Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184

For the record: The one-week block expired, the IP came back a few hours later, broke more links, got a one-month block. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see anything unconstructive about their editing, all the {{uncategorized}} tags are valid. I'd say assuming they are gaming the system just because they are adding tags doesn't warrant a precautionary block. — E_F⁵ 15:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::It reminds me of Special:Contributions/Xylophonist Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It could be, but I still don't think it's worth a prec. block. I'd say let's wait till that tenth edit, and if it's immediate vandalism then a block is warranted. — E_F⁵ 15:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like they’re trying to patrol new articles. Obviously an experienced Wikipedia editor in spite of having a new account, but i don’t see this as gaming. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have seen more obvious pgaming lately, but the templates being applied do not normally find themselves in the quiver of newbies. I'm glad you're checking in on it. I'm now watching the contribs in case you choose not to indef. This is an arguable case, but I believe your read is ultimately correct. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::To be entirely fair, it could be a WP:CLEANSTART as opposed to a sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently I have found myself reverting User:High Chief Editor's edits to 2026 California gubernational election. Their most recent edit has gone unreverted, and I don't quite feel confident enough to revert it just yet. This in of itself isn't as important, as the statement that the fellow (Kyle Langford) is running for governor, is sourced. What I am more concered about however is the following tweet made by the politician ([https://twitter.com/KyleLangfordCA/status/1908202944392217056?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet link here]) where they are trying to get themselves added to wikipedia. I am not quite certain about how to move forward with this, or if this particularly needs to be moved forward, but I think it is a good idea to discuss this, as I fear that even if we remove the mention (if it deemed to be not well sourced enough) that it will be readded considering the politician is specifically asking people to do so. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have moved the mention to its correct position in alphabetical order by surname, as seems to be used here. I think the mention in the source is enough for him to be mentioned in this article, but a separate article on him would need more in the way of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::alright sounds good Gaismagorm (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Comment Please notify the subject (which, by the way, you'd be looking for {{User|Remsense}} rather than User/Remsense) and also please sign your complaint. Furthermore you'd need to provide diffs demonstrating that Remsense was, in some way, systematically misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with regard to Chinese military history in order for this complaint to be actionable. I'd caution you that anything to do with 20th and 21st century Chinese history is about as fraught as you're likely to find on Wikipedia outside of official CTOPs and, as such, it is sometimes a bit of a challenging space to edit within. I do regularly participate in that area and would say I'd be quite surprised if Remsense was actually misinterpreting policy here as they're usually pretty good at that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• (Not engaging with this one unless someone else has questions they want to ask. AFAIK, they don't know how their edits went against any rules because they don't care to know any rules—as they were linked to them, and the issue with their edits was explicitly outlined for them. FWIW, infantile vandalism of the kind we generally only see from middle school IPs is well worth denouncing when it inexplicably gets emitted by an established editor. It's much easier to do right by the rules when articles you don't care about for whatever reason seemingly aren't protected by rules at all.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Adding to this, I ran the Editor Interaction Analyser and the picture it paints absolutely is not consistent with the wikihounding accusation. [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=HawkNightingale175&users=Remsense&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] I don't think there's even smoke here, let alone a fire. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1264583054 Special:Diff/1283025131 Talk:First Sino-Japanese War#Infobox flags — I am a bit confused, Remsense. Do you want the infobox flags or not? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• In the hopes of getting them to stop trying to get edits in edgewise one day, I've adopted a 100% WP:BMB tact with BlueDIAMOND20s, except if I'm restoring blatant errors or BLP vio somehow. I'm not sure flags are really material to the issue here, but I generally avoid them if they're not necessary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• It does mean that the article has been flapping back and forth for the past 3 months with you apparently on both sides of the talk page issue. And if HawkNightingale175 were that sockpuppeteer, that would have been discovered by now, given how many CheckUser investigations have been run. So blanket reversion on those grounds seems quite wrong, especially when your edit summary instead says that you are making an article adhere to "site policy". Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I wish I would have been able to get this and many other articles into a more polished state by my own positive effort—I haven't expended none, but again that seems mostly immaterial here—but I understand how that pattern can be mistaken with this one.
• :They are distinct situations, though: here, I had and gave specific, fairly ubiquitous and uncontroversial reasons as to why their additions were wrong—it wasn't blanket reversion at any point. I can't help that this article also happens to be a favorite target of one of the more insistent LTAs onwiki. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Cant have [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=HawkNightingale175&page=First+Sino-Japanese+War&server=enwiki&max= this type of editing over multiple pages]. looks like multiple talks need to be started. Moxy🍁 01:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::@HawkNightingale175 has shown no interest in engaging with site guidelines that I can detect. Rather, I've only seen indications that any they haven't seen are of no interest to them—({{xt|I do not need to adhere to your own interpretation of what the rules entail.}})—but if they indicate otherwise I'll try to rearticulate them. I'm not going to chase them down and beg them to listen when they've already told me flat out they don't care what I have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 23:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can something please be done about the egregious bad faith behavior that @HawkNightingale175 somehow finds tenable to express towards every other editor who's disagreeing with them across these articles? This is the worst such conduct I have seen so far from an editor with some level of experience—seriously, I'm capable of it, but that's not hyperbole. Remsense ‥ 论 02:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|HawkNightingale175}}, your commment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKorean_War&diff=1283860043&oldid=1283820627 here] is utterly incorrect. The Wikipedia rules are not {{tqq|designed for users who are new to editing}}, and content that is {{tqq|[not] biased or factually inaccurate}} can still fail policy. They are designed for everybody. You are required to follow Wikipedia policy, and wilful refusal to do so can lead to an indefinite block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I am not sure why you claim that I am refusing to follow Wikipedia policy, because as far as I am aware, I am not explicitly breaking any site rules, and I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users. The editor that you replied to was the very editor that engaged in multiple actions of wikihounding against me and just openly admitted that they are capable of engaging in misconduct, and as such their arguments should be taken for question. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{Non-admin comment}} You are WP:EDITWARRING on First Sino-Japanese War, along with your WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS of Remsense WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Also, your statement {{tqq|I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users}} is incorrect, as you stated {{tqq|and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing.}} Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{yo|HawkNightingale175}} Forgot to ping. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::You are clearly misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say that I did not need to follow the site rules, I merely said that I have enough experience editing on this site and as such do not need beginner's guides to learn how to edit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That was not a beginner's guide. It was the manual of style (MOS:IBX). It states {{tq|Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply.}} People have been blocked for ignoring the manual of style. Are you saying you can ignore it? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::They certainly have acted as if their view trumps that of multiple editors who have cited it as pertains to whatever article, while providing no meaningful justification why there should be an exception in that context. That's key here—whether they choose to acknowledge site guidelines as representing generalized editor consensus, they certainly choose to ignore evidence of direct consensus they think they know better than. Their knowledge of "the rules" is seemingly obtuse enough to ignore the primacy of consensus altogether. Remsense ‥ 论 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::As far as I am aware, I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited by the "manual of style". I do not know why you are so insistent that my edits are supposedly against the rules because I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Only if you choose to assume everything it says supports your prior intuitions with no friction or further introspection. That is,
• ::::::{{talk quote|The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.}}
• ::::::isn't a problem for you because you've already decided you're right and no one else can dispute your notion of what are "key facts". I suppose there's still the explicit problem that you're intent on including material that isn't mentioned anywhere in the actual article, but at this point I don't think you'd admit that that's a violation either, even though it's a pretty clear deduction for most other editors who read this guideline. Given you've already declared no one else should dare challenge your own interpretations of policy, what else am I supposed to come away with here? Remsense ‥ 论 09:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::While I usually feel that you are not worth responding to due to the fact that you engaged in actions of wikihounding against me, I do not see at all how my edits supposedly violated the rule you listed in the above reply. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I am willing to explain, if you're willing to potentially accept my {{xt|interpretation of what the rules entail}}. It is also worth reiterating that if you equate any third party noticing and commenting on your poor conduct{{snd}}which you freely expressed in public and still have yet to even acknowledge{{snd}}as wikihounding, that is likely not a mindset that is viable for an editor in good standing to maintain in perpetuity. It's your fault that you did bad there, not mine, and it's not harassment for someone to connect the dots as regards your character with the purpose of informing community expectations going forward. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 16:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::You explicitly stated you {{tqq|do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing}}, with regards to the Manual of Style. Also saying {{tqq|I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited}}...{{tqq|I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them}} is Wikilawyering. And you continue to cast aspersions regarding "wikihounding". Consider this a warning: do not continue to unfoundedly accuse Remsense (or anyone else) of Wikihounding. Continuing to do so is a personal attack and a violation of policy that can result in a block. Also agree to respect consenus even when it against you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I am not sure why you are accusing me of personal attacks when the primary reason I posted on this page was because the user in question personally attacked me by going to my user talk page and responding to an unrelated thread. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::(1) You haven't provided a diff that I can see of this (2) that's not a personal attack or wikihounding. The content might be (without a diff, not saying that it is or not), the action is not (3) "They did it so I get to" does not fly here and (4) you weren't accused of personal attacks. You were warned that continuing to accuse Remsense of wikihounding without evidence of actual wikihounding would be a personal attack. Also by posting here your conduct is open to scruitny as well, not just the editor you accuse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::This edit constitutes my entire wikihounding campaign on their talk page{{snd}}aside from the ANI notice I posted afterward, which I presume they're also counting since they themselves have been too polite to hound my talk either time they filed a report about me here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{od}} Thought so. {{ping|HawkNightingale175}}, that is not a personal attack and it is not Wikihounding. I strongly suggest you withdraw this ANI complaint, as continuing as you have here cannot end well for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :You are excusing improper conduct from someone who claims to be a strict follower of the Wikipedia manual of style. Notice how they pointed out that I was too polite to hound their own talk page. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::A single comment to your user talk page does not constitute hounding. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Because I would genuinely feel a bit bad if this wasn't made clear to you: {{xt|too polite to hound my talk}} was me expressing my distaste that, as one item amid an expanding collection, you twice ignored the plain, highly visible instructions on this page requiring editors to post on others' talk pages when reporting their conduct here. Your talk page is for others to have public communications with you; it is not acceptable to treat others' appearances on it like invasions of your private space. You're not entitled to that, just like you're not entitled to reiterate {{xt|improper conduct}} when, like many other things seemingly, you simply cannot be bothered to justify yourself in what policy actually says. Remsense ‥ 论 15:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::HawkNightingale175, consider this a last warning: stop Wikilawyering and drop the stick. There was no hounding. If you continue to insist that there was, that is a personal attack and - as you have been thoroughly advised of this and accordingly warned - will result in your being blocked from editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

| result = [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Realjohnpaul&diff=prev&oldid=1284138600 Blocked] from article space for a month. Abecedare (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{User|Realjohnpaul}} repeatedly edit warring on titles and short descriptions of South Korean officeholders past multiple warnings on talk and worse, making WP:OWN edit summaries that led to me filing an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AaronFresco for similar behavior. Posting here because no action continues to be taken there and they have continued to double down since report was filed.

For WP:OWN see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Duck-soo&diff=prev&oldid=1281931491] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoon_Suk_Yeol&diff=prev&oldid=1281931687] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoon_Suk_Yeol&diff=prev&oldid=1281781796] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoon_Suk_Yeol&diff=prev&oldid=1283711383] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoon_Suk_Yeol&diff=prev&oldid=1283711150]. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

For edit-warring, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Duck-soo&diff=prev&oldid=1284070194], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Duck-soo&diff=prev&oldid=1284069501] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Duck-soo&diff=prev&oldid=1281637587] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoon_Suk_Yeol&diff=prev&oldid=1283984023] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoon_Suk_Yeol&diff=prev&oldid=1283878704]. Borgenland (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe a topic or temporary block would be appropriate. This has been going on for weeks now and it's just draining to deal with. They refuse to use proper edit summaries, they keep begging others to not revert instead of listening to feedback, and a degree of WP:CIR going on with numerous typos and grammar errors in most edits. Not helping, almost all edits have been pointless or harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Blocked from article-space for a month. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Realjohnpaul&diff=prev&oldid=1284138600 block notice for details]. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Possible sockpuppetry in this malformed unblock request [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Realjohnpaul&diff=prev&oldid=1284574586]. Borgenland (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not sockpuppetry (posted by the blocked account) but a distinct whiff of WP:ROLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

| result = Blocked as a sock adjacent to the COI raised. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|Chris-at-RCS}}
• {{articlelinks|Rochester Community Schools (Michigan)}}

Don't know if I should post this at COIN or here, so I just chose this.

ChrisRCS has a very obvious COI for Rochester Community Schools (Michigan). They've been editing and disrupting the article for a few hours now (including copy and pasting text from the school's website which is now revdel'd). A lot of people have been reverting and warning them, but it doesn't look like they are aware of the notices on their talk page. They keep editing back the stuff that gets reverted. Perhaps a mainspace block would work?

Revision history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rochester_Community_Schools_(Michigan)&curid=2203545&action=history] Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Re|Tarlby}} Crap... have I done anything wrong? If I have I profusely apologize... wait, am I considered involved because I reverted a couple of his edits a few hours ago? Sorry if I sound dumb; I'm still caught in a brain-fog. elm ^(she/they) arf! 19:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Being alerted means you are related to the problem, not that you did anything wrong (and yes you did revert them). Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Re|Tarlby}} Ah, okay; got it. I propose we hit him with an indef block. There's no sign of him stopping anytime soon... I mean, just look at his edit history. He keeps adding and erasing content in the name of "accuracy"; not to mention, well, everything else... elm ^(she/they) arf! 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Blocked from that page for edit warring and coi, invited them to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm 95% sure this account is a sockpuppet of User:Caring Friend MI - both accounts have exclusively edited Rochester Community Schools (Michigan); both have made large removals of content including, repeatedly, removing the "Controversy" section calling it "outdated" (CFMI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rochester_Community_Schools_(Michigan)&diff=prev&oldid=1271307243]; CaRCS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rochester_Community_Schools_(Michigan)&diff=prev&oldid=1284626834]). I'm leaning towards blocking as it {{duck}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree on this.. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Looks like it to me too. Feel free to convert block if you wish. I had not bothered with the sockpuppet issue because I was hoping that, given the sequential nature of the use (only CFMI, then 5 day break, then only Chris), that there was potentially an innocent reason for this, such as lost password. But this does meet the criteria for improper sockpuppetry — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I’ve indeffed as a confirmed Sockpuppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

For an elongated period, Anonymous99747 has been adding completely unsourced content about the wealth of Eurovision Song Contest singers to their articles.

• 11 March 2023 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanka_%28Polish_singer%29&diff=1144050131&oldid=1143983677 added "wealthy"] to Blanka (Polish singer), with a [https://www.eurovision.de/news/ESC-2023-Blanka-vertritt-Polen-in-Liverpool,polen1136.html source] that did not back this up
• 30 May 2023 - added that Mia Nicolai is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mia_Nicolai&diff=prev&oldid=1157707142 the daughter of "the rich and very well known" politician Peter Nicolai] (the "rich and very well known" bit is the issue here as totally unsourced)
• 8 January 2024 - added a claim to Silia Kapsis's article that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silia_Kapsis&diff=prev&oldid=1194386302 her father was "wealthy"], totally unsourced
• 12 June 2024 - added a claim that Angelina Mango grew up [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angelina_Mango&diff=prev&oldid=1228682791 in a "wealthy" background], totally unsourced
• Also 12 June 2024 - added a claim that Luna (Polish singer) was born [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luna_(Polish_singer)&diff=prev&oldid=1228683107 into a rich family], totally unsourced
• 18 June 2024 - added a claim that Jerry Heil's parents [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Heil&diff=prev&oldid=1229742372 were "rich"], totally unsourced
• 1 August 2024 - added a claim to Nemo's article that their father was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nemo_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=1237938892 a billionaire], totally unsourced
• 1 August 2024 - I leave a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonymous99747&diff=1237941202&oldid=1210647918 message] asking them not to add unsourced content to these articles.
• 2 September 2024 - added the category [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theo_Evan&diff=prev&oldid=1243607549 "Cypriot billionaires] to Theo Evan and that he was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theo_Evan&diff=prev&oldid=1243607679 born into a wealthy family], with the [https://slaps.com/theoevan source] provided not mentioning this
• 20 September 2024 - with the previous claim having been removed, adds [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanka_(Polish_singer)&diff=prev&oldid=1246657974 "relatively rich"] to the article of Blanka (Polish singer) again
• 4 October 2024 - I leave a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonymous99747&diff=1249321212&oldid=1239945827 message] asking them not to continue doing this for the second time.
• 15 October 2024 - added a claim to Theo Evan that he was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theo_Evan&diff=prev&oldid=1251305153 from a "wealthy" family], with the source being a Fandom article (not reliable)
• 26 January 2025 - added a claim to Laura Thorn that she was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Thorn&diff=prev&oldid=1271914914 born into a family of billionaires], totally unsourced
• 30 January 2025 - added a claim to JJ (singer) that he was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JJ_%28singer%29&diff=1272857769&oldid=1272852929 from a "wealthy" family], totally unsourced
• 10 February 2025 - I leave [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonymous99747&diff=1274911800&oldid=1258300563 one final message] telling them to discontinue this.
• 14 March 2025 - added a claim that Miriana Conte's father [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miriana_Conte&diff=prev&oldid=1280438043 works as a businessman], totally unsourced
• 9 April 2025 - added the category [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JJ_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=1284592458 "Austrian billionaires"] to JJ (singer), again not sourced in the body

After repeated requests not to add this seemingly unsourceable information about Eurovision singers being "rich" or from "wealthy" backgrounds, the user has refused to stop and after these repeated BLP violations, enough is enough. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have pblocked them from the Article namespace. Let's see if they respond to this (they have only made five edits to talk pages in over 2,000 edits). Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Golikom has been extensively edit warring on the page for cisgender.

Early on, I deleted an unsourced sentence in the lede.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=1274553220] He restored it by saying that the criticism section occupies a significant amount of the article's body.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=1274604655] A talk page discussion was opened by myself in line with BRD to address his reasons for reversion, which he did not engage with. What I would characterize as a loose consensus was then achieved on the talk page against the sentence. Given these facts, several days later I removed it again. He restored it, saying {{tq|the consensus to remove is not strong}}, showing that he'd looked at the thread, and agreed that there was a consensus, he'd just refused to engage with it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=1284383944] He has since been reverted by two other editors and each time he re-reverts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=1284511714][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=1284524019]

When I added a message to his talk page asking him to stop edit warring, he deleted it without comment, and then continued edit warring.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1284565186]

Requesting administrative action.

EDIT: I looked through his talk page history after @LakesideMiners kindly pointed it out. He was warned for behavior I'd argue fell into BLP here,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1244789972] and immediately deleted it without comment, and he was warned for edit warring on a BLP here,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1260148642] and immediately deleted it without comment. Then later he was warned for disruptive editing on the page anti-gender movement, which he immediately deleted with the comment "RV disruptive editor".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1262903679]. He was then given a formal warning for edit warring, which once again - can you guess?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1262918319]. He was warned again for edit warring here, which he immediately deleted without comment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1263954460]. He was then warned for blanking article content. Deleted, no comment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1273170198]. He was THEN given a formal warning for aspersions in contentious topics, deleted without comment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golikom&diff=prev&oldid=1274243133] And that brings us to now. Given this, I am now seeking a CBAN and wondering if I should escalate to AE

Snokalok (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)".

:I'm not heavily involved in this but I did tweak the wording of the content in question without paying much attention to the discussion. In my view, I changed it from annoyingly pretentious to merely blandly mediocre. I'd be quite happy to see it removed, even with my mediocre improvement. If kept at all, it should go somewhere in the body as an introduction to further explanation, not kept as a glib and uninformative stand-alone statement in the introduction. But that's not what we are here for. We're here about the edit warring and, yeah, that's definitely not great. It's not breaking the 3RR as this has gone on for longer than 24 hours but Golikom inserted it four times and it has been removed by three different people a total of four times. (Not counting my tweak.) That's either slow edit warring or damn close to it. I'm not sure that it merits more than a warning at this stage but any continuation after that would be a more serious matter. DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:looking through Golikom's talk page history I notice that lack of engaging seems to be a pattern. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:See my edit above Snokalok (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• I just thought I'd mention that most of the notices on the User talk page were from January and February of this year and the editor was archiving their User talk page at User talk:Golikom/Archive 1 but they blanked that page in February. But that's a little different than just deleting all of their talk page messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Entirely fair, but I'd also ask that you consider that it shows that the edit warring and immediate disregard of requests to stop or discuss is part of a consistent, longstanding trend Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::It's not really helpful to cheerry pick bits of my talkpage history. You first example isn't a warning and was infact a drive by from someone trying to change an age in a BLP without a source. Tataral and I got into a couple of editwarring disputes - and generally I was discussing on page talk when they were doing nothing but warring and tossing out warnings - we both got a formal warning. Deletion from my talkpage counts as acknowledgement of a message - there's no requirement to respond and split a discussion - where necxessary i discussed at the talk page for the matter at hand where it's actually useful and others can see and contribute. It's not disregarding and there's no require,ment to discuss on my talk if there's discussion elsewhere. Admittedly i should have done better on this one. Golikom (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've not breached 3rr. I think the talk page consensus is weak, but given that i've been reverted by multiple editor I'm not going to pursue it any further. Golikom (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's all good. But just to be clear, the 3RR rule is not the definition of edit warring: {{tq|it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.}} ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair enough Golikom (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I am here reporting {{Userlinks|HomBomms}} and their ongoing edits across articles, especially pertaining to Sugababes. User has history of adding in unsourced or poorly sourced content into articles. User was issued a caution warning concerning the addition of unsourced content into articles. User did not respond to this warning, and instead, continued to make the edits again. User also was reverted on "Weeds" (Sugababes song) with speculative information placed in, as well as original research not found in the source provided; user proceeded to revert the edit by taking an in-prose citation, which did not support their claims, and attempt to use it to validate their inclusion. They were given a light warning (for newcomers) concerning their continued reverts, with note to take it to the talk page.

Then, at Sugababes '25 Tour, the user added in content, which failed per WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and was again warned for the addition of poorly sourced content to an article, with notation of Setlist.FM being unreliable, per the previously-linked article, while also noting their continued ignoring of the warnings being given was alarming, given their continued editing habits. User then continued to add in two sources in the article (1/2) of which neither support their claims, thus resulting in unsourced claims being placed into articles. In response, user has accused me of having a vendetta against them (which citing the notability of music page?), which I do not. And then, in edit summary, referred to me as {{!xt|Abysmal editor with a vendetta}}, which could be seen as a violation of WP:NPA/WP:AGF, as it speaks on editor and not edits. And while I don't question this editor's intentions—as I feel they do want to improve articles—their behaviour suggests otherwise. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Could the warnings have been a bit hasty? Admittedly, sure. However, their continued behaviour on those articles does not excuse the editing patterns exhibited by the user. It would have been since, instead of resorting to [false accusations], they could have responded to the warnings on their talk page, asking what was wrong; perhaps, this could have been avoided altogether. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder if they are a sock of ZestyLemonz whose sockpuppets have been caught editing the Sugababes articles multiple times. They also seem to have a grudge against you, livelikemusic. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:: That was my first thought, too, {{userlink|Liz}} on both accounts (sock/grudge). I'll have to check out ZestyLemonz, and see what that is about. But yes, their behaviour is giving WP:DUCK. But DUCK of what? 🤷 livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:: A-ha, seems like it might be, given the history at Nicola Mitchell. That would suit WP:DUCK well. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

| status = indeffed

| result = Probably a sock socking socks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

User:RandomeditWiki, a user with 20 edits as of writing, is blanking user pages belonging to sockpuppets of User:RichardHornsby with no reasoning. Account made today, seemingly a SPU?

: Update: 29 edits - currently watching and ready to revert any more Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 03:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:: User blocked, would request a checkuser request if i knew how :P Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 03:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I don't think checkuser is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::fair enough, considering they were specifically targeting Richard's sockpuppets i had a gut feeling they might have been trying to brute force their way into, idk, a fresh start? up to you guys tho 👍 Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 03:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Or Richard himself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not related specifically to this report, but RichardHornsbys user page says – This user is banned from editing the English Wikipedia and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks globally locked] - which states: A global lock is a way by which stewards can technically prevent Wikimedia accounts logging in, and thus, no editing can be done through that account. When an account is locked and attempts to log in, it fails on Wikipedia. And then they have four unblock requests on their talk page, all denied because - No requests will be considered unless you sign in to this account. Seems like a Catch-22 to me, you're prevented from logging in, but your request to be unblocked can't be considered unless you log in. Anyway, as the world turns. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I have left a note on his talk page telling him what procedure to follow if he wants to be unblocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = IP blocked 3 months

| result = By ScottishFinnishRadish. Attacks and obscenity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

@Yamla, @Elowa, @Sitush @RegentsPark Please block this user, he uses very derogatory words to insult only one caste. See that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vishal_Kandassamy&diff=prev&oldid=1283691435] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:120.56.97.254 ] etc..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not familiar enough with castes and do not speak Tamil (?), so I am not the one to make a ruling on this. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Google Translate comes up with {{tpq|Puta Devitiya Boya School Pussy You are dead. How can I see your eyes and ears?}} for the first passage but fails on the second. Not definitive but indicative of someone who is probably not here to improve the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I broke #2 down into fragments, and ran some of those (not all) through Google Translate from Tamil; a trick I've used before in difficult cases. "naa vena aval vaaile vindhu vidure" and "avan vaila vadire vinthu nakki kudeen" are obscene; I couldn't work out whether insulting or pornographic. In either case, NOTHERE imo. Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Range pblocked

| result = IP-hopping vandal pblocked from some of the pages. Current technical limitations for pblocks will be greatly loosened once multiblocks are implemented. In meantime, Black Kite has put the other pages on watch. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• There is a very persistent sockmaster {{userlinks|Kairakairav}} — who from past 4 years have been adding hoax and fanfics of her own fancy to the Mahabharata related articles, with her favourite target articles being Mahabharat (2013 TV series) (adding unrelated actors in cast list), Pandu, Kunti and Madri (for this particular one, she just tries to erase the characters’ existence by blanking info about her, or change entire story of hers). Her latest sock is User:NairaRahi01.

• As of today, this user literally made more than 40 sockpuppets— out of which 25 are confirmed and 16 are suspected, and there seems no stopping. Not to mention her ip range, that is User:2402:8100:26f1:199b:f4f9:1aff:fe24:8e0d, User:2402:8100:2748:c6c4:5c6a:2bff:fe06:c6ce, etc.

• It's not that she is ignorant about the topics or something, she is doing all these because either she is a troll or an actual lunatic who seriously needs help or a mindless brat (sorry but she has just tested my limits). I and several other users have tried issuing warnings and guidance on talk pages of her previous sockaccounts, see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NairaKanakMeera ], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DraupadiPandavas ], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya&diff=prev&oldid=1237933296 ], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya&diff=1235536184&oldid=1233759293 ], but all seem fruitless.

• With no response on any of her accounts on which I tried to pursue her stop, a cycle has been created —she gets banned, learns nothing, just makes new accounts and does her usual hoax-adding. Recently the articles were vandalized by following sockaccounts of hers— User:NairaRahi, User:NairaKairav01, User:NairaKuhu31, User:Naira Kairav Sirat and User: SubhadraArjuna, User:NairaAadhya01, User:NairaKuhu31. Literally she doesn't seem to care about anything, doesn't even bother to think about a username which would make it harder for us to identify her.

• There have been previously ANI reports, but all just lead to the block of her latest sock. This method is useless, as she makes new sock every new week. Is there a way to stop this cycle once and for all, like account creation block for the ip, it is really irritating, as this sockmaster has to potential to vandalize 100s of articles in matter of hours. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya Eg1], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya Eg2], etc. Thanks, Seyamar^💬📜 07:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Comment AC block for the very wide IP range is difficult, as many other people use that range. I have however extended the partial block on the IP range to all the articles you mentioned. If there are any others that are common targets, please let us know and they can be added. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Black Kite}} Thank you, yes there are more common targets — Suryaputra Karn, Nakula, Sahadeva, Ekalavya, Bhima, Yudhishthira, Arjuna, Draupadi, Subhadra, Duryodhana, Dushasana, Vikarna, Dhritarashtra.Seyamar^💬📜 08:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::: OK, I've watchlisted those - I'll add them as necessary (there are too many there for individual partial blocks). Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| result = Troll/image vandal indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{u|Chud-h4z}} keeps reverting an obvious troll edit at Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked, but it would have helped this old, poor-eyesighted admin if you'd described what the "vandalism" actually was. On initial inspection the images looked the same to me. It was only looking at their first edit that I realized what was going on. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = IP blocked 1 month

| result = Incoherent disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|112.207.123.170}}

This user immediately resumed making disruptive nominations at RfD after the block from {{slink|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#Disruption at RFD}} expired today. For example, they renominated {{-r|Nana (entertainer, born 2001)}} with an incoherent rationale, even linking to their equally incoherent nomination of the redirect last month (closed as keep) as a "similar" case. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked one month. Probably should have blocked w/o TPA. They'll just be disruptive post-block as they have been in the past.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Indef

| result = Sock- or meat-puppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{user|ISHWARSENA}} disruptively pushing their caste-cruft POVs related to Abhiras by casually replacing the pipe link [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vakataka_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1284269057] which is a classic link vandalism, adding unsourced caste promos [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nahapana&diff=prev&oldid=1284266502][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abhiraka&diff=prev&oldid=1280655511][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pradyota_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1282933711][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tikla&diff=prev&oldid=1282787401] in order to portray certain dynasties and its monarchs emerging from Abhira cast.The user has been disruptive all along by removing images without giving any explanation [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gopal_(caste)&diff=prev&oldid=1284236467], thankfully reverted [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gopal_(caste)&diff=prev&oldid=1284244562]. Citing [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gakhars&diff=prev&oldid=1276550195] an archaic work by Alexander Cunningham for casting push, this is a clearly a WP:RAJ violation. Not to mention the draft they were working on ie. Draft:Abhiras is full of copyvio mess. The user has displayed enough ignorance and disruptive behaviour that it can concluded--they are WP:NOTHERE.Shakakarta (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Note: I have filed this SPI involving the Abhira caste pushers: {{user|HSAVRALLL}}, {{user|ISHWARSENA}}, {{user|आभीरवाटक}} whom I think closely working to gain advantage over good faith editors, please have a look. Shakakarta (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:*:The SPI resulted in @ISHWARSENA as unrelated. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:*::Now blocked. Shakakarta (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Warned

| result = Personal attack. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|ShirtMonopoly}}

I believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShirtMonopoly&diff=prev&oldid=1284292453 this] is absolutely unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Drmies}}, agreed. I said the same thing two sections above at WP:ANI#Personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::What do people have against psychiatrists and their patients? Both of these were definitely intended as personal attacks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Given them a One And Only Warning regarding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{IP|50.209.62.201}}

Their edits in recent days/weeks/months seem to be at best lacking a clear rationale/explanation, and at worst outright trolling/vandalism. They also appear to somewhat lack the English-language competence needed to edit productively:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1284791785 Malformed addition to ITN/C] - "Trafis pauseed"{{sic}}

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_built-in_macOS_apps&diff=prev&oldid=1284492289 Unexplained removal of an entire section] of List of built-in macOS apps, with edit summary "This section is not removed."

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Anne_MacLeod_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1284648171 Fairly obvious political vandalism].

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_Madness_pools&diff=prev&oldid=1284651163 Fairly obvious vandalism].

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MorphOS&diff=prev&oldid=1284469889 Completely unexplained removal of content] from MorphOS.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hierarchical_File_System_(Apple)&diff=prev&oldid=1283613005 Removal of source,] with edit summary "citiain{{sic}} has no mention of hfs."

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macintosh_File_System&diff=prev&oldid=1283612461 Another unexplained source removal].

And so on. Their talk page displays multiple vandalism/disruptive editing warnings from the past few months, which they don't seem to have heeded. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've blocked for 72 hours. As this is the first time they've been blocked, it's a suitable starting point. If the disruption continues, the next block can be longer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{IP user|2a00:23c4:1594:a601:3401:8674:66c4:cc61}}

I've just reverted (Special:Diff/1284815503) this user's repeated additions of AI-generated content on First Eastern Counties past last warning on their talk page, with no response. See also the recent history of Norwich Park and Ride.

Sorry if this is the wrong noticeboard since there's so many of them and this is the first time I've seen something like this. Fork99 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:In the contribs I see egregious edit warring against multiple users. An AN3 report may be more suitable but I don't see why, based on the circumstances, it can't be on ANI as is. Departure– (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Got it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{IP|188.146.190.167}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team_sport&diff=prev&oldid=1284823366 Various] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UConn_Huskies_women%27s_basketball&diff=prev&oldid=1284823888 vandalism] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_Gators_men%27s_basketball&diff=prev&oldid=1284824266 edits], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.146.190.167&diff=prev&oldid=1284824153 openly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.146.190.167&diff=prev&oldid=1284825153 flaunting/shrugging] off [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:188.146.190.167&diff=prev&oldid=1284825359 warnings] at talk page, openly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_Set_nightclub_roof_collapse&diff=prev&oldid=1284826560 referring to self as a spammer]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and honestly, they did ask for a block. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Newsjunkie is edit warring against consensus of a discussion, and appears to be slow-rolling her edits to intentionally avoid the 3RR brightline.

• Her edit history shows an established editing pattern of WP:REFCLUTTER on a number of articles, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1282547495 in this case] on Harry Potter, {{user link|Wound theology}} objected to it.
• Discussion ensued and determined it to be a combination of WP:OVERCITE, WP:SYNTH, and improper use of WP:PRIMARY sources.
• Consensus seemed clear early on, and after Wound theology removed the edit in question.
• She immediately reverted back to her preferred state, claiming consensus wasn't clear, and proceeded to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion.
• This was reverted to the consensus version.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1283756634]
• She then proceeded to revert a number of times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1283775067][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1283778714][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1283794804], possibly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1283824691]
• She was warned both via [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newsjunkie&diff=prev&oldid=1283778377 user talk] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1283779362 edit summary] not to edit war.
• So she waited a day and has now reinserted previously objected to primary sources which appears to be trying to force her original edits against objections while avoiding 3RR.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1284044867]

I primarily focused on the edit warring reverts and just a link to the entire discussion, rather than try to mesh the discussion timeline with the edits. If anything is unclear, I am available to clarify. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Further review of past incidents shows that abusing the 3RR brightline may be a pattern[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive492#User:Newsjunkie_reported_by_User:Laterthanyouthink_(Result:_No_violation)] ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::I waited a day to see if there would be further reply to my comments and there wasn't. The most recent version is significantly different than the earlier version to address concerns. There should no longer be any WPSynth concern and the primary sources are used to support pure statement of facts as is permitted and are also supported by the analysis line in the subsequent sentence . In the most earlier recent version there was also a statement supported by six different references and it is not more now. newsjunkie (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::"Waiting a day to see if there is any further reply to your comments" is not standard practice for content disputes, especially when the basic style guide is stacked against you. wound theology◈ 06:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That's exactly what led me to file this ANI report. Reverting up to the 3RR and then waiting to re-add something that has been previously disputed and discussed gives the appearance of gaming the system and other WP:NOTHERE behaviors. At minimum, it's editing against consensus, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. While consensus can result in compromises and a meeting in the middle, there is no requirement that it be so, and there isn't an obligation to fully satisfy your comments or objections. The fact that no one replied to your last comments isn't then a green light to reinstate your edits. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I didn't simply "re add" it. I significantly changed what I added to address the concerns, particularly the synth concern. The initial issue was overcitation, not the actual substance of statements. Much more is being deleted than necessary (and even more then was deleted initially.) Also "consensus" is not simply determined by a simple "majority." newsjunkie (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It certainly appears that way - and yes, primary sources were part of the concern (it was pretty clearly stated by Wound Theology when they noted {{tq|There is some egregious use of citation overkill and primary sources}}). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That does not mean the statements themselves are unverified or need to be fully deleted, especially as rewritten with a secondary source clearly providing analysis. newsjunkie (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What it does mean is that you need to open discussion and establish consensus on adding those back in, since there is currently clear objection to it. Please put the article back to status quo ante and engage in a new discussion regarding just the previously objected to primary sources you wish to add. That's how it's supposed to work - not through disruptive edit warring. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If the edit tries to address those concerns, then that should be recognized. And statements that are clearly verified and statement of fact should not just be deleted. newsjunkie (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The guidelines say "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary^‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." That's basically what this is it being the official company as the rights holder. newsjunkie (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Then the WP:ONUS is on you to make that case on the article's talk page. The current consensus view of the editors involved is that it does not improve the article. If you want to make the case, do so on the article's talk page. In the meantime, putting the article back to WP:STATUSQUO ante would be a good faith move on your part to show that you're willing to work within the current guidelines of collaborative editing. What you're doing now works against that objective by making more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I did try to to make that case on the talk page, those were my final comments. But I don't think it's right for verified statements just to be deleted when they are not unsourced, if the issue is only the sources, not the statements themselves. newsjunkie (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just deleting it to me goes against the WP:Preserve policy of trying to fix issues: Wikipedia:Editing policy newsjunkie (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also my earlier revision before the most recent edit was also an attempt to address the concerns by rewriting without the word "evolved" and already should no longer have had any WPSynth concerns. newsjunkie (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can we for the love of God get an admin here? Clear WP:OWNership behaviour: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=1284589318] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=1284592618] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=1284626469] wound theology◈

:I made a new comment on the talk page asking again for concrete, substantive feedback about what is actually problematic about the current version that I submitted and how it goes against any policies and merits complete removal rather than editing/adjusting. newsjunkie (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am happy to hear any substantive feedback on the current edit here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter#c-Newsjunkie-20250408192800-Discussing_rewritten/deleted_content But currently verified content is being removed without any feedback, as well as content that includes quoted, attributed secondary sources with no primary source involvement at all newsjunkie (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::It is necessary, but not sufficient, for article content to be reliably sourced. It also needs to have consensus to be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That's fine, but I have seen or heard no arguments about the content. The initial issue and the initial removal was about overcitation/synth which I have tried to address. The current version is not the same version as was removed at the start as I have tried to address any Synth issues by clearly having statements of fact and separate quoted/attributed statements with secondary sources providing analysis that also supports the statements in question. Part of the initial concern hinged on the use of the word "evolved" which is no longer there. I broke it up into separate statements, two that are statements of fact with no analysis whatsoever, an attributed, quoted statement of analysis from a reliable secondary source, and a third statement of fact supported by a secondary source. I am open to any feedback on how the current version still raises those concerns. Two lines that keep getting deleted have no primary sources at all. The two others have both primary and secondary sources that support them as statements of fact. Currently a revised version that is reliably sourced is being deleted with no substantive arguments about how it does or does not address any of the concerns initially raised. newsjunkie (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqq|I have seen or heard no arguments about the content}} {{tqq|the initial removal}}. The fact it was removed establishes that there is, in fact, an argument about the content. The fact you have opened a talk page discussion about this is good, but you seem to have a combative stance regarding this, which isn't good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The initial reasoning for the content removal in question was WPSynth due to the use of the term "evolved" and overcitation, but not questioning the statements themselves. I rewrote and explicitly broke up the sentence to especially to address the Synth concern, to have statements of fact and added separate sentences attributed to secondary sources only, but all of it was being removed without any feedback as to what extent the rewritten content did or did not address the original concerns. newsjunkie (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The initial reasoning for the content removal was overcitation, plain and simple. SYNTH concerns were only brought up because preserving a synthetic statement was how you had defended the use of 10+ citations on a single line. You really didn't try to address any of the initial concern, you just moved citations to the inside of the sentence. Also, your habit of leaving multiple replies and thus splitting the thread into multiple branches makes everything hard to follow. wound theology◈ 06:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I focused on the synthetic concern because that was cited for the most content removal. I removed the word "evolved" and split it up into two statements of fact without any analysis supported by primary and secondary sources and a completely separate attributed sentence from Variety with a direct quote for analysis. (And one additional example from Germany supported by a secondary source.)

:::::::The statements about 2024 at the end of that paragraph that also include primary sources now refer to "organizers" without clarifying anywhere who they are. Also the first line now how has six references, several of which don't really belong to that statement that is about the years it was only a social media event. They refer to the coordinated, in-person events that started by Warner Brothers that began in 2017, the official "epilogue year" per the author. Fans and the actors didn't just show up randomly to those events, which is the impression given by many of the secondary sources or not really explained, they were going to the events as previously announced, promoted and coordinated by Warner Brothers. Having at least one to three of the primary sources for the first year, maybe the 2020 virtual only year and 2023 which is same year as the Variety source would help make that clear by illustrating that the official website was announcing these events, together with the secondary sources for those years, the actors' appearances and maybe one secondary summary of the announcements one year. If some combination of primary and secondary sources can be used to explain what happened in 2024, some combination of primary and secondary sources should be also be able to state what happened before leading up to that, when the coordinated events started in 2017, and clarifying who the "organizers" in question are. newsjunkie (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This is all totally besides the point and heavily implies you don't actually understand what the issue was in the first place. The overcitation issue was first and foremost, and anything else is just an example of undue detail. wound theology◈ 09:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Newsjunkie Please keep your responses concise and on topic. ANI discussion is about user behavior, not content disputes. Keep the content dispute to the article's talk page. We're at this noticeboard because of your edit warring and other issues. The ongoing edit warring even after the original report shows a complete disregard for community standards. The willful and overt gaming of 3RR[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=1284657401] is a serious problem, as indicated by the page now being under full protection. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I understand that references were removed due to the overcitation concerns as in the very initial first edit, but after that I think more content was removed than necessary going beyond the substance of the discussion, including sentences that had no primary sources at all and otherwise verified statements that were also supported by secondary sources. I think there would have been a way to remove just the citations at issue or to continue discussion on them rather than deleting all the sentences. newsjunkie (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}} The edit warring has been put to an end by indefinite WP:FULL, so this can probably close. I still see a disconnect from Newsjunkie on what the actual issues are, but time will tell whether that sinks in or not. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind, she has previously 3RRed on List of programs broadcast by CBS, adding unnecessary content that messes up the appearance of the article. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have regularly offered to discuss and encouraged others to do so on the article talk page. newsjunkie (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}} And please continue to do so, but don't touch the article itself unless and until you get consensus for your actions. Sometimes consensus goes the "wrong" way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also one instance overlapped with trying to revert pure spam edits that were being made by a different editor at the same time. newsjunkie (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::One of the users was not spamming. All they were doing was removing your mess. Okay, let me be clear. In the article, she added (reported in [Month, Year]). Numerous people (including me), agree that this is unnecessary since we have references (with the info included), plus she added unnecessary information to the article (show on the bubble links, renewal information on a bulleted list, and overciting that article). NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I was just saying it was happening at the same time. This should all be discussed on the talk page which it hasn't been so far or only partially, including the initial discussion about reformatting the page with renewal information like some other pages. newsjunkie (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand if it happened at the same time. But the edit history showed she was reverting to what she believes is her own page. Numerous people have already disagreed with her. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::There were a lot of edits happening and I was just trying to get it to what had been the stable version up to then. The substance should all be discussed on the talk page. newsjunkie (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's what we did, but yet she continued to revert the pages to her own version. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you're referring to the talk page discussion, I suggested the renewal information should stay in place pending a redesign of the page, nobody objected on the talk page and you offered to initiate the redesign, and there has been no further discussion so far. newsjunkie (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, and I am in the process of redesigning it to the table format still, but when it's done, it won't contain the unnecessary citations (only the Renewal/Cancellation citations will remain), and the (Reported in [Month, Year]) will be taken off, as that is extra unnecessary information that is already in the references. I'm talking about the Harry Potter talk page, where she continued her own actions, even with a discussion and consensus. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Whether to include any additional information at that point can be a separate discussion on the talk page at that time. In this exchange I was only referring to edits/discussion related to the CBS page, where there has been no further discussion yet. newsjunkie (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Or of course there can also be discussion of it on the talk page now as a follow up to the existing discussions or a separate discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It doesn't matter. She can't be edit warring or reverting when multiple people (even on the talk pages) disagree with her. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There hasn't been any discussion on that specific topic on the talk page with anyone disagreeing or agreeing. newsjunkie (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::For the tenth million time, she continued to revert edits even after reaching a consensus in the Harry Potter article/talk page. The people mentioned above reached a conclusion that the article should not have her changes. But of course, she dismissed it and continued to edit war to her own version. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The Harry Potter page is currently locked and discussion is ongoing. Your concerns were about the CBS page where there has been no further discussion so far. Most recently on the CBS page I made a comment about a citation on the talk page several days ago which I purposefully did not add back in and you just responded to it today. newsjunkie (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Like I said, what she is doing to CBS doesn’t help the article and messes it up. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've removed the unsourced material from Ali Mohamed Osoble. As for adding material, including his birthplace, birthdate, etc., a blog is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::But please do add anything that can be reliably sourced. It is even more important than usual to include reliable sources for people whose name may not always be consistently spelt in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe you have old newspaper clippings or know where you can find reliable sources of info about your father? Any articles written about him? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

(Author of Cultural Ecology; Balancing on an Alp; HIll Farmers of Nigeria; and Smallholders, Householders

(Pre-eminent Agricultural Anthropologist)

I recall having found the page, read and referred back to it a few times over the past decade or so.

I thought it was a pretty good summary.

It's gone; poof!

Wha' Happm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:29f:e700:7c60:2ef4:aaa8:4291 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:There have never been pages for Robert Netting, Robert Mc Corkle Netting, Robert McCorkle Netting, Robert McC Netting (the name he apparently writes under), R.M.C. Netting, R. M. C. Netting, or RMC Netting. Also, you should probably ask this at the Teahouse instead of ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can't find any trace that there ever was a WP-article, assuming it's this guy.[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56816736][https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/09/obituaries/robert-netting-60-who-showed-societies-links-to-environment.html][https://www.jstor.org/stable/4603276]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:We have Kofyar people which mentions one aspect of his work. Are you perhaps thinking of that? It's possible some other articles of ours mention his work too but these mentions have been parred down or removed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:I must admit that when I saw [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5737/chapter/10#127 this] National Academies Press work had a "conclusion" section, I thought "Oh no, yet more WP:LLM generated text"... -Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, {{IP|79.125.235.139}} was blocked for making disruptive edits toward articles relating to iOS. Today, while patrolling the recent changes page I noticed that the iOS 16 page had been updated by a user with a very similar IP. This new IP, {{IP|79.125.235.22}}, had added "why block" to that page. This leaves me to believe that the user may be evading their block.

Evidence:
From 79.125.235.139: {{oldid|IOS 17|1284790297|}}, {{oldid|IOS 16|1284789670|}}, {{oldid|IOS 12|1284791169|}}
From 79.125.235.22: {{oldid|IOS 16|1284920036|}}

I warned the editor multiple times to stop their disruptive editing and they refused, which led to the block by @Jauerback.

Tagging other users who were involved in warning this IP: @Toketaa @ObserveOwl Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{user|Hanamitchi}} is a confirmed sockpuppet of {{user|Yukitanooki}} (Commons RFCU). A quick scan didn't turn up any outright abuse by either account on this project, but they do edit the same pages. Passing it along for you to deal with as you wish. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{user|076f}} could be another sock, but no harm done. 0x0a (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Is there an SPI filed with the user? Conyo14 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Simplicityissophistication}} making legal threats.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Been blocked, but now evading as an IP. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGoldbach%27s_conjecture&diff=1284895010&oldid=1284890942] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:More IP block evasion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=1284897999] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Blocked two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

I'm seeking clarification regarding a warning I received from User:Yamla, which included a threat of being blocked. My proposal was about raising awareness of how Palestinians affected by the ongoing war currently lack access to Wikipedia. I did not attempt to edit any conflict-related articles or pages under WP:ARBPIA.

My intention was purely humanitarian, to discuss whether there could be an effort to support users who have no access due to infrastructure collapse. However, I was told this fell under "Arab-Israeli conflict" topics and received a WP:DROPTHESTICK warning along with the threat of a block.

I'm unclear how my comments violated any contentious topic rules and would like input on whether this action by the admin was appropriate and proportionate. Thank you. -- Cipher Nox (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{userlinks|Yamla}}{{pb}}You are required to provide links or HELP:DIFFs as evidence of any wrongdoing. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply,

::Here is the diff. -- Cipher Nox (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=prev&oldid=1284550235 the original proposal] and User_talk:331dot#question where {{Ping|331dot}} explained why this violated WP:ECR around the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Cipher Nox You can't edit or discuss anything related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, with this situation included. I would say Yamla is correct in saying that you would be blocked if you pursue further, but I assume you won't, right? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for your input. I understand that Wikipedia has specific guidelines around discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly under WP:ECR, and I certainly don't want to step into contentious territory. My goal was never to discuss or edit anything related to the conflict itself, but rather to address the humanitarian aspect—the lack of access to Wikipedia due to the war's impact on infrastructure.

:::::It seems there's been some misunderstanding, and I'm seeking clarification on how this is considered a violation of the rules when my focus was purely on raising awareness about access issues, not engaging with the conflict itself. Could you please point me to any specific guidelines or examples where my comments went against WP:ECR, so I can ensure my future contributions align with Wikipedia’s standards?

:::::I truly want to contribute positively and respectfully, and I appreciate your feedback on how to proceed without violating any community rules.--Cipher Nox (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::We've explained it well enough already. The Gaza genocide is related to the Arab Israeli Conflict. You're making edits related to the conflict. You're not allowed to do that, so I encourage you to not edit in the area until you reach the required edits. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality, but neutrality doesn't mean ignoring human suffering or violations of basic human rights. My proposal was never political, but humanitarian, aimed at raising awareness about the crisis in Gaza and how it affects access to knowledge. Wikipedia has taken stands on other issues in the past [https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/03/03/wikimedia-foundation-stands-with-communities-defending-free-knowledge/], and I believe it should be consistent in its humanitarian response. The situation in Gaza is dire, and silence in the face of it is not neutrality, it's neglect.--Cipher Nox (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You were discussing the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. That is covered by WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:to say that Gaza and the genocide is not part of Arab-Israeli conflict is, to put it frankly, ridiculous. @Cipher Nox please do not drag this out as it will not end well for you Star Mississippi 21:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::The editor posting here made the obviously contradictory statement, "I haven't edited any page related to Arab-Israeli conflict, The latest edit I made was about Gaza genocide." Who carried out the genocide, or is said to have done? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your comments. I understand the sensitivity surrounding terms like "genocide" and their connection to the broader Gaza-Israeli conflict. However, my intention was never to engage in the political or historical aspects of the conflict itself. The article on "Gaza Genocide" is a reflection of a specific perspective, and I wasn't aiming to delve into that perspective in my proposal.

:::My focus was solely on the issue of access to Wikipedia in Gaza and the humanitarian aspect of how the conflict is affecting people's ability to use the site. I can see how my wording may have unintentionally triggered this association, but I want to clarify that I wasn't making a political or conflict-related claim.

:::I'm open to further discussion, but I'd appreciate it if we could keep the focus on the accessibility issue, which is what I was trying to raise awareness about. I don't want to get caught up in a broader debate about the conflict but am willing to listen to any concerns or suggestions about how to approach this topic appropriately within the guidelines.--Cipher Nox (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The guidelines (and more specifically, policy) do not permit you to 'approach this topic'. There's no wiggle room, no exceptions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{non-admin}} The restriction on new editors covers not just articles but also means that new editors are not allowed to take part in any talk page or background discussions. Regardless of your intentions you won't be able to take part in what you're looking to do, you may think that what you are doing isn't covered but it is. This may seem harsh but that's the way of it. All the editors telling you the same are only trying to help, because there isn't any leeway in this restriction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I understand the restrictions for new editors, but my intention was never to edit or take sides in the Gaza-Israeli conflict. My proposal was about raising awareness of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, especially how it affects access to information and knowledge, something that's aligned with Wikipedia's core values. I'm not here to disrupt or engage in a political debate, but rather to bring attention to an urgent issue. I believe that Wikipedia should be consistent in its humanitarian response, especially when it comes to defending free knowledge in times of crisis. I'm simply asking for Wikipedia to stand for its mission during this critical moment.--Cipher Nox (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You've asked, several people have given you an answer. It's time to drop it. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::An established editor is welcome to make that request, althogh I'd argue it to be a waste of community time since it will not come to fruition. You, who are not yet Extended Confirmed, are not allowed to do so. That is the outcome here. It has no bearing on free knowledge, mission, political debate or otherwise. Please drop the stick. Star Mississippi 21:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see my proposal as falling under conflict related discussion, it was a humanitarian call, about human lives and suffering, nothing more. That said, I now understand your broad interpretations of the editing restrictions and will refrain from participating further in this area.

Thank you all for your time and explanations. -- Cipher Nox (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

• {{userlinks|Dragon5556}}

There is a user by the name of Dragon5556 who went on my user page and went on to vandalise it (Removing the opening and lead that I had and replacing it with swear words). All I was doing was telling them in a politeful manner that they have been told before that it is great to update NRL stats but had to wait for the game to start. I am not going to request the revision be hidden, but they were previously reported to ANI for vandalising the page of User:Sully198787 last year and blocked for two weeks. Is there anything that can be done about this? Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:That message they posted was absolutely unacceptable. I've blocked them indefinitely and deleted the revision. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

| result = P-blocked from article space as an interim step until / unless they communicate. Star Mississippi 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|Halaena Rheeys}}

This user makes overwhelmingly harmful edits. Many of them remove significant content from lead sections, often leaving them in a state where they simply make no sense (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Basso&diff=prev&oldid=1283530312]). Their edit summaries are often weird and unhelpful (eg from the example edit: "The main page should be a basic outline of it, not spoon feeding info at the start. Looks better too & less nauseous to read all". Their user talk page contains dozens of warnings, but they have never responded to any message in the 4+ years since they created their account. I suggest that administrator attention is required to get the user to stop making harmful changes and to respond when other users communicate with them. 94.119.32.12 (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't looked to see if this user's edits are harmful, but communication is required, and that edit summary betrays a misunderstanding of what the lead section is for. I don't dare look to see if WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU is still valid after all these years. Something needs to be done to get this person's attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm a bit confused... did you mean WP:ICANTHEARYOU? — Chrisahn (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, he meant what he linked to because this is a non-talking mobile user situation. —Alalch E. 14:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

: I have to agree. I have often come across harmful edits by this user in the last few months. Of the last 50 edits, about two thirds have been reverted. – For example, the user has habitually replaced "known for playing" by "known as" in actors' biographies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Of course, the claim "is an actress known as Catherine Parr" is nonsense when in reality the actress merely played Catherine Parr in a musical. The user doesn't seem to have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand this. – In a similar vein, the user replaced "She originated the role of Sally Bowles" by the mangled version "She originated Sally Bowles". – Another habit of the user is marking non-minor edits as minor, despite repeated warnings on the user's talk page. – On balance, this user is not a benefit to the project. Some edits are OK (though I haven't seen any that substantially improved an article), but too many are harmful and cause extra work for other editors. And since the user never responds to messages, I don't see a good way forward except an indef block on article space. Maybe if we still allow user and article talk page edits, the user will start communicating with others. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support indef. Halaena Rheeys is clearly interested in copyediting, has been doing some okay copyedits (especially the more conservative ones, earlier on), and could probably be an okay editor, but she has the wrong view on how certain things are done, her bad edits have been hugely outweighing her good edits recently, and she can't be communicated with, because she is a mobile user who doesn't use the talk page. A block could help start the communication.—Alalch E. 14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User has been indef blocked from article space. See User talk:Halaena Rheeys#April 2025. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for taking out the garbage. It's too bad this editor wasn't stopped years earlier. Better late than never, I suppose. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| result = I just yanked TPA. Apologies in advance for those monitoring UTRS. Star Mississippi 05:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

This user is using disruptive language on their own Talk page Jlktutu (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{user links|Jack Adamenko}}

:For future reference, please provide relevant links and HELP:DIFFs to save other's time. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I believe it is obvious when you check the user's Talk page. Jlktutu (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The point is to save other's time by not having to click around and search though edit histories to find what you're talking about. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Alright, will keep that in mind. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Jack%20Adamenko&diff=prev&oldid=1285013949 Diff] Jlktutu (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:User:Willthorpe, nothing will happen here if you don't present evidence/diffs to back up your accusations. We don't block editors just based on your request to do so. You have to present a case that indicates why this is necessary. And you also need to notify the editor on their User talk page that you posted this complaint about them. Please do so if you haven't already. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Willthorpe, the vast majority of my edits have cited ‘reliable’ sources. I acknowledge that I accidentally didn’t follow important protocol in a couple of those articles, and will carefully note down the edit protocols. The formatting errors are purely accidental. In no way was I attempting to push a POV view, and I believe in full neutrality and transparency. Wistherdisc (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Examples of POV pushing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amelia_Hamer&diff=prev&oldid=1284417941][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dutton&diff=prev&oldid=1264443159][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dutton&diff=prev&oldid=1264418662][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Telegraph_(Sydney)&diff=prev&oldid=1264043418][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Darwin&diff=prev&oldid=1283898801] GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Excuse me, how is this POV pushing? In all those edits, I have cited reliable sources. I think the issue might have been that I did not make those edits in the right place, but all the content in the edits are either factual information or obvious inferred conclusions, backed up by Australian media sources. None of this is fake, but I do acknowledge that my edits may have been repeated information or simply in the wrong section of the article. Wistherdisc (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::But again, this is nowhere near POV pushing. Wistherdisc (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I could certainly see these edits, in some cases, as being of questionable appropriateness for inclusion but I don't see any evidence of disruption. This looks like a content dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Wistherdisc}}, Wikipedia editors are not permitted to state {{tpq|obvious inferred conclusions}} in articles. That is a violation of the core content policy No original research which disallows {{tpq|any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.}} Please read that policy and follow it carefully in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks, will have a read of it Wistherdisc (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Simonm223: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amelia_Hamer&diff=prev&oldid=1284417941] this is a clear example. Making the opening sentences related to a recent scandal. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Why are you specifically targeting me? So many other users have also tried to re-insert the word ‘landlord’ in the opening sentence/para, and the information was also sourced. This is not POV pushing, this is 100% factual information. People have raised concerns about your attempts to delete the article with no clear rationale. Wistherdisc (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Information can be {{tqq|100% factual}} and still be pushing a POV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Wistherdisc}}, it’s not enough for content to be sourced, what’s there still needs comply with WP:NPOV and be WP:DUE (recommend rereading both of those, an essay you might find helpful is WP:WFE). But I don’t think any of the above diffs are egregious enough to warrant any discussion of sanction. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, will have a read Wistherdisc (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Kowal2710. So to clarify: many of these edits look WP:UNDUE but there's no indication of edit warring, the editor seems willing to take on board suggestions to improve policy adherence, and we don't impose sanctions for putting up a couple of undue paragraphs. Simonm223 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Wistherdisc Among the core policies, I find Wp:NPOV requires the most experience and skill to apply. Sources may lean one way or another, but it is up to the seasoned editor to summarise and represent the published content fairly. See Wp:CONBUILD & Wp:TALKDONTREVERT. The talk page for the article in question would, in my opinion, be a more appropriate place to engage than here. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

| status = WRONG PLACE

| result = Please open a case at the sockpuppet investigations page. {{NAC}} 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

I’ve just come across a user who is block evading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop65565 is the user in question. I suspect that this user is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop6666 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coop2017 among others. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

"Bye bye little jihadi"

Diff here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADetention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil&diff=1285117200&oldid=1285117024]

:{{re|Bob drobbs}} you forgot to sign your comment with the magic four tildes. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Doh! Thanks. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|Grandmaster (chess)}}

{{Userlinks|Whatismyname2000}} is violating WP:3RR and edit warring at Grandmaster (chess). Quale (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pblocked from the article for a month. Next time please bring edit warring reports to WP:AN3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Yongpeng Sun}}

Editor has regularly used non-reliable sources for at least a few months (possible going back even further). They return every few weeks or a month and make the same sort of edit again.

Examples:

• Special:Diff/1284886924 (10 April 2025): Non-RS sources like WP:GLOBALSECURITY. Plus with a dose of WP:REFBOMB. Also possible OR or SYNTH where claims of being variants are concerned; I'm still trying to work it out.
• Special:Diff/1284884874 (10 April 2025): Blogs (chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com)
• Special:Diff/1283558837 (2 April 2025): Blogs (chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com)
• Special:Diff/1283558801 (2 April 2025): WP:GLOBALSECURITY
• Special:Diff/1283057497 (30 March 2025): Non-RS sources like WP:GLOBALSECURITY, WP:ARMYRECOGNITION, chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com, sinodefence.wordpress.com
• Special:Diff/1273848375 (4 February 2025): Blogs
• Special:Diff/1272154052 (27 January 2025): Blogs.
• Special:Diff/1261764868 (7 December 2024): WP:ARMYRECOGNITION
• Special:Diff/1261113067 (4 December 2024): WP:ARMYRECOGNITION
• Special:Diff/1257307463 (14 November 2024): WP:ARMYRECOGNITION
• Special:Diff/1250911227 (13 October 2024): WP:ARMYRECOGNITION, blog bulgarianmilitary.com
• Special:Diff/1246652575 (20 September 2024): WP:ARMYRECOGNITION

Editor has been warned multiple times (regular talk page blanking, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yongpeng_Sun&action=history]) and has not responded to any of them. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wow. Every single one of their talk page edits is just to blank it. I'll pblock from mainspace for now. -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Garboge6969}} has no intention of being civil on Wikipedia after multiple recent warnings.

• {{diff3|1284178597|01:48, 6 April 2025}}: {{u|Remsense}} warned Garboge6969 about their reactions to being reverted at User talk:Garboge6969
• {{diff3|1284661128|23:30, 8 April 2025}}: Garboge6969 called {{u|Remsense}} a {{tq|bastard}} at Napoleon III
• {{diff3|1284661342|23:32, 8 April 2025}}: Garboge6969 called {{u|Remsense}} an {{tq|idiot}} at Talk:Napoleon III
• {{diff3|1284983822|23:14, 10 April 2025}}: I gave an uninvolved civility warning to Garboge6969 at User talk:Garboge6969
• {{diff3|1284985679|23:33, 10 April 2025}}: Garboge6969 responded to the warning by calling me a {{tq|conservative bitch}} at User talk:Garboge6969
• {{diff3|1284986465|23:40, 10 April 2025}}: I gave a final civility warning to Garboge6969 at User talk:Garboge6969
• {{diff3|1285005053|02:26, 11 April 2025}}: Garboge6969 (logged out as an IP) replaced an {{tl|RPA}} template with {{tq|idiot}} at Talk:Napoleon III
• {{diff3|1285114526|19:47, 11 April 2025}}: Garboge6969 sent me an expletive-filled rant at User talk:Garboge6969

Curiously, their 23rd to 29th edits ({{diff3|1277467843|example}} on 24 February 2025) were requests to various editors for 1-year self-blocks.

Clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:This ain't my school bro to report to the other administrators :sob:

:Stop acting like my dad lil bro Garboge6969 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also that was the cuss word song you get mad at fucking cuss words Garboge6969 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::...aaaaand blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have declined a rant posing as an unblock request and revoked talk page access. Warning: when this editor gets elected president, a lot of Wikipedia editors will be thrown in jail. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{Userlinks|Zanbarg}}

I am reporting User:Zanbarg for continuous disruptive edits. This user has made a duplicate article at least three times under different article titles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slay_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1284881602][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slay_%28GMA_TV_series%29&diff=1284881641&oldid=1284881519][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slay_%28upcoming_TV_series%29&diff=1280522961&oldid=1280522567] for a TV series, that has a draft article - Draft:Slay (TV series) which has yet to pass the article submission. This reported editor has questionable edits - claiming they need to be in peace[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zanbarg&diff=prev&oldid=1284884977], saying they are "clean now" through their edit summary[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slay_%28upcoming_TV_series%29&diff=1280522961&oldid=1280522567]. The editor has also accused me of stalking twice for editing the drafts they've created.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3ASlay_%28TV_series%29&diff=1280520584&oldid=1278268163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hotwiki&diff=prev&oldid=1274306480]Hotwiki (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:May I add, I brought this issue last month in Teahouse[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1250#Making_an_article_with_a_draft_article_failing_an_article_submission], and one editor suggested me to bring this to ANI. Fast forward to this month, Zanbarg once again made two duplicate articles for 1 TV series, despite being told directly before, that its inappropriate.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3ASlay_%28TV_series%29&diff=1280536861&oldid=1280521844] Then the reported editor pinged me to the talkpage of one of the duplicate articles, with an empty message.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slay_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1284881843] Hotwiki (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REPORT YOU AS WELL FOR DISRUPTIVE EDITS, ONLINE HARASSMENT AND SECRETIVE STALKING? Zanbarg (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Zanbarg, this is your opportunity to avoid being indefinitely blocked. An all-caps threat and starting your own retaliatory ANI filing is not going to help your case. -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Zanbarg also accused me of assault in my talkpage.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hotwiki&diff=prev&oldid=1285089142] I don't even know who this person is in real life. Hotwiki (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have INDEFFed Zanbarg for their conduct here, the thread below and what led to this report. Star Mississippi 17:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

| status = nope

| result = absolutely not asilvering (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT THIS USER @Hotwiki for stalking me online, tracing every edits I make and unnecessarily disruptively changing it for no reason! THIS USER IS ALSO HARASSING AND SCOLDING ME! Zanbarg (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{abot}}

| status = No action

| result = Most IP addresses are used by different people over time, so older problems not necessarily relevant now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{IPlinks|73.206.161.228}}

This user's recent edits, in particular those on Talk:Keith Self, are very clearly trolling / deliberate provocation. It is also worth taking into account that this IP has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A73.206.161.228 blocked several times before] for WP:NOTHERE. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:That's not a recent edit. That was literally a month ago. The past blocks were for utterly unrelated conduct by almost certainly a different editor. The more recent edits are...opinionated but don't rise to the level of a block.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

31 March 2025: Drew Stanley removed sourced content

Drew Stanley removed a sourced content [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1283186239] citing unreliability of the source. And adviced me [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1283187010] to not to use that source again. I warned him [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_Stanley&diff=prev&oldid=1283215057] to not to remove any sourced content without a discussion and tried to have a conversation to resolve the issue. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1283213500] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1283216952] Drew Stanley did not reply to any of my attempts to initiate a conversation at that time.

31 March 2025: Drew Stanley filed first SPI [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Senapatiji/Archive] against me

In response to my attempt to initiate a conversation, he filed first SPI (link [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Senapatiji/Archive]) accusing me of being a sockmaster. I took it as an action in good faith and tried to respond to his claims on that SPI in a detailed manner. (link [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Senapatiji/Archive])

5 April 2025: SPI closed as there were no findings of sockpupetry

The Admin reviewed the SPI and closed it on 5 April 2025 with a comment, "{{tq|I'm not convinced that there's any socking here....}}".

8 April 2025: Drew Stanley filed a second SPI [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kjp007] against me

Drew Stanley, not satisfied with the outcome of first SPI, filed a second SPI (link [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kjp007]) against me on 8 April 2025 (3 days after the closure of his first SPI). Interestingly enough, in his second SPI he deliberately avoid mentioning the first SPI whose outcome was not in his favour. The Admin also took note of it and commented that, "{{tq|Refiling...(link of first SPI)...without at least referencing it is not usually a good look}}". (see full comment here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kjp007&diff=prev&oldid=1284624978])

In his second SPI he is directly approaching Administrator on their talk page [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers&diff=prev&oldid=1284774858]

9 April 2025: bad faith revenge edits

I used [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1280361619] a source published by University Granth Nirman Board, Drew Stanley made an edit [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Granth_Nirman_Board&diff=prev&oldid=1284770941] on lead section (brought controversy on top) of this publication's wikipage and tried to degrade the credibility of the source. This shows how desperate he is to harrass me by doing everything he can.

So basically, Drew Stanley is removing sourced content without discussion, not interested in resolving issues via conversation (he only replied [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1284756339] yesterday after doing all these), filing multiple bad faith SPIs back to back, contacting Administrator personally during open SPI and making revenge edits to degrade credibility of an institution.

His battlefield behavior and conducts are very disturbing to me as a new user (who has just joined a month ago). How am I suppose to contribute constructively if there are SPIs against me every other day? Drew Stanley is doing everything he can to make sure that I do not continue on Wikipedia.

I request the reviewing Admins to please go through his SPIs, especially the second one, It seems like he is not concerned for the content or the Wikipedia policies. He just want take revenge on me by doing all these. Please help me by stoping this. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 03:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I'm not buying the "woe me, the persecuted newbie" narrative here. You are certainly vigorous in punching out the long legalistic arguments for someone whose will to edit is being cruelly sapped. On the merits, it appears to me that {{tq|I'm not convinced that there's any socking here}} is hardly a ringing slapdown (especially when partly based on the disruption being prevented by ECP); a second SPI based on new findings is not malicious, and not invalidated by neglecting to link to the first; and the "revenge edit" is a reasonable piece of editorial judgement (whereas your reaction is loudly partisan to the subject). And as long as we are tallying lapses from grace, there is no requirement to discuss sources before reverting, as you aver [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_Stanley&diff=prev&oldid=1283215057 here], however there IS the expectation that a discussion take place before edit-warring the reversion back in, as you did in the following - see WP:BRD. So I'd suggest giving this exercise a rest. The editor doth protest too much, methinks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'll add that Drew Stanley's removal of the source and sentence is obviously correct, and that the statement itself, {{tq|Some modern and British-era historians link the Cathaeans to the Kathis of western Gujarat, though evidence remains uncertain.}} cannot possibly be verified by a 100-year-old source in the first place. @Senapatiji, please self-revert, and familiarize yourself with WP:V. -- asilvering (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I totally agree with this and that's why I provided a new reference [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1280361619] published in 2022 (first edition in 2020). And I am ready to remove this also, my only point is, there should be a discussion if there is an issue, and it looks like he still has issue with that new source. So, finally we are discussing it now. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1284756339] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1284866589] Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 10:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What you have added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=1280361619 here] is also not a reliable source. It is high time that you should read WP:HISTRS. Koshuri ^(グ) 12:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm neutral right now but I would like to see User:Drew Stanley's response to these accusations. Both SPIs are very densely-written with many diffs showing comparisons between editors and I didn't have time to carefully go through the charges. But they are definitely the precursor to this complaint. I will say that Senapatiji is very adept at editing on Wikipedia that doesn't fit with the limited competency of a brand new editor to the project. But I'd like to see how the second SPI case concludes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, it's true, my editing skills are now far better than I had during my initial edits. But this is only because I dedicate significant amount of my time in learning this and I'm still learning. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 10:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The "accusations" against me seem to be that I am acting in bad faith and that I am "doing revenge edits," which is "battlefield behavior." I am not. I edited University Granth Nirman Board because I was open to its credibility ; while there, I foregrounded a notable piece of information that had been buried at the end. This is why I contacted Justlettersandnumbers.{{pb}}I concede that my issue with the non-english sources is partly due to frustration that i cannot access it - perhaps it is useful, but i have a feeling it just cites/reiterates James Tod.{{pb}}I noted the in my first SPI post Daniel Case added ECP to Kathi people after edits by Senapatiji (most were reverted); following this, Senapatiji added links to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=newcomer+task&target=Senapatiji&offset=&limit=500 few hundred pages]. {{tq|1=significant amount of my time in learning this}} ? not sure Drew Stanley (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::That is pretty blatant WP:PGAMING. Done the "grant XC and then revoke it" thing on Senapatiji due to the gaming. If they want XC they will have to request it once their account is over 30 days old. I will also echo Liz's comment that this doesn't seem like a new editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::@The Bushranger, please reconsider this decision. This is an editor following newcomer homepage links to suggested articles and making an attempt to improve them. That the edits are small is immaterial. If this pattern of editing came up at WP:AE I am confident it would not be considered gaming. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I'm afraid I can't see the pattern of "make edits to page, page gets XC protected, immediately go and start making several hundred semi-automated edits at the rate of up to three per minute" as anything but PGAMING. When they hit 30 days' account time, if they want to request XC, and any admin believes it isn't, then that's their decision to make, of course. (I'm not sure what could be 'reconsidered' here, anyway, since the account doesn't qualify for XC yet so it wasn't outright removed, and the grant-and-remove disabled the automatic granting.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Is it gaming even when I have not caused any disruption (except those 10 initial edits with Tod source)? I don't think I have misused any tool here because at the beginning my edits were getting reverted so I turned to newcomers tasks and done a lot of those as I think that is how I will be able to increase my editing level (however now I know it's not a way). For the rate of my tasks, I still believe it hardly takes 10 to 15 seconds to accept or reject a suggested copy edit, so no wonder the rate of edits per minute is high.
• :::::In my opinion many new editors perform edits to increase their user access, just take the case of Drew Stanley: 2nd edit on 13 February 2024; 512th edit on 27 February 2024; over 500 edits (~200 newcomer tasks) in 14 days [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Drew+Stanley&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2024-01-24&end=2024-02-26&limit=1000]; granted XC on 26 February 2024 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=160119135] (joined 24 January 2024 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Drew+Stanley]). This rate sharply declined, after getting XC, to next ~500 edits in 7 months. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Drew+Stanley&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2024-02-27&end=2024-09-26&limit=1000]. Does this make Drew Stanley a gamer? Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 04:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It might very well. But that doesn't change the fact that while it's entirely possible your editing was intended in good faith, it was indistinguishable from WP:PGAMING, especially given the timing vis-a-vis the EC protection of the article you had been editing just before the edits in question began. That said, again, if it was all above board, then once your account has been active for a month, you can request XC and another admin can grant it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :: I'm in the same boat as Bushranger and Liz here. Opening an ANI thread at all and showing clear experience with Wikipedia (Citing 'battleground behavior', citing WP:BITE, and generally messaging similarly to experienced editors I've seen) are all signs that you don't seem new around town. I should note that Drew Stanley also pointed this out in the second SPI. (Note: This is my first time participating in WP:ANI, please don't kill me.) —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 07:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Here it comes, if I edit an article-I'm a sockpupet (even though both SPIs say I'm not); if I improve my editing skills-I'm cheating; if I do newcomer's tasks-I'm gaming and the last one is most interesting, if I report to ANI-I am (don't know what it makes me but something evil). No words, literally no words. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 10:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Welcome to contentious topics, @Senapatiji! This is, more or less, why we tell newbies to avoid them. As someone who was accused of being a sockpuppet as a newbie for being a competent person who learned things, I understand how frustrating this is. My advice is that you immediately cease editing in all contentious topics, in particular India/Pakistan. Go do basically anything else while you learn to edit wikipedia and build up a reputation. There's currently a destubathon project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The European Destubathon that would be a good thing to get into (avoid Eastern Europe). WP:WIRED is really welcoming to newcomers (avoid biographies in contentious topics). Go write somewhere with fewer sockfarms and fewer pov-warriors, and leave this behind you.
• ::::If you aren't connected to any other accounts, you have nothing to fear from SPI, so just ignore them. If you are connected to other accounts, please stop wasting everyone's time (including, most of all, yours) and appeal your original ban/block. Feel free to tag me in to your appeal. -- asilvering (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Initially I didn't know what SPIs are, I thought like it's finished, I'm going to get blocked or banned, that's why I took it personally and argued so much there. But believe me I have never made an account (except this) nor do I know those people mentioned in SIPs. I am still ready to co-operate if there is any other way to prove genuineness of my account and my edits.
• :::::Thank you so much @Asilvering for this guidance, I will surely work on your suggestions, and Thank you all the Admins and Drew Stanley, I will take this with a positive note and will learn from this to avoid any such incidents in future. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 17:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Cue April 3rd. Seeing that 3 sock accounts meddling in similar topics had been blocked on April 1st[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Miyanky445], I went through their edits and restored them to the pre-sock versions.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Ogiso&diff=prev&oldid=1283758053] I noticed one of the pages I restored, List of the Ogiso, was using a self published source for content verification regarding an unacademic backdated kings list. I went through the talk pages of the related articles and saw that there was already a consensus agreeing to use sources for the academically supported date range of the 10th-12th centuries, between @Kowal2701 @Oramfe and @History Of Yoruba and @Vanderwaalforces [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Igodomigodo#c-Oramfe-20250308021400-Oramfe-20250308015700], so I went through the topic history to see when the non academic backdated list was added, and I saw that @Kowal2701 had added it some days after the consensus, but he was unsure of whether it belonged there or not.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Ogiso&diff=prev&oldid=1281864242] Noticing its breach of WP:SPS, I removed the self published source and it’s contents, making sure to explain the reason.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Ogiso&diff=prev&oldid=1283832353] The next thing I knew, I received my second and what seems to me a rather sinister threat from Vanderwaalforces. “do not start what you cannot finish” he said.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Ogiso&diff=next&oldid=1283832353] He proceeded to revert my edit without any other reason given, and later changed the source from one self published book, to the original self published book that contained the non academic backdated list.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Ogiso&diff=prev&oldid=1283862872]([https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=B5QuAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Osemwegie| Extra confirmation that it is indeed self published]) It's then I suspected that his dismissal of guidelines was intentional, and his likely aim was to push non-academic POVs of these topics on Wikipedia.

In the earlier articles that he gave a POV tag, he tried to pose as a neutral editor with no relation to Yoruba and Edo/Bini people,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ọranyan#c-Vanderwaalforces-20250321162000-Vanderwaalforces-20250321161600] but going through his talk page history(that gets deleted every month by a bot), his deceit is revealed in this conversation he had with @Oramfe, where expresses knowledge unique to binis of a local river.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/09_(September)#c-Vanderwaalforces-20240916192200-Oramfe-20240916191400].

To me there isn't an issue if a person with Edo affiliation deals with a lot of Edo related topics. It is very suspect though, for him to claim neutrality when he is not, in order to speak from a place of authority just to better push his jingoistic desires on those topics.

I went through articles he has been mostly responsible for making, to doublecheck, and sure enough, there were numerous Benin kingdom and Ogiso related articles making exceptional claims[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources] that either weren't supported by multiple high-quality sources(as required), any source at all, and sometimes just almost entirely made up of self published sources(some with the author owning the publisher). These are topics I would have liked to address individually on those talk pages, but after noticing, to my shock, that a few were rated "good articles", I figured I should take his threats from earlier seriously and create this ANI.

This isn't a content dispute, but for the accusations I have made it is necessary that I give an example and a break down of how he got away with false and exceptional claims in this[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehengbuda] specific "good article". He exploits that the lead of an article doesn't have to contain a source for a claim, so long as the claim is later sourced in the main body(as per WP:LEADCITE).

So what he will do is that he will make exceptional claims in the lead, but when it's time to provide a source in the main body, he will change the claim to better match what the source says. As a result, the claim in the body is accounted for(sometimes it's actually not), but the exceptional claim in the lead remains "protected" from dispute by citing WP:LEADCITE to people who aren't intimately familiar with the topic. Here is a breakdown of a small section of this article.

This is what he says in the lead

{{tq2| Ehengbuda expanded the empire's territory westward and eastward, solidifying control over tributary states like the Oyo, Ekiti and Nupe.}}

To any normal reader, what this means is that Benin kingdom subjugated the Oyo empire, Ekiti and Nupe people, and forced them to pay tribute to Benin kingdom.

This is what he says in the body

{{tq2| During his reign, Oba Ehengbuda embarked on a series of military campaigns with the aim of expanding the Benin Empire's territory and influence. One of his most notable victories was defeating a mounted army sent by either the Oyo Empire or the Nupe people. This victory established the Benin-Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country.[s1][s2] He also secured tribute from several Yoruba rulers.[s3]}}

From the lead to the body, Oyo and Nupe has changed to Oyo or Nupe, and there are no more claims of them being tributary to Benin. Instead, "several" Yoruba rulers paid tribute.

This is what the sources cited ACTUALLY say

{{tq2| ( [s1] - Robert Sydney Smith p. 40-41) (It literally says nothing about Oyo and the Nupe fighting Benin nor either of them being tributary to Benin)}}

{{tq2| ( [s2] - Egharevba p. 31) - "He led the Bini troops against the Oyos and after many battles a treaty of peace was made which set the Benin and Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country."}}

{{tq2| ( [s3] - Egharevba p. 32) - "A young prince named Osogboye, heir to the stool of Owo, was sent to Benin City by the Owos to be trained and brought up by the Oba.[...] A year later Osogboye was made Owa of Owo[...] Osogboye was cautioned to continue his tribute to the Oba"}}

The sources say nothing about a Benin "victory" unlike what is stated in the article, it even implies that Benin was the initiator and had to settle for a truce of peace instead. Again, nothing is said about Oyo or Nupes paying tribute to Benin. The claim in the body of several yoruba rulers paying tribute is in the source only stated as the ruler of Owo kingdom.

Aside from the fact that just 1 non-neutral source is used to justify these claims (instead of multiple high quality sources as required for exceptional claims) This is just one example out of plenty of misleading ways that Vanderwaalforces bends around Wikipedia policies to push an extremely inflated perception of the Benin/Edo locality. I can continue, but I suspect to this is already very long for an ANI.

By his statement in this edit on his "Good Article"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ehengbuda&diff=prev&oldid=1278903597] saying {{tq2|I don't know how you think that an artice that passed GA review used unreliable sources}} I believe Vanderwaalforcers uses his 'active wikipedia presence' to intimidate editors from correcting articles that he himself knows he is being deceitful about, I have noticed this a lot in Benin kingdom related articles, but I do not know if it extends further. In all, it is troubling that he uses threats and a false image of neutrality, to dismiss policies for what I believe is his goal of promoting Edo exceptionalism. Sohvyan (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Evaluating the POV and source representation issues will require further reading, but at minimum, this driveby tagging followed by hostility like "please don't piss me off" (as the beginning of a discussion) and "do not start what you cannot finish" is completely unacceptable, and calling articles "Yoruba POV trash" without strong resoning is also out of line.{{pb}}If this discrepancy between source and content is as you say, that's also very serious. I haven't read it yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Compare:

::::(1) {{tq|Ehengbuda expanded the empire's territory westward and eastward, solidifying control over tributary states like the Oyo, Ekiti and Nupe.}} (quoted above), and

::::(2) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#Replacement of the entire lead of eight biographies by IPv6 (thanks to {{u|mathglot}} for programming ChatGPT to write that made-up garbage).

:::Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: I had so completely forgotten about that comment of mine at WP:AN Archive 1125 (and also missed the wikilink in your message) that I was wracking my brain for what this was about, thinking you were perhaps accusing me of using LLM in Wikipedia, something which is anathema to me; but had I forgotten something? I had to read the archived message to recall that it was an LLM experiment I ran, where I was outing Chat GPT as not only an inventor of fake citations, but also, as in this case, the use of real citations to cite the military exploits of a Frankish king that I had made up out of whole cloth. Thanks for the memory! Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It was such a good bad example that I bookmarked it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:At List of the Ogiso one of the sources you [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_Ogiso&diff=prev&oldid=1283832353 removed] was published by the University of Hamburg, but the Peavy one was self-published. Something being against academic consensus isn’t reason to remove it, the list was there per WP:NPOV, we could’ve found a better source for the list itself. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::The source from the university of hamburg was not in support of the self published list, it only mentions that it exists. It provided a different hypothesis for Ogiso altogether starting from a much later date, which was not a list, and therefore irrelevant to the artcle. And you did not say the self published list was there per WP:NPOV when you posted it, which wouldn't make sense anyway because there is nothing non neutral about the academic dates. There is no "better source for the list" when the original is from a self published source. Sohvyan (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::NPOV just states that POVs present in RSs should be represented proportional to how much they appear in sources, the POVs themselves don’t have to be neutral. Can’t comment on the original source as I couldn’t find it. Potentially you could argue on WP:FRINGE, but Ekeh uses the 40 BCE start date as well (so does Digital Benin), imo it creeps in as a minority viewpoint. Would’ve put stronger criticism if I could find some Kowal2701 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::NPOV requires reliable sources, the fact that the author did not describe how the 40BCE dates were arrived at in his self published book will always make it unreliable, but regardless, this is a technical discussion for a talk page. This ANI is about the behaviour of Vanderwaalforces I posted above. Sohvyan (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• For ANI, this is a very long and complicated complaint for editors who frequent this noticeboard to digest. I note that Vanderwaalforces hasn't edited for 10 hours and hasn't had a chance to respond to these accusations. I encouraged them to do so when they logged back on the project. But honestly, Sohvyan, these are complex claims for editors to evaluate. The personal attacks, on the other hand, are easy to condemn as inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you Liz, the complexity is the main reason I felt it necessary to include a breakdown example in this ANI. I hope it gives a bit of clarity to my concerns. Sohvyan (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reply to Sohvyan.

:Let me first say that I am not surprised you brought this up, but I am rather surprised that you were able to put forth these serious accusations. Before I will talk about my "don't piss me off" and "Yoruba POV thrash" (I will talk about that towards the end of this reply), let me first address "do not start what you cannot finish" and what I literally meant (sometimes I wish there was a way to put facial reactions to comments, but I guess that isn't possible); what I meant by that was that, if you were not ready to finish improving the page, then do not start it, especially in a controversial situation like this, as opposed to what you think is a "sinister threat".

:Let me briefly go into your accusations. It isn't deceptive to have my talk page being archived by a bot. You said that {{xt|his deceit is revealed in this conversation he had with @Oramfe...}}. After looking at my conversation with Oramfe again, I could not see how this particular discussion logically aligns with your points, but I will not judge right away. You also went further to say {{xt|...for him to claim neutrality when he is not, in order to speak from a place of authority just to better push his jingoistic desires on those topics}}. I do not know how you came about that but I would not dwell much on that especially since I also mentioned that Talk:Ọranyan#c-Vanderwaalforces-20250321162000-Vanderwaalforces-20250321161600.

:The fifth paragraph of your thread is a typical example of WP:BADFAITH; I do not know how you came up with those conclusions, but it is laughable and all I perceive is that you are trying to make a point and so you tried bringing up as much details as you could. The comments you made in this paragraph were not specific to the example you gave; you are literally claiming that all my contributions have been exactly of this pattern, which is both not true and a serious bad faith accusation. Looking at the history of the Ehengbuda article, it indicates that since August 2024 there have been several editors who have edited this exact portions you have just brought up as an example of my saying something in the lead of the articles I create, say something else in the body of the article and defend myself with WP:LEADCITE which you indicated that it is a pattern in all my contributions. This is History Of Yoruba's first edit to this page removing these same claims you are talking about, History Of Yoruba went further to add unsourced statements {{xt|Upon the death of the Owa of Owo, Osogboye departed Benin for Owo, without the Oba's permission after witnessing the hardship of some other tribes that came to Benin for education was going through. The enraged Oba dispatched messengers to retrieve him, but Osogboye declined, and this caused a war between Benin and Owo, which Owo was victorious. This event marked the end of Benin and Owo special relationship, as both has influenced eachother culturally throughout history}}, the user continued editing but I reverted them. Then came another Wiisstlo user who made just the same edits.

:So, with your usage of this same thing as an example here raises my eyebrows but I usually err on the side of assumption of good faith in situations like this.

:You also seem to have the habit of thinking everyone editing a specific area is biased on way or the other, here is a thread initiated by Watercheetah99 in October 2024. There's also this thread by Watercheetah99 few days later about you.

:If there are issues with an article, what is expected is a thread at the talk page of the article (the same way myself and other productive editors have been interacting and resolving content disputes for a while now), and not a complaint at ANI which is in itself an inappropriate place for such. I do not think I will directly comment on the issues about the Ehengbuda article, there's a talk page and I think that venue should be utilised.

:You claimed that {{xt|This is just one example out of plenty of misleading ways that Vanderwaalforces bends around Wikipedia policies to push an extremely inflated perception of the Benin/Edo locality}} how sure are you about that, have you really gone through my contributions and come with this conclusion? I am going to stop here regarding this and quickly say that, the fact that you were reverting or removing sourced claims is what doesn't make sense. FWIW, I see that since then you have been trying to add sources one way or the other when making edits and that is good.

:For my Yoruba POV comment, I said that for reasons I explained here. And I still think that whatever the case may be, views from all perspectives should be reflected on Wikipedia and that Wikipedia should not be in position to determine which perspective is popular or not, especially in this context, and all in the spirit of WP:NPOV.

:Let it be noted here that majority of your comments (they were not assumptions, you were expressing them with certainty) are utter misrepresentation of what the situation really is, and that they are serious failures of WP:GOODFAITH and the spirit of collaboration. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::If your defence for the threats and the clear cited examples of policy abuse, is simply denial and that other users also disagree with your articles, then there's not much I can add. You don't get to say I need to be WP:GOODFAITH about anything when you're obviously threatening me.

::Who is supposed to buy your notion that "do not start what you cannot finish" refers to completing an article, when the article is as complete as can be? Or is there a hidden Ogiso list you want to present to us? This is a terribly disingenuous defence, but I expected anything after those threats over my basic compliance with the wiki policy. Sohvyan (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::

I'd note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where all articles can be said to be in varying states of development. Provided an editor isn't leaving an article in a worse state than they begun, editors are explicitly allowed to start to improve an article without "finish"ing these improvements, whatever you mean by that.

Also while nationalistic and ethnic biased editing is a problem, there are ways to raise concerns that edits or an editor might be excessively biased without needing to say "Yoruba POV trash".

Also as WP:NPOV says, NPOV explicitly does not mean we just present all perspectives. In fact it requires that we "{{tqi|Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view}}". If one "perspective" is rejected or ignored in most quality RS and only present in one or a few RS, we do not present it equally with the "perspective" that is taken by most RS. If some "view" or "perspective" is extremely rare in RS, sometimes it might not be necessary to mention it at all. You can think what you want, but you're required to obey our policies and guidelines until and unless you get them changed.

It is important to consider issues like whether the RS is biased towards certain perspectives e.g. if it's largely written from the PoV of one ethic group. Ideally we should focus on the more neutral, academic RS which don't exhibit such bias and instead are based as far as possible on the available evidence. If such sources are limited or can't be found, it gets complicated and we have to be very careful we're not just giving undue prominence to one PoV because there are more writers approaching something with that specific bias. However this doesn't mean we completely the NPOV requirement we don't just present all views equally when they're not treated equally in RS.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sohvyan files a conduct-based ANI report based around a prolonged dispute based on identity, I'm mentioned so I bring examples of Sohvyan acting in concert with editors that have been blocked for being biased based on identity. You could disagree with the level of relevance or claim that the editors aren't closely linked, but saying that this has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever is a stretch. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::To those reading: WC99 left this comment after I hatted the below section ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can we please get an admin to look at VDWF’s behavior here and respond to it? This seems to me like serious incivility and source misrepresentation that appears to be POV-pushing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Don’t think we can say that based on one seemingly-isolated incident, there’d have to be multiple incidents showing a pattern Kowal2701 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I see no acknowledgment of misbehavior from this editor—being argumentative about and giving excuses for their very clear-cut incivility, and giving an implausible excuse for badly misrepresenting sources only when pressed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The concerns raised by the filer are not singular; they presented multiple issues, which I have made a genuine effort to address. I categorically reject any suggestion that my behaviour has been alarming. The filer's claims are exaggerated to such a degree that I understand why you might have been persuaded to see me as uncivil. However, the portrayal relied upon a single-source misrepresentation—one I have directly addressed, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it. You described my explanation as "implausible". That characterisation does not deter me from continuing to contribute within my area of expertise. As I stated earlier, I have little more to add at this point. However, I must be candid in saying that I was disappointed by your judgment in handling this matter. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The incivility is unrelated to the source misrepresentation (which pertains to multiple sources, not one). “Don’t piss me off” is not excused by any explanation for inaccurate prose. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|Irrelevant, vague aspersions by Watercheetah99 (hatted by Zanahary)}}

::While I am not closely familiar with this case, I think it is important to note that a significant portion of Sohvyan's edits (intentional or not) have been similar or identical to the edits of several accounts that have been blocked for ethnic bias — {{user|History Of Yoruba}}, {{user|Wiisstlo}}, {{user|Researcherofgreatness}}, {{user|Oscareng}}, etc. This does not mean that all of Sohvyan's edits are ethnically-biased POV edits, but the fact that their edits are so linked to POV violators should be taken into account. That Sohvyan is still active might be a sign that most of their edits are fair or a sign that Sohvyan simply has enough sense to cloak their jingoistic edits enough to avoid being blocked over it & avoids other violations. Additionally, this group of editors have displayed a similar pattern in their conversations with other users, referencing their perception of other users' ethnicity as evidence that the other users are biased against other groups regardless of if the user is actually from the percieved group or if the user's edit history shows support for a neutral POV on pages that would contradict the agenda of an ethnically-biased editor; my guess is that they aren't being purposely misleading, just that there may be an element of projection present, with these users editing in an ethnically-biased manner and thus expecting others to do the same. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh so vanderwaalforces tagged you on your page and you are chimimg in on a case you know nothing about, amazing. My post has 21 linked cases concerning Vanderwaalforces' behaviour and a thorough breakdown of his policy violations, yet the best you two can do is trying to "group" me with editors who are blocked because you have no arguement, that's offensively cheap. If you can't even outrightly say my edits are baseless or break the guidelines, or even read this thread at all, Its a wonder that you find the temerity to pass any kind of judgement here. Sohvyan (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|1=a significant portion of Sohvyan's edits (intentional or not) have been similar or identical to the edits of several accounts that have been blocked for ethnic bias}}
This needs diffs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I myself want to see these diffs. They should not just be allowed to throw around accusations they cannot back up, especially when they aren't even addressing this ANI. Sohvyan (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed, either make an SPI case or don’t bring it up Kowal2701 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's not even a clear accusation of sockpuppetry. {{tq|their edits are so linked to POV violators}} has no clear meaning. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I actually remember what this is about now, he has accused me before of being a sockpuppet of researchofgreatness because on the South west talk page, we got into an argument about the Major languages spoken in south west nigeria. He could not find any sources to back up his claim that other languages other than English and Yoruba were major languages in the region, so he tried to change the topic from "major languages" to just "languages", so that he could fill the infobox with more than just English and Yoruba. I pointed out the problem with this,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_West_(Nigeria)#c-Sohvyan-20241228223700-Watercheetah99-20241228203400] (there are hundreds languages in nigeria, should they all be accounted for?). Now he's coincidentally back after vanderwaalforces pinged him, and he is now gone back to removing the only relevant source that speaks directly on the linguistics of the south west, claiming to be fixing blanking.

::::::When they can't win an argument on merit, they just result to accusations. Sohvyan (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not making a "accusation of sockpuppetry" — I said that editors should note with accusations of bias, that one of the users has made many edits in agreement with editors that have later been blocked for ethnic bias . The level of relevance of that depends on one's interpretation but it is certainly relevant. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agreeing with blocked editors is really not relevant—and again, please show diffs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Agbada ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agbada&diff=prev&oldid=1249730796 Sohvyan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agbada&diff=prev&oldid=1246820188 History Of Yoruba]); Lagos State ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lagos_State&diff=prev&oldid=1256097950 Sohvyan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lagos_State&diff=prev&oldid=1250574373 EmeritusGuru]); South West (Nigeria) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_West_(Nigeria)&diff=prev&oldid=1264154509 Sohvyan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_West_(Nigeria)&diff=prev&oldid=1252379626 EmeritusGuru], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_West_(Nigeria)&diff=prev&oldid=1198254062 Researcherofgreatness]); Oduduwa ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oduduwa&diff=prev&oldid=1281639395 Sohvyan], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oduduwa&diff=prev&oldid=1281662158 History Of Yoruba]). This isn't here to debate the merits of each argument but Sohvyan very clearly has made edits and statements that match with known ethnically-biased users; doesn't mean they are always ethnically-biased but it should be taken into account. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you were actually paying attention to this ANI you would know exactly why I removed Vanderwaalforces POV tag, its literally what I opened this ANI with, that's hilarious. The only one I'd give you is the agbada discussion from 6 months ago, and even its two sided POV disagreements. Sohvyan (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am aware that that is a point of contention here, I'm noting that it's another place where you acted alongside POV violators. Say whatever you want. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::A very underrated essay people might find helpful is WP:WFE Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So you see no issue with his drive by tag that I was addressing and are only here about me? Sohvyan (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is such a nothing charge. So Sohvyan has made content edits in apparent alignment with banned editors. There is nothing to "take into account" here if you don't contend that Sohvyan has edited problematically. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Then don't "take it into account," I think it is relevant when there is debate over the bias of a user. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You are not even engaging in what was raised in this topic. Sohvyan (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There's no debate over Sohvyan here. Sohvyan filed a conduct-based ANI report and you have just come in to gesture vaguely at Sohvyan's editing without identifying any problem with it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:I've now examined the Oba Ehengbuda example and Sohvyan's analysis is correct: this text on Wikipedia completely misrepresents the sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Zanahary Of course, I noticed that yesterday when they raised the concern here (instead of the talk page of the article, the appropriate venue), but there’s only one thing that must have happened, I probably mixed up the sources I used in creating that article or nothing else. I have no business with Oba Ehengbuda or his achievements as an Oba, or the Bini or Yoruba people. My point remains that, if you believe a single misrepresentation of a source is enough to think or believe an editor is pushing a POV, especially when it was never discussed constructively before, then I’m not sorry to be disappointed in your judgement here. I was expecting more samples as they claimed they could bring in more evidence of me pushing Bini POV, I am yet to see any. I am generally uninterested in arguments especially when they’re not being presented correctly.

::To the filer, you are yet to mention exactly what you want to be done (to me, perhaps?). I am generally open to feedback and by all means constructive criticism, if no one is ready to employ those, theres nothing we can achieve collaboratively. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm just corroborating the filer's claim that you misrepresented sources. From my reading, this is your first time acknowledging a problem with this article, when before you said {{tq|I don't know how to think that an artice that passed GA review used unreliable sources}}. How did you "mix up the sources" such that you ended up with {{tq|During his reign, Oba Ehengbuda embarked on a series of military campaigns with the aim of expanding the Benin Empire's territory and influence. One of his most notable victories was defeating a mounted army sent by either the Oyo Empire or the Nupe people. This victory established the Benin-Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country. He also secured tribute from several Yoruba rulers.}}? Which sources led you there? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If you read above correctly, you will notice where I mentioned constructively, the edits the users made in an attempt to correct what I now realise is a mistake wasn’t constructive. Anyone in that situation would most likely revert that edit, it isn’t my pattern, it is something anyone else would have done. Again, if that concern was raised constructively at the talk page of the article, then maybe we would not be spending over 30 hours here by now. This is probably the first time I am acknowledging the problem, but I do not think I have defended it either, neither has it been constructively raised before. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::We wouldn’t be here for over 30 hours? What a ridiculous thing to say. We would not be here if you did not make any threats to begin with.

:::::With as many Benin related articles you’ve written, there simply no world in which you “accidentally” claim that the Benin kingdom established control over the Oyo empire and the Nupes for tributes. For the fact that you did not claim the same thing in the body of the article, where you would be forced to give a source, it shows it was an absolutely intentionally misleading lead.

:::::You have yet to address the comment, “don’t piss me off” just for reminding you about tagging guidelines, neither did you address why you didn’t follow the guidelines.

:::::The justification you are giving for calling these articles “Yoruba POV trash” makes zero sense, you link it to an ANI[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#History_Of_Yoruba's_continued_disruption,_edit_warring,_and_Yoruba_POV_pushing_after_temporary_block_expired] you made complaining about specific users. This would only follow if those users were major contributors to the creation of those articles you called trash, of which they are clearly not. So why did you really call them Yoruba POV trash? And how would that be ok even if they were poorly written?

:::::Futhermore, even within that ANI you used as your excuse, at the time of its creation, you should have been well aware that 50% of your claims against those users for “Yoruba POV pushing” we actually legitimate concerns. The glass beads claim that you use as examples of “defaming the kingdom of Benin” were actually incorrectly attributed to benin, the source attributed those beads to Ife. This was corrected long before you made that ANI.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_glass&diff=prev&oldid=1257015946]

:::::That Ehengbuda article was wrong, as we now see, which I still believe you knew for reasons I explained above. That 40BC ogiso list was from an unreliable source, which from your time editing, you should know. I can’t defend how they addressed those issues, but that would not be an excuse to call any article Yoruba POV trash.

:::::Aside from the fact that attempting to stop someone from adding to an article is wrong. What else were you planning to add to the article about the list of Ogisos that you had to say “do not start what you cannot finish”? I believe I need to know. I believe it is a threat, but you should be able to provide an answer if you claim it wasn't.

:::::That you see this ANI as a waste of your 30 hours shows just how much you disregard Wikipedia policy. Sohvyan (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If you still think it is an "absolutely intentionally misleading lead", then that is your business. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. You are trying by all means to scream your grievances, whatever concerns you have raised, I have either told you were to open a discussion up, addressed some directly or have admitted that there must have been an error on my side, but I do not think I have anything else to add to this thread. Happy editing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Itsthesoftlifeforme}}

Yesterday, Itsthesoftlifeforme made edits to both [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=1285048383 Sophie (musician)] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=1285048512 Sophie (album)], to add the deadname of a trans person to the articles, in violation of MOS:DEADNAME. I reverted these and left a CTOP notice on the subject's talk page, then informed them of MOS:DEADNAME, only for them to revert again in violation of this and call me an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itsthesoftlifeforme&diff=next&oldid=1285088937 "idiot"]. I informed them of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itsthesoftlifeforme&diff=next&oldid=1285217245 NPA and the prior RfC on Sophie's page on the inclusion of the deadname], only for them to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itsthesoftlifeforme&diff=next&oldid=1285217982 again call me an idiot, and accuse me of "gatekeeping" for "egotistical reasons"] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=1285224597 restore] the deadname to the album page, claiming "Egotistical gatekeeping hysteria is not to be respected." This feels somewhere between WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE and after the repeated MOS violations and personal attacks after I tried to solve this with the user, I'm left with no real choice but to go here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Then they questioned the reliability of a source that has been used many times before, even starting a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Slatersteven-20250411115000-Meduza RSN topic] on it where editors told them the source is reliable.

But that wasn't enough, so now they have started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)#RFC_can_we_say_Russia_won? an RFC] in hopes of getting the change they want. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:note the OP is at 3R, and yes I launched an RFC so that more than two people can express an opinion (as there has been a degree of bludgoing). Also note that others had objected it, but the edit I reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1285047855 asked another user to seek consensus when none existed for the saying Russia had won. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't know if 3RR applies when the edit is to restore sourced content. Furthermore, the edits I undid were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1283253551 originally made] by a blocked account. I don't know why you'd think it prudent to restore their edits. You also seem to have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slatersteven#March_2025 a habit] of leaving edit warring templates on user talk pages when they might not be appropriate. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:3RR is a bright-line regardless of if edits are sourced. You should be engaging in good faith at article talk regarding whether said material is WP:DUE It is well established the source is reliable however per prior discussions at WP:RS/N and the current one started by Slatersteven. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Rather than blocks, the article is full protected so you two can discuss the issue rather than edit war. To be clear, 3RR always applies unless it's blatant vandalism. You know this @TurboSuperA+ Star Mississippi 17:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Should the page not be reset to before the first revert? Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:WRONGVERSION is helpful here, although I have no objection to any admin reverting if the current version is problematic. Star Mississippi 17:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• What I see is a great deal of WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS by TurboSuperA+ in that thread. And what is wrong with asking at RSN, which is its purpose, and starting an RfC? I suggest the OP withdraw this filing and continue discussion where it belongs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Frankly, I think there's a good argument for blocking both of you from that article. @Slatersteven, I strongly suggest you withdraw the RfC for now and allow for a normal consensus discussion first. @TurboSuperA+, you are coming in way too hot out of nowhere and need to tone it down immediately. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::OK, fine I will, but we have had one. The result is a two user impass. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It probably doesn't help that your attempt to bring in other editors was derived from the question of source reliability rather than article neutrality and WP:DUE when the answer is that, yeah, pretty obviously the source meets our usual reliability standards. I do think you have something of a point regarding it being undue to decide an offensive within a war was won or lost on the basis of a single news article but I would strongly agree with @Asilvering that both of you need to step down a little bit. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hardly - there are plenty of other editors involved in this article. You simply need to wait for them to join the conversation, instead of edit-warring and getting into an argument with TSA+. (Who, in fairness to you, is doing their level best to start one with you.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I has never heard of the source before, and they had not used it in the initial edit (rather using a source that does not support the edit, thus its sudden use (at just the right time) rang alarm bells. As such I wanted an outside opinion of it. And yes there was at least one other edits who had objected to it and got reverted. As such the edit does not have consensus and has been edit warred back in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"And yes there was at least one other edits who had objected to it"}}

:::::It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1283253551 this edit] and the editor who made that edit is now blocked (pending their response) due to their behaviour in the Ukraine topic area. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was referring to the talk page thread. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The block had nothing to do with that article or edit, I think it's quite bizarre that not only are you trying to nullify their edits, but another editor censored their comments by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1284986930 falsely labelling them a sock]. The editor was blocked, that doesn't mean you get to erase them because you disagreed with them. TylerBurden (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But the actions of another editor have nothing to do with this case. Nakonana (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That wasn't me, as another editor pointed out. Either strike or edit your comment, thanks. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm genuinely confused now - if it {{tq|wasn't [you]}} reverting/neutralizing the blocked user's edits, what exactly did you mean by {{tq|Furthermore, the edits I undid were originally made by a blocked account}}? – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 08:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The whole dispute regarding the Result was started by a blocked account. First removal of Result [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1283167194 diff], second removal of Result [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1283253551 diff], then they added a disputed tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1283425319 diff], only to remove the parameter once more two days later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1283724546 diff]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The fact MAE is now pblocked until they respond is irrelevant - continually referring to them as a "blocked account" is not a helpful thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Fair. I just got a bit frustrated because they asked me to provide a source right after I had provided one. Then I had to write it in big letters for them to finally see it, only for them to then question the reliability of the source. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = enough

| result = Take it to WP:AE, folks. asilvering (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Ping|Voorts}} previously unblocked Mnbnjghiryurr (now known as {{noping|Maniacal ! Paradoxical}}) without the topic ban that was requested by at least two experienced editors in the ARBIPA topic area for their unblock. They had previously engaged in long term sockpuppetry as a sock of {{noping|Koitot}} and made severe many copyvio articles that required speedy deletion. In spite of Voorts's advice to them to take the concerns of their peers seriously[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Voorts-20250107214200-unblock_request_2], they are still engaging in the pro-Maratha POV pushing, making copyvios and misconduct in the ARBIPA. For example:

• They moved a draftifed article that lacked reliable citations to the mainspace without fixing the problems [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture_of_Sinhagad_(1693)&diff=prev&oldid=1277221748][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture_of_Sinhagad_(1693)&diff=prev&oldid=1270627064]
• Their talkpage is full of warnings for copyvios[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Fram-20240425153700-Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_First_Vijaynagar_-Qutb_Shahi_war][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-DanCherek-20240423030300-Speedy_deletion_of_Draft:Umayyad_invasion_of_Rajasthan][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-DanCherek-20240423030200-Speedy_deletion_of_User:Mnbnjghiryurr/sandbox][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-DanCherek-20240423030000-Speedy_deletion_of_Draft:Maratha_conquest_of_Malwa][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Diannaa-20240422224800-Speedy_deletion_of_Draft:Battle_of_Rampura] and they have not improved at all. Their recent draft, contains close paraphrasing of the sources:

{{Collapse top|Comparison}}

Source:[https://archive.org/details/classicalage03bhar/page/169/mode/1up]

{{Talkquote|During the Caliphate of ‘Ali, a great expedition was sent against India (c. A.D. 660). The Muslim army, which included a large num¬ ber of nobles and chiefs, advanced up to Kikan or Kikanan without any serious opposition. Kikan was a state in the hilly region round Bolan pass, and is referred to by Hiuen Tsang as a kingdom whose people led pastoral lives amid the great mountains and valleys in separate clans, without any ruling chief. It was, however, according to Chach-nama, included m the central division of Sindh, under the direct administration of the king. In any case, the people of Kikan made a brave stand and repulsed the Muslim army with severe losses. The leader of the Muslim host was killed together with all but a few of his followers (A.D. 663).}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arab_expedition_to_Kikan Article]:

{{Talkquote|During the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib (656–661 CE), the Rashidun Caliphate launched a military expedition towards the northwestern regions of the Indian subcontinent, particularly targeting the region of Kikan (also referred to as Kikanān). This campaign, conducted around 660 CE, involved a large contingent of Muslim forces, including prominent nobles and chiefs. Kikān, located in the hilly areas surrounding the Bolan Pass, was noted by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang as a region inhabited by pastoral communities living in isolated clans without a centralized governing authority. However, according to the Chach Nama, Kikān was considered part of Sindh, falling under the direct administration of the king of Sindh}}

{{cbot}}

• Edit warring to glorify unsourced maratha POV content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1277204336][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1284424543] without discussing.
• See addition of controversial unsourced content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1277380080 here], that is actually closely paraphrased from another source:

{{Collapse top|comparison}}

Source:[https://archive.org/details/shivaji-his-life-and-times-1nbsped-9380875177_compress/page/n771/mode/1up]:

{{Talkquote|Sinhgad is situated about 20 km southwest of Pune on one of the highest points in the Pune range, 1320 m above sea level and about 700 m above the surrounding plain. The northern and southern sides of the mountain have very steep ascents which culminate into a great wall of black rock over 12 m high, which in itself constitutes sufficient defence. Strong walls, with bastions at intervals, are built where the rise is less steep. The fort is shaped somewhat like the blade of an axe and is over three kilometers in circumference. The approach to the fort is by two steep, tortuous paths which in many places consist of flights of steps carved out in the face of the rock. Each of these, one in the northeast and the other in the southeast, is defended by fortified gateways. Those in the northeast are known as the Pune gates and those in the southeast as the Kalyan gates. The only weak point in the fortress is a gorge on the west side of the hill which drains rainwater falling on the summit. The sides of this gorge are less steep and offer a comparatively easy approach to the top. A strong fortified wall, evidently a later construction, is built across the mouth of the gorge. The fortress was manned by some 1200 Rajputs under command of Udaybhan Rathod. On the night of 4/5 February 1670 a select party of 500 Mavala infantry under command of Tanaji Malusare arrived secretly near the fortress and lodged itself undiscovered at the foot of the rock.2522 Two Mavala rock climbers ascended the hillside and let down a rope ladder by which the rest of the party began to climb.2528 When some 300 Mavalas had entered the fort their presence was discovered and an alarm was given. Tanaji immediately pushed forward in the hope of still surprising the enemy. Though prematurely discovered and opposed by superior numbers, the assailants had the advantage of surprise. In the ensuing fight, Tanaji and Udaybhan came face to face, engaged in single combat and were killed at each others’ hands. Suryaji, Tanaji’s brother, rallied the disheartened Mavalas and captured the fort. Then, thatched stables in the fort were set alight as a prearranged signal of victory to Shivaji who was on nearby Rajgad waiting it .}}

Article[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sinhagad]:

{{Talkquote|Sinhgad Fort is located on the southwest of Pune, Maharashtra, about 20 km, in a small hilly range at an elevation of 1,320 m above sea level and 700 m from nearby plains. The fort is surrounded by sharply sloping northern and southern hills, providing a defense in the form of a cave-like structure which has a natural rock wall more than 12 meters high. There were additional fortifications in the form of bastions raised on gentler slopes. The fort is like an axe blade about 3 km long. Access was by one steep, tortuous path leading from the northeast side to Pune Gate, and from the southeast to Kalyan Gate. The western side has a gorge that is very open from the south side for easy access, which was later fortified to offer great strength. In 1670, a force of 500 Mavala soldiers under the command of Tanaji Malusare stormed the fort at dead of night with great surprise and against 1,200 Rajput soldiers led by Udaybhan Rathod. Mavalas climbed the front cliff of the fort with the aid of rope ladders. Very fierce fighting broke out and a duel ensued in which both Udaybhan and Tanaji were killed. The brother of Tanaji, Suryaji, led the remainder of the Mavalas and finally won the fort. The signal flame was lit on top of the fort to inform Shivaji of the victory from Rajgad. }}

{{cbot}}

• His AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji is also problematic .
• They are also recreating the articles that were previously deleted for copyvio before their block with similar problems again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Diannaa-20240422224800-Speedy_deletion_of_Draft:Battle_of_Rampura] See:

• Battle of Rampura is a problematic POV article that not only has close paraphrasing issues but also is pseudohistorical. As Maniacal ! Paradoxical has conflated 3 different conflicts under one made up title.{{pb

}}They are still working on articles that push Maratha POV. I think it is essential to impose a narrow restriction from Maratha confederacy as was proposed by two established editors in this topic given all these issues with their edits. Orientls (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see any resolution other than reinstating the indef block. I could think of a topic ban from Maratha Confederacy but they are a clear net negative to the purpose of the encyclopedia. They are out of WP:ROPE. Oxiyam.Primal (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I knew there would be problems if this user was to be unblocked without a restriction from the topic they were disrupting as such I and {{ping|Flemmish Nietzsche}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Ratnahastin-20250107050100-Voorts-20250107214200 requested] a topic ban as a condition for the unblock. Voorts's advice about paying heed to the concerns of colleagues has not been followed given their edit warring at the Battle of Sinhagad I would support any restriction since disruption is still continuing. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Hm. I really don't like that the draft they're working on, User:Maniacal ! Paradoxical/sandbox, has no sources at all. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I remain concerned by this, but having now had a chance to look more at this "close paraphrasing"... is this really the worst you could find? I wouldn't remove this from an article, let alone revdel it. Those copyvio warning diffs are from before their block. @Orientls, I'm extremely concerned to see you refer to this evidence as {{tq|an open and shut case}} on voorts's talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::After coming off from the block, any editor is supposed to remain more cautious than ever. When the editor in question is causing disruption by adding unsourced content, making ideologically motivated content, then their case becomes open and shut. The very fact that issues about copyright issues is still persisting despite the large number of previous talkpage notices regarding the same is concerning. You acknowledged the these issues that led to their block, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Asilvering-20241218044000-Mnbnjghiryurr-20241217132100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Asilvering-20241216140200-Mnbnjghiryurr-20241216134500][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Asilvering-20241218043700-Unblock_appeal][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maniacal_!_Paradoxical#c-Asilvering-20241219175600-Mnbnjghiryurr-20241219092500] and declined the appeal on that basis yet now you are questioning the validity of the report despite the fact that misconduct of this user does not just stop at close paraphrasing, edit warring and adding unsourced content is something they are still doing despite the unblock. Orientls (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, I'm well aware of what they did before they were unblocked. You can't drag someone to ANI for stuff they were already blocked and then unblocked for. Do the copyright issues persist, now that they are unblocked? You have not provided acceptable evidence that they do. -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The evidence is mentioned right above. It concerns edit warring, adding unsourced POV content and seemingly promoting maratha POV after the unblock. Have you even checked the copyright issues in the collapsed tabs? They follow the same sequence as the sources and utilise superficial substitution. Will you describe how this editor is not repeating the same behaviour that leads to escalating sanctions? Orientls (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• It would help to hear User:voorts' response to all this since much of the complaint rests on the fact that the editor was unblocked without any formal restrictions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Liz, voorts already responded on his talk page, see User talk:voorts#Unconditional unblock wasn't a good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• I will note that the place for raising concerns regarding the articles of reported user is either on the talk pages or at AfD and the old version of Battle of Rampura was deleted under WP:G5, so the OP's claim that -- their articles were previously speedy deleted because of copyvio is apparently unfounded [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampura_Campaign], the drafts were indeed taken down under WP:G12 but given these were not in mainspace, I don't know how it affects this report. Capture of Sinhagad (1693) seems poor but a little cleanup and expansion will sort out the issues. It's going through AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Sinhagad (1693), It'll go down, if it will be deemed as problematic. The Draft:Arab expedition to Kikan is another example of "under incubation", and it's not even falling for G12. I don't understand why one would hit his eyes at their "problematic" AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji, totally unwarranted for ANI, not that the wikitable of Battle of Rampura gives any clue for close paraphrasing (only the second last entry, seems closely phrased to me). That being said, Maniacal should restrict themselves from creating articles with comparatively less coverage because the room to avoid close paraphrasing is very less.
  
  Lastly I have to say that the users involved here (except OP so far), seems to be involved in WP:COI, possibly conflicting their off wiki POV with Wikipedia hobbies, recently [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Koitot/Archive SPI] was filed on me, Maniacal and {{U|HerakliosJulianus}} and then we suddenly saw the latter's article getting repeatedly and poorly nominated for AfD [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Kangra][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathankot_Campaign][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahluwalia%E2%80%93Ramgarhia_War][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maha_Singh%27s_Invasions_of_Jammu][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War] and there we see NXcrypto (alias Oxiyam.Primal) actively participating [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathankot_Campaign#c-NXcrypto-20250402102100-Pathankot_Campaign][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathankot_Campaign#c-NXcrypto-20250402200500-HerakliosJulianus-20250402164200][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathankot_Campaign#c-NXcrypto-20250402205500-HerakliosJulianus-20250402164200][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pathankot_Campaign#c-NXcrypto-20250405074200-OpalYosutebito-20250404201100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War#c-NXcrypto-20250402031400-HerakliosJulianus-20250401163300]. which is concerning and should be given due attention because of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BITING issues. Not to mention Ratnahastin's hasty revert [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jai_Singh_I&diff=prev&oldid=1282420555] of dubious additions and unsupported contents cited with faulty pages should be given due attention because they cite p. 661 despite the [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Emperors_Of_The_Peacock_Throne/h7kPQs8llvkC?hl=en source] doesn't have pages beyond 576. Ironically, we often see these "close paraphrasing tables" throwing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Kangra#c-Koshuri_Sultan-20250404085100-Siege_of_Kangra][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maha_Singh%27s_Invasions_of_Jammu#c-Koshuri_Sultan-20250404041000-Maha_Singh's_Invasions_of_Jammu][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War#c-Koshuri_Sultan-20250404140300-Sikh%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War] around the users they often conflict with. So If I had to describe this report in two words, it is bogus and misleading, it should be closed, given the possible COI, canvassing and hounding, it should be taken as a pinch of salt. I would go on and even ask for a careful examining of the edit histories and possible boomerang on the involved user. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• There is a genuine continuation of issues following the unblock that needs scrutiny. Behavioural issues can be discussed here and not just at {{tq|talk pages or at AfD}}. Besides, you are not only defending these behavioural issues of the editor, you are also casting nonsensical and baseless aspersions (COI, hounding, biting and canvassing) on the other editors and discussing unrelated histories of the editors who have only commented here and are distracting from all of the above issues. With this, you are also being problematic. I have already responded on the talkpage with the actual page number that was not present in the source, so why are you bringing it up now? I don't see your response there despite it being weeks since my comment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jai_Singh_I#c-Ratnahastin-20250401001900-AlvaKedak-20250326101600] This report does not involve you, then why are you advocating disruption of another user? No sincere user would doubt that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji was a misleading AfD, infact it was not even a deletion discussion given the nomination statement yet you were voting for delete there "per nom". By demanding that this report "{{tq|should be closed}} while reiterating your baseless aspersions about "{{tq| possible COI, canvassing and hounding}}" you have crossed the limits of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLE. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Surprise, surprise, another bad faith accusation of others that just happens to enable the removal of content you wish to not have on the site. I've checked myself on the Kindle edition, and the quote is absolutely there, if with the wrong page number (see [https://i.postimg.cc/Z5sDyqwL/20250410-235426.jpg]). When you saw the page number was wrong, what steps did you take before casting aspersions? Clearly, it didn't involve an attempt to actually find out if the quote existed.
• :And what WP:COI do Asilvering or Liz have? And what canvassing? This is yet another example of a pattern with your editing, here, in AE, on AFD, in which you throw out every Wikipedia P&G you can find, no matter how little sense it makes, that just happens to link with whitewashing Sambhaji and related individuals. Is there any reason that you shouldn't be topic-banned from pages related to the Maratha Confederacy, broadly construed? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Strange,
• ::{{Green|removal of content you wish to not have on the site}}: Welcome to Wikipedia then. You don't see how the above users are trying to remove contents and delete articles? If you are that concerned about "content removal" then please visit the above linked AfDs to tackle these issues. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji you say "You are drastically overstating the case. WP:TNT is only for articles that are completely unsalvageable". Good enough, that is exactly I was saying in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Kangra#c-AlvaKedak-20250404105500-Koshuri_Sultan-20250404085100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maha_Singh%27s_Invasions_of_Jammu#c-AlvaKedak-20250404123700-Koshuri_Sultan-20250404041000] have a good look how much unwarranted opposition I have faced. Why are you looking for the kindle edition when Ratnahastin cites the entry from Google book which only has 576 pages? What do you even want to prove by showing page 610? The quote does indeed exist but not in the given page 661 as cited by Ratnahastin. Why confuse our readers? Moreover they have done OR for which the source does not back their addition at all, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jai_Singh_I#c-AlvaKedak-20250411123100-Ratnahastin-20250401001900 this]. "When you saw the page number was wrong, what steps did you take before casting aspersions?" - There is a talk page discussion that exists. It is ironic that you are overlooking their faulty page citation in a highly contentious TA, why? Leave all this, I would just like to hear your opinion on Ratnahastin's backdoor redirects [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput_Mughal_marriage_alliances&action=history][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akash_Ambani&diff=prev&oldid=1260955048] which in your own words we can say "removal of content you wish to not have on the site". Please do not misquote me, I only meant users who have WP:EXTERNALREL which serves their purpose, I never recalled admins involved in COI. Not to mention your spurious [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Execution_of_Sambhaji#c-ToffeeThumbs-20250401165900-AlvaKedak-20250401132100 warning] (threat?) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji. I believe ToffeeThumbs is your alternate account. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::How'd you guess? Was it the obvious proper disclosure? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Pardon me for being unresponsive, just this week is busy for me. The drafts they brought up are still work in progress, I'll sort out the issues sooner or later, their won't be any grievances. Battle of Rampura has coverage of more than five pages, let me work further on it. I'm not pushing any "Maratha POV" nor the article is "pseudohistorical", I have written the whole article in my own words, only the names of leaders and dates matches with the source, which can't be omitted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1277204336 This] diff is not edit warring, I have only made two reverts and the infobox had source, later I removed unsourced part [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1284521515], in lieu I stopped the collateral sourced removal by Ratnahastin [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1284517438]. Admins: there's no need for a page ban, wikipedia is work in progress so does my competence and creations. I'll prove that I'm better than this. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Editors are not here for keeping a watch over your problematic editing and ensuring if you are improving or not. This is why there is a page called WP:CIR. You have made 3 reverts and zero messages on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1284521432][https://en..wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1284424543][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1277204336]. "Battle of Rampura" is something you made up as the source doesnt support it, infact you have cobbled together three different conflicts under this name and closely paraphrased the sources (same sequence, and with word substitution), you are indeed pushing a POV given your edit history which is entirely in this topic and is aimed at glorifying them such as making articles about Maratha victories and changing battle results to reflect the same. This is something that has been noticed by Flemmish Neithzche as well on your talk page. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:*:They are clearly net positive, unsubstantial evidence has been provided so far. Editors are not here to discuss over content issues as well, take that to AfD if you feel the article should not exist on this site. It is quite bizarre that you consider three reverts within the gap of two months as edit warring. "This is something that has been noticed by Flemmish Neithzche as well on your talk page" -- yes because you had canvassed them [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flemmish_Nietzsche#c-Ratnahastin-20250107040100-Koitot], so it barely matters. @Asilvering Can we please look into Ratnahastin's "getting rid off" redirects [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akash_Ambani&diff=prev&oldid=1260955048][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput_Mughal_marriage_alliances&action=history], which is also raised [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ratnahastin&oldid=1282117100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddy1#c-Toddy1-20250412081000-AlvaKedak-20250411204700] by Toddy1? Despite that both articles were closed as "keep" and "no consensus" respectively, the user has repeatedly performed such "I don't like it" redirects. Fortunately Doug Weller has move locked the first to stop this redirect disruption, and let us not talk about above raised hasty and sourced reverts by Ratnahastin. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Who exactly told you that carrying out close paraphrasing, edit warring, and original research is not disruptive editing? The two links you have provided concerns a promotional article that is supposed to remain a redirect after consensus,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mukesh_Ambani#Akash_Ambani_is_now_Chairman_of_Reliance_Jio] while your another link completely ignores the background involved in this discussion, and why the page move was justified.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Rajput_Mughal_marriage_alliances#c-Rosguill-20240610135100-Request] You are only making it worse for yourself with your battleground mentality by distracting from the report by falsifying the edits made by Ratnahastin, respectively in order to sanction them, which are not even problematic. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You need not to falsify the facts, why are you even linking a two year old discussion [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mukesh_Ambani#Akash_Ambani_is_now_Chairman_of_Reliance_Jio] when in contrast we have relatively newer discussion in the form of an AfD [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akash_Ambani_(3rd_nomination)]? A total 'non-sensical argumentum'. If you still think 3 reverts within a timeframe of 2 months is edit warring, then that is a typical WP:IDHT behaviour. Saying "why the page move was justified" is your own personal point of view which hardly matters against a thorough deletion discussion. Defending Ratnahastin's "I don't like it" redirects is just getting you closer to a boomerang, no one is immune to it, you know that very well. AlvaKedak (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Only you are engaging in falsification here. Why are you citing an AfD with almost no participation and no discussion about this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mukesh_Ambani#Akash_Ambani_is_now_Chairman_of_Reliance_Jio heavily participated discussion]? It's a no-brainer that it is better to keep this link as a redirect than keeping the promotional article. The fact that you are still missing this point or deliberately ignoring it is concerning. You cannot distract from the behavioral issues of and yours by falsifying a non-issue in your favor. Orientls (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Baseless, and I am not going to ask how you actually ended up here, when you had no interaction with the reported user ever before. If only we needed to discuss the authoritarian behaviour of Ratnahastin [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput_Mughal_marriage_alliances&action=history][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akash_Ambani&diff=prev&oldid=1260955048] by circumventing the deletion discussions [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajput_Mughal_marriage_alliances_(2nd_nomination)][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akash_Ambani_(3rd_nomination)], hasty removals of sourced contents [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sinhagad&diff=prev&oldid=1284517438]. I believe they have displayed enough ignorance to earn the ARBIPA TB. AlvaKedak (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::With this reply you have cemented my proposal that you deserve a sanction for battleground mentality, you have cited 5 non problematic diffs, none of which demonstrate any issues with the user. Redirecting an article after a discussion is not an issue as it has been already told to you above. The last revert was perfectly fine and is a matter of editorial discussion, where is the misconduct here? Not only that now you are doubling down on your accusations by accusing editors participating in this thread of having an "external relationship", what is that supposed to mean[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-AlvaKedak-20250412144300-CoffeeCrumbs-20250411040500]? And with what? You will only face even more severe sanctions if you continued this battleground behaviour. Azuredivay (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for AlvaKedak and Maniacal ! Paradoxical from South Asian history broadly construed. The rampant battleground mentality from AlvaKedak in this very thread and doubling down on aspersions of WP:COI instead of redacting them. He is now accusing {{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} of sockpuppetry.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1285241074] Maniacal Paradox is certainly having a number of severe competence issues to edit productively as already evidenced above. A topic ban from South Asian history is the least one can support to deal with this disruption. Orientls (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{rtp}} I'm sorry I can't involve myself in any further administrative discussion, I have my articles for GA review to look into. To simply put, this anonymous "delete per nom" & "close paraphrasing" AFD canvassing has disturbed my schedule enough to consider a temporary break for my studies (of course after GA pass). I'll only return once I'll be convinced that they will not be attacking me anymore. As for this ANI, I'll just add up that editors here mainly Ratnahastin and Alvakedak must avoid getting hit by a boomerang. Heraklios 17:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Azuredivay, the thread is not moving towards a resolution. Almost all of the editors in it are heavily involved. It is getting increasingly complicated, involving more and more editors. Take it to AE. -- asilvering (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Asilvering}} How? I haven't ever interacted with 2 of the editors I named, for whom sanctions are being discussed. Is there a rule that the thread should be unilaterally closed once involved editors are appearing there? Those who are involved here have cited the concerns with the editing of AlvaKedak and Maniacal ! Paradoxical correctly. You should reopen the thread because ANI is the correct venue for these types of complaints. Your unilateral close is unhelpful and is only going to waste the time of volunteers. Azuredivay (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::ANI is not really the correct venue for these types of complaints. WP:AE exists specifically because ANI is so bad at handling this kind of thing. Indeed, the editor who filed the original complaint here was told to take it to AE already by voorts. If what you want is for the complaint to be handled, take it there. Here, we're just going to keep getting longer and longer arguments between participants. Those arguments are not helpful, don't lead to a resolution, and waste everyone's time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::So you are saying that ARE is the venue to deal with issues with multiple users (Maniacal & AlvaKedak). Looks like you don't know that you can only file ARE against one user at a time. ANI has no set format and is perfect for complaints like these. Your closure is unhelpful.

::::You are misrepresenting voorts here. He clearly told the OP to take it to ANI because he considered that a proper venue, equivalent to AE for this complaint.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voorts&diff=next&oldid=1284438939] This further strengthens my point that you cannot unilaterally close the above thread. Azuredivay (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am well aware of how AE works. You would need a separate filing for each of the users you mention. That would, indeed, make it much easier for admins to attend to the issues. I am not misrepresenting voorts. You'll notice that he said to take it to AE, and only suggested ANI after being further pressed by the OP. -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support close, Azuredivay you're being disruptive and condescending. Asilvering is well aware of how the various fora work and the ups and downs of each option. Please take it to AE or drop this entirely. Star Mississippi 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:*I am not going to be interested in filing an AE report as I expected resolution from this thread. If you believe that the close was right then I am done here. You or Asilvering can close this thread too as this one also had enough discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:{{ping|Asilvering}} (for acknowledgement) Just to let y’all know, there was off-wiki canvassing involved in this discussion (at least from what I was emailed); I’ve forwarded an email I received from an editor to ArbCom. E_F⁵ 23:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

| result = Nevermind, clearly this discussion won't go anywhere. E_F⁵ 20:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

User:Andrew Davidson has been told several times, by several editors (including me), many being experienced, that pageviews and other things irrelevant to the ITNC process shouldn't be used in support/oppose rationales and are disruptive, yet they continue to use these rationales. They were T-Banned from deletion discussions in late-2021 for similiar behavior. A timeline of calling-outs in less than a month:

• Yesterday - Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD or blurb: Mario Vargas Llosa (link will probably be broken by tomorrow) - {{ping|GenevieveDEon}} told them {{tq|On point 4: Once again, Andrew - our own reader numbers are not a reliable source for anything, nor any sort of criterion for use in this or any other editorial discussion. Your frequent use of them is disruptive and misleading.}}

• April 8 - {{ping|Kingsif}} told them {{tq|less you’re trying to say that the best blurb for this would’ve been "Trump imposes tariffs, including on these islands that only have penguins, and people find that funny", what’s the point, Andrew. In general, please remember that one of the stated purposes of ITN is to direct readers to articles that may contain more information on topics they’ve heard about - the idea of directing suggests the readers aren’t finding these articles themselves, so, showing the ones they’re already reading sounds counterproductive to me. Both for the readers and for WP, as ITN is using real world news awareness to promote our articles on ITN to attract more readers to a wider array of articles. I don’t know how many times it has to be said to you, but ITN and Top25 are very different endeavours. Maybe one day ITN will become a MP list of most-read, but nobody besides you seems to want that right now, and trying to force it to happen by already acting like pageviews is ITN’s purpose is not contributing to discussion of the criteria that everyone is, making many of your comments redundant.}}

• April 6 - {{ping|The Kip}} told them {{tq|Ignoring ITN’s procedures and norms wholesale no matter how many times he’s reminded of them in favor of his own bizarre logic has pretty much been Andrew’s thing for years now.}}

There are many, many other times they've been told things like this, and an ANI report is bound to come out of this. As a result, I'm bringing it here. Note than the ITNC "told them" links are also evidence of these votes. E_F⁵ 18:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have specific diffs of their conduct, not links to overall discussions and quotes of responses to them? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::The Bushranger, sure, although I don't know how to get exact diffs from comments. — E_F⁵ 19:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Help:Diff. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Go to the history, look for their contributions, and then find those where they are pushing pageviews and reader interest. For example to support the first bullet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1285548612] related to Llosa, or as another example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1284800236] this complaining about the "static" blurb we posted on the tariffs and complaining that many more readers were looking for the dire wolf "de - extinction" news (which was a wildly misreporyed story in the news that ITN rejected due to that) Masem (t) 19:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The dire wolf article is an FA and so is quite high quality. It was the top read article on Wikipedia for two days straight recently because it was in the news – [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2025-03-15&end=2025-04-14&pages=Dire_wolf over 2 million readers], which is quite a lot. This evidence isn't decisive by itself but seems relevant in showing the level of coverage and interest in the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::DiscussionTools adds a comment link to each timestamp, and Convenient Discussions automatically finds the diff for you. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• ITN rules: Pageviews show the extent to which articles are being read by our general readership. They often spike when topics are In the News and so seem very relevant to ITN. The OP seems to suppose that there's some rule forbidding mentioning this evidence but they are mistaken. The general etiquette for ITN is documented at WP:ITNDONT and there's no such rule there. There was a proposal six months ago to add something about this but this did not command a consensus or even a majority. So, there's clearly no such rule or guideline.

: The general rules for ITN discussion are quite loose per WP:ITNSIGNIF, "{{tq|It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits.}}" A high level of readership merits consideration because it obviously chimes with ITN's primary purpose, "{{tq|To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.}}"

: Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is completely unANI-worthy. Someone presenting an argument, civily and non-disruptively, is not an {{tq|urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem}}. It might be worth having a re-run at codifying something at WT:ITN, but it's pretty inside baseball for everyone else. If the worse comes to the worse, either ignore Andrew or just point out the paucity—as you see it—of his argument; ITN admins will give it the weight they judge it deserves. But, in the meantime, I honestly can't see how the project is being harmed or what we are meant to do about it. MHO of course. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• We generally don't sanction people for doing things some other editors find suboptimal. Are there actual rules/policies/guidelines that he is breaking? If not, I agree with F,IM. If so, please link to them, I'm not sure where these rules would live. FWIW AD can be annoying sometimes, but their comments are occasionally insightful. In my own case, it's often worth wading thru the former so you see the latter. If you disagree, don't read the comments. I'm not sure what else you want done here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

New user Colonialmid has been deleting content with no explanation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mori_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1285044519], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mor%C3%A8_%28Clan_name%29&diff=1285360009&oldid=1285358978], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannadigas&diff=prev&oldid=1285057467]), adding content with misleading references that don't support it ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtrakuta_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1285268942]), and re-adding their own edits even when it's clear others object ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mori_Kingdom&diff=1285044709&oldid=1285044573], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mor%C3%A8_%28Clan_name%29&diff=1285360263&oldid=1285360183]). I think there's some indication that this is POV-pushing, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subjects in question to know for sure.

It is also possible that this is a sock of Spider6man, given the crossover in article interest and given the short time between when Spider6man last edited and the creation of this account. They also restored a few of Spider6man's edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauryas_of_Puri&diff=1285358726&oldid=1284268050], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mor%C3%A8_%28Clan_name%29&diff=1285358978&oldid=1269781988]).

Various warnings on the user's talk page have not been effective, but have clearly been seen as they have been removed by the user. --AntiDionysius (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Looks very likely, but I would open a SPI here. In the meantime, I have protected Morè (Clan name) in its stable version. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Got it, I'll go make an SPI now. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Blocked 31 hours

| result = Personal attacks — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

The user User:2A00:23C7:6239:A401:D1C7:FA37:F45D:416 recently [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%D7%90%D7%A7%D7%A2%D7%92%D7%9F&diff=1285395760&oldid=1258265690%5D posted] abusive language on my talk page. Thanks! אקעגן (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:Did you really write “lil baby didn't get his way”? 😒 Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Courtesy link to the relevant edit: Special:Diff/1284960620 Departure– (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oof. "[M]y edit summary could have been better"? I suggest it could have been literally anything else :/ – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 08:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Did you try discussing this on their talk page? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::The editor Jessintime reverted me twice on a minor matter (official languages) and posted "Lil baby didn't get his way" in his/her editorial summary under Languages of the United States. This editor then left me an administrator's warning (without identifying him/herself as an administrator) about my being involved in "contentious post-1992 topics". (The topic is official languages, not the War in Ukraine or international tariffs.) The editor Jessintime is (1) using discourteous and trolling discourse on Wikipedia and (2) sending me a Wikipedia administrator's warning while making bogus claims about "contentious post-1992 topics". This is not only an unacceptable breach of courtesy but a total disregard of basic rules of Wikipedia. Editor Jessintime should be sanctioned, and if he/she is really an admin, should be relieved of her/his duties. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|This editor then left me an administrator's warning (without identifying him/herself as an administrator) about my being involved in "contentious post-1992 topics".}} Any editor may leave a contentious topics notification. They are not required to be an administrator, and Jessintime [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Jessintime isn't]. Donald Trump's executive orders are absolutely covered under post-1992 US politics: their notification here is completely appropriate. Their taunting edit summaries, on the other hand, are not. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::While some of Jessintime's behaviour here has been poor, pretty much anything about modern official languages in the US is obviously within the broadly construed boundaries of post-1992 politics of the United States. And definitely anything about an executive order. So a CTOP alert was appropriate if you were not already aware. And I'm going to assume you were not aware since you seem to keep misnaming the particular CTOP area covered, and also seem to be very confused about what it covers. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::He was seemingly aware that American politics were a contentious topic in January [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1272906011] (see the edit summary) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|I suppose my edit summary could have been better}}. Yeah. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1284960620 This edit summary] is deeply unimpressive; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jessintime&diff=prev&oldid=1285011492 this one] isn't great either. You are clearly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mason.Jones&diff=prev&oldid=1284960555 aware that US politics is a contentious topic]. The fact that you removed Mason Jones' complaint about your deeply inappropriate edit summary and then immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285012198 made this report] makes it look like you are trying to get in ahead of them, looks retaliatory, and frankly puts your judgement seriously into question. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::The report is better written than those edit summaries. Another editor ignoring RfCs is not a reason to so eagerly violate WP:CIVIL. CMD (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just to be clear, I filed the report because Mason.Jones continued to edit war after I issued the CTOP warning on his talk page. The warning was issued at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mason.Jones&diff=prev&oldid=1284960555 16:10] and he made reversions at both pages in question about 45 minutes later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1284966649] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1284966939]. I should also point out his latest (since removed by me) comment on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jessintime&diff=prev&oldid=1285075248] where he says, in response to my complaint here about improperly challenging an RFC, that he "challenged the wording as any editor would: with two reverts." An editor who has been around for 20 years should know better, especially given the fact that it is a controversial topic. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Jessintime: You have been quite clear: you used totally unacceptable language with another editor and you obviously regret your poor choices. In my 20 years of Wikipedia, I've never read such a toxic editorial summary. Your quick deletion of my two posts on your Talk page make it clear that you don't feel right about it. I always wait at least a full year before removing any message from another editor on my Talk page, no matter how critical it is. You might think about that too. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't disagree that my edit summaries were inappropriate. To be fair, however, you referred to editors who disagreed with you in the RFC in question as a "goon squad" who invaded the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1279624450] and, after someone told you such language isn't helpful, doubled down by saying it shouldn't be decided by "mob rule" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1279686640]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Whataboutery is not a comparison. Your comment was totally ad hominem. No editor ever does that, but you did. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Both of you need to behave far better if you're going to continue to edit a CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Nil Einne. I totally reject your moral equivalency in "both of you". These are nowhere near comparable faults and you know it. Or you should. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You can reject it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that both of you need to behave far better if you're going to continue to edit a CTOP area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Bushranger: When another editor is toxic and abusive, deletes my posts on their Talk page twice to cover their bad behavior, and then takes me to Wikipedia Administrative Court, I will respond, not "behave". If English Wikipedia followed even basic ethics, the editor Jessintime would be temporary blocked. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There's no real benefit in arguing who's transgressions are worse. If you keep edit warring on AmPol topics, you're likely to get temporarily blocked sitewide for edit warring, with a likely AmPol topic ban when the block expires. If Jessintime uses an edit summary like that one more time, they're likely to get temporarily blocked sitewide, with a likely AmPol topic ban when the block expires. That doesn't mean that WP has gotten together, and decided your behavior scored a 10.3 and Jessintime's scored a 3.2 ... or a 45.2. It means you're both doing different things wrong, and we want you both to stop. It doesn't mean we consider them exactly equivalent. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Floquenbeam. I reworded one editor's interpretation of an RfC (which I believed went beyond the scope of the RfC) and was reverted by a second editor, the one who appended a thoroughly unacceptable edit summary and then has the gall to bring me to Administrative Court. This is shabby and unethical, and yes, you are most definitely treating it as equivalent. Mason.Jones (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::When you {{tqq|respond}}, you raise the risk of you both getting blocked. There's a term for what you're doing: Wikilawyering. Don't. Multiple administrators have told you your behavior is not acceptable. It doesn't matter what another editor's behavior is or isn't. It's your behavior, and it needs to be better. Continuing to go "but them!" multiple times doesn't have the effect you're intending it to have (especially when that other editor's behavior has already also been called out as unacceptable). And making comments like {{tqq|Wikipedia Administrative Court}} and {{tqq|If English Wikipedia followed even basic ethics}} has the opposite effect. The latter, especially, is the sort of comment often made by editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Now, you are here to improve the encyclopedia, so I'd strongly suggest you don't make comments like that and take the advice that has been given to you to improve your editing behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Bushranger, a general question: Why are many toxic editors allowed to continue editing after egregiously poor behavior, in many cases after many warnings from multiple editors they have crossed that they will be blocked? Some, like Jessintime, immediately erase any and all critical messages on their Talk page. I see this often on English Wikipedia (but not on French Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, where it is not tolerated). What makes English Wikipedia different? While I do regret my handling of the RfC, I am stunned that such insidious and toxic editors like Jessintime can bring another editor to this "administration board" and get a pass for their rank behavior rather than minimal discipline. It's a fair question. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::(1) Any editor is allowed to remove any content from their talk page at any time, with the sole exception of declined unblock requests (for active blocks The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)). (2) They are not {{tqq|get[ting] a pass}}, as has been noted by multiple users here and agreed upon by themselves. Your refusal to listen to this is making your repeated comments about them after their behavior has been called out and self-admitted as inappropriate approach the line of becoming personal attacks. You would be well-advised to drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::To clarify - if you think their {{tqq|get[ting] a pass}} is because they're not being blocked for their edit summaries, that isn't going to happen. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and given the summaries have been called out as being inappropriate and have been admitted and accepted as being inappropriate, and thus are unlikely to recur, there's nothing to prevent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Bushrangers's points lead to an obvious issue here. Since Jessintime has accepted they did wrong and undertaken to do better there is no reason to block them. By comparison you seem very reluctant to accept fault and do keep saying stuff which probably violates NPA. So regardless of who's specific offence was the "worst", there is much more reason to block you than Jessintime because we have reason to think you're not going to do better. I don't think it's likely you'll be blocked at this time but you definitely need to drop the stick and just do better next time. Also while I'm definitely not a fan of content trumping all incivility, if it's true you were violating a recent RfC consensus this is definitely not a minor offence whatever language you did or didn't use while doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I should clarify my "if it's true" statement. I had earlier looked into Talk:Languages of the United States and from my earlier quick look, it wasn't clear if the editing was in violation of the RfC. However looking again IMO it was, and it even more was in United States. It's clear Mason.Jones was aware of the closure, they just seemed to dispute it but that isn't the right way to dispute a close and they definitely should not have edit warred when their violations of the close were dispute. As said, violating the consensus of a recently closed RfC is by no means a minor thing, these edits probably aren't enough for sanction but they definitely need to stop. Trying to work out whether this editing was "better" or "worse" than Jessintime's edit summary is silly. Of course, this also shows another reason why using such poor language is a bad idea. If Jessintime hadn't said what they said, while I don't personally think this ANI was needed, the focus would have reasonably been on Mason.Jones editing in violation of the RfC instead of what is is. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Beyond that, if you weren't previously aware that each Wikipedia is autonomous, and that many of their interpretations, common practice and customs have diverged, now's the time to learn. Ravenswing 22:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::In addition to the well-considered feedback of the two community members above, well worth Mason taking fully on board, I will add this: you are not the only one who at times feels that this community's standard on arresting needlessly combative and vituperative commentary has gotten too laisez-faire. But based even just on those of your comments which have been cited here, I think I can tell you with confidence that you are also very much benefiting from those relaxed standards when it comes to "toxic" approaches to discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::If you think that it went beyond the scope of the discussion, further discussion on the talk page would have been a better option than edit warring. – robertsky (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I’m a big girl who is used to men twice my age looking down on me, but in the past 14 hours one editor has now called me “toxic and abusive, “unethical and shabby” and “insidious and toxic”. This is far beyond him pointing out I made one incivil edit summary - something I have repeatedly said I don’t disagree with. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Off topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Incidentally, and a little off topic, this is why some editors hate infoboxes so much. The text of the article handles it ok, but when it comes time for the infobox, it just says "Official: English", as if laws are so last century and the truth is determined by deranged executive order. I guess nuance in infoboxes isn't inherently impossible, but it sure is difficult, and makes it easy for people to materialize at a talk page and win the day. Rational people can't watch all pages all the time to see where the lunacy is going to turn up next. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

• Support as proposer. Star Mississippi 16:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Jessintime was out of line, no doubt there. But Mason.Jones has not remotely covered himself in glory with his belligerence and repeated insults here, and brings to mind the courtroom aphorism of "Are you losing? Then pipe down!" Perhaps a two-way IBAN will calm the waters. Ravenswing 22:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I-Ban us if you want, but MJ’s comments are not limited to me. At talk:United States in recent months he has accused others of [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1279624450&title=Talk:United_States invading the article like a goon squad] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Mason.Jones&namespace=1&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 grandstanding] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1279111148 writing like a 14-year-old] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1280337094 being willful and petty] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1281175713 lecturing the class] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1276767874 trying to turn the article into a children’s reference]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Outside of passingly few niche scenarios, IBANs typically have potential to cultivate more disruption than they resolve, particularly where the editors are both interested in the same high-controversy topic area, as here, and where one or both editors is displaying an IDHT attitude as regards what needs to change in their own approach, as a general matter. I think this is likely to be one of those more common scenarios where the parties are going to remain in close editorial corners and will, through a combination of circumstances and inability to drop the stick, circle around eachother at the peripheries of the restriction, causing just as much disruption. {{pb}} I'm not sure what the solution is here: insofar as both editors displayed substantial or even egregious breaches of civility in this instance, but have been thoroughly and uniformly reproached for it by the volunteers providing feedback, we may wish to leave it at warnings. But I admit there is something of a mismatch between the level of the unacceptability of the conduct here and that response. I think both users should know that I for one would have been willing to seriously consider a mid-term community block or a topic ban in this instance, had the discussion gone in one of those directions. Both have a deep shortfall at present in meeting the standards of this project's behavioural policies, and my opposition to this particular sanction not withstanding (as it reflects my stance on the practical value of the tool, not the need to restrain these two users, which is real and substantial at the moment), they both better improve in a hurry if they don't want to face another solution. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this doesn't seem like it would be an effective measure. The above dispute is related to a single content question. Are there issues, or even regular interactions, outside of that? If not, an iban doesn't do much. I think the above discussion has clear warnings for both editors, on the separate albeit related issues discussed. CMD (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

| status = Blocked

| result = Indeffed by User:Johnuniq due to inability to address the WP:NOTHERE issues raised without AI verbage (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

({{ping|Agent VII}}) From the user page of {{user|Harajaru345tyu}} it is obvious the person does not know English yet somehow produces perfect English texts. There is strong suspicion that they pump AI generated articles in mainspace and draftspace. They have a huge number of warnings of various kind in the talk page. --Altenmann >talk 05:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Out of respect, I think it should be avoided that one assumes someone's language skill or editing techniques from their user page or the way they write. English may be spoken variably, and it is a common practice among non-native English speakers to make use of the spellcheckers, translators, or even copyeditors in order to increase clarity.

:In the matter of concerns with AI-generated material, Wikipedia does permit contributions using AI tools so far as they comply with main content policies — particularly verifiability, neutrality, and notability. Should there be some particular article or draft raising issues regarding policy, it would be more productive to tag for review, propose adjustments, or start a content-oriented discussion instead of hypothesizing on the contributor.

:We should concentrate on the content itself and not conjecture about intent or user abilities unless there's overt evidence of abuse or disruptive editing. Let's work together to maintain Wikipedia's standards by collaboration and good faith. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I respectfully disagree that I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia." Constructively building is something I've consistently attempted to do, particularly on under explored topics like Jat history and culture, with verifiable sources and in a neutral tone. If something is wrong with the style, tone, or format of certain edits, I welcome feedback and more than willing to revise drafts to Wikipedia standards.

:Please be aware that:

:It is not against policy to be extremely interested in a subject (see WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERENORMS).

:Thanks Harajaru345tyu (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Blatant useage of AI to reply to the concerns about their using AI... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::in simple, Mujse Problrm kya hai tum aap sabko, Agar aapko kisi edit mein koi problem nazar aaye, toh main usko revise karne ke liye ready hoon. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I cannot verify the following translation of from Hindi of Harajaru345tyu's last post, as it was done by googletranslate, but the result of that algorithm was {{tq|What is your problem with me, if you see any problem in any edit, then I am ready to revise it}}.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Assming that's correct - the problem with you is that you are using AI to - pretty clearly - make edits in a language you are not familiar with. Even leaving aside the issues of AI useage in general, this is a problem because it means - speaking frankly - that you're unable to verify the content you're creating before posting it due to not being able to understand the language the AI output is in. Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_State_Highway_289&diff=prev&oldid=1285522930 this edit] is a problem - mass, unexplained removal of content from an article. This looks like perhaps less WP:NOTHERE and more WP:CIR, but either way I think a block may be warranted here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I appreciate your feedback. I understand where your issues with AI usage and content veracity testing are. I was trying to make sure that the content is verifiable and in line with Wikipedia policies. I realize my editing process was not clear, particularly on language and content removal, and appreciate your understanding while I sort them out.

:::::I have done my best to double check facts that are being put out, and I will keep doing so to ensure the edits are totally reviewed and explained in context. If anything appears to have been deleted without explanation, I am more than willing to go back and put in explanation or restore it where necessary.

:::::My goal is to do it positively and to Wikipedia standards. Hopefully, it will clear the confusion. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I understand that you're annoyed and genuinely regret any inconvenience that my changes might have brought about. I promise to be more attentive to rules in the future and refrain from committing any more mistakes. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Right now this person AI-spellchecked a mathematical article Integer relation algorithm and surely screwed it up - yet another proof that this editor is a burden for Wikipedia, because their edits simply cannot be trusted. --Altenmann >talk 06:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I see what you mean and apologize for my error. From now on, I will be more careful and will not handle unfamiliar articles. Thanks for the chance to write and learn. Let us go on and begin again. Thanks. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::No. We will not go on. Please go and edit Wikipedia in your native language. --Altenmann >talk 06:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

And now they are adding empty lines, e.g., in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kagera%2C_Kigoma-Ujiji&diff=1285523449&oldid=1104220066 improper places]. --Altenmann >talk 06:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I see what you mean and apologize for my error. From now on, I will be more careful and will not handle unfamiliar articles. Let end this debate. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::No. Please go and edit Wikipedia in your native language. --Altenmann >talk 06:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Nuvola apps important.svg this disruptor must be blocked ASAP. --Altenmann >talk 06:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:From here on, I will not be editing any arbitrary articles anymore and will not be modifying anything in arbitrary articles in particular. I truly do apologize for the distraction and would like to leave the situation at this point now. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I understand that you're annoyed and genuinely regret any inconvenience that my changes might have brought about. I promise to be more attentive to rules in the future and refrain from committing any more mistakes. Tell me if there is something that I can do to rectify this properly. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have spent much time and energy improving Wikipedia, and all changes were made in good faith. Nevertheless, for the community's sake, rest assured that I will no longer be adding any more contributions to unidentified or random articles. I have never made any deliberate rule breaking, and I will adhere strictly to all Wikipedia guidelines from now on. I hope that we can just move on from this and that I can continue to make constructive contributions within guidelines. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Pinging {{ping|Bbb23|Joyous!}} as they already explained not to add AI generated content in talk/article and draft space. Even they explained that blanking of articles is considered vandalism. The user told that they will not do but they again started blanking as evident from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_State_Highway_289&diff=prev&oldid=1285522930]. They are adding empty lines just to become extended confirmed as early as posible to try other WP:GAMING activity here. The user is only engaged in WP:NOTHERE activites.

:::Even they are replying here using AI as per GPTZero results. Agent 007 (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My notice read that behavior was judged prior to October 2023, allowing me a chance to tackle some more actions of mine.

::::The so-called "blanking" and "empty" edits: I think I've done all blank edits or added lines for the sake of the project, whether it's doing what it should. I'm sure that I didn't understand much about reverting some possible format screw-up or even the preview mode, so thank you for the correction! Never again.

::::On the AI front: I'm aware that use of AI works in engineering discontent. To clarify just that, I do AI tools to only structure a text and reformulate it to understand what is actually in that text because everything is really personal with every single affirmation or source being crunched by me. Well aware that all activity with AI would have to be under scrutiny on Wikipedia, and to that regard I hold.

::::My intention: I gare here with the best in interest to improve a grossly neglected field-most especially in the example of regional history. I want to learn the rules of the community, and I hope to learn every bit through whatever feedback I receive.

::::Extended Confirmed: I am not trying at all to game the system or rush the status; my interest is only in improving the content. I will focus on quality rather than quantity from now on.

::::I believe in actions more than words. So, I will keep extra care in future edits and will try to avoid anything that seems to disturb. Again, thank you for your vigilant attention and wise counsel. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This user must be banned from creating draft articles as well: they already pumped a huge amount of them. Who is going to review AI edits, many of which with inaccessible refs . For example here Draft:Pandu_Godara the refs are library records, [https://delhi.ichrlibrary.in/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=12627 like this one]. I challenge you to provide the exact quote from the source you are allegedly citing. This is a blatant abuse of the good will of Wikipedians. --Altenmann >talk 06:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:thank you for your concerns, and I want to respond to a few of them in good faith:Intent and Contributions: I am not trying to bombard AfC or abuse the review system, but to expand representation of lesser known historical figures, especially sourcing from reliable regional sources. If it seems like I’m submitting too many drafts, and would like for me to slow down...I can, and I can focus on consistently improving existing drafts rather than focus on creating new pages.Citations and Verifiability: You are correct that catalog links (e.g. the one to Churu Mandal Ka Shodhpurna Itihas (https://delhi.ichrlibrary.in/...) are not adequate evidence for a citation) and I am currently in the process of getting paper scans or quotes from this specific and other references text as well. I plan to replace or supplement the catalogue citation, with a source quote or citation that is lower level in hierarchy, but still cites pretty expertly and has page numbers.Challenge Accepted: I accept your challenge to provide a citation for the textual evidence quoted in the reference I provided. I will post here once I receive the question. If for any reason I am not able to provide a citation from a trusted research book, I can change, or remove that claim as necessary.Constructive Approach: I am here to work with you and improve the content presented based on the policy Wikipedia promote—verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. If there is something specific you think should absolutely be changed or removed in the draft. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::How did you reference the texts originally if you did not yet have scans or quotes from them? A specific start might be removing the texts you have added to drafts that you do not have a source for. Relatedly, is there a reason you are being evasive about the AI generation of images at :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hathi Singh Tomar.png? CMD (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Even many of the images in Commons the user uploaded by coping from their Instagram page as per their claim, are AI generated. for e.g. Commons:File:Pandu_Ji_Godara.jpg and Commons:File:Jawahar_Singh.png Agent 007 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes all of them were created by me Harajaru345tyu (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Coustesy ping, {{ping|Krd|Nthep}} for reviewing their VRT/image activites if they wish. Agent 007 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks, I have added {{PD-algorithm}} tag in the two images for clarity. Agent 007 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You won't find, these images on Instagram Harajaru345tyu (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::because i am the owner of this image Harajaru345tyu (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm afraid I don't understand how this answer is meant to address my question. I have not raised ownership concerns. CMD (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am currently editing this, and I have previously stated that I do not plan to edit random articles. so what exactly are you looking for? Harajaru345tyu (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• What is this ?

The creator added WP:G12 at Draft:Raja Khemkaran Sogaria on their own per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Raja_Khemkaran_Sogaria&diff=next&oldid=1285532511 this]. One can say that the user may be new and did not know the right option but then why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Raja_Khemkaran_Sogaria&oldid=1285535549 contest own deletion]. It looks the user is not sure what they are doing. Agent 007 (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your feedback. Yes, I had initially added the G12 tag myself in caution, wondering about the originality of some of it. After I had rewritten the draft completely and re-checked all content as original and properly sourced, however, I felt it didn't quite live up to the G12 standards anymore. That is why I objected to it being removed. Being new is not to say that you can't learn and correct. I am actually actively refining the draft to a better Wikipedia standard. I would appreciate constructive feedback on how to enhance the article instead of assuming my intention or capability. Harajaru345tyu (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have indefinitely blocked {{user|Harajaru345tyu}} to avoid further wasting of community time. Any admin is welcome to unblock without consulting me if there is an indication of an ability to address the issues raised without AI verbage. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Summary:

I'm reporting User:MrOllie for repeatedly removing good-faith edits and continuing to issue threats of blacklisting and blocking even after a Level 3 warning. The edit in question was a properly cited contribution to the Flipper Zero article, which aimed to improve the section on hardware expansions. The citation was to my own ad-free, educational blog based on first-hand use of the device, and was added in accordance with WP:EXT and WP:CITESPAM guidelines.

MrOllie reverted the contribution without collaboration or detailed policy-based explanation. I attempted to discuss the edit and clarify intent, but was met with escalating warnings, culminating in this latest threat after a prior Level 3 warning. This behaviour does not align with WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or appropriate dispute resolution practices.

Key diffs:

My original edit

First revert by MrOllie

Second attempt with improved tone

Second revert

Ongoing talk page threats, latest example

Request:

I am asking for administrative review of MrOllie’s conduct. Regardless of whether the citation ultimately meets consensus, the approach being taken is hostile, dismissive, and inconsistent with collaborative editing. I am open to compromise and revision — I just ask to be treated fairly and without threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorraluk (talk • contribs)

:In addition to the OP's own edits, those interested should have a look at the contribs of {{ip|81.96.203.80}} - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm calling WP:BOOMERANG on this and think Zorraluk should probably be indeffed. Pretty clearly demonstrates a WP:CIR fail at best and is purposely times sinking or trolling at worst to try to add spam to wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

I am apparently part of a strange dispute with User:80.136.205.25 (and their other dynamic IPs) on HESA Kowsar that involves the hyphenation of the word "percent". This is the edit in question – it changes a direct quote from [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/iran-starts-mass-producing-locally-designed-kowsar-fighter-jet-181103062235724.html this Al Jazeera article], {{xt|"100-percent indigenously made"}}, to read {{!xt|"100-per-cent indigenously made"}}. The IP's most recent edit to the page is to change it to {{!xt|"100-per cent"}}, which is still not what the quote says.

I received a warning from HJ Mitchell which I'm a little confused about – as mentioned on WP:QUOTE, quotations should be verbatim. Surely any spelling except "percent" is incorrect? --Iiii I I I (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:That's correct - however changing it is still not vandalism and reverting it is still not exempt from 3RR, which you rocketed past. As it's now over 12 hours ago, the page has been protected, and you believed you were reverting vandalism, no blocks will be handed out this time, but do not do that again and take a {{tl|trout}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, and apologies for breaking 3RR. Iiii I I I (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Similar situation with the same person on Death of Brian Wells – I am stopping to avoid violating 3RR again.

::In these edits IP added {{t|huh}} to American phrasing they apparently didn't understand, used a semicolon incorrectly, and added a redundant word, which I explained in an edit summary. IP readded the changes with deliberately obtuse summaries: {{tq|What is sophomore? How does a human teach a shop, store or any building?|q=yes}} (diff, diff). Iiii I I I (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::To be fair to that IP I can tell without checking WHOIS that it's a European, probably British, IP address. Sophomore is not a term that's used in the UK in almost any context, and I have no clue what a shop teacher is; a shop in the UK is where you buy milk. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::For the curious, a shop teacher is someone who teaches a trade in a high school. If you learn carpentry or metalworking or whatever in secondary school, it's taught by a "shop teacher". -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::As a Brit, I read "shop" in context as "workshop" (which is a British usage) rather than the American meaning of "store" (a word with somewhat different connotations in British English); but until I did the research, I thought a "shop teacher" might be a skilled tradesman (artisan) who teaches apprentices within industry not students outside it. Narky Blert (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems that User:DogWorldLive64 is in the WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR territory, considering how many of their edits have been reverted and how many articles have been deleted or draftified. This includes hoaxes like Maggat, Malkveroe Islands and Malskinsfjørður, waste-of-time DYK pages like Template:Did you know nominations/Plum or Template:Did you know nominations/Düsseldorf, or more waste of time by creating a page that gets deleted in January after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most eaten meat in the world by countries and territories, then recreating it three months later as List of most eaten meat by countries and dependent territories and creating a new AfD for that one a few minutes later (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most eaten meat by countries and dependent territories); they also created an article and the corresponding AfD with just 8 minutes between them here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country. Also reverted was e.g. the addition of this extremely low-quality image[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunflower_oil&diff=prev&oldid=1279111402], or edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%C3%BCsseldorf&diff=prev&oldid=1277933090 this].

I see no improvement in their editing. Fram (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Reminds me of a sockmaster that made these weird list pages, but I can't remember the name.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

It is in the Playing Career Section Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Servite et contribuere}} Sorry, I deleted yors. YOu have to send email to admin,. See WP:REVDELREQUEST. I already emailed to user:Liz. YOu may email to someone else. --Altenmann >talk 06:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Can I do it VIA the talk page of a user like User:Liz? Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Altenmann I have Privacy concerns. I don't want to use my Email. Thanks for reaching out to User:Liz though Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have revdeled the edit. Lectonar (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you are unwilling to use email, then I think you have 3 options:

:::* If it is urgent, you can use IRC. WP:Revision Deletion has a section on how to request RevDel and it'll have a link to the IRC channel in there.

:::* If it is not urgent, you may be able to use the admin's talk page. In that case, I would recommend a generic section heading (e.g. Questionable edits) and just put the diff links and your signature. Don't quote the contents of the diffs anywhere.

:::* If it's a blatant copyvio, you can just remove the copyvios and then add the template at Template:Copyvio revdel to the top of the article.

:::Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::QwertyForest The Revision I wanted deleted has been deleted✅ Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I don't check my email often. Glad someone was able to get to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I have rev-deleted some other similar edits from this IP range which inserted random Commons porn, and have done a few other things which should restrict this IP range from doing similar in the future. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Black Kite I would suggest blocking that IP from editing articles on all 7 players involved in the Manly pride jersey player boycott Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Canoooo.4}}

Canoooo.4 was previously blocked for disruptive editing, and although his block was reopened after he apologized and said he would not make the same mistakes, many of his actions and behaviors are still noticeable.

Disruptive edits, deleting the text from infobox which supported the body of article and sources.
Canoooo.4 was constantly removing the "Assyrian victory" from the infobox in this article, even though the article explained that the Assyrians played a major role and was supported by sources, Canoooo.4 continued to remove it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_Barzanji_revolts&diff=1279489348&oldid=1279464510][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_Barzanji_revolts&diff=1280587716&oldid=1280586131][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_Barzanji_revolts&diff=1281149324&oldid=1281148860] However, I had already written about this issue on the talk page days ago, but it was ignored and the disruptive edits continued. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMahmud_Barzanji_revolts&diff=1279581483&oldid=1243477362]

Poorly sourced content and insisting on continuing the edit warring
Canoooo.4 was using sources that were not WP:RS and were quoting vanity press and they got blocked from both articles Lakestan incident, Simko Shikak revolt (1918–1922) because of it but they keep doing it again.
Lakestan incident: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakestan_incident&diff=1281129434&oldid=1281128946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakestan_incident&diff=1281131367&oldid=1281131148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakestan_incident&diff=1281499591&oldid=1281497601]
Simko Shikak revolt (1918–1922): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simko_Shikak_revolt_%281918%E2%80%931922%29&diff=1281142877&oldid=1281141466][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simko_Shikak_revolt_%281918%E2%80%931922%29&diff=1281143636&oldid=1281142877][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simko_Shikak_revolt_%281918%E2%80%931922%29&diff=1281792454&oldid=1281790586]
1843 and 1846 massacres in Hakkari: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1843_and_1846_massacres_in_Hakkari&diff=1284206711&oldid=1281764340] vanity press
Battle of Manzikert: Again vanity press. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Manzikert&diff=1285445992&oldid=1285222154]

Meatpuppetry/off-wiki grouping
Canoooo.4 asks me about my discord, the reason is about why Kurds changed many battles etc, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKajmer05&diff=1281132496&oldid=1280587687] this seemed a bit strange to me and I realized that someone was doing meat puppetry with Canoooo.4.

He says he knows the user named Parquez. Parquez is Tishreen07's sock. Tishreen07 currently has a total of more than 40 blocked accounts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKajmer05&diff=1281132130&oldid=1281132022][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Tishreen07] However, I noticed that Canoooo.4 and Tishreen07 took coordinated action. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simko_Shikak_revolt_(1926)&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simko_Shikak_revolt_(1918%E2%80%931922)&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simko_Shikak_revolt_(1926)&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_Barzanji_revolts&action=history] (Shaiun, Fardasoft, Karamove, Khanyou and Maximrauf is Tishreen07's socks)

There are more but I think these will be enough. Also Canoooo.4 is asking for a discord again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASems%C3%BBr%C3%AE&diff=1285232323&oldid=1284219898] And Canoooo.4 is slandering someone by saying they are a liar. Wikipedia:Casting aspersions

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASems%C3%BBr%C3%AE&diff=1285233068&oldid=1285232932] Kajmer05 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I forgot to add that Canoooo.4 was creating POV-pushing articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Bing%C3%B6l_attack][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_Gaziantep_attack] And I think this article was created with the help of AI. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportations_of_Assyrians_(1915%E2%80%931924)] Kajmer05 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There's absolutely no way this editor wrote that themselves, comparing this to how they write on their talk page. (Well, aside from the AI-written bits there.) I'll block for continued disruptive editing but I'll leave the meat/sock stuff for someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks! I had previously filed an SPI against them. An CU named Blablubbs found that they had a sleeper account with 0 edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FBokak99&diff=1278912454&oldid=1278831882] And this is another SPI file, I filed them all under suspicion of meatpuppetry. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canoooo.4/Archive] Kajmer05 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sleeper account is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Can.Al.Kurdi blocked]. Kajmer05 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|VillageProper}}
• {{articlelinks|Joey Skaggs}}

I am not sure what to do with their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VillageProper heavy promotion] of Joey Skaggs. At least in one place, in the area I know something (Agitprop) I reverted their addition. Then I looked at some other contribs and I start thinking that, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Improvisation&diff=prev&oldid=1285616493 this addition] to "Improvisation" is nothing but an WP:UNDUE advert of this comic. BTW, in their talk page the user denies COI. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:P.S. In tghe light of the above I find suspicious the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joey_Skaggs&diff=1285418521&oldid=1258612824 complete rewrite] of [[Joey Skaggs. --Altenmann >talk 20:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:P.P.S. There was another ardent Skaggs's fan SPA last year: {{user|Mr-asthmatic}}. --Altenmann >talk 20:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:(As I clarified on my talk page I have done research on Skaggs over the last year for a thesis, this may contribute to the "heavy promotion" of this particular artist on my part. After working on the Skaggs page I noticed he was not referenced in other areas that I've done academic research in so I jumped in without knowing the single purpose account guidelines. I was currently made aware today that when editing I must refrain from focusing solely on one individual or topic because it could look like a COI. The editor Hipal has been working to help me clean up the Skaggs page and give me advice through the process after they suggested a complete rewrite. I reached out to my mentor (Praseodymium-141) 25 days ago for help but have not yet heard back. I am new to the scene but want to be a reliable contributor. I apologize if I have made missteps and thank you for addressing it. As far as the other "ardent" fan of Skaggs, I am unaware of that situation and have had no contact with that editor. VillageProper (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Without reviewing the talk page to remind myself of the details of this situation, my impression is that progress on the article is being made, if slowly. Anyone who can work on a thesis and contribute to Wikipedia at the same time should be commended. Still, I think there are enthusiasm problems here, and the typical problems (WP:OR, selection of sources, weight given to sources) that researchers find themselves in when contributing to Wikipedia. Aren't there essays or better to help with such situations? --Hipal (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree. I realize I need to do some heavy reading on the Wikipedia framework before proceeding. I'm noticing my biggest issues are source related especially in this context. To your credit Hipal, you did try to warn me how intense contribution to BLP pages are! VillageProper (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think bring this situation to this forum was premature. It was only twenty minutes before this post that I had raised this issue on their talk page. That's hardly enough time to digest new information about WP policies and guidelines, much less adjust editing practices. The edit history does look like a case for selective rollback, but the samples I looked at were different from one another and properly sourced. Some may indeed be undue, but that's a guideline that often requires experienced judgement—and also, editors cannot be assumed to even know it exists.

:(For context, I know nothing about Skaggs and have had no interactions with the editor prior to my talk page inquiry an hour ago.) Patrick (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Patrick for alerting me to guidelines I was unaware of! I agree that some of my edits may need experienced editors to oversee, critique and/or revert. I will do my due diligence and read up on WP policies. VillageProper (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|was premature}}: with all due respect I see a probem in at least two pages and I want other people to chime in. I could have easily gone and reverted each and every advert plug-in, but first I wanted an opinion of others. It is one thing someone adds a ref to a book of his college teacher; too fishy, but at least encyclopedic value. It is another thing plugging a person as an example. Imagine a fan of Beyonce will run around inserting her name into articles dress, bra, panty line, song, sex appeal, scandal, live performance, etc. --Altenmann >talk 22:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, you have more experience here, but this really looks to me like biting a newbie responsive to feedback. Patrick (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: I was not asking to block or ban the user. If the user is responsive to feedback no harm done. --Altenmann >talk 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I was unaware my edits came off as fan "insertions." It was not my intent and I am open to creative and constructive criticism. VillageProper (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

This editor has been to ANI previously. I mention that because they did participate in that discussion, but I was just about to place a message on their talk page regarding an undiscussed move. I did not post the message because an editor has already been talking to them about moves without discussion. It's here on their talk page that there have been no responses. The editor is about one year into their WP career.

• Previous attempt by Remsense to contact the editor about undiscussed moves: User talk:ModernDaySlavery#Undiscussed moves
• Today's undiscussed move: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_California_earthquakes&diff=1285616162&oldid=1283742978]
• My request to revert the undiscussed move per WP:CONSISTENT: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1285619122]

Dawnseeker2000 19:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:They can't just move the page. It doesn't even match every other earthquake or tornado list. it makes no sense! 4.39.220.106 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Reverted the undiscussed move. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::First, they have a very unusual username. Secondly, looking at their contributions, they are posting move requests at WP:RM/TR lately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Its the name of a popular song, for what it's worth. 107.115.5.79 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And here I thought it was a reference to Wikipedia editing. EEng 05:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

ES at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Ekpa&diff=prev&oldid=1285605570] and comment at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChoiceGlobalTv&diff=prev&oldid=1285604921]. I will now notify the other editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{nacom}}

:{{quote|CEASE & DESIST Notice from the attorney of PM Ekpa Simon Njoku}}

:...certainly seems a legal threat to me.

:{{quote|Maybe I was not clear enough. Please refer to the link: https://x.com/Akparawasunny/status/1894361496047534091 which clearly shows a NOTICE of CEASE & DESIST for Ngozi Orabueze to stop using the name of the Prime Minister or claiming to be associated or working for him. The notice was served to Ngozi by the attorney representing the PM.}}

:...also is unambiguously a legal threat. JayCubby 18:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Seconding that this is a clear legal threat. E_F⁵ 18:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thirding that this is a clear legal threat. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hey, you copied me!{{Humor note}} Really though, I do hope this doesn't turn into yet another ANI (the other ANI)-type situation. — E_F⁵ 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User now blocked by 331dot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

While we're here, there seems to be an issue with an AI-generated image of the subject within the infobox, :File:Simon Ekpa portrait, 2023.jpg (including an ear that seems to be added on ransom-style with a clear line denoting where the ear is). I've removed it because it's clearly not the subject themselves, but it seems like there's been a conflict on whether to remove it or not that needs to be resolved. It is Commons-uploaded and there was a deletion discussion there last year, but they kept it based on its use on several projects and because the subject [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Simon_Ekpa_portrait,_2023.jpg uses it as their Twitter avatar and 'likes it'], which is a perplexing reason to keep it, to say the least. Nathannah • 📮 22:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Replied at Talk:Simon_Ekpa#WP:LEADIMAGE since this is about article content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Rule_of_Rules_1.8}}

Repeated removal of sourced content and maintenance tags (calling them "clutter"), along with random unnecessary changes to words. Pages targeted are Overdrive, ZX Spectrum, Ravenskull, Acorn Electron. Stooob (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:FAO Administrators. I stand by the premise that when you add or restore words which add nothing to the article, then they clutter the article meaninglessly as a tautology. For example, here I say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=1285566215 "most notably in the United States and Europe"]. Suddenly, User:Stooob thinks it better that we should add [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=1285552361 eastern bloc countries] which is very clearly covered when we say Europe. The other "unnecessary changes" to words involve saving data. I have reduced wht is not needed, and they just put them back in every time. --Rule of Rules 1.8 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Russia, which is discussed in the article, is not in Europe. Maintenance templates do not need to be removed to save data. Stooob (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Russia is at least partially in Europe. Everything until the Ural mountain range is Europe. Most of Russia's population lives in Europe. Nakonana (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In the context of the article, which is 1980's computer hardware markets, the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries are not considered part of Europe. Stooob (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether infobox information is clutter or not, both of you need to stop calling each other vandals so flippantly. This qualifies as casting aspersions and if you're not willing to put your foot down and say that you believe the other editor is almost certainly acting in bad faith, with diffs, it would behoove you both to drop the name-calling. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:@GabberFlasted. I will cease calling them vandals from this point. @Stooob, yes Russia is a European country. Rule of Rules 1.8 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Obviously editing in bad faith seeing as they've now started going through my history and removing sourced content from articles.

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fun_School&curid=22751659&diff=1285567152&oldid=1278744329

:==== Stooob (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::No it's not bad faith. Based on what I know about them, I went through their most recent edits and could have truly reverted dozens if not all if that was my honest intention. But it isn't. It's only where I thought they made poorly sourced changes that I reverted. --Rule of Rules 1.8 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::How can the publishers own advertisement showing the release dates possibly be "poorly sourced"? Stooob (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:By my counts you've both also broken the bright line three-revert rule on Ravenskull (video game). This needs to stop as well. This is one of the most clear cut no-no's we have on this site.

:@Rule of Rules 1.8 I see that you're a new editor here. I would advise that you, especially while you're getting your bearings, endeavor to work more cooperatively with other editors. Looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fun_School&diff=prev&oldid=1285567152 this edit to Fun School], you're removing a source. From all I can tell this is a paper-only source that I'm hopeless to see or interpret, but if you have access to it or others, why not supply a source that supports a 1992 release?

:Also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ravenskull_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1285391728 this deletion], {{tq|I tried to save Stoobs's later edits manually but it can't be done. They'll have to re-insert their changes by themself}}. Don't do this. Ever. Either edit around content that should stay or endeavor to put it back yourself. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and say "Guess you should go get that baby huh?" GabberFlasted (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: user:Rule of Rules 1.8 has issues with civility:

• 06:02, April 14, 2025 Rule of Rules 1.8 talk contribs 7,259 bytes −19 Undid revision 1285552348 by Stooob (talk), rv vandal undothank Tag: Undo
• 09:37, April 13, 2025 Rule of Rules 1.8 talk contribs 6,332 bytes −935 Undid revision 1285419088 by Stooob (talk) restore improved version vs vandal editor

--Altenmann >talk 14:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not so, for two reasons. First, I have discontinued calling them a vandal. Second, I too had been accused of being one in several edits prior to me mentioning the word. If anything, the issues I have with civility are those in this direction and not the opposite. --Rule of Rules 1.8 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

And it appears we have a sockpupet here, popped out of nowhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=1285579439] --Altenmann >talk 14:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I find it very suspicious how Altenmann has started socking for Stooob just when Stooob has violated WP:3RR. Seasoning Sugar (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC) — Seasoning Sugar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

Can an admin do a sockpuppet investigation, since the new account Seasoning Sugar does not sound like a newbie? --Altenmann >talk 14:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{confirmed}}:

:{{socklist|Slack Labrador|Seasoning Sugar|Rule of Rules 1.8|123 Chipboard}}

:I'm not absolutely sure this is an exhaustive list of confirmed socks. --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Relevant to the disruption documented at User:Beyond My Ken/Bad copyediting IP, I've seen a spate of IP activity from Rochester, New York, and IP6s from Maine are clearly connected. Here are the blocks I'm asking for:

• {{rangevandal|45.53.96.0/19}}
• {{checkip|74.47.32.111}}
• {{rangevandal|2603:7080:9301:A7D:0:0:0:0/64}}

These IPs represent block evasion by Special:Contributions/45.53.101.128/25, Special:Contributions/45.53.107.188 and Special:Contributions/45.53.109.144. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Ad Orientem}} and {{u|JBW}} have blocked this person recently at the above-listed IPs, and {{u|Acroterion}} blocked Special:Contributions/45.53.108.56 18 months ago. Do any of you see the behavior match that I'm seeing? Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, that's them. All three blocked, the /19 range x 1 year, and the other two x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Fantastic! We are done here. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{user|Das osmnezz}} has a long history of questionable article creation (primarily but not exclusively BLPs) - both non-notable articles (see huge number of AFD warnings on their talk page) and creating articles that already exist in draft, for which they have been warned about in the past (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADas_osmnezz&diff=1101567604&oldid=1101527131 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADas_osmnezz&diff=1109376611&oldid=1109099006 this]). Editors have also raised concerns about basic errors in the articles created by DO, see e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADas_osmnezz&diff=1240315080&oldid=1240065197 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADas_osmnezz&diff=1243732732&oldid=1243611090 this].

Given the long history of conduct, the number of warnings, and their continued issues, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Das osmnezz from creating new articles in any space, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 06:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's quite a big leap. What is their block history? I'm on a phone so it's difficult to check. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::6 blocks between October 2016 and April 2017, 2 of which were indef. In more detail: Indef blocked in October 2016 as checkuser block, removed later that month. Further blocks in December 2016 and January 2017 for copyvio; February 2017 for disruptive editing; March 2017 for promotional editing; and second indef block in April 2017 for CIR, that was later downgraded to 3 months. Nothing since. GiantSnowman 09:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I swear I had no idea there was a draft of Danny McGrath. If I did I would have never done made an article cuz I am hella aware that it is something I should not do and apologize for any inconvenience. The Danny McGrath draft did not show for me cuz the draft was at User:GiantSnowman instead of Draft so did not show on the Draft part when I created the article. Maybe there is a way to see user drafts but I am not aware of it, if there is would someone be able to tell me it? On the contrary, I have moved drafts to mainspace which users have thanked me for.

:::This is actually insane lol. I have tried very hard for years to contribute to expanding Wikipedias football (and gotten two BarnStars for it) and this has been my main passion in life. My articles have improved since the discussion attached from almost a whole year ago and I have been improving my past articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You have previously been asked, by multiple users, to search in with Draft and User space before you create a new article, yet you repeatedly fail to do that. Why? GiantSnowman 11:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It seems reasonable to ask an editor to check in Draft space, but User space? That is home to all sorts of stuff that will never become an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not when their duplication of articles from user space has been raised previously. GiantSnowman 13:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I wouldn't expect people to search your userspace before starting an article. Secretlondon (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Baseless. Not obligated to check if there's a draft.—Alalch E. 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :What about repeatedly making non-notable articles which constantly get deleted? GiantSnowman 11:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Das osmnezz has created 4,431 articles, and had 161 (3.6%) deleted. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Das%20osmnezz/all]

:For comparison, GiantSnowman has created 8,407 articles, and had 323 (3.8%) deleted. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/GiantSnowman/all] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::How many of mine that were deleted were drafts that I moved into mainspace and then immediately deleted? GiantSnowman 12:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've no idea. And I've no idea why anyone would do that. I'm just going by the numbers, which only show 3.6% of Das osmnezz's main-space article creations as subsequently being deleted. I can't really see how that could be described as 'constantly' occurring. There may very well be issues with Das osmnezz's editing, but this scatter-gun mess of an ANI thread isn't the way to deal with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::From a quick glance, the majority of my deleted articles are old drafts. Your own 'hit' rate is 33.3% deleted btw.

::::It's not a "scatter gun mess", I've clearly set out a long history of issues. Their talk page is riddled with warnings, and yet their editing has not changed. GiantSnowman 12:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, my 'hit rate' regarding article space creations is 33.3%. I invite anyone to look at the raw data, [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/AndyTheGrump/all#0] after reading any suitable introductory text on statistics and the inadvisably of drawing conclusions when dealing with a very small sample size. As for the '33%' (i.e. one article), I've no idea where that came from, and strongly suspect it is a software glitch. I certainly don't recall creating an article on the guy, though evidently he actually deserved one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::And no, you haven't set out a 'history of issues'. You've set out a vague list of complaints, unaccompanied by the necessary diffs to see what is exactly is being complained about. A quick eyeballing of Das osmnezz's recent article creation history for example shows that out of the last 1,000 articles created, [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Das%20osmnezz] only 4 have been deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::See User talk:Das osmnezz#Jacob Carney as a summary - multiple editors raising concerns about this editor's poor quality articles and non--notable creations. Do not confuse 'lack of deletions' as meaning all creations must be notable; it just means nobody has had time to deal with it yet. I am trying to stem the tide here. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Some of the concerns in that discussion, namely those that he oversections his stub creations, and doesn't add categories and an infobox, are certainly not something that he is going to get topic banned for. Not that many of his articles are deleted. It clearly isn't about that. The "creating an article when there's a draft" angle is meritless.{{pb}}But I see that there is discussion of semi-automated article creation and machine translation which introduces naming errors. That's serious. Did he fix that? —Alalch E. 14:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::They continue to produce low quality stubs of questionable notability, churning them out like some kind of factory. GiantSnowman 14:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You haven't established that they are of questionable notability. When you separate out all the other concerns, those regarding quality (low-effort stubs, no cats, no ibx, annoying oversectioning, potential semi-automation, naming errors), what argument is left that according to notability guidelines the topics aren't notable? The deletion stats don't bear it out (WP:ARTN, WP:RUBBISH, WP:TOOLITTLE ...). —Alalch E. 14:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Trust me, they are - I could spend the time taking them to AFD, but it would be 50-50 which way consensus goes, as they're all so marginal. However, I don't have the time and I'd no doubt be accused or harassment by undertaking such work.

::::::::::If nobody is bothered, that's fine, good to know where the community stands on all this. GiantSnowman 15:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I humbly suggest that we stay concentrated on potential semi-automation and creating biographies of living people which contain errors potentially due to machine translation. That actually is not far from a case to topic ban him, whereas the notability issue as you have presented it is 151% not going to lead to anything. —Alalch E. 15:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::On notability - as an example, Danny McGrath, the article which started all this - only has one WP:SIGCOV to me (the rest are WP:ROUTINE transfer pieces etc.), meaning it fails WP:GNG.

::::::::::::On semi-automation, the quick speed and poor quality certainly suggests, to me, this is not a considered, entirely manual process, but that is a hunch only. GiantSnowman 15:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There is zero automation involved, I wish I was smart enough to know how to automate stuff in general tho. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose content creation ban at this stage, and I do think asking them to search user space is a little much. I do share @Rosguill's concerns about Das' AfD !votes as a closer of a number of sports discussions. I don't think their input is more problematic than any other editor in the sports space and there are certainly others who do the same in other topic areas. @Das osmnezz what's the rush to {{tq|expand Wikipedia's football library}} vs focusing on improvement. More isn't necessarily better Star Mississippi 16:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Creating these articles is pretty much 99% of what they do here... GiantSnowman 18:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I other users unless someone is going out of their way to take extreme action against me and there may be double standards. In this case, from a quick glance, GiantSnowman has Ethan Williams, :Sam de Grand, Pavel Mráz among their last 6 articles created, which I personally have zero problem with.

:::However, what boggles my mind however is how they create articles like the ones above and then proceed to go out of their way to use extreme demeaning language about another users articles ("shitty stubs") let alone find the most insane excuse to permaban them.

:::(For the record, my past 6, all of which I created before this discussion was opened, are Oumar Diallo, :Tayrell Wouter, :Jesse Costa, :Jalen Blesa, :Francely Lomboto, and :Piotr Janczukowicz). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Diallo and Costa probably scrape by GNG; Blesa and Wouter are more borderline; Lomboto and Janczukowicz likely fail GNG. Unused what you are trying to prove here other than "yes, I do create non-notable stubs". GiantSnowman 09:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I won't even ask u to explain how your articles above are somehow superior to mine using your own article length criteria and notability criteria in general, let alone so superior that my work is just a pile of "shit" and I should be permabanned.

::::::For Janczukowicz, I spent decent time searching using Polish keywords for sources like [https://lodz.tvp.pl/69040016/sylwetki-lodzkich-sportowcow-piotr-janczukowicz], [https://przegladsportowy.onet.pl/pilka-nozna/ekstraklasa/fortuna-i-liga-piotr-janczukowicz-wybral-lks-lodz-dlaczego-i-kim-jest/n630pqm], and [https://lodzkisport.pl/efekt-janczukowicza-napastnika-lks-u-docenila-liga/] among more Polish sources which I doubt u bothered to search for or translate before making ur statement (not to mention he has 120+ pro games in an ongoing career).

::::::For someone so concerned about this stuff and so annoyed with my deletion discussions you seldom bother to search for sources in deletion discussions and expect others to do so while copy-pasting a delete statement, even for seasoned UAE international players with 100+ pro games. I would literally spend hours finding sources in foreign language newspaper archives and ping you to change your vote from your copy-and-paste delete statement you would usually put without doing any research beforehand and somehow I am the one in the wrong.

::::::If you do not see that all these double standards above, and extreme ones at that (calling all articles "shitty" and always trying to find any reason to permaban from article or deletion contribution) - are especially frustrating in this context I do not know what to say. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} I think the proposed sanction here is jumping the gun of the evidence provided, but I do want to express some concern regarding another piece of evidence relating to a seeming refusal to engage with relevant guidelines: out of the roughly 1000 AfDs that they have participated in, they have !voted for anything other than Keep 9 times, and maintain a match rate that hovers around the mid-50% range ([https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Das+osmnezz&max=500&startdate=&altname= AfD stats query that loads 500 at a time]). Their arguments almost always include an allusion to the WP:NFOOTY standard that has been defunct for years now (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luca_Manolache, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando Fonseca (footballer, born 1993), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaled Azaiez), as well as a handwave suggesting that sufficient sources have been provided without actually going into detail about which sources are quality and why. I don't know that a restriction on article creation is warranted, but their participation at AfD seems about as useful as a broken clock. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aut%C3%B4nomos_FC&diff=prev&oldid=1284376255 Here] they removed a PROD stating "clearly notable" but made no further edits to add sources or improve. That article is now a AFD and consensus is heading to 'delete'.

:Only one minute later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Pimiento&diff=prev&oldid=1284376332 here] they again removed a PROD, using "7 games and 2 goals" (i.e. the long defunct NFOOTBALL) as the basis for purported notability. No effort at all to improve the article or add any sources. To me, that article looks to be non-notable.

:Both examples above - as well as the issues raised by Rosguill - feed into my original concerns about knowledge/consideration of notability. GiantSnowman 15:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::For Carlos Pimiento it was one of many reasons (offline sources, already has sources which shows significance). I have been slowly going through my old articles and improving them and will improve that one too.

::The AFD thing is funny cuz GiantSnowman literally spams on every single disucssion "delete unless one of y'all does the research and finds sources and pings me". I do not care personally that he does this except that it's a bit rich seeing this discussion about my AFD habits (same goes for him saying all I create is "shit stubs" etc, like I never care about other editors actions cuz I assume they are doing stuff with good intention but if they accuse me of stuff that could apply to them too its understandably frustrating to say the least).

::There have been a decent amount of times in the past where I do hella research to find sources (such as for many Arab Emirati international players) and GiantSnowman changes his vote to keep. I appreciate him changing his vote and do not care he does this but its frustrating in this context. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have had reason before to express concern about Das osmnezz's conduct at AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Das_osmnezz#Arguments_at_AfD], and their creations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Roe/Archives/2024#User:Das_osmnezz,_AP]. But this is too far too quickly even for me. If there is evidence that they are de-prodding articles that ought to be uncontroversial deletions, we should consider a TBAN from PRODs; if their creations aren't up to snuff, the first step is to pull the autopatrolled flag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I never criticize other users unless someone is going out of their way to take extreme action against me and there may be double standards. In this case, from a quick glance, GiantSnowman has Ethan Williams, :Sam de Grand, Pavel Mráz among their last 6 articles created, which I personally have zero problem with.

::However, what boggles my mind however is how they create articles like the ones above and then proceed to go out of their way to use extreme demeaning language about another users articles ("shitty stubs") let alone find the most insane excuse to permaban them.

::(For the record, my past 6, all of which I created before this discussion was opened, are Oumar Diallo, :Tayrell Wouter, :Jesse Costa, :Jalen Blesa, :Francely Lomboto, and :Piotr Janczukowicz). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you have zero issues with my articles, then why raise it? GiantSnowman 08:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::literally pointed out that I don't care independently but only point it out cuz of double standards u apply to others... even without that I could use the argument that "if a lot of your articles are like that why raise issues w me when your own articles are like that?". The former reminds me how some of the most staunch deletion nominators mainly made articles that would be deleted on their own criteria but would only apply it to others.

::::If you do not see that double standards, and extreme ones at that (calling all articles "shitty" and always trying to find any reason to permaban) are especially frustrating in this context I do not know what to say. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::But you have a long history of issues and people complaining, and you do NOTHING to change how you edit - and that's the frustrating thing. PS I'm not tying to "permaban" you... GiantSnowman 11:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If u look at my last 100 articles there is a significant improvement from my old articles in all ways. Many of the complaints over the years were about different things which apologized for and owned up to and took into account for future articles one by one. However, one part that has been ironic and frustrating to me is editors telling me to do almost completely opposite things over the past two years. For instance, and this is not the only case, someone told me to shorten my style of play sections to stuff like "Despite being right-footed, Rodríguez plays mainly as a left winger, and is known for his speed" but then other or the same editors would complain about how little sentences the section had or too many sections. Like I said, I have been and will keep on improving my articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per {{u|Alalch E.}}, as I am not currently seeing ether sufficiently egregious breaches of policy to warrant such a severe outcome. However, I do see GiantSnowman's concern's and would suggest that User:Das osmnezz edts slightly less boldly and perhaps discusses changes before making them if there is any likelhood of their being controversial. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too excessive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Question: why are we talking about a tban from article creation but not about revoking autopatrolled? -- asilvering (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd be happy to have that discussion - it's now clear that a topic ban is not appropriate at this time. GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, a complete ban without providing additional evidence is merely pointless at this time. It is inappropriate to impose such ban without reevaluating their actions. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|ParijatTKumar}}

See Talk:Paracas Candelabra where he is making personal attacks and it might be said bludgeoning. Adding unsourced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Ciudad_Blanca&diff=prev&oldid=1283546256] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angkor_Wat&diff=1284546273&oldid=1284348073] or not properly sourced[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ParijatTKumar] and adding personal observation/OR to sourced text[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracas_Candelabra&diff=prev&oldid=1285725474]. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

: User:ParijatTKumar has also made personal attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paracas_Candelabra&diff=prev&oldid=1285724406 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ParijatTKumar&diff=prev&oldid=1285753461 here]. Additionally, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paracas_Candelabra&diff=prev&oldid=1285749714 here] they dismiss the policy of consensus and falsely accuse editors of trolling. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Doug Weller|JoJo Anthrax}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polygnotus/4y5?oldid=1285757705&diff=1285757705 Contributions]. Polygnotus (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Blocked for a week for personal attacks. RegentsPark (comment) 16:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = blocked

| result = WP:NOTHERE indeed asilvering (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|Donkeycandance}}

This editor has been warned for undisclosed paid editing by {{u|Jay8g}}, but instead of responding, their next edit was to create a new article, which is now at AfD. Any good-faith newcomer would react to an allegation of paid editing.

Furthermore, their article GoSun Inc. contains sentences like {{tq|the company develops innovative renewable energy solutions}}. Their articles have very high GPTZero scores. Also see obvious WP:GAMING at Kaye Tuckerman to gain autoconfirmation.

– Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I checked some sources and some appear to be fake. These AI generated articles need to be deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's definitely UPE but they're also definitely not here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::I went through GoSun Inc. and removed all nonexistent sources and unverifiable content. What remains is pretty much just a stub, with sources that don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Pretty clear AfD candidate. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Indef

| result = Disruptive editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{user10|The Intersider}}
The Intersider edits Indian film related articles majorly, including box office figure updates. The guidelines are set by WP:ICTFSOURCES to identify the authenticity of BO figures to avoid WP:FRUIT and non RS. Their talk page is littered with warnings and notes. They were given level 1 warnings in March, then level 2, 3, 4 and im warnings last week. I had dropped a note regarding their disruptive editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Intersider&diff=prev&oldid=1283883967 last week]. This is the last straw that happened 2 days ago. They repeated it just after my message and then resumed it again today at List of highest-grossing Malayalam films.
I am suggesting a topic ban from all film related articles or a block (which might end up as a WP:ROPE). Thanks. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Talk:L2:_Empuraan#Changing_the_page_back_to_semi-protected is also a similar discussion. — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Benison (talk) is an infamous editor who I've seen editing Indian film related pages and articles which includes ensemble cast section and box office section. The guidelines are set by WP:ICTFSOURCES to avoid the disruptive editing and vandalism and to prevent RS. I'm filing the complaint because this editor, Benison, is spreading false information which mainly includes not the changing the true BO collection of the 2025 Indian-Malayalam language film L2: Empuraan (also known as L2E). According to many of the valuable and strong sources, the current BO collection of the film is ₹262.71 crores. But Benison isn't allowing any editor to put the correct BO collection and is only making the film ₹250 crores in every pages mainly in List of highest-grossing Malayalam films. I've already gave much warnings and correction to this editor but he/she isn't accepting it in anyways. I also gave strong sources of Hindustan Times, Sacnilk and Livemint but they're still keeping the Box Office as 250crs. To stop increasing the BO in page, they also made the page of L2: Empuraan protected illegally without informing in the talk of the page. Benison is also threatening me that if I edit the box office again, they will file a complaint against me which I never cared about. I've gave so much warnings as you can see those in Talk: L2: Empuraan and Talk:List of highest-grossing Malayalam films but they're still hiding their mistakes and resumed it with L2: Empuraan. To prove my correction, I request the administrators to check what's the true BO collection of L2E out of Wikipedia and then you'll know it. I'm requesting the Administrators to make a clear solution to this situation or make a permenant ban on Benison for disruptive editing, vandalism and threatening. Wikipedia isn't mine, Benison's or anyone property. It's a page which supports sources over the things in the world.

I'm suggesting a clear solution to this problem or a topic ban to all film related articles for not containing sourced additions and not letting other editors to add the true sources.

Yours Faithfully
The Intersider (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:This link is the source for the current BO

:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/l2-empuraan-box-office-collections-day-17-mohanlals-action-thriller-crosses-rs-103-71-cr-in-india-nears-rs-265-cr-worldwide/articleshow/120247057.cms The Intersider (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::@The Intersider: Please stop arguing and try to understand what Benison said. These sources are reliable, we would have accepted them if they had reported the box office figures independently. However, all of these articles mention {{tq|As per the Sacnilk website}}, which means they are using Sacnilk, a source considered unreliable for box office collections according to WP:ICTFSOURCES. GrabUp - Talk 15:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::GrabUp, No point in making them understand. I have been doing it for over a week now. Ran out of AGF and patience. It looks like WP:CIR now. — — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:The Intersider, can you confirm you've read and understood both WP:V and WP:BURDEN? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|The Intersider}}, I see you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1285518563 this edit] but did not respond here. Please do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:"infamous" is a personal attack which should be withdrawn. Narky Blert (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Update: They just did it again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamangam_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1285558694] — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked The Intersider indef for continued disruptive editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Pblock from Articles

| result = Needs to demonstrate competence in Drafts before removal of pblock is considered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{Userlinks|태현 정}}

Over the years, as their talk page will attest, this editor has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, copyright, and cooperation. They have responded to warnings and recommendations on their talk page once, seemingly ignoring a 31-hour block in February for failing to properly cite their edits. Their most recent article creations are likely written by AI and are full of misrepresentations and falsehoods. For example, Gives You a Bonanza of Instrumentals screams AI with the following:

• Cites [https://www.allmusic.com/album/release/gives-you-a-bonanza-of-instrumentals-mr0000412900 this] to say "Freddie King’s instrumental work influenced many British and American rock musicians including Eric Clapton, Peter Green, and Stevie Ray Vaughan." None of that is in this on that webpage.
• Cites a blog comment on [https://www.swapacd.com/Freddy-King-Gives-Bonanza-Instrumentals/cd/578773/ a CD exchange website] to say "One reviewer described it as "almost too good to be true", noting that King's mastery of twist, surf, and blues instrumentals continued to impress audiences."
• Cites [https://elusivedisc.com/freddy-king-freddy-king-gives-you-a-bonanza-of-instrumentals-180g-lp-mono/ this sales listing] to say "It further demonstrated his versatility and influence, particularly through his fusion of multiple genres such as surf, blues, and rock and roll", a classic LLM adjectival mess.

Other highlights of their recent edits are the recreation of the recently deleted South Korea–Sri Lanka relations despite it containing unsourced claims and {{diff2|1275983096|this incomprehensible addition}} to a BLP. I don't see improvement over their nine years of editing and the lack of engagement suggests that there is no interest on their end to change that. CIR applies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yikes! I moved that article to draft: Draft:Gives You a Bonanza of Instrumentals as I couldn't verify anything through those sources except perhaps the track listing. Lots of repetitive text with little variations (e.g., talking about the genres in the album). I'm interesting in hearing from {{user|태현 정}}. My comments do not preclude action by another admin if they feel the case is already clear enough. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|The album cover features Freddie King seated with a guitar in hand, portraying the laid-back but serious tone of the album. This visual has become iconic among fans of blues instrumentals.}} is something for connoisseurs of unsourced piffle to enjoy, and "portraying ... laid-back but serious" screams LLM to me. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm just going to go ahead and block from mainspace. They've used a talk page once in their entire history: Special:Diff/1070544640. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::First of all, I didn't expect this to cause such a big controversy, and I deeply regret it. I am truly ashamed of myself, and I will never do something like this again. I sincerely apologize once more. 태현 정 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@태현 정, that doesn't really address any of the issues that have been raised here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{re|태현 정}} Please explain what you are apologizing for. Did you intentionally insert false information into articles? Did you use AI? Is this the result of poor translations? If you explain what you did, we can work with you to address the issue and get you back to editing more quickly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I used a combination of information from reliable articles and some assistance from AI. I made sure to double-check everything carefully before creating the page, as I wanted to ensure it was accurate and appropriate. 태현 정 (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If the use of AI is against the guidelines, I fully understand and will avoid using it again in the future. 태현 정 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Using AI is allowed, we have a bot trained on editing data that automatically undoes suspected vandalism. We have tools using AI technology to automatically translate articles. Even most smart phones have a basic neural network trained word database for autocorrecting. So it's something else that you did. Think harder. 12.75.41.108 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you for your response.

::::::::: I understand now that using AI itself was not the issue.

::::::::: To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what specific part of my edit was the problem — but I believe it might have been due to a lack of reliable sources or possibly presenting information in a way that wasn’t neutral or properly verified.

::::::::: I admit that I may not have fully understood Wikipedia’s content standards, and I sincerely apologize for that. I will take more time to learn the rules and be much more careful in the future.

::::::::: If you could help me understand exactly what the issue was, I’d really appreciate it. 태현 정 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@태현 정 your use of LLM is an issue. If English is not a language that you are proficient in, please do not use LLM to generate text and paste them wholesale here. The expectations of LLM usage is at the minimum: you have to verify the content generated against sources; verify the sources the LLM model provides (if it uses an offline material like a book, you better have access to it as well); if there is no sources provided, do your own research and look for a suitable sources. But it seems that you have failed to do so. Additionally, your conduct on your own talk page, or the lack of, is an issue. Time and again, you have been warned or told on certain matters but there are no responses from you. Do you even understand the issues that you had introduced in your edits? – robertsky (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thank you for your honest feedback.

::::::::::: I now understand that my use of AI-generated content, without properly verifying sources or ensuring accuracy, was a serious mistake.

::::::::::: I also realize that I failed to engage in discussions and respond to warnings on my talk page, which only made the situation worse.

::::::::::: I want to be completely honest — this is not an excuse, but an explanation. The discussions on Wikipedia felt intimidating to me, and I was scared of saying something wrong, so I avoided replying.

::::::::::: I now know that this avoidance was irresponsible, and I deeply regret it.

::::::::::: I'm sincerely sorry for all the trouble I've caused, and I will take time to properly learn Wikipedia's guidelines.

::::::::::: I genuinely want to contribute in a respectful and constructive way, and if I'm ever given another chance, I promise to act more carefully and communicate better in the future.

::::::::::: Thank you again for taking the time to explain everything to me. 태현 정 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Do not do this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)}}

::::::::::::That is better, but add ", but say it informally" to your prompt so most editors can't detect it. 12.75.41.108 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

::::::::::And reply in your own words, not LLM. – robertsky (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, no. The only two activities here that rely on AI are vandalism combatting and article ratings. Even then, these are checked on regularly and are not the variety of AI that @태현 정 uses. Enwiki does not allow automated language translations unsupervised, that's why it is disabled in the content translation tool. – robertsky (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for the clarification.

::::::::::I understand now that using AI for unsupervised translation is not allowed on English Wikipedia.

::::::::::It’s possible that I relied too much on AI-generated translations without properly reviewing or editing them myself.

::::::::::I truly apologize for that. I now see how that could have caused issues with accuracy or neutrality.

::::::::::Going forward, I will make sure to carefully review all content I work on and strictly follow the content policies.

::::::::::Thank you again for pointing this out — I’m willing to learn and improve. 태현 정 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::태현 정, the fact you are obviously using AI to reply to directives telling you you shouldn't be using AI, repeatedly, is not a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I understand your concern, and I’m really sorry.

::::::::::::The reason I used AI was because I struggle with English and felt very anxious about saying something wrong.

::::::::::::I didn’t mean to ignore any warnings or disrespect the community.

::::::::::::I only used it to help me express myself clearly, but I realize now that I should have reviewed and rewritten everything more carefully myself.

::::::::::::I truly apologize, and I won’t rely on AI for future replies.

::::::::::::Thank you for pointing this out. 태현 정 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:태현 정 does not seem to have received a talkpage welcome message, which come with their various onward links to guidance. I have added one now, and added a note pointing directly to TEAHOUSE. Hopefully, combined with the commitment to no longer use llms to talk, and more openness to using talkpages, this can have a positive outcome. CMD (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for leaving the welcome message and the link to the Teahouse — I really appreciate it. I'll make sure to use talk pages more actively from now on, and will refrain from using LLMs when communicating on Wikipedia. 태현 정 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, that doesn't inspire confidence. You're not blocked from draftspace, so you're welcome to continue creating articles there and submitting them for review. Hopefully, you can show that you understand the issues with your previous editing and have learned from them. Then we'd be able to lift your block from mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you so much for your kind response and for giving me a chance to continue contributing through draftspace. I truly regret my past mistakes and will do my best to improve and learn. I’m very grateful for your patience and guidance. 태현 정 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = No action needed

| result = JSON source for an article is not a code execution threat, just a poorly-formatted article. Formatting now fixed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Draft:V.M (created by User:SkibidiToiletRiler) recently showed up at WP:AFC/HD. It doesn't look like an article; it looks like it's trying to practise some code to me. Given previous threads about people attempting to run code on Wikipedia, I'm bringing it here to see if anything needs done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:This appears to be code that is trying to... write an article that says the sentences you can see in the first section. I have no idea why anyone would do this. Appears dumb but not malicious. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::The combination of the username, the name of the draft which is unrelated to the topic, and the suspicion that the content is LLM-generated, makes me believe that this is common vandalism of the "doing random things" sort. —Alalch E. 16:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there something going on in Germany (or elsewhere) that has to do with the reception of the KPD? Because this isn't the first odd thing related to that party that I've seen on Wikipedia lately. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Simonm223 Possibly the recent arrest of Daniela Klette? Toadspike [Talk] 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:What previous threads about people attempting to run code on Wikipedia? That sounds interesting and I’d like to read it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1183#User:UnknownCoders_adding_scripts_as_wikipedia_articles/pages This relatively recent one comes to mind.] Procyon117 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I remember there being a thread on here where someone put (pseudo?)code on their user talk and claimed that they could use it to block anyone they wanted. I don't remember enough about it to know what to search for. Hellbus (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I just put it up for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:V.M Ravenswing 14:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = Range blocked 3 months

| result = Disruptive editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{Userlinks|65.102.187.27}}
• {{Userlinks|65.102.188.78}}
• {{Userlinks|65.102.188.122}}
• {{Userlinks|65.102.190.226}}
• {{Userlinks|65.102.185.175}}
• {{Userlinks|98.97.112.106}}

User:65.102.187.27 and User:65.102.188.78 appear to be the same user previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.188.122. They've been IP hopping and repeatedly getting blocked for disruptive editing. You can see some of the previous contributions by looking at Special:Contributions/65.102.0.0/16. As far as I can tell none of the other alts have ever responded to comments about their behavior, and now they're back under a new IP making the same style of disruptive edits previously discussed, like removing Commons categories or introducing errors in punctuation. hinnk (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Range is Special:Contributions/65.102.184.0/21. Edit speed almost looks like a bot is doing the edits. Special:Contributions/67.42.80.29 is the same editor currently on a 1 month block, so all the 65.102. edits are block evasion. Suggest a block on the /21 range for disruptive editing and block evasion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. A [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/65.102.184.0 brief look at the range] indicates that the above IPs have the same geographical location (Tukwila, Washington) and they share the same internet provider (in this case, CenturyLink). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::/21 range has been blocked for 3 months. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| result = {{nac}} Indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate Polygnotus (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

I don't imagine there's too much time left before this fellow gets blocked, but Special:Contribs/LMKQO is clearly gaming the system via pointless whitespace edits for some purpose. Also, let me know if this is an acceptable venue for reporting this specific behavior? ⫷doozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 02:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate. Venue is accceptable. Polygnotus (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I'm reporting a long-term and ongoing issue with an editor who consistently demonstrates a lack of competence (WP:CIR) in their contributions. Despite being active and making several edits, many of them are poorly-written, repetitive, unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, and degrade article quality. Instead of improving content, this user's edits have created big messes that require extensive clean-up from others.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1270078182][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1285113933][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=next&oldid=1282369451] This has been going on for over a year, and the damage has affected multiple articles.

The articles on Saddam Hussein and Iraq in particular have been severely bloated with redundant and irrelevant information that adds no value. For example, they have ruined the lede of Saddam Hussein,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1284990549][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=1269898610&oldid=1269869543] including edit warring over non-notable fluff that serves no purpose like "He made numerous international trips to increase foreign relations of Iraq."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1285823903] Like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saddam_Hussein#c-Skitash-20250412115900-Local_Mandaean-20250412073300 I said on the talk page], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1275001312 their additions] to #Peace treaty with Iran are also very repetitive, using the exact same phrases multiple times and even repeating a sentence word-for-word. In Iraq, they similarly embed basic spelling and grammar mistakes within massive, disorganized edits, e.g. changing "neighboring" to "neighoring" and adding incomprehensible sentences such as "Arif's rule was considered as peaceful Iraq."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&diff=1284699576&oldid=1284204417]

They've [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saddam_Hussein#c-Kharbaan_Ghaltaan-20250415222100-Skitash-20250414210200 shown a clear lack of regard] for Wikipedia policies such as WP:SIZERULE, even stating "it is not necessary for articles to follow exact each and every rule." They have also engaged in WP:CANVASSING on other users' talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Local_Mandaean&diff=prev&oldid=1285631210] by asking editors to support their position.

I have assumed good faith for a long time, but this has gone far beyond good-faith editing. This is a long-term disruptive editing pattern. Skitash (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:LLMs are trash. Why can't they manually write text? You can't rely on LLMs as they are guaranteed unreliable. A clear example of WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I could see it if there is a language barrier. Based on some of Taisymui's edits, they appear to possibly be from the baltics, and they might not be fluent in english. I also wouldn't be so inclined as to make blanket statements about LLMs being guaranteed unreliable, as they have in fact come a long way, but my views on the progress of LLMs really are not germane to the discussion at hand. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Insanityclown1, what remedy are you seeking here at ANI? You can post the editor a warning yourself, communicating your concerns. Right now, I don't think Wikipedia has a hard and fast policy that calls for sanctions for using AI so I'm not sure what result you are looking for at ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm inclined to say they should probably be blocked for WP:CIR issues because they are using LLMs to generate unsourced content, (see diff above), without doing any sort of diligence to check if the information is correct or not. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I am also accused POV-pushing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovans&diff=prev&oldid=1285591884] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovans&diff=prev&oldid=1285122832] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovans&diff=prev&oldid=1284646493] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1285539394], WP:SYNTH [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1285539394] and tendentious editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1285539394] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonimu&diff=1285592406&oldid=1285544807]. I've repeatedly asked for sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1284560315] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1285544807] or offered to jointly rewrite a satisfactory solution [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovans&diff=prev&oldid=1284157177] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1284560315] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1285119746], but this user has no intention of cooperating. Rather their arguments are based on personal opinions on the current governments in Romania and Moldova.

Please force this user to either engage in a real discussion or stop interferring in my editing. Super Ψ Dro 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

: There's no "meaningful discussion" to be had. Super Dromaesaurus just tries to deny the identity of an ethnic group by pushing dubious political opinion polls. The request to present sources that deny his original judgement is ludicrous, this is not how WP:V works.Anonimu (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::As you can see, I am framed as acting in bad faith by this user. I again highlight that they've refused to argument with sources and rejected the ones I brought. How to proceed here? It should be clear this is not a content dispute. Super Ψ Dro 22:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Super Dromaeosaurus, I'd recommend that you not try to discuss differences on User talk pages or in edit summaries but on article talk pages. I went to Talk:Moldovans expecting to see a debate between you two and it doesn't seem like the talk page is being used. That's where I'd start, hopefully other interested editors will join in or you can try a dispute resolution process. But you have to get out of this "Me vs. You" rut as that can only lead to edit wars and possible blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Done [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovans#Lead_dispute]. However, I can't discuss with a wall ({{tq|There's no "meaningful discussion" to be had}} above). Should I really seek content dispute resolution mechanisms if the other user simply rejects the sources I bring? Super Ψ Dro 09:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to expand the scope of this thread to also include Anonimu's edits made to Moldovan language. I was going to write on WP:AN/EW about edit-warring on Moldovans and Moldovan language, but if a thread already exists here, I figure I'll keep related info in one thread.
Relevant discussions occur at User talk:Anonimu and Talk:Moldovans.

Super Dromaesaurus and I had a disagreement regarding the Moldovan language article several months ago, which didn't result in an edit war. I want to highlight Super Dromaeosaurus's low-revert count in comparison to Anonimu to show my opinion would be that this is not WP:BUNGEE:

Checking the users' Contributions shows Anonimu has made 7 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Anonimu&tagfilter=mw-undo|mw-undo] reverts between the two articles between 6-April & 15-April (& 1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Anonimu&tagfilter=mw-manual-revert|mw-manual-revert] edit on 3-April as well). Super Dromaeosaurus has made 3 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Super_Dromaeosaurus&tagfilter=mw-undo|mw-undo ]edits for the two articles between 5-April & 15-April (& no [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Super_Dromaeosaurus&tagfilter=mw-manual-revert|mw-manual-revert edits).

In Anonimu's reverts, they have reverted without regard for keeping other constructive changes/edits. Here's some examples:

:Anonimu made an edit to Moldovans that reverted 3 of Super Dromaeosaurus's edits, but also reverted my only edit to the article, which was just a fix for awkward wording that only changed "locally referred also as" to "also referred to locally as".

:Anonimu made two & edits that remove content from Moldovan language → Super Dromaeosaurus reverted one of them → Anonimu reverted that →I restored the version preceding this sequence then made an unrelated edit after to clean-up wording → then Anonimu Special:Diff/1284869416 〈^Nᴇᴡ _Tᴀʟᴋ〉08:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|NotQualified}}

As no doubt many will have noticed, there is a long-running and frankly disappointing (in terms of having the remotest chance of resolving anything) debate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GBNews_as_a_source_on_child_based_sexual_exploitation] going on over at WP:RSN regarding whether a specific source, described as 'generally unreliable' in WP:RSNP should be considered 'reliable' for a specific topic. I strongly suspect that most looking at the thread will agree with me that one specific participant, User:NotQualified, is at absolute minimum pushing the limits of WP:BLUDGEON in the discussion, but rather than simply calling for sanctions (I suspect some might even consider an indefinite topic ban appropriate, under the circumstances), I am instead suggesting that, since NotQualified has already agreed that such evidence can be provided,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285291576] we permit them the opportunity to complie the evidence off-Wiki, free from distractions, and with the opportunity to start a new thread when done, without all the baggage. If there is a case to be made for a specific exception, it needs to be evaluated properly, on its merits, and this clearly isn't going to happen while NotQualified is insisting on replying to absolutely everything posted (e.g {{tq|if you say something I will respond}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285403378]). I would thus suggest that NotQualified be page blocked from WP:RSN, and topic banned from discussing the topic anywhere on Wikipedia for five days only (or other period thought appropriate), that the WP:RSN thread be closed, and that everyone else finds something more useful to do with their time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've already agreed to do this without an ANI by the way but some people didn't see it so I responded to them. I'm going silent on the thread for a few days. You should also review the thread I linked initially for context if you so wish. It may take more or less than five days due to personal commitments. I'll respond when I'm ready. Thanks. NotQualified (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have had to warn you before about bludgeoning. It might have been a good idea then to read policy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I try not to be excessive but you are correct that I should be more careful because I often toe the line. Sorry and thanks Slater. NotQualified (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Re bludgeoning, you went miles past the line Kowal2701 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Apologies, I will be more mindful of this. NotQualified (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You have said this before. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, but the above response from NotQualified typifies why I think a short-term block/topic ban is actually necessary. NotQualified's recurring insistence that absolutely every post must be responded to is at the root of the problem, and previous assurances that 'evidence' will be provided have come to nothing, amidst a sea of pointlessness. If NotQualified is sincere in the intent to resolve this issue with cited evidence we can evaluate properly, it will do no harm to them to temporarily block, free from the temptation to engage in more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You can do the block if you wish, I'm not stopping you. NotQualified (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I performed the block, and NotQualified woke up unblocked this morning facing the topic ban. The bludgeoning continues. Relevant discussions are here and here. Afterwards they chose to quote me out of context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NotQualified&diff=prev&oldid=1285748072 here], I boldly added the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NotQualified&diff=next&oldid=1285748072 diff], they've thanked me and added a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NotQualified&diff=next&oldid=1285749084 screenshot]. Now they've attempted to humorously insinuate we have anything except a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NotQualified&diff=next&oldid=1285749404 strictly blocker/blockee] relationship. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::my personal thought (take it with a grain of salt), let him simmer down at this point and dont acknowledge the trolling.

:::::if this weird behavior continues though and escalates, maybe a 1-way iban or even a pban against him could be appropriate? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::With due respect, I encourage wikipedians to follow precisely the behavior model you've described above. As a sysop, I have a different responsibility. It is not at all unusual for admins (and crats) to wade directly into an arena where bad behavior is present. Our only armor in such cases is the entire community's trust. We each have our own levels of competency. I still have less than 250 blocks after four years with the mop. I have an IP editor friend I ask occasionally to review my blocks, but my behavior is ALWAYS under the community's close scrutiny. When I make a mistake I attempt to undo the error and make it right to the community and the editors involved. This particular case is a little sad. We're talking about a clearly intelligent and clever mind, but they find themselves topic banned by the community for abusing their agency and BOLD while mostly hindering us in creating the world's best online encyclopedia. They are such a time sink for the community I fear we'll lose this potential asset. Sad. It's not over yet. BusterD (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you're dealing with someone who is either very young or has a condition, or both. A short term full ban to allow reflective thought?Halbared (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Probably best done by a different admin so it doesn’t look retaliatory Kowal2701 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Any provocative interaction towards me perfectly demonstrates the user's frequent personalizing behaviors. They did all the work. I was a completely uninvolved admin less than 48 hours ago. This morning I am reporting back to the community what happened when I (as the uninvolved blocking admin) brought the consequences of community's decision to the user this morning, and how they have acted since the unblock. The rest is for those in this unclosed discussion to appropriately weigh. This is behavioral evidence, not about any content dispute like below. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's on account of their behavoir since the topic ban that I support an indefinite block for NotQualified. They say below that {{tq|If I'm topic banned, I'm just going to give up and walk away from Wikipedia}}, but they have bnot done so. What they have done is continue to troll. They broke their topic ban several times after it was imposed with all those links etc on their user page—something we may forgive as part of not-understanding-topic-bans—but since then they've chosen to, well, basically troll, on their own talk page and also Bushranger's. I called it envelope pushing, but frankly it's hard to see it as anything other than provocative, and clearly intended to dig out BusterD. Whatever their previous editing history, at this point, NotQualified becomes NotHere. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::User:AndyTheGrump's OP was about WP:Bludgeoning. The misbehavior had a content center. After some small discussion, the bolded assertions started. A consensus born of optimism and AGF decided that if NotQualified wasn't editing in a particular topic, their behaviors would get better. In the meantime, (in this very discussion) their bludgeoning became so obvious that a passing admin noticed it and said something immediately, giving clear and concise warning. NotQualified added three new edits 15 minutes after that warning. I don't normally bluster, so I took them up on their challenge blocked them as disruptive (over all pagespaces) for the standard 31 hours. Anybody may read the user's contribs this AM and see what happened. In 48 hours I believe I've demonstrated a prima facie case that AndyTheGrump's OP was on the nose. The bludgeoning isn't restricted to the content area. BusterD (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

| status = See next section

| result = Banned from British politics and crime in Britain — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

I had already been trying to draft an ANI based on looking into NotQualified. I think AndyTheGrump beat me to the punch.

• Current userboxes and description: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NotQualified&oldid=1285295647] states "Currently writing about UK gangs, the survivors and martyrs. Whether you are man or woman, black or white, straight or gay, this violence is horrific."
• Currently, on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GBNews_as_a_source_on_child_based_sexual_exploitation, NotQualified has done 3827 words out of the total 5776 word discussion, and 47 out of 79 posts.

:* Had previously attempted to resurrect this conversation from a discussion 2 months ago here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#GBNews_can_be_reliable_for_group_based_child_sex_exploitation. 19 out of 46 replies here are also by NotQualified. Literal definition of not doing WP:DROPTHESTICK

: In Talk:Oldham_Council#reverted_edits, 10/16 replies are by NotQualified, with 1200 out of 1500 words by NotQualified. In next section, Talk:Oldham_Council#Child Sexual Exploitation, has 15/47 replies, making up about 850/2400 words. In total, his talk page contributions here make up 44% of the discussion by word count. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Oldham_Council]

:warnings by other users of WP:TEND and other behaviours for this current discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285139284], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285346201], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285393660] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1244908641] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOldham_Council&diff=1270038137&oldid=1269998781]

:warnings by other users about using UK politics pages to FORUM or dumping giant lists of links in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1244908641],

Other Background information

• Primary edits are around UK Politics, race and crime, and far-right conspiracies.

:* [Talk:Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#please_review_this_before_i_add_it_in._if_something_needs_to_be_added_or_removed_please_tell_me], apparently pushing to tie Labour party as bringing in Migrants as part of great replacement theory?

This is not a one-off, but part of a broader pattern of behavior in the UK (and possibly US) politics space. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:There is certainly a broader pattern of behaviour which appears problematic. I'd suggest though that it might be better to see how the issue with the WP:RSN thread described above is resolved, before taking it further. Give NotQualified a chance to see how issues should be resolved, and if the problems continue, we can then take action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate it, Andy. NotQualified (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Blue, yes I am currently writing about the rape situation in the UK. It's an area of interest of mine. I see nothing wrong with that. The reason I have so many of the words / comments is because most of the responses are directed at things I wrote, I was the one who started that discussion after all. I did not "previously attempt to resurrect", I have, it is on-going right now. The discussion I resurrected never ended with a definitive conclusion and was auto-archived. I wanted to return with a yes or no consensus on the matter. The reason for why so much of the Oldham is from me is because I literally wrote the whole section and then others edited and we discussed in the Talk Page afterwards. If you look at it, I haven't gone and over-written the new suggestions or deletions. That's just how Wikipedia works. Lastly, the Great Replacement thing was years ago and if I recall I said there should be a graph of demographics in the discussion as that was what the whole theory was around. If you want to really hammer me, go look at one of my edits from years ago on Peter Mandelson around this where I incorrectly cited Daily Mail, I believe that's what prompted the whole thing you're referring to actually. I also asked to remove someone writing that Tommy Robinson was an "international terrorist", if you want to further add that to your case file. Here's the thing, Wikipedians learn as they go, and make mistakes along the way. Having an interest in a topic is not the same as wanting to spread lies around that topic. If you think I'm some right wing shill, go to pages James McMurdock where I wrote the entirety of his kicking situation or Nigel Farage where I wrote how he did not financially compensate someone when he said he would. Also, suggesting that I'm a Single Purpose Account is too far. I write about a variety of topics, not just the rape gangs, the vast majority of what I have written is not even UK related and it's all there in my logs and as you've gone through them you should already know this. To end, I'm hardly trying to obfuscate anything. It's literally all in my own talk page, as any good faith person would do to begin with. I just have a special interest, that's not ANI worthy. NotQualified (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I know you're just editing topics that interest you, but it's usually not a good idea to jump straight into CTs as a beginner as they're more combative and people there generally have little patience available. I'd recommend editing on other interests you have (cars, food, sport?) in order to build experience and familiarity with policy. Looking through your contributions, I don't see anything egregious, but some of it just isn't WP:DUE, which is something you can only really reliably gauge with experience. You also don't use edit summaries much which are more important for CTs where people may assume you're trying to sneak in controversial content, please review WP:Edit summaries. See what others say POV-wise, but WP gets a lot of editors pushing racist POVs etc., and the topic of grooming gangs especially needs to be treated carefully. I see you usually just use media as sources, you have access to the WP:Wikipedia Library which gives you access to all the main journals and publishers. You'd probably do better to come at this from an academic POV (which hopefully would satisfy your interest) and prioritise academic sources per WP:BESTSOURCES. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::side note, contemporary UK Politics isn't a CTOP area yet. Might be high time soon for it though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My bad, guess I should've said controversial topics Kowal2701 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::this isn't really contemporary UK politics, it's more UK crime. politics is somewhat related however, especially on council pages. NotQualified (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}} If this "this isn't really contemporary UK politics" why on you keep talking about stuff like "{{tqi|The fact it is being cited by two of the three main political parties}}", "{{tqi|the Official Opposition}}", "{{tqi|is cited by major parties}}", "{{tqi|I scroll through Kemi and Nigel's Twitter feeds}}, "{{tqi|mainstream political figures viewing}}" at RSN? To be clear, every one of these 5 quotes is from a different signed comment of yours and I'm fairly sure there are quite a few more. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Politics is somewhat related, as crime and politics are intertwined, but if I were to categorise this as one or the other I'd say crime. Granted, if you want to categorise it as both then that makes sense too, actually more sense, I support that. To be clear, it is political, but if it was being categorised under a specific label it's crime. I should have been more clear. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There's no such thing as one or the other. That's not how wikipedia works, including CTOP. While contemporary UK politics isn't currently a CTOP area, BLP is. Also there seems to be a risk of you being topic banned below. So I suggest you familiarise yourself with such issues quickly, as an admin isn't likely to take kindly to your violating a topic ban because "I were to categorise this as one or the other I'd say". Note I intentionally avoided saying broadly construed here since there's frankly no need to consider it when you're keep talking about politics so it should be obvious it comes under the realm of politics regardless of whether it is also covered by crime. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If I'm topic banned, I'm just going to give up and walk away from Wikipedia until it ends (if it ends), I don't want to accidentally violate it and cause hassle. Regardless, thanks for the advice Nil, I appreciate it. NotQualified (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If it's an indefinite community topic ban, it only ends when the community decides to end it. Generally the community does not end topic bans for an editor who has not edited sufficiently since their topic ban was imposed. While it's impossible to rule out the community will agree to end it 10-20 years from now even with no editing, especially if the main issues here about grooming gangs has substantially changed since I'm not aware it's ever happened. The idea of a community topic ban is the editor is supposed to demonstrate they are able to edit and collaborative constructively in the many other areas they can still edit. In your case, from my read of this thread and RSN, before you appeal you'd ideally have demonstrated to the community via your editing an ability to recognise sources which are clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia, take part in discussions without being seen as bludgeoning and readily accept when community consensus is against you (even in cases where you strongly disagree with that consensus). Related to that it would also help if you show some ability to recognise that sometimes no matter how much you may personally think it's unfair or wrong, sometimes sources are against you so our coverage of something will not be what you feel it should be. Successfully editing and collaborating on controversial articles and topics (such as most CTOP areas) would be an added bonus although potentially not the best idea when you're still new. While a topic ban does require some ability to use good judgment on whether your editing is in an area where your broadly construed topic ban applies and technically once your passed EC this isn't a skill required of an editor if they're not affected by a topic ban, so this may seem unfair, I think most editors feel that an editor who cannot make such reasonable judgments and take such care would not make a good editor because the skills required are broadly applicable to editing here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I think that NotQualified's contributors to the areas of British politics and crime in Britain, including "grooming gangs", which are their main contributions, are clearly slanted and go against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Given their tendency to also disruptively bludgeon discussions in these topic areas, I therefore think it would be best if they were prevented from editing in the topic area on a permanent basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Hold on, you're the exact user I previously said was acting in bad faith in January, I remember you. Very dishonest not to disclose that in your opening to have me perma-banned that we have sparred over this before. Furthermore, other users beyond me have also accused you of acting inappropriately around this topic. I actually remember writing borderline essays on your decorum around this after how you behaved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NotQualified#Elon_MuskNotQualified (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:A bit extreme to be honest. In your opinion I'm biased and I also write too much to the point of disruptiveness so therefore I should be double topic wide perma-banned. Wow. NotQualified (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Oppose per WP:ROPE, please include diffs to support the allegations

:Kowal2701 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Support re crime, not seen any indication that their disruption will cease, and the lack of response to advice and warnings isn’t a good sign. Ultimately, this sensitive topic requires more competence. Can’t support a TP from politics as I haven’t seen any diffs of egregious NPOV violations. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::They also seem to be totally oblivious to concerns over perpetuating anti-Muslim/Asian racism when writing on this topic, which may feed into CIR issues, or even POV issues Kowal2701 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Support. I wouldn't trust GBNews to tell me if it was rain or shine without stepping outdoors and checking for myself. That's a matter for WP:RSPS, but BLUDGEONing to use it as a source merits this discussion at ANI. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from race and crime in Britain, Weak Oppose broader British politics TBAN - By NotQualified own userpage and admission, they are going for very slanted coverage, working to keep bringing up the same bad sourcing and is primarily motivated by a WP:RGW attitude around this topic area. See also the diffs and links above. There was a point where WP:ROPE would have been appropriate, but this NPOV pushing seems to have gone on for at least a year, with multiple warnings from multiple editors. Even in this thread, there is WP:BLUDGEONy replies to every argument.

:I don't think I'd support a broader ban from British politics as a whole (yet). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::If there is to be a TBAN, can we make it more constructive by giving advice on what they should do if they want to appeal it and return to the topic in the future Kowal2701 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::there has been advice given, multiple warnings by editors, etc. issue is wp:IDHT. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand I wrote too much to the point of bludgeoning, I accept that. It was inadvertent, I apologise for writing too much. I am in a Catch22 of responding to this but I want to make this clear. NotQualified (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Look, this topic has moved from perma-banning me on a topic so give me a bit of leeway for responding here. I'm trying to be cautious to respond to things as not to be re-accused of bludgeoning, Catch 22 I know. I have never EVER "admitted", or attempted, to go for 'slanted coverage', not even once, my talk page actually shows not to do WP:RGW and to write objectively as my core principles, please read it before accusing me of admitting to being biased as that's an extremely damning thing to say about me. If the accusation of bias is coming from an "anti-Labour" perspective. I have written about Dan Carden and Andy Burnham's work on this issue, if you want diffs they can be provided. NotQualified (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support particularly for crime articles It's clear that NotQulified can't see past their own POV on this topic and this leads to them repeatedly trying to insert unreliable sources that Support this POV. This is far from the first time we've seen this behavior. I think NotQualified would be better off avoiding crime articles, especially UK crime.Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Can you provide diffs. NotQualified (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::With due respect, all the diffs needed are already in this threaded discussion history. User:NotQualified just can't shut up (a harsh phrase I use here intentionally). Their bludgeoning edits in this discussion are plenty upon which to judge their recent editing behavior. I'm an uninvolved admin, and I'm ready to temp block User:NotQualified right now. NotQualified, pipe down here, or be blocked from here. BusterD (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::It's very much the same behaviour that we saw in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#GBNews_can_be_reliable_for_group_based_child_sex_exploitation thread] - which NotQualified described as ending inconclusively. It ended very conclusively with nearly everyone saying the source should not be used or that RS/N is an inappropriate venue. However you'll note that NotQualified persists in arguing with literally everyone, even asking about the source whether the exclusion of a primary source would lead to some sort of loss of quality for Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269641175] Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support advocating for gbnews is the textbook definition of pov editing. A tendency to bludgeon discussions just makes it worse. Its not about fairness or justice, its about reducing disruption. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• NotQualified blocked from all spaces for 31 hours for deliberate disruption after direct warning in the poll. This block is preventative, not punitive. This discussion should continue for now. BusterD (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :FYI, now that they're blocked, they have tried to continue bludgeoning (as questions about the block itself) on their talk. Normally I would humor them a bit. Not this time. I find it unlikely to believe they can choose to read English when it pleases them but fail to read plain English when it doesn't. They can make their appeal in block request or wait out 31 hours. By my actions in this matter, I assert I'm here to protect all wikipedians' ability to discuss this subject fairly without undue influence by any single commenter. BusterD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support My review of the linked discussion and the above discussion leads me to conclude, we should head this off now. Enthusiasm for a topic is one thing, but when you couple that with a sensitive topic, and going to great lengths again and again to use a generally unreliable source, then we have a red flag waving. And with that discussion about,'it's politicians that support source use, no, it's a crime topic, not politics, no, its politics and crime' flopping about by the editor, it really is best, we are done with this, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I tend to agree with Alanscottwalker. The two discussions around a carve-out for GBnews were/are timesinks and both suffered from significant bludgeoning from NotQualified. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support The user has a very strong political perspective and feels their job here is to ensure that this perspective is included as widely as possible in wikipedia. This may or may not amount to WP:NOTHERE. Whatever the case, a look at their talkpage shows at this point they are using up a massive amount of other users' time trying to get fringe views of various child abuse scandals in the UK into articles. The only solution would be a TBAN from politics and crime in the UK. The user may or may not know they would have the right to appeal this TBAN a year or so down the line. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support, as I am unhappy with (for at least a few months) promises they will learn and read, etc., and never do. Im can see us being back here pretty soon when they do not get their way over GB news and relitigate again. As does the bizarre request for information around the block. It looks a lot like they are interested only in finding loopholes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support separate topic bans from each. Clear WP:TEND / WP:NOTHERE issues. The RSN discussion is a symptom, not the cause; the real issue is their absolute determination to WGW regarding what they believe to be grooming gangs in the UK, which their aggressive responses above and elsewhere make clear they will try to find a way to continue unless they're topic-banned from the related topic areas. --Aquillion (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support, with typical appeal-time restrictions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{user|ANIisTheHappyPlace}} has, in what I can only assume is a deliberate attempt at trolling, added their talk page to :Category:Wikipedians that poop which is being discussed above.

They're already indeffed, and were warned for inappropriate talk page usage earlier. Any admin want to pull TPA? (I would do it myself except that would breach a promise I made in my request for adminship). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:: And now globally locked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

So there's this IP, {{IP|87.116.181.138}}, whose persistent abuse over at Themes of The Lord of the Rings has prompted them to threaten to report anyone who reverts their edits to this noticeboard, when they've been the perpetrator all this time. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.116.181.138 See for yourself]. Almost every single edit of theirs reverted. For obvious reasons. Now, could a kind admin here block them? elm ^(she/they) arf! 16:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Some diffs about specific instances, specifically threatening to report other editors, would be useful. I'd say this should have been brought to AN3 but that part about threatening leads me to believe there may be more to it. I'm going to inform the other editor at Themes of The Lord of the Rings who has been involved in reverting the IP's edits. Departure– (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Found Special:Diff/1285916574 at Themes of The Lord of the Rings by the IP - {{green|rv. per NOCON, BRD, and 3RR. Further reverts without discussion may be reported to ANI for edit warring.}} - AN3 is the appropriate venue and the IP naming off policy when themselves edit warring seems very "shadowless fists of death"-y. Departure– (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's also worth noting that the IP has been pblocked as a sock in an old SPI case, with no confirmed abuse occurring since 2017 and activity (in my eyes) not lining up. Just noting that for anyone fishing through the IP's contributions. Departure– (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Per WP:DUCK, I do think that, even if it isn't the same LTA as the range has been blocked for, the general level of competence and familiarity with Wikipedia policy and their replies of such length in talk pages lead me to believe they're by no means a newcomer. They've been at this experience since their first edits. Not that that is by any means a definitive signal of malice but it's worth keeping in mind.

::::Or at least I thought it was DUCK. The text I was looking for in an essay was something along the lines of what I said but I can't find it at the page anymore. Departure– (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Departure–}} Oh, crap, I forgot. I apologize if I'm being a little vague. I've been experiencing a bit of a slump in my cognitive abilities due to brain fog, so if I stumble on my words, it's not on purpose. And, got it. Thank you for directing me to the appropriate noticeboard. elm ^(she/they) arf! 16:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, in this case, like I said, threatening other editors and a general anti-collaborative attitude may escalate this beyond just a single edit war. Departure– (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, let me give my input.

::This was a content dispute in which all parties were cooperating. I personally don't think this should have been taken to ANI or AN3: the socking concerns seem relatively minor and all there is to go off of is the technical experience, which while rare, is not definitive proof of sockpuppetry. @Cedelmwood, you forgot to add an ANI notification template to the IP's talk page, so I added one just now. If you looked at Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings, you can see the IP and the other party in the dispute, Chiswick Chap, are actively undergoing dispute resolution in an appropriate manner. I don't see any personal attacks ad hominem in the discussion they had there at topic #Sexuality, etc. and nor do I see any more than three editors participating, with the general mood being one of constructive editing over personal attacks and threatening.

::I think that this is a case in which the person who opened this ANI thread was just too eager to assume all IP editors are here to disrupt the site, and while there may be some truth to that given sockpuppetry from other IPs across Wikipedia, in this case all I see after a bit more review is a run-of-the-mill content dispute in which a few relatively-heated edit summaries were thrown out. I see this all the time in logged-in and experienced editors and I don't think those would have been brought to ANI themselves. I don't see any real merit in this thread, beyond pointing out to Cedelmwood that there's more to whether an IP has been constructive than just whether their edits have been reverted and threatening to report - indeed, a content dispute was ongoing and an experienced editor would do the same. Also, the language of {{green|Now, could a kind admin here block them?}} suggests that this is much more egregious of a case of bad-faith editing than it was.

::If sockpuppetry from this IP becomes apparent an SPI can be filed but I see no reason not to believe as is that this is not just a very well-read newcomer constructively contributing in the manner of numerous other experienced editors.

::Again, that's just my input, as a relatively-established editor who has been in similar disputes in the past. I don't think any action needs to be taken as is. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Departure–}} I understand your viewpoint, and I recognize that I may have been too quick to open this thread and, despite my relatively high edit count, am not as well-versed in content disputes and conflict as a whole than most; I mostly spend my time here on the lookout for minor grammatical mishaps, unsorted stubs, and vandals. I profusely apologize for my impulsive nature, and have chosen not to take action for now. After all, it was Chiswick who suggested I take this to ANI. The only reason I reminded Chiswick in the first place was because I was scouting the recent changes, and the diff in which the IP cautioned anyone who revert their edits be directed to ANI was the first that caught my eye. Now I realize I should have kept my mouth shut. Again, I am sorry. elm ^(she/they) arf! 17:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I'm going to extend my advice of "not all IPs are vandals" to @Chiswick Chap too - see the essay IP editors are humans too. See also the input of {{noping|Tamzin}} at their talk page on this case: {{green|In this case, behavioral evidence suggests a coincidence}} - in reference to allegations of sockpuppetry. Departure– (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::To elaborate on this, admins are generally much more tolerant of collateral damage on page-level partial blocks than on siteblocks, since in all likelihood no one who's collaterally affected will have even wanted to edit the article(s) in question in the first place, and even if they do, we're only preventing them from editing one to ten articles—a much lesser harm than being caught in someone else' siteblock. As a result, it's not uncommon to see large ranges with months- or years-long p-blocks from a single article or small number of articles, despite most people on the range being unrelated to the LTA who necessitated that. Think of it less as a narrower block, and more as a narrower page protection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Departure–}} Yeah, sounds like a plan. I read Tamzin's input on the matter and, uh, it is safe to say I made a fuss over absolutely nothing. Thank you for being the voice of reason. elm ^(she/they) arf! 17:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:It may be so, or it may not. I hope you are both correct. Thanks for discussing the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Chiswick Chap}} You are very welcome. elm ^(she/they) arf! 17:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Mandatory notification not sent. No blocks ever listed on that particular IP address. Claims of discrimination are dubious at best. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ping|Ohnoitsjamie}} has repeatedly blocked this IP address for any and all edits made from it, in a manner clearly discriminatory. They have an extensive block log and apparently take joy from blocking users. I am new to the IP address and wish to make mere suggestions to the Burning of Washington background section, so I am appalled by his prejudice, preventing users who perform oversight and ensure accuracy in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.164.221 (talk • contribs)

{{abot}}

{{hab}}

We had a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Category:Wikipedians that poop that came to the consensus that :Category:Wikipedians that poop couldn't exist even as a pseudocategory and must be emptied. Yet here we are. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Cited discussion was about the category itself, not about redlink user categories on user pages. Go do something productive, please. -- Ned Scott 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:: There is no such distinction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There's literally been such a distinction for over 10 years, and there continues to be redlink user categories today. :Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page -- Ned Scott 16:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: Which I think should also be forcibly emptied and deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Go get a consensus on that. -- Ned Scott 16:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:CATREDLINK says {{tq|A page should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::An article-space guideline, try again. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't see anything in that guideline which makes it specific to articlespace. It says {{tq|a page}}, not {{tq|an article}}. Similarly, WP:REDNO says not to link to {{tq|Categories that do not exist}} and does not specify at any point that this applies only to articlespace. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You've been on this site too long to pull that garbage. They're guidelines, not policies, and the bulk of such guidelines and polices are specific to the article space, unless otherwise noted. If you're going to keep pulling things out of your ass then you might want to create a user category for it. You could call it "Wikipedians that poop", since that one is available. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::A policy applicable everywhere on Wikipedia is WP:NPA. Which you just violated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The above was not a personal attack (referencing pulling things out of one's ass). What I said further down was a personal attack, and I regret saying that. -- Ned Scott 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|They're guidelines, not policies, and the bulk of such guidelines and polices are specific to the article space, unless otherwise noted}}. Nobody ever said that they were policies. Even if it were true in general that guidelines only applied to articlespace except where they say otherwise (and I would like to see you cite a policy or guideline which supports that claim), WP:CAT in particular {{strong|clearly does}} apply to pages outside of articlespace. It has whole sections on categorising drafts, policy pages, and user pages. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Go write an article? We've got loads of things to destubbify. Secretlondon (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Ned Scott}}, :Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page is the one allowed exception (grudgingly, for some, but it is the accepted exception) to WP:CATREDLINK for the simple reason that if it was a blue link its joke wouldn't work. It's allowed as a joke. :Category:Wikipedians that poop was deleted, recreated as a redirect, and then the redirect was deleted. It is not an exception to WP:CATREDLINK. Do not re-add it to your user page. {{ping|Pppery}}, if you think :Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page should be emptied and deleted, WP:CFD is thataway, but I wouldn't hold out much (IMHO, really, any) hope for success. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• : No, I'm just venting. In an ideal world it would be emptied and deleted, but I don't care enough to actually take any action towards that goal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Where is the consensus for that one exception? Is it because it has existed for so long? Because the poop redlink/joke has been going for at least 20 years. -- Ned Scott 10:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You people are exhausting. I was a long time editor, who put in countless hours on trying to make the wiki better, but due to life and circumstances, stopped being active long ago. Now, whenever I get a new notice about something, a message or someone editing my userpage, it's one of you killjoy assholes reminding me to never become active in the community again. Every. Fucking. Time. It's just some wanker who wants to clear out an autogenerated report about a red link, a minor formatting error, or some other bullshit.

The little things that reminded us old timers of how this could be a little fun, and human, get wiped clean, because you buttholes see guidelines as bibles. This is like the damn userbox wars, or when no one could agree if we should use US english or international english. What's next, are you guys going to delete the Upper Peninsula War? Some being so anal retentive, and not only will you make your own life better, you will make everyone around you happier. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Well, that personal attack laden rant pretty much says it all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I could have said what I said without the personal attacks. That's on me, and I regret making those personal attacks. That being said, the same idea basically applies; a frustrated old timer who only gets notifications when people want to remove memories and humor from their userpage, or other minor nonsense.

::It wasn't hurting anyone, and had been there for about 20 years. To this day no one can explain why some joke user cats are allowed and some are not. It just seems to be down to the half-dozen people talking about a CfD at a specific time, only to be contradicted by a different half-dozen people in a different CfD, and over and over and over. That in itself is almost charming, and very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. A never ending debate about something minor. When that debate turns to ANI and includes the threats of bans (because that's the only reason to have this discussion here), then those people are forgetting the community part of why we edit here.

::Ask yourself which does more harm, the humor category or running people off the site over the humor category? -- Ned Scott 21:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Look, everyone decides what requires a principled (if profane) stand on their pant. This wouldn't have been my choice, personally. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Why isn't/wasn't this category recreated as a redirect to :Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, like we've done 100 times before? It's a perfectly good compromise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• : Because Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Category:Wikipedians that poop explicitly said it shouldn't be. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Seems odd that no one using the category redirect was notified of the RfD. Hmm. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I really do not understand why one side of this dispute is so dead fucking set against compromise. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::It was in there, for a loooong time. Someone speedy-deleted that redirect, which turned it into a redlink, and so on until we come here. -- Ned Scott 21:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: It wasn't a speedy deletion, it was the result of a deletion discussion. And I did not start that deletion discussion. The most important trait of a Wikipedian is the willingness to respect community consensus even if you disagree with it, which you're not doing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It was Speedy'ed here back in February: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&oldid=1285422524#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Wikipedians_that_poop -- Ned Scott 21:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ned, yes, I'm just catching up; I thought the RFD was a CFD. I'm just so very disappointed in everyone who voted to remove that redirect. Ned, I probably won't join you in your civil disobedience - there are many real life situations where I apparently have to "respect community consensus even if you disagree with it" that are much more dire - but I understand your position and, FWIW, you are in the right and they are in the wrong, morally. Sometimes that knowledge is the best you can do in the short term. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Oh, I accepted this as soon as it went to ANI. I'm not getting banned over the poop category, but I sure as heck am going to be an old man and yell at the clouds about it. What better way to send off the poop category than to have one last pointless, absurd, time-draining debate about it?
• ::::God speed, Wikipedians that poop. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• {{IP|177.221.231.245}}

Garden variety WP:HOAX vandalism - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%9325_New_Jersey_Devils_season&diff=prev&oldid=1286347936 Adding] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%9325_Washington_Capitals_season&diff=prev&oldid=1286348289 playoff] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%9325_New_Jersey_Devils_season&diff=prev&oldid=1286381399 results] that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%9325_Washington_Capitals_season&diff=prev&oldid=1286381551 haven't] happened yet, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Stanley_Cup_playoffs&diff=prev&oldid=1286383588 outright false information]. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:The people over at WP:VPT will know. Polygnotus (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, User:Davey2010 wrote an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Ko&diff=prev&oldid=1285949043 extremely hostile and rude comment] to User:Prince of Erebor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Ko. I had asked them to apologize but they removed my message. Best,-Mushy Yank. 20:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sociology experiment: Which is less likely to get one blocked; Davey's "GFY", or Skyerise's "GooFY"? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've gone ahead and removed that comment as way OTT. This is, depending on one's POV, probably (a) not enough, (b) genius, or (c) unacceptable. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Having calmed down, My 2 pence: I didn't appreciate being called a liar ({{xt|At this point, it is safe to conclude that no WP:BEFORE was conducted prior to the nomination, (or if there were, it was not done properly,) and the nomination statement does not hold water at all.}})[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Ko&diff=prev&oldid=1285945727] which is why I reacted the way I did, Still I've been here long enough to know such comments aren't okay and unlike Skyerise my comment was indeed telling them to go fuck themselves (I'm stating this to kinda show it's better to own your mistake than lie and just make it worse),

:Anyway irrespective of Prince of Erebor's comment - my comment to you @Prince of Erebor was not only uncalled for but it was idiotic and childish so I apologise to you for saying what I did.

:Prince of Erebor you don't know me from Adam but I'm an inclusionist and will try and keep any article I can so as such I do do a BEFORE search before I nominate any article, I don't say I have for the sake of it (I appreciate some don't do a search but I certainly do). Anyway I'm sorry for what I had said to you and I hope in future we can under much better circumstances work together as we're all here for one reason = Our readers and to expand this encyclopedia, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:: If you let people push your buttons, they win. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::let's offer a teaching moment for you, by example. I read {{tq|I'm stating this to kinda show it's better to own your mistake than lie and just make it worse}}, and it comes off like self-reflexive virtue signaling to me. So let me demonstrate what an editor should do when they read a comment that rubs them in the wrong way. For example, "I have to assume you meant well with that, but just to let you know, I read that in a rather iffy fashion, so I ask you to watch how you say things, so you don't say something that you probably don't mean."

::Please endeavor to better, man. BarntToust 23:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I fully agree that {{u|Davey2010}}'s remark was {{tpq| extremely hostile and rude}}, and he deserves an admonishment at the very least. On the other hand, I read his apology as sincere and contrite, which is too rare on Wikipedia, and should be considered a mitigating factor. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I find it strange that Davey believes that, when Prince makes a statement of a fact (WP:BEFORE was not carried out properly) and forms a conclusion (the statement doesn't hold water), he believes he is being called a liar. The idea of Prince saying "you didn't do all the due diligence with this subject and because of what you missed, your claim is moot" does not come off to me as lying. BarntToust 00:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@BarntToust, You have misunderstood my comment, that quoted comment was in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1285935745#Skyerise_and_civility this] - I was trying to say I'm not the type of person to deny saying something or make a half-baked excuse up to defend it. I was trying to say it's better to "own your shit and learn from it" than to deny it ever happened,

::::Also I don't say things to please people - I don't care what people think of me and believe you me I don't apologise to appear "a good character" or to earn brownie points, I take a step back for an hour or so, reflect on that issue and reflect on my actions as a whole and sometimes realise yeah I shouldn't have said that and that that person deserves an apology, But sometimes I'm also adament that I'm right and I don't offer an apology (rare tbh but it's happened)

::::Anyway I don't quite understand why you felt the need to leave [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davey2010&diff=prev&oldid=1285964931#You_need_to_chill. this comment] or why you need to insert yourself here given none of this remotely concerns you in the slightest. –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Should it really take an hour of reflection and WP:WALKIES, or should you just practice good self-control and discipline enough to not involve the word "fuck" several times when responding to someone? I mean, they literally were just laying down a rationale of WP:N and explaining how you (and you did not know, or think of it, it's not like you knew you ought to have done that and decided to shun that part of due process for whatever{{--}}to your credit) did not adequately fulfill WP:BEFORE, what you ought to have done, and what you can see when you're Doin' It Right. If you didn't have 140,000+ edits, I might consider "oh yeah, Davey will get the ropes and maybe he doesn't know better". You ought to know better by now.

:::::Nobody is disallowing me from being involved in random stuff around here. Yes, that comment, where I pointed out your idiosyncratic British profanity by way of witty pop culture reference to cut up with you and (hopefully) not piss you off more, was to let you know you ought to have chilled out, but is moot since you seem to be chilled, and I am having a civil discussion here with you.

:::::I am cognizant and content you are owning up to your lapse. You had no intent to be insincere with your apology, and I concur with Cullen above. I simply wished to point out something that came off weird to me upon looking at it, and demonstrated a rationale for what an editor ought to do when they see something that rubs them the wrong way. BarntToust 00:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Self-reflection is better than none at all, We're not all perfect human beings and unfortunately I do have my flaws as do we all.

::::::True, You're entitled to comment where you wish however does your participation here really achieve anything ?, does it help or benefit anyone?, respectfully no.

::::::Anyway have a great day, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And true, it seems you have learned that snapping at people only ends you up at the dramaboard, and it's safe to assume you'll take good conduct towards others to heart. Adios, Davey. BarntToust 12:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Davey, it is okay. I meant it when I apologized to you at AFD. I also found my word choices a bit too aggressive. I did not mean to imply that you were lying, as I mentioned: {{tq|or if there were, it was not done properly.}} I only meant to say that I found some factual errors in the nomination statement, which have resulted from overlooking native-language sources in the BEFORE. I regret if that line caused any misunderstanding, and I am willing to retract it if it offended you. This is probably the first time we have crossed paths on Wikipedia, so I was not aware of your experience and your meticulous attitude in your work. I understand now that it was an unintentional mistake, and I can tell your apology is sincere. I hope we can set our differences aside and, as you said, continue expanding an encyclopedia together! I would also like to thank Mushy Yank, Cullen328, and BarntToust for speaking up for me, I really appreciate it! But it is fine. I was not offended by the comment, and I do not want to see Davey facing any unpleasant consequences over a simple sentence said in a fit of rage. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 05:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Prince, No worries and thank for your reply, I of course accept your apology too and likewise hope we work together in future, I do completely accept I should've searched their native name that was an obvious thing I should've done so I'm not sure why I didn't but yeah lessons learnt, Anyway thanks again, Happy editing, Take care, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User:Varoon2542 has been engaging in recurring bouts of edit warring at Mauritius and has repeatedly shown bad faith in their dealing with disagreements. This has culminated in them running over to Talk:France, where I haven't even been engaged before (on either the talk page or the article) and bad-mouthing me, lying that I want to do something to that article that couldn't be further from the truth.

Hoping to summarize this as briefly as possible: Mauritius#Legal system consists of a single paragraph, which explains the core structure of the government. Varoon2542 has repeatedly inserted afterwards the sentence "Same-sex intercourse was decriminalised by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in 2023." I removed it because the way it was presented was disproportionate, so that the section appeared to be making the legal system of Mauritius out to be its central structure and freedom of sexual intercourse. I explained this at length, at Talk:Mauritius and User talk:Varoon2542. Varoon2542's had two basic responses: (1) I'm a homophobe and (2) other country articles have notes on LGBTQ rights. My response to (1) is that I'm proudly gay and that my rationale for my edit was what I said it was, not something false that they chose to make up instead, and to (2) is that it makes sense in articles with lengthier sections about their legal systems, where human rights in general are covered as a key feature of the legal system, and then, within that context, LGBTQ rights are covered along with protections based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.

Then Varoon2542 pointed to a couple of country articles, one of them France, where LGBTQ rights were covered with a similar lack of context. Well, that's not entirely true{{emdash}}France approaches it from the more general topic of the removal of religion as a dominant force behind the nation's laws. But, even so, I pointed out that shortcomings in one article don't justify adding the same shortcomings to others. Varoon2542 next responded that it was then my obligation to go fix the corresponding shortcomings in all the other countries' articles, or else I had no say at all. I said it doesn't work that way.

I also explained that if they want to seek consensus, there were avenues they could pursue beyond the talk page. They haven't, as far as I can tell, taken advantage of any of those avenues. Instead, Varoon2542's follow-up pattern has been to wait weeks or months and then introduce the same text, with none of the remediation I'd suggested. They've been doing the same thing with an objectionable passage about the influx of Bangladeshis to Mauritius, including a POV comment about their religion "skewing" the nation's religion statistics,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285863176] to which multiple other editors objected earlier a while back (one of them invoking WP:OWN, as I've also done), and which Varoon2542 also re-added in the last couple of days.

So, besides the edit-warring, there's been the POV editing, dealing with me in bad faith, making up stuff about my motivations rather than accepting my own account of them, and then, in the last couple of hours, leaving this completely manufactured lie about me at Talk:France: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:France&diff=prev&oldid=1285932022]. P.S You should also see their follow-up to my response there: Talk:France#The mention of homosexuality in the legal system section. And it occurs to me that that's also a misuse of that talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:That warning seems to be canvassing at a second article and misrepresentative of your actual position. Instead of saying just that there was a discussion ongoing they directly called you out on it which strikes me as very unhelpful and veering into bad-faith territory.

:An apparent edit war has broken out between both the person posting this and the person being reported at Mauritius (both editors are at three reverts, not yet in violation); among the highlights are the reported user's reasoning of {{green|Issue was brought on the talk page, noone seemed to care.}} at Special:Diff/1285915465 - in other words, per BRD, their edits were disputed but they still edit warred for their inclusion.

:At Talk:Mauritius#The mention of homosexuality in the legal system section I see the reported user saying {{green|These articles are well guarded by an army of contributors from across the globe and editing them to conform to your wishes exposes you to immediate backlash while doing so for Mauritius is pretty much risk free}} - i.e. the implication of a cabal, one against many. The debate there is heated on both sides and it's not a surprise to me this was brought here.

:The reported user has been involved in edit wars in the past - see Special:Diff/1166739527 where they removed a uw on their talk page about an edit war back in 2023 - the issue there was described by the user leaving the uw as a no-consensus deal. This might just be archiving manually but the messages don't appear to be going to an archive page per their contributions.

:I'm most concerned about the framing of this as an attempt by Largoplazo as an attempt to remove mentions of the status of homosexuality from all articles - not just Mauritius. See Special:Diff/1285939717 at Talk:France - {{green|Can you please explain why you want to remove any mention of homosexuality from all country articles ?}} - which was a reply to Largoplazo explicitly rebuking that position.

:This is just my input as an outside, non-administrative observer. I get the impression Largoplazo is rightfully fed up with this deal and yes, both this and the Bangladeshi census disputes have gotten the attention of some other users and in my opinion this has boiled over into disruptive territory. I'm going to leave ANI notices on the talk pages of others that have been involved in this dispute now that it's all the way escalated. Departure– (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::New day, and a bit more analysis of what's before ANI. Varoon2542 hasn't edited at all since this ANI thread has opened and nor has much of the community chimed in here; but I'll bring up some relevant points for background before and after this ANI thread was opened.

::* {{noping|Moxy}}, when I informed them of this ANI thread, replied with {{green|I'm not sure what more I can say but the same is happening in a few other articles. That is the restoration of contestant material..e.g.. this may be an habitual problem...a deep dive time for someone willing to invest the time. }}, linking to Special:Diff/1285918938, apparent reinstatement of disputed content against community consensus, at Navin Ramgoolam.

::* One hour before this ANI thread opened and once it was obvious a dispute had emerged, Varoon2542 removed various uws from their talk page: edit summaries without explanation, dated October 2022 (1), unsourced material on BLP articles, dated May 2023 (2), unattributed improper copying between articles, dated June 2023 (3), improper referencing regarding Indian-subcontinent diaspora in Mauritius, dated July 2023 (4), and edit warring (5) on Lata Mangeshkar, dated July 2023, edit warring on an unspecified article, dated July 2023 (6). In addition, a bit of spring cleaning of ArbCom voting notification (1).

::** Specifically the first five of these appear to be done in a dishonest manner, removing any reference to their previous editing habits once it was clear a dispute appeared. While to my knowledge this is allowed (removing uw messages from your page means they are acknowledged, even if they aren't archived), these messages are relevant to this ANI thread.

::* Special:Diff/1285931169 at France - {{green| I do not agree with removing this but I'm being forced to respect new policy laid out by}} [Largoplazo] - removing mentions of the legal status of homosexuality in France, in line with the dispute. In my opinion, this is clear-as-day disruption to illustrate a point, given they reverted their edit a minute later.

::* At Talk:Christianity in India, Varoon2542 was criticized by an IP. See Special:Diff/1151979559. While this wasn't the correct venue and the criticism was from an anonymous editor, it is still relevant to this ANI thread. At Special:Diff/1156073956, Varoon2542 removed the IP's accusations of making an ad-hominem accusation with the summary of {{green|Everything is referenced}} - reinstating it a minute later.

::* I'd also like to point anyone looking at this to look at Varoon2542's talk page - specifically the section #Attributing things blindly to hate. This has to do with the disputes between Largoplazo and Varoon2542 which have been ongoing since April 2024 - starting with Special:Diff/1221320363, the same dispute that is ongoing now, with Varoon2542's edit summary {{green|Low-key homophobia}}.

::I'm not entirely sure how much of this is above-board but all of what I'm getting from all of this is that this conflict has been ongoing for a while and a more experienced set of eyes taking a look at this is probably needed. Departure– (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Good grief, I didn't realize Varoon had actually removed that sentence from the article and that blaming me was their justification. Largoplazo (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

| result = IP blocked, nothing further needed. Star Mississippi 00:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hi this is Garboge6969's dear friend Remedy can you please address Garboge6969's block reason and discuss about it I believe it's erroneous. 93.142.56.169 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Garboge6969_and_personal_attacks covers it pretty well. White 720 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{userlinks|Garboge6969}}{{pb}}Blocked for personal attacks, harassment, and TPA taken due to an interesting rant on their talk page. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::what kind of insults? 93.142.56.169 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You can read the unblock request here: User talk:Garboge6969#Reporting_misconduct_to_every_single_wikipedia_mod_ever. White 720 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I’m on my phone or I’d just do it, but this IP can be safely blocked for either trolling or block evasion or (most likely) both. There’s no need to treat this as a legit question. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{done}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = No action needed

| result = Counseling OP on their talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra%20Glossaries&diff=prev&oldid=1286093099 link] Is this vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrosterGuy (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:On the face of it, it is unquestionably a deliberate attempt to falsify the information in a Wikipedia article, thus damaging the Wikipedia project. See WP:Vandalism for particulars of what this term encompasses here.

:The user responsible might claim to be merely experimenting with how Wikipedia works, but (a) the changes are unnecessarily complicated and specific for that and (b) this should never be done on an article page (since for as long as it persists, an innocent reader might read it and take it as factual) – that is what Sandboxes are for.

:The vandalism has been reverted by another editor, who has also warned the perpetrator for vandalism.

:If you (unsigned poster) are in fact the vandal attempting to WP:forum shop, be aware that it's not going to work. If you are not, (a) sign your posts and (b) explain, please, how you happen to know of and be interested in this incident. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Persistent Vandalism. See their Contribs. Jlktutu (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

|status=WRONG VENUE

|result=AIV is that way. (non-admin closure, feel free to revert if you disagree) Worgisbor (congregate) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

• User Name: User:PSDA1 PSDA1
• Problem: Persistent vandalism on multiple pages.
• Evidence: Removing Citations- EditEdit- 40 vandalism edits on a page View Comparison
• Warnings: The user has been warned multiple times on their talk page. User talk:PSDA1

Request to Block the user from editing

14.139.128.52 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• I wish people would find their way to AIV as easy as they find ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = BLOCKED

| result = User:Michael95ii has been indeffed by {{np|Bbb23}} {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

User:Michael95ii created earlier Russian Holocaust, which was deleted as an attack page. I tried to explain on his talk page what the issue was, and advised them that the sources were not reliable and that if they wanted to create a new version anyway, WP:AFC was the best way to go. See User talk:Michael95ii#April 2025, where I also explicitly pointed towards Jewish Bolshevism.

Instead, they created Russian Mass Genocide, edit summary "Im sorry but etc the sources say jewish bolsheviks but i didn't find other sources sorry.", with the same sources blaming it all on the Jews[https://strogosekretno.com/index.php?p=newsroom&nid=9736][https://rense.com/general77/bols.htm][https://concisepolitics.com/2016/08/19/jewish-bolsheviks-mass-murdered-66-million-mostly-christians-in-russia/].

I think we can do without this kind of editor. Fram (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't find other sources Michael95ii (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not Anti semitic! I wanted to create an Page about this and added sources of the Pages where they blamed Jews. I cut out all anti-semitic parts of the texts that i copied from the page and added the sources. i only had those and no others Michael95ii (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Nobody iscinterrogating whatcis in your heart. But building pages based on antisemitic conspiracy websites falls under WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and indicates WP:NOTHERE comportment. Wikipedia does not need this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Im sorry i didn't know Michael95ii (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::i didn't know Michael95ii (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Anyone who writes utter nonsense like {{tpq|Some Scholars agree to the fact of the Bolsheviks, responsible for the persecutions were jewish}} should not be permitted to edit this encyclopedia. Yes, some Bolshevik leaders had Jewish ancestry but the majority had Christian ancestry. They were all atheists and against all religions. Joseph Stalin was of Georgian Christian ancestry and studied for the Russian Orthodox priesthood as a young man, before embracing communism. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:it also looks like a lot of pro-Russian bias. I see that their draft for Draft:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Russians_in_Chechnya was rejected, and immediately after they create Anti-Russian_violence_in_Chechnya.

:I don't know enough about this topic to understand if this is reliable, apparently ng.ru is reliable enough, but would like more eyes on it too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::I named all sources to "Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya" all of them are open to the public Michael95ii (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

| status = blocked

| result = Two-week timeout courtesy of {{np|rsjaffe}}. asilvering (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Persistent Vandalism. See their Contribs. Jlktutu (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, I am adding fact. You are repeatedly undoing my edits on grounds of "unsourced" information. There are no sourced entries in any area of the page which I am editing. Why should the entire page not be deleted, if the edits which I have provided are inappropriate? It is blatantly obvious what you are doing and for whom you are trying to cover. Rest assured, when you get your way, you will have no "free speech." 2601:14D:4D80:1470:D876:B1FE:63A8:C51A (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::What you're adding here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Socialist_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1286167579] is wrong, since when did Republican Party (United States) became a National Socialist Party?

::Edit- Didn't checked their comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:14D:4D80:1470:D876:B1FE:63A8:C51A&diff=prev&oldid=1286166471][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:14D:4D80:1470:D876:B1FE:63A8:C51A&diff=prev&oldid=1286166274] before, I also agree with extending their block duration. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::In what world do you think telling another editor that they should kill themselves is appropriate? Rsjaffe has already taken care of the triage, but I would argue that this should be extended to an WP:INDEF given that edits such as this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:14D:4D80:1470:D876:B1FE:63A8:C51A&diff=prev&oldid=1286166274] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:14D:4D80:1470:D876:B1FE:63A8:C51A&diff=prev&oldid=1286166471] aren't even in the same galaxy as appropriate conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Agreed 31 hours isn't long enough, but we don't generally indef block IPs because they could be reassigned to another person. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Original block based only on edit history. Now two week block and no talk page access. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Good point. At least lengthier then. I see it was already updated. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello. The said user is clearly declared themselves at the de-facto overseer of the article (Turkey). My edits are being reverted on baseless claims, fueled with clear WP:JDL, which can be seen on page's change history. Their actions are to be openly seen on Talk:Turkey, making this foul behavior sadly a rather prevalent issue, not only being tailored to my actions. Their attitude is not pro- rather contra-active. Please do refer to the topics on the talkpage for further inquiries. Regards. KarsVegas36 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The issue was discussed here: Talk:Turkey#Recent_changes. Feel free to ping me if there are any concerns or questions. Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:In Talk:Turkey#Recent changes, Bogazicili is civilly explaining the issues they see with your edits. This appears to be a content dispute. Have you pursued the suggested methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've repeatedly suggested WP:DR [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATurkey&diff=1285747332&oldid=1285746697][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATurkey&diff=1285944008&oldid=1285853354], but KarsVegas36 seems to continue with their edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=1286078577&oldid=1285940319]. Bogazicili (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at the history of Turkey, it's clear to me an edit war has broken out between Bogazicili and KarsVegas36, based on the music section, with both editors performing more than one revert in the past week.

:::* For Bogazicili: 17:58 April 12, 19:12 April 13, 13:41 April 15, 18:36 April 16.

:::* For KarsVegas36: 15:49 April 12, 14:30 April 13, 12:05 April 15, 14:23 April 15, 16:10 April 16, 16:16 April 17.

:::Being right isn't enough and in this case I see clear evidence of edit warring, regardless of consensus. KarsVegas36, you're in prime range for a boomerang strike, in my opinion. Departure– (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've notified {{noping|Beshogur}}, a user who also participated in the dispute (two reverts in all since April 12). The article likely should be protected, or the two editors participating in the edit war pblocked from Turkey. I haven't taken a look at the specific talk page but I see this as a boomerang situation at least towards KarsVegas36, based only on the amount of reverts. I'm unsure if the 24-hour timer for reverts for the 3RR counts if the edit war is slower but more expansive, but it's still an edit war at the end of the day. Departure– (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You are right that being right isn't enough. That's why I suggested dispute resolution.

:::::I've also been trying to improve Turkey to GA for about a year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chidgk1&diff=prev&oldid=1210491741][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries/AprilMay2024_archive&diff=prev&oldid=1216051098], and you are saying I should be permanently blocked from editing Turkey?

:::::I've also been concerned about potential socking in the article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chipmunkdavis&oldid=1286086610#Question_about_edit_request_and_sockpuppet_investigations User talk:Chipmunkdavis topic], Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dudewithafez/Archive, and AN topic, but I didn't have the time to file a SPI request. Bogazicili (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::By pblock, I mean partial block - i.e. a partial block from only the article Turkey until disruption stops. Edit warring is still disruptive, however. Your edits haven't, in my opinion, been quite as disruptive as the recipient of the boomerang, in my opinion. You are much less likely to receive sanctions from an unbiased administrator - but as conflict is ongoing, yes, please refrain from furthering the war. If you have clear talk page consensus to instate changes after the edit war ends, then I don't see why that should be considered disruptive - but reverting to a different version and enabling an edit war when it's ongoing can still be disruptive, even if to a much lower degree than that of the person going with the edit war. Again, I'm not an administrator, but that's my input. Departure– (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The issue is in ANI. Obviously I'm not going to do further edits to the page until there is some sort of resolution here at least.

:::::::My revert with images that you linked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285268336] was due to the potential WP:Proxying issue. Bogazicili (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The "baseless claims" {{u|KarsVegas36}} refers to are actually basic aspects of a central Wikipedia policy, which as far as I can see, has been clearly explained to them on the talk page. KarsVegas36 should take the advice of seeking dispute resolution rather than seeking behavioural sanctions when their own conduct has been more disreputable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::@KarsVegas36 also reminded to remain civil and collegial while discussing content with other editors. If the lack of collegiality is because you're using Grok, please immediately cease using LLMs on wikipedia. If it's bespoke, please keep in mind that we're all trying to make the best possible encyclopedia and change your approach accordingly. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

| status = IP blocked

| result = Further issues to WP:AIV. asilvering (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

So for the past two years, there's been a LTA Montenegrin IP user that has been mostly adding unsourced content (or to be more precise misinformation) to articles related to Serbian politics. With the help of {{user|Number 57}}, the IP has been stopped from doing this at several articles (they've been blocked numerous times, but they always come under a different IP next time). Some articles, such as 2023 Belgrade City Assembly election and 2023 Serbian parliamentary election, had to be protected considering that they came back several times under a different IP despite being blocked. Since October 2023, I've also had to deal with them at People's Movement for the State. The article was briefly protected, but they've kept coming back. I've tried requesting page protection, but it was rejected recently. The IP has been warned numerous times and haven't responded even once. I'm looking to see what admins think about this (whether the IP should be blocked and whether the article should be protected considering that its been targeted by a LTA IP for a year and a half now). The current IP in question is {{userlinks|109.228.104.29}}. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:IP seems to have been blocked. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I personally think it's better to block the IPs as they appear rather than protect the pages, for two reasons: the IPs aren't popping up so frequently that this becomes difficult, and the IPs are disrupting other pages as well: the block will protect for all the disruption without preventing others from editing the pages. When this recurs, if you post at WP:AIV and also give the name or IP of the previously-blocked user in the report so the responding admin can see this is a recurring issue, then you'll probably get a quick response each time it's needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the feedback! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

At 22:29 today, User:Prototyperspective started a thread at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, entitled 'Wikipedia is censored'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=1285805838&oldid=1285641164]

Following well-reasoned and on-topic responses by several experienced contributors, Prototyperspective then posted the following: {{tq|I kindly asked to please not have vacuous bickering but please be objective. This is censoring and if you think it isn't so you neither explained why it wouldn't be nor addressed the need to change that text even if it wasn't...}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=1285809587&oldid=1285809355]

How anyone with the long-term editing history that Prototyperspective has could consider such comments remotely acceptable, I have no idea, but it clearly shouldn't be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Are you reporting me for making a talk thread discussion? How many times have you reported here for incivility and other things? I just asked to please stay objective, if I may have chosen suboptimal wording that's not a reason to report it on ANU. But I guess some users are immune to any repercussions and some get taken to ANU at the slightest wording issue. I'm trying to keep this thread ontopic and for this reason asked users to not bicker or go offtopic but please address the issue. Thanks, Prototyperspective (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think that a claim to be the sole arbiter of 'objectivity' is going to fly here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Good that I didn't make such a claim then. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|"I just asked to please stay objective"}}. This is after proposal for a major change to core Wikipedia policy for no better reason than being involved in a dispute over the appropriateness of a single AI image. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd recommend that people take a further look of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is censored, where Prototyperspective has apparently appointed themselves sole arbiter of what the word 'censored' means. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=1285815869] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's a "WP:ILIKEIT, so if you don't your censoring me!" argument if I ever saw one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Now being accompanied by the inevitable badgering that follows from been at the losing end of an argument.

:::Might I suggest that an uninvolved person - admin or otherwise - takes a look at the Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not thread, and closes it as clearly going nowhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Surely that person will be accused of censorship. Polygnotus (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is not about me or my files. And no, I haven't {{tq|appointed themselves sole arbiter of what the word 'censored' means}} either. You can continue to insist that it isn't censorship without explanation or reasoning of course but I'm not required to change my assessment that it is in fact censorship which btw is not only a bad thing (but in this case is). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Has continued onto my talk page for some reason Masem (t) 13:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::*I can explain the reason: the discussion on the policy talk page was stifled and I meant to address one comment of yours.

:::*If it's a big problem to you I can stop replying to you there.

:::I don't know if you're asking me to be stifled from replying to you but I meant to only leave a comment and then reply to what you have to say so 2 comments and in any case think have won't reply there any further as I have said anything there is to say and you now seem to repeat things you said earlier while not considering or ignoring what I said about precisely that already. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:"Someone made a bad argument that's not going to go anywhere" does not seem like a good use of ANI to me, and there is nothing remotely like a personal attack there. "You all are censoring my AI stuff" is not a personal attack. Just an obviously frustrated swing at a policy change. At worst it's WP:POINT, but also easily just, you know, ignored. "Much like you could've done with this thread" you might say; "touche" I might respond. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::It is not easily ignored. The WP:POINTyness has made its way to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_fantasy&curid=300649&diff=1285895969&oldid=1285816357 article disruption]. CMD (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I just removed the other image which does not illustrate the subject with exactly the same edit summary as the removal of the image that actually usefully illustrates the subject. Double standards much? I meant to remove it anyway so why not use the exact same explanation? Prototyperspective (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::(ec) Prototyperspective is still making the same facile 'disagreeing with me over content I want to include is censorship' argument here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlien_abduction_entities&diff=1285897575&oldid=1285896608] (Note the unintentionally comedic aspect to this - neither participant to this debate seems to have noticed the WP:BOLD edit I made yesterday. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_abduction_entities&diff=1285808624&oldid=1285803679] Either, or both, are of course free to 'revert and discuss', but they seem more intent on arguing over abstractions than justifying the existence of the article.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You want to forbid me from making an argument or explaining things? We obviously disagree and I'm under no obligation to adopt your view which is unexplained. There are even articles like Corporate censorship and Censorship by Apple. It's not funny either but thanks for saying you think this is funny. It's a dead-serious issue with grave negative impact on Wikipedia and free education. Regarding {{tq|than justifying the existence of the article}} I did that there, for example explaining that such an image is due, useful, informative and that it's so far the only image available that could be used. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I wrote 'article' not 'image'. Click on the link in my previous post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would like to point out that Prototyperspective removed an image from the article Science fantasy due to me removing the AI-generated image he added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_fantasy&diff=prev&oldid=1285895969]. The revert was clearly made with bad faith, mimicking my own (admittedly uncivil) edit summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, and that's the exact kind of retaliatory behavior I've seen from Prototyperspective that is causing problems. Anything they like is appropriate, and if you disagree they lash out with WP:POINTy edits and comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::This was already pointed out above. Also, it's interesting that there you ignore WP:BRD. Nothing about it was in bad faith. I used the same edit summary as you but somehow you feel entitled to come here complaining while your unreverted removal – where I adhered to the WP:BRD policy – is okay. Double standards.

::And I don't lash out, I argue with reasoning. I think reasoned discussion are not a bad thing and can improve outcomes and should not be accused in bad faith of various negative things. Not everything I like is appropriate. {{tq|mimicking my own (admittedly uncivil) edit summary}} so why would I not be allowed to use the same removal explanation and edit summary as you? Agree that another one would be better but I'm curious why some things are allowed for some users but not for others. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You didn't partake in BRD. You responded to my edit by claiming I was "censoring" you on a different talk page without even tagging me so I could have a discussion. I didn't even learn about it until after it had already been closed. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::* You reverted my removal of recently added content without making any discussion.

::::* I was not complaining about you censoring me, it's a broader subject and 'censorship!!1' is none of my arguments.

::::* I did not revert your removal with the very solid explanation {{tq|removed AI slop}} but instead took to the talk page.

::::Prototyperspective (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The talk page of a completely different article. You did not tag me. Also, you agree that "removed AI slop" is a poor edit summary, but you chose to replicate it with your edit. Why? It comes off as childish, and two wrongs don't make a right anyways (read WP:POINT, too). Industrial Insect (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, to Talk:Science fantasy. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Again I ask what made you think it was appropriate to replicate an edit summary which you admitted was poor. Double standards. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:This comment definitely does not rise to the level of ANI, but the POINTy removing of images raised in this discussion is a problem. @Prototyperspective, why are you doing this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::The one image I removed is a cosplay image. It's a cosplay image and it does not actually illustrate what the subject of the article is. This was one edit and unlike the other user it was just reverted without any discussion. So while I am following WP:BRD the other user is not and while the other removal is not a problem here my removal apparently is. Again, double standards. And no, this one well-warranted edit is not a problem. And to answer your question again: because the image is not helpful, is low-quality, is misleading, and does not illustrate the subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well I think YOUR image is not helpful, low quality, and misleading. Checkmate! Industrial Insect (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Checkmate for what? That you do as you please while I get belittled and accused on ANU for things? You did not give this explanation and it does not make sense. It is helpful and obviously not low quality and certainly not misleading. The cosplay image just a person in some random clothing with a weapon where there is nothing science fantasy about it and while science fantasy is neither about that nor about cosplaying. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The AI image is just some image that a random person told a machine to make and decided without a source that it was related to science fantasy. Industrial Insect (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The caption and the many sources, including those in the caption make it very clear that and why and how the image is related. And it's not just some image that a random person told a machine to make either if you look at the file version history for example. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::None of this matters, consensus was made at WP:AIB that most AI images should not be used. Industrial Insect (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It wasn't so far from an even split or people pro and con and most pro users made claims that are false and were refuted. Wouldn't call that a consensus, especially since only one option was offered rather than multiple partly more nuanced options. Asking this or nothing results in other things than asking this or this or this option. In addition the AI images that have been used so far as well as the examples in the thread are nearly all low-quality which biases people's views. The discussion was closed with a summary of the discussion that I think fails WP:NODEMOCRACY and is not a good summary of all that has been said in the discussion. "consensus here is crystal clear" is so absolutely false, it's hard to believe an admin that would aim for neutrality would say that. In any case, you removed it before it was closed. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This is getting off the track of the ANI, we can continue the discussion at Talk:Science fantasy. Industrial Insect (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AI_image_use&diff=prev&oldid=1285967555 More pointy disruption] relating to this topic. CMD (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Nothing of it is disruption. Nothing of it is pointy. The quote of the text I added is below and that's I think relevant info and it was simply removed. Are you saying I'm not allowed to edit a draft page on a subject I'm informed about and interested in to add info I think is useful and relevant to the reader? It was a mere edit and it's not even a proper page and just a draft page. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Prototyperspective has now seen fit to take this tendentious argumentation over AI Image use onto Wikipedia:AI image use - a work-in-progress draft proposal for a new policy or guideline. Specifically, Prototyperspective assed the following argumentative editorialising to the draft, where it clearly doesn't belong: {{tq|The reason that they [AI images] are considered inappropriate is because in 2025 around one third more users who got notice of a Request for Comment on the subject voted to have some rule against them than the number of users who called for more nuance or against such a ruling.}} At this point, I'm beginning to wonder whether a topic ban regarding AI images might be appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I made a single edit to a draft page. Am I not allowed to? AndyTheGrump is apparently allowed all levels of incivility but at the same time I'm not allowed to make an edit to a draft page on a subject I'm both informed about and interested in? And the content of the edit was adding the reason for why it's considered inappropriate, it's certainly more than worth considering whether that info should be added so I went ahead and added it since I think it should be there and you removed it. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::No, you shouldn't edit the page because you have an agenda to push AI-Generated images even though community consensus is against it. Industrial Insect (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I don't have such an agenda. I just made a couple of good-quality AI images because apparently all people had been adding on English Wikipedia were low-quality AI Images and the discussion was closed just now and not back then. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::No, you tendentious little shit (feel free to quote me on that, since you seem having trouble recognising what an actual personal attack is) you aren't allowed to use a work-in-progress draft proposal as a platform to further your endless refusals to accept the community consensus on AI image use that the draft is intending to facilitate. And if you are actually incapable of understanding why, as you purport to be, I'd have to question whether we should be looking at an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|you tendentious little shit}} Exactly what I mean. {{tq|you aren't allowed to use a work-in-progress draft proposal}} I'm not using it, I was editing it. And I edited it to add information that I thought was relevant and useful and good to include and which was simply removed by you. And I'm allowed to do edit a draft article. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Go away. Get a fucking clue. If you ever find one, come back and tell us where you stole it from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You realize that attacking him makes your argument significantly weaker. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked AndyTheGrump for 31 hours for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1285988507 this personal attack]. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The consistent disingenuousness regarding continued disruption and the arguments of other editors ("I just removed the other image", "You want to forbid me from making an argument or explaining things?", "Are you saying I'm not allowed to edit a draft page on a subject I'm informed about and interested in"), the refusal to drop the stick (" I just made a couple of good-quality AI images because apparently all people had been adding on English Wikipedia were low-quality AI Images and the discussion was closed just now and not back then."), and that the pointy changes being referred to in these quotes were made after this AN/I had already been opened, have made it somewhat plain that a topic ban is needed here. CMD (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::So do you want to forbid me from editing a draft page? The content I added was not malicious or disruptive, we can differ in opinion on whether it belongs there and another user simply removed it. I long dropped the stick. I just simply reply most of the times when somebody addresses me. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, because it is disruptive, and it is quite clear no stick has been dropped. CMD (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is his third block for personal attacks in less than a year. What's going to happen in the next 31 hours? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't know what's worse, the fact that Andy continuously and shamelessly violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA even when he's right, or the fact that we keep letting him. Also, I'd like to point out the irony that this whole discussion started with what appears to be a false accusation of personal attack (even more ironic when you consider my own regrettable early interactions with Andy). Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing even remotely resembling a personal attack when going through Prototyperspectives' posts. Even the provided example, while clearly a bad faith accusation, was not a personal attack.

::And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not defending Prototyperspectives' arguments by calling out Andy's actions. I don't have a particularly strong stance either way about AI-generated images and copyright, but community consensus is clear. Copyright status of AI images are an undeniably contentious topic and very much a legal gray area (for now, at least). As such, it is best to treat AI-generated images as non-free media, and therefore there is almost never a reason to prefer them over non-AI images even when WP:NFC is appropriate. Given Prototyperspectives' attempts to undermine consensus, I'd support a topic ban from AI-generated images at the very least. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:If Prototyperspectives edits related to AI Images aren't complying with community consensus, why not just Topic ban them? Nobody (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::The community discussion was closed only after I made the edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Your edits to WT:NOT were after WP:AIB was closed. Nobody (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::So I'm not allowed to make a simple talk page edit? Is this for real? I genuinely thought the policy there is outdated if this new thing becomes a ruling and therefore something needs to be done such as the page being updated. Nothing bad about that and yes the wording was not ideal and we can differ in opinion, you're free to have your own opinion on the matter and think what I said is trash. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If we follow your logic, that policies that disallow something are censoring, then all declines/deletions of BLP drafts and articles due to not meeting a policy are censoring a person, and therefore WP:NOTCENSORED is wrong? Nobody (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are free to think my logic is wrong and what I said is flawed and you were also welcome there to say it in the thread. To answer your question, not it's not because that's just criteria in regards to verifiability etc but it would be censorship I think if say all people of a certain region or in a certain industry were excluded indiscriminately a priori per a new rule even if the other policies are met. Those deletions are based on reasoned reasonable principles and again censorship in itself is nothing bad, it just usually is. Look at all the things in Censorship by Apple for example. Calling for muting some user because the user in your view falsely thinks something is censorship while citing two definitions of censorship doesn't seem like a good idea. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)