Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1192

Vandalism in James Bond 007 articles

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

---

I don't understand what a guy named Barry Wom has a problem with me when I simply want to contribute to Wikipedia. My crime according to that guy: including sources in the two cited articles because it is block evasion. There must be something wrong here. If this guy thinks everyone who edits Wikipedia is evading blocks, then (Personal attack removed). Please take action because I don't understand what's going on.--2800:484:7385:3F0:F06B:6AED:EB75:F6A8 (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you strike "he's not right in the head", as it is a personal attack. And you didn't notify them of this discussion, which is required, nor have you bothered to discuss this matter with them on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

One thing, though, I'd like to hear from User:Barry Wom about reverting edits with "block evasion", because I can't see the block that's being evaded, and the edits are clearly good faith otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be a frequent edit summary they use for IP editors, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but all for IPs from the same area, which is why I'm interested in who the blocked editor is; I can't see any previous blocks on those IP ranges. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's from a blocked/banned user. What's wrong with the blocked person or someone else editing something for good? 2800:484:7385:3F0:785A:21A7:63AB:BC7F (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Because block evasion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, thus it very much does matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked a month for block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppeting from an editor who has been evading blocks for over eight years. Their most recently used IP range was blocked a month ago by @Daniel Case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Barry Wom (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I should probably identify the blocked LTA user here. This account was created in 2023, but they have been tracked back as far as this account from 2017. Their first language is Spanish and they've also been indefinitely blocked from the Spanish Wiki. Barry Wom (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You're just like that guy. I think you're even worse. And I'll tell you why: looking at that whole sock-puppet history, it's clear that guy was being uncooperative, but neither are you with your actions. Why sabotage what others do? Another one who starts saying "violation of Wikipedia policies"; as if that would lead to jail. Finally, I see that you have, I don't know if I should call it xenophobia, toward people who speak Spanish, and it's also clear that you sow a lot of intrigue. 2800:484:7385:3F0:35CA:2F2E:9:A3BB (talk) 16:53, 23 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.

"Brutally beaten" IP returns

See this for context. On 3 June, 2600:4040:5E53:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for two weeks by Rsjaffe, but after the block expired they immediately returned to make the same edits.[1][2] Can we get a longer block this time? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Since rangeblocks haven't helped it may be better to blacklist that particular phrase. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done one month. – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel: Might be worth posting at WP:EFR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Done! [3] Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Mellk (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: Someone came along and said it would be discussed on the mailing list, whatever that is. 😊 Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Found another edit. Not sure if this is the same person since this is from a different location and there are no other similar edits from this range. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that it's a different vandal. Edits in general are quite different though all in this /64 are vandalism. This one frequents AN/I so probably just picked up on the pattern. The IPs are only 40 miles apart, so there is a very slight possibility it is the same person. Not very active, so don't think action is necessary.n. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I saw the previous edits to ANI and thought the same. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MoneyWikipedian creating articles with nonexistent sources

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.

---

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

As far as I can tell, all of the articles User:MoneyWikipedian has created are AI-generated; they mostly cite nonexistent or irrelevant sources. I draftified several of their articles and got one deleted at AfD; they then blanked their user talk page [4], which also contained warnings from two other users regarding nonexistent sources. After they reverted one of my draftifications without fixing the sourcing issues (instead they seem to have simply run the text through an LLM again [5]), I left them a personal warning message [6]. They have now blanked their user talk page again [7] without responding to the issues and have just created another article where four out of five citations simply do not exist. I'm hoping an admin can apply a pblock from mainspace until this user can explain their behavior. Toadspike [Talk] 14:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Communication is required. Only response I've seen to the concerns is the one-word response: "prove?". Blocked from article space and invited to discuss here.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

They removed an {{AI generated}} warning with the edit summary "no prove im use Ai", which isn't a satisfactory response to anything. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that "Raja Kecil Rebellion" was pushed off into draft world. Maybe we should do the same for Battle of Perak (1658). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I am very busy at the moment, but I hope to check the remainder of their creations (and other content contributions) in the coming days, draftifying or AfDing as needed. If someone else does this before I get around to it, I would be very grateful. Toadspike [Talk] 18:35, 22 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.

Concern about editor CNMall41's behavior: COI accusation, tag addition without discussion, and article flagged without due process

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.

---

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Admins, I’m raising a concern regarding editor CNMall41 on the article Shashwat Singh. On 12 June 2025, CNMall41 made the following edits: Removed content from the Discography section claiming sources do not mention the subject — but they do. Added the tag without first opening discussion on the Talk page. Flagged the article with a message that “A major contributor to this article has a close connection with its subject.” This is not true. The article was also flagged as not meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG) — though no clear reason or guidance was offered. Diffs for reference: COI tag added without discussion Content removal with unclear sourcing claim I (user Msmimiin) have contributed to this page in good faith — with: Proper citations Neutral, verifiable content A single account (I earlier edited from IP 103.115.24.85 just to fix a typo) I have no undisclosed connection with the article subject, nor am I paid or promotional. The accusation of close connection is unfounded. I am happy to declare anything transparently if asked. My requests: 1. Can an admin please review whether CNMall41’s behavior (tagging/accusations/removals) is appropriate and collaborative? 2. Can someone advise how to properly address the "not meeting guidelines" flag? I’d like to improve the article constructively and according to WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. 3. Is it appropriate to remove the COI tag if there is no valid evidence and no discussion? I appreciate any help resolving this in line with Wikipedia policies. Thank you,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmimiin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Msmimiin, please do not post LLM-generated comments in Wikipedia discussions. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, please note that when you start a discussion about other editors on this noticeboard, you must notify them. I've notified CNMall41 for you at User talk:CNMall41 § Incidents noticeboard discussion. The instructions at the top of the noticeboard explain how to do this. — Newslinger talk 17:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I am new , this information is helpful, but it would be much more helpful and kind if you can help me solve the problem for which I have raised my concern. For a new editor , it will be helpful to get support from the experienced ones.

Thanks 🙏 Msmimiin (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Msmimiin I can't find evidence of CNMall41 doing anything wrong on that article. They have made 9 edits to that article. It would be helpful if you listed which WP:DIFFs you find problematic and why. Polygnotus (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I request you to check the articles flag . I am not able to understand why the article have been flagged as not meeting the wikipedia guideline after providing several reliable secondary sources to each point of the article . Also, it has been tagged as the major contributor has a close connection, where's the proof of these two points ? If there are 9 edits I believe that's for the betterment of the article but why not removing this flags . Msmimiin (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an adequate explanation on Talk:Shashwat Singh for how you came to possess the rights to File:Shashwat_Singh,_Indian_playback_singer,_2025.jpg, which you claimed to own when uploading the image. Can you please explain this? Further, that article has seen repeated sockpuppetry by UPE editors, which is also true of the one other article that you've made significant edits to, Aditi Paul. CNMall41 could have done a bit better of a job explaining their reasoning, but their caution seems prudent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I could have (and should have) and I'll take the trout if warranted as it was lazy on my part. I should have done the SPI on that date so sorry that we are now here wasting everyone's time. Just filed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you guys are from the west I don't expect you guys know many Indian celebs so I request you to be kind and patient and don't come to any conclusion so fast for 'new which belongs to the Indian celebs be it a single or actor or anyone , also please don't make it so difficult for new editors those who have the knowledge about the subject matter and contributing, if you point out the error and guide me what to do without flagging the same with your valuable comment , I can try and fix the eroor . We can make this a better community with each others help and support. Your comment is valuable so kindly and wisely use it that's a request.

Thanks 🙏 Msmimiin (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any bylaws in wikipedia to prove the rights belongs to the uploader ? As a matter of fact as per wikipedia guidelines when anyone uploads a pic on Wikipedia commons the details of picture already exists there , when I have uploaded the picture in Wikipedia commons means I have the right very simple. Why you guys making it so difficult for Indian celebrities to have a wikipedia page and the editors who contributed their knowledge on that particular page ? Yes I have also contributed to Aditi Paul's page and other pages too where I have the knowledge about the subject matter ,those who are Indian celebs . If there's a problem let me know how to fix it , I will follow your guidelines. Msmimiin (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

By uploading as "own work", you state that you are the photographer (that's what it means for the photograph to be your own work). If that's not the case, then the rights statement needs to be updated accordingly. It is, in fact, Wikipedia policy to correctly identify image material and ensure that its license is compatible. If it is your photo, you should clarify what event it was taken at or how else you came to take such a close range photo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned in the talk page and clarified the photo has been taken from a public press meet , where I was present and took the photo hence the rights belongs to me. Hope I have clarified. Now please don't ask what is the event where is the event etc because in India specifically in Bollywood or Mumbai film industry there are events happening in every 19 mints at a random public place , may be the wall looking good and I take good pictures that's why you guys are thinking it's a professional shoot but it's not , can't you see the image details , it has the phone details, date etc then why this question is being raised I don't understand. Msmimiin (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

To be specific during the song promotion of the song 'zamaana Lage' singer Shashwat Singh in Mumbai 2025 , do I need to put this caption ? I have the rights to the photo , does that match wikipedia policy? Msmimiin (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'm satisfied with this response, without having looked at the sockpuppet case evidence, which I expect SPI clerks will resolve separately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and guidance. I would like to request you to also look into the SPI matter , I strongly feel it's being mixed up , there are ids which are blocked and being tagged as sockpuppets, but when someone is genuine how they prove it is there any policy or guideline to prove not guilty here ? My IP address is different, device is different, everything different just because I have edited a same page where someone else contributed does that mean I am with them ? In that way in every wikipedia pages there are atleast 5/6 editors contribute or may be more than that then what admins will conclude ...all of them from same team or farm ? I am clueless how to solve this puzzle and allegations. If you can guide will appreciate.

Thanks in advance. Msmimiin (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion was closed by Star Mississippi in 1296885077, but the linked SPI report does not seem to have resulted in a block. I am not familiar with the purported sockmaster and do not have any insight into this particular match, although as I noted above the suspicion of sockpuppetry is certainly reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hi I think you guys are doing SPI on some other ID's where I have no relation or connection , neither anyone can establish that connection when I don't have the connection, admins can check the IP and location feel free to check it and come to a closure and release me from your suspect list , this is absolutely not needed , suspecting an innocent and genuine contributor is not required..

  I hope you or other admins will come to a closure soon and release me from your sock puppet suspect list.

  Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have no objection with your reopening @Rosguill. @Msmimiin please stop asking multiple people to review and expedite the SPI. It will be handled as a matter of standard practice and will not be expedited just because you request it. But to paraphrase @Robert McClenon, if you don't want to be accused of being a sock, stop behaving like one. You are not a new editor. Star Mississippi 01:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  That sounds like WP:Canvassing to me. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Much needed unbiased POV. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think I should clarify that my comment was referring to Msmimiin directly asking individual editors to help them. That is what canvassing is. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks again . Since I am a new editor I don't know lot of terms , educating myself and applying it here . I didn't know how to react or do the needful ence asked for the guidance here didn't know it's called canvassing, will not repeat the mistake. Msmimiin (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It is 100% CANVASSING and it continues.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• When multiple admins are commenting about my id , I am requesting all of them . I am a new editor that's the reason I am shocked to know I am suspected as a sockpuppet, well I don't know how they behave, definitely not like me who is defending politely. Sockpuppets will never defend since they know they are guilty, they will wait for the verdict since I am new , I don't know all this hence genuinely seek help . Anyway, thanks for your valuable suggestion, will wait for the conclusion of the standard practice.

  Thanks again. Msmimiin (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so there is no system of due process. Everything is done through the required communication and consensus building. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Much needed reply . Thanks for the neutral POV. Msmimiin (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Msmimiin. I know it's stressful being named in an SPI case. I know, I was accused of being a sock when I first started editing here, many longtime editors have. But, in these sorts of cases, being impatient can often cause one to lash out and say inappropriate comments which can make the situation worse. Our Checkusers are volunteers, just like you and and I are and they will get to review SPI cases when they can. Just be patient and continue with your regular editing.

Also, since you are a new editor, you probably are unaware that anyone who files a case at ANI or AN is scrutinized as much as the person they are naming in a complaint. It's because of this that many editor guides in Wikipedia essays warn against editors coming to ANI to file complaints. You might have opened the complaint but you do not control the direction of the discussion and if it turns out that editors have more questions about your editing than CNMall41's editing, well, you become the topic of discussion, not CNMall41. That's not a factor that is under your control. So, again, answer questions that are posed to you and be patient.

Finally, do not make assumptions about longterm editors. You said that we are from "the west" but as you are here longer, you'll soon discover that editors here are from all over the globe, from Pakistan, New Zealand, Myanmar, Ghana, Canada, the UK, Iran, from all continents and many countries. We don't represent one location, country or philosophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. Very helpful insights for a new editor. Will be patient. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The SPI already fond Msmimiin having a connection to another account. If this is open because of possible sanctions of my accusation, let's proceed. If not, I see no reason why this should be open. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi I am msmimiin and I don't have any connection with any other account as per as editing is concerned to any wiki pages , I have only one account through which I am contributing as an editor here . I had opened an account named 'Lopamudra Das' but forgot the password of that account and never able to logged in hence I am using my gmail account which is Msmimiin and I have never used any other account than Msmimiin for any editing , SPI team can check that for sure and come to a closure . My IP address and editing details are visible to all the admins. Msmimiin (talk) 18:30, 23 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.

21st century genocides

• 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parts of the article are covered by WP:ARBECR. Since it's only parts of the article, the article is not ECR protected. Additionally, many people enjoy arguing about the word genocide, so IPs and non-XC accounts are edit warring over the contentious topics part. I've posted here rather than request protection because I don't know which venue is likely to produce the most effective outcome (which I also don't know - IP/account blocks vs protection). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean... if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

But is that necessary? Editors aware of A-I ARBECR requirements are supposed to self modulate when needed. If the numbers get overwhelming protection might be needed. But it looks to me like semi would be enough to cut out most of it any hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. I admire your optimism, but I find that this sort of thing is rarely paid attention to by IPs and the like.

To be honest an article like this should be indef semi'd. It's always going to turn into a battleground. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If a non-EC editor wants to make changes to it they can always request it on the talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity, this sounds alright, but as a decision procedure it doesn't scale well because the parts of articles covered by an extended confirmed restriction can range from just over 0% to just under 100%. Somewhere in that range is a fuzzy transition zone that causes people to not add the section=yes or relatedcontent=yes part to the talk page template so that ECR applies to the entire article rather than part(s) and the article can be protected. The whole ECR thing is a little...nondeterministic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning if it's something like a line in a BLP that says "so and so said this thing about this ECR topic", but this is a list of genocides. Even in the lines that aren't ECR'd, it's still such a topic of contention that we're better off locking it up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU

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.

---

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

Now, I must admit I am also a bit guilty for being a bit to harsh condisering this editor has only like 200+ edits and I also am partially responsible for the edit war, but I hugely suspect a WP:NOTHERE editor due to targeting of Chinese sources.

Reason being quite blatantly marking reliable chinese sources as "questionable".(hell, they marked a chinese police website as questionable in regards to a quite uncontroversial claim about chinese police[8]) Most of the sources I used are typically considered relatively reliable(such as The paper or people's daily).

Now, I seriously hope this is just a case of a new editor not being aware of the 3 revert rule or someone unfamiliar with chinese sources along with WP:RSPMISSING, though the user has engaged in multiple edit wars from what I have seen on the talk page, and has often cited incorrect policies from copy paste responses, such as WP:ONUS([9][10]).

They also claim that they need to see "consensus"(despite me pointing to multiple pieces of evidence of wikiproject china along with other users considering the sources(or goverment affiliatted sources in general) can be considered reliable in most cases) for "my opinion is that they should be deemed inadmissible since the sources are all state owned publications[11]" even though I cited multiple times where the state owned sources have been considered reliable, or state owned sources in this context, though they have shown ignorance to the examples I have given and insist on reverting my edits.

Additionally, they have also done edit warring(which i am also unfortunelately responsible for,) in the previous articles of Chengguan (agency) and SWAT along with several others. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an entirely frivolous report. There's been no targeting of Chinese sources, there's been targeting of state owned/influenced sources which is an entirely different matter. My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality (i.e. the United States). If administrators want to intervene more directly or know more about the background to this dispute, they can go to these two article sections [12] and [13]. Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality is simply incompatible with consensus. As described at WP:RSP, several state-owned or funded sources are considered generally reliable (Such as WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE and WP:RSPVOA), while others are considered unreliable (such as WP:WENWEIPO or WP:TELESUR). As such, the reliability of state-owned sources must be determined on a case by case basis. With that said, I think you'd be hard-pressed to successfully argue a source is unreliable solely on the basis that it is state-owned. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Still, I question whether you are aware of what is a "questionable source" considering you marked the police website as a "questionable source". In fact, even if I were to use something like idk global times, it could still claim WP:ABOUTSELF(Per WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases) and possibly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#State-owned sources. I don't know which is lamer, edit-warring or arguing about who should start a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger thanks for setting it up! – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly never even planned a discussion due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in the first place. I'm gonna be honest, I question whether the person even understood policies, and I made it quite clear that the sources are, from my experience and from the perspective of editors about Chinese related topics(along with several previous discussions, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV)). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Updates:

User has demonstrated lack of WP:AGF That is a claim you simply fabricated.[14](For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating" claims of a discussion which The linked discussions do not address the reliability of the sources in question here. which the discussion I linked covered ALL of state covered sources) along with borderline WP:BLUDGEON along with more WP:ICANTHEARYOU, claiming As a follow up to my initial complaint, I have found there has been almost no source which has been verified as reliable that has actually covered this dispute. even though I have repeatedly showed the sources are reliable and have informed them to see WP:RSPNOT[15]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 17 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:Nghtcmdr

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.

---

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on Tactical Police Vehicle. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(I previously already posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I haven't received any response after my updates, even though the conduct of the user has simply gotten worse)

User:Nghtcmdr has repeatedly shown generally uncivil behavior(WP:NPA, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) along with edit warring and ignoring consensus.

There are already multiple incidents involving edit warring such as here and here. The user has also engaged in rather uncivil behavior, such as:
WP:NPA and WP:GASLIGHT

• Your linked noticeboard discussion shows one person who said Chinese state controlled publications could be used as long as "it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda." That is entirely different from the claim which you fabricated, which is that the participants there would have concluded that Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article.[16] (For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating claims" when I explained how consensus on the discussion meant that in this case the sources could be used)
• That's not my burden to bear because I'm not the one appealing to consensus. You can't provide the location because you fabricated the positions of the participants who took part in that discussion.[17] (For context, they are again falsely accusing me of "fabricating claims" after I told them the consensus following the discussion would apply to this instance)

Borderline WP:TAGTEAM

• You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[18] (For context, I tried to explain policies which they did not like)

Ignorance towards consensus(WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and policies, along with WP:FILIBUSTER

• Complete disregard of warnings related to WP:3RR [19]
• Ignorance to what WP:BURDEN actually means. Also falsely labeled WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE sources as "Unreliable"[20] [21]
• They have been reminded multiple times that state affiliation does not change whether a source is reliable, [22] and have also failed to understand WP:NEWSORG,[23] WP:ABOUTSELF [24], along with what "Reliable sources" are [25] (labeling multiple overall reputable sources(if you want to cross check, I could possibly suggest discussion with WT:CHINA) along with literal goverment sites as "reliable")
• Lack of understanding of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS [26] [27] [28] (claiming the source was disinformation for purely being state affiliated, when none of the sources had anything that can be considered "disinformation" [29](Hunan Daily; Source is about a SWAT unit in China receiving new vehicles) [30] (China News Service; Source is about SWAT training, and no, it's not some sort of out of the world disinformation) [31] (The Paper; Source is discussing the role of Prison SWAT in China)
• Again, a complete lack of understand to WP:AGF and WP:NPA.[32] even though I have repeatedly warned them of this on multiple occasions [33] [34]

I originally hoped and assumed these were simply rookie mistakes from an new editor, though the ignorance of rules along with incivility even under multiple warnings makes this really questionable.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The heart of the issue is that this user makes claims but doesn't provide the supporting evidence when asked to do so. At this point, someone needs to step in and mediate the disputes [35] [36] directly because this is just getting out of hand. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr: Again, I directly linked the discussion, you chose not to read it.

In fact, you fail to acknowledge the fact that you have repeatedly been ignorant to many policies(Such as WP:RS, WP:RSPNOT) and have also been, in general, incivil. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The point is no longer about the supporting evidence(Which i provided, but you chose not to read or deliberately misinterpret it), it is that you repeatedly have engaged in incivil behavior, such as edit wars(not just with me, but other editors [37]. In fact, such behavior falls under WP:BRDWRONG) along with WP:PA(falsely accusing others of "Fabricating claims") and lack of WP:AGF [38]. Even regardless, you have shown lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is, as you have marked many WP:REPUTABLE(and even government sources) sources as "questionable" due to them being government affiliated, something that many other editors have repeatedly told you has nothing to do with reliability.

In fact, you have deliberately misinterpreted policies for the purpose of WP:GAMING, such as ignorance to what WP:BURDEN and WP:ABOUTSELF means, and have purposefully ignored attempts by other users to try to explain the policies correctly [39][40][41][42]. This is quite blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is, frankly(I don't mean to insult you, but I have no other way to explain this) a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE or just downright lying on multiple occasions here[43][44] where you made claims of the content added being "controversial and sensitive topics", when the content I added was regarding the equipment, training and role of SWAT which is absolutely uncontroversial, as pointed out multiple times both by me and other editors. [45]

Your own behavior needs to be addressed before the discussion regarding the sources(Which, country to your claim [46], is not disputed content). In fact, it has been pointed out that the content is not "controversial" or "disputed", and hopefully this is just simply a rookie mistake on your end at best, though I am really questioning whether that is the case considering your conduct. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like even in this discussion he is WP:ICANTHEARYOU Rhinocrat (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Disclosing that I am somewhat involved as I made a comment in the previous topic about this user, and one of my comments has been referenced by Isaac in this topic. At this point I do not think there is any way that Nghtcmdr's conduct is not blatant WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:FILIBUSTERing and WP:IDHT. As detailed by Isaac, in every discussion, Nghtcmdr demands proof of these sources' reliability ad nauseam, but dismisses every single discussion Isaac or any other user presents as being insufficient. They seem to be under the impression that there is a null hypothesis, and that it is that sources are unreliable unless proof of reliability can be given. This is not the case. Reliability is subject to consensus, and the consensus — based on the fact that we have one user continuously refusing to actually listen to anything anyone says, even as multiple people try and explain to them why they are wrong — is that these sources are reliable reliable in this circumstance. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that the approach Nghtcmdr represents a kind of cybernetic reinforcement of existing neutrality problems regarding China. I've expressed concern in the past that Wikipedia systematically treats the dissident experience as more reliable than the experience of Chinese people who are not dissidents. This is systematic because Wikipedia tends to treat as unreliable those sources that are in-line with the PoV of the Chinese state and because those sources that Wikipedia tends to treat as reliable simply care more about the dissident experience than that of people who are doing fine in China. I don't think this is an individual-editor problem but rather one that extends beyond Wikipedia and into the various materials we use. I also think much of this is a linguistic bias. The two biggest enemies of China are the UK and the USA. It's not surprising, then, that English language media, most of which comes from the USA and the UK communicates those biases and that academics in the anglosphere, and in that media environment, are more interested in dissidents than others. But this is where that self-reinforcing loop comes into play. Because the default on Wikipedia is to treat Chinese sources as less reliable, a new editor coming into these spaces looks at perfectly reasonable uses of Chinese sources (such as a description of their police or fire services) and goes, "well Chinese sources are unreliable so these should go."

As I view this problem as being systematic I don't really blame Nghtcmdr for that but what is in their control is to recognize they've pushed too hard and that they're missing some of those valuable context-driven queues for source reliability. What they should be doing is recognizing that they are missing subtleties here regarding source reliability and that they've thus made a mistake from which they should step back. I hope that they will recognize this and that this thread can be closed without sanctions. But if they cannot we may need to ask them to stay away from Chinese topics until they have a chance to learn more about handling these situations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly said. I agree that a lot of times, Chinese sources are often treated unfairly, thanks to geopolitical issues and systematic bias along with the language barrier. As you have said, I also have hoped(from the start) that Nghtcmdr is doing a rookie mistake, though I do have my concerns regarding the false accusations directed towards me(I'm not that scared of the accusations themselves, rather the lack of civility is what concerns), along with ignoring explanations. I do hope with enough convincing they do understand policies, though I do think sanctions may be brought out should these issues persist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has engaged in even more WP:GASLIGHTING [47] and falsely accused me of "distorting claims", which is a completely baseless allegation, and is pretty ironic considering they completely did WP:ICANTHEARYOU [48]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yet more WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:ICANTHEARYOU [49].

He has claimed 1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version, though seeing the revisions [50] it is quite obvious this is not the case, and is the contrary. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: User has shown even more ignorance of consensus [51] or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments. [52]For the China-related disagreements, my write up of the section should be preferred(Even though consensus has shown my one has nothing wrong, and their's is blatant deletion of content from my version) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Even more WP:ICANTHEARYOU [53] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has now engaged in WP:HOUNDING. On WT:MILHIST, they made baseless accusations of me doing "The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem."

[54]

This is a serious breach of WP:AGF, and shows the user is openly engaging in WP:HOUNDING, and also is repeatedly harassing me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I seriously request immediate admin intervention. At this point, the user has started to harass me on topics outside of the original discussion, and has started to make even more baseless accusations against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further update:

User has again, attempted to edit war [55], citing a discussion which has yet to be finished yet as "consensus". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Even after I explained the discussion was unfinished [56], the user has still repeatedly attempted to edit war, and is willing to do WP:POINT.

Additionally, his claim of so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy.[57] can be interpreted as slightly racist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

User has reported me on WP:AN/3 and has taken my quotes out of context. [58] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 3 days in response to the edit war report. This can be undone by the admin closing this discussion without notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but I would suggest that the editor's other misconduct be addressed. The edit war seems to be part of a harassment campaign by them directed towards me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

More updates:

User has posted a DNR thread about me [59] and has continued to use an UNFINISHED discussion as proof of consensus.

@Nghtcmdr Please stop opening threads about me before you have addressed your incivility Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would seriously recommend an admin take literally any action here. Even without considering the merits of either parties arguments, it is clear that these editors cannot work with each other and at the very least a no-fault two-way IBAN is needed. This has been going on for almost a week with exceptionally little in the way of substantive responses to Isaac's concerns. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's now escalated to the point that Nghtcmdr's behavior has gone past WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GASLIGHTING, it has reached a point of borderline harassment and possibly even WP:HOUNDING.

Me and @RovingPersonalityConstruct were having a rather civil and normal discussion on WT:MILHIST [60], when Nghtcmdr decided to go to said discussion and making extremely incivil comments towards me[61], and proceeded to edit war on said article, and even decided to take my edit summary out of context.

Immediate actions are needed. This no longer has plausible deniability as "Rookie mistakes" as I have hoped for a week before, and seems more like targeted actions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You engaged @RovingPersonalityConstruct on the discussion board only after they extricated themselves from your edit war with them [62] [63] by starting the discussion there even though that was your responsibility as you were the one who sought to include the disputed content. Nghtcmdr (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Point is, I still decided to engage in the discussion constructively and provided my opinion, while you decided to make completely false accusations and conspiracy theories about me on said discussion. It doesn't really matter who starts the discussion, as long as it exists and we respect said discussion without violating policies.

Additionally, your conduct on the discussion(which you brought up but failed to address properly outside of repeatedly blaming me) is only the tip of the iceberg of all your misconduct here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac No, the point is you are treating this encyclopedia like a battlespace where you need to win every disagreement you get into by doing everything you can to ensure your version of the material stays published. If you really respected policy, you would have, without reverting @RovingPersonalityConstruct back, started the discussion after their first revert of your edit. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, please address the other concerns regarding your own misconduct.

I'm not the one treating this as a battlespace(Ironically, you have targeted me multiple times on several different edits), nor will I treat this as a battlespace. The point is, I have went to the discussion and explained my edits(It does not matter who starts the discussion, as long as it is used productively), but you decided to attack me personally for topics completely irrelevant to the discussion[64], and have spread false lies about me, reverted my edit when I explained that the discussion was still ongoing.

You are the one choosing to edit war and harass me here. And, keep in mind, this is just your most recent misconduct, as our previous edit wars and incivility still need to be addressed. Again, I remind you, shifting the blame on me(when I respected the discussion, and stayed civil) is not going to help you. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac The point is you "discussed" only after you "won" your edit war with @RovingPersonalityConstruct. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, I remind you to address your incivility issues. In fact, in regards to the discussion, what you should be addressing is how you decided to personally harass me and engage in what could be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING. The order of when the discussion was started does not matter, that does not make me more or less right, nor is it about WP:WINNING. I chose to gave my opinion on the matter, and I listened to RovingPersonalityConstruct's own opinion respectfully on WT:MILHIST.

In contrast, you chose to use this as an opportunity to WP:SMEAR me and engage in harassment. This needs to be addressed by you immediately.

Again, I would suggest immediate admin intervention. At this point, the incivility of Nghtcmdr has been going on for quite a long time by now, and it is quite questionable how long it is taking for any meaningful admin involvement. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

should I ping the Bushranger or Liz? These are some serious accusations... And they aren't getting responded to Rhinocrat (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I already messaged Liz before, but no response yet. But yeah, feel free to do so. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Ironically, @Nghtcmdr is falsely accusing another editor without evidence of "WP:OR" and "Bending policy" on a TALK PAGE.[65]

Again, I would highly advise admins take action here, as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from said user has been going on for multiple weeks by now. It's honestly ridiculous how long this is taking. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Said user has now went on a vandalism spree of removing non-english sources and replacing them with english sources that do not cover said info, or just completely deleting properly sourced info if they are in other languages.

[66][67][68]

User has also added unverified info. [69] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have filed a report against @Thehistorianisaac for harassment (hounding) Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Stop falsely accusing me of "hounding". You chose to incorrectly remove info, I restored said info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:48, 24 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.

Dununderud9894

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.

---

• Dununderud9894 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user replied to their block notification using a bad word, which I reverted. Could you please revoke their talk page access? Thanks! Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here}

The comment was on-topic to asking about their block and not directed at a specific user, so I'm not inclined to take action just for that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

However—and I'm intentionally not linking diffs—after looking at the edits the user made, block-without-warning was 100% appropriate in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 24 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.

21st century genocides

• 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parts of the article are covered by WP:ARBECR. Since it's only parts of the article, the article is not ECR protected. Additionally, many people enjoy arguing about the word genocide, so IPs and non-XC accounts are edit warring over the contentious topics part. I've posted here rather than request protection because I don't know which venue is likely to produce the most effective outcome (which I also don't know - IP/account blocks vs protection). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean... if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

But is that necessary? Editors aware of A-I ARBECR requirements are supposed to self modulate when needed. If the numbers get overwhelming protection might be needed. But it looks to me like semi would be enough to cut out most of it any hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. I admire your optimism, but I find that this sort of thing is rarely paid attention to by IPs and the like.

To be honest an article like this should be indef semi'd. It's always going to turn into a battleground. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If a non-EC editor wants to make changes to it they can always request it on the talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity, this sounds alright, but as a decision procedure it doesn't scale well because the parts of articles covered by an extended confirmed restriction can range from just over 0% to just under 100%. Somewhere in that range is a fuzzy transition zone that causes people to not add the section=yes or relatedcontent=yes part to the talk page template so that ECR applies to the entire article rather than part(s) and the article can be protected. The whole ECR thing is a little...nondeterministic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning if it's something like a line in a BLP that says "so and so said this thing about this ECR topic", but this is a list of genocides. Even in the lines that aren't ECR'd, it's still such a topic of contention that we're better off locking it up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU

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.

---

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

Now, I must admit I am also a bit guilty for being a bit to harsh condisering this editor has only like 200+ edits and I also am partially responsible for the edit war, but I hugely suspect a WP:NOTHERE editor due to targeting of Chinese sources.

Reason being quite blatantly marking reliable chinese sources as "questionable".(hell, they marked a chinese police website as questionable in regards to a quite uncontroversial claim about chinese police[70]) Most of the sources I used are typically considered relatively reliable(such as The paper or people's daily).

Now, I seriously hope this is just a case of a new editor not being aware of the 3 revert rule or someone unfamiliar with chinese sources along with WP:RSPMISSING, though the user has engaged in multiple edit wars from what I have seen on the talk page, and has often cited incorrect policies from copy paste responses, such as WP:ONUS([71][72]).

They also claim that they need to see "consensus"(despite me pointing to multiple pieces of evidence of wikiproject china along with other users considering the sources(or goverment affiliatted sources in general) can be considered reliable in most cases) for "my opinion is that they should be deemed inadmissible since the sources are all state owned publications[73]" even though I cited multiple times where the state owned sources have been considered reliable, or state owned sources in this context, though they have shown ignorance to the examples I have given and insist on reverting my edits.

Additionally, they have also done edit warring(which i am also unfortunelately responsible for,) in the previous articles of Chengguan (agency) and SWAT along with several others. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an entirely frivolous report. There's been no targeting of Chinese sources, there's been targeting of state owned/influenced sources which is an entirely different matter. My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality (i.e. the United States). If administrators want to intervene more directly or know more about the background to this dispute, they can go to these two article sections [74] and [75]. Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality is simply incompatible with consensus. As described at WP:RSP, several state-owned or funded sources are considered generally reliable (Such as WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE and WP:RSPVOA), while others are considered unreliable (such as WP:WENWEIPO or WP:TELESUR). As such, the reliability of state-owned sources must be determined on a case by case basis. With that said, I think you'd be hard-pressed to successfully argue a source is unreliable solely on the basis that it is state-owned. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Still, I question whether you are aware of what is a "questionable source" considering you marked the police website as a "questionable source". In fact, even if I were to use something like idk global times, it could still claim WP:ABOUTSELF(Per WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases) and possibly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#State-owned sources. I don't know which is lamer, edit-warring or arguing about who should start a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger thanks for setting it up! – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly never even planned a discussion due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in the first place. I'm gonna be honest, I question whether the person even understood policies, and I made it quite clear that the sources are, from my experience and from the perspective of editors about Chinese related topics(along with several previous discussions, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV)). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Updates:

User has demonstrated lack of WP:AGF That is a claim you simply fabricated.[76](For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating" claims of a discussion which The linked discussions do not address the reliability of the sources in question here. which the discussion I linked covered ALL of state covered sources) along with borderline WP:BLUDGEON along with more WP:ICANTHEARYOU, claiming As a follow up to my initial complaint, I have found there has been almost no source which has been verified as reliable that has actually covered this dispute. even though I have repeatedly showed the sources are reliable and have informed them to see WP:RSPNOT[77]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 17 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:Nghtcmdr

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.

---

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on Tactical Police Vehicle. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(I previously already posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I haven't received any response after my updates, even though the conduct of the user has simply gotten worse)

User:Nghtcmdr has repeatedly shown generally uncivil behavior(WP:NPA, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) along with edit warring and ignoring consensus.

There are already multiple incidents involving edit warring such as here and here. The user has also engaged in rather uncivil behavior, such as:
WP:NPA and WP:GASLIGHT

• Your linked noticeboard discussion shows one person who said Chinese state controlled publications could be used as long as "it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda." That is entirely different from the claim which you fabricated, which is that the participants there would have concluded that Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article.[78] (For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating claims" when I explained how consensus on the discussion meant that in this case the sources could be used)
• That's not my burden to bear because I'm not the one appealing to consensus. You can't provide the location because you fabricated the positions of the participants who took part in that discussion.[79] (For context, they are again falsely accusing me of "fabricating claims" after I told them the consensus following the discussion would apply to this instance)

Borderline WP:TAGTEAM

• You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.[80] (For context, I tried to explain policies which they did not like)

Ignorance towards consensus(WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and policies, along with WP:FILIBUSTER

• Complete disregard of warnings related to WP:3RR [81]
• Ignorance to what WP:BURDEN actually means. Also falsely labeled WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE sources as "Unreliable"[82] [83]
• They have been reminded multiple times that state affiliation does not change whether a source is reliable, [84] and have also failed to understand WP:NEWSORG,[85] WP:ABOUTSELF [86], along with what "Reliable sources" are [87] (labeling multiple overall reputable sources(if you want to cross check, I could possibly suggest discussion with WT:CHINA) along with literal goverment sites as "reliable")
• Lack of understanding of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS [88] [89] [90] (claiming the source was disinformation for purely being state affiliated, when none of the sources had anything that can be considered "disinformation" [91](Hunan Daily; Source is about a SWAT unit in China receiving new vehicles) [92] (China News Service; Source is about SWAT training, and no, it's not some sort of out of the world disinformation) [93] (The Paper; Source is discussing the role of Prison SWAT in China)
• Again, a complete lack of understand to WP:AGF and WP:NPA.[94] even though I have repeatedly warned them of this on multiple occasions [95] [96]

I originally hoped and assumed these were simply rookie mistakes from an new editor, though the ignorance of rules along with incivility even under multiple warnings makes this really questionable.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The heart of the issue is that this user makes claims but doesn't provide the supporting evidence when asked to do so. At this point, someone needs to step in and mediate the disputes [97] [98] directly because this is just getting out of hand. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr: Again, I directly linked the discussion, you chose not to read it.

In fact, you fail to acknowledge the fact that you have repeatedly been ignorant to many policies(Such as WP:RS, WP:RSPNOT) and have also been, in general, incivil. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The point is no longer about the supporting evidence(Which i provided, but you chose not to read or deliberately misinterpret it), it is that you repeatedly have engaged in incivil behavior, such as edit wars(not just with me, but other editors [99]. In fact, such behavior falls under WP:BRDWRONG) along with WP:PA(falsely accusing others of "Fabricating claims") and lack of WP:AGF [100]. Even regardless, you have shown lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is, as you have marked many WP:REPUTABLE(and even government sources) sources as "questionable" due to them being government affiliated, something that many other editors have repeatedly told you has nothing to do with reliability.

In fact, you have deliberately misinterpreted policies for the purpose of WP:GAMING, such as ignorance to what WP:BURDEN and WP:ABOUTSELF means, and have purposefully ignored attempts by other users to try to explain the policies correctly [101][102][103][104]. This is quite blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is, frankly(I don't mean to insult you, but I have no other way to explain this) a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE or just downright lying on multiple occasions here[105][106] where you made claims of the content added being "controversial and sensitive topics", when the content I added was regarding the equipment, training and role of SWAT which is absolutely uncontroversial, as pointed out multiple times both by me and other editors. [107]

Your own behavior needs to be addressed before the discussion regarding the sources(Which, country to your claim [108], is not disputed content). In fact, it has been pointed out that the content is not "controversial" or "disputed", and hopefully this is just simply a rookie mistake on your end at best, though I am really questioning whether that is the case considering your conduct. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like even in this discussion he is WP:ICANTHEARYOU Rhinocrat (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Disclosing that I am somewhat involved as I made a comment in the previous topic about this user, and one of my comments has been referenced by Isaac in this topic. At this point I do not think there is any way that Nghtcmdr's conduct is not blatant WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:FILIBUSTERing and WP:IDHT. As detailed by Isaac, in every discussion, Nghtcmdr demands proof of these sources' reliability ad nauseam, but dismisses every single discussion Isaac or any other user presents as being insufficient. They seem to be under the impression that there is a null hypothesis, and that it is that sources are unreliable unless proof of reliability can be given. This is not the case. Reliability is subject to consensus, and the consensus — based on the fact that we have one user continuously refusing to actually listen to anything anyone says, even as multiple people try and explain to them why they are wrong — is that these sources are reliable reliable in this circumstance. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that the approach Nghtcmdr represents a kind of cybernetic reinforcement of existing neutrality problems regarding China. I've expressed concern in the past that Wikipedia systematically treats the dissident experience as more reliable than the experience of Chinese people who are not dissidents. This is systematic because Wikipedia tends to treat as unreliable those sources that are in-line with the PoV of the Chinese state and because those sources that Wikipedia tends to treat as reliable simply care more about the dissident experience than that of people who are doing fine in China. I don't think this is an individual-editor problem but rather one that extends beyond Wikipedia and into the various materials we use. I also think much of this is a linguistic bias. The two biggest enemies of China are the UK and the USA. It's not surprising, then, that English language media, most of which comes from the USA and the UK communicates those biases and that academics in the anglosphere, and in that media environment, are more interested in dissidents than others. But this is where that self-reinforcing loop comes into play. Because the default on Wikipedia is to treat Chinese sources as less reliable, a new editor coming into these spaces looks at perfectly reasonable uses of Chinese sources (such as a description of their police or fire services) and goes, "well Chinese sources are unreliable so these should go."

As I view this problem as being systematic I don't really blame Nghtcmdr for that but what is in their control is to recognize they've pushed too hard and that they're missing some of those valuable context-driven queues for source reliability. What they should be doing is recognizing that they are missing subtleties here regarding source reliability and that they've thus made a mistake from which they should step back. I hope that they will recognize this and that this thread can be closed without sanctions. But if they cannot we may need to ask them to stay away from Chinese topics until they have a chance to learn more about handling these situations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly said. I agree that a lot of times, Chinese sources are often treated unfairly, thanks to geopolitical issues and systematic bias along with the language barrier. As you have said, I also have hoped(from the start) that Nghtcmdr is doing a rookie mistake, though I do have my concerns regarding the false accusations directed towards me(I'm not that scared of the accusations themselves, rather the lack of civility is what concerns), along with ignoring explanations. I do hope with enough convincing they do understand policies, though I do think sanctions may be brought out should these issues persist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has engaged in even more WP:GASLIGHTING [109] and falsely accused me of "distorting claims", which is a completely baseless allegation, and is pretty ironic considering they completely did WP:ICANTHEARYOU [110]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yet more WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:ICANTHEARYOU [111].

He has claimed 1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version, though seeing the revisions [112] it is quite obvious this is not the case, and is the contrary. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: User has shown even more ignorance of consensus [113] or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments. [114]For the China-related disagreements, my write up of the section should be preferred(Even though consensus has shown my one has nothing wrong, and their's is blatant deletion of content from my version) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Even more WP:ICANTHEARYOU [115] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has now engaged in WP:HOUNDING. On WT:MILHIST, they made baseless accusations of me doing "The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem."

[116]

This is a serious breach of WP:AGF, and shows the user is openly engaging in WP:HOUNDING, and also is repeatedly harassing me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I seriously request immediate admin intervention. At this point, the user has started to harass me on topics outside of the original discussion, and has started to make even more baseless accusations against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further update:

User has again, attempted to edit war [117], citing a discussion which has yet to be finished yet as "consensus". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Even after I explained the discussion was unfinished [118], the user has still repeatedly attempted to edit war, and is willing to do WP:POINT.

Additionally, his claim of so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy.[119] can be interpreted as slightly racist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

User has reported me on WP:AN/3 and has taken my quotes out of context. [120] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 3 days in response to the edit war report. This can be undone by the admin closing this discussion without notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but I would suggest that the editor's other misconduct be addressed. The edit war seems to be part of a harassment campaign by them directed towards me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

More updates:

User has posted a DNR thread about me [121] and has continued to use an UNFINISHED discussion as proof of consensus.

@Nghtcmdr Please stop opening threads about me before you have addressed your incivility Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would seriously recommend an admin take literally any action here. Even without considering the merits of either parties arguments, it is clear that these editors cannot work with each other and at the very least a no-fault two-way IBAN is needed. This has been going on for almost a week with exceptionally little in the way of substantive responses to Isaac's concerns. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's now escalated to the point that Nghtcmdr's behavior has gone past WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GASLIGHTING, it has reached a point of borderline harassment and possibly even WP:HOUNDING.

Me and @RovingPersonalityConstruct were having a rather civil and normal discussion on WT:MILHIST [122], when Nghtcmdr decided to go to said discussion and making extremely incivil comments towards me[123], and proceeded to edit war on said article, and even decided to take my edit summary out of context.

Immediate actions are needed. This no longer has plausible deniability as "Rookie mistakes" as I have hoped for a week before, and seems more like targeted actions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You engaged @RovingPersonalityConstruct on the discussion board only after they extricated themselves from your edit war with them [124] [125] by starting the discussion there even though that was your responsibility as you were the one who sought to include the disputed content. Nghtcmdr (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Point is, I still decided to engage in the discussion constructively and provided my opinion, while you decided to make completely false accusations and conspiracy theories about me on said discussion. It doesn't really matter who starts the discussion, as long as it exists and we respect said discussion without violating policies.

Additionally, your conduct on the discussion(which you brought up but failed to address properly outside of repeatedly blaming me) is only the tip of the iceberg of all your misconduct here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac No, the point is you are treating this encyclopedia like a battlespace where you need to win every disagreement you get into by doing everything you can to ensure your version of the material stays published. If you really respected policy, you would have, without reverting @RovingPersonalityConstruct back, started the discussion after their first revert of your edit. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, please address the other concerns regarding your own misconduct.

I'm not the one treating this as a battlespace(Ironically, you have targeted me multiple times on several different edits), nor will I treat this as a battlespace. The point is, I have went to the discussion and explained my edits(It does not matter who starts the discussion, as long as it is used productively), but you decided to attack me personally for topics completely irrelevant to the discussion[126], and have spread false lies about me, reverted my edit when I explained that the discussion was still ongoing.

You are the one choosing to edit war and harass me here. And, keep in mind, this is just your most recent misconduct, as our previous edit wars and incivility still need to be addressed. Again, I remind you, shifting the blame on me(when I respected the discussion, and stayed civil) is not going to help you. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac The point is you "discussed" only after you "won" your edit war with @RovingPersonalityConstruct. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, I remind you to address your incivility issues. In fact, in regards to the discussion, what you should be addressing is how you decided to personally harass me and engage in what could be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING. The order of when the discussion was started does not matter, that does not make me more or less right, nor is it about WP:WINNING. I chose to gave my opinion on the matter, and I listened to RovingPersonalityConstruct's own opinion respectfully on WT:MILHIST.

In contrast, you chose to use this as an opportunity to WP:SMEAR me and engage in harassment. This needs to be addressed by you immediately.

Again, I would suggest immediate admin intervention. At this point, the incivility of Nghtcmdr has been going on for quite a long time by now, and it is quite questionable how long it is taking for any meaningful admin involvement. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

should I ping the Bushranger or Liz? These are some serious accusations... And they aren't getting responded to Rhinocrat (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I already messaged Liz before, but no response yet. But yeah, feel free to do so. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Ironically, @Nghtcmdr is falsely accusing another editor without evidence of "WP:OR" and "Bending policy" on a TALK PAGE.[127]

Again, I would highly advise admins take action here, as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from said user has been going on for multiple weeks by now. It's honestly ridiculous how long this is taking. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Said user has now went on a vandalism spree of removing non-english sources and replacing them with english sources that do not cover said info, or just completely deleting properly sourced info if they are in other languages.

[128][129][130]

User has also added unverified info. [131] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have filed a report against @Thehistorianisaac for harassment (hounding) Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Stop falsely accusing me of "hounding". You chose to incorrectly remove info, I restored said info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:48, 24 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.

Dununderud9894

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.

---

• Dununderud9894 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user replied to their block notification using a bad word, which I reverted. Could you please revoke their talk page access? Thanks! Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here}

The comment was on-topic to asking about their block and not directed at a specific user, so I'm not inclined to take action just for that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

However—and I'm intentionally not linking diffs—after looking at the edits the user made, block-without-warning was 100% appropriate in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 24 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.

Continued page disruption

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

Previous Report: [132] The blocked IP in the previous report has been using a different IP to continue with their disruptive edits to the same Hot Wheels Let's Race page despite no sources to prove their edits.[133][134] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the IP in this report is a possible sock puppet of the IP blocked in the previous report, as the IP in this report had been disrupting the same pages multiple times. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)