] have made an effort to change, then where are the edits attempting to address other issues? I have not gone through every edit to tag each one, but I tagged a significant number of overcite problems that you've shown zero effort in correcting, such as Boston Blue, where instead of addressing tagged issues, you've spent the last month adding additional ones. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not the only one editing or visiting that page and I don't think it's up to me alone (or any other individual editor alone) to address all issues, and so far nobody else has felt the need to do so. If edits are built upon and there are no reversions and no explicit objections, isn't one to assume consensus? newsjunkie (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

By way of that example, the line that says Following the official announcement of the spin-off, outlets speculated about the new show's possible filming location followed by 11 citations appears that you are the editor that added those. That has been tagged as excessive. Suggesting that is (1) not an explicit objection and (2) not your responsibility to clean up just reinforces what has been said already. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that the tag is not an explicit objection, but just to point out that nobody else has felt the need to address it so far, as far as I understand the responsibility to address an issue does not fall *more* on the person who added content than it does on anyone else. newsjunkie (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

And is it appropriate for the reporting user to just delete cited content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&diff=0&oldid=1292396732 without further input while this discussion is still ongoing? And would I be allowed to object or would that be editwarring? newsjunkie (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

1. It's a clutter of unnecessary information and overciting. 2. Please learn to put brackets in urls. [ at the beginning, and ] at the end. More information on Blue Bloods can be inputted on the new sub-topic below. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that I put a closure request on WP:CR#WP:ANI#Newsjunkie Part 4. A closure would be useful, as leaving it open will likely result in more disruption and more time wasted on reports. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You are again removing large sections of cited, accurate neutrally phrased information from an articles you never edited before without discussion primarily because I was the one who added it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods_season_14&diff=prev&oldid=1293607011 which can be considered disruptive per WP:REMOVECITE newsjunkie (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

They are not being removed 'without discussion'. Based on the title of this section, this is at least the fourth time that multiple people have explained the reason to you. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be able to hear the many explanations, but that doesn't mean they haven't been given to you.

Checking the contribs of a known disruptive editor and cleaning up after them would not be considered 'disruptive' in any way. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Per the guideline I cited above, cited, neutrally phrased, accurate, pertinent information should not be considered disruptive. The Colin Morgan page also now has a single article as a reference anyway, but before that existed what I added was perfectly within the core policies/guidelines as i detailed above as was the Blue Bloods information of being neutrally phrased, verified and no original research. Individual issues could be addressed more minimally without removing so much reliably sourced information per WP:PRESERVE. These are content disputes about what should be included and going out of your way to seek out articles you've never edited before with editors you know you disagree with on that issue is also disruptive. And especially doing so while this conversation is still ongoing and I still don't know if it's appropriate for me to revert or not if I disagree as so far I've refrained from doing. newsjunkie (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is another example of you ignoring the repeated explanations and trying to claim that everyone has to treat your overciting individually and separately. As you've seen from the (minimum) four other times you've been reported for this, the consensus among other editors is that this is not required.

It would save everyone a lot of time and effort if you could find some way of not being able to see those explanations, that way you'd be able to discuss what's actually going on with the editors above who are discussing whether an indef ban might be the appropriate remedy here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of admin interest right now, but if you continue to refuse to listen and refuse to discuss, that won't last forever. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

(Was writing this at the same time as @MilesVorkosigan's comment above, so there's some overlap, but I decided to go ahead and include it anyway because it's gets at the crux of the problem with your editing.)

This is yet other, very recent example, that reinforces the exact point being made (and unfortunately also possibly being lost) in this thread. You seem to think that if it's verifiable, that means it should be included. That's an incorrect premise. If it's included, it has to be verifiable, but the reverse is not true: just because it's verifiable does not make it suitable for inclusion. A lot of what you contribute falls under sections 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 of what wikipedia is not. And that is why you're getting pushback on these types of contributions. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the one refusing to discuss. I'm a little confused as to what subtopics being referred to as 2.8, 2.9,2.10 are (seems to refer to the main list above rather than the content subtopics?) and I still think those debates fall under content dispute, but I think there could be more specific arguments about how any of the content does or does not meet the specific individual subtopics. Even the linked essay about "fandom" mainly seems to mention the importance of verifiability and reliable sources. As do he guidelines on "due weight" and the essay about Fancruft, which seems to be an issue that is regularly under debate and not settled, and also not policy violations. newsjunkie (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is also untrue. You continue to pretend that you can't see what the concerns of other editors are and refuse to address them, the oblique reference in your last line about things not being 'settled' and not being policy violations is the closest you've come to actually replying to the real issue.

I take that last line to mean that you don't care about the opinions of other editors and you're going to continue pushing to add things against consensus. I don't see any other way to interpret it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I said that is untrue. I specifically tried to address the concerns as they've been previously stated (best I could given confusion as to what was being referred to). Content discussions are based on consensus for individual articles, and shouldn't really be the subject here anyway. And content was now removed from a third page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_Blue&diff=prev&oldid=1293628221 even though there actually had been some prior consensus on that page to keep it: Talk:Boston Blue#c-BD2412-20250222003600-David O. Johnson-20250221030700 newsjunkie (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe you. Unfortunately, after having had this explained to you repeatedly over months by many different editors, you remain unable to hear what anyone is saying to you. Sadly, I don't see any way of helping you change your behavior and would therefore support the ban mentioned above. We can't keep spending all of this time and effort when communication is apparently impossible. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed to say to show that I am understanding concerns or trying to address them? Am I never allowed to disagree with any content deletion if seems to go against existing policies? newsjunkie (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your first question. In order to show that you understand the concerns, you would need to discuss the actual concerns that people have explained at length. You'd have to stop acting like this is a content dispute, after a dozen people have told you it is not. You'd have to stop saying that you don't understand what everyone keeps telling you. What about that isn't clear?

And literally no one said anything about you not being allowed to disagree with content deletion, so the fact that you asked that question is yet more evidence that you are *utterly* determined to not listen. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

At least some comments from other editors have suggested that at last parts of the issues brought up here ARE content disputes. That's why this is so confusing. Which specific concern do you think I have not tried to address? newsjunkie (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It isn’t confusing, you just refuse to listen.

I have answered this exact question several times now, and you always pretended you couldn’t see the answer. Many other editors have answered it as well.

At this point, I don’t see any use in repeating the explanation for you to ignore again. Until you manage to show some sign of having read what everyone has already told you, I have to give up on replying. Sadly, this is just a waste of time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep saying "the reason" or the "the concerns" but not saying what the reason is. Only "overciting" specifically as mentioned in your very first comment? That is not a hard and fast rule and depends on context and what is being cited specifically and should be discussed in the relevant page context (and doesn't necessarily call for wholesale deletion of content) @Butlerblog then mentioned verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and "what wikipedia is not" guidelines" though just based on the numbering I'm not even sure which were being referred to exactly, though I tried to address arguments that were previously made in related contexts or what I think was being referred to. Usage of Primary Sources was also mentioned above, but again use of those also depends on context. The deletions on the pages I cited have come with statements that the sources are "unreliable" though no such discussion/determination has occurred on the relevant talk pages about which specifically are unreliable or why. And then a lot of that does starting becoming a content discussion which is not even appropriate really for discussion here as even other editors have said but it is appropriate for discussion on the relevant article talk pages. And the reporting user has been continuing to refer to this discussion on the article talk pages or has responded here instead of responding there just about objections to content removal, not even any reversions or anything, which I am still not sure whether they would be appropriate to do based on the BOLD editing principle. newsjunkie (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so you aren’t quite as unaware of what everyone is saying, you just don’t like it?

It would have saved a lot of time if you admitted that instead of pretending you couldn’t see everyone else’s posts. But that just proves repeating the explanations for you is just as worthless as I thought. I guess we’ll see if the admins want to give you another chance, or decide this has been enough. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I never pretended I didn't see anyone's posts or I that I didn't like the policy and I have tried to address them as best as I could. You said "no one said anything about you not being allowed to disagree with content deletion." But if these cited guidelines aren't black and white and can depend on the page context and interpretation, what is the correct behavior if there is disagreement in a particular instance? Never add anything that I think is appropriate under policy because somebody might disagree/see the policy differently? Never revert anything if something seems allowable under policy or the talk page consensus seems unclear and never express disagreement? Post everything on a talk page first asking am I allowed to add this even if it seems to fall under allowed policy? The main suggested pathway is discussion on the article talk page, which I have tried to do. What at least partly prompted this discussion was one revert of content deletion I felt was unjustified when I started a talk page discussion and the reporting editor went here instead of engaging and reverted again themselves. And was a pattern of seeking out edits of pages they have never edited before in order to apply a policy in a very strict way due to personal conflicts rather than to discuss in context. newsjunkie (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is just more lying and ignoring what people have said to you. These questions have all been answered multiple times.

Your decision to be dishonest and pretend you can’t remember anything people say and keep asking the same questions over and over and over is a big part of the issue. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not lying or being dishonest. As I demonstrated in a previous paragraph, I clearly did repeat what people said and what you said in a previous paragraph. And what the policies are. I wasn't saying people had specifically said those examples I gave, but asking in practice what I should actually do in a dispute situation where there is a disagreement, such as if I disagree with a content deletion in any one instance, which you have said I am allowed to do if I understood correctly. newsjunkie (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WP:WALLOFTEXT discussion strikes back in this report. This is a consistent pattern from Newsjunkie. It proves she is WP:NOTLISTENING and unwilling to drop the stick. As EducatedRedneck pointed out above, an indef block is a good proposal. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was explicitly asking what it is I *am* affirmatively supposed to do to address these disputes that do not exist in a black and white area, other than never objecting to anything if it's been explicitly said "no one said anything about you not being allowed to disagree with content deletion." What specific policy or guideline am I supposed to affirmatively supposed to say I will follow and how am I supposed to handle the fact that these guidelines are not black or white, have exceptions, depend on context, and have room for interpretation? Especially if the edits don't seem to violate core policies like neutral point of view, verifiability or no original research, there isn't necessarily clear talk page consensus and the main dispute resolution guideline there is is to attempt to engage in discussion? newsjunkie (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The policy or guideline is called WP:CONSENSUS, which is not the same as unanimous agreement. If everyone who bothers to discuss a topic is telling you to stop doing something, you should stop doing it. What you have been doing is freight training discussion with walls of text and wikilawyering despite being the only one who agrees with your edits. Like right now. wound theology◈ 03:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Strike 2 (Blue Bloods)

I just cleaned up the Blue Bloods article, which contained severe overcitation and unnecessary information courtesy of Newsjunkie. But now like many other pages, she thinks its okay to have this unnecessary content on Wikipedia, when several other users have opposed to this. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Not all that information was mine. There had been no sustained discussion. Talk:Blue Bloods#c-Butlerblog-20250526185100-Content cleanup needed (per recent tags) and I think it could also be argued that this is a case where the "removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." newsjunkie (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, some of the cited content was unnecessary, 80% of the sources were overcites, almost all of the unnecessary content was courtesy of Newsjunkie and a marginal chunk of unreliable sources cited some of that content. Do you think its okay to have 6-11 sources to support a sentence? You are not taking responsibility for your actions. You've been WP:OVERCITEing the whole encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Fandom. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue for content disputes. This is drifting off the topic. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the issues are such a major removal of cited information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&diff=prev&oldid=1292416073 should have been discussed more substantively and for longer and I believe several reliable sources and at least some relevant information has been removed in a way that is disruptive. newsjunkie (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, this sub-section is about Newsjunkie's continued disruptive edting, particularly to this page before I cleaned it up. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't done any reversion because I really don't know what's appropriate at this point with this discussion still ongoing, and I have no issue with a clean-up tag being inserted, but that should be a step to initiate broader discussion, not necessarily immediate large-scale cited content removal without any further discussion when there had been implied consensus for a significant length of time until now. newsjunkie (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The editing policy suggests that with larger changes one should be WP:CAUTIOUS newsjunkie (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read what Butlerblog mentioned above. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

My most recent comments are about editing behavior not content (what specifically should or should not be included and why). newsjunkie (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think everyone has stated their cases. Newsjunkie maintains their behavior was acceptable. NacreousPuma, ButlerBlog, and myself believe it was not. Attempts to convince each other of this have not proven to be fruitful. I suggest we all disengage and let uninvolved editors/admins look at the evidence presented. Further back-and-forth will likely clutter the thread, and make it harder for an admin to close. If an uninvolved editor has questions or wants more evidence, they need but ask. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this discussion is now too unwieldy and long-winded for any admin to bother getting involved. wound theology◈ 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you're correct in that assumption. The key items are lost in the mess. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie is still overciting and adding pointless references to articles while this report is open. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've hardly contributed anything in about a week.... newsjunkie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe MilesVorkosigan (talk · contribs) is talking about this this, which yes, are two inappropriate references -- Google Play and Amazon.co.uk pages are not WP:RSs. wound theology◈ 14:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe this falls under WP:AMAZON for basic release information. One confirms Harper Collins as publisher and one the specific Imprint. They both also contain the official biography of the author clarifying that this indeed is the right person. The article was about the rights being sold for the book title at the book festival months earlier and also his representation by United Artists (a reference elsewhere in the Article.) newsjunkie (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into another content dispute on WP:ANI. wound theology◈ 17:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, this falls under your inability to understand that many, many editors are telling you that you're adding too many unneeded references to articles.

Notice that here, again, you are doing what several people pointed out and acting like this addition needs to be addressed in isolation when it's actually yet more evidence of an ongoing behavior that you are unable, or unwilling, to change. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as a content dispute. There is an obvious pattern of intractable behaviour that is clearly not consistent with community norms. The mess that was the Blue Bloods article is problematic by any standard. Just a single example: In 2023, the show was renewed through season 14, with the cast and producers taking a pay cut to help secure a 14th season, for which production began in late fall 2023 after the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.[161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][13][169][170] That there were many, many more before a 153,000 character cleanup that reduced 437 citations to 118 (still excessive, IMHO, for an article of this size) is really at the crux of this. It needs to be stopped. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just for clarification about that particular citation (I'm not saying it's right or wrong) but the bulk of those particular references completely predated my significant involvement and had been placed there to verify each successive renewal of the show from one year to the next. See this revision from February 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&oldid=1208602513 I had assumed that was appropriate when I started editing the page (and I may have been wrong!) which was why I personally chose not to remove them. I only added the three at the end: One specifically about the pay cut and two about the Sag Aftra strike. There are other instances where I did add all the citations considered to be overcited (though not unverified), though I still think that could have been discussed individually before deletion, especially with more up-to-date information about production and ratings etc now missing post 2013/2019. newsjunkie (talk) 04:48, 27 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.

Rants and threats on user talk page

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

---

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

After having had their access to article space blocked, User:Devi Aldiva posted rants and threats to their talk page. (I'm not sure if this constitutes a "serious death threat"; I'm also not entirely sure if this is the correct page of the correct way to draw attention to this, so apologies in advance.) Mark in wiki (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the right place. Indeffed. Reporting to trust and safety. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:36, 6 June 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.

TPA Needs Yoinking

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

---

Spamming. LOLOLOLOL LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Lol YOINK! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yoinking??? Editors, please mind your language. There are ladies present! EEng 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think what LakesideMiners meant to say was that the IP's talk page access should be potentially revoked for spamming. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Boy, I sure am relieved, because I was actually concerned about indelicacy reaching the metaphorical ears of our colleagues of the fair sex. EEng 02:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Blatant Sexism at Imane Khelif

Blatant block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I can't believe that this crap is still going on. Woshiwaiguoren created an entire disgusting RFC at Imane Khelif, the article on a BIOLOGICAL CIS WOMAN, claiming she is somehow trans. Then user user:Mike_Delis started posting claiming that Ms. Khelif is "a biological male." What in the fucking fuck is wrong with Wikipedia? Where are the Arbcom???? WHY is this shitty site allowing this hateful misogyny? 98.201.64.185 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Can someone WP:BOOMERANG this IP. See some recent posts: calling someone an antisemite, calling someone a Russian sockpuppet MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Hard blocked the IP for 1 week, which seems appropriate given the lack of a track record of editing for this IP prior to today. Also pulled TPA after they predictably kept hurling invective on their talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 02:38, 4 June 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.

Two users making nothing but unsourced changes and chronic talk page avoidance

I’ve come across these editors while attempting to clean up the previously chronic lack of sourcing on airline pages, especially fleet lists. I’ll separate them out as I have no reason to believe they’re in any way related to one another, but it doesn’t make sense to have two ANI threads for the same issue.

Just commenting to keep the thread from being archived Danners430 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to take a look at this? Danners430 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

EuroMalikFan23

EuroMalikFan23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a long history of unsourced additions, with a fair few useful ones too. I was made aware of them through their additions to Ryanair - [462], [463], [464]. Other examples - [465], [466], [467], [468]… that’s all since April. They’ve had two final warnings on their talk page which went ignored, and I even took them to WP:AIV, but was informed that wasn’t the correct venue.

Kolyan.Mescher

Kolyan.Mescher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another chronic case of not using sources. In the multiple years they’ve had an account, they’ve made precisely one talk page edit. Edits from just this month… [469], [470], [471], [472], [473], [474] and [475]. They’ve now reached their third final warning on their talk page, again, ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

For info, this user is continuing to make unsourced edits while still completely ignoring this discussion and their talk page. Danners430 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• The first has never edited a talk or user talk page, the second has a single user-talk edit from 2020, and both are continuing to make unsourced changes despite multiple warnings and talk pages as long as a CVS Pharmacy recipt. Both have been pblocked from articlespace until communication, and referencing, improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hey don't knock the CVS receipts. Skillfully used, they're worth a fortune in mouthwash, L'Oreal cosmetics, and incontinence supplies. EEng 02:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive edits & 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.

---

A disgusting mess of WP:OUTING and WP:BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:JamesArther84 created their account 7 days ago with the apparent intention of vandalizing Wikipedia. They specifically targeted my own user page on Wikidata to harass me after I reverted their edits on an article and on Wikidata, where they completely messed up the item page. By the way, this is not the first time this user has engaged in such behavior. Coinhote (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC) This is false, the account was created to correct the lies spread by the user reporting me. The user is (Redacted) The user is using your systems to spread knowingly false information and he reports anyone that tries to reveal the truth. JamesArther84 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Fun fact is that I googled what is going on, and came across a (Redacted) posted days ago by the artist you are targeting. The tweet includes a screenshot of an email that have been sent under your name, allegedly threatening him and the artist himself said that YOU have been filing false copyright claims, while also impersonating several other artists, including Mariah Carey, Victoria Monét, Iain Armitage, and Connor Ferguson. Apparently it’s you who are impersonating those entities and now is editing their Wikidata. Coinhote (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Fun fact, you are (Redacted) JamesArther84 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC) @Coinhote, you appear to have blanked @JamesArther84's talk page by mistake. I've reversed that edit. -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC) I did it because another ADMIN told to me post this thread here Coinhote (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC) An admin told you to post a thread here, so you removed a conversation from someone else's user talk page? -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC) This thread contains sensitive information that could be considered libel. Posting it here is better as it will be archived sometime in the future once this is resolved. I also don’t want to humiliate anyone with accusations or stuff. Coinhote (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC) I'd suggest taking a look at WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC) @Coinhote@Asilvering Its not libel as its fact. Happy to go to court where by we can show your long documented history of abuse. Anyone can infact, just search (Redacted) on Google, Youtube or X. Good luck with your case (Redacted). JamesArther84 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Please note @Coinhote and @Atisnakebite are the same user. I have been falsly reported twice for adding correct information. (Redacted) and the correct references were provided. He is not signed to Virgin or Universal and both records were correctly updated. The user, (Redacted) has been removing the updates and adding false information to keep up his scam. We joined to help fight the narrative but it seems he's now using your system to keep the false information live. JamesArther84 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC) What you are doing is personal attack. You have been impersonating multiple entities and editing their Wikidata. I had to undo your edits, this doesn’t justify the libel content that you added to Wikipedia. Coinhote (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC) No (Redacted), you have infact done that to others. (Redacted) anyone that dares share the truth. The fact you would claim this is insane when you are (Redacted). @Asilvering please ban both accounts, happy to provide further evidence. JamesArther84 (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Dear @Asilvering, I am new and learning so i apologise but this is no grey situation, there is a years of evidence showing the users @Coinhote/@Atisnakebite aka (Redacted) has spent users abusing official systems to spread his lies. I have confirmed with the entities themselves that he is lying. Im happy to share the communications. Regardless if you Google the situation or take a look on X you will see hes lying. Ive now got to false strikes on my name for adding factually correct information and am now being harassed. JamesArther84 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC) If you have evidence of a user abusing multiple accounts, file a WP:SPI. If you have evidence that incorrect information has been added to Wikipedia, post that information on the talk pages of the articles in question, and bear in mind that primary sources are discouraged and original research is prohibited. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC) look @The Bushranger I undid the edits that this user done to Uriel Brg wikidata and he now accusing me of being the artist. When I saw a tweet from Uriel exposing an email he received from James threatening him. This user added libel content to uriel page and is also impersonating Mariah Cary and many other artists. Now he is playing the victim making personal attacks, even edited my own user page but is not addressing the problem. Coinhote (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Stop those personal attacks and address the subject why you are impersonating multiple entities not just Uriel brg, but also Mariah Carey, Iain Armitage and Victoria Monet. Your edits on Wiki says it all, I never done a vandalism, but you have done and is targeting this artist, he posted a tweet exposing your emails with threats and false copyright claims. Coinhote (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• And JamesArther84 has been blocked for the blatant legal threat above, as well as dancing all over WP:OUTING, given the OP here has (as far as I can tell) made no self-claims of being the person JamesArther84 claims they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! Coinhote (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger, you're probably going to want to revoke TPA as a precaution while you're at it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I've got their talk page open and keeping an eye on it for awhile with finger on the button. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks at Talk:Valeria Márquez (influencer)

• Talk:Killing of Valeria Márquez

I've been engaged in various discussions at Talk:Valeria Márquez (influencer) and tolerating discourse that hasn't been all that productive or assuming good faith. But I fear this comment by Seregadu (talk · contribs) has finally tipped into WP:NPA territory. There's been anger with me for removing this image from the page on May 28. The image has since been restored by a different editor and I avoided an edit war, but a disucssion thread has evolved since, leading to this recent comment accusing me of "ulterior motives" etc. This is just getting out of hand quickly, I fear. Open to perspectives from admins on how to deal with this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

On its own, I think this would have merited a {{uw-npa}} warning. Taken together with this VPI thread, however, I think there may be a communication issue here. They were also reported for similar disruption on ru.wiki a few days ago following reports at their ANI equivalent, ultimately ending in a block for obvious sockpuppetry, all apparently in relation to Valeria Marquez. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

As someone just suggested at Talk:Valeria_Márquez_(influencer)#Image, I fear that WP:CIR might be in play here. Every time somone posts a simple reflection of policy, Seregadu (and others on that page, honestly) reply with long defensive screeds that simply fail to acknoweldge the most basic policies at play. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for the doubling down. If we don't see an adequate change of course upon the block expiry, we may be looking at an indefinite block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Not relevant to this discussion, but I do wonder why this article exists as a biography. It was created after her death (by a sockpuppet of a banned editor not that this makes any difference), and nearly every source used in it was published after her death as well. She didn't appear (from what exists in the article) to be particularly notable prior to her death (I note that no equivalent article exists on es.wiki) so at the very least this article should be Murder of Valeria Márquez or possibly, per WP:NOTNEWS, it should be sent to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion at Talk:Valeria_Márquez_(influencer)#Requested_move_28_May_2025 appears to agree _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Article now at Killing of Valeria Márquez. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MichaelBradleyJenkins

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

Repeated attempts to add unsourced additions [1] [2] [3] to John Jenkins (governor) and one [4] on David Jenkins (Royalist) and admitted to have a COI on talk page. Requesting a partial block on those pages. Thewindbird (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I've invited the editor to come and participate in this discussion. But he is actually arguing that he has a family genealogy that goes back to Adam! That's an unwarranted certainty that has been hard to get through with other editors who have come here to write about their families. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Adam Smith, perhaps? EEng 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, he claims ancestry via 126 unbroken male line generations going back 6,029 years. That works out to an average paternal age of 50. I guess men were men back then. EEng 23:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

User:EEng#s, I just came across another editor today who claimed he had been made a saint by the Catholic Church, had won 4 Nobel Prizes, served as the President of the U.S. for a while along with other unlikely honors. Again, I think intoxication is a factor with some of these boasts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Which editor was that? It makes me wish there was a category called "Wikipedians with delusions of grandeur." Hellbus (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Semantic shard: Disruptive editing and IDHT

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

---

A new user, Semantic shard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is demanding that Wikipedia's coverage of Muhammad be from an Islamic perspective [476] [477] [478], and is ignoring the strong consensus against their edits and continuing to argue in violation of WP:IDHT as well as edit warring [479]. Given their apparent sole interest in Wikipedia editing is this topic, I think they may be WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Put an ANI notice on their talkpage [480]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. There are many places on the internet where the user can express their religious beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of them; it's a project to create an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 19:35, 4 June 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.