Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1189

User:212.95.5.25 at Chechen genocide, vandalism and likely IP sock

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.

---

• 212.95.5.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Chechen genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IP user User:212.95.5.25 is engaging in disruptive editing and potential vandalism at Chechen genocide by repeatedly removing sourced content with no explanation. They also appear likely to be a potential IP sock of User:Michael95ii based on a similar editing agenda. 47.51.12.122 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Definite sockpuppet. See Special:Diff/1287574384 and Special:Diff/1290435817. Blocked two weeks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 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.

User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo

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

I am here to report User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo for disruptive editing. This editor keeps changing the status of a cast member of a Tv series, without providing a source.[1][2] While this edit contains a duplicate of a reference already posted in the article.[3] This user doesn't communicate, doesn't use their edit summary and doesn't respond through their talk page. I posted a level 4 warning in their talk page, since they were just blocked last March 2025. After the warning I posted in their talkpage, the editor continues to post unreferenced content.[4]Hotwiki (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The reported user still hasn't respond. This is written in their block log when they were blocked in March 2025 - "Disruptive editing Long term DE, especially adding unsourced claims despite multiple previous blocks and a wall of warnings. Virtually no communication. See ANI report. We are getting close to an indef."[5] The editor has been in Wikipedia for 10 years, to still not communicate and just ignore warnings and reports towards him. Hotwiki (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I've indefinitely pblocked from articlespace due to the continual and very long-term addition of unsourced content and failure to communicate, which is not optional. Hopefully this will encourage them to respond to the concerns here, but given this editor's history it may be worth keeping an eye out for WP:LOUTSOCKING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User repeatedly behaving in a disruptive manner

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

Back in March this user was brought to this page due to his disruptive editing via live updates on football matches. He claimed that he "didn't know there was a reason for not doing live updates, and was just tryna do it to be quick and save time." He was already warned twice by myself on such occasion (see his talk page) and he was already warned before that as well. Fast forward to today and he's done it again thrice (1, 2 and 3). Live updates have been prohibited for years in football articles to avoid mistakes and duplicate information. He just doesn't care about anything anyone says. It can't go unpunished. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94, administrators do not act with the intent to punish editors. We act to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Tumford14 from editing article space. They can still make edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSION

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

---

In this edit, User:Koriodan shows an inordinate amount of bad faith, and asperses that User:Kowal2701 User:ImaginesTigers's editing is retaliatory and ideologically motivated. Not only is this a slur, but speculating about editors' characters with no good reason is a no-no. I {{rpa}}'d it, which would have been the end of that. However, they doubled down on the comment, so here we are. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No, Koriodan called ImaginesTiger's indef proposal retaliatory, not Kowal's editing. Check the threading. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks SoV, I've struck/corrected the target of Koriodan's speculations on an editor's motives. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm very tired of wasting time responding to baseless allegations by editors whose sole contributions are arguing about random culture war video game crap. My proposal was only "retaliatory" in the sense that it was a "retaliation" for the subjects' increasing breaches of policy (as outlined by my proposal). I have no idea in what world my editing can be described as "ideologically motivated". I FA'd Dracula, and routinely deal with "Dracula is GAY NOW?" as a result of my work on the Sexuality and gender sections, or removing this crap because I wrote about Marxist and feminist analysis on The Turn of the Screw (GA). I created and GA'd The Blood of the Vampire, a Victorian Gothic novel about a mixed-race female vampire. Whether this most recent account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of one of the others I've no idea. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if you are that offended by what Koriodon wrote, you should check out what you wrote - [6]. Equally as much of an aspersion to casually say people in the conversation are socking without evidence. I'd recommend reporting yourself, or more reasonably, withdrawing this battleground report. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• @EvergreenFir: Yes, I ballsed up the diff. Now adjusted to demonstrate that Koriodan called ImaginesTiger's editing retaliatory. Trout accepted for messing up the original diff. Mind you, the fact that I included a quote surely suggested where the problem lay. (By the way, {{checkuser needed}} regarding whether the IP that comments above is related to either the IPs involved in the Forspoken edit war that led to its protection, or to any of the relevant parties.) Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  You could just ask me. No, I'm unrelated. Please read WP:NPA. It would be a good look to strike the above. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  No, I'm unrelated, said every sock ever. Not to say you are one, but 'I'm not' isn't exactly the best proof otherwise, and suggesting someone could be a sock when there is reasonable suspicion of socking is not a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  What is the cause of reasonable suspicion? Can you be specific? I'm not sure what you think the appropriate response to a spurious accusation of socking would be. I assume you'd probably be unhappy if I started implying you were Lourdes. You'd probably call it an aspersion and demand diffs. I'd rightly get blocked for NPA. I'm not saying that you are Lourdes, but "I'm just asking questions" isn't a reasonable defense of aspersions. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  You must know how suspicious it looks to be an " anonymous" editor who knows the name "Lourdes" in 2025, right? Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since the IP geolocates to Houston, it's unrelated to the IPs involved in the Forspoken edit war. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, though they're seemingly not new to the drama boards either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Funny how nobody said they were "just asking questions", isn't it? IP randomly appears and makes inflammatory comments with regard to a contentious discussion -> reasonable suspicion it's somebody logged out. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Here is me editing here one year ago - [7]. Do you really think it is likely I have been editing here for years as an IP to prepare for someone to make a bad ANI report so that I could stick it to them over, let me check above, how many copies of a video game have sold in a country? Something has been demonstrated, but not that it's reasonable to think I'm a logged out gaming editor. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Based on data I have, it is entirely possible you are a logged out gaming editor. Blocked, and the rest of the range you've been haunting, for a while. Izno (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this thread is just an extremely poorly considered move, and a waste of community energy. Frankly, the manner in which WP:ASPERSION is being leveraged (indeed, I would not not consider it an exaggeration to say 'abused') on ANI of late is getting to be a real problem that might require some (extremely ironic) warnings or even sanctions to address.

Fortuna, in the (sole) diff that you cite, Koriodan does not make a falsifiable accusation of a rules violation; they merely speculate that another party had biased reasons for making the proposal that they did. That is well within the boundaries of the type of conjecture that community members have to be free to express in order for this project (and conduct-review spaces like ANI in particular) to have any hope of operating. It is certainly not within the vein of the kind of statement, presented as fact (but without supporting evidence) that WP:ASPERSION is meant to address.

Now, did Koriodan make that observation entirely in good faith, and was their assessment a well-reasoned one? I honestly don't know: that thread is an absolute mess. I can tell you I am easily as skeptical as you and others in that thread in terms of looking at the account's immediate editorial history before joining the discussion. And if you were able to connect the dots to another account, I'd not only say you'd be justified in taking the matter to SPI, but indeed that you should be encouraged to. And I have a similar perspective towards the concern about the IP editor above as that expressed by others already.

But none of that makes your course of action in opening this thread in any way meritorious. All you are accomplishing with this report is to make a mountain out of a molehill and create an outgrowth of the earlier discussion akin to a multiplying wart. It is not helpful to the business of this space, and I strongly encourage you to withdraw the matter in your own interest, and the community's. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, a related point on overwrought rhetoric: when you use the word "slur" in particular as you did in this case, you are, imo, crossing a line from garden-variety exaggeration and into a truly problematic kind of hyperbole. On a project like this, we need that term to stand for what it usually stands for in customary English parlance: an established pejorative used with bigoted or chauvinistic intent to intimidate, demonize, belittle, dehumanize, or marginalize individuals or groups based solely on their inclusion in some sort of classification scheme (race, gender, sexuality, nationality, ect. ect.) When you idly throw such a term around in a situation like this, that involves none of those factors, but is rather a tempest-in-a-teapot over one editor refusing to AGF, you debase the term's value--an honestly, make it harder for others to take your point seriously. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. 'Slur' is a perfectly acceptable descriptor, and does not bear the undue superlation you bestow upon it. To cut to the chase, obviously, I considered carefully the merits of this report before publishing; I considered, and do consider, it necessary. As you say, that thread is an absolute mess; partially, at least, that is consequential to the personalized remarks, bad-faith assumptions and diffless allegations that certain parties have been free to make. By your logic, it would be reasonable, and not at all an aspersion! were I to suggest you were incapable of making a point in less than a 1000-word wall-of-text. But I suspect it would be an asperson, so I would not. If the accusations of supporting Gamergate now continue, it will be in spite, not because, of this thread. (BTW, AFK for the near future, so unable to respond to further opinions.) Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

'Slur' is a perfectly acceptable descriptor, and does not bear the undue superlation you bestow upon it.

Well, you might want to have a look at our article on the subject sometime. The word very much is associated with a very particular type of hateful invective in modern English; I'm not trying to steer you wrong. But that's not really the main issue here.

obviously, I considered carefully the merits of this report before publishing

Really? Because it seems like you rushed out this report immediately after Koriodan pushed back against your description, and so quickly that you initially got both the parties/specific facts and the diffs wrong.

I considered, and do consider, it necessary

Yes, I take that for granted. But that's precisely the problem. Not only was this not necessary, it's pointless. Did you really think the community was going to sanction someone for having an uncharitable take on another user's possible motivation at ANI?

partially, at least, that is consequential to the personalized remarks, bad-faith assumptions

Ok, so welcome to ANI. I'm not saying it's great or that comments can't cross the line into policy violations, but we can't just create a splinter thread for every little ABF comment...

and diffless allegations that certain parties have been free to make.

Diffing suppositions is not possible; deductive conclusions are, by definition, created in the absence of direct evidence. You're conflating two separate policies: WP:ASPERSION and WP:AGF. And while ABF can become an issue in extreme cases, do you really think Koriodan's one comment here truly constitutes such a case, necessitating an ANI thread? Because frankly, if you do, I think you need a break from this space.

By your logic, it would be reasonable, and not at all an aspersion! were I to suggest you were incapable of making a point in less than a 1000-word wall-of-text. But I suspect it would be an asperson, so I would not.

I mean, your sarcasm not withstanding, that's very clearly not an WP:ASPERSION, as the term is applied on this project, and your counterfactual actually makes me wonder when you last read the policy.

Now, that said, the comment very obviously is a petty and spiteful WP:personal attack against a respondent who is merely trying to explain a policy distinction to you--which serves to emphasize just how WP:BATTLEGROUND your approach to this forum is becoming. But notice what I'm not going to do: I'm not going to run off a create a whole new thread on ANI to try to hold you to account for it, despite the clear intent. I'm not going to do that because it would be a histrionic response to the comment in question that would have zero chance of accomplishing anything beyond a timesink for the community. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang - Fortuna imperatrix mundi topic banned from notice boards broadly construed excluding cases where she may be reported by someone else

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.

---

• Support as nom for exhibiting a battle ground mentality and casting aspersions in retaliation related to another case above. 216.114.163.13 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - not even close to an appropriate response. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Don't be that person. — ^EF⁵ 02:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose clearly retaliatory proposal by this obvious throwaway sock IP. Pinguinn 🐧 02:52, 5 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.

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 repeatedly adds non-notable subjects to music articles, then vandalizes my userpage when I remove this info

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

---

Pomidor4ik2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly re-adding information about non-notable music artists to a few articles (a couple of list articles, and the article for outsider music). I reverted these edits when I noticed them late last month, roughly a week and a half before the edits were made. Today, I noticed that the user not only re-added said non-notable info [which they even said in one of their edit summaries "Just interesting marginal musician", implying non-notability to begin with], they edited my userpage with this edit that says "syn prostitutki" - this translates to "son of a bitch". Previously, this user apparently repeatedly added this non-notable information in February and March, which were reverted then. I only noticed their May edits before this incident, but this user seems to be a repeat offender. Maybe they're just not aware of the notability guidelines and how to prove notability, but on the other hand, they don't seem to want to learn said guidelines and instead just want to promote a musical artist or two that they like. The insulting edit to my user page [not even my talk page] leaves a sour taste in my mouth though, and I'm not sure that they will learn regardless of what they're told, or otherwise how to proceed. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've posted an invitaton for them to join this discussion and also warned them about the personal attack. They are not a regular editor though so I'm not sure when they will be logged back in here on this platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 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.

Another user that refuses to add citations or look at their talk page

Wikireader69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been with us for 3 years. In that time, they’ve only made 26 edits - but 18 of those have been reverted, mostly because of a lack of sourcing. Just those in May and June: [8], [9] and [10]. They’re now on their third level 4 warning on their talk page… is it possible to get them blocked from article space to force them to actually engage with editors that have concerns about their editing? Danners430 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that you should send them a message that is not a template, since you've never asked them to talk in any of those messages 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I can understand that… but how does that change the fact that they’ve been given umpteen warnings about the exact same thing, yet their behaviour doesn’t change? Danners430 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely p-blocked from article space until they communicate as they do not edit frequently enough for a time delineated block to work. Star Mississippi 18:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Czech98006

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.

---

@Czech98006 is editing my drafts.[11] The Red Archive (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That is allowed. WP:DRAFT: Anyone, including users who are not logged in, can create and edit drafts. Pages in Article and Draft space are not yours (or anyone's), please read WP:OWN. If you wish to work on something by yourself, it's best to work on it in your sandbox, in Userspace. You can create subpages by adding a slash (/) and a name, e.g. User:The Red Archive/sandbox/Attack on Constantinople. You also should have made an attempt to talk to the editor before this report. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:55, 5 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:Jross2166

• Jross2166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

General disruption found at Mario Pouliot. Originally, Flibirigit reverted them for removing content/editorializing this [12] and it seems they have not backed down on this one statement even though we have discussed it here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#User:Jross2166 repeatedly editorializing. Conyo14 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Backed down? Are you suggesting your opinion is more important than facts? Jross2166 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jross2166 This is not an issue of misinterpretation of facts. This is a content dispute based on interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines for whether the material belongs in the intro—which means, among other things, there is no WP:3RR exemption for continuing to revert, as you have done. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Jross2166 blocked 24h for violating 3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Peoplic WP:CLOP spree

Peoplic (talk · contribs) has already been warned about their close paraphrasing,[13] and they're presently doubling down and spreading it across many articles, despite already having made a lot for us to clean up.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] I had a pre-existing dispute about their inappropriate use of sources, and this report isn't about that—but when they do hew to what reliable sources say, they do so far too closely. Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

All of my paraphrasing and modifications to the text have been thorough, and I have made a concerted effort to contribute to Wikipedia. I have used reliable and modern sources, replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. Nevertheless, you are relentlessly undoing my work. The goal is to expand and improve Wikipedia.Peoplic (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Plagiarism does not improve Wikipedia, it adds copyright-infringing material other editors have to spend a lot of time cleaning up. I'm not ruining your work, because this isn't your work. If you had bothered reading the linked page at any point, you would see examples of plagiarism via close paraphrasing clearly directly akin to what you are adding to these articles. Remsense ‥ 论 08:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I invited you to discuss the topics page by page here, but you avoided the conversation and instead mass-reverted my contributions without proper engagement.Peoplic (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is a separate issue of yours that you were given a final warning about before I even noticed your edits for the first time. There's no discussion to have here: I pointed your egregious plagiarism out again, and you went and tried to put it all back again. You need to be prevented from further damaging the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 08:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Your revert here Talk:Fotuhat-e shahi proves that you are acting indiscriminately and have no regard for the contributions of others. Peoplic (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I have basically two disputes with you, but you're trying to conflate them in order to deflect from your having done the one that no one familiar with site policies would ever doubt, and one that entails legal liability. Remsense ‥ 论 08:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Explain about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fotuhat-e_shahi&diff=1289876381&oldid=1289714853 it Peoplic (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I will not rehash the other issue here. This is about your plagiarism. Remsense ‥ 论 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

My recommendation for learning to avoid close paraphrasing is WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. Replacing words and changing style is not sufficient. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have used reliable and modern sources, replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. This is the problem. You need to write content in your own words, not by copying a source and then replacing words. I just randomly checked a single one of the diffs provided by Remsense (this one) and your text is way too close to that of the cited source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I advise Peoplic to read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios and come back when they understand the points made in it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

And maybe also WP:VANDNOT, their edit summaries are all "Vandalism revert" REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Have to say that that is hardly a "plain and simple guide". Wanting people to read rambles like "There's nothing wrong with selling GPL software. I could start burning DVDs with Audacity and GIMP and start flogging them for £20 each down the local market - computer savvy people would be unimpressed I was making money off somebody else's work, but provided anyone could get the original source code (which they can), it's not illegal." as part of a "plain and simple" explanation of what copyvio or close paraphrasing are and how Wikipedia deals with them is not helpful. Better to send editors to our actual policies and guidelines than to this page. Never mind that you seem to imply that it is only a copyright violation because Wikipedia uses a GFDL license, and putting the same text on a website with a different licence wouldn't be a copyright violation. That's just wrong. Fram (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there's something to be said in the abstract about having a variety of different materials that may appeal or work best for those of different personalities or what have you. If there are other CLOP explainers in projectspace then the more the merrier? Remsense ‥ 论 10:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The focus on GFDL specifically is weird because single-licensed GFDL text is not allowed to be pasted into the wiki (per WP:COMPLIC, which isn't linked in there despite the talk of compatible licenses). Also needs an update to say CC 4.0 instead of 3.0. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to unarchive this, as Peoplic hasn't taken heed of what multiple editors here have tried to tell them regarding their obvious close paraphrasing, as they've now reverted me again to restore their plagiarism to articles without meaningful changes – at most swapping out a few more synonyms or shuffling some sentences around – essentially the same shallow attempts to hide what they're doing as before.[21][22][23][24] Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

"I no longer intend to continue the discussion. Although my reasons were clear, they were not accepted. My goal was to improve and advance Wikipedia, but unfortunately, my efforts ended in failure. You are free to make any changes you wish to my edits — I have no opinion and will not revert them. Thank you for your participation." Peoplic (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to add plagiarism to Wikipedia, you're going to be blocked from editing. Multiple editors (including admins) have provided explanations as to why your additions are clear plagiarism, because we'd much prefer if that block doesn't happen, but we have no choice if you refuse to acknowledge anything anyone else says. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I no longer intend to make the kind of edits I have done so far that you call plagiarism.Peoplic (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If you still think that what you're doing isn't plagiarism, but only what others "call plagiarism", then a WP:CIR block is needed, since you lack the skills to not plagiarize in the future. EEng 03:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Peoplic, you need to respond here in a way that shows you understand what plagiarism is -- not just what others "call plagiarism". EEng 15:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: Peoplic has apparently returned to editing mainspace, seemingly ignoring this ping/ANI thread, Support a WP:CIR block Psychastes (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Support CIR block per the above. It seems they do not understand that their edits are plagiarism and create more work for other editors to clean up, considering they stated I have no opinion and will not revert them. and I no longer intend to continue the discussion. Although my reasons were clear, they were not accepted. — BE243 (about | talk) 01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Support WP:CIR block 2600:387:15:915:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

They made one edit, adding an image. That said, they do need to respond here, so I've pblocked from articlespace until they do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

IP making person attacks and edit warring

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

---

Special:Contributions/2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:A5B5:AC7C:8EE8:88C4/64 called another editor a "degenerate freakshow" and has breached 3RR at Special:History/Curtis Yarvin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought BLP violations are exempt from 3RR? Also why is no-one reading that guideline?2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:AC92:8089:B6F:C8A5 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Lots of warnings received and recent edit warring block. Blocked 1 month. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:43, 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.

Disruptive behavior by 216.228.182.154 at Daniel Seddiqui

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.

---

• 216.228.182.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Daniel Seddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think a block is now in order for the behavior of 216.228.182.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at Daniel Seddiqui. Their edit warring / 3RR violation was dealt with at AN/3 (result: page protection), but now they have tried to remove my latest note at Talk:Daniel_Seddiqui#Promotional. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:22, 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.

IP Vandalism

The following IP addresses are continuously disrupting a series of articles related to Indian politics. It was also reported previously and those IPs were given 1 month block on Wikipedia. Now, they are back again with other different IPs with the same style of disruption with irrelevant and non good faith edits. I request taking appropriate action on the IP range and prevent continuous disruption.

• User talk:2409:408C:2ECD:80EE:4B1E:B074:3628:C907
• User talk:2409:408C:2ECD:80EE:E48B:11D6:289C:52D6
• User talk:2409:4070:2BB4:3A4F:278D:20B2:563E:98FA
• User talk:2409:4070:2BB4:3A4F:D704:4AA4:1D66:FB45
• User talk:2405:201:C40C:9154:E52D:5462:638D:EFF

This is the IP that has been blocked for one month: User talk:2405:201:C418:C07B:D9BB:E108:5035:281C 456legendtalk 01:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Have you reported them to WP:AIV? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz No, I didn't. Should I be doing that? 456legendtalk 15:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@456legend: Yes. Automated tools such as Twinkle, Ultraviolet, and RedWarn make this easier. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / vandalism by User:Jaeklmn

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

User:Jaeklmn suddenly moved the article of My Ilonggo Girl to Draft:Asysysy, then blanked the page.[26] Looking at their talkpage, they've received 3 warnings last month. The editor doesn't also communicate.Hotwiki (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hotwiki, should I rename back to the original title of this article? GMA Network did not actually renamed this. Migfab008 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Migfab008:, I've asked @Liz: if I could move it back to mainspace.[27] I also brought this up to technical requests.[28] There's no respond to those requests yet. I am also waiting for Jaeklmn's response to this. I think its okay to move it back to its "title" and mainspace since Jaeklmn moved it without any explanation and discussion. The show was never called as "Asysysy" to begin with. Hotwiki (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to mainspace per your request at WP:RM/TR. I won't speculate as to motive, but that was certainly an improper draftification. Station1 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Hotwiki (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted this revision because this user is unlinking My Ilonggo Girl for no reason in the page Jillian Ward. Migfab008 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Jaeklmn removed the link, after they moved My Ilonggo Girl to that draft article. Hotwiki (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

[This] was the last time they posted on their talk page, seven years ago, and is not promising. An open admission of vandalism. This user needs to start communicating. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked from articlespace and suggested they come here to engage in discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

IP, pride flags, profanity, and plagiarism

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 174.45.210.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, starting on 26 March this year but escalating yesterday, been taking actions that aren't allowed on articles and talk pages including those related to gender issues. This includes deleting one of the official flags (the pride flag) from the Missoula, Montana page (diff), which was reverted a few hours later; leaving a talk page message on the Flag of Missoula, Montana page which seemingly criticises the subject of the page itself and calling it "political brainrot" (diff-adjacent); then deleting the entire Flag page (created by @MontanaMako) and replacing it with their version, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of which are directly plagiarised from the Montana Free Press article they cited (diff, news article); before doing what I think is their only constructive edit out of 6, simply just linking some names (diff). They also replied on the talk page for Smash Mouth "What the fuck does this mean" under a 9-month old comment by a now-blocked sockpuppet (diff). I haven't ever posted on AN/I so I don't know what the appropriate course of action should be, but I think a block is probably warranted in this case. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Pblocked from the Missoula articles for a month. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, thank you. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:48, 5 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:Ashishbarele909

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.

---

Ashishbarele909 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps vandalizing WP:RM/TR to try to get their page User:Ashishbarele909/sandbox approved. They remove every uncontroversial technical request and the instructions for adding uncontroversial technical requests, which they didn't follow, and replace it with a new section entirly about moving their own sandbox. WP:RM/TR isn't even the place for this, WP:AfC is.

Diffs:

• Special:Diff/1294269468
• Special:Diff/1294257347 Legend of 14 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Their sandbox autobiography has been tagged for speedy deletion so maybe this will stop any disruptive edits. They are a very new editor so I think they don't understand what the project pages are for rather than their edits being conscious vandalism. You might try talking to them next time before coming to ANI, Legend of 14. ANI is for intractible problems when other methods of dispute resolution have failed and I can't see that much communication beyond a template has been tried yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that they've been indefinitely blocked this issue is now moot. I will consider your advice about talking more to users more before heading to noticeboards. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:17, 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.

IP editor threatening to "off" themselves and asking about "revenge"

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

---

2600:1700:5390:4560:2CED:8754:7D64:A0E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I've been reverting a few of their edits as unsourced, and encouraged them to discuss on their talk page - however, their replies ([29] and [30] were almost immediately concerning and worrisome. I've stopped interacting with the editor until someone can take a look... and perhaps provide guidance? Danners430 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Stopped interacting aside from of course leaving the ANI notice I should add Danners430 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430: Notify Trust and safety, that’s usually what the protocol is in cases like this. 2600:1011:B335:D5C4:9C2A:F982:80EE:42D4 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not sure it is a genuine "thread of immediate physical harm" - but I'm happy to go that route if I'm being too laxidasical here! Danners430 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

When in doubt, err on the side of caution. T&S can sort things out--that's not your job (and I don't mean that in a bad way--in short, don't worry about whether you're making an unnecessary report, just do it). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Emailed. If it helps, happy for this thread to be revdel’d, but unsure what the process is :) Danners430 (talk) 21:43, 9 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.

I have blocked the IP editor for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

User: Deepa Chandrasekhar Reddy

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.

---

Deepa Chandrasekhar Reddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly trying to post the same biography article with slightly changed details, including different birth dates, but with many details the same. With the different birth dates, these would appear to be hoaxes. Draft:R. V. Deepa Reddy / Draft:C. Deepa Reddy / Draft:Deepa Reddy / WP:AFC/R incorrect use -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC) -- Xferred from AIV -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they are trying to create their own article, as their username matches with the draft titles. Mehedi Abedin 16:45, 8 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.

More disruptive editing by ZanderAlbatraz1145

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.

---

Fresh off a very recent block for edit-warring[31], ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs) has once again engaged in their idiosyncratic behavior of removing content they previously attempted to remove, this time at Vertigo (film).[32][33][34] and now [35]. Despite their previous brushes with ANI, they appear to be no closer to understanding WP:CONSENSUS and are continuing to act on their belief that if a conversation tapers off then that gives them carte blanche to make their preferred edits.[36][37] I believe a more significant block is needed to prevent further disruption by this editor. DonIago (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not revert back to my previous edit. I simply removed the Scorsese music part, because no one on the talk page had made a case for it being there. Therefore, it was not the same edit, and I did not expect to be reprimanded because it is not the same edit. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

My initial edit was to remove all of the Scorsese information. No one cared. So, therefore, I thought to maybe remove a section that I really felt the most unnecessary. I don't really understand how exactly that is vandalism. It's not like I didn't leave an edit summary either. If any other editor removed the information, would they be reported? Or is it simply because I previously tried to remove OTHER information on the page as well in the past? A little unfair if you ask me. It's almost as if I'd have to create a whole different account in order to be able to edit freely at this point-- as if every edit I've done in the past will be held against me for edits I do going forward in the future, with no going back. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

"Idiosyncratic" is a stretch, pal. Alright? ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:40, 8 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.

Possible personal attack

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, everyone. I simply want to inquire whether this message by FantasyElect (talk · contribs) (now renamed to Renamed user b01a528d7f4e225a6c30730b82a79101 (talk · contribs)) on my talk page could constitute a personal attack, and be treated as such. The message is directly motivated by my vote on this MfD nomination. I would say that "wondering what my score is on the spectrum" (obviously having the autism-spectrum quotient on their mind) could be very well considered as a personal attack. Naturally, I want to hear what admins have to say about this. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack. Looks like they have WP:FLOUNCED / WP:VANISHED. Not good to vanish in the middle of misbehavior like that, but at least they're gone for now. I'm sorry you received that message but it's more about them than about you.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Only users in good standing are allowed to vanish. Due to this behavior, the name change should be reversed and the account blocked indefinitely. 50.75.177.210 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a vast oversimplification, and in practice it's rather complicated. The guideline only says it may not be granted. I don't see the need to get into the weeds on that right now or really do anything. The account is g-locked so it's not going to be used. If they resume their behavior on other accounts and there's sufficient benefit in making the linkage more explicit then there may be cause to revisit, but unless and until that happens there's no reason to spend any time on it.

To be clear, it was an unacceptable personnel attack, but fundamentally there's nothing of value to do here at this time. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that they said I had more 6k edits years ago on my account ... in their message seems to be a clear indicator that User:FantasyElect was a sockpuppet account. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Trolls aren't known for honesty, and even if true it's not automatically a violation of WP:ILLEGIT if indeed they had simply lost access to an account used years in the past, though again not really a trustworthy source. Personally I'm inclined to think they'll be back around, and indeed are likely already a repeat customer, but we can deal with that as it arises. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:34, 8 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.

CU followup

So I ended up checking the vanished account, suspecting it was actually a previously blocked editor-- it turned out to be User:Theofunny, who I have no blocked; see their talk page for more background and rationale. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that, the vanished user should be unvanished for sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

(redacted)

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

---

Can an Admin please revoke this user's talk page access? this user is abusing his talk page Untamed1910 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked and edgelordian nonsense deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Almost wish this hadn't been posted here since it seems like almost all of their contributions should be revdel'd, if not OS'd. (@Rsjaffe.) Skynxnex (talk) 23:36, 7 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:TAWikiEdit Undisclosed Paid Editing, Promotional Whitewashing, Edit Warring, and Uncivil Remarks

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.

---

TAWikiEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits almost exclusively on topics related to the Aga Khan family, their institutions, and affiliated organisations, indulges in profanity and uncivil remarks when confronted over adding highly promotional content sourced directly from the organisations associated with the Agas, appends frivolous royal prefixes to their name, and indulges in historical revisionism, distorting the credibility of the pages. Their editing pattern strongly suggests a purpose of reputational management rather than neutral encyclopedic contribution. Their edits consistently feature excessive honorifics, institutional glorification, and uncritical repetition of promotional materials, often sourced directly from the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) and its affiliates.

There is a clear absence of unrelated contributions, policy-based reasoning, or willingness to engage with the neutrality requirements central to Wikipedia. The account appears to function as a conduit for institutional messaging.

1. Undisclosed Advocacy and Apparent Conflict of Interest (WP:COI / WP:PAID)

In this edit summary [38], the user stated:

"We request to all the editors please don't change or delete any full paragraphs or titles without any official permission from the AKDN, as this causes significant errors in google searches."

This statement implies both affiliation with the AKDN and an assertion of editorial control. There is no disclosure of paid or affiliated editing under WP:PAID, nor any acknowledgement of conflict of interest under WP:COI. The user edits only articles related to the Aga Khan family, their lineages, and institutions. This is a textbook example of a single-purpose account (SPA) with potential undisclosed institutional ties.

2. Incivility and Personal Commentary (WP:CIVIL)

When challenged, the user has responded with personal and inflammatory edit summaries, such as this one after removal of honorifics [39]:

"Are you greater than King Charles III ?? Who are You ?? why are you so jealous bcz you don't have Royal titles ???"

This suggests an emotional investment that interferes with neutral editorial conduct. The user is uncivil, resorting to derogatory and confrontational remarks when confronted, thereby clearly reflecting a lack of collaborative ethos that binds Wikipedia editors.

3. Non-Neutral Tone and Promotional Editing (WP:NPOV / WP:PROMOTION / WP:HONORIFIC)

The user’s edits repeatedly violate neutrality expectations. Common patterns include:

• Use of ceremonial titles without contextual attribution: “His Highness,” “Prince,” “Spiritual Leader”
• Insertion of institutional descriptors like “Global Official Visits” and “Founding Patronship”
• Transformation of biographical content into reputational showcases

The following passage, added to Aga Khan V, is illustrative [40]:

Global Official Visits

Press release issued on 31st May 2025 from the Ismaili Imamat Secretariat that upon the invitation of the President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, His Highness the Aga Khan V will undertake an official visit to France from 11-13 July 2025, where he will meet with Government leaders and his Ismaili followers of Belgium, Switzerland and Ivory Coast under the jurisdiction of the Ismaili Council for France, on the start of his first Global Official Visits as the 50th hereditary Imam.

As per the release, His Highness has expressed his desire and intention that he will travel extensively in other parts of the world, to meet countries leaders and his followers as many as possible in person in the coming time.

This content derives directly from a press release, offers no third-party sourcing, and serves no clear encyclopedic function beyond ceremonial promotion, and consistently refers to Rahim as "His Highness".

4. Overreliance on Self-Published and Primary Sources (WP:RS / WP:PRIMARY)

The user relies almost exclusively on:

• the.ismaili [41]
• akdn.org [42]
• Official Aga Khan University communications

There is little to no engagement with reliable, independent secondary sources. Assertions about religious authority, diplomatic stature, and hereditary titles are framed as settled fact, with no neutral attribution or counterbalance.

5. Recurrent Close Paraphrasing (WP:COPYVIO / WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE)

The user has been previously warned by User:Diannaa [43] for indulging in copyright violations by closely paraphrasing institutional content. Nevertheless, they continue to add lightly reworded or direct segments from official sources into article space without proper quotation or editorial distancing.

6. Edit Warring and Resistance to Consensus (WP:3RR / WP:EDITWAR)

Across pages such as:

• Aly Muhammad Aga Khan [44]
• Amyn Aga Khan [45]
• Aga Khan V [46]
• Aga Khan IV [47]

the user has repeatedly reverted neutralising edits, often without explanation or policy reference, and engaging in a persistent edit war. They were previously reported for this, but no decision was taken [48]. Their reverts almost always restore the prior, promotional version of content, sometimes within hours of it being altered. Furthermore, the edits are obscenely hagiographic and promotional in nature, with the user appending their names with noble prefixes such as His Highness or Prince/Princess.

7. Questionable Username (WP:USERNAME)

The username “TAWikiEdit” may imply group or institutional editing. While not a violation on its own, this, in conjunction with the usage of plural first-person pronouns (“we request”), institutional tone, and undisclosed affiliation, raises further questions about whether the account represents more than one individual or an organisation.

Given the cumulative pattern, undisclosed affiliation, promotional tone, edit warring, and incivility, I request that this account be indefinitely blocked. The behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia’s purpose as a neutral, community-edited encyclopedia and instead reflects persistent attempts to use the platform as a reputational tool. Their attempts to stake custodianship over pages is baffling.

The issues are chronic and do not appear to stem from inexperience or misunderstanding. They clearly do not belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkayBuddyChicanery (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you create this account just to make this ANI report? There was an IP user (Special:Contributions/119.18.0.71) who got recently blocked and who was seemingly also having disagreements with TAWikiEdit regarding some of the pages mentioned above.

Note: I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so I didn't check whether the concerns you've raised have merit or not. I just randomly clicked on your contribs and that's how I noticed that your account is new. Nakonana (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This report is also pinging my LLM alarm with enough pings to give Captain Raimus an aneurysm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Was just about to say the same thing but hit an edit conflict; we've got obvious LLM socking and I think this needs to be hatted. Nathannah • 📮 18:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed the account as an obvious WP:PROJSOCK but someone should still look into the concerns raised. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I would have preferred if they did re-write in their own words or post on their original account, so I do think the allegations have weight and should be looked at, and agree with that. Nathannah • 📮 19:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should shoot the messenger, as suspicious as they might be. If this evidence is accurate, this is a clear sign of editorial violations of COI and PAID. I'm not convinced by the diffs of lack of civility but I don't think we should throw out the complaint without looking into it first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Regardless of any flaws of the OP, TAWikiEdit is clearly a promotion-only account, and the weird edit summaries that the OP cites here and here clearly display a NOTHERE account. Note also the several copyvio warnings on their talkpage. I have blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 21:10, 7 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.

Average kurd and DataNomad, 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.

---

(Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#DataNomad is WP:NOTTHERE)

• Average kurd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DataNomad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, following up on DataNomad's conduct (esp anti-Iraqi stuff) and the possible WP:MEAT that is probably in place: So I came across the Barzani's jash campaign article, I've noticed that the article reads somewhat like its generated by an LLM and most of the sources in use have no citations and are inaccessible. I've moved the article into draft space based on those issues and left a note to DataNomad that I've done so and started writing up the reasons why I've done the draftification in the draft's talk. When I sent the message [49], they've already reverted the move to a different article name (Barzani`s jash campaign) and replied to my message with "Nice opinion". Seeing them do that, I've reverted them and had to retype the reason for the draftification since I didn't know what happened to the first message I wrote (Talk:Barzani`s jash campaign#issues, notice how the page moving broke the article links). Now after that, they, moved the draft to Draft:Barzani jash campaign and started vandalizing it, making edits like "7 trillion arabs killed", Entire arab population extinct, and added Saddam Husain and Ali Hassan al Majid to the belligerents (I've brought up DataNomad's obsession with arab deaths on the previous ANI case). Now, out of nowhere, Average kurd comes in and continues DataNomad's work of reverting draftifications (Refer to the WP:MEAT stuff on the the previous ANI case), and all this happened in a really fast pace, it was too late when I noticed that I've broken WP:DBLDRAFT and stopped reverting them.

Now back to the Talk:Barzani`s jash campaign#issues discussion, DataNomad decided that providing page numbers for the sources that they've used in that article is not needed and that WP:SEALIONING is the correct thing to do... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Just found out about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Average kurd too. Would be nice if someone looks into it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Damn just found that out, but good luck with them. Average kurd (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that this edit alone [50] by DataNomad was enough to get an INDEF until an explanation was provided. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: they seem to be proud of it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The next one made [51] was arguably even worse. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: DataNomad here Accuses other user behaviour as "Vandalism"

R3YBOl (🌲) 17:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've checked one page in one reference. See Special:Diff/1294428476. In short, everything on that page contradicts what is written in the article. I guess I am involved, since I started talking about sources, so I'll leave this to another admin to handle. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DataNomad for disruptive editing such as the outlandish assertion that trillions of Arabs were killed in this conflict and Arab extinction. Creating hoax content about an ethnonationalist military conflict is unacceptable. Average kurd, consider yourself warned that disruptive editing in this topic area will not be tolerated in the slightest. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have got one question, How should we deal with the articles that DataNomad created? Most of them are about war crimes by the way. R3YBOl (🌲) 18:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Link for convenience: [52]. @Rsjaffe, would you mind checking a couple other sources for that same article to confirm that the same problems are article-wide and not just the one source? If we confirm that, then I think we can start presumptively PRODing the rest after checking only one source. Anyone nominating any affected articles for PROD should link this ANI thread in the rationale so it's clear to anyone looking that there's been other discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. Note that I am not an expert in this area, so I'm just relating what I've learned. Most of the references are inaccessible to me. I've checked the following:

1. "Document 310: Research Study Prepared in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research". Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–4. Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. May 31, 1972. Retrieved 2025-05-29.

• This makes clear that the majority of the fighting was between Kurds loyal to Mulla Mustafa and Kurds loyal to the government (as does the first line of Barzani jash campaign). The reference states: "by July 1961 Barzani had put his tribal enemies to flight or reduced them to submission". Also note that "jash" as used in the article title is a perjorative assigned to Kurdish "traitors". Calling the result a Kurdish victory (this reference is used to substantiate that) is a serious oversimplification, as the fighting was primarily inter-tribal and resulted in the defeat of government loyalists among the Kurds.

2. O'Ballance, E. (1995-12-18). The Kurdish Struggle, 1920-94. Springer. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-0-230-37742-4.

• This publication was used to substantiate: "many jash's fled to Iran and Turkey", "3,000 killed". I can only view page 50. It states that the NY Times reported that government casualties were '50 killed and 150 wounded'. I'll also note that again, the offensive is reported to have occurred in March 1962, not 1961 as stated in the article. I suspect that Barzani's claim of 3,000 casualties (not deaths) was on the next page, but it certainly was given undue weight, given the info that the New York Times reported.

3. # McDowall, David. A Modern History of the Kurds. I.B. Tauris, 2004, p. 69. Google Books

• Used to substantiate: "By summer 1961, Barzani was working more closely with tribal rebels in the north while stepping up attacks on Jash forces loyal to Baghdad. In September, fighting intensified when an local tribe (the Arkou) attacked an Iraqi army column, prompting a direct response from the government. Qasim ordered airstrikes on Barzani’s positions, stopping his push near the border." The source stated that Barzani consolidated his hold by fighting his old enemies, two other tribes. (which partially contradicts the statement in the article: "working more closely" when it was really "rolling over his opposition"). The source does confirm the Arkou attack and describes indiscriminate (not focused on Barzani) bombing in reply.

Is that enough? I'd say there are significant NPOV and interpretation issues, some flat-out errors, and some correct information in the article. Again, I'm not an expert or even conversant in this field. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the best way to deal with all this is to prod it all and if a good faith editor decides to create those articles again then let it be 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that the first reference I reviewed (on the article talk page) had three serious problems. O'Ballance, Edgar (1973). The Kurdish revolt: 1961-1970. Internet Archive. [Hamden, Conn.] Archon Books. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-208-01395-8.

1. Spring 1962, not 1961

2. Did not capture Zakho

3. Did not kill 3,000 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm team "prod 'em all" in these circumstances. Nationalist misinfo can have pretty grim real-world consequences. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328. I've come to realize that Average kurd has admitted to evading their block on Malik abbas4 (another blocked sock). Skitash (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the talk page location so it's now actually the article's talk page instead of a redirected location. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Average kurd for sockpuppetry per Skitash. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

So apparently the order was Kurdo7aladen > Malik abbas4 > Average kurd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 7 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.

Video LTA spammer

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.

---

176.49.163.143 (talk · contribs · 176.49.163.143 WHOIS)

This LTA continuously attempts to evade their ban/block evasion but is caught every time by edit filters. Please revoke TPA. Thank you. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 14:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

They're now subject to a Global block which automatically removes local talk page access. Given proxy usage it's not likely to slow them down by much so I'd continue to monitor the relevant filter logs. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 00:30, 8 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.

Fake edit summaries and disruptive editing

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

---

Lahndi Chokra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user's edits focus on the sanctioned Wikipedia:ARBIPA topic space, I have alerted the user of this now. The edits though are not only disruptive, sometimes they flout consensus trying to sneak through contentious edits by passing of fake edit summaries. Take Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a contentious topic regarding international relations whose stable lead was achieved through consensus over much of the last year, here the user falsely claims to be only adding a note for apparent non-RS citations from News18 and NDTV [unanimously justified and not listed and not listed at RSP] but changes the entire lead with a certain POVPUSH and removes all citations from the lead, and only adds a MOS:LEADCITE notice [not for RS as claimed in the ES; the LEADCITE notice and removals are themselves dubious considering the entire topic and article are contentious]. At separatist movements of India, claims to be adding a historical movement but [with POV] partially removes info about the Khalistan movement. Here, at Canada–India relations, adds the false info that Canada and India "currently have no formal diplomatic relations". Here at Jagjit Singh Chohan claims to be removing dead links and ELs but changes the entire lead [again with a certain POV], removing cites etc. These are only the egregious ones that stood out to me.

Either the user does not know how edit summaries work [I doubt it] or is deliberating purveying fake ESs to push certain POV edits undetected. Someone who can cite LEADCITE and other obscure enwiki policies, flags are raised for barely a month old user, should not be doing this. Gotitbro (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even think all of the changes are necessarily for the worse, but having reviewed the provided diffs, I agree there is a serious disconnect between the edit summaries and the actual textual changes. Lahndi Chokra, please be aware that misleading edit summaries can easily give rise the presumption that you are intending to introduce changes in a manner designed to evade community scrutiny and side-step existing consensus. Further, please be reserved in making WP:BOLD edit in WP:CTOP articles, and take note that major changes to the lead of even normal WP:BLPs, let alone CTOP BLPs is likely to be considered overly bold, if not WP:Disruptive, absent prior discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Likely an account of the LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 7 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:Atomdestroyers

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

I've been going through this editor's edits... not sure what is going on but they're breaking large numbers of pages, resulting in infobox images being blown up way larger than can fit on my monitors. I've messaged them but need someone to mass revert their recent edits as it's too big a job for me to do manually. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Can you give me a diff where the infobox image is too big, because the ones that I've looked at seem OK to me on a desktop. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

An example would be this... [53] which results in the image being blown up to a ridiculous degree... the right hand 1 cm portion of the infobox image on the previous edit covers the whole width of my 27 inch monitor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looking through their more recent edits - all reverted by the OP - none of them have broken infobox images. Now, I'm not sure their edits were especially constructive - I don't believe we're supposed to use the format seen here for images in the infobox, instead the image as seen on the left and additional |parameters= as required, which I suppose could be breaking things on mobile? - but on desktop at least with the current version of Firefox using MonoBook, they aren't breaking anything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

[54]  ? Am I seeing things differently from others? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

They're active 9:00 to 15:00 UTC, so probably have to wait until tomorrow for a reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've left them a message explaining the mistake that they're making. (The distortion seems to depend on the size of the image file, this one shows the article being larger than a large monitor, but all many of the infobox images that they've added have made the infoboxes oversized.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: On my system the infobox image in your link appears to be normal sized in the infobox, although judging by how long the page took to fully load, it appears the full-size image was being loaded instead of the thumbnail. That's truly bizzare and yeah, not desirable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Must be something about our different browser or site configurations. I see the before-and-after diffs, then below that, just blue filling up my screen (the top sky portion of the image). Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm surprised you guys don't see what's going on here. My Adestroyers is trying to use the usual floated image syntax as parameter in an infobox. That's never going to work. EEng 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  We chatted on their talk page, they were following the example in Help:Infobox/picture#Using_one_or_two_parameters. Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Was just about to post that :). What browser/device are you using as I've checked multiple configurations and they are fine. Atomdestroyers (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's got nothing to do with anyone's browser. You're not following the syntax in the example just linked -- you need frameless. (And I apologize -- I shouldn't have said "never" going to work -- I should have said "often" won't work, because many templates/infoboxes won't accept syntax such as given in the example.) EEng 00:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, so adding the frameless parameter will fix it. Can you confirm this for me? I still don't understand why people are seeing different results if you're saying it has nothing to do with different user's setups. Are you able to explain this for my understanding? Atomdestroyers (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  I can't explain the various things people are describing, but if you omit frameless the image will (generally) be presented at whatever full size is stored where the image is hosted. (I say "generally" but image syntax is complicated, and what you get depends on the interaction of a bunch of things.) I suggest you try your "fixed" change on one infobox, and the ask some of the people commenting here what they see. Good luck. EEng 01:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User talk:1.53.142.106 - TPA revocation?

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.

---

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

First time posting here, hopefully this is the right place but I can't really think of anywhere else this would fit. I have no idea what is going on with this (rangeblocked) IP's talk page, but they've seemingly put every single speedy delete tag on it and are inserting seemingly random articles: 1.53.142.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Notice added to talk page (also blanked it): Special:Diff/1294276713 penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 18:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been going on all week with IPs from this area. They post their first message on a User talk page with a poorly written unblock request and plaster every CSD tag they can think of on it, too. If they are blocked, talk page access has to be removed, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Vandals seem to have taken a turn for the bizzare lately. You have this, and you also have IPs who are posting lengthy "On this day..." stuff at the top of random articles all over Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 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.

Chechen genocide vandalism and sockpuppetry immediately returned

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.

---

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

Despite two reports (one to ANI and one to request for page protection increase), a blocking of the IP sock User: 212.95.5.25, and auto confirmed protection of the page, the vandalism (and almost certainly sockpuppetry) immediately returned to the Chechen genocide page, with a user by the name User:Hurycane with only 55 edits making the exact same kind of edit to the infobox; vandalizing it by removing sourced material with no explanation. Any help would be highly appreciated. 24.180.50.170 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hurycane has been indef'd by ScottishFinnishRadish. @24.180.50.170:, thanks for bringing this here, but please note in the future that you are required to notify users you refer to ANI (per the yellow box at the top of the edit window). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 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.

User changing logos/information in articles to their personal thoughts/ideas/hopes

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.

---

Postmaster12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has lately been going around to numerous articles and changing either information in it, or the main logo used in the infobox, to their own thoughts/ideas/hopes/wishes.

First, on the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, the user has been changing the rewards presented in the infobox to what they want to be given:

• "The award"
• "Bringing back the kaleidoscope statue just for the award ceremony to have two awards"
• [55] (no edit summary)

I had explained this is incorrect, as the award has been the orange blimp containing a kaleidoscope since the 1990 ceremony. Nathannah to edit, clarifying what I had said in edit summary that it's been a kaleidoscope incorporated with all design, but as a standalone for the 1987 ceremony. However, even after this clarification from Nathannah, Postmaster12 still went on to edit the infobox with the awards they want to be given:

• [56] (no edit summary)
• "Bringing back the kaleidoscope award as i did on the talk page"

As far as their talk page edits go concerning this:

• "I was just thinking they should bring the kaleidoscope award back along with the blimp"
• [57]
• [58]

It seems quite clear through these edits that the editor is intent on changing things to what they want, as opposed to the actual correct information.

---

The second issue is that the editor has been going around to various companies' articles, changing the logos to non-current logos that they want to be used, such as: 1. Warner Bros.

• [59]
• [60] ("I did that just for a throwback")
• [61] ("I want to bring back the logo")
• [62] ("If i want to bring back then can the editor just change to how it was")
• [63]

2. 20th Century Studios

• [64]
• [65]
• [66]

3. Microsoft - [67]

4. Tostitos

• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71] ("Bringing back logo")

The user has now also since gone to Wikipedia talk:Administrators ([72]) and Wikipedia talk:User groups ([73]) in the hopes of getting help reinstating their preferred logos into articles, but both have already been reverted as being irrelevant to the corresponding pages ([74] and [75]).

It seems all of these issues fall under WP:FORUM, specifically regarding, "...communicating original ideas...", and despite the various warnings they've received thus far, I'm not quite sure they understand the warnings/this is not the place to change things into their own personal thoughts/ideas. Magitroopa (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The user is continuing with their logo-changing edits in articles, returning to Microsoft ([76]) and now doing so at Microsoft Gaming ([77]), both instances reverted by TheDutchArchivist. Magitroopa (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've invited them to come and participate in this discussion. But, Magitroopa, please ease up on the "final warning" templates. After a while, people stop taking them seriously if they are overused. Often, a personally written explanation of what the problem is, is much more effective that a User talk page full of impersonal templates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted that throwback logo for Microsoft and Microsoft Gaming cause i just it’ll look more modern for current and gamers Postmaster12 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from article space until they discuss the issues Star Mississippi 19:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Meant to do the change for the future Postmaster12 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

All i know is that ChatGPT thought me how to restore a article logo Postmaster12 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

On ChatGPT i tried to look for other sites that allows logo change but i do want to keep the orange blimp but bring back the kaleidoscope in 2026 for the kid’s choice awards Postmaster12 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"...but i do want to keep the orange blimp but bring back the kaleidoscope in 2026 for the kid’s choice awards"...? As already previously said, Wikipedia is not the place for you to edit in your personal thoughts/ideas/wishes to occur. I'm sure there are other sites for that kind of thing, but this is definitely not one of them. Magitroopa (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Given their comments above and this one on their user talk page, it's clear this user either has a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, or is unable to understand it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I did try to give Postmaster12 a benefit of the doubt on the KCA issue (and Liz, I also asked MT on their talk to extend more grace because there's a history of overzealousness when it comes to children's network related articles), so I'm once again disappointed that my trust in a new editor was ill-formed and there's CIR issues here. @Postmaster12:, there's absolutely no use for ChatGPT here and I kindly ask that you just not use it at all for Wikipedia-related issues, nor are we a place for creating alternate corporate histories. Nathannah • 📮 22:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to address regarding myself, mostly in response to Nathannah and Liz- yes, I have seen what has been said, and I do apologize on my own issues in this matter. Yes, I will ease down on the warnings and explain the issue more thoroughly for future cases. And yes, Nathannah, thank you for better clarifying the award. I'd like to at least mention here that I was/am not certainly attempting to WP:OWN the article(s) or drive away other editors, my apologies if it looks like I am. However, I did have a sneaky suspicion of something more after this edit sounding like they wanted the award given out, and then I had also seen their "I want to bring back the logo" edit and similar discussion at Talk:Warner Bros.#Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2025. I did honestly think there could possibly be a CIR issue here, but especially after your (Nathannah's) comment(s) to me, I didn't think it would be wise to start off this ANI discussion by seeming to initially label this as CIR right off-the-bat. Magitroopa (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate this, Magitroopa, and if I was a bit heated, I certainly apologize (should've cooled a bit down after reading the Bbb23 issue and frustrated that we've trimmed down the rope we give new editors from where it used to be); I wasn't even looking at the logo issues at all so to see all that happen leaves me severely disappointed that we ended with a CIR block and that we have yet another case of 'fantasy TV vandalism' we know all too well. Nathannah • 📮 02:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

logo on this article as it is a classic design and significant in the company’s brand history. It was used for over a decade and is often recognized in legacy materials and retro branding. If consensus agrees, this could also apply to related subbrands like Microsoft Gaming, unless there’s strong opposition. Example logo: File:Microsoft logo (1982).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postmaster12 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:LOGO, and understand that we usually use logos sparingly, and we certainly don't change infobox logos to older versions for aesthetics or because a company made a temporary change for a nostalgia play towards consumers. We're not Logopedia or assist companies with branding; this is meant as a neutral encylcopedia describing properly-sourced information. Nathannah • 📮 00:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

...after that (repeating here what they had said earlier on their talk page) this is obviously a WP:CIR case, unfortunately, and I've converted the block to full indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 7 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.

Aggressive editing by CresiaBilli

Note: Two reports about the same user merged together. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Can someone please doublecheck the recent actions of @CresiaBilli. I first came across them when they reverted maintenance tags at Superwood with the edit summary "no need to bombarding of un-necessary tags if subject is notable" (while there was an ongoing AfD). Some addition of aggressive comments at the AfD. I also noticed just now, which is why I am posting this, that they are have recently reverted edits on 7 pages all with the justification "Removed text by a sock", with some more sock claims earlier. I see no evidence that any of these edits are by socks. They have also made a lot of recent AfD comments, some also a bit aggressive. It looks like they had an account some time ago, I do not know full history. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a sock puppet with no evidence is a personal attack, and the editor should cease. On the other hand, they barely have 100 edits. Have you discussed this with them on their talk page? That is probably the best way to resolve their misunderstanding of IP editors. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Their edit counts suggest that they are a newbie, but their statements and useage of terms indicates that they are quite experienced. There is also a response to an AfD vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhalakathi Government High School by another editor of "@CresiaBilli: Welcome back to Wikipedia".

their statements and useage of terms indicates that they are quite experienced. Some people read the policies and guidelines. Welcome back to Wikipedia If you check Special:Contributions/CresiaBilli you can see the editor took a hiatus between July 2024 and June 2025, which would explain the "welcome back". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

On February 17, 2023, there were five edits made in a single day, and on July 25, 2024, there were nine edits, after which the page was directly nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwan Sajan (3rd nomination)). Prior to this, the user had made eight edits, none of which were significant, as all were on their user page.

The same page was previously nominated for deletion by DJ InstaMalik (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwan Sajan (2nd nomination)), who was identified as a sockpuppet in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity/Archive case.

The Anisha Singh page, created by JamieStar21, is also linked to this sockpuppet case. The same user created a page titled Singh Anisha with the name reversed, and an SPI case is ongoing for this user in the same context. Additionally, this user has supported the AFD nomination for the same page. SachinSwami (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The edits they reverted with the "sock" claim were not IPs, they had names. One Durjan Singh Jadon looks like they are a sock. However, there is also @APM02 who they accused of being a sock without obvious evidence from what I can see. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

N.B., almost all their last 100 edits have been either sock removal or AfD votes/nominations. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ldm1954 So you have come here complaining about me without even talking to me. Well i have reverted only those edits which made by a sock named User:Durjan Singh Jadon, Like this, this and this. Please check carefully. For the past year, I have been studying Wikipedia's policies and constantly monitoring its Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions during my free time. CresiaBilli (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ldm1954, However you seems more experienced than me but still i would like to suggest you to control your 'Marking pages for deletion'. Conduct a WP:BEFORE prior to marking any article for deletion. On Wikipedia, the time of every Wikipedian is valuable; marking a single notable article for deletion may necessitate many hours of discourse. Thank You. CresiaBilli (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's okay to be irritated at these accusations but this last bit seems like passive-aggressive advice that every editor is aware of. Does your editing focus on deletion discussions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think asking the editor to perform a BEFORE is necessarily done in bad faith here. The tone is a bit off, but to call it aggressive seems a bit of a stretch, and based on a lot of what you've included in the report, this seems far more like a content dispute than anything else. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Ldm1954, we do ask for editors to actually communicate with their fellow editors before bringing them to ANI. And posting a template doesn't count as communication. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The OP needs a trouting for nominating this to AFD. This clearly passes GNG. I suggest they remove those maintenance tags as this AFD is going to result in a keep. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

One quick response: @TarnishedPath, of course I did a WP:BEFORE, I have been moderately active as a WP:NPP reviewer for some time. However, I definitely do not agree with your advocating that churnalism articles based on press releases represent WP:SIGCOV.

This discussion and some of recent AfD votes and NPP activity in other areas have raised a related issue in my mind. I have put an informal RfC at WT:N#Requests for comments on notability and scientific churnalism to get more input. I will also cross-post to WT:NPP to get other, broader feedback. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Ldm1954 On what basis did you add the COI tag to Superwood?. CresiaBilli (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Papers published in peer-reviewed journals is churnalism now? TarnishedPath^talk 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

We certainly don't need both InventWood and Superwood. One or the other (or neither, considering that they haven't even started production yet and the sources are ... thin). Black Kite (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Five times as thin, to be precise. EEng 00:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:CresiaBilli's Unsubstantiated Accusations of Enmity and Hatred in SPI

I filed a case in SPI on June 4 against CresiaBilli, which seemed suspicious to me, and provided evidence linking their sock accounts and page creator. Now, this user has commented in the SPI case(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity), accusing me of personal enmity and hatred.In the AfD, I withdrew my opinion and provided reasons for doing so. However, when someone agreed with my stance and asked how the sources I provided were valid, I advised them to use their own judgment.[78][79].The reason is that this user comments "Keep" in 8 AfDs[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]without properly analyzing sources or providing logical reasoning. However, Wikipedia's rules state that a user simply saying "Keep" without analysis or source backing violates WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ARGUE, WP:DEL, and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. AfD requires reasoning, evidence, and policy-based arguments. Users are expected to explain why sources are reliable and why the article is notable. I asked about the validity of the sources based on these rules, yet this person has falsely accused me. SachinSwami (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

SachinSwami, so your complaint is that the editor just writes "Keep" in AFDs? Unjustified opinions are extremely common in AFDs. In fact, it's more unusual that an editor contributes a well thought-out response indicating that they evaluated the article sources. Leave it up to the AFD closer how much weight to give remarks like this, this is not an ANI issue. When I see editors participating like this in many AFDs, I often leave them a personal note asking them to take the process more seriously, so you might try that.

I'm also not clear what exactly you are looking for by bringing this complaint to ANI. I also don't see the "enmity and hatred". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that CresiaBilli has made some non-useful comments at various AfDs recently, some of which have been called out by other editors (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Tschuggnall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Film Carnival Singapore), but I'm not (yet) seeing anything approaching ANI level. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Liz:. A person has accused me of creating enmity and hatred, as alleged in the SPI case. I assert that the accusations against me in the SPI are baseless, and I believe that person should provide evidence for their claims. SachinSwami (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, dear Sachin Swami hates me so much. When he was not satisfied even after filing a special case as SPI, he brought my complaint to ANI as well. And I don't think that his complaint against Ani is justified at all. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, CresiaBilli, you can do your part by not feeding this feud. Keep your distance from the other editor. There are over 7 million articles to work on here that can occupy your attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Thank you for your attention into this. I am adding to Wikipedia from a neutral perspective; I am uncertain why just Sachin Swami has an issue with me. I still unable to comprehend my error with Sachin Swami. I respectfully want to ask, what i have done wrong with Sachin Swami? As per my understanding everyone has right to add their opinion/comment on any afd. And i never forget, Wikipedia's fundamental principle of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a behavioural guideline, not a "fundamental principle", but I strongly recommend reading it in full. NebY (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

And it applies to everyone, including both SachinSwami and CresiaBilli. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about 2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E

• 2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi there, and sorry if this is not the right place.

2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has popped up today and is editing Kelston toll road by continually adding tags such as {{failed verification}}, {{citation needed}} etc. I have no problem with this, but I am slightly suspicious. Firstly, a random IP's knowledge of Wikipedia is a sign of block evasion by my knowledge, and the consistent targeting of a single page and failure to construct or improve the article is weird as well. For example, in this diff, the IP added {{failed verification|reason=Source says that road was 7 m wide not 7 ft}}. Indeed, the IP is right about this. But why not just change the article? It's clearly a simple mistake on the author's part (me).

I am aware that the article has not actually been vandalised, but I would appreciate if someone could look into this. Once again, if this is the wrong place please direct me elsewhere. Thanks for your time, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a few tag-bombing IPs floating about recently.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

My comments are constructive and are solely aimed at improving the page. I am contributing to the encyclopaedia in a legitimate way. There is no case to answer. 2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said you are not accused of vandalism. However, weirdly experienced IP addresses can be a sign of Wikipedia:Block Evasion and therefore I think it ought to be checked as a standard procedure. At the same time, I would not entirely agree that your comments have been constructive because spam-tagging a page is not the same as commenting on the talk page, and tagging an issue is not the same as improving it. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I have not been spam tagging the page and you have not accused me of vandalism. I have been raising legitimate issues, which you have promptly investigated and addressed. Again, there is no case to answer. 2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

JacobTheRox, you admit that this IP is not vandalizing. I'm not sure what you mean by "checking" the account or having someone "look into this". Can you be specific on what you are requesting? As far as I can see, there isn't a good reason for this complaint as all you have right now are suspicions, not any evidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

A random IP's knowledge of Wikipedia can be a sign of block evasion, but it is not automatically one. Some people enjoy learning the rules, and when they do, it should be encouraged. Also - as Liz points out - I'm not sure what look into this is supposed to mean; if they mean 'check to see if someone is evading', it should be noted that they would need to (a) report to WP:SPI and (b) have a suspect in mind who would be evading their block, or at least more than "this looks weird" as evidence as  CheckUser is not for fishing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

But why would you tag an article to fix a simple mistake (metres not feet) when you could just fix the mistake. It takes more time and does not improve the encyclopaedia. That's why I thought it was weird and wanted some advice. If you're not concerned then I'm not concerned. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think for many of us long-time editors, it just takes more questionable editing decisions to raise an alarm. Just editing in a different way, but is not causing vandalism or disruption, means that no sanctions are called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It took more time to raise this frivolous report than just address the tags and move on... 206.83.103.232 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Tomoddajr undue promotion and suspected COI

Tomoddajr (talk · contribs) insists on adding identical text into three articles. Gilbert–Pollak conjecture, Steiner tree problem , Ding-Zhu Du. I suspect WP:COI. As y'all may know, I am not very nice talker, please review the issue. --Altenmann >talk 04:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see also User_talk:David_Eppstein#Please_check_user_possible_self-advert - an obvious WP:SPA and likely WP:NOTHERE. --Altenmann >talk 05:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I request Wiki to investigate my cases seriousely for of unfair reverts, content removal, and deletion of historically valid material. Tomoddajr (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

When I requested a better ref instead of wordpress sildes, they added a fake ref, which does not confirm the statement. --Altenmann >talk 05:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to add this reference. You kept the slids link, but removed this one? why? https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~ronspubs/20_02_favorite.pdf Tomoddajr (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Explained above. This ref does not confirm the statement that Ron Graham offered $1000. --Altenmann >talk 06:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I even provided the page number: Some of My Favorite Problems (I): 8.6 The Steiner Ratio Problem (Page 134-136) Tomoddajr (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

In these pages there is no statement that Ron Graham offered $1000. --Altenmann >talk 07:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Challenge 8.16 ($1000) Prove (8.3). Page 136 Tomoddajr (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Now I start to respect your fact-seeking way. I don't care who is Ding-Zhu Du, but I care about the truth, especially from the great Ron Graham. Tomoddajr (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't understand why you also removed the photo? I think the photo, slides and paper, all three together can provide a more reliable source for the readers. You see, you even got lost with only one source from the linked paper. Tomoddajr (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

So now you also aggree to include the photo? Tomoddajr (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you claim the website link of Ron Graham is fake? Who are you? Tomoddajr (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you really know the concept of Steiner tree before you asked to remove the important historic information from the page of the Steiner tree? Are you the gatekeeper of truth or not? Tomoddajr (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I attached both the publicly available slides and paper link of Ron Graham directly from his website, what's wrong with it? Tomoddajr (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I request you to claim your COI with Ding-Zhu Du. Tomoddajr (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

David Eppstein in their talk page patiently explained the problems with edits of this person. However, it appears that the explanations were ignored. --Altenmann >talk 07:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I worked very hard to follow David's advice. I even just copied your edited version exactly in later editing. Your claim is very unfair. Tomoddajr (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked Tomoddajr 24 hours for edit-warring on multiple pages. I don't have time (it being 4am here) to look into this to determine if an indef is appropriate but based just on their conduct here and at David Eppstein's talk page I don't think it looks promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)