Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Technical shenanigans?

    [edit]

    I am very skeptical of the motivations of this administrator. [1]. I am certain that I reverted a mainspace edit. It was apparently concurrently moved to draft space. Now this administrator makes accusations against me. To be clear, I don't want drama, but see that this person is apparently harassing other editors on the thinnest of pretexts on an issue in which they are WP:INVOLVED. (See this discussion). Again, I don't wish to get involved, but someone needs to take a look at this. A rogue administrator apparently threatening IP editors on blatantly pretextual grounds, and accusing other editors of bad faith. This is not behavior becoming of a Wikipedia administrator. This is cop stuff @BD2412:. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not been notified of this discussion on my talk page, but will answer anyway. The linked discussion speaks for itself, and I will allow other admins to fully examine the circumstances and come to their own conclusions regarding the skepticism expressed above. Please be aware that the talk page of the IP in question has been cleansed of warnings and other discussions informative to this inquiry by that IP. I will say that I have not accused any editor in this process of bad faith. BD2412 T 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing nefarious about removing warnings from WP:OWNTALK. The IP in question appears to be semi-permanently assigned (at least over the last three years) so there is no issue with shared IP addresses. And although you say directly that you have not made any accusations of bad faith, your choice of wording about the issue of removal of warnings speaks otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When an IP address has repeatedly been warned and occasionally blocked for edit warring, and persists in that behavior after being blocked, I do find that problematic. I also find the pattern of removing those warnings (and then continuing the behavior warned about) to be at least curious. BD2412 T 01:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no edit warring. There were two reversions of your edits (which I might add were reasonable to revert, as being in contradiction to the consensus of a recent AfD) and then an entirely proper escalation to a relevant noticeboard and disengagement from continued editing. It is your warnings, and then your attempts to double down by threatening the IP for removing your warnings and for calling attention to your dubious edits, that currently appear more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is permissible to write a new article at a previously deleted title if the new article is substantially different from the deleted content. The deleted article was an unsourced stub, and was deleted in part for being unsourced. I created a substantial and well-sourced new article in draft, and moved it to mainspace. Changing that to a redirect without discussion was not reasonable. Even if it had been, the reversion of that edit should have led to discussion, not another undiscussed deletion of sourced content. The second reversion was uncalled for. If there is a question about the propriety of a new article, it should be resolved by discussion. BD2412 T 01:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I offered that you should nominate the article yourself for deletion, so that it might be discussed, but you proceded in ad ipenem attacks on an editor who, as far as I can determine, is in good standing. Tito Omburo (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that I have, yet again restored the last consensus revision following the outcome of the last AfD. Tito Omburo (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You specifically stated, "If you want to re-create the article, please go through the process we all have to: WP:AfC". I did so. An uninvolved AfC reviewer then accepted the submission. I frankly don't understand what more you want from me. BD2412 T 02:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't "all have to" go through AfC, in fact, experienced editors are specifically encouraged not to use it unless there's a COI, in which case they're required to. Jahaza (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of this, but the initiator of the discussion demanded that I go through AfC, so I did. Then they argued with the AfC reviewer who approved the submission, insisting that there needed to be weeks of discussion and a consensus in order for the AfC reviewer to move the draft. BD2412 T 01:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what started the entire argument here, but I will say this type of commenting needs to stop. I simply moved a draft to mainspace for reasons stated on my talk page and the talk page of the draft. Then undid the redirect as AfD is the appropriate venue since WP:CCC and the AfD cited is six years ago. I don't appreciate the lack of WP:CIVILity. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tito Omburo:, now there is an issue. You are WP:BLUDGEONING with your statement "Lack of AfC consensus." Where does there have to be consensus at AfC and where was there a discussion opposing such until AFTER you reverted the redirect for a third time. What are you doing?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring a consensus revision of an article that was previously deleted. (And my revert means that you should back off and discuss, rather than edit-war.) Tito Omburo (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, based on the article history, assuming you are referring to WP:BRD, the BOLD was your blank and the revert was restoring the article so that subsequent discussion could occur. That doesn't matter, though, given you have blanked the article five times in three hours, which is bright-line edit warring per WP:3RR. Weirdguyz (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Tito Omburo has well passed WP:3RR on the article in question and has been blocked for 31 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hoping the cooling off will allow for more civil discussion but this comment doesn't give me much hope.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note their response to the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall summary, lots of subpar behavior but the next step here for anyone who believes the page should not be an article is to send it to AfD.

    With that aside, we can get into a more thorough analysis. The initial bold redirection by 35 was fine, reverting that was also fine, use of rollback to make that revert was not fine, but a one-off rollback error isn't a big deal or something we should be starting XRVs over. Second redirection is questionable, as a strict matter of ATD-R either a talk page discussion or AfD should have started. As a matter of day-to-day community practice some leeway is given for one or maybe two subsequent tries at redirection, the etiquette is complicated, but it's not that big a deal, and of course disruptive recreations from redirects are repeatedly reverted as a matter of routine, this was not disruptive but 35 does seem to have held a sincere belief that it was so again not great but not sanctionable, best addressed with open dialogue. Subsequent revert also logical, though again rollback was misused. Then Tito Omburo redirects, we're already past due for AfD by then but there does seem to have been a sincere belief the recreation was disruptive, perhaps a G4+decline would've cleared things up but stuff like this happens.

    BD2412 gracefully submits the draft to AFC and it is accepted, that is precisely the procedure we are constantly advising people to follow for recreations. If it had ended there no one would have needed anything more than a trout, just another one of those periodic messy detours. Unfortunately it did not end there, Tito Omburo was advised to use AfD multiple times and decided to edit war anyway, so a block was necessary to end disruption.

    Most of the rest has been covered above. But to briefly rehash, civility is not optional even in tense situations though some limited understanding is extended. Yes people can blank messages from their own talk pages and it is routine rather than suspicious. Blanking is actually to be interpreted as an acknowledgement that the message has been read this is detailed at WP:BLANKING. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not convinced this complaint was brought on precisely the correct grounds, but I think that BD2412's behavior shows an astonishing disregard for administrative behavior while involved in a content dispute, as well as WP:ABF. I do not think this discussion should be deflected into an unimportant and routine content discussion (I am a math editor and I don't really care whether or not there is an article on the square root of 10), because the behavior issue here is very troubling. --JBL (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, if I am in the wrong on this I will apologize and take my trouting. However, I find it hard to believe that an IP can be warned for incivility and edit warring over and over and over and over again, by many different editors, and ultimately be blocked for this conduct for continuing after those warnings, and still be treated with kid gloves. BD2412 T 01:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        If they weren't an IP, would that change the standard you hold them to before taking off the kids gloves? 166.205.97.71 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it would not. If a registered editor who had repeatedly been warned for edit warring and incivility, and had recently been blocked for the same, engaged in a similar pattern of recidivism, I likely would have warned them as well. However, IP addresses, no matter how static they may be for a time, are ultimately unstable. I would not assume that good behavior emanating from an IP address further in the past necessarily reflected the same editor. I will say, however, that on the basis of this incidence, I will probably be more hesitant to confront edit warring or incivility in the future. BD2412 T 03:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        You are still talking as if what you did really was confronting edit warring and incivility from the IP. I still have not seen any such thing. It is exactly that hostile attitude, from you, that became a problem here. Please listen to the many people telling you that instead of continuing to double down. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        David, I am trying to listen here, I really am. I understand the perception that my aim was to "win" a dispute over the substance of the article. That was not what was in my thoughts at the time. I should have been more clear with the IP that my intent was that they should discuss the matter rather than continuing to revert. I am feeling somewhat misunderstood, and I am feeling that some people in this discussion are immediately assuming the worst of me. From my perspective at the time—and I grant that this was just my perspective—the IP was primarily concerned about one source in the new article, which they described in their edit summary as "one crank source I even warned you about", and they could have tagged or removed that source, or nominated the new article for deletion, or started a discussion, or done any number of things other than effectively blanking the page. Imagine how you might react if an IP turned Descartes' theorem into a redirect on the grounds that it was "trivia", and then immediately reverted you when you restored it. Would you consider that a content dispute, or would you consider that a conduct problem? Of course, I am aware that Descartes' theorem is a more important subject than the Square root of 10, but my overwhelming intent here was to improve the encyclopedia, and to route the IP into any of the infinite number of more constructive ways to resolve the dispute. I removed the disputed source myself after giving the warning. BD2412 T 15:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sysops aren't special in content disputes, but that cuts both ways. The only basis for concern I see is this, and there is considerable ambiguity here. There is long-standing expectation at ANEW that when reporting you provide the diff of an edit-warring warning. Enforcement is uneven but awareness games get played anyway so for that reason giving EW warnings to people you've reverted is routine for sysops and non-sysops alike. BD2412 should either have used clearer wording or a standard warning template so the message would be unambiguously understood as a ritualistic ANEW prelude rather than as a potential threat to block directly, but the very fact of issuing a warning is not by itself a problem slightly tangential, but given that the sysop responsible for the most recent block just had a lot of their blocks overturned for impropriety it's unlikely it will be used as the basis for future blocks absent further investigation anyway.
      Use of a vandalism warning template was rude, but that is true irrespective of sysop status, and civility concerns were already being discussed above so I saw no need to analyze them in detail.
      I actually prefer to cut everyone some slack here. The degree of difference from the deleted/redirected page needed for a recreation to be allowed is quite fuzzy in practice. You can go through DRVs, probably some even rather recent, and find experienced editors saying it applies to any recreation that is simply judged unlikely to survive a new AfD. Not the most broadly held view, but not outside the mainstream either. The escape hatch then is AfC, which is what was ultimately followed here. It still would have been better if someone had gone to TO's talk page explained that the editors trying to recreate the page were not SPAs or socks and were reverting in good-faith then kindly requested a self-revert of the 3RR violation while the situation was being sorted out. May or may not have been complied with but you just never know.
      Perhaps also a general reminder to everyone to try and talk things out a little more. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone would like to make a specific case about BD2412's conduct, with diffs, I'll listen. Having looked through the page history of the article, and related discussions, I'm not seeing a problem. I do see one user (Tito Omburo) who edit-warred, made personal attacks, assumed bad faith, and got blocked. I see an IP with a history of being warned for edit-warring, including on mathematics articles. Warning such an IP that they're at risk of being blocked again for the same conduct is normal. If the complaint is that someone else should have issued the warning, okay, but blanking an article that went through AfC (and was accepted by an independent reviewer) is more than a content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would agree. Simply going through AfD could have saved a ton of time. This was premature to have been brought to ANI.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these are the relevant diffs: The IP 35.139.154.158 converted the article to a redirect on 21:55, 16 July 2025. This was done with an edit summary making a few points, and also suggesting prior interaction I haven't found. BD2412 rolled back that edit at 23:32, and then gave an templated twinkle warning for "Unconstructive editing" at 23:33 (ie. immediately after). The IP reinstated their change at 23:37, noting "inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK" and the previous AfD. BD2142 then rolled that back at 23:41. Discussion then occurred in WikiProject Mathematics as linked in the opening post, which spun out into a bit more edit warring and the article going to Draft again (for the second time I think?).
    Looking at this, I agree with 184.152.65.118 that both uses of rollback by BD2412 were poor. I would add further that the "Unconstructive editing" warning after the first rollback was poor, the IP gave specific reasons for their edit in the edit summary, it was not the sort of test edit or minor vandalism that the "Unconstructive editing" warning is for. It is definitely not a warning that is related to either "incivility" or "edit warring", which BD2412 mentioned above as being their concerns regarding the IP's past history (which to repeat I have not found), and if there is history, the warning may have strayed towards WP:DNTTR. If BD2412 wants to take appropriate trouting, it should be for the issues of rollback misuse and inappropriate warning, with the most egregious problem being a second rollback.
    That said, as 184.152.65.118 has also noted, BD2412 did later (re?)draft the article and take it to AfC (again?). This was a very appropriate action to take specifically on the question of the article's existence. If there are still concerns about existence, they should be discussed at WP:AfD. Content concerns within the existing article should be discussed on the talk page. Obviously as a final point, BD2412 should not take any administrative actions regarding the IP or others involved in an article they have created, but they don't seem to have done so. CMD (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: That is correct, I took no administrative action, nor would I have done so. Had blanking to the redirect persisted, I would have filed a report noting the IP's previous block for edit warring. With respect to the "prior interaction", that is certainly this RfD discussion, in which the IP was unfailingly and repeatedly rude in response to my !vote in the discussion, responding with a series of "facepalm" emojis, and particularly with the comment, "You've turned what should be a fairly mundane discussion into a clusterfuck of red herrings and other nonsense". I have seen them be more uncivil to others in similar discussions; in that same edit, they accuse Dicklyon of "years-long trolling" for advocating a minority but not-unreasonable position. BD2412 T 17:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for linking the RfD discussion, which provides some context. Certainly not the best behaviour by the IP, but if I might say so it does read a bit as if you're falling for that bait. Understandable, and not saying I would never do the same, just a view from outside. (And for all those that called that series of redirects "unambiguous" or similar, first of all, negative numbers exist, secondly these is all premised on the assumption of a base 10 numbering system, which is mathematical systematic bias.) CMD (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's more emojis than I like to see in an RfD discussion about square roots. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Hemmi model with CF and DF folded at the square root of 10
    I'm not following all this, but yes I do troll my Square root of 4 idea every few years. My Square root of 6 and Square root of 7 creations were along a lightly different line, but still essentially poking fun at our Square root of 3 and Square root of 5 articles. I think the Square root of 10 is a much more serious idea. I haven't looked at the draft, but can tell you a few places where that number is important. For one, it's the amplitude ratio that corresponds to 10 dB. For another, some slide rules, such as the Sun Hemmi No. 250, fold their CF and DF scales at the square root of 10, instead of pi, because it's theoretically optimal, though less useful than folding at pi. Both of these uses gain their significance ultimately from our use of decimal number systems. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That draft is better than a lot of our April Fool's stuff, thanks for the chuckle. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to note that everyone involved in the initial dispute has at this point extended olive branches (I have done so myself) or made apologies on their individual user talk pages (here and here and here). There are some interesting side discussions about rollback and notability of numbers, but there no longer appears to be a dispute so this looks resolved if my 2 cents is worth the full 2 cents. CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback question

    [edit]
    • As an aside, I admit I'm still slightly confuzzled by the "inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK" thing. I can't see a functional difference between rollback and - for example - selecting a series of multiple diffs in the page history, clicking "edit" on the "prior revision", and then hitting save? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See WP:Rollback#When to use rollback. There is a slightly complicated history here. If you're interested I can try to outline it so you can better understand how and why this came to be when I get a few minutes, but today I'm busy. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I can see the "no edit summary" concerns, but when you get a moment, wouldn't mind the explanation! - The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So mediawiki rollback is a rather old feature, ok not that old we're talking Phase III here; IIRC mid to late 2003 though I'm sure someone who had the time to go back through the mediawiki version history could pinpoint it, but the key is that it well predates any counter-vandalism tool you can think of and just as importantly the undo-feature. Otherwise everyone still reverted by using the age-old manual load the prior revision and save. Furthermore, it was originally sysop-only and was introduced specifically to facilitate the reversion of vandalism.
      In this context the prohibition makes perfect sense and the question came up shortly after introduction. But logically if sysops can't use protection to advantage themselves in content disputes, it follows they should not be able to use any other tools like rollback either. One of the devs was also queried I want to say Brooke Vibber but someone may correct me here who stated directly that it was introduced solely for the reversion of mass vandalism. Anyway the quote was at one time on an advice or information page about reverting that has probably long since been redirected or deleted.
      Fast forward a bit, the userbase is growing rapidly, culture is in flux, nobody reads the instructions which in any case are both multiplying like weeds and by modern standards quite fluid. The sysop role becomes less circumscribed which leads to more experimentation but also lots of pushback. Bit by bit additional use cases come to be accepted, however grudgingly believe it or not there was some vehement opposition to allowing it for self-reverts.
      Against this backdrop revert options are also proliferating, pop-ups, twinkle, undo, and more; some scripts appear that permit custom edit summaries to be used with rollback. The tool is unbundled not entirely uncontroversially but that's it's own story. Many new and some not so new users are confused as to why rollback is special at all. Still some echoes persist. And why not? If a tool that is primarily employed to revert vandalism is used otherwise it can't help but carry the implication the edit it was used to revert is no better than vandalism. Hard to perceive it as anything but a slap in the face.
      Nonetheless, faced with the somewhat illogical situation of only one particular method that is no longer really meaningfully more powerful than some other methods of reversion being so restricted, a resolution is eventually reached I want to say 2010ish where the focus is on the lack of edit summary. So rollback can be used like other methods, but only if a tool is used to provide a custom edit summary in compliance with WP:REVEXP. Later efforts to further de-exceptionalize rollback by making it a gadget like twinkle failed, so there things have sat more or less to the present.
      I suppose there is a third act here of sorts with an emerging consensus that rollback become more a gateway to tool usage, but it's entirely tangential to the current discussion, and in any case I only know that part of the story in barest outlines so it would be best related by others. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhhhh. Okay, that does make more sense now. And thank you for the walk down Wikihistory lane! - The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the best summary I've seen on the history of rollback, thank you (also, weird way to find out Brooke transitioned). I think you're correct to suggest that the stigma (if that's the word) of getting rollback'd has lessened over the years because there are so many other ways to quickly revert an edit. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest saving that as an essay somewhere before this section gets archived. BD2412 T 17:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As with everyone, my contribs are irrevocably licensed under CC BY-SA and the GFDL. Feel free to copy whatever you like elsewhere to share and share on. If for some reason you need it under CC0 leave a note on my talk page and I'm willing to release per reasonable request. Same holds for any other tidbits of long-forgotten lore posting of mine. Wouldn't hurt to have a few others give it a once-over before calling it any kind of official history though. Memory is not quite what it used to be, though it does seem stronger for stuff from decades past than from yesterday. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've archived the discussion at User:The Bushranger/Why rollback is proscribed. Thank you! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NUM

    [edit]
    • I'm not going to comment on the finer details of the dispute, but I would like to note that this article should have followed the general guidelines established at WP:NUM/G. Assessing the article using those guidelines is a good way of solving this sort of issue. I will currently look at assessing the article in comport with those guidelines to assess notability. We have a whole wikiproject dedicated to solving the kind dispute created here. I would strongly recommend the editors here read those guidelines and help support this WikiProject. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Project-specific guidelines can supplement, but not supplant, the WP:GNG. By way of comparison, a one-term former U.S. Congressman who teaches a single university class or publishes a single book with a mediocre reception is not required to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR because their activities extend into these realms. Likewise, 666 (number) is really of no great importance mathematically, but we have an article on it due to its cultural/historical context. BD2412 T 20:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but I feel that a lot of the issues raised here fall into the very same sorts of ambiguities that WP:NUM/G was created to address, namely mathematical facts of uncertain relevance. In all honesty, I think all of these articles have more than enough sourcing to stay, although they may need to be cleaned up, and WP:NUM/G provides a way of helping assess that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MtRushmore27

    [edit]

    I am requesting some form of administrative intervention with User:MtRushmore27. I first noticed their robotic and predictable edits on Massachusetts legislative BLP pages a few days ago, where they were adding laundry lists of committee assignments, and caucus/commission/boards/council memberships. The committee assignments were accurately sourced, but I would contend that Wikipedia is not a repository of every committee assignment ever held by officeholders. I attempted to engage with them, to no avail. My main concern relates to their inclusion of caucuses/commissions/boards/councils. Roughly 50% of their sources do not accurately reflect the added content. It's almost as if they are searching the internet for the "article subject name" and "task force" or "board" and adding such content to Wikipedia. This added content is not even wholly correct syntax-wise, which causes me to suspect that it is some runaway AI program that does not know how to engage on one's talk page and persists regardless of my reverts. I understand my own reverts of the user's edits may be viewed as disruptive, but I am operating under Wikipedia:Be bold to prevent further disruptive edits to BLPs.
    Here are some examples of their edits which have caught my attention:

    What also caught my attention is on the article subject's sourced legislative profile, if they sponsored or cosponsored a bill that includes the word "council, board, commission, etc." the user will add that they "sponsored" the governmental entity. That or the added content is not present in the source. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR user is making disruptive edits, also improperly sourced. User is not responsive despite multiple attempts and warnings. Requesting administrative review and action. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    3 days later, no action here, no engagement from the user, and user continues edits like this. Additionally, I am assuming the user is aware of the rollbacks I am making per the edit history of Jo Comerford, and continues to use false edit summaries like "updated legislation" when they are just adding committee assignments. I am still reverting every edit of theirs. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a relatively simple report, and inaction is yielding further disruptive edits [5]. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given they've continuned to edit without communicating after multiple warnings and Liz encouraging them to respond here, I have pblocked MtRushmore27 from articlespace in hopes of improving communication about the concerns raised about their editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: thank you for your action. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior by user:Sybercracker

    [edit]

    I'm reporting a pattern of behavior by User:Sybercracker that seems to go beyond normal content dispute and may constitute edit stalking or harassment. They’ve reverted several of my good-faith edits and nominated my newly created pages for deletion. I've attempted to engage on talk page, but the behavior continues. Here are some diffs: [6] [7] [8]. Requesting admin input. Anpanman11 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fazal_Ali_Khan&action=history
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bidar_Bakht&diff=prev&oldid=1301950140
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Gujjars Anpanman11 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Sudhan. The last ten editors who have substantially edited that article have all been blocked for sockpuppetry. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen Thanks for pointing to Sudhan you can check I've requested for the increase in protection per continued disruption by multiple socks. Also note I've contributed this article just to improve. Sybercracker (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Anpanman11. Per instructions on this page, you're required to notify the person about the discussion. I've done that for you now. tony 18:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note Fazal Ali Khan appears to have copyvio issues (earwigs). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested Yes, Anpanman11 created this article & he directly copypasted content from the sources.[9] Also I think he used AI to created other pages, first I placed notability tag on Fazal Ali Khan tag was removed without addressing the issue by Anpanman11, then I AFD article with good understanding of sources and notability guidelines. Sybercracker (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you don't know anything about the person in question, you're making assumptions that I used AI (which I didn't), and you know nothing about the sources I quoted, which are contemporary and written by renowned authors. Also, I've noticed you keep stalking me & reverting my edits with no reason Anpanman11 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is all basically a content dispute and you'd rather talk about it here than on the article talk pages? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @ChildrenWillListen, MilesVorkosigan, I believe there is also a competency issue with this editor as 70.9% copyrighted content still exist on this article even after the warnings/reminders and his attempt to remove copyright content.Sybercracker (talk)

    No there is not any content dispute on Fazal Ali Khan there were copyvio issues addresed by other editors, still Copyvio issue exist, first I placed notability tag on page but without actual improvements tag was removed by the creator then I just AFD article, this is not any kind of disruption or disputes. Further on AFD I explained how article lack in notability. Also I've dropped here my rational regarding this report. Sybercracker (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had a quick look at the situation at Fazal Ali Khan, Anpanman11 reintroduced copyvio content in Special:Diff/1301424198 at the page even after being warned about copyvio on their talk page, which currently still stands. I considered blocking and/or deleting the article but decided against doing so with one foot out the door, but what I have seen thus far is pretty indefensible (especially considering how laudatory the text is). That having been said, the progression from CSD to AfD by Sybercracker seems at best ill-considered and could be part of a broader pattern of hounding. Both in the interest of disclosure and because it sheds some light on the disputes between these editors, I should note that I commented on the DRN request concerning these editors’ work at Muslim Gujjars and was not terribly impressed with either side’s command of relevant policy or their approach to criticism. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into this matter. This is a wrong report that was filed just after the I AFD article of Fazal Ali Khan that fails in notability.Sybercracker (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i'll edit that, but Sybercracker's edits weren't related to copyright Anpanman11 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this diff long standing content was replaced with other source/and[10] piece of content but without any edit summary so I restored previous text and also added back the text that was added by "Anpanman11".[11] Sybercracker (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome wasn't mentioned, I found it necessary to be mentioned and used a more contemporary and unbiased source Anpanman11 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If outcome wasn't mentioned why you removed old source and content because you don't like it and replaced content with new source and content but without any edit summary or justification. I just restored both versions your added one and also previous. Sybercracker (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the old source as it was not authentic and replaced it with a contemporary and unbiased source. Is it too difficult to understand? Anpanman11 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong report against me by Anpanman11. Before this report he also filed wrong report against me on Edit war when he actually violated 3RR within couple of hours on such page.([12] [13][14] [15][16])

    • As I nominated "Fazal Ali Khan" for deletion as the article failed in notability. Before AFD I placed notability tag but was removed without addressing actual issue. Such AFD was not a disruption in any sense.

    Issues with 'Anpanman11's behavior

    I haven't checked any of the others, but while I am not an expert on this part of editing, I looked at the comparison and there's about a 300-word chunk that's lifted straight out of the source, starting with the 'four years of age' part.
    (I have not looked at any of the other issues and have no opinion) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Anpanmann filed a duplicate albeit empty report against Syber further down below. Borgenland (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find this. If possible, kindly delete the new one. Anpanman11 (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anpanman11 has been opened. All of this activity is really surprising from a month-old account. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Is there any requirements to file a report with any numbers of edits or days old account if not then what the problem? With just 150+ edits Anpanman11 filed some reports on WP: edit war notice Board, WP:DRN and ANI will you also comment on it? Or you tried to see provided all diff here what is the actual matter here. Sybercracker (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I misspoke. It's just, as I stated, very surprising to see a month-old account filing cases at AE. It's a noticeboard that even many experienced editors rarely visit. My apologies if mhy "aside" was offensive. I have struck out the comment. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's fine. I just clarify here and on my talk page. You weren't wrong in asking me for the explanation. Sybercracker (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucygeejones8 not citing their sources properly

    [edit]
    I'm going to close this complaint. If there are future problems, a new case can be opened but I think this one is resolved for now. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lucygeejones8 has been disruptively editing When Will I Be Famous? and other Bros articles such as Drop the Boy, Chocolate Box (Bros song), and Too Much (Bros song) ([21])([22])([23]) Mostly, the have refused to properly cite their sources despite multiple warnings that they have reverted. For example, on When Will I Be Famous?, they cited a forum (WP:SPS) and the main page of Flickr for a UK chart peak (WP:V), which doesn't even make sense. Additionally, they provided a Japanese peak with a poorly formed print citation, so I'm starting to believe they aren't taking their editing as seriously as they should be. On Chocolate Box (Bros song), they also reverted me for putting table entries in alphabetical order, which is standard practice. I admit I could have approached them more politely than I did, but I have warned them multiple times to cite their sources properly, and they are not listening. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject: Concern Regarding User:ResolutionsPerMinute
    Dear Admin Team, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to formally report the activities of user ResolutionsPerMinute, who has persistently disrupted the "When Will I Be Famous" and other related pages I have created concerning the band Bros. This individual has engaged in aggressive behavior towards other contributors and has removed content that is properly sourced. As an expert on the band Bros and other 1980s music groups, I possess over 30,000 articles on these subjects. In contrast, it appears that ResolutionsPerMinute lacks a similar depth of knowledge regarding the band Bros. In addition, I am currently pursuing studies in intellectual property law, which informs my perspective on this situation. Upon reviewing the comments on their talk pages, one can observe that the tone is consistently aggressive, which is not acceptable within an academic and collaborative platform such as Wikipedia. While the user see to in take or try to start edit wars with other members, it is imperative to note that content should only be removed when the sources have been adequately disproven. The edits I have contributed are supported by reliable sources, including country music charts, reputable magazines, books, and, where feasible, I have uploaded those magazine articles along with pertinent dates to enhance the reliability of the content. I express my concerns regarding the threatening tone of their actions and respectfully request that they cease removing content from these pages and discontinue their contributions to the ongoing edit wars. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Lucygeejones8 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like AI (with the odd header and such) but even if not, please provide actual diffs and not just walls of text 37.186.52.8 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The text does not appear totally AI-generated, but the email format is a bit odd. GPTZero says it was polished. Conyo14 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Same user as above IP) probably, considering it doesn’t have all the hallmarks but still WP:Wall of text applies 176.202.109.198 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How could the first and last sentence of that ("Dear Admin Team, I hope this message finds you well." and "Thank you for your attention to this important matter.") possibly not be generated by an LLM? They are the similar to the first and last sentences of nearly everything I've seen here generated by an LLM, and nothing generated by a human. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "depth of knowledge" does not matter. Per WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, which are policy, you are required to cite your sources here, and also make sure that those sources are suitable enough to be used. If you truly "possess over 30,000 articles on these subjects" and are an expert on 80s music groups like you claim, then I'd imagine you know how to cite those articles... λ NegativeMP1 16:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they cite themselves, that at least proves they are an expert. If they can’t come up with any article that they published, that would question their credibility 176.202.109.198 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this user has gone to Teahouse for guidance and is asking others for help regarding this (they are new). Perhaps some leeway or a WP:TROUT is in order? Conyo14 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, except that they only did that after I advised them to and are now claiming that editors on Teahouse told them that the incorrect sourcing should stay in the article.
    Needless to say, they did not, and are raising concerns about possible copyvio and an incorrectly formatted ref to a book. Their (edited for clarity, 'their' here is referring to the subject of the report, not the editors at Teahouse) belief (edit, clarity - ...that they were told to keep the errors...) suggests WP:CIR problems, at best.
    But maybe they'll stop edit-warring, and take the advice to fix the refs in their sandbox? We can hope! MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they are threatening to go to WMF because an editor asked them to cite sources correctly (and use sources that are not potentially copyvio).
    I don't know that I'd argue for a ban as yet, but at very least we need to find some way to get them to listen. Even at Teahouse, they don't seem to be clicking on the examples and help article links that people have offered them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is absolutely not a legal threat, it could very easily be interpreted as being intended to cause a chilling effect on other editors - and is definitely a personal attack. Don't we have the ability now for "block exemptions"? I'm debating if blocking from 'everywhere except the Teahouse' for now would be helpful. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MilesVorkosigan, please do not use the term WP:CIR to refer to new editors who shouldn't be expected to know all of the many complicated rules of Wikipedia. I'm not defending this editor, they are making mistakes here, I just see CIR used to frequently label an editor who is new and isn't aware or doesn't understand some policy or guideline. See Wikipedia:Competence is required#What "competence is required" does not mean. It's best used for editors who have been here for years and are still acting in violation of standard policies. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that someone who told you that they think you've made copywrite violations is actually encouraging you to keep the bad sources is not really anything to do with a complicated rule. It seems quite black and white. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MilesVorkosigan, I hope you don't feel like I was targeting you, my dismay about the overuse of WP:CIR on ANI was meant to be a general comment to the editors here. I should have made that clearer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Wiki User, I want to take a moment to address some important points. First and foremost, I want to assure you that my responses are my own and not generated by AI. As a new editor in this community, I sought guidance on proper citation methods, and I am sincerely thankful to the kind user who provided the clarity I needed. I am committed to contributing positively to this platform, and I believe that we all have faced challenges and made mistakes when we first began using Wikipedia. It's essential to remember our shared humanity in this learning process. However, I found some comments here to be disheartening and dismissive. Some of us on here navigate this space with a visual disability, and that does not equate to a lack of intelligence or an overreliance on technology. I am dedicated to my education and actively pursuing my training and education in intellectual property law. I now have a understanding on how to cite and reference properly. It's crucial for all of us to empower a welcoming environment, particularly for newcomers. I ask everyone show some decency and to approach interactions with kindness and patience, offering support rather than criticism. I am genuinely grateful to the one user who extended their hand with understanding and took the time to explain citation clearly. What I've seen and read from some user is cruel comments, what is wrong with some of you why can't people work together to create a community that encourages growth and learning for everyone. Thank you for your attention and understanding. I am hurt and disgusted by some user comments on here. Lucygeejones8 (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried 3 LLM checkers and they come up with 81 to 86% AI content. Knitsey (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have barely adressed the copyright violations yet and instead went to indirectly attacking them? Everyone here is trying to correct your mistakes yet you barely listen and instead use a significant amount of chatbots 2A04:7F80:3D:C69B:F099:D42A:3FC6:EF1A (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was worded as a direct attack against me for something that I wasn’t doing, so I took it that way. Though I’m glad to hear that isn’t what you intended. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of other mistakes you might have made, Lucygeejones8, LLM is generally frowned on, especially in comments. I think if you had been forthcoming about your use of AI because of a disability, some comments might not have been so harsh. But anyone who relies too much on LLMs will have a difficult time in this community and I wish more could be done to accommodate editors with disabilities. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't use AI please stop saying I do this ends now from all of you. Lucygeejones8 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very easy to make the accusations stop. Just stop using AI and write as a human being. I'm very sympathetic to people with visual impairments (I have a mild one myself) but don't use it as an excuse for lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A Friendly Request Regarding Comments
    Good Morning Admins
    I hope you’re all doing well! on this beautiful sunny morning. I wanted to reach out and ask if you could kindly request that a certain user refrain from making slanderous comments about me I don't use AI. These statements ARE hurtful, and come across as "trolling". I’ve learned that post likes these fall under "The Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA)" in the UK, which makes it illegal to send communications intended to cause distress and I would like to stop.
    On a positive note, I’ve resolved the original issue with citing and now feel confident about how to cite correctly and share links to the appropriate sources. Being a new member, I understand that we all make mistakes and have lots to learn, especially on platforms like Wikipedia, and I appreciate the support of that one lovely user who help me understand citing. I’ve found some of the comments to be quite distressing, and I’ve taken screenshots to share with the Wikimedia Foundation, just to keep everything transparent. I am always kind and supportive and try help people in my community, and I believe we can address thing in a friendly manner to ensure everyone feels comfortable. Thank you for your understanding! Have a beautiful day everyone. God bless you all. Lucygeejones8 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilesVorkosigan …but at very least we need to find some way to get them to listen. Well, the hardline approach is that, by blanking their user talk page, they are deemed to have acknowledged every warning they received there. So at the least, any further violation of 3RR could be met with an immediate block, since they acknowledged the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with the "block if there is any further disruption" approach. I think we can still assume good faith here, even if they are clearly agitated and not listening to editors, and their last few mainspace edits seem decent. Insofar as they're blowing off (polite, over-formal) steam at ANI or the Teahouse, I'm inclined to not come down hard on the legal threat as long as they're not wielding it to shut down discussion of a mainspace dispute. But if they continue to ignore good faith feedback, then that becomes disruptive and needs to be stopped. signed, Rosguill talk 13:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I noticed another user restored their* user talk page, so I'm not even sure that adding the {{uw-nlt}} template would be a good idea right now. However, if there's further disruption, then they will likely need to be blocked to prevent even more disruption.
    * Actually, after reading the user's user and user talk pages, I think that should be "another user restored fabulir user talk page", but I'm not 100% sure how to put fabulous into the possessive case. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a talk page note about legal threats is needed, so that they are made aware that they have crossed a significant red line and that we are graciously affording them the opportunity to de-escalate without sanctions, but that further legal threats will not be tolerated. I will do that shortly if no one intercedes. signed, Rosguill talk 14:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add onto this statement as I believe another perspective may help. I have some interaction with the user before, such as removing some copy pasted material without reference from some pages, and sent a reminder to their talk page about properly marking edits as minor/giving edit summaries. I understand they are a new user and had the intent of helping them with the wikipedia guildines. During the time when User:ResolutionsPerMinute raised this issue, User:Lucygeejones8 requested my input on the issue on their talk page. Due to differing time zones when I went to reply they had blanked their talk page. I still replied to their request pointing out some citation issues and how to fix it (as they had asked) and hoped to solve this issue respectfully and assume good faith. However they blanked their user page again claiming the messages were "hurtful and agressive". See this edit. I no longer believe the are acting in good faith and are against the overall community consensus and don't want to agree on correct mannerisms of this community. DaBoss4344 (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is some bad faith assumption from User:Lucygeejones8 37.186.52.8 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they posted a legal threat. What do we do now? Northern Moonlight 12:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She missed out 'threatening, indecent, or grossly offensive communications' in relation to the UK Malicious Communications Act 1988. Theirs is a laughable interpretation. A few people have tried to help the user understand Wikipedia policy and assisted with referencing, to no avail. Knitsey (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They also seem to have missused slander (spoken communication). Knitsey (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block 2603:8000:21F0:10A0:5079:F970:1485:1273

    [edit]

    This user has been vandalizing multiple pages.

    (Note: I don't know how to contact this user on the talk page because they are not registered on a specific account.) BodhiHarp (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BodhiHarp, try reporting the editor on WP:AIV which is a noticeboard to report vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not extremely familiar with the IPA, but based on this edit (which is blatantly untrue), I would say that the rest of their edits should also be reverted. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked more of their edits, and nearly all of them appear to be incorrect to the point to vandalism. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I started a new discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#:~:text=2603:8000:21F0:10A0:5079:F970:1485:1273 BodhiHarp (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @The Young Prussian, since they have reverted similar additions before. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BodhiHarp: The best way to communicate with unregistered users is to leave them a user talk page message on the most recent IP address they have used for editing. For future reports of this nature, it's helpful if the report briefly explains why the edits are vandalism including example diffs. I know you were directed to use WP:AIV, but that noticeboard is better suited for more obvious vandalism and spam (i.e., vandalism obvious to any user, not just people familiar with the topic).
    This has been going on since 20 August 2024 and there has been no communication whatsoever by the user in response to numerous user talk page messages and warnings. Therefore, I have blocked the IP address from article, user, template, and draft space for 3 months for disruptive editing and failure to communicate. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they have been falsifying information about phonemes for a long time now. I think this warrants deeper investigation. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably needs to be done by someone more familiar with IPA. Also, a substantial number of the edits from the IP range have not been reverted or undone. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be an LTA; see [24] vs [25], [26] vs [27] (the latter account being globally blocked for cross-wiki abuse.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check a wider range for the IPv4, there is even more overlap (e.g. [28] vs [29] and [30]). The article history for Turned h shows even more disruption going back to early 2024. The IP 167.248.152.41 is particularly interesting, since it leads to [31], where the IP adds an audio file for the phoneme, which our latest IPv6 is also known to do ([32], some more I can't find right now.) This eventually leads us to an SPI case and User:Visaa11, who might or might not be the same person behind the IPs ([33] vs [34]). Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that while in the process of looking for these things, I had to revert several instances of vandalism that went unnoticed for over a year, which is scary. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found off-wiki evidence more or less confirming that the latest disruption is caused by the same person as User:Visaa11. I can email it if an admin wants, though I think the on-wiki evidence is more than enough to connect them all. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is best used for handling urgent, simple disputes. It's not a good place to ask editors or admins to launch an investigation into a sock farm. Try taking all of this information and filing a case at SPI. They get paid the big bucks to deal with this. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, will do, since I have found even more named accounts and IP addresses likely belonging to this person. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz What should I do if I suspect some overlap between two different SPI cases? (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abrown1019 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Visaa11.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen - just what you did. Thanks for the report. -- asilvering (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is back in the form of 2600:6C50:7AF0:B330:0:0:0:0/64. (Old: [35], New: [36]) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_alphabet&diff=prev&oldid=1301306066 be reverted too? BodhiHarp (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the rest of their edits are hoaxes, probably. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see WP:BANREVERT. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    M.Billoo2000

    [edit]

    Lack of civility from user who is attempting to get Draft:Tabish Hashmi (a target of numerous SOCKS) approved for the mainspace. Disagreement at Draft talk:Tabish Hashmi led them to leave this talk page message stating: "With no respect, I do not need your reply ANYWHERE AROUND THE WIKI OR EVEN THIS PLANET, considering the judgement(s) about your proaganda here and here. LAST WARNING, GO AWAY!!!".
    User is referencing a previous ANI thread and a SPI which they were named in. Based on our interactions and the message left, I did not feel it was worth attempting to resolve with them on their talk page so here for assistance. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, CNMall41, you are not a newbie here. Please provide a link to any previous discussions at ANI or a relevant SPI to help put this comment into context for the rest of us who don't know about your dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, unfortunately. I don't like to be here. I am unsure of what link you would like. The one I provided has the statement the user left on my talk page. It also contains links to discussions they are complaining about but not sure if those are relevant. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you mentioned a previous ANI discussion and an SPI case in your statement (above), that's what I was referring to. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I understand now. What I stated was that User (meaning M.Billoo2000) was referencing an SPI and ANI case. Those were linked in their uncivil statement I quoted (I left the links in as posted to my talk page by that user). My complaint is simply about the statement itself. I provided context for why they may have become uncivil, despite the fact they shouldn't be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated the user has a lack of civility and used the term uncivil to describe their conduct. The policy is Wikipedia:Civility. I noted, "Based on our interactions and the message left," by which I am saying that attempting to discuss directly with them (by me) is likely to just cause more issues. So, to avoid those, I am here asking for "assistance," meaning anything an admin can do to address their lack of civility (warning, block, or whatever an unbiased party would deem appropriate given the information I provided). Or, you can tell me that such a message being left on someone's talk page because of a content dispute is appropriate in which case you can then close out this thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liz, M.Billoo2000 emailed me about what's going on here a few days ago and I hadn't yet responded because of some other stuff I'd been preoccupied with. CNMall41 has been following likely paid contributions in Pakistani television, and these two have clashed over a couple of articles promoted by the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress sockfarm. There was an ANI thread a few weeks ago about one such article, which you commented on so I'll assume you're familiar. In that instance CNMall41 was agitated that another editor had taken over a StayCalmOnTress contribution and improved it to Wikipedia article standards - CNMall41 seemed to feel that it was improper to accept an article which is a target of sockpuppetry, but that view is not supported by policy (we had a brief discussion about this on my talk page). M.Billoo2000 has been trying to address concerns about Draft:Tabish Hashmi, a draft previously heavily edited by StayCalmOnTress but which M.Billoo2000 has been trying to clean up and resubmit. CNMall41 and another editor have reviewed and provided feedback that the sources are unsuitable, and M.Billoo2000 is not accepting this feedback, and is evidently frustrated, but their "warning" seems to be an extreme escalation out of nowhere (unless there's something else going on that I haven't seen).
    I don't think there's anything for admins to do here, it's plainly a content dispute. @M.Billoo2000: your outburst on CNMall41's talk page was uncalled for and inappropriate; please strike that comment. If you don't understand what other editors are saying about the sources you've provided, calmly ask them to elaborate. @CNMall41 and RangersRus: you could try explaining why the guidelines say those sources are unacceptable, instead of just pointing at them and walking away, and remember that YouTube is not automatically a bad source. All of you already know what to do if you can't reach an agreement, and it doesn't look like the warning we're talking about here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I got tied up with other stuff but after M.Billoo2000 reached out to me again, I took first 3 sources to explain how they are unreliable and not independent. Youtube video was subject's interview and the other two were articles with interview. These are what most of the sources are on the page. I told M.Billoo to find secondary independent reliable sources. M.Billoo has emailed me that I haven't checked yet but I will see what other help he needs and try to guide him more to improve sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    M.Billoo2000, I don't understand why you continue to email multiple editors with your various complaints. I've responded to you numerous times with information as to how to go about resolving disputes, what to do with private evidence etc., but I haven't seen anything in the 20+ emails that you've sent me recently that requires so much off-wiki communication with multiple editors. Most editors prefer communication about Wikipedia matters to take place on talk pages, not behind closed doors. -- Ponyobons mots 15:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've received multiple emails as well over the past few weeks, if this continues after being asked to stop, we might need to pull email access. I didn't know the editor was sending them out to so many other people at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment was struck, but based on the edit summary, I would say user does not get it. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector:, you are correct about the explanation and that I could have explained better. I tried on several pages with various content disputes with user which they linked to in their comments below. I honestly believe it is a case of WP:IDHT which is why I came here as I knew discussing their conduct would likely be the same response as discussing the content. I would be happy to explain it to them in greater detail on all of those pages if you feel it would help the content dispute. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment

    Dear admin(s), I will happily accept the advices, but first I need to clarify my position, if anyone is unaware of interaction history. I never wanted to create trouble for anyone, so I kept making edits calmly. I undersand I have made a lot of private emails, but those were only to clarify my stand and wishing for no more interaction with CNM.

    • First of all, I am completely ok with RangersRus, so no need to involve them here.
    • You are aware of the content dispute at Draft talk:Tabish Hashmi, it has been more than three months now; my actual first interaction with CNM – which only happened because they made a comment about it on my talk page, which led me to the talk page of another editor named اردو.
    • I had been fighting the actual SCOT socks even before my interaction with CNM, but I was then advised to put forward a formal SPI case. There, I again found CNM, I emailed them about the sock, and put the report as well informally. It was later corrected and admin Izno taught me how to put formal reports. [37]
    • I cleaned up two more articles, Talk:Deemak and Talk:Love Guru (2025 film). CNM appeared there again and tried attacking my contributions; the history is visible on these articles' talk pages. When I tried clarifying my position, they started misinterpreting my messages into something which led to the SPI case against me.
    • I never intended to be offensive, I do not know why they kept feeling accused and kept updating a thread of reports against me.
    • When admin Izno commented on that case, CNM then started comparing me with other active editors Behappyyar and Sunuraju, and created false messages on my talk page, which I RBI'd, but from that I was diverted to AN about Dananeer Mobeen. [38]
    • Although, I have now cleaned up my talk page, the history is available, by which I also got to know that CNM has been involved in a number of feuds and ANIs – only because they kept diverting me there as they always tried simulating me over their commands: [39]
    • Thankfully, admin Ivanvector closed these cases on 4 July, after which I thought that CNM would never come back and create any dispute. Only then I reverted two of their edits: [40] [41]

    In conclusion, this was not just a random burst out, but I felt that the user violated the 4 July judgement of Ivanvector, plus violated my contribution space despite I had enough in these past months on not just one article, but over a chain of my contributions. I had to ask for open help and RfC because I wanted uninvolved opinions. I still am open to apologize to anyone else who felt me doing wrong.

    Sorry and thank you for understanding my point of view in this dispute. Humans do have a personal life and emotions, not everyone wants to get into fights. I come with my real identity and stand against violence. M. Billoo 16:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be happy to respond to any of those differences if you or anyone here would point out where I may have been uncivil or violated guidelines. The talk pages you linked to show me informing you of content issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been feeling unsafe of editing here on Wikipedia, only because the reason stated here, "from one side, the actual sock (StayCalmOnTress) was attacking over my contributions, and from the other side, I became part of the very same SPI". That is why I asked for help on multiple forums and via emails as well. I still apologize if emails were felt wrong, I do not want any disturbance from my side, I just want help, please. Thank you. M. Billoo 18:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attempting to address content, not conduct. However, I will be glad to address your concern for context of those following the thread. You linked to this ANI thread from July 6th and it was about Draft:Tabish Hashmi. In that thread, NinjaRobotPirate (not me, but another editor) advised you to use the Teahouse. Liz (not me, but an admin) also gave you advise to which you stated you would resubmit the draft (you did and it was declined by not me, but another user). You eventually went to the Teahouse on July 8th, but that was for a different article. There, you were given advice (again, not me but from two other editors) about that article. This is not a case of you being harassed for your edits. It is a case of WP:IDHT. I believe myself and other editors have WP:AGF with all of your requests, but it gets to a point where WP:PACT comes into play. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have had numerous disagreements in the past as well, and I have always approached third opinions, whether involved or uninvolved, irrespective of what side they would take (only if someone do not take it as TLDR and understand my clarification). A clear example is linked above as well about social media references. Another example is present in my talk page history where I had waited for months to have the result in my favour. I have already mentioned that my talk page is an evidence about how I have been learning and growing on Wikipedia, and I am still not an expert. But here in this case, I have been double targetted continuously. And just to play safe, I presented evidences via emails while understanding the email policies, so that no sock can stalk me there, and no one else can misinterpret my neat intentions. And here in this case, I am again making my own approach on different forums because I want no interaction with someone whom I had a history of bad interactions. Within less than 3 weeks of 4 July judgement, I saw an un-invited (and continued) violation and felt unsafe again. M. Billoo 11:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, I have to ask for a clarification here: in what way, exactly, do you feel "unsafe" here? You out yourself to an unusual degree on your talk page, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors are going to come to your neighborhood to assail you in person? If not, then we would be well served here with a bit less hyperbole. Ravenswing 21:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Treasure Island (1988_film)

    [edit]

    2 IPs have been constantly removing any mention of Ukraine on the article, even though the movie was made by a studio in Kyiv. This usually means removing phrases like "is a Soviet/Ukrainian animated film" or removing categories such as "Ukrainian animated films"

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

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

    these IPs have also been doing the same things on articles for episodes of Cossacks (cartoon series). I believe these edits are being made to claim the films as Russian in origin, though I can't provide any evidence for these accounts being bots, so I won't claim such (someone else can find that out)

    Thanks. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I should note that WeaponizingArchitecture decided to write an ethnic slur ("русня") in the edit summary when making an edit to the article mentioned above, Cossacks (cartoon series). They decided to do this immediately after filing this report. Mellk (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation needed on "ethnic slur", it seems like WeaponizingArchitecture already apologized either way when you brought it to their talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They wrote: I was pretty angry when I did so, this stuff usually does not happen so please treat it as an isolated incident. It is very clearly an ethnic slur (any native speaker can confirm, which you are not). If it is not an ethnic slur, why did they mention they were angry when they said it? Mellk (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear I've been exhausted all day and was getting fed up with the extent of the issue
    Regardless this should probably be discussed elsewhere ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 22:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct venue for that discussion. I suggest you self-revert this edit to Cossacks (cartoon series). You introduced a redlink to a non-existent page and also presented Как казаки as Ukrainian and Як козаки as Russian when its the opposite. The infobox appears to use standard English alphabetical order to present information. I see both Soviet Union before Ukraine in 'country of origin' and Russian before Ukrainian in 'original languages'. The IP editor that you are calling Русня, 93.124.64.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be a productive wikignome from their edits which mainly consist of adding categories to Soviet and Russian empire era films.
    One of the two editors you are reporting, has only ever made one edit to Treasure Island (1988 film) and that was to add a category. They made no edit to any mention of Ukraine. Why are they being reported? The other IP editor made two consecutive edits removing a category and a mention of 'Cinema of Ukraine' more than two weeks ago. The only other edit that I can see that is related to this is 85.249.167.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit on July 5 which is even earlier. This report is too stale for an admin to do anything about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very weird report all around.
    First, when coming to ANI you should provide some diffs of the edits you object to. Not only did you not do that, you don't even provide a link to the page where these alleged issues occurred.
    Second, regarding Treasure Island, I believe the IP is not wrong – it was a Soviet film (just like The Irony of Fate is described in the lead as a Soviet and not Russian film, even if it was made by Mosfilm). It could still be included in some Ukraine-related categories I believe, but if the IP objected to that, then you could/should have tried discussing it with them and/or with other editors, leaving an edit summary inviting them to the talk page. At any rate, there was no addition of anything suggesting that the IP was claiming the film was Russian in origin, let alone that they are Russian bots (!)
    Third, on Cossacks, after opening this ANI thread you went to that article, actually introduced a red link with a bad edit, and on top of that you used a slur against the IP in your edit summary. Exhausted or not, that is quite shocking, really. I am not Russian, so it's not something that I find personally offensive, but editing mostly in Eastern Europe topics I often have to repeatedly revert Ukrainian or Ukrainophile editors that go against policy by anachronistically using Ukrainian placenames or labelling things or people Ukrainian. Do you think it would be justifiable for me to start calling them хохлы over that?
    The fact that you jumped straight to ANI with an unclear and badly formulated complaint which, as far as I could make out, is also plain wrong, and after that decided to lash out at an editor with an ethnic slur... Well, it doesn't speak well of your instinct of self-preservation. I think you have walked yourself into boomerang territory and would suggest you withdraw the complaint, although it may be too late for that. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Use of slurs is unacceptable. I don't find the explanation convincing, either: I've been exhausted all day and was getting fed up with the extent of the issue. I become exhausted and frustrated too, but like most people I manage not to use ethnic slurs. Would the situation be looked at the same if the person used the N-word instead? I don't think the I was angry excuse would fly in that case, and it shouldn't fly in this case either. By the editor's own admission they have untreated anger issues IRL due to a list of personal reasons [diff]. Wikipedia is not therapy. Anger is a poor excuse for racism.
    As to the doubts if "русня" is an ethnic slur, the Wiktionary entry says it is an "ethnic slur" and "offensive". I learned of the word after reading this thread, but just because a slur is unknown among English speakers that doesn't make it any less offensive or any less of a slur.
    It has been nearly three days without administrator response. That is a signal to the community that ethnic slurs against Russians are acceptable on Wikipedia and won't be sanctioned. How long until editors begin receiving barnstars for it? TurboSuperA+(talk) 03:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    It appears this has been determined to be a garden-variety content dispute of the WP:DUE variety, and ANI does not adjuciate content disputes. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sweet6970 just reverted two removals of BLP violations: BLP article & Org article related to BLP. The concerned edit removed allegations that have been reported on Dec 10 2024, with zero WP:SUSTAINED coverage thereafter (other than a statement of refutation on Dec 17, referencing an ongoing counter-investigation), indicating that the event was not notable as failing significance beyond routine coverage per WP:EVENTCRIT and we err on the side of privacy in such a case as the BLP in question is otherwise low-profile, which isn't the same as notable (as having an article) which the editor ignored. I removed the content in line with WP:BLPCRIME and the editor wrongly revered said, thus willfully violating BLP. Raladic (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be related to dissatisfaction with WP:PINKNEWS - Sweet6970 has been POV pushing on WP:GENSEX topics for a while. If it's now leading to WP:BLPCRIME violations I'd suggest a Topic ban from GENSEX and BLP is an appropriate response. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) AFAICT there is a single revert of your removal in two different articles so I don't see why this needs to be here. AFAICT, in the Benjamin Cohen article there hasn't even been any discussion on the talk page and the PinkNews one the discussion was just about the lead. Remove it again in both articles & take it to the talk pages and WP:BLPN if needed. Or if you feel strongly about it, then rely on WP:BLPRESTORE; remove it again making clear you are doing so on "good-faith BLP objections" and that Sweet6970 needs to seek consensus if they want to restore it. If Sweet6970 restores it again without consensus or significant change, then perhaps you could bring it to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here because WP:BLPREMOVE which is where WP:LIBEL is mentioned, references ANI and since we have an unfounded allegation here, it basically amounts to libel at the moment, given that there has been no follow up coverage. (Else if it was less pressing I would have gone to BLPN) - please let me know if you still want me to go there.
    It's a somewhat blurry line between where it's just a BLP content issue or where the reproduction of contentious material that without sustained coverage thus basically just being a "a source said" (even if that source was RS, but obviously they were just basing it based on the party that raised the accusation) could fall into libel if there's no follow-up after an allegation. That by itself might actually be something I'd love to check at BLPN. Raladic (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I just don't see what you're expecting to happen. You already have the tools to force the removal of disputed content if you feel it's important and you do not need anyone else's help. BLPRESTORE does not require libel or anything of that sort. There is almost zero chance that Sweet6970 is going to be sanctioned over only those two reversions of material covered in the BBC and elsewhere. Despite the strength of BLP, it's always a tricky balance over how to handle matters like this and disputes are common. Many editors have restored far more problematic material with far lower quality sources on far lower profile individuals without sanction. If you had provided evidence this was a consistent problem with Sweet6970's editing, especially cases where consensus ended up clearly against the inclusion of material Sweet6970 revert to, then you might have a reasonable case. But not what you presented. I mean heck, even more clear-cut BLPRESTORE violations don't generally lead to sanction if the editor stops when BLPRESTORE requirements are made clear to them. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick google, the incident in question didn't just attract passing, routine/breaking news coverage, it was a 20 minute BBC documentary.
    As well as widespread coverage in the following days, even internationally, it attracted comment from the Prime Minister, resulted in one party being suspended from their role in the NHS, and importantly, it received in-depth coverage on the 19th and 23rd of December. I think this meets WP:EVENTCRIT Actually, that's only about whether an event is notable enough to warrant its own topic, so isn't relevant anyway.
    Aside from anything else, saying there was zero WP:SUSTAINED coverage thereafter (other than a statement of refutation on Dec 17 doesn't seem to be accurate.
    There's also further legal analysis from a well-respected employment law firm on January 23rd, and while this is basically EXPERTSPS and not usable for BLP, IMO it lends weight to notability.
    Not sure if WP:BLPCRIME applies to public figures like this? Void if removed (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME applies to criminal allegations, as in crimes. This appears to be a workplace sexual harassment allegation which is usually not a crime. If these were sexual assault allegations that would be a different story, and WP:BLPCRIME would apply. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you - so neither WP:BLPCRIME nor WP:EVENTCRIT nor WP:LIBEL seem to apply. It is all well-sourced so it doesn't meet WP:BLPREMOVE. I'm not seeing a BLP issue - I think the only relevant policy is WP:DUE and I don't have an opinion on that, but I think when there's that breadth of coverage and the PM weighs in its hard to argue it isn't. Void if removed (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making no comment on anything other than location, I don't see see this is relevant Sexual harassment#United Kingdom. Also all this discussion really should be taking place somewhere other than ANI hence why I said this thread was a bad idea and not likely to help anything. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    Blocked x 24 hrs by Lofty abyss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    102.100.16.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making repeated unsourced changes to articles related to Venezuelans of foreign ancestry (e.g. Polish Venezuelans, Japanese Venezuelans, etc.). They have been issued multiple warnings from me and from others on their talk page but it was no use as they continued making the unsourced changes.

    Example diffs: [56], [57], [58] Gommeh 🎮 14:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sockpuppets of AttackTheMoonNow

    [edit]

    Is there some stronger action we can take against this sockpuppetry? In the past month, there have been many new accounts commenting at ITN who have been blocked for being sockpuppets of AttackTheMoonNow:

    I assume these were also blocked for the same reason but the block log does not explicitly mention ATMN:

    Natg 19 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've sent a request for page protection for WP:ITN/C which should at least help with ITN. BangJan1999 19:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    Editor blocked and TPA removed due to a legal threat. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Stacy Strong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A blocked sockpuppet of User:AttackTheMoonNow recently posted an unblock request containing a legal threat. Please look into this as soon as possible. BangJan1999 19:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and TPA revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing in FBL

    [edit]

    @Hullian111 and me found @Update6 removing garage details in First Bus London without prior consensus. I asked them to discuss before removing again but they refused to do so and keep removing garage details. We warned him at least thrice but he still keeps on removing without any prior discussions. Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems pretty crufty to have all that detail, to be honest. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, they removing without prior consensus or discussions and seems unwilling to discuss the matter. They are welcome to do so only after clear consensus is provided. Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave my explanation twice already so it is you who is unwilling to discuss Update6 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to other London bus operators page. Garage details were shown and currently no consensus to get rid of them. Just open a discussion on the talk page. Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Garage details are on subsidiary page, just like 'other London bus operators page', you can check Update6 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, no one wants to get blocked, just open a discussion on FBL's talk page and we'll discuss the matter. Otherwise, it may get escalated to WP:WAR. Please help to reduce unnecessary WARs. Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested anymore do what you want Update6 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:CYCLE, sometimes only when you open a discussion on the talk page can get it sorted. Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs:
    [59] [60]
    [61] Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody hell, are we really having these at midnight?
    My rationale for the revert and subsequent warn, @Update6, was for the lack of edit summaries, something you're quite guilty of in other articles. Now, I can see why you've moved the garage info over to the subsidiary companies as opposed to the main FBL article - to be honest, I wasn't aware First Bus London was more of a brand and that London United, London Sovereign and RATP Dev were still in use by First - but for God's sake, you can't just remove big sections of garage info without achieving consensus with other editors on why they should go and without leaving an edit summary explaining what that consensus is. You haven't provided said consensus neither on the articles or in this discussion, so I'm assuming your intentions are more or less disruptive/malicious.
    It's not a good look, too, that you're blanking your talk page of any warnings you're getting as a result of these sorts of edits, and that you're also trying to blank your way out of this discussion. Hullian111 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Only twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Update6 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You removed them thrice in total, next time you do that may violate 3RR rule. Hlfxcuc (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Update6 has tried to remove this ANI thread, which I've reverted. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have done so again. They also remove all talk page warnings as soon as they get them, which is technically allowed per policy. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This time, they tried to remove their signature from all their replies here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing my reply, it's fine when you do it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Update6 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I didn't see you added a reply when you removed everything else. I've restored it. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Update6 You are not allowed to substantially change a reply after someone else has replied to them. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen They removed the warning shortly after getting it. Hlfxcuc (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen I've warned them for using harsh wording. Hlfxcuc (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChildrenWillListen I suspect personal attack towards you from @Update6, see [62]. Hlfxcuc (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatant trolling below [63]. Borgenland (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I am allowed to remove my contributions when I want to. Update6 — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're not. There is a note above the "publish" button which reads: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL." Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, you will be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect RfC closures

    [edit]

    @EarthDude: Has twice ([64], [65]) made incorrect WP:RFCCLOSEs [based on a flawed understanding of RfCs and of WP:SNOW and WP:CONSENSUS].

    I wished to resolve this and make a relatively newer user understand how RfCs work at User talk:EarthDude#RfC, but they seem to be doubling down. It is better if words come in from an admin that their edits were simply incorrect. Gotitbro (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not the first one who has noted the lack of RfC understanding by the user: [66]. Gotitbro (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an error on my part. I shouldn't have opened an RfC there. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on WP:RFCCLOSE, if the community's response becomes obvious, if the discussion runs its course, or if consensus is clear, the nominator of the RfC has the right to close said RfC. Furthermore, if any of the following apply, then RfCs do not need follow the 30-day guideline. The RfC got 4 comments in the span of several weeks, with three in support. The secong RfC you have linked got not even a single editor opposing the changes. I waited for weeks, with no new comments, before the closing said RfCs. In what way is any of this a violation of wikipedia policy? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 03:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EarthDude: you should not be closing discussions in which you are a participant, particularly in two contentious topic areas: WP:CT/SA and WP:CT/BLP. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RfC was not unanimous; Gotitbro was pretty clearly raising a policy concern. As for the Vinayak Damodar Savarkar RfC, "ideologue" is a contentious label, and two editors agreeing in an RfC is not enough to meet WP:SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Gotitbro clearly raised a very valid concern on the RSS RfC, and to that, I responded too, and then they left the discussion. On the Savarkar article, there was not a single editor opposing the change, and the complete absence of any opposition passes WP:SNOW. Sure, the number of comments were low, but these are not extremely high profile articles, so the number of editors participating in discussions in low as well. While these discussion got a low engagement, said engagement came in the span of several weeks. I also waited for multiple weeks with no new comment before closing those RfCs. RfCs take valuable time of editors and so it is advisable to close them if they have run their course. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 03:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with EarthDude's summation of the Vinayak Damodar Savarkar RFC:
    • They should never have started the RFC. There was no recent prior discussion of the issue on the talk page; WP:RFCBEFORE had been ignored or not understood.
    • There were 3 participants: EarthDude, someone who agreed with them, and someone who politely disagreed with them. In the circumstances, it should either have been left open, or closed as "no consensus". It had only been open for 13 days.[67]
    -- Toddy1 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between closing an RfC and ending it by removing RfC tags. And even for the latter there was no consensus in any of those discussions: the first one where you cite [4 participants and] "three in support" has actually 2 including yourself (and just to be clear the last discussion on this topic which lead to no consensus had a much larger participation). In the second RfC, which you again closed yourself, the participation was limited to 3 users with 2 in support, also including yourself. Gotitbro (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, you are missing the time frame here. This little engagement was in the span of nearly a month.
    Secondly, closing an RfC and removing the RfC tag is the same, as given multiple times in WP:RFCCLOSE, where the two are used interchangeably.
    Thirdly, WP:CONSENSUS says, and I quote, "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", as was the case in the Savarkar RfC, which was appropriately closed since not a single editor objected. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not change the fact that you, as the nominator of the RfC, should not close these RfCs. WP:RFCCLOSE says a formal closure of a RfC is not needed If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants,. The first of these was, in fact, contentious; the second was not a WP:SNOW case. Even if they both agreed, two editors' agreement is absolutely not a case for a snow closure. I would strongly suggest you revert these closures and request formal, uninvolved closures for both. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A unanimous RfC is not contentious, by definition. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Contentious topics are though. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what WP:RFC means when it uses the word "contentious". It doesn't mean "if it's covered by a CTOP." Levivich (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but in contentious topic areas, editors should be careful. Care was not taken in these cases. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "careful" or "care" in this context. Involved editors, even RfC proposers, are allowed to close RFCs when the outcome is clear. It says so in WP:RFC. These were unanimous, so the outcome was clear. They were open for weeks and no new votes had come in for over a week prior to the close. It's the same rules for CTOP RFCs as it is anywhere else. ED could have waited the full 30 days, which would have been prudent, but even that is not required under the plain language of WP:RFC. ED broke no rules here.
    Gotitbro, meanwhile, did not even vote oppose in either RfC. They reverted the close, which is improper, and skipped the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE steps, which is also improper, and took a closer to ANI over their closes when (AFAIK) none of their closes were overturned, which is also improper.
    You're on the wrong side of this. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not realize that Gotitbro had unilaterlaly reverted the closes. @Gotitbro, that's not okay. I still don't think it was wise for EarthDude to close those discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought the conduct here after raising it with the closer (in this case the nom themselves) when a need was felt for admin opinion. From what I gather this actually follows the "steps" at CLOSECHALLENGE. @Voorts: For the closure revert, my understanding over the years seeing such reverts for premature or flawed on policy closes was that it is allowed. But I understand if that isn't the case.
    Participants in an RfC obviously do not need to make any formal Oppose or Support comments to show their understanding of a dispute raised. Consensus of course is not based on votes and neither can barely participated RfCs where there is no general agreement between the participants (beyond the nom) be cited as unanimously supportive of the proposed changes sought. Gotitbro (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: I was thinking more about what you said about taking more care, and I agree it would have been better if ED announced their intention to close, and saw if there were any objections to it, before closing. Levivich (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EarthDude's closes are fine, except they should have waited the full 30 days instead of 2-3 weeks to err on the side of caution. Neither of these two unanimous RfCs could have been closed any other way, and I don't think either one would have been overturned on a close challenge. As EarthDude points out, WP:RFC specifically allows involved closes when consensus is clear, and consensus is clear when it's unanimous. Had EarthDude waited 30 days (and had there been no further votes), the closes would be entirely unproblematic.
    @EarthDude, now that they're reopened, I'd suggest giving them two more weeks, and if no one makes an oppose vote, close them again. There is no need to involve another editor in the closes unless someone actually makes an oppose vote. And if anyone has a problem with the close, the right way to raise that is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, not ANI. In order to show that there is a conduct issue with RfC closes, one first must show a pattern of overturned RfC closes. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a general understanding and following [of policy] that nominators do not close RfCs themselves (it would be hard to find such examples generally and especially so for CTOPS).* Please do not encourage the user to do it again by basing it on the rationale that a reception of no oppose votes on a CTOP article with minimal participation is somehow "unanimous" consensus (WP:NOTVOTE).
    Successively self-closing, prematurely, two RfCs with minimal participation is simply incorrect and a valid policy concern to raise at ANI and highlighting policy vios cannot be limited to other formal procedures.
    My comment (and labelled as such) in the first of these RfCs shows a general disagreement. I did not make a formal "Support"/"Oppose" comment as the need was not felt and was waiting for other comments to roll in. Indeed I was going to reply to some of the comments in due time (have done so now). But since this has now turned to construing policy not as generally understood and against precedent, I might add a formal comment label as well. Gotitbro (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such general understanding. WP:RFC says the literal opposite, as it has for years. Every once in a while I see someone complaining about involved RfC closes, and they need to be reminded that WP:RFC not only permits it, but encourages it. WP:RFC says, in bold: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. This message is repeated several times at WP:RFC. A unanimous RfC, even if only a few people are participating, provided it's left open for a reasonable time to allow participation, is as uncontentious and obvious as a result can get. It's funny that despite the bold text and the repetition, still there are editors who think involved closes are always against the rules.
    I didn't read your comment as an oppose. If you oppose the proposals, vote oppose. If you don't oppose the proposals, you're wasting everyone's time complaining about the close of a unanimous RfC proposal that you don't oppose.
    Having uninvolved editors close unanimous RFCs is a waste of editor time; that's why WP:RFC allows involved closures, as it has for years. And if you have a problem with a close, the proper route is to challenge the close, not take the closer to ANI. If you wanted to vote oppose in those RFCs, you should have asked the closer to reopen them so you could vote oppose. I note that you reverted the closes but still didn't vote oppose. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the matter under discussion is not contentious. By definition, a contentious topic is contentious. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not true, at all. Not every RFC or content question in a CTOP is contentious. Like with most topics, in CTOPs, many, many aspects of articles are not at all contentious. The use of the word "contentious" in WP:RFC is not a reference to WP:CTOP. We know this because we only started calling them CTOPs a couple years ago, whereas the word "contentious" has been in WP:RFC for many years (longer than I've been here). WP:RFC makes no exceptions for CTOPs; it's the same rules for CTOPs as other topics. Levivich (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like with most topics, in CTOPs, many, many aspects of articles are not at all contentious. Except here, in the first discussion, EarthDude has admitted that he understood Gotitbro's comment in the first discussion to be an objection, and in the second discussion, labeling someone an "ideologue" is contentious per MOS:LABEL. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every use of a contentious label is contentious. Whether to label Hitler "racist" is not contentious, even though "racist" is a contentious label. A unanimous RfC cannot be contentious: unanimous is the opposite of contentious. But you're right that if ED didn't view an RfC as uncontentious or unanimous, if they understood there were opposes (however labeled or bolded), then they shouldn't have performed an involved close, and that would go for either RfC (or any RfC). Levivich (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Something where there is even wide spread agreement among RSes can still be considered contentious; agreement among RSes on an idea that has no means of objective determination of the truth (like whether an historical figure was racist or not) doesn't eliminate the notion can be contentious, even though its come to be an accepted as the generally right answer. Masem (t) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been at enwiki for quite sometime, gone through numerous RfCs and other consensus seeking mechanisms but haven't come across a single RfC which was closed by the nom themselves especially so for CTOPS (have only seen withdrawls and indeed something similar is said at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ). The only space where I remember some currency of nom closures is at WP:RMs where there is mimimal participation. Closures of course are not really required if consensus is clear but in our case that wasn't satisfied as well. Gotitbro (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is that WP:RFC allows for things that will get you in trouble if you actually do them. Either we need to actually follow what it says in WP:RFC (and not blame any editor for doing so), or else change what it says in WP:RFC. (t · c) buidhe 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Various conduct issues from Muhd Affiq Affiqal

    [edit]

    Muhd Affiq Affiqal has had a slew of warnings for various issues since they started their account but looking specifically since their last 24 block, by Daniel Case, expired a few hours ago we have:

    I don't see how any further warnings could be helpful as they haven't worked so far. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They’re also at 6RR (yes 6!) at MeleTOP Danners430 tweaks made 07:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see this reply please message me now!!! I want to know about sex, please let me know. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's a wierd one, I'm not sure I want to know what was meant by that. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours for their...let's go with 'disruptive editing' on MeleTOP. That should give them a chance to come here after the block expires, assuming things haven't been sorted on their talk page in the meantime. If they resume, the next block will likely be for much longer. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. That escalated quickly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They blanked the page like they always do. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we found us a salmon… Danners430 tweaks made 08:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for info, it would appear the user has either been renamed or exercised their right to disappear (which is why I'm not posting any links - I just had the talk page on my watchlist so saw the move)... just in case anything happens in 48 hours time... Danners430 tweaks made 13:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a right, it's a courtesy that is extended to editors in good standing, not a path for editors facing a block to avoid scrutiny and consequences. I have asked that it be reversed. The account has been globally locked, but I believe that would be reversed along with the vanishing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Today I learned :D Looks like it's just been reversed Danners430 tweaks made 16:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that one was... odd... I was trying to explain how AFD works to them prior to that, because they seemed quite distressed about Sharif Zero being possibly deleted, but after that I couldn't see any point in continuing. As above so below 23:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for pete's sake... looks like they might have started socking - 2401:E120:2043:4830:EF:8B48:BFBF:7374 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an almost identical edit to MeleTOP... Danners430 tweaks made 16:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Looks like a duck to me. Blocked the /64 for 72 hours. (And converted the main account to an indef as a formality given the glocking). - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible harassment via edit summaries referencing my past username

    [edit]

    I'm reporting User:Master106 for repeatedly referring to me by my former username "Ajeeb Prani" in edit summaries, in a mocking and sarcastic tone. This started after a content dispute on the Pokémon (TV series) article and has continued across related pages.

    They've used "Ajeeb" at least five times, including:

    1. "Come on Ajeeb" (diff)
    2. "This edit is for tweaking the plot section a little. Trying to edit war on me and then claiming I did is cringe Ajeeb. You can respond in my talk discussion." (diff)
    3. "Restoring what Ajeeb removed years ago to the plot summary." (diff)
    4. "Looked back on previous edits and saw this. This was probably removed by Ajeeb." (diff)
    5. "Added back a deletion probably removed by Ajeeb" (diff)

    In addition to referencing my former username repeatedly, they've also used language like "cringe Ajeeb", which comes across as personal and derogatory.

    "Ajeeb" also means "weird" or "strange" in several languages, so this feels both personal and derogatory. They've even attributed past edits to me without proof.

    This violates:

    1. WP:CIVIL – mocking tone
    2. WP:NPA – personalizing disputes
    3. WP:EDITSUM – using summaries for commentary


    I'm requesting admin input. This is making editing uncomfortable, and I'd like it addressed. Media Mender (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Hi @Media Mender. Have you let Master106 know that you would like them to stop calling you by your old username? If so, where? --tony 18:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't directly told them to stop using my former username, but I felt uncomfortable doing so, especially since it was used in a mocking tone ("cringe Ajeeb"). I thought reporting would be a better step since the references to "Ajeeb" were repeated across multiple edit summaries and seemed intentional. That said, I'm willing to inform them directly now if that's preferred before further action. Media Mender (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Master106, now that you know that this bothers them, stop referring to Media Mender by any variation of their old username, and stop referring to them in a mocking, belittling or condescending fashion in any way. Consider this a warning. Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. I just knew them by that name so I decided to keep calling them that. I had no idea there was any implications to the name by the way, if there is, they named themself that before. They changed their name so many times and they went by the names "Ajeeb" and "Yuugone" the longest so, I figured it was easier to call them by something I knew well. I just felt it was very odd that they removed a specific character across multiple articles. I do admit I should not have responded in the way that I did with my initial revert. (which is fair due to 1RR by the way, and I had not intention of going further, if I am wrong please correct me on that) Master106 (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oozora Subaru

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Oozora Subaru blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I reverted and warned Oozora Subaru (talk · contribs) at Roberto Firmino for adding unsourced content to a BLP. I eventually found a source and updated the article, with the reference. Their response was this insult/personal attack. GiantSnowman 10:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way they have no intent on listening to any advices [68], so this Hololive ripoff can be handed a long block or something. (Archiving own talk page is completely fine, but not with THAT kind of attitude[69]) I'm not sure how non-100% NOTHERE accounts are handled just yet. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 12:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They even reverted manually your final warning in their talk page. This may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by Rsjaffe. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP repeatedly POV-pushing on political talk pages

    [edit]
    Blocked for a year. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    86.14.43.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been POV-pushing rather consistently since April 2023 from a right-wing British perspective, including that the use of the term "Gender-affirming surgery" is biased, crime articles should mention the ethnicity of the criminals, the use of the term “only” is a biased attempt to discredit a candidate, and, what made me aware, that stochastic terrorism doesn’t exist. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing but talkpage soapboxing since 2023 from this IP. Anon blocked for a year. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MotorolaBoy, again

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Indefinitely blocked by Ivanvector. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Previous ANI case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1192#MotorolaBoy's love for calling me a nationalist

    I'm bringing MotorolaBoy's conduct here again since last month, since they're still going with the personal attacks, and misrepresentation of sources (as can be found here), and WP:IDHT issues. Other editors (@Socialwave597 @DervotNum4) have expressed their concerns on the sources stuff. As for the personal attacks, here are a few of them: [70] [71] [72] [73] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've said what I believe across my edits and on my talk page. You can agree or disagree. Like I also said, I won't be engaging in this thread and attempting to defend myself. My problem, just like the last time in the previous ANI case is that I confronting threats and (which they believe amounts to personal attacks) and am honest in my motivations for reverting edits and criticizing Abo Yemen in particular. MotorolaBoy (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    not wanting to defend yourself is going to get you blocked till you explain yourself. Esp this edit where I reverted you for reinstating stuff with a cn tag from 2018, but somehow you managed to point my revert due to "ideological (religious) reasons." You have no reason to assume motives like you've been doing ever since your first edit on this account. That's not simple "criticism" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely for literally stating in an enforcement thread about their conduct that they intend to continue harassing Abo Yemen. In addition to that, there are so many editors posting on their talk page about their unsourced and original research additions that it's hard to keep straight. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Brutally beaten" IP returns.

    [edit]
    Blocked once more. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some prior ANI discussions: [74][75][76][77]

    2600:4040:5E53:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 – The second block of this IP expired 19 July, and the IP has now returned to their prior behavior, starting with this unsourced edit [78] and more recently this edit involving beating and amusement. I believe a third block is needed to prevent further disruption. IP is stable since 29 May [79]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 2 years this time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that the block on 2600:4040:5E5C:5500:0:0:0:0/64 will expire soon (on 8 August) so I will keep on eye on this. Mellk (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so it's also block evasion. I had a look at the range (Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E50::/44) and I don't think we'll see them again on the old IP, but feel free to ping me or post on my talk page if another new one pops up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Mellk (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Move request

    [edit]
    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I just moved +–=÷× Tour and +–=÷× (Tour Collection) to +−=÷× Tour and +−=÷× (Tour Collection) respectively, to format the dashes properly. However, it won't let me move the talk pages as there are six consecutive non-letter characters in each. Could an administrator please move:

    Thanks! Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 16:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This belongs at WP:RM. Danners430 tweaks made 16:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done both as page mover. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, appreciate it. Sorry for the misplacement. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 16:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ahmed al joami

    [edit]

    User:Ahmed al joami persists in changing sourced material to suit his tastes. He was already blocked for 72 hours just 11 days ago, and it took that for him to post on his talk page, perhaps for the first time. Once the block expired, he resumed his usual modus operandi, completely ignoring any warning just like before the block. Lone-078 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For posterity, here is a link to the prior ANI discussion regarding this editor. tony 21:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through all the edits made by Ahmed al joami since they were unblocked and this is what I found:
    • Incense [80] [81] - They removed links to the page Qustul "because of inaccuracy" despite both uses of Qustul clearly being the same, my best guess is that the incense page says the site is in Sudan whilst Qustul's page says it is in Egypt "near the Sudan frontier"
    • Muhammad al-Fayturi [82] - Changed text to say that Muhammad al-Fayturi's mother was Sudanese not Egyptian despite what the source says, also did not capitalise Sudanese
    • Makuria [83] - Changed text from saying that there was not much evidence for monasticism in Makuria to "monasticism was rare in Makuria", thus changing the meaning of the text away from the sources
    • Blemmyes [84] - Removed an unsourced line but without an explanation
    • Badi IV [85] - Added an unsourced translation of Badi IV and formatted as "Badi abu Shilluk ( The Scarface or the Scared)"
    • Nasir of Sennar [86] - Changed the name "Nasir ibn Badi IV" to "Sultan Nasir", which is incorrect as Nasir was never a sultan and is not called as such elsewhere on the page, edit also introduced a spacing error
    • Zacharias (surname) [87] [88] - Added an entry to the list then self-reverted
    • Zechariah (given name) [89] - Removed Pope Zachary length of reign and added a clarity tag dated to 2013 to the line "last Greek bishop of Rome", changed Zacharias I of Makuria and Zacharias III of Makuria to be described as Nubian King and Nubian King of Makuria from Nubian king and Nubian King of Makuria respectively, not that the capitalisation for both of these is incorrect. Zacharias III's listing as only a "Nubian ruler" was due to his status as King being listed as disputed on his page.
    • List of rulers of Makuria [90] [91] - The first edit changed the link to Zacharias (king) to display the name "Iosef", no explanation was given and this was reverted. The second edit added that Zacharias III established paternal succession, which was unsourced and not mentioned on Zacharias III's page, also the edit introduced a spacing error.
    • Arab conquest of Egypt [92] [93] [94] - The first of these edits seemed to expland what was there without providing additial citations, changed "type of warfare in which the Nubians excelled" to "type of warfare in which the Nubians dominated in due to the familiarity of the terrain.", "The Nubians would strike hard and then vanish before the Muslims could recover and counterattack." to "The Nubians would Attack the Camping Muslim army hard and then retreat incredibly as if they vanished before the Muslims could recover and counterattack." "No pitched battle was fought, but there were only skirmishes and haphazard engagements" to "No pitched battle was fought, except the Battle of Dongola. most later engagements were only skirmishes and haphazard engagements". Edit also introduced "The Nubians would Attack the Camping Muslim army" which is some of the strangest capitalisation I have ever seen. Edit number two changed "The hit-and-run tactic took their toll" to "The hit-and-run tactic took its toll", an edit I would say was good. Edit three however changes "Uqbah reported that to 'Amr, who ordered 'Uqbah to withdraw from Nubia" to "Uqbah reported the defeat to 'Amr, who ordered 'Uqbah to withdraw from Nubia", this changes the meaning of the text as Uqbah was only reporting the poor situation to 'Amr not that they had been defeated.
    • Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom [95] - Changed the start date of the oldest Black community in Britain from the 1730s to the 1590s, given that the source for this is a book titled Black Liverpool: The Early History of Britain's Oldest Black Community 1730–1918 I think it is safe to say that 1590s is not supported by the present citation
    • Black British people [96] [97] - The first edit changed mentions of "Ethiopian" to "Aethiopian" as according to Ahmed al joami "it's what it was called in antiquity", they also changed one of them to read "Aethiopian(kushite)" (note the spacing error) and said "saud it refers to kush which is also true and can be checked by a simple search" and provided no citation. Edit two added the line "with the later being the most likely" to the end of the line "Local historians believe she was likely either a slave or a bonded servant" Ahmed al joami said that this was because "anglo Saxon england didn't have formal slavery" despite this being in contrast to what the citation says; "Slavery was quite common back then, along with bonded servitude"
    • Julius Soubise [98] - Changed initial desrciption from "formerly enslaved Afro-Caribbean man" to "fencer and aristocrat", fencer is very true, but aristocrat is mentioned no where on the page.
    • Black people in ancient Roman history [99] - Changed "classical period" to "the Renaissance period" which makes no sense as the whole article is talking about the classical period.
    • Aethiopia [100] [101] - First edit changed "king Esarhaddon when conquering Egypt and destroying the Kushite Empire states how" to "king Esarhaddon when conquering Egypt and Ending the Kushite Empire says how", which is just not proper English, also capitalised "Ending" for some reason. Edit two changed the link to Kushite Empire to go to Kingdom of Kush, which matters because Kushite Empire is a redirect to Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt, which was when Kush was an empire.
    • Sennar State [102] - Changed "The area came under Alwan rule, after which the Alwans were overthrown by the Funj who made Sennar their capital." to "Then it was part of the kingdom of Alodia , after which the Alodians were conquered by the Funj who made Sennar their capital." the term overthrown was used here because it is unkown how the Funj came control the area just that they did.
    • Sennar [103] [104] - Edit one changed "The area came under Alwan rule, after which the Alwans were overthrown by the Funj who made Sennar their capital." to "it was part of Alodia from the 7th century onwards , after which the Alodians were overthrown by the Funj in 1504 the funj made Sennar their capital." This line comes right after "The area was under Kushite & Meroitic rule from 750 BC to around 350 AD." and now fails to address that their was a change of rule and also now has a date for the "Alodian takeover", which is not sourced. Also sentance does not start with a capital letter. Edit two changed Nasra bint ʿAdlan's description from being "Sudanese royalty" to being a "Funj Noble", either works, though the capitalisation is now wrong.
    • Nasra bint ʿAdlan [105], Changed Sudanese noblewoman to Funj noblewoman, nothing to really say about this one.
    • North Kordofan [106] [107] - The first edit removes the word "graffiti" from the line "A graffiti of a makurian king was discovered in abu negila" thus making the line illegible. It also changes the line "For centuries, North Kordofan was inhabited by nomads and pastoralists" to "in the 18th century North Kordofan was overrun by Arabic nomads and pastoralists" completely changing the meaning of the line with no new source provided. The second edit fixes the removal of the word "graffiti" by adding "portrait", despite the source calling it graffiti
    • History of the Jews in Sudan [108] - Changed the line "Due to other Jewish presence near Sudan, such as in Elephantine, Abyssinia, and Yemen, there is a possibility that" to "Due to other Jewish presence near Sudan, such as in Elephantine, Abyssinia, and Yemen, so its probable that", which first off is grammatically incorrect, second off "probable" "there is a possibility" mean very different things. This edit also changed "David Reubini (1490 -1540), is thought to be the first Jewish traveler to the region." to "David Reubini (1490 -1540), is the first known Jewish traveler to the region." which again, is a change in meaning.
    • Louisiana Creole people [109] - They changed "although many continued" to "although some continued" with no new citations or rational given

    Almost all of Ahmed al joami's edits were unsourced (Such as in Arab conquest of Egypt) and/or unsuported by the present sources (Such as on Muhammad al-Fayturi). They have shown a poor understanding of the English langauge, in particular as to how sentance structure works and where to put spaces and possibly what word mean as you could write off several of these edits to not knowing that certain words aren't synonyms (such as changing many to some on History of the Jews in Sudan) though one could argue why is someone with such a poor understanding of English editing the English Wikipedia
    Ahmed al joami replying to their block notice shows that they are aware thier userpage exists and therefore must know that they have been warned for this behaviour and are simply unwilling to do so. DervotNum4 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to explain NOR to them on their talk but they seem to have ignored it, either they don’t get it or don’t care Kowal2701 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for a week this time for disruptive editing. Next block should probably be indef. Miniapolis 23:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusation of antisemitism by Axrosenthal

    [edit]

    I take any accusatiom of discrimination very seriously indeed. This editor has posted, in this diff the following words, which I have extracted from the diff (which gives more context):

    "Now how about the page for Waldemar Levy Cardoso? He was in FEB and the only FEB Jew mentioned at Wikipedia. His article is very similar to mine. Are y'all going to delete this page too? Very antisemitic indeed."

    The overall context is that I have declined the editor's draft about his father on the simle basis that his father has not been shown to be notable, and have been working hard to seek to guide them towards either creating a better draft, or handling it in a different manner. This highly pejorative accusation and attack came out of the blue.

    In this diff Theroadislong has given them a formal warning, and have theselves receved an apology, but that was not in any manner addressed to me.

    I had not read their attack carefully at first, as my user talk page initial reply suggests, tending to ignore these matters. Indeed I felt they might be about to play the antisemitism card. Subsequently I realised that they had played it in full measure.

    I very rarely bring matters here, preferring to settle them editor to editor, but an accusation of antisemnitism is sufficient for me to react.

    I have no particular remedy in mind; requiring an apology creates a false apology. My desire is to bring this to admin attention for an appropriate remedy. I would be satisified with an adninistrative shot across their bows with whatever force deemed necessary, and an undertaking from them not to behave in this manner ever again to any editor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not excusing Axrosenthal's comment, but I can see why he would think that, given that you made a POINTy deletion nomination based on an example of another article about a Jewish soldier that he shared and have been pretty BITEy in how you're engaging with him. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever this is worth as a point of clarification, Max Wolff (soldier) is the article that was nominated for deletion but he was given as an example by the user Axrosenthal as an example of a non-Jewish soldier's article. also, my 2c is that it isn't POINTY per se unless it was disruptive. Nominating an article for AFD is not itself disruptive unless it's clearly a problematic AFD, I am not sure myself looking at Max Wolff whether that article passes GNG, despite the existence of several other languages. While I agree with Timtrent that the accusation by Axrosenthal is inappropriate and misplaced, and that the Rosental article is almost certainly not notable and has unreliable sourcing, I also agree that Timtrent could have been kinder to a new and clueless user rather than immediately taking massive offense. The claim of antisemitism appears to have been based on a perception that Jewish articles were being treated differently, which Timtrent was therefore attempting to dispel by nominating a non-Jewish article for deletion. As Axrosental has apologized, Timtrent could have graciously accepted that apology instead of shutting it down and filing an ANI report asking for a shot across the bow. Andre🚐 07:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP, presumably Axrosenthal, tried to make a personal attack here a few hours ago and got reverted. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had IPs Joe jobbing editors accused here multiple times recently. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Best to just ignore this, rather than provoking more outrage, as for example Timrent's notification for this noticeboard entry. In this situation a calm warning would be best. Hopefully we have an essay somewhere that says that declining to have an article in Wikipedia (or deleting it) because it does not meet the criteria for an article is not discrimination {or any other fashionable complaint}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another user just started borderline attacking me and calling me a creep

    [edit]

    This user just started falsely accusing me of being a creep just because I've repeatedly undone other users' edits to a specific article page for making poorly sourced birthdate changes. While this isn't an urgent matter, I do feel that the user responsible should be given a refresher of how things are done on Wikipedia, which isn't what their current behaviour is showing. As their behaviour is in violation of assuming good faith. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Pages affected: Overseas Chinese Chinese Indonesians Thai Chinese Malaysian Chinese Chinese Americans

    Diffs of reverts/removals by Hzh: [110], [111], [112] [113], [114], [115] [116], [117], [118] [119], [120], [121] [122], [123], [124]

    Diffs of talk page shutdown / gatekeeping by User:Hzh: [125], [126] Diffs of unilateral “consensus” claims: [127], [128], [129] Diffs of edit warring / warning messages: [130], [131] Diff showing attempt to resolve on talk page: [132]

    Issue: Since 6 July 2025, I have updated diaspora-related articles with sourced data, including 2023 population figures from the Taiwan-based Overseas Community Affairs Council (OCAC), which estimates ~11.15 million Chinese Indonesians. This source is cited by scholarly and public references.

    User:Hzh has repeatedly removed these contributions without substantial talk page discussion or proper content-based rebuttals, often dismissing OCAC on methodological grounds alone. Meanwhile, the 2010 Indonesian census (~2.8 million) is presented as the only "official" data, despite widespread criticism of its undercounting due to historical discrimination and assimilation policies.

    My edits have been reverted without consensus, and I'm accused of edit warring, even as I’ve engaged on talk pages and avoided immediate reverts. Attempts at discussion were ignored or shut down.

    While I acknowledge I should have initiated an RfC earlier, the behavior in question raises concerns about systemic gatekeeping and undermining of neutral, source-based editing.

    What I Request:

    Review of the behavioral pattern from User:Hzh.

    Reminder that dismissing WP:RS sources on subjective grounds is not policy-compliant.

    Admin encouragement for RfC or compromise-based consensus rather than silencing opposing edits.

    Clarification that a range of sourced population figures should be allowed, with proper context.

    Thank you. Amrflh00 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In the future, please always log in to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyeballs on Sinking of the Wonder Sea

    [edit]
    This is a content dispute. Please use the Talk page more and edit summaries less. Star Mississippi 02:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article, a piece based on a recent news event with many sources not in English and, until recently, riddled with all the issues that can come with that, has a borderline edit-war over one one person’s contention that flooding and turning turtle have no effect on the vessel’s current safety and capacity. I'd contend that this is wrong, and no more needs a cite than “the sky is blue.” I’d appreciate a few other people looking through the recent history, though.

    The other editor alluded to is Celjski Grad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was informed that a third revert would lead here, and will be notified immediately after posting this. Qwirkle (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content issue. You've been asked multiple times [133], [134] to contribute meaningfully to the article, only to respond with cryptic or dismissive replies [135][136], or insulting edit summaries.[137]. I helped with changes in response to two of your more accessible comments [138][139], I wish you would engage with more respect instead of taking potshots from the sidelines. Celjski Grad (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-waring to restore probably inaccurate information stated in wiki-voice might not be everyone’s idea of a “content issue,” but, as I’ve written above, I’m here to get an outside perspective. Qwirkle (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the very definition of a content issue. I don't see any discussion by you on Talk:Sinking of the Wonder Sea which is where you should be discussing this. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but check the edit summaries… Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwirkle: Edit summaries are not the article talk page and should not be used to discuss article content. The proper location for discussing this content dispute is Talk:Sinking of the Wonder Sea. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so we’re in agreement that a user who has did three reverts to his own version maybe should have used the talk page first.
    Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive IP user edits

    [edit]

    IP range user 119.155.0.106/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been editing several anime and manga articles, adding poorly written content, full of WP:FANCRUFT, and citing WP:USERG such as IMDb, Anime News Network encyclopedia (the site is considered reliable, but not its encyclopedia; see WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK), and even the own Wikipedia in other languages; some examples of their edits: [140][141][142] I don't know if the user is being deliberately disruptive, but they are being disruptive nonetheless, so this is a clear WP:CIR case. Incidentally, the edits from this IP range are very similar to those from the range 39.37.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which has made the same kind of edits to the same kind of articles; some examples:[143][144][145][146] Xexerss (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, this is the user you are writing about, first and foremost, I would like to apologise for the fact my edits are considered "disruptive", when I began editing Wikipedia, I did not know these policies were in place, my intention was not to be disruptive towards any page, I simply wish to add citations to pages, if you wish that I not do anymore edits (if you believe I am unprofessional) then please don't hesitate to inform me.
    Thank You 119.155.0.106 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP word vandalism

    [edit]

    A bizarre one - random IPs (which I suggest are linked due to their similarities, such as majority being in Brazil and use of wording e.g. 'old age' etc.) making only one edit of vandalism, changing words and infobox parameters (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - any idea what is going on?! GiantSnowman 12:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Paki ain't a bad word 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that a new IP shows up to make this comment suggests a single user hopping IPs. Might need to see if a rangeblock will do more good than harm. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are they even talking about? I notice most of the IPs in the OP are flagged as open proxies. I haven't really looked further. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they're running random words through a translator, leading to either awkward English in the pose or broken parameters in infoboxes. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Buddy, I got more IP blocks than an advanced Lego set.
    Deal with it 46.56.250.117 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please deal with the sock threat.14.162.206.244 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is a 'bad word' see Paki (slur). Is this just going to be ignored? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Paki" is a filthy word in England, in pretty much the same way as the N-word is every English-speaking country. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Truly vile, I'm not sure that's understood outside the UK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just reverted a bunch of these, looks like someone using a thesaurus without a brain attached, it did strike me as possibly an AI bot of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked for edits flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' in recent changes and there are hundreds of similar edits in this time period. Same pattern. Mellk (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I clocked two incidents of this today. It's replacing with synonyms... but not necessarily synonyms for the usage at hand. The first replaced the infobox parameter "parent" with "raise", which would make sense if we were talking about a verb (parenting a child), but not the noun (and certainly not as a parameter name.) The second replaced "state" with "express", which is fine if you're stating a preference but not if you're California, as was the case. So I'm not sure this takes AI level of smarts (as weak as that may be.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reverted a bunch of these from around 6 hours ago, filtering for "likely have problems" IP edits. Can corroborate that it seems to be replacing random words with synonyms inappropriate to the context + breaking infoboxes. Weird Abasteraster (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to favor certain word substitutions, i.e. years -> old age. Also noticing a pattern of it sometimes inserting words, like "language" after "German" or "English", where it's unnecessary or doesn't make sense. Abasteraster (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides breaking infoboxes, they are also breaking wiki markup and introducing lint errors, for example changing </small> to </weeny>. I cleared several dozen of them earlier today. —Bruce1eetalk 17:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits seem to span from about 10:20 to 11:00 GMT. Is there a way to nuke these edits? Mellk (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted every edit flagged as 'very likely bad' and 'likely bad' that wasn't already reverted (there were several hundred). I suspect a number of their edits slipped through. Mellk (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is the same person but there is an IP hopper engaging in the same kind of vandalism at Slavs. Mellk (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism from IP hopper

    [edit]

    I checked my watchlist and noticed vandalism from various IP addresses around the same time. This looks to be the same person since some changes they made are similar e.g. changing "Moscow" to "Russian capital" here and here. Here are also other examples.[147][148][149][150][151][152][153]

    These edits were made within minutes of each other and they edited under a different IP each time (all of which have only one edit). These IP addresses geolocate to places all over the world and do not come up as a proxy via Proxy Checker but I suspect some kind of IP hopping is going on here. They may have vandalized other articles but I am not sure how to find the rest of the damage. Mellk (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mellk:, this is the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP word vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're probably right. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    User:OleanderJones promotional edits, disruptive, personal attack, and vandalism

    [edit]

    User:OleanderJones has been adding content to Bon Scott and Back in Black, that seem very promotional. The edits are about a "book" that while does cotain the topic of Scott, contain nothing special or notable worth including, and more focus is on the author, rather than Scott or Back in Black itself. And these are paragraphs of just gibberish and incoherent ramblings that have noting to do with the article!

    I first removed it in April, after reading it in it's entirety deemed it speculative and opinionated, and removed it. [154]

    OleanderJones then restored it on June 19. [155]

    I then deleted the paragraphs once more on July 22. [156] OleanderJones then reverted it and responded in the edit summary: "Yet it's completely relevant and topical information to the topic at hand. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant" constituting a personal attack per WP:PA. I reverted that edit on July 26 [157] and on the same day OleanderJones reverted my revert, with another condesending edit summary: "Reverting relevant information (again!) to topic that is being removed by user for no logical reason" despite the fact I have laid out numerous times in my edit summaries why it is not suitable for Wikipedia. [158]

    Also I cannot find when OleanderJones originally put the paragraphs into Scott's article, so I assume they were an IP account when they added them or are a sockpuppet.

    This user only reverts my edits on Wikipedia and others who remove the same few paragraphs, OleanderJones is not collaborative or civil and is very bitter over my reverts, possible WP:NOTHERE. Stadt67 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Policies that the paragraphs violate:
    WP:NOR and WP:V: Much of the added content relies on speculative claims about Bon Scott’s cause of death, particularly the assertion of a heroin overdose. For example, Zena Kakoulli’s statement, “I didn’t see him taking heroin, but… I would think it probable,” and Koulla Kakoulli’s claim that she "would be very surprised if he didn’t take a lot of drugs" are speculative and lack direct evidence. Similarly, Liz Elliot’s account in Bon: Notes from the Highway relies on hearsay (“I understood it to have happened…”) rather than firsthand observation of Scott taking heroin.
    WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO: The repeated emphasis on Jesse Fink’s books (Bon: The Last Highway and Bon: Notes from the Highway) and the detailed quoting of their claims suggest a promotional tone. The content appears to prioritize Fink’s narrative over other sources, such as Walker’s, which aligns with the coroner’s findings. The inclusion of a sequel book and new interviews feels like an attempt to promote Fink’s work rather than neutrally summarize the topic.
    WP:NOT and WP:DETAIL: The content includes lengthy quotes and tangential details, such as Zena Kakoulli’s presence at Alistair’s flat, Peter Perrett’s interview, and Liz Elliot’s account of Kinnear’s visit. These details are not directly relevant to the article’s focus (Bon Scott’s life and death) and make the section read like a narrative excerpt from Fink’s books rather than an encyclopedic summary.
    WP:RS While Fink’s books are published, their reliability is questionable for definitive claims about Scott’s death, as they rely on anecdotal, secondhand accounts and speculation rather than primary evidence like the coroner’s report. The coroner’s report, a primary and official document, should carry more weight. Yet, Fink's books are overshadowing the coroner's report, why?
    WP:CITE: Some citations have inconsistencies, such as the ASIN for Walker’s book in the first reference, which is less standard than an ISBN, and the repeated citations to Fink’s books that may over-rely on specific pages. The citation to the Back in Black CD booklet as evidence of Scott choking on vomit is inappropriate, as it’s not a reliable source for medical or historical claims. Stadt67 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that OleanderJones is a SPA; out of five edits total, four have been this content referenced above. Also noting a lot of lengthy quotations in the referenced content which may be COPYVIOS. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway I still need help with this situation, what am I to do? Stadt67 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could start by opening a discussion on the talk page and encourage OleanderJones to participate in the discussion, by explaining why they believe this much content is DUE for inclusion. If you have doubts about the reliability of the sources, you can ask about them at the WP:RSN, and there is the WP:NPOVN, where you could ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context. There is also a list of WikiProjects on Talk:Bon Scott, which you could alert them with a neutral notice of a discussion on the talk page if and when you open a discussion. And if you have concrete evidence of serious copyright violations of the sources, it can be removed. Hope this helps. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is out of line. "Personal attack"? For what, exactly? If you're going to be an editor, then edit. Deleting an entire section because clearly you don't like the import of what the published source contains doesn't constitute editing. It's censorship. The book is a well-regarded published source and has provided an alternative account of what happened the night Bon Scott died. Clinton Walker's book and other reports indicated only Alistair Kinnear was with Bon Scott when died. Fink's books clearly refute that with admissions that other people (being actual bystanders or witnesses) were there with Scott that night, all of whom believe Scott died of a heroin overdose. Are they invalid because they literally didn't see Bon use heroin? They were all heroin users. The woman interviewed by Fink in his second book states that Kinnear told him Bon had used heroin. That's her first-hand account of a meeting with Kinnear. How is that not relevant? Whether the coroner's report says Scott died of a heroin overdose or not is also not the be all and end all of the matter. Fink's first book goes into the issue of the inadequacy of the coroner's report at considerable length. The heading for the section is "Death". How is that not relevant to the topic? So, my suggestion is, edit the section rather than wholesale deleting it - just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a valid reason for omitting it entirely. OleanderJones (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion started on talk page here to determine whether the disputed content is DUE for inclusion. I would also advise you, OleanderJones, not to edit-war to your preferred version, three editors have objected to the content being included. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhichartt

    [edit]
    Articles have been tagged for deletion consideration and messages left for the page creator. Feel free to reopen if other problems arise. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This user has created a large number of clearly AI-generated articles in short succession, and has been unresponsive to my attempts to communicate on their talk page. Within the last hour they have created 8 entirely AI-generated articles about Thai temples:

    All of these pages contain obvious tells that they were copied straight from an AI output without meaningful human review, including hallucinated references, strange markup, and the ":contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}" things that appear when you copy directly from ChatGPT. Could an admin please pblock them in order to get them to communicate and to stop the flow of new pages? Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I sure wish we had a way for admins to get rid of all these in one go...if only there were a policy allowing that... (and that's my quota of snarky ANI comments for the year) Toadspike [Talk] 15:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MCE89, I tagged all of the articles with {{AI-generated}} for you. (Getting rid of all of them in one go would be a great reason to implement the newly proposed CSD). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent a Speedy Delete option, I PROD'ed all of the them. AI-generated bullshit has no place here and needs to be shoveled out with the trash as quickly as possible. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also noticed that some of the articles use the nonexistent template {{Infobox Khmer temple}}. They also try to use lang-xx templates, which were merged to {{langx}} in late 2024; this makes sense since GPT-4o's knowledge cutoff is June 2024 with a Pro subscription, so ChatGPT probably didn't "know" that those templates were merged (and Abhichartt didn't check to confirm that the templates the output used actually exist). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bgsu98: Thanks for finding and PROD'ing two more articles (Prasat Ta Muen Toch and Prasat Ta Muan). Seriously, this stuff should be able to be removed as fast as it can be created. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We need a Speedy Delete option, where an administrator can then determine whether or not to nuke it on site. This just wastes everyone's time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucky for us, a lot of people have the same idea; if you want to, go support the proposed CSD here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Liz They have now created another AI-generated page at Draft:Prasat Ta Leng and have deprodded Prasat Ta Muan to add new AI generated content. (As an aside, in this edit their AI decided that the temple was Buddhist rather than Hindu and that it was built a century later than previously claimed, making it even more obvious that their edits are utter AI nonsense). They still haven't acknowledged or responded to any of the warnings on their talk page. MCE89 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by User Azaad271011

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Azaad271011 indefinitely blocked by Acroterion for personal attacks or harassment
    (non-admin closure)
    tony 21:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Azaad271011 vandalized the user page of Remsense earlier today.

    [159]

    [160]

    [161]

    [162]

    They have also been conducting an edit war on the template Neoliberalism sidebar. They did manage to not violate 3RR, by about thirty minutes.

    [163]

    [164]

    [165]

    [166]

    When confronted on their talk page, they resort to petty attacks on other editors: "you suck remsense i hate you", for the exact quote

    [167]

    On the Trumpism article, they have engaged in a slow edit war, with the goal of changing the views of Trumpism mentioned in the article.

    [168]

    [169]

    [170] Also insults another editor in the edit summary

    [171] Declares that they don't need a source

    [172] Declares that they don't need a source

    Further disregard for sourcing is shown on the America Party page.

    [173]

    [174] Edit summary: "what do i even need to source it should be commonsense elon is technolibertarian, if u dont know that youre actually stupid"

    Also, disregards policy on the talk page of the above article: [175] "dude you have to include techno-libertarianism that is no1 important" in response to being informed of WP:OR.

    This editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia. They will continue to vandalize until blocked. Redacted II (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    FuzzyMagma

    [edit]

    I placed a deletion template on File:Aed Abu Amro.jpg but User:FuzzyMagma removed the template based on the fact that no deletion rationale was provided, so i placed a different deletion template. FuzzyMagma removed it again and placed a nastygram on my former IP's talk page. Perhaps i am wrong to add the templates? Is it correct to illustrate a BLP with copyrighted material? 2600:1010:A121:E21D:2811:5F2:BCAB:2257 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide difs?
    Also, you have to notify FuzzyMagma. Redacted II (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did remove it as you did not specify why and where you found a suitable alternative free image. I twice quizzed you on your talk and you refused to engage and continued to do the same thing.
    You could have also used the file talk, but instead you came here, and still did not provide any clarity on why you want the image to be deleted, why you think a free alternative can be found and where? the onus is on you to show you did your homework not for us to guess or to do it for you. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about following me around per WP:HOUND

    [edit]

    As I mentioned previously at User talk:Macaddct1984#Question about formatting references, I am concerned @User:Cdjp1 has been behaving in a way that could represent following me around per WP:HOUND. Their numerous edits to articles I wrote, especially 85 edits to Antisemitism in health care and 9 edits to Normalization of antisemitism, have not been particularly helpful in my view, but seem to deprecate or disparage the articles, both of which received B ratings. Other examples of edits occurring in close succession after mine, in a deprecating manner, include Daniella Pick (3 days), Zibby Owens (1 day), ISGAP (13 hours), Blood libel (2 days), [176] (9 hours), Edan Alexander (13 hours). The I/P space is heavily dominated by a small group of editors, to the detriment of WP:NPOV, and I have experienced this behavior from others, including now topic-banned editors. I have discussed my concerns with this editor and believe it's time to head to ANI as suggested here. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please explain how removing a See also link that is already linked in the article body is deprecating or not [...] particularly helpful. I request the same for the mass of information on the history of antisemitic healthcare policies and references that I have added to Antisemitism in health care. The same query repeats for most of the history of my work in pages we have both worked on.
    On the original discussion you link to on Macaddct1984's talk page, I would also like to point out as well as adding the page needed maintenance tags, over the following days, I sourced the majority of citations, and specified every page that was needed for those I sourced.
    As I stated when you brought this to my talk page, you seem to insinuate that the maintenance tags, and additions I made to articles caused them to be reduced in on the quality scale assessment, where I argue that the articles should not have been rated B-class in the first place due to them not meeting multiple criteria in the B-class criteria.
    As can be seen from my history of edits, there is a natural overlap of interests between yourself and I, so it is not surprising that I have ended up editing articles that you have created. That being said, I am also nosy, so when you have previously made comments to me, I have looked through some of your edits, hence me making standard and minor maintenance edits to articles that are more tangentially related. The only one that is a more substantive edit would be Zibby Owens, where your edition was to list every author in a book she edited, which I argue is unnecessary when the list extends to the double digits.
    Additionally on Macaddct1984's talk page I stated the core necessity for actions to be considered within it's remits is lacking, my logic here is that HOUND requires that my editing is done to repeatedly confront or inhibit [your] work, while I have had disagreements with some of your additions (Zibby Owens, Blood libel and Social exclusion as examples) you will see that in most cases it was a partial removal/trimming, and in others we proceeded with the process of discussing the content on the article talk pages. But, these instances are the minority, where most of my work on articles you edited or created have either been minor and uncontroversial maintenance work (formatting references, removing duplicate wikilinks), or expanding and building the article further, with high quality sources.
    I have nothing further to say at this point without input from others. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like further discussion should continue on the talk pages. I don’t see any conduct issues identified. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if someone says "I am also nosy...I have looked through some of your edits", then they should take care to cooperate with the other editor and help them improve, rather than repeatedly reverting edits and placing detracting tags. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tags are not detracting. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The tags are there so that people know what needs to be fixed. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TBAN discussion

    [edit]

    Editors please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TBAN proposal where I have proposed a TBAN of Allthemilescombined1 from the PIA topic area due to other issues not raised in this discussion. Having had a brief read of this discussion, I would suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. TarnishedPathtalk 04:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor moving declined draft into Main space

    [edit]
    Draft declined per AC sanctions. If disruption continues, this can be reopened if needed Star Mississippi 02:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Draft for article Armenia Campaign (1918) had been rejected multiple times. Most recently by me for being poorly sourced, for example citing a link to Google Scholar search results. Just now the editor has removed my AFC comment and moved the article to Main space again. They also left a not so friendly comment on my Talk page which shows that they did not read the AFC reviewer comments. I attempted to tell them what to do by leaving a comment on their Talk page. Their response doesn't make much sense to me.

    I am not going to move the article back to Draft space so as not to edit war over it, but somebody certainly should. TurboSuperA+(talk) 18:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflicts involving Azerbaijan and/or Armenia are under an extended confirmed restriction per WP:GS/AA, the creator of the draft should not be editing in this topic area and the article should be deleted under WP:G5. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TurboSuperA+ - Articles should only be moved from article space to draft space once. If an article is moved to draft space and back to article space, it should not be draftified a second time, because that would be move-warring. If they are moved back to article space again, they should instead be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, as noted, Armenia-Azerbaijan restrictions apply, and an article by a non-extended-confirmed user can be tagged for G5. But do not move-war between article space and draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]

    This editor is persistently adding many items of unsourced information and incorrect links (to disambiguation pages or to irrelevant uses of the term used as the operation name) to List of military operations on the Eastern Front of World War II. In their latest edit they linked to Trial and Thor as names of operations, and created unsourced list entries for a series of red-linked operations. They have been asked to stop both these practices, and have continued. I am not sure whether they are aware of their user talk page, as they have not replied to any posts there. PamD 19:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It continues. Please block this user to protect the encyclopedia. PamD 08:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now realised that the text they added appears to be entirely copyvio from the probably unreliable site https://codenames.info/. PamD 08:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wrongnumba0511 disruptive editing

    [edit]

    For a few weeks, this user has made disruptive edits including the addition of unsourced birthdays and birthplaces to American football biographies, addition/readdition of high school locations as advised against at Template:Infobox NFL biography, as well as the linking of countries contrary to MOS:GEOLINK. The user has several messages on their talk page asking them to provide sources for their edits and notifying them about GEOLINK, but they have not responded to any of them (including a request to confirm that they can see their talk messages) and do not seem to be aware of their talk page. There is a fresh batch of GEOLINK edits from today: [177][178][179][180][181][182] Requesting a block until they see their talk messages. @Bagumba: courtesy ping. OceanGunfish (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support block as communication is required. Several users (including one admin) have attempted to talk with Wrongnumba0511 over concerns about their edits that stray from policies and guidelines, and have only been met with radio silence. WP:CIVIL policy says:

      Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative,…to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.

      These basic expectations have not been met. Left guide (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Not responding to anyone is strange enough, but to have two of my edits reverted after I explained it to him or her already? Nope. A block now may save an edit war later. You can have a better conversation with a bot. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have p-blocked from article space until they find their Talk and contribute here. Star Mississippi 02:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Asamboi

    [edit]

    This user has a history of removing good parts of contributions with illegitimate content along with the illegitimate content, as on City Harvest Church. I would only remove sources from that page myself if they are obviously unrelated or obviously promotional, as I began with my first revert to that page. I would explain the problem with sources if they are not obvious. Edits with both good and bad parts should be dealt with by only reverting the bad parts while preserving or building on the good parts. I can assume that it is wrong to remove good content without proper explanation.

    This behavior is not only specific to Wikipedia but also a pattern that has come out of this user on Wikivoyage (where they are an administrator and I am currently banned). Even worse, voy:User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn and User talk:Faster than Thunder#WP:HOUND and your retaliatory edits here after your topic ban on Wikivoyage indicate that this user clearly does not understand the difference between challenging them and harassment.

    P.S. I have autism, so be cognizant of this when determining an outcome.

    Relevant diffs

    [edit]

    Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 00:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See also voy:Wikivoyage talk:Administrators#Question. I suggest taking some of this ANI report with a grain of salt. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further context: Faster than Thunder was unanimously topic banned on Wikivoyage after extensive disruptive editing to food-related topics, which I and other admins spent a lot of time cleaning up. He did not take this ban well and is now apparently WP:HOUNDing me here on WP as well.
    Regarding the specific edits FtT is objecting to, see Talk:City Harvest Church#Promotional content and the edit/ history/talk page archives of City Harvest Church. Asamboi (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asamboi has editied City Harvest Church and its talk page over 100 times going back to 2007, Faster than Thunder edited the article for the first time to revert Asamboi while in a crosswiki dispute with them. That can't be a coincidence. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not revert Asamboi merely because of the crosswiki dispute. In the first diff I provided, I had clearly stated that I restored most of what Asamboi reverted except for the obviously unrelated source, which is unrelated to the dispute that started on Wikivoyage. Things were not obvious for the other sources. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 13:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After Asamboi reverted my first edit, I carefully checked the sources to add the one acceptable source and associated content back. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 16:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Undiscussed moves

    [edit]

    SHINA343 (talk · contribs), who had been warned twice for moving article titles without consensus, has done it again on 2025 Cambodia–Thailand Clashes to an extent that it could not be reverted on move. It is clear on their talk history that they are WP:IDNHT with regards to that. Borgenland (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See [183] and [184] for their latest round of recklessness, which has also wrecked the talk page. Borgenland (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are a very inexperienced editor, they only have 47 edits credited to this account. It doesn't look like they've ever had a discussion with another editor. If worst comes to worst, we can remove the ability to move pages. But I'd still prefer to make contact with them. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has some good older edits, including uncontroversial moves of a few Thai shopping mall articles, but their most recent edits have comprised bad page moves and one outright disruptive edit. There's a bit of a competence issue here at best, and malicious intent at worst. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nationalist editing on their part. I have applied for PP. Borgenland (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Isra2911 continuing to make improper changes of English variety and date format after final warning

    [edit]

    Isra2911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been here since 2015, spends much of their editing time on this site making edits that change article's English varieties and date formats, often in violation of our Manual of Style. They received a 24-hour block for this behaviour in November last year and another final warning last June. Despite this, they have subsequently made 57 edits, most of which are similar to those that got them blocked (the above contributions link tells the story more succinctly than any individual diff links could). I think another longer block is in order here. I don't know if we're quite at the stage of a ban, but given that their only user talk contribution ever is this one in 2021, I'm not particularly optimistic about their prospects. Having said that, they seem to have gotten into less trouble on the Spanish Wikipedia than here despite having made six times as many edits to the latter, so perhaps just ceasing from date format/English variety changes on here would be advisable. Graham87 (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Without diffs providing some examples, it's hard to know exactly what kind of behavior you are referring to. If there was a previous ANI discussion, could you provide a link to it? Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: I thought the contribs link would be clear enough due to the edit summaries, but here are some random examples of diffs, showing their problematic editing pattern. This is the first time they've been sent to an admins' noticeboard. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page is peppered with similar warnings. They nearly uniformly have decided that anything that happens anywhere in the world that isn't related to an English-speaking country defaults to British spelling. It certainly doesn't seem that it's to keep consistent with a language that was already written with that English variation either. Given the apparent unwillingness to respond to anything ever, I think a block is appropriate until they come here and discuss at least. Another warning that they don't interact with and don't heed in any meaningful way doesn't have any value. After the last block, there wasn't even a token effort to stop doing this; they immediately changed an article about a Swedish pop group and a Moldovan election to use British spelling, and none was present already in either article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by हर्ष कुमार झा

    [edit]
    Account has been indefinitely blocked as a spam/advertising only account by admin ScottishFinnishRadish. Closing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "bastard", also not getting the WP:POINT - see talk page [185]. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 09:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1303011807"