Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - arbitrary break

{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}

{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}

{{Clear}}

{{Admin tasks}}

__TOC__

{{atop

| result = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs and its subsections have all been closed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Capitalization Disputes exists for any extant needs that meet the stardards for ArbComm Star Mississippi 18:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

An administrator is needed to close the proposal at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2: Dicklyon Topic-Banned from Capitalization. I get that it's a giant clusterfuck, but that's why you all get paid the big bucks. 🥴 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:By my count, Proposal 2 has 43 supports and 17 opposes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:True, those proposals dont need to be closed together, and that one seems ripe by now. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like the entire mess has now been closed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I've noticing more and more user sandboxes with fake articles about elections (both past and future). Some recent examples are User:Pwalsh04/sandbox, User:Nahyla.alaini/sandbox, User:Nextwavepolitics/sandbox, and User:Jaminup/sandbox. In most cases, the users also upload fake election maps to Commons to illustrate them. It's clear that they're being used for some kind of off-wiki "alternate history" forum or game, given how similar many of the fake articles and maps are. Most (but not all) of these users have few/any mainspace edits, despite sometimes claiming that they're using these drafts to practice editing.

Because of the fake maps being uploaded to Commons, and politics being a contentious subject, I consider these fake articles (even in userspace) to be a more significant issue than typical nonsense and self-promotion in userspace. I usually nominate them for speedy deletion as G3, but sometimes they are not blatantly fake enough at first glance. I'd appreciate others' thoughts, especially on possible ways to reduce the problem:

• An edit filter to track (or block) use of {{tl|infobox election}} in userspace by new editors.
• Partial blocks from userspace for those who misuse it - generally as a standard procedure when a fake/spammy article in userspace is deleted. This should be more akin in seriousness to an edit filter than a mainspace block, as good-faith users can (and should) be using draftspace.
• Explicitly including all fake election sandboxes in G3 or U5
• Better bot patrolling of userspace. This could include creating lists of new userspace pages for easier patrolling, or even automatic moves of likely drafts to draftspace.

I am also hopeful that ending cross-wiki uploads for new users will help, as the fake maps I see on Commons are all cross-wiki uploads. The Commons community decided last year to restrict cross-wiki uploads, which was endorsed on enwiki, and Commons will implement this via edit filter in August unless the WMF does so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is not a recent problem, I've seen fake election pages in User space, sometimes to elections held in earlier centuries, for years now. They seem to be more common in years where there is a well-publicized presidential race or general election than off-years like 2025. We delete them as hoax articles when we come across them. I'm not sure if other administrators and editors believe this is the urgent issue that you seem to think it is. If you want to rewrite CSD policy criteria to specifically name these type of articles, I wish you luck. But to be effective, you should have some examples to show people as the pages that you pointed out were all deleted so only admins could view the contents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:If they're {{tqq|not blatantly fake enough at first glance}} for WP:G3 as is, making it more explict won't change that - that's the article itself, not the criterion. An edit filter to flag {{tl|infobox election}} in userspace does sound reasonable, but that's not within AN's remit - WP:EFR is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with the idea to implement a filter. Using Wikipedia to create alternate history election articles is getting out of hand, and it is not a new thing either, it has been going on since at least 2020, when I joined this informal community of election afficionados called ElectionTwitter or ET. I propose that we implement a heavy-handed policy against this and redirect them to https://mockelections.miraheze.org as suggested below. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But, a potential downside is that if we force them out of userspace, draftspace and WP:Sandbox, they will simply vandalise the mainspace articles with their althist stuff. I have seen this happen before. Some of them will inevitably fly under the radar, and that will be a bigger problem because readers will be exposed to false mainspace stuff. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm evidently a bit of an outlier but I'm personally sympathetic to these uploaders. There are a few communities where people make and share fictitious election results, such as on [https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginaryelections/ Reddit] and X/twitter, and they predominantly use Wikipedia-style infoboxes. It is reasonable for new users to believe that your personal sandbox is a private space to mess around without disturbing anyone. Ideally these users would be made aware of alternative outlets such as https://mockelections.miraheze.org. I like the edit filter idea because it can display a non-generic message that explains our policies and potentially informs them of alternative outlets. In my opinion U5 is more accurate than G3, since they are not trying to deceive anyone and have no intention to move their infoboxes to mainspace. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, CSD U5 is another criterion for speedy deletiont that is utilized when the appropriate conditions exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Fake election pages are one of two types of fake articles that we see from time to time at MFD. The other sort has been unreal accounts of so-called reality television shows. What they have in common is that they involve the creation of tables showing results, often with color-coding, which may be fun for the author. They sometimes come in bursts, and there has been a burst of fake election articles in this past month. There are other alternate history topics and articles less often. There is an essay, Wikipedia is not for alternate history, which, among other things, identifies the policies and guidelines that are violated by alternate history. If the alternate history is in the past, it is usually either an obvious hoax or an unobvious hoax. Obvious hoaxes can be either tagged for speedy deletion as G3 or sent to MFD. I agree that they are not obvious hoaxes because they are seen as fiction. Unobvious hoaxes are sent to MFD. If the alternate history is in the future, then the applicable policy is WP:CRYSTAL violations, which are usually not subject to speedy deletion, but BLP violations are a reason for deletion at MFD. Occasionally an editor is using Wikipedia mostly for fake elections (or fake television articles), in which case they can be tagged for U5, and maybe the originator may have to be blocked as not here to be constructive.

In my opinion, MFD is handling the load of fake election articles (and unreal reality television articles) satisfactorily. I haven't thought about whether a filter would be useful in finding these pages sooner and so sending them to MFD sooner. The volunteers at MFD are ready for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on recent events, I've started a global RFC about the compatibility of the CU userright with paid editing. Folks who are interested in this can opine at this page. Sohom (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

{{ivmbox|1=Remedy 4 (MarioProtIV & NAC) of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is rescinded.}}

{{bcc|MarioProtIV}}For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding MarioProtIV's editing restriction}}

{{archive top|The page was deleted from the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. See the deletion discussion there. You may wish to consider pursuing deletion review on that project. We can't help you here. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The page I created on Euriziano, a recent artificial language about which various articles have been published in different languages, has been deleted on the grounds that it is not sufficiently relevant, i.e. it does not have proven relevance demonstrated by coverage of a topic in reliable sources. So I ask: why is the page ‘Lingwa de planeta’, a recent artificial language that has no references in reliable sources, still present in

Wikipedia Simple English? THE RULES MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE, OTHERWISE IT BECOMES ARBITRARY. Kuros2025 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Kuros2025|p=}}, welcome to Wikipedia. Different wikis have different rules as to what content can and can't remain. For example, an article that may be suitable for the Spanish Wikipedia may not be right for this one, and vice versa. This applies to Simple English as well, so they'll have their own criteria for inclusion. In the future, if you have any further questions, check out our Teahouse, which is the appropriate forum for this question (as this is the noticeboard for administrative matters, which this is not.) Happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 13:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Hi admins,

The article Dananeer appears to be a recreation of the previously deleted page Dananeer Mobeen, which is currently protected and can only be recreated by an administrator. It seems the title was deliberately altered to bypass the restriction.

Behappyyar (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a reason, Behappyyar, that you didn't notify that article creator, User:A01169242, about this discussion? It's a required step to take. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also, is there a reason you came here instead of tagging the article as WP:G4? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Strike the above - the original AfD was closed because it was G5'd, so G4 doesn't apply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Given that, the subject may - may be notable - the original title was salted because it was being repeatedly recreated by socks, or apparent socks. Given this, I'm going to move Dananeer to Dananeer Mobeen as the more correct title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Liz @The Bushranger I believe the recent move of Dananeer to Dananeer Mobeen—a previously salted title—is unfair to editors who are following the proper review process.

::::I had previously submitted a draft (Draft:Dananeer Mobeen) version of the article under the correct title as per standard procedure, and was advised on the noticeboard to work through the draft and seek admin review for recreation.

::::Meanwhile, another editor appears to have created an article under an altered title ("Dananeer")—likely to bypass the creation restriction—and that version has now been moved to the salted title without a full review of sourcing or notability.

::::I believe this undermines the proper editorial process and disadvantages those acting in good faith. The correct approach should be to review all existing drafts and content before restoring a title that was previously protected due to sock activity.

::::Requesting reconsideration of the move. I respectfully request that before further action is taken, administrators (and other experienced editors) compare the content and references of the two versions — the current mainspace article and my draft — and assess which one better meets Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards.

::::Behappyyar (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Behappyyar, you STILL haven't informed the editor involved in your complaint about this discussion. Why? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::User has been notified. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks dear Behappyyar (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::When you first asked me, I thought you informed him on his talk page. Sorry for that. Behappyyar (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Trying to summarize what could be a wall of text to put this into context. User Beyappyyar [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_68#Dananeer_Mobeen_article_request original requested] the undeletion here. They are also part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress#11_June_2025 this SPI] filing which partially relates to it (Pinging {{ping|Hoary}} and {{ping|DMacks}} who were involved with answering that request). This page has been bludgeoned into the mainspace by a long-term abusing sock farm (StayCalmOnTress). It was just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ADananeer_Mobeen&diff=1297364057&oldid=1297359689 declined] by {{u|S0091}} at Draft:Dananeer Mobeen on June 25, 2025 and then recreated by user A01169242 on June 27, 2025. Why do we keep entertaining paid socks?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:if that SPI is ever closed by a CU @CNMall41, I'd be happy to cleanup as I know I inadvertently assisted Beh in an earlier thread. I think the issue is non CU admins can't get do anything here. Star Mississippi 00:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. The June 11th one with this thread's OP is just awaiting behavioral evidence. I just filed one of the user who created the new page so we can see where that goes. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:On 15 January '25, {{U|Anuwrites}} considered Dananeer Mobeen (actress) not to be ready for mainspace and moved it to Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress). I haven't noticed any effort to delete the latter. Whether it should be deleted is a matter on which I have no opinion. If there's no need for it to be deleted, then a editor -- of course one who's not a sock of a blocked editor -- believing that Dananeer Mobeen qualifies for an article is free to work on it. So far as I can comprehend the comment by {{U|Behappyyar}} that ends this archived WP:HD thread, it doesn't even start to convince me. While Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress) exists, any effort to start "Dananeer Mobeen" or "Draft:Dananeer Mobeen" is a waste of editors' time. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• The original 'salt-evading' article, for the record, is now at Draft:Dananeer Mobeen 2. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with this topic or user-pool other than what I could quickly see in deletion/protection histories, and was merely GF-addressing the HD question on its face. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, after I moved the current creation to Draft:Dananeer Mobeen 2, A01169242 decided to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=1298033360&oldid=1297364057 move] the June 25th declined Draft:Dananeer Mobeen back to Dananeer Mobeen. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress#30_June_2025 SPI now pending].--CNMall41 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm just seeing this discussion now. But after deleting yet another CSD R2 from Dananeer Mobeen from this article being moved back and forth again from main space to Draft space, I protected the main space page. I understand why the full protection was lifted but it seems like the current state of this article is rather chaotic. A draft article shouldn't be moved back to main space until it has received AFC approval. These constant moves are disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Liz}}, apparently it was not protected in time as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=1298045864&oldid=1298042036 this user moved it back] claiming DRAFTOBJECT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Liz}}, were you going to revert and protect? We now have someone who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=prev&oldid=1298124319 "doesn't care about the ANI thread"] saying they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=prev&oldid=1298124574 take responsibility] for the page and adding in-depth ONEEVENT information in an attempt to make it look notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Also noting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGZWDer&diff=1298049976&oldid=1298046791 this comment] you made. Was going to follow up with user this morning but see you already did. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding the now [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dananeer_Mobeen DR] filing since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298126971 the filer] "don't give a fuck's fuck about this ANI thread" and likely will not add it as relevant to this thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• NPP comment: I have independently from this discussion ascertained that the subject is notable, have removed BLP-related issues, such as content failing verification, and have marked the article as reviewed. I have also made an expansion to the article, but much of it was reverted by CNMall41 who is complaining about me above, who appears distrustful and sadly believes that my "editing is starting to close in on TE territory" (meaning, wp:Tendentious editing). I have to say that I think that CNMall41 became influenced by this AN discussion and the administrative angle a bit too much to calmly /did not—16:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)/ assess the topic and the article on purely content merits and has made quite unreasonable content edits as a result. It is about these edits that I have started the DRN.{{pb}}To be clear, I contest G5, and take responsibility for the article (this was the current revision when I marked the article as reviewed: Special:Diff/1298120709).—Alalch E. 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::"Influenced?" I would say that my influence came from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#12_April_2021 the] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#18_April_2021 many] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#26_April_2021 SPI] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#19_October_2021 reports] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#14_July_2023 involving the bludgeoning] of this page to the mainspace. As far as being "a bit too much to calmly assess the topic," you are making an accusation of my mental state. I am sure you don't give a "fuck's fuck" about it, but you will need to redact that statement as your lack of WP:CIVILity isn't appreciated.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed. {{ping|Alalch E.}}, consider yourself officially warned regarding WP:CIVIL for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298126971 this comment]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:An obvious sock left a comment on my talk page in connection to this discussion: Special:Diff/1298241562—Alalch E. 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::I have closed a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard concerning Dananeer Mobeen as also pending in a conduct forum (this conduct forum). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::I recommend that Dananeer and Dananeer Mobeen (actress) be salted in article space as title gamingredirected to Dananeer Mobeen. Please do not salt any titles in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::I recommend applying no such salting, made pointless by the live article, whose existence removes the name gaming impetus from the equation. —Alalch E. 20:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay. Since there is an article, that is correct. In that case, the alternate titles should be redirected to the main title, because otherwise they may be used as content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::The redirects are there, and have been tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I am going to bow out of all further edits to Indian and Pakistan related film pages. Just not worth it with the constant bludgeoning of socks and undisclosed paid editing and those willing to defend them and assist in their disruption. I had to put up with this with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mushy_Yank another editor] in the past and frankly no longer feel enjoyment of trying to curb UPE or SOCKing. Let the production companies have their day and good luck to those who still edit in that arena. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:It's important not to burn out over a single dispute. You have so much to give the rest of the project, CNMall41, don't let this be the hill you burn out on. There are times when you just have to let some other editor/admin take over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate it and I am not bowing out of Wikipedia, but the Indian and Pakistani film pages can be bludgeoned with UPE and SOCKs for all I care. Hard to keep a handle on it when others are assisting by proxy. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Now that you have bowed out in the manner and to the extent that you have, I have finally restored the needed sourced content to the article, to enable context, comprehensibility, and neutrality. I am sure that we will collaborate better under different circumstances elsewhere. —Alalch E. 05:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe you meant "matter." Regardless, I am not bowing out because you are right. I am bowing out because of the conduct. It is disheartening that you do not see the difference. Feel free to have WP:TLW as I will only comment here again if Hounding turns to Stalking or if an admin requests clarification on the thread below. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Let these words hearten you then: I was and am right. You were wrong. The article speaks for itself. You bowed out, taking your wrong position with you, leaving the article to become representative of the right and good editorial position—my position. That is very heartening, as it means that our readers will be better off. And we are all here to provide a service to our readers. Now a lonstanding and credible editor from Pakistan has additionally cleaned the article up, remarking that {{tqq|This is currently the hot topic #1 in WP:PAK!!}} (Special:Diff/1298645557). How joyous! Let us all open our hearts to this joy. The people want to read the article about their celebrity on the English Wikipedia and now they've got it. Because we can give it to them. We can give it to them because I proved through my source-based content editing (unlike the mostly source-agnostic conduct regulation) that we can write an article on this topic in a way that complies with our content policies. Problem solved. No more name gaming for this topic, no more G5-deletions, no more AfC declines and duplicate drafts—no future wasted effort enforcing a barrier to entry against that which has already entered and is in our midst. Now we have to accept it and nurture it, because that is our mission. Doing the opposite is the grave and expensive error of holding on to a sunk cost fallacy. Thank you for what you have done to push back against the fans (yes, the fans) and UPEs (them too, but don't forget that celebrities simply have fans). It was good for what it was during the relevant timeframe, but we don't need more of the same type of effort with regard to this topic. The type of effort that we now need is: Trying to answer to our readers: Who are Dananeer Mobeen's mom and dad? When was she born? Where? Does she have a brother or a sister? What school did she attend? Where did she learn acting? Those are the burning issues now, and that is wonderful. And heartening. Kind regards, —Alalch E. 01:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• CNMall41 is expressing frustration that I also experience monitoring and working on paid editing cases, SCOT in particular. This is a editor obviously being paid to publish articles on non-notable subjects, not just a "fan", and despite being banned many times over, they still manage to get their commissioned articles published and earn their paycheque through a combination of persistence, brute force, and social engineering of well-meaning editors (see above). I spent about four hours this morning reviewing drafts recently created by this sockfarm, and a remarkably similar pattern is emerging: a draft is created and submitted, and rejected on review for undue promotion or lack of notability, then after a few days an obvious meatpuppet shows up and promotes the draft anyway without making any significant changes to address the reject concern. And then when an editor notices that pattern and moves the draft back for further review, some other well-meaning editor reverts that move because "rulez go brrr" and we all just go along with it. The drafts are often created in an obvious attempt to evade the title blacklist or creation protection, but SCOT can always find a willing administrator to ignore those restrictions and create the article anyway. Dananeer Mobeen was no different, and had Alalch E. not put in the work to subsequently review and clean up the article, we would have a plain advertisement with unverified information on a living person sitting in mainspace with no review tags on it at all. That's what all of this behind-the-scenes work is trying to prevent, and part of why we have an AFC review process at all.

:To admins and reviewers: when you are asked to create a protected title, please check with the protecting administrator. There is only so much we can write in a protection log entry, but titles aren't protected without good reason. Please make an effort to understand those reasons before promoting drafts, especially those tagged in good faith as promotional. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Hi all. Thank you for believing in my good faith, specially respected admin/CU Izno and Ivanvector. Though uninvolved in all the above discussion, I wanted to make a comment. M. Billoo{{smiley}} 17:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::And one more thing I want to put out via this platform now. The sock has been stalking me since as long as I can remember. M. Billoo 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|This whole situation is a mess, but this subthread in particular is all heat, no light. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)}}

As stated above, I will not be editing Dananeer Mobeen. Good luck to anyone wishing to. However, there is a conduct issue that I feel needs addressed. Pinging {{ping|Alalch E.}} as the subject of this thread.

• Despite the above discussion, Alalch E. has edited the page Dnaneer Mobeen despite Liz stating she was protecting the page and others saying to move it back to draft space until consensus could be reached.
• Within two hours of a content dispute, they filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dananeer_Mobeen this DRN] despite it not being ripe.
• I asked them to redact their accusation assuming my mental state and they were warned by another user for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298126971 this comment] regarding civility.
• Despite the warning, they continue to be uncivil including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298343099 attempting to threaten an RfC] if I do not "give up" on my contention.
• They were again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298344185 warned] and told to stop making projections making assumptions that I was blindly reverting, yet they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298345823 doubled down], accuse me of stonewalling for not agreeing with their preferred version of the page.
• Then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=1298370117&oldid=1298341289 adding back] content that is in dispute despite not having consensus. The excuse will likely be that it was "reworeded" so it is not the same content.
• Then draw my name [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298362440 into it again] to prove a point.
• Also seems to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlalch_E.&diff=1295087821&oldid=1295068210 a continued] civility [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlalch_E.&diff=1295066056&oldid=1294719841 issue] based on other comments. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

At this point, not sure what action is needed but the user clearly does not listen to warnings. The taunting and WP:BAITING is uncivil in my eyes. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:* On the first bullet: Wikipedia being an encyclopedia that consists of articles, i.e. content and not conduct, content has primacy over conduct (enforcing proper conduct has the higher goal of enabling good content; conduct itself is a subordinate goal). I have significantly edited the article, both removing big chunks, removing the refbombing, and adding a big chunk. The chunk I added was supported by a BBC source and Al Jazeera source, which were not previously in the article. I was not concerned with what was being done on the conduct track. It could not have affected my work on the content track. I would have accepted a G5 or a protection in the short term and would have calmly discussed it with the administrator, and my editing in the meantime would not have been a problem. But I cannot accept being obstructed in my work by you, who did not seriously look at the sources I was working with, and being "sent" by you to AN/I to report in. I am doing my thing on the content in the article, and you are doing your thing on the conduct at AN. I do not report to you or take commands from you. Look, I sometimes care. I sometimes volunteer on the conduct issues. Sometimes I do not. When I began editing that article, working on the content to explore if the article is viable and improving it took away all my attention.

:* On the second bullet: I admitted to you on the talk page that starting the DRN was a mistake; this mistake took some time away from Robert McClenon primarily who had to come up with a close, but at the same time, some useful talking happened in DRN, despite the quick close, and it is not the type of a mistake that causes problems down the line.

:* On the third bullet. I have redacted the portion you asked me to redact. The part of the comment I was warned for by an administrator was an expression of exasperation that was not targeting you personally; it was how I felt. I accept the warning.

:* I did not threaten an RfC, you said in the comment I was responding to: {{tq|you could always go RfC}}. I said that I want to avoid an RfC if the dispute can be resolved without resorting to an RfC. No threat of any kind was involved. And even if I had announced an intent to start an RfC, that would not have been a threat.

:* I do not accept that warning from you. Stop with the overbearing and disciplinary attitude. What I wrote was backed by evidence. This is the evidence that you did not read the new sources I had added to the article when removing the content based on those sources and leaving something factually incorrect (Special:Diff/1298347140)—copied here from the talk page: You did not have the time to properly assess the BBC and Al Jazeera sources that had not been in the article when I added them in 16:22 when you removed the content which summarized those sources in 16:27, leaving behind content that does not genuinely summarize the sources and is more similar to the previous content, before my expansion. You then made the edit in Special:Diff/1298121411 with the summary {{tqq|a viral video does not make you an influencer}}, which means that you did not read [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56107941 this BBC article] which contains: "Dananeer Mobin, 19, whose Instagram bio says "call me Geena", is a social media influencer from Pakistan's northern city of Peshawar. Her posts usually centre around fashion and make-up.", meaning that she has been an influencer prior to the viral video; this you were not aware of, because you simply did not read the source during the five minutes between my expansion and your partial removal, and the removal was selective, requiring some hands-on editing, meaning that during those less-than-five-minutes you were looking at the editing window, not the sources. You became entrenched in your position without studying the sources, and that is not some amateur psyschoanalyzing, it is, in fact, pretty clear.

:* That is not the content that is under dispute. The inclusion of which content points is disputed is explained in the DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dananeer Mobeen (there is a diff there: Special:Diff/1298121342)

:* Yes, I am making it clear to the new arrival on the talk page who is advocating for what. I did not misrepresent your position.

:* No comment on the unrelated disputes.

:You were WP:STONEWALLING on the talk page throughout, but your stonewalling escalated with this comment: Special:Diff/1298343099 (same as above, when you point to RfC instead of discussing concrete issues). —Alalch E. 05:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=No admin attention is required here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}

I moved this article to draft space as I felt it wasn't good enough for main space, it was edited and I still don't think it's good enough for main space. {{u|Iliketoeatbeansalot}} moved the article back into main space without doing the draft submission. I am hoping an admin can deal the issues here, as it's far too hot and bothersome for me!! Peace. Govvy (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is literally a copy and paste from the main article at Magdalene laundries in Ireland, that the creator is edit warring over wanting to say nice things about it. There's zero in this draft that isn't in the main article that provides much more information. Should be deleted and maybe a protected redirect to the main article from McAleese report. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes.

::I have notified Iliketoeatbeansalot of this discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iliketoeatbeansalot&diff=prev&oldid=1298110870]. DrKay (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I saw the speedy and changed the article to a redirect as I felt it had potential. It was reverted and so I deleted it. I still think it may have potential and should exist as a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:: If they're only here to push {{diff|diff=1297320992|label=this POV}} they should be indeffed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They have edited quite a range of articles since 2011. Not a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe not, but they're adding absolute garbage POV sources to articles, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home&diff=1296980873&oldid=1296831423 this]. They're here long enough to know better. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::They seem to have been able to produce decent edits but also get reverted a lot. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Article was deleted as a CSD A10 and I created a Redirect. I'm not sure that anything else needs to be done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Wow, What a back load. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Looks like these titles are now blacklisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Would someone mind salting the following to prevent re-creation? These have been the repeated subjects of UPE for seven years and the most recent version was just deleted at AfD three days ago.

• Scott Russell Surasky
• Russell Surasky
• Russell S. Surasky
• Russell S Surasky

Note that two versions of the article, Bridge Back to Life and Russell Scott Surasky have been salted since 2019-2020". See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ross_kramerov for additional info. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'll do you one better and blacklist them. —Cryptic 08:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Now that's a new one to me - didn't know a) you could do that or b) the Page Mover perm includes creation of a blacklisted article. Older AND wiser today! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe not so much wiser as better informed... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Excellent, thank you! Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User:Sportsfan1234 has repeatedly nominated a large number of articles related to African women's footballers for deletion (primarily through PRODs) over the past several months. This pattern has led to the removal of numerous articles, including those about players who are clearly notable — having participated in major international tournaments or played professionally. While not every article may be perfectly sourced, many contained multiple reliable references that were seemingly overlooked in the nomination process. This approach to deletion, especially when done rapidly or without thorough review, has caused significant loss of valuable information across articles on continental competitions, domestic leagues, and club histories. Such actions risk undermining the representation and documentation of women's football in underrepresented regions. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:While it looks like other users have raised this with @Sportsfan_1234, is there a reason you didn't wait for them to respond to User_talk:Sportsfan_1234#African_PRODs before coming here? You're also required to notify them you have opened a discussion. You have not done so. Star Mississippi 12:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Lunar Spectrum96, I know this won't address the problem you brought to WP:AN, if there is a specific article you are concerned about, you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND. As for PRODs, we are going through a period of time when a lot of footballers articles are being tagged for Proposed deletion. I have actually noticed more articles about Lebanese footballers and footballers from Japan than ones from Africa. But you are complaining about one part of a much larger trend of PRODding the articles of international football players that has been going on for months. Players from Africa are not being specifically targeted although there may be more women's articles than their percentage of players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::User:Liz, I appreciate your response and understand that this is part of a broader trend involving many footballer articles being tagged for deletion. That said, my concern isn't with the general use of PRODs, but with the way they are being applied by the user in question. The issue is that they appear to be placing PRODs without first checking whether reliable sources exist or whether the players meet football-specific notability criteria. In some cases, the subjects clearly meet notability standards under WP:GNG or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, yet the articles are tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss or improve them first. i'm not saying that all of the PRODs are invalid some articles may well fall short of notability and warrant deletion. But when notable players are deleted without discussion, it results in the loss of valuable content, especially for underrepresented topics like women's football in Africa. In such borderline or unclear cases, it would be far more constructive to open a discussion at WP:AfD rather than use speedy or proposed deletion. That way, the community can weigh in, sources can be brought forward, and decisions can be made more transparently. Thanks again for replying, I really hope this leads to a more balanced approach going forward. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::You are discussing this with @Sportsfan_1234 on their Talk, which is where this discussion should be @Lunar Spectrum96. Please note that a sports specific notability has been deprecated and GNG is the one that is applicable. Focus your efforts there as meeting that will go further to establishing notability. @CommunityNotesContributor has provided a list and as @Liz mentioned, these PRODs can be restored. What further action would you like from this thread? You still haven't notified the other editor either Star Mississippi 20:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:There is a list here that gives a recent list (of those within womens footy wikiproject that is). CNC (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Article has full protection for 4 days, content being discussed on article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sputnikmusic&action=history

Users keep adding an unnecessary and defamatory "Controversy" section (with and without neutral language issues)

(this was previously posted in the simple English wiki admin noticeboard by mistake - I apologize, I do not really know what I'm doing in asking for assistance here!) 2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:Restored version before edit warring started, and fully protected for 4 days to allow for discussion, preferably with fewer violations of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Much appreciated, thanks! 2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr for Night Gyr to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for {{pronoun|Night Gyr|obj}} to maintain {{pronoun|Night Gyr|pos}} toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Moved

| result = to WP:ANI#User:Nathannah. {{nac}} LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

}}

User:Nathannah blindly reverted many of my edits. Despite clear explanations for them.

Examples:

Television shows being referred to as "short-lived" or "long-running" - this is unencyclopedic and doesn't show a NPOV. What is long-running to one may not be to another. It's not a definite fact and is not typically used in articles. And is irrelevant to the context.

Mentioning credits for actors on show pages (e.g. Seinfeld's Jason Alexander) - Also unencyclopedic and informal. It typecasts the actor. Mentioning the actors name is sufficient. On a similar note, calling an actor "award-winning", which is an unnecessary detail in most cases. It looks like something you'd see in a press release.

I changed the place of death from the county to the specific city. This can be verified through a death certificate on Ancestry and wire reports. The initial error/vagueness came from a findagrave profile, which isn't a reliable source to begin with.

I've had lots of edits like this approved without issue. These phrases don't add any value. If the articles were up for FA review, this would be one of the first recommendations for improving it. I don't want to risk getting a 3RR violation. Megainek (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Please copy this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Continuous disruptive editing by Megainek; this is an improper venue. Nathannah • 📮 01:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::I did. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

|status=done

|result= not really a matter for this board, but done by Arachn0. Nthep (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)}}

At Imperial University of Dorpat (:d:Q28024477) can someone add :en:Imperial University of Dorpat? 89.12.205.245 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Moved to|Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Longest block ever?}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=I reverted the page move so that Hurtigruten is back where it started. No action has been taken on Hurtigruten AS but that can be discussed on the article talk page or WP:RM. Still didn't get anyone supplying that email address for COI inquiries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC) }}

I'm not very active in English-language Wikipedia (though I'm an admin in German-language WP and on Commons), so please accept my apologies if this is'nt quite the right place for this notice. - Well, I'm quite interested in the history of shipping, and so the articles Hurtigruten (now moved to Hurtigruten (Norwegian coastal route) by User:Merchantsq) and Hurtigruten AS (now moved to Hurtigruten (company) by the same user) are on my watchlist. Merchantsq, so far, has only edited Hurtigruten-related articles (like Captainnorse, the latter with only two edits) and I suspect some connection to the company Hurtigruten AS, as some of the edits seemed quite promotional. I reverted part of it, see Talk:Hurtigruten_(Norwegian_coastal_route)#Recent_edits_and_moves for more information. Also, the article Hurtigruten (company) used to contain some information on the split-off of a separate company for expedition cruises, which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurtigruten_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1262258561 removed] by Merchantsq in December as "that is not relevant to Hurtigruten" which it of course is, as part of the company's history - I suspect that they don't think the split-off fits a promotional article after they sold the expedition cruise company in 2024. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurtigruten_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1298646230 added] updated information on that under "Former assets", only to get it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurtigruten_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1298661174 reverted] by Captainnorse. (I re-added it; I think the next revert would be the start of an edit war). Now, I don't know how to proceed and what action could be taken, just wanted to point out that I think the activity of these accounts is questionable, and maybe the articles should also be moved back to their old titles (as the main meaning of "Hurtigruten" has always been the historical route as such, not some company). I will leave it to the local admins. I also will notify the users on their talk page, as per the notice here. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:By mistake, I added the notice to the user page of Merchantsq instead of the user talk page (which is something that really shouldn't happen, I can only try to invoke the mind-numbing heatwave here in central Europe as an apology...), so could an admin please delete the mistakenly created user page? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like Deor took care of this. We have a special COI email list that might be useful if someone has the address handy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::It looks to me like there might be a whole group of accounts with ties to Hurtigruten AS. User:LPO1992 also has made similar edits, for example right now removing the "AS" with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurtigruten_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1298734211 this] edit (while I think the company form is useful to differentiate Hurtigruten AS, the company, from Hurtigruten, the coastal route). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=Content dispute discussions belong on the article talk page or, if there is no agreement, bring them to dispute resolution. They don't require the attention of the website's admin community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi admins. From past few days some IP is persistently removing well sourced Nicknames from Shubman Gill page. When i reverted their edits, the IP keep on removing the sourced nickname. Yesterday the IP also posted on my talk page a warning to report me, if i add those nicknames. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shubman_Gill&diff=prev&oldid=1298584712 See here]. Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:The IP has a point. They replaced a list of nicknames ("Prince of Indian Cricket, Kaka, Smoothman Gill") with "Prince" which seems more appropriate. WP:DUE means that not every factoid belongs in an article, and not every name that someone used belongs in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::@Johnuniq Thanks for clarification. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::@TheSlumPanda, you seem to have done the right thing over a week ago by starting a talk page discussion, but if you get no reply there to a content dispute then the next thing to do is described at dispute resolution, rather than create a report here. As Johnuniq says, not everything that can be sourced necessarily belongs in a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=2601:18A:817D:9320:0:0:0:0/64 range-blocked for two weeks by The Bushranger. In the future, if you want to discuss this article, please do so on the article talk page or bring your dispute to DRN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)}}

So I was blocked over the drama on this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party

The skinny version is that the page originally said that the Democratic-Republican Party was center-left to left-wing, with a source to back it up. @GlowstoneUnknown decided he didn't agree with the source, declared it original research, and removed it without discussion. The source objectively states that (at least) a faction of the Democratic-Republicans were left-wing.

This is basic knowledge in political science, as the terms left and right wing originated in the supporters and opponents respectively of the French Revolution, which the Democratic-Republicans supported. While the Democratic-Republicans, as a pre-industrial party, don't necessarily fit modern terms of left and right, such is anachronistic. It would be like saying that Vladimir Lenin isn't a leftist because he didn't support gay marriage or some such. Glowstone has carefully avoided actually engaging in the merits of the discussion itself.

In fact, before I tagged him specifically, he didn't once engage in the talk page on the subject - despite multiple users naming him as the one who opposed this mention. Other sources were provided, which Glowstone proceeded to remove and delete as well. He's edited the page to remove this mention over ten times, six times in the last week.

I mentioned on the talk page I'd be happy to track down another source so long as I had the assurance Glowstone would be willing to accept the information if properly sourced - a point Glowstone refused to engage with.

There is some contention over this inclusion, but no one user has taken it more upon themselves to remove this content, over and over and over again, no matter the source and without a word on the talk page (again, until after I tagged them).

Here's my big points on this matter

1) A user should not be repeatedly removing sourced content, especially without engaging with the relevant discussion on the talk page.

2) Edits that are properly sourced shouldn't be removed in the first place simply because one or two users subjectively decide the source isn't good enough, especially if several sources are provided.

3) There should be a good faith discussion in situations like this that the info will be included if a source meeting a fair criteria is found, unless there is a dispute on the merits of the content itself. 2601:18A:817D:9320:A1F0:3951:1CD3:19FA (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, you've already immediately broken ANI rules by not alerting me on my Talk Page, but I have to point out the numerous issues with the content of your report as well.

:You were blocked for consistent disruptive editing and edit warring behaviour (not because of "drama"). The accusation of a single user that I was the sole reason the political position was removed from the page's infobox holds no weight whatsoever, and isn't even true. Every source that has been used to justify the inclusion of a political position on that page's infobox was removed based on the merit of the sources and whether they were WP:OR-compliant (they weren't). The page didn't "originally" say "Center-left to left-wing", that was content added (boldly) by you specifically and reverted several times by multiple different editors: ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic-Republican_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1294454772] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic-Republican_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1295141683] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic-Republican_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1296445338] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic-Republican_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1298489358])

:It was always a completely irrelevant argument whether or not the party supported the French Revolution, as that's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. As for your claim that you said that you'd "be happy to track down another source so long as I had the assurance Glowstone would be willing to accept the information if properly sourced", that's blatantly false, your exact words were: {{tq|But since you don't like the citation, how about YOU find one that you're happy with?}}, which I replied to by citing the WP:ONUS policy and you responded, verbatim, {{tq|Where are my assurances I'm not being sent on a wild goose chase by a guy who will always find an excuse to dismiss ANY source? None, right.}} A pointed accusation that any source you provide would be dismissed by me, a blatant violation of the WP:AGF behavioural guideline, not, as you put it, "mention[ing] on the talk page [that you]'d be happy to track down another source".

:There's no requirement to participate in talk page discussions before reverting WP:BOLD edits, however, after you borderline accused me of vandalism from the outset with a new section on the talk page: {{tq|At what point does repeatedly and unilaterally removing cited information for no apparent reason consitute vandalism?}} I engaged civilly in the discussion and pointed out the problems with your arguments for inclusion whilst you repeatedly accused me of bad faith.

:That's all I have to say for now. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::WP:BOOMERANG. OP was pblocked from the page in question due to disruption and edit-warring. Their response was to bring that disruption to AN, when the editor they're focusing on isn't even an admin. Epanded the two-week pblock to a full sitewide block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Fairly recently there was an editor who was blocked for adding false death dates to BLPs (and that's all they did) - they also socked to carry on. I've completely forgotten the puppetmaster's name. Does it ring bells for anyone? Now re-appeared at {{IP|187.126.183.178}}, hence the query... GiantSnowman 20:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:It's {{user|Guilherme Gava Bergami}} - for future reference... GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::They have 39 confirmed and suspected sockpuppets so I guess we can expect to see them again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)