Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186

{{atop

| status = Banned by the community

| result = {{tqq|For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours.}} The outcome is indeed obvious. For repeatedly making personal attacks, engaging in advocacy in articles, using deceptive edit summaries, and responding to these concerns with a truly awful reply, TairaMasakado108 is banned by the community. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{User|TairaMasakado108}}

Noticed a brow-raising edit of theirs while patrolling new changes[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Death_of_Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=1287812507] with a misleading edit summary of {{tq|"Cosmetic change, relevance."}} Upon reviewing their other edits a pattern emerged: vague or outright misleading edit summaries attached to edits which are plainly contentious, many unsourced, while failing to maintain neutrality.

The following quotes are some of the edit summaries and also serve as links to their respective edits:

• Special:Diff/1256486086^(here) - non-neutral, changed internal links (ie. communism -> anti-communism), added inappropriate internal link which effectively results in editorializing (linking "White, Christian" to Christian persecution complex)
• Special:Diff/1256892121^(here) - large edit, non-neutral, removed sourced quotes, softened language ("among other factors", and up to 5 million died), changed meaning (occasionalmore frequent), all in what seems to be an effort to soften the severity of the presented information
• Special:Diff/1270882218^(here) - non-neutral, removed many sourced claims
• Special:Diff/1279221425^(here) - non-neutral, dramatically changed meaning in text without changing sources
• Special:Diff/1287117367^(here) - non-neutral, makes editorial content changes

and[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Coureval_Fagan&diff=prev&oldid=1249299807] not[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serge_Monast&diff=prev&oldid=1249300662] just.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Death_of_Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=1287812507]

(edited 08:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC) to more clearly indicate preexisting diff links, no new content added)

Upon seeing this I left a warning and began working to undo some of the more egregious edits, with this edit to Kebra Nagast being amongst them. Described in the summary as {{tq|"Brief minor edit for clarity."}}, I reverted it here with a rationale of {{tq|"was not a "Brief minor edit for clarity.", is a substantive content change that makes authoritative claims that may be WP:OR."}}

User:TairaMasakado108 responded by undoing the revert, leaving a personal attack in their edit summary of {{tq|"Re-applied previous edit, with reason: Previous editor has been targeting certain pages and users and undoing edits with implicit political biases. (Vandalism, bias?) Nature of edit is expanding upon introductory paragraph with one sourced from further below; the repetition of text on Wikipedia is a frequent occurrence and has not been criticized previously. Edit is necessary for thoroughness and clarity. Further edits should only be made by an expert on the subject."}}^{(emphasis mine)} and left a similar reply to the warning here.

This user appears to want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and will make subtle, unsourced changes behind vague or misleading edit summaries to do so. And when this behavior was confronted in a most minor way, has resorted to personal attacks in the form of accusations of bias and vandalism. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears that User:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four is not only misrepresenting the nature and intent of my edits but is projecting their own knee-jerk reactionary biases in the process. The alleged "misleading summaries" are nothing more than standard editorial language, admittedly a bit lazily or hastily written, but which is otherwise commonly used across thousands of Wikipedia pages to indicate superficial or structural changes. In cases where more substantive adjustments were made, they were done transparently and, in many cases, with contextual relevance to the page in question.

Let us be clear: Wikipedia is not a refuge for ideological gatekeeping masquerading as "neutrality." The platform's policies on neutrality, sourcing, and relevance are routinely applied with double standards, particularly by the ideologically driven or less-informed. My edits—particularly those that challenge or re-contextualize historically loaded language—are well within the scope of critical historiography. Wikipedia's guideline WP:UNDUE explicitly allows for such contextualization, especially when dominant narratives erase or minimize counter-histories.

Furthermore, the reversion of the Kebra Nagast edit demonstrates a lack of subject-matter familiarity. The clarification I provided was not WP:OR, as the content referenced was directly sourced from the article itself—merely relocated for clarity and coherence. The charge of "authoritative claims" is disingenuous when those claims are directly lifted from verifiable sources already present in the article.

As for the accusation of a “personal attack,” it is not an attack to identify bias when it is evident. When an editor persistently targets contributions that provide necessary context or framing, while invoking dog-whistle terms like "contentious" or "editorializing," it becomes necessary to call attention to their pattern of behavior. This is not a personal issue—it is a matter of editorial integrity.

Lastly, the label of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is a tired rhetorical cudgel used to dismiss legitimate re-contextualization of historical or ideological narratives. The notion that restoring ideological balance or exposing implicit dogma is somehow against policy is absurd—unless, of course, the policy is being selectively interpreted to defend a personal viewpoint, as is the case with this user.

If there are concerns about particular edits, let them be discussed civilly and with credible reference to actual policy—not ad hominem smears and covert ideological policing. Further, if one is going to so poorly attempt to weaponize established rules, at least reference them correctly. TairaMasakado108 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Labores de campo (Saucedilla).JPG

::Horse manure alert. EEng 08:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tqq|The notion that restoring ideological balance or exposing implicit dogma is somehow against policy is absurd}} Except it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to {{tqq|restore ideological balance}} or {{tqq|expose implicit dogma}}. And the rest of your statement above is...I don't even know where to start. It could be a textbook example of "attempting to use policy to defend WP:CPUSHing by beating someone up with big words". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry but I cannot look beyond the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256486086 this] edit characterised as {{tq|Minor edits improving grammar, punctuation and flow}} does not, in fact, change grammar, punctuation or flow, but rather consists entirely of surreptitiously changing links to articles (in fact pointing to articles about the exact opposite topic!) or introducing new links altogether. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Death_of_Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=1287812507 first diff] provided by UP also describes a covert change of the underlying link from anti-communism to anti-fascism as {{tq|Cosmetic change, relevance.}} This is clear dishonest editing, and the fact that rather than own up to it you decide to claim that {{tq|alleged "misleading summaries" are nothing more than standard editorial language [...] to indicate superficial or structural changes}} indicates that you do not see anything wrong with it. The rest of your message can be safely flushed down the toilet, because there is no policy excusing dishonesty if the cause is believed to be rightful enough. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just in case it was missed, changing the text to call Falun Gong a homophobic, racist cult in this edit seems especially bad Kaotac (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

For repeatedly making personal attacks, engaging in advocacy within article space, and using deceptive edit summaries – as well as showing a lack of interest in ceasing such disruptive editing – I propose that TairaMasakado108 be indefinitely blocked. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I was actually about to indef them when I saw this. Do we need a full discussion for a fairly obvious case? Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Black Kite I'm pretty sure I've seen someone get blocked mid-discussion as an uninvolved administrative action. It'd be a regular indef, not a CBAN, but that would still stop the disruption. I agree that a discretionary admin action is entirely appropriate. {{jokes|Just be brace for a flood of endorse block comments.}} EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Flush 'em. Absolute drain and not worth it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef. I was unsure that ANI would be a good first measure, so I erred on the side of temperance by posting a warning with examples and making descriptive, selective reverts.^{(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)} This response convinced me that this was an appropriate venue. And their subsequent doubling down and, in my view, continued dishonest characterization of both their and my edits at this ANI indicate that they have no current desire to help build an encyclopedia. If my vote here as as an involved editor is poor form then I apologize and will happily strike this. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :It's not poor form, not to worry. Ravenswing 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :It's much more the norm than the exception that an ANI discussion's OP would !vote in any resulting sanction proposals. A closer would be expected to weight the perspectives of any involved parties accordingly in assessing any resulting consensus on sanctions, but I don't think this is going to be a particularly close result. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I would have opposed initially for something milder, but how this editor has acted when being called out on these serious issues makes it clear to me that this is an editor who cannot be trusted to participate in a collaborative project with people they disagree with, at least at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Repeatedly writing false edit summaries is reprehensible. Doubling down on the falsehoods when called out is mind-boggling. Their underlying editing philosophy is incompatible with Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I would have phrased my POV pretty much as Cullen328 did. The very phrase "legitimate re-contextualization of historical or ideological narratives" stuck in my teeth; TairaMasakado108 can go "recontextualize" narratives on some other soapbox. Ravenswing 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know that I've ever supported a full CBAN in an ANI discussion so quickly, but it is clearly necessary to arrest blatant disruption and leveraging of content to voice this user's ideological grievances--some of which changes are so sarcastically framed, it can't accurately be considered anything other than clear vandalism. Further, the obviously intentional misdirection in their edit summaries and their general approach is so pervasive and duplicitous (and their reaction to being caught out so aggressive, with their resulting WP:aspersions also showing clear efforts at manipulation), that it is hard to know whether this is a case of profound self-rationalization or if this whole account is just one large troll. What's more, this user's understanding of our policies and norms is far too deep to believe the small handful of edits on this account represent their entire history of engagement with the project, leaving the distinct possibility that this is an LTA back under a new sock account. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, but I would note that it is possible for a person with few edits to know and understand policies and norms, I understand a lot just by hanging around AN/I, AN and just reading any WP: links I come across whilst there or any new ones that I see in places. Just wanted to point that out. Fun Chaos (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I agree that is theoretically a possibility, which is why I framed my suspicions as I did ({{tq|"leaves the distinct possibility that"}} vs. {{tq|"demonstrates that"}} or something along those lines). Mind you, from the entirety of the circumstances here--the behaviour, the rhetoric and other indicators I'm not going to voice for WP:BEANS reasons--I'd personally bet dollars to doughnuts that this is not this user's first time engaging disruptively on this project. {{pb}}But it's also the least essential part of the assessment of the current issues. Whether this user is an LTA or a completely new user, I just don't see where there is any other option but to CBAN in this instance: the conduct in question is so severe, obviously intentional, and irreconcilable with the most basic of content and behavioural policies. And the only response given to concerns about said conduct basically boils down to an effort to gaslight the community through a clumsy attempt to smear the OP, apparently hoping a word salad of community verbiage will cover for the fact that all of their claims are easily falsifiable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support As per Snow Rise, it's pretty fast, but those edits and the defense here are so far beyond the pale that I don't see any other good options. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support - POV-pushing is one thing. POV-pushing while deliberately lying about it in edit summaries is an order of magnitude worse. Doing all of that and then responding to an AN/I thread against you with the rhetorical equivalent of "no u" is either too foolish to be allowed to remain editing or too audacious to be able to work on a collaborative project. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef per above, especially Cullen328 and Snow Rise. This is a NOTHERE and clear cut POV pushing. — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Sock Blocked

| result = Edgenut sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Userlinks|Lucas J. Goodwin}}

User persists in adding unsourced content, ignoring any warnings and continuing with what on his userpage he considers "upgrades". See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanitore&diff=1287583682&oldid=1285767365 this] addition of unsourced hieroglyphic names, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmose%2C_son_of_Ebana&diff=1285846989&oldid=1283036888 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titus_Petronius_Secundus&diff=1286024968&oldid=1148915327 this] apparent fixation in adding unsourced birth and death dates. Every attempt at communication on his talk page has been ignored, as users {{U|Ifly6}} and {{U|Ermenrich}} can also confirm. Lone-078 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry Lucas J. Goodwin (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Lucas, could you speak more on the underlying issues? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would also like to raise the possibility that this is a sockpuppet of {{u|Edgenut}} who similarly engaged in fictitious birth and death date (and location) insertions mostly in infoboxes on ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, and artefacts therefrom. The behaviours are consistent. Ifly6 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:The recent series of mass edits to Egyptian and Kushite monarchs also inserts a pile of hieroglyphs which are also unsourced. I don't know anything on the topic so can't comment on their veracity but sources need to be provided for obscure facts of this type. If they are wrong or made up (see eg similar instances on low-viewership Wikipedias and pages: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/ig9jia/ive_discovered_that_almost_every_single_article/ most of the articles in the Scots Wikipedia aren't in Scots]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhemao_hoaxes over 200 hoaxes on the Chinese Wikipedia]) this would be indistinguishable from mass vandalism. Ifly6 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think {{u|Ifly6}} is right. Compare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imhotep&diff=1239227051&oldid=1239221918 this edit] of Rantieres (a confirmed sock of Edgenut): it is hardly distinguishable from Lucas' edits. Lone-078 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Blocked for sockpuppetry, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edgenut here]. Lone-078 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Derailed|1=Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Malin the railfan}} is WP:NOTHERE.

Moved a few Australian locomotive articles which I reverted due to breaking usual convention of naming after its original owner or original builder. I then informed them of WP:CONSENSUS and the need to discuss on the talk page (Special:Diff/1288027196). They replied, calling me a bitch, of which I informed them of WP:NPA. They have made another personal attack after this and threatening to ban other editors somehow, and continued to move pages without discussion. See the edit history of EMD (formerly Downer EDI Rail) GT46C-ACe and GE Transportation C44ACi for their reversion of my reverted moves. Fork99 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{nonadmin}} Just to let you know @Fork99, your diff links are slightly mixed up. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, fixed. Fork99 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have blocked {{u|Malin the railfan}} for one week for personal attacks and harassment, and claiming to have administrative powers that the editor does not have. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Anoush Ali Khan Mughal}}

Anoush Ali Khan Mughal has received numerous warnings, just in this month alone, for multiple issues, including edit warring,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salman_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1286058355][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salman_Khan&diff=1286079053&oldid=1286070983][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salman_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1286092310] marking edits as minor when they aren’t, misleading summaries,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1_Called_Manders&diff=prev&oldid=1285210566] overly expanding short descriptions,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_La_Land&diff=prev&oldid=1287624838][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wish_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1287466602][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prince_of_Egypt&diff=prev&oldid=1287463568] and overall disruptive editing. Their consistent response seems to be arguing,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anoush_Ali_Khan_Mughal&diff=next&oldid=1285226104] telling others they they know what they’re doing, that they are right, and to leave them alone,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnoush_Ali_Khan_Mughal&diff=1286094923&oldid=1286093892][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anoush_Ali_Khan_Mughal&diff=prev&oldid=1285453087][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anoush_Ali_Khan_Mughal&diff=prev&oldid=1286079304][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anoush_Ali_Khan_Mughal&diff=prev&oldid=1286094923] and continuing the behavior that got them warned to begin with.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars:_Episode_III_%E2%80%93_Revenge_of_the_Sith&diff=prev&oldid=1287796728][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars:_Episode_III_%E2%80%93_Revenge_of_the_Sith&diff=prev&oldid=1287807244] NJZombie (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think if you're hoping for admin involvement with this you're going to need to provide some diffs illustrating the problems, rather than expecting editors to go digging for them. DonIago (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::No digging is needed. A quick look at their history shows that they mark every single edit as minor, while simultaneously providing misleading edit summaries of "Added links" or "Fixed typo" when they've actually unnecessarily expanded short description, typically with a list of genres. That being said, I've added diffs of just a small fraction of the examples along with some of their talk page arguments. NJZombie (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::: If he just changes the invisible {{tl|short description}}, isn't that actually a minor edit? (And that's what he does everywhere, just changes the short description.)
But yes, I see how his editing the template in many articles is unnesessary and distracting to other users. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::No, changing a short description is not considered a minor edit. Per WP:MINOR, here is the list of what is considered a minor edit...

::::* Spelling, grammatical, and punctuation corrections, for example "{{Typo|{{no redirect|Condoleeza Rice}}}}" to "Condoleezza Rice"

::::* Simple formatting (e.g., capitalization, or properly adding italics to non-English words, like Grandiose_delusions, or titles of certain works, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer)

::::* Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page (e.g., moving a picture, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)

::::* Fixing layout errors

::::* Adding or correcting wikilinks, or fixing broken external links and references already present in the article

::::* Removing obvious vandalism

::::Short descriptions aren’t invisible either. They’re the descriptions you see under article names when searching on the website. They’re meant to be simple.

::::NJZombie (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Okay! Thank you for the explanation! He definitely shouldn't mark his edits as minor, then. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This one edit is useful: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kucch_To_Hai&diff=prev&oldid=1288068220]. (Not sure if that can be called a typo, though. Here's how that description "happened": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kucch_To_Hai&diff=prev&oldid=1063163262].) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Well, I reviewed the last 20 edits (many of which were yesterday). 18 were reverted. Many were incorrect edit summaries: "added links"-> changed genre, "fixed typo"->changed who the film was by. That issue alone (incorrect edit summaries) is enough to call for a stop to prevent harm to Wikipedia. I pblocked them from Articles and invited them here to discuss and fix the problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Funtiberry has previously been warned for related issues (notably going against MOS) on several occasions and their behavior does not seem to be changing as seen with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herb_Wright&diff=prev&oldid=1287407590 this edit] three days ago. The reason I am involved is because yesterday, I noticed that Bahamas Electricity Corporation had large amounts of AI suspect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahamas_Electricity_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=1285466564 text added by the user]. Also, their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Funtiberry edit summaries] seem to be rather unwieldy and don't accurately describe what had changed, which may also be a symptom of LLM usage. ✶Quxyz✶ 10:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• My take - look at the language used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lordseriouspig&diff=prev&oldid=1274652584 this] talk page message and ask yourself if that's the same person that's writing those edit summaries... Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Forgot to add it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulf-Dietrich_Reips&diff=prev&oldid=1287722521 this edit] shows the mismatch between edit and edit summary. The edit summary claims to have changed "Oberassistent" to an English term, which did not happen. ✶Quxyz✶ 11:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have partially blocked them from article space until they communicate Star Mississippi 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Star Mississippi Would it be okay for me to go through Funtiberry's edits to revert the negative ones. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't know what Star Mississippi thinks, but that is exactly what I would do if I had enough time and patience. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Quxyz @Phil Bridger apologies for the delay. No issue with that course of action should you decide to use your time for it. Star Mississippi 12:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

: He shows an unusual interest in ":simple:Akuma Saningong", deleted on the English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akuma Saningong. And he edited :commons:Category:Akuma Saningong as well. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the tip, @Moscow Connection. That suggests they may be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aniflower, going by the most recent deleted revisions of that article. I haven't looked at anything else though. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Vandalizing your declined unblock request? No talk page access for you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Kind of a small issue and pretty straightforward, but User:Kashingggz, who has been blocked for about 10 days [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashingggz&diff=prev&oldid=1286891712], has taken it upon themselves to "unblock" themselves and change @331dot's decline reason to an accept reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashingggz&diff=prev&oldid=1288183676]. Obviously, it's ineffective, but I did want to call attention to it due to the editing of an admin comment. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Talk page access revoked. Your notification to them was also removed in the vandalism cleanup, but since they can't reply to the notification it's no big loss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like their account is globally locked, but on the Simple English Wikipedia, they also "unblocked" themselves. I reverted their edit. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::They must have done that before the lock, as the lock prevents logging in to the account. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Randykitty}}

Randykitty has been using non-existent guidelines as a rationale for tagging and removing academic journals from lists. I noticed the problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282481519 here] and after reviewing their edit history it seems that is a wider problem.

Specifically they are citing WP:WTAF (an essay) to remove journal entries in lists: their rationale states:

• |reason=journals without an article should be removed per WP:WTAF [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282481519]
• edit summary: nothing to do wih redlinking, journal lists are for *notable* journals only (i.e., having an article) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282481301]

Nowhere in this essay does it state "journals without an article should be removed" or "journal lists are for *notable* journals only" The applicable guideline is WP:NLIST which refutes the above: {{tq|Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable}}; and WP:NJOURNAL: {{tq|These general rules-of-thumb do not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain information about non-notable journals}}

They have chosen not to respond to two editors that have brought these guidelines to their attention [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TimothyBlue#Journal_lists]. So here we are.

If Randykitty wants his opinion to be a guideline, they need to start RFCs and modify the two guidelines above. I agree with eliminating predatory journals (and there are none on the list), but using WP:WTAF as an excuse to remove any journal without an article and without discussion, especially when editors have objected is disruptive; adding fuel to the fire they engaged with a mini-edit war with another editor over these tags [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282464476], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282469865], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282481301], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282481301], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&diff=prev&oldid=1282484448]. I can find no attempt at WP:BRD in the above exchange.

I have attempted to solve this on my talk page and got a non-answer that addressed none of the points I made.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TimothyBlue#Journal_lists]. They did agree to leave the article I am concerned with alone List of Slavic studies journals [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimothyBlue&diff=prev&oldid=1287606056].

 // Timothy :: talk  14:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:As a disclaimer, I don't know much about the ANI process or what it is supposed to accomplish, but for the sake of comprehensiveness, the editor has employed WP:WTAF as a justification for de-redlinking rather extensively. Without going into more complex cases such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slavic_studies_journals&oldid=1287638899 this], where the "redlinks" are actually interlanguage links, he has cited "WP:WTAF" in the edit summary on: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_bioinformatics_journals&oldid=1286349225 2025-04-18], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_learned_societies&oldid=1275852115 2025-03-15], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_learned_societies&oldid=1280255186 2025-03-13], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_political_science_journals&oldid=1280074513 2025-03-12], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_history_journals&oldid=1279618858 2025-03-09a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_environmental_journals&oldid=1279616797 2025-03-09b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nursing_journals&oldid=1276064714 2025-02-16], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nursing_journals&oldid=1276064714 2025-02-15], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_journals&oldid=1274480032 2025-02-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1273482991 2025-02-02a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1273482399 2025-02-02b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1273482335 2025-02-02c], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1273482280 2025-02-02d], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_education_journals&oldid=1273030995 2025-01-31], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1272646198 2025-01-29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1271762737 2025-01-25], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1271352903 2025-01-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1268413878 2025-01-29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1268383461 2025-01-09], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1265831057 2024-12-28], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1263951940 2024-12-19], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_reviews_in_the_United_States&oldid=1263032361 2024-12-14], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1259841348 2024-11-27], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_textile_science_journals&oldid=1257562374 2024-11-15], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_women%27s_studies_journals&oldid=1256522566 2024-11-10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undergraduate_research_journal&oldid=1256178082 2024-11-08], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1255545539 2024-11-05], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_information_systems_journals&oldid=1254943298 2024-11-02], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1254539943 2024-10-31a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1254539747 2024-10-31b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1254539680 2024-10-31c], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1254303062 2024-10-30], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Elsevier_periodicals&oldid=1252890202 2024-10-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_professional_associations&oldid=1252424838 2024-10-21], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_relations_journals&oldid=1252263173 2024-10-20], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1244364479 2024-09-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mycology_journals&oldid=1244023964 2024-09-04], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1243886821 2024-09-03], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1242996215 2024-08-29], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_chemistry_journals&oldid=1242554787 2024-08-27], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1242324324 2024-08-26], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1242144423 2024-08-25], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1241318780 2024-08-20], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_humanities_journals&oldid=1237797976 2024-07-31], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1232914839 2024-07-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_journals&oldid=1231504962 2024-06-28], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1231312654 2024-06-27], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1230058115 2024-06-20], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1229566189 2024-06-17], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pharmacies&oldid=1228843182 2024-06-13a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1228842263 2024-06-13b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1227690072 2024-06-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1227395235 2024-06-05], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_environmental_journals&oldid=1227126321 2024-06-03], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_history_journals&oldid=1226054001 2024-05-28], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nursing_journals&oldid=1224352889 2024-05-17], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1223610300 2024-05-13], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_human_resource_management_associations&oldid=1220447086 2024-04-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Undergraduate_research_journal&oldid=1217736800 2024-04-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fluid_mechanics_journals&oldid=1215646992 2024-03-26], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_studies_journals&oldid=1213825761 2024-03-15a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1213816176 2024-03-15b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_studies_journals&oldid=1213670053 2024-03-14], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_social_science_journals&oldid=1213332529 2024-03-12], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_statistics_journals&oldid=1212775946 2024-03-09], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1212331403 2024-03-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scientific_journals&oldid=1212238380 2024-03-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_journals&oldid=1211869858 2024-03-04a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_reviews_in_the_United_States&oldid=1211869643 2024-03-04b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_systems_science_journals&oldid=1208408431 2024-02-17], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1203800848 2024-02-05], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dental_journals&oldid=1200820487 2024-01-30], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_journals&oldid=1198862720 2024-01-25], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Elsevier_periodicals&oldid=1197645909 2024-01-21] ... (a-i), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1196493535 2024-01-17], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1196103997 2024-01-16], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_earth_and_atmospheric_sciences_journals&oldid=1194707851 2024-01-10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_learned_societies&oldid=1189542025 2023-01-12] ... (e-f), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_environmental_journals&oldid=1188359780 2023-12-04] ... (a-c), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_botany_journals&oldid=1184421420 2023-11-10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_Law_Review&oldid=1183593251 2023-11-05] ... (a-c), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_entomology_journals&oldid=1182828091 2023-10-31], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_social_science_journals&oldid=1181313798 2023-10-22], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_education_journals&oldid=11811004912023-10-20], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_reviews_in_the_United_States&oldid=1178842984 2023-10-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_relations_journals&oldid=1178787689 2023-10-05], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mycology_journals&oldid=1178229022 2023-10-02], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_studies_journals&oldid=1177797748 2023-09-29a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_social_science_journals&oldid=1177797521 2023-09-29b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_reviews_in_the_United_States&oldid=1177678838 2023-09-28], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1177185721 2023-09-26a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1177155320 2023-09-26b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_chemistry_journals&oldid=1176616798 2023-09-23] ... (a-c), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_Court_of_Canada&oldid=1176060626 2023-09-19a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1176060333 2023-09-19b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1175614054 2023-09-16a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scientific_journals&oldid=1175613952 2023-09-16b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1175613887 2023-09-16c], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_reviews_in_the_United_States&oldid=1174029928 2023-09-05a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_history_journals&oldid=1173988247 2023-09-05b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1173948298 2023-09-05c],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_relations_journals&oldid=1171523481 2023-08-21], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_and_health_informatics_journals&oldid=1169193217 2023-08-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_relations_journals&oldid=1166553802 2023-07-22], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1165834913 2023-07-17a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1165834847 2023-07-17b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_forestry_journals&oldid=1163979125 2023-07-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1162193652 2023-06-27], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_anthropology_journals&oldid=1161462327 2023-06-22], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1160699156 2023-06-18], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1158346765 2023-06-03], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_computer_science_journals&oldid=1156306333 2023-05-22a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_earth_and_atmospheric_sciences_journals&oldid=1156306258 2023-05-22b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1155277470 2023-05-17], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_environmental_journals&oldid=1154558325 2023-05-13], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_political_science_journals&oldid=1154396229 2023-05-12], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1154138053 2023-05-10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1153866049 2023-05-08], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1153316836 2023-05-05], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dental_journals&oldid=1153130400 2023-05-04], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_law_journals&oldid=1152610503 2023-05-01], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pharmaceutical_sciences_journals&oldid=1150935412 2023-04-20], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_economics_journals&oldid=1150530161 2023-04-18], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1149770001 2023-04-14], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1148478703 2023-04-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1148017521 2023-04-03], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_psychology_journals&oldid=1147805853 2023-04-02], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1147576896 2023-03-31], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1146739506 2023-03-26], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_journals&oldid=1146567553 2023-03-25], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1145389644 2023-03-18], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_journals&oldid=1144465515 2023-03-13a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_journals&oldid=1144402411 2023-03-13b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_studies_journals&oldid=1144053965 2023-03-11], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1143708441 2023-03-09] ... (a-c), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Law_Institute&oldid=1143594820 2023-03-08], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1141813885 2023-02-26], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_studies_journals&oldid=1138399355 2023-02-09], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_political_science_journals&oldid=1138030172 2023-02-07], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1136835292 2023-02-01a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1136830335 2023-02-01b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_education_journals&oldid=1134289474 2023-01-17], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_history_journals&oldid=1132934909 2023-01-11], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-access_journals&oldid=1132800826 2023-01-10a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_women%27s_studies_journals&oldid=1132724726 2023-01-10b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_history_journals&oldid=1130857126 2023-01-01a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_history_journals&oldid=1130857096 2023-01-01b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1129839473 2022-12-27a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1129831336 2022-12-27b], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1128669496 2022-12-21], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1125913857 2022-12-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1125555738 2022-12-04], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_women%27s_studies_journals&oldid=1123201875 2022-11-22], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fluid_mechanics_journals&oldid=1121129169 2022-11-10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1118308612 2022-10-26], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1114786805 2022-10-08], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engineering_societies&oldid=1114414443 2022-10-06], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_philosophy_journals&oldid=1113920519 2022-10-03], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_medical_journals&oldid=1113515169 2022-10-01] ...... this goes back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerome_Kohl&diff=prev&oldid=553986809 this] 2013 dispute with Jerome Kohl (deceased). Ivan (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:A note, because I happened to just remove three redlinks from List of physics journals. There are a number of journals lists (mostly those organized by top level of discipline, such as that one) that specifically state that the list only contains those jounals with existing articles. That scope should be heeded. But as per existing guidelines that does not seem to automatically apply to all journal lists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Ivan (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

: Randykitty should cite WP:LSC instead of an essay. This is basically just a content dispute. If an informal consensus can't be found on list selection criteria, hold an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:The standard inclusion criteria are at WP:CSC, which is a guideline. I do not think journals are good candidates for a list that tries to be exhaustive, so using only notable examples is probably the way to go. Common practice is to interpret notability in that context as having an article, but there are some lists that merely require citations of enough sources that would justify creation of an article (personally, not a fan -- at that point just make a stub). Local consensus can decide which way to go, but links to the journal's official website, ISSNs, etc. don't get over that hurdle. Since lists of journals aren't terribly different from one another, a centralized RfC might be useful, but "list of notable examples" should probably be the default starting point unless there's consensus otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User|Baratiiman}} has falsely accused me of censorship on behalf of a foreign government after I reverted incoherent and WP:SYNTH material [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_of_Shahid_Rajaee_explosion&diff=prev&oldid=1288196402] added in part by them in Port of Shahid Rajaee explosion. They also made the same aspersions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_US%E2%80%93Iran_negotiations&diff=prev&oldid=1287679483] on 2025 US–Iran negotiations when they were in fact reverted for WP:SYNTH and POV editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_US%E2%80%93Iran_negotiations&diff=prev&oldid=1287684212]. They have been quite aggressive when other editors warn them or clean up articles they have made due to the volume of grammatical errors, WP:SYNTH, and questionable translation of Persian language sources and probable bias in topics relating to Iranian politics (namely a penchant to calling the incumbent government a regime), of which they became the subject of multiple threads on Talk:2024 Iranian presidential election for example, among other complaints and warnings on their talk page (See User talk:Baratiiman#Non encyclopedic edits for example). And they have also been blocked 4 times for improper behavior on Iran and Middle East related articles, with a final warning stating that they could be topic-banned if such behavior resumes. See User talk:Baratiiman#November 2023 (two same titles), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump_in_Pennsylvania/Archive_9#h-Trump_bashes_Facebook_apologizes_Google_search_censors-20240730152500] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#Badly-written edits, WP:CIR issues and WP:OR by Baratiiman and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:April_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel/Archive_1#h-Reason_for_censors-20240415062700 for more unfounded accusations of Censorship. Plus this contradictory notice on Talk:2025 US–Iran negotiations#AI generated?. Borgenland (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:In fairness, it is an authoritarian regime. That the theocrats have been in power for nearly fifty years doesn't change that. That being said, Baratiiman's behavior generally has been out of line. Ravenswing 06:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am aware of the nuances of that and am uncertainly no fan, unlike what said user baselessly accuses me of. However, I am concerned over the frequency of them using the word to repetitively refer to the IRI in all occasions without variance, particularly given issues over their interpretation and translation of sources and stating ad verbatim from sometimes questionable references in Wikivoice. I am still trying to find the exact diff, but I recall them using the word bash instead of criticize in one occasion in Wikivoice over a similar topic. As such, I believe that given the issues and behavior raised, particularly such politically-charged insinuations against me and other editors, I am not confident that they can be trusted to edit competently and impartially on such a sensitive topic. If it is appropriate to mention here, I have heard that they had been banned/blocked previously from Persian wikipedia, the exact reasons for which may be related here if I'm not mistaken. Borgenland (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking back on previous revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1288136922] that I cut for WP:SYNTH, it appears that they reverted and planted additional info and tried to frame me on WP:CENSOR to make it look that I covered up the Ayatollah’s involvement. Nevertheless I still reverted it on grounds of incoherency. Borgenland (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I do see hints of a CIR issue in your supplied diffs (with particular concerns about the tone of their edit summaries, and their extremely tenuous capacity with English altogether), but one thing that we can't really give too much weight to is vague implications of issues on other projects. I'm sure you'll understand the inherent issue with assessing the nature of conduct and community response on another project, with it's own rules and editorial culture, all conducted in a different language. For our purposes here, such accusations are all a bunch of hearsay, with very low direct relevance to question of violation of this project's policies, even if we can establish the existence of a sanction elsewhere. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Update: They inserted and reverted a section in Isfahan that was removed on grounds of WP:UNDUE. On reading the cited article, I found no mention of Chinese cameras [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=prev&oldid=1288266499] in cited source, raising more concerns of WP:SYNTH. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::After which they proceeded to file an RFP on dubious grounds of intensive vandalism by just one IP in the past few weeks, despite the IP in question having a valid reason stated in the edit summary. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1288267925] Borgenland (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::You're not wrong, but it feels like you're starting to over-egg the pudding, if I am honest. Yes, the source lacks a mention of Chinese involvement, but it does support all of the rest of the claim added (whether or not that particular source is an WP:RS and whether it constitutes enough WP:weight for that amount of content in that particular article is another question however). That said, it is pretty easy to find literally hundreds of high quality RS discussing the involvement of Chinese firms in Iranian surveillance schemes. So you're also correct that the issue here would be one of SYNTH (specifically, suggesting because Chinese technology is widely known to have been utilized in other Iranian surveillance schemes, that it must be in this one, without providing a source which actually makes or at least speculates about such a link).{{pb}} So I do see your concern, but I'd strongly recommend to you that you pull back a little and let other community members look in to the issues here and comment, rather than running a real-time play-by-play on every halfway problematic edit by this user. You're going to overwhelm potential respondents with a deluge of minor problems and steal focus from the deeper issues that you caught with your initial report, is my concern. I mean, by all means, keep things updated if there are ongoing issues. But at this moment in time, 5 of the 8 comments and 2/3 of the words in this thread are yours, so maybe wait for some more engagement before providing further updates, unless something super egregious requiring urgent action transpires. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=With a side of racism to boot. IP blocked and article semiprotected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{IP|12.74.71.104}} has been making unconstructive edits to DDG (rapper) in an apparent attempt to "prep" it for a video. When I discussed this with them, they admitted they were part of his media team in violation of WP:COI. They then added that DDG was apparently threatening their job if the unconstructive edits were not made by a certain time. I brought up the possibility of using inspect element to feign vandalism instead of actually making unconstructive edits if it was needed for a project, but this was turned down: "He said he wants it to show for anybody who looks it up, giving that inspect element is only for one person to view. Also Epic records is pressuring me to get it done as well!" This is in clear violation of WP:BOSS. A while later, they also said that if we did not let the unconstructive edits stand for eight days, then DDG would make an expose video on us and have his fan base "attack" us. This is grounds for at least an immediate block per WP:SOS as it is unclear what they meant by "attack". Gommeh _(t/c) 18:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tagging the other people that were involved in the discussion on their talk page: @Toast1454 @Perfect4th @Skywatcher68 @Seefooddiet and the blocking admin @Ponyo. If there's anyone I missed feel free to add them. Gommeh _(t/c) 18:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like {{IP|2600:382:1231:935F:2090:3503:A5F4:2C5}} may also need to be blocked - they did not make threats but are making the same type of edits to DDG's page in violation of WP:BOSS. Gommeh _(t/c) 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is just trolling. I've semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Given a month's sit-down to think about what they've done and how to be better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Dominic3203}}

A play in three acts:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus&diff=prev&oldid=1285405508 Original edit] 13 April,
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic3203&diff=prev&oldid=1287675348 message explaining the error] 27 April,
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus&diff=prev&oldid=1288133688 makes the same edit] 30 April without having responded.

Their user-talk has plenty of other people pointing out plenty of other problems with their edits; the previous ANI about them was allowed to drift away but probably should have resulted in sanctions. I request an indefinite block to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|JayBeeEll}}, I am not comfortable with an indefinite block at this time, especially since they have not edited since your April 27 warning. So, I have blocked them for one month in the hope that it will bring this behavior to a permanent stop. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Cullen328}} Thank you, that seems reasonable. FWIW, while it is true that they have not made any edits using their account since April 27, but they have used Citation bot several hundred times in that interval, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Citation+bot&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2025-04-27&end=2025-04-30&limit=5000]. Actually that raises a question: does being blocked prevent someone from using Citation bot? --JBL (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe not, since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_education&diff=prev&oldid=1288163684 this edit] seems to be several minutes after your block (?). If not, what's the correct way to prevent someone from using Citation bot? --JBL (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Now clearly not, given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoidal_category&diff=prev&oldid=1288167915]. Is it possible to put a stop to this? --JBL (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|JayBeeEll}}, on that question, I will have to defer to editors with a deeper technical understanding of the operation of CitationBot than I have (which is negligible). This matter was discussed at last October's ANI thread and there was no definitive conclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is necessary that it be possible for people who are not competent to operate power tools to be blocked from operating power tools. Blocking Citation bot itself would be sufficient, I think, but I hope it is not the only way to do this. It may not be necessary, though: on User talk:Citation bot, User:AManWithNoPlan writes that the continuing edits are merely from queued-up jobs and that the block should stop any more edits being queued. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Given that Dominic3203's last edit to go through was at 11:04 UTC this morning and that Dominic3203 filed a(n astonishingly poor) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic3203&diff=prev&oldid=1288241036 unblock request] (since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic3203&diff=next&oldid=1288242287 declined] by Yamla) at 11:30 UTC, it does seem that AManWithNoPlan's comment must be correct. --JBL (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

In the Armorial of Albania article, the Cernovichio paragraph, which is well-sourced, was entirely removed from the "Feudal lords" section by users {{Ping|Shadow4ya}} and {{Ping|Griboski}}. Their argument is that the content is not original research (?) and the sources are not credible. Even if this were the case, which it is not as I wrote the piece myself and this can be easily verified through a plagiarism checker, concerning the latter, you don't simply remove the whole paragraph in its entirety. The standard practice, for any editor, is to add a "better source needed" template.

The paragraph is relevant to the article, as the Cernovichio were a medieval family that ruled parts of northern Albania and were linked genealogically to at least five other Albanian noble families. Kj1595 (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1288097184 The edit in question]: What we are saying is that it's WP:OR, which is not allowed. The first part of the initial paragraph you added is unsourced and the rest is cited to 1584, 1662, 1780 WP:PRIMARY sources and sources from 1878 and 1913. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. --Griboski (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kj1595, what is the source for {{tq|The Cernovichio were a noble family of feudal lords that ruled over the territory in what is now southern Montenegro and northern Albania, during the 14th century. They formed blood ties through marriage with several prominent Albanian families of the time, namely the Zaharia, Kastrioti, Arianiti, Thopia and Zaguri.}}? -- asilvering (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's in the paragraph. I can't reference every sentence. Müntz specifically notes the great lord Johanni Cernovich of Albania. Their family tree is easily verifiable in the article of the said family. Kj1595 (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Griboski, the opening sentence of the paragraph is a summarized entry of what follows. But if you are actually disputing that the Cernovichio did not rule parts of the territories in present-day Southern Montenegro and Northern Albania, add the "better source needed" template and don't just remove the entire paragraph. Kj1595 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Kj1595, the only source in that paragraph is Francus, Demetrius (1584). Gli Illustri et gloriosi gesti, et vittoriose imprese fatte contra Turchi; dal Sign. Giorgio Castriotto detto Scanderbeg. National Library of Naples: presso Altobello Salicato alla libraria della Fortezza. p. 31. I'm assuming that's not the source for the sentences I quoted. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Müntz specifically identifies Johanni Cernovich as Lord of Albania. Kj1595 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That does not verify the sentences I am asking about. Can you answer my question, please? -- asilvering (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I added a source: Men of Empire by Monique O'Connell (p.62) http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/23232/1/31.%20%20Monique_O%27Connell%5D_Men_of_Empire_Power_and_Negot%28BookFi%29.pdf Kj1595 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not only are they not enjoined from removing your edit -- from where do you get the notion that they're not allowed to do that? -- you don't even enjoy consensus for your POV on the article's talk page. This is a pure content dispute, it doesn't remotely belong on ANI (what about this is an "urgent incident" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problem"?), and taking it here because you're not getting your way is trout slap-worthy. If you cannot get consensus for your POV on the talk page, let it go. Ravenswing 04:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Both these users are vandalizing the article by removing sourced content. But thank you anyway for your 'constructive' input. Kj1595 (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you really think that characterizing edits you don't like as "vandalism" is helping your case any? Ravenswing 05:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I opened a discussion in the article's talk page, last year. Going back and forth with the user in question, I made changes to the paragraph to present a more nuanced viewpoint. A year later, same user comes back and decides to erase the entire paragraph altogether. And brought another user along to assist. What do you call that? Blatantly and repeatedly removing sourced content, that as you say, did not even receive general consensus in the talk page for removal? Kj1595 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Kj1595}} WP:NOTVAND. Accusing other editors of vandalism when they are not vandalizing is a personal attack. Personal attacks are violations of policy. Also, there is no requirement to use {{tl|better source needed}}; any disputed content can be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How can one dispute sourced content? Are you disputing the source? Kj1595 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Erm ... if you're truly under the impression that an edit becomes sacrosanct just out of the mere existence of a source? Sources can and are routinely impeached for inaccuracy, bias or being out of date. A reading of the source might show that it does not, in fact, support the assertions of the statement sourced. The source might itself base its assertions on an unreliable source. A source might hold to a discredited, fringe or heavily outvoted POV that doesn't match up with the consensus of thought in that field. A source might be sponsored or primary. And so on and so forth. Ravenswing 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::According to that logic, the onus is on the user to provide arguments that the source in question is bias, outdated or disputed. The source I provided comes from The Johns Hopkins University Press and was published in 2009. Kj1595 (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:ONUS may be informative for you: {{tqq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}} (emphasis mine). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

BTW, Kj1595 has now made 5 6 reverts in the article in less than 24 hours. --Griboski (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am simply restoring sourced content back to the article. Kj1595 (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is all perplexing to me. Here we have a case of specific user(s) arbitrarily removing content provided by modern-day sources, they don't offer any argument for the source in question not being credible or disputable, yet the user who published the content is in the wrong and is being disruptive. I'm trying to make sense of all this. Kj1595 (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. You've not just broken it you've roared past it. You're pblocked from articlespace for 24 hours accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So, I get blocked but the users who are removing sourced content from the article can do as they please? This is precisely why I brought this to your attention and you are penalizing me? Kj1595 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You've been a registered user since 2012 and you have over 50,000 edits: you should know by now that edit warring is not the solution to a content dispute. You made five reverts ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1288087136], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1288097184], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1288197312], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1288212298], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armorial_of_Albania&diff=prev&oldid=1288213378]) in the space of under 24 hours, and did not respond to the reopening of the the discussion on Talk:Armorial of Albania. Regardless of how other people are behaving, this is not how disputes on Wikipedia are meant to be resolved and you are clearly experienced enough to be expected to know this.

:::::You are also experienced enough that you should know that your behaviour can be scrutinised if you make a report at ANI. Continuing to edit war {{em|after making this report}} was a poor idea. (And, frankly, your responses in this thread are not likely to garner you all that much sympathy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Kj1595-20250501050500-Ravenswing-20250501045100 this sort of sarcasm] to users disagreeing with you does not give a great impression.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Alright. The issue here lies in the fact that the Cernovichio family description seems rather ambiguous in that it may give the impression to the general reader as it being an Albanian family. I will have to rewrite it differently from my end and will also include a later coat of arms the family uses which featers the golden eagle. Kj1595 (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Honestly, I'd be expecting these behaviors and arguments from a first-month newbie, not a veteran of over ten years. You know -- or you ought to -- that WP:3RR is a red line, and that editors who violate it are liable to being blocked, however "right" you think you are. You know -- or you ought to -- that ANY editor's conduct can be scrutinized at ANI, regardless of what you'd prefer us to talk about. You know -- or you ought to -- that it is not making an edit that requires obtaining consensus, but a contested edit that does. Stop shifting the goalposts every time someone responds to your latest statement, and drop the stick. Ravenswing 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I understand it and acknowledge my mistake. Thing is I don't often get involved in warring edits because I usually avoid history related topics so I needed to be reminded of the 3 revert rule. Unfortunately, the Armorial project and medieval history are interconnected so I got sucked into this discussion, inadvertently. But I will rework the paragraph in the most neutral way I can. My mistake was focusing on the ethnic origin rather than the members of the family which I have done with pretty much all other paragraphs. Kj1595 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Where do you get "Cernovichio" from? The Crnojević noble family is Crnojević in Montenegrin/Serbian and anglicized as Cernovich, like in the O'Connell book you cited. You keep calling it "Cernovichio" (in Italian I'm assuming) every single time; a term you appeared to have made up using those primary Italian sources from the middle ages. --Griboski (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That, however, is a content question better addressed on the appropriate talk pages. Ravenswing 23:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Content dispute|1=ANI is the refuge of last resort, not the first, and does not adjuicate content. Discuss this as mentioned by Cullen328. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Vietnam is set to make a large number of changes to its administrative divisions. In particular, they will reduce the number of provinces by half and get rid of the second-level division (List of districts of Vietnam) and merge a bunch of the third-level units (Commune-level subdivisions (Vietnam)). These changes require a change in the constitution. They are still at the proposal stage and the government just published the proposed changes, slated to take effect in July if everything goes according to schedule. User:JIlQIM has been making disruptive changes to the related articles, jumping the gun as if these changes are fait accompli. Wikipedia can't predict the future and their edits should be reverted. DHN (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|DHN}}, this is a commonplace content dispute. Efforts should be made to resolve it through discussion with {{u|JIlQIM}}. If that doesn't work, then use other forms of dispute resolution instead of immediately reporting the editor to ANI (which does not resolve content disputes). Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Update: now blocked for continued whining, edit warring, and logged-out editing. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Rangeblock led to IP's ire. IP's ire led to rangeblock without TPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|75.166.77.98}}

See Special:Permalink/1288240259, Special:Diff/1288245132, and Special:Diff/1288245738. Please revoke user talk page editing privileges from this user. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is an IP that's already been blocked for block evasion. Presumably, they're mad about that. I'll revoke TPA on that block. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{Userlinks|Dustfreeworld}}

Background: On 9 February, Dustfreeworld closed the ANI discussion "Non-neutral paid editor" in Special:Diff/1274903292. Beginning on 11 February, {{u|Femke}} and three other editors challenged the closure on Dustfreeworld's user talk page {{small|(permalink)}} on the grounds that the closure was a supervote, and Dustfreeworld declined to amend their closure at that time. Femke {{u|Clayoquot}} escalated the closure review to AN on 19 February, and the emerging consensus in the AN discussion (which I participated in) was that the closure should be overturned. Dustfreeworld undid their closure on 20 February.

Since then, Dustfreeworld has edited several project-space pages:

{{cot|Wikipedia:POV railroad}}

• Wikipedia:POV railroad: Dustfreeworld edit warred to include disputed content into this essay against the talk page consensus shown in {{slink|Wikipedia talk:POV railroad#Recent addition}}. The content additions were also challenged on Dustfreeworld's user talk page {{small|(permalink)}}.
• 1 March: Dustfreeworld added advice such as {{xt|"Beg for forgiveness. Forget about your self-esteem. You are nothing. If even that fails and you are punished, be prepared that, 1) the batch of shame will be with you forever"}} and {{xt|"Leave this place forever and never come back."}}
• 3 March: The changes were reverted by {{u|Sweet6970}}.
• 4 March: Dustfreeworld partially restored the content, including the {{xt|"Beg for forgiveness"}} and {{xt|"Leave this place forever and never come back"}} advice.
• 4 March: The change was reverted by {{u|Bon courage}}.
• 23 April: Dustfreeworld restored the content with minor changes, including the {{xt|"Beg for forgiveness"}} and {{xt|"Leave this place forever and never come back"}} advice.
• 23 April: The change was reverted by Femke.
• 23 April: Dustfreeworld restored the content, including the {{xt|"Beg for forgiveness"}} and {{xt|"Leave this place forever and never come back"}} advice.
• 24 April: Dustfreeworld added the sentence {{xt|"Some POV railroaders may even be Wikipedian in residence or professionals in their field."}}
• 25 April: Dustfreeworld changed {{!xt|"Beg for forgiveness"}} to {{xt|"Never beg for forgiveness"}}.
• 26 April: On the essay's talk page, Dustfreeworld noted that Femke was the supporter of a Wikimedian in residence and accused Femke of having a conflict of interest.
• 28 April: I reverted Dustfreeworld's recent additions and expressed my concerns on the talk page.
• 28 April: Dustfreeworld restored most of the content, including {{xt|"Never beg for forgiveness"}} and {{xt|"Some POV railroaders may even be Wikipedian in residence or professionals in their field."}}

{{cob}}

{{cot|Wikipedia:Tendentious editing}}

• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: Dustfreeworld repeatedly edited the explanatory essay in a way that effectively weakened its "Righting great wrongs" section. See also the essay talk page discussion and user talk page discussion.
• 13 March: In the "Righting great wrongs" section, Dustfreeworld added the subheading {{xt|"Sometimes you should right the wrongs"}}.
• 13 March: The addition was reverted by {{u|Jc37}}.
• 13 March: At the same location, Dustfreeworld added the subheading {{xt|"However, please do update the articles when ..."}}
• 13 March: The addition was reverted by {{u|Remsense}}.
• 14 March: Dustfreeworld added the sentence {{xt|"See Wikipedia:We are absolutely here to right great wrongs."}}
• 14 March: The addition was reverted by Remsense.

{{cob}}

{{cot|Wikipedia:Gaming the system}}

• Wikipedia:Gaming the system: On 1 March, Dustfreeworld listed the use of the {{tl|DNAU}} (do not archive until) template in the guideline as an example of gaming the system. Previously, {{u|Clayoquot}} added {{tl|DNAU}} to the "Non-neutral paid editor" ANI discussion on 20 February and disclosed this in the discussion. The guideline change was reverted on 12 March by an IP editor with the rationale {{xt|"Removing POINTY example. Using a DNAU tag on a discussion awaiting closure is fine, even if there was an earlier close overturned by close review."}}

{{cob}}

In my view, the above editing pattern is disruptive. Dustfreeworld should be warned that edit warring is not acceptable even when the disputed content is repeatedly reinstated in a different form that conveys a substantially similar meaning. Additionally, Dustfreeworld should be warned that grudges should not be inserted into project-space pages, especially the apparent slight against Femke in the {{!xt|"Some POV railroaders may even be Wikipedian in residence or professionals in their field"}} comment. — Newslinger talk 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC) {{small|Edited to make corrections raised by Clayoquot and by Femke. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)}}

• Thanks for pinging. I want to add for my part in incident #2 that it's one of those disagreements where I could've communicated my position more clearly as well—so to whatever degree it takes two to tango, I helped drag things out as least some there. I think DFW is a mercurial and ultimately positive contributor in many instances, and I don't have anything else in the way of analysis or concerns to raise here for the moment, or any commentary on other incidents. Remsense ‥ 论 17:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• It's not just Project space. Unfortunately, {{u|Dustfreeworld}} evidently treats Wikipedia editing as a meta-medium for self-expression in some psychodrama in which they are cast as the martyred hero fighting against a tyrannical community evidently seems to edit in a WP:POINTY fashion as a way of commenting on particular disputes or about Wikipedia in general. This also bleeds into Article space, for example I recall this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1214341944] odd edit following some perceived dislotyalty by another editor. Or taken an edit like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1234831838 this]. I don't think it's good for them, or the wider Project, if this is allowed to continue. I note also that although this user is TBAN'd[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1227566648] from human health, they continue to edit on health effects of pollution e.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_pollution_in_Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=1286975501] Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC); amended Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• : This could have been written much more kindly. Let's keep in mind we're all trying to improve Wikipedia here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• : {{u|Bon courage}}, I would encourage you to strike the second sentence of your comment and replace it with language that focuses more on the actions and less on the editor personally. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Done. Bon courage (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Quick response here (got visitors). I believe DFW is a decent editor filling a gap in editing. However, there's more examples of TBAN breaking: for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Air_pollution#c-Dustfreeworld-20250201050200-Femke-20250120090900 here] DFW objects to an edit of mine moving content on the effect of air pollution on IVF to a subarticle [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_pollution&diff=prev&oldid=1271769874 ], and I believe they were WP:LOUTSOCKING in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_pollution&diff=prev&oldid=1268540314] (other contributions overlap with DFW's interest around China, dust exposure etc). Quick correction: I'm not a Wikimedian in Residence, but I do support a WiR as part of my job; the admin/professional is where one might assume DFW might have me in mind. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• : Corrected, thank you. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• The opening complaint already includes things that happened at WP:TE. I'll just add that I was there for what is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing#WP:YESRGW, and, although the editor ultimately backed down, there was some edit warring and it did feel rather clueless to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• :Unfortunately this is a very worrying pattern that must be nipped in the bud. Project space pages are often used to imply consensus or policy (even when they shouldn't be, especially essays.) Editing them in the manner shown above sets a very bad precedence, {{em|especially}} the WP:TE and WP:GAME edit. These seem to me like attempts to astroturf policy to support their content disputes. wound theology◈ 07:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#User:Dustfreeworld_and_CIR a previous ANI] involving this user displayed similar issues of WP:BATTLEGROUND and modifying longstanding essays to suit their novel interpretations of policy. I would like to hear their response to see how things have changed. If no response is forthcoming, some sanction would still be needed. I don't think this should be archived without further action. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• The WP:POINTY editing of project spaces is indeed worrying. What's an immediate concern though is the violation of the AE topic ban. I've blocked them for two weeks for the violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Aaaand blocked by Fathoms Below. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|Jonasiosur}}

Ths less than one hour old account s ether an LTA/sock opr troll or both; doesn't really matter. Ther edits are not quite blatant enough for AIV though. But so far, in that last hour, they've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_2025_Singaporean_general_election&action=history edit warred to close] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2025 Singaporean general election, (and on the (Talk:Results of the 2025 Singaporean general election: Revision history relevant talk page) and abused edit-summaries, à la "Stop edit warring troll". Also edit warred over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Polansky&action=history Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2025 Singaporean general election another AfD]. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:They also sent {{tl|uw-block}} to @Sirfurboy: special:Diff/1288439949 Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|StarchildSF}}

This user User:StarchildSF has become very disruptive by persistently making non-constructive edits on the pages of Ibrahim Traoré, Thomas Sankara, Leopoldo Galtieri, and Idi Amin. The user's edits have no basis, and cites AI-generated references as proof when that goes against Wikipedia's policy of WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:AI. A few days ago, I suggested that the user bring their case to a talk page discussion on Ibrahim Traoré's article in order for a consensus to be reached. However, the user did not substantiate their argument when citing ChatGPT as a source—a tool widely recognized as unreliable and explicitly discouraged on Wikipedia. Furthermore, multiple editors have raised objections to this user's edits and arguments—both on talk pages and in edit summaries—finding them redundant. Despite these concerns, the user has persisted in reverting pages to their preferred versions without addressing the feedback, and their edits and behavior fall under WP:IDHT. Hamasien (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's a whole hot edit war going on here across multiple pages about the use of 'served' over 'held office' and I am without words. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Exactly, and the the reasoning for "served as" was already explained on the talk page, as the the word is neutral and can be used for leaders who usurped power (i.e., via a coup d'etat, etc) instead of getting elected. Furthermore, multiple users have disagreed and objected to StarchildSF's edits and arguments, but the user refuses to acknowledge the point and keeps reverting to their preferred versions. Hamasien (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not sure how you're agreeing here - you were warring just as much over a madly semantic point... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, I was agreeing with your point that the edit dispute turned into a big edit war. Hamasien (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also noting this non-constructive WP:FORUM on a separate TP thread. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibrahim_Traoré&diff=prev&oldid=1288093812]. Borgenland (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's an overreach to describe the mainspace edits as "nonconstructive", and it's just as disruptive to edit war in favor of "served" as it is to edit war in favor of "held office". Both here and at Talk:Ibrahim Traoré, Hamasien has referred to SSF "citing of ChatGPT"/"citing an AI-generated source", which might erroneously be interpreted as saying that SSF has cited AI sources in mainspace, which is not the case. I'd warn all parties to stop edit warring and continue the talk page discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think you have overlooked other editors like Applodion, who was also in the talk page discussion and strongly objected to SSF's argument and case. Furthermore, you can see users like Mason7512 on Thomas Sankara's edit page history section who also objected to SSF's case–and this is where he cited ChatGPT as a source. Hamasien (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"he cited ChatGPT as a source", not really. We're very concerned about citing ChatGPT as a source in articles, so if that's not what's happening (it's not), it would be helpful if you wouldn't phrase it this way. I do see other editors objecting to SSF's edits. It's clear that those discussions are young and thus far inconclusive, so I'd reiterate that no one should be edit warring. It's possible you're thinking something like "me and one other person disagree with SSF, so it's ok for me to revert them repeatedly". I hope that's not what you're thinking, and if it is, you should reconsider. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I must say that I find myself in agreement with StarchildSF on the content issue. Leaders such as Idi Amin served nobody other than themselves. Of course I don't agree with either StarchildSF or Hamasien on edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree on the content, and your reasoning. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{hat|1=WP:DENY The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Atop|Bye.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Slayjames}}

This user has never explained any of their edits, and a large proportion of them have been reverted. Many that haven't been reverted probably should be. The user does not seem to have engaged with any concerns about their editing. 94.119.32.14 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:No diffs at all to support your claims. I'm thinking the OP is WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::As am I. 94.119.32.0/28 blocked for yet another year. Favonian (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

{{hab}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| result = Blocked on suspicion of unauthorized bot use. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|MecsicoAmByth}}

What this user is doing should be investigated. This user has an obvious political bias and is purposely vandalising articles as result. Look at the user's contributions, most are reverted and are evidently not helpful, especially in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chad_Gable&diff=prev&oldid=1288593794 my] case, it was unhelpful and unconstructive. This needs to be looked into as I bet it breaks loads of Wikipedia's rules. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Lemonademan22 They aren't vandalizing anything. The name is Gulf of Mexico. Now, this does seem to be a bot account that hasn't gained authorization so it should be blocked for that. EntireEffectiveGov (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• (post-closure non-admin comment) As an aside, "Mecsico am byth" is Welsh for "Mexico forever". Narky Blert (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|reason=To the astonishment of none, LowerUpperCase is CU blocked. Acroterion (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|LowerUpperCase}}

A new editor - well, "new", their user page says they have been an IP editor for four years - made major refactorings to multiple other users' comments here on ANI in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288518223 this edit]. I've reverted them, I believe, and have warned the user, but thought (a) it would be useful to notify other users who may have missed this significant refactoring (and indeed inverting the meaning of several of the comments), and (b) request that LowerUpperCase provide an explanation of why they thought these refactorings were appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging the editors whose edits were refactored: {{ping|Phil Bridger}} {{ping|Boynamedsue}} {{ping|Simonm223}} {{ping|King Lobclaw}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's a very strange thing to do. Simonm223 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unsure as to the point of asking LowerUpperCase for an explanation. Does it matter one way or another? You've told them that it isn't allowed, and their only acceptable response is that they're sorry and they won't do it again. Ravenswing 13:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you hear the sound of twisted contortions coming from the London area that's me trying to think of a reasonable excuse for such an edit. I've come up blank so far. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{small|It could also be me in my Saturday yoga class... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::::{{small|I've recently started doing yoga on Tuesdays and so far the only effect has been that I have aches in muscles that I previously didn't know existed. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::The point was because honestly I had no clue as to why they did that, and wanted to know what possessed them to do so. The only thing I could think of is that they were in fact the IPv4 editor who was the OP IP in question in that thread... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::The old "I previously edited as an IP", works every time. More seriously, they seem to want to work in CTOP areas (or, politics generally). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Eh, I previously edited as an IP. For just a few months. Then I thought, hey now, wouldn't this be a lot easier if I registered? Twenty years ago now. Ravenswing 14:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And if your frst logged-in edits were to refactor other editors on the most visible noticeboard en.wp has, then I accept your comparison. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And even more so if you then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1288572566&oldid=1288572055&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents edit]-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1288573178&oldid=1288572963&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents warred] over yet another ANI thread. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|status=Bucksgone|1=TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Could an Admin please revoke this user's Talk page access as this user is mis using his talk page.

Thanks

Untamed1910 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've done so now. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| status = TPA revoked

| result = By {{noping|Sdrqaz}} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|Grabsurer}}

This user is misusing their talk page while blocked (Special:Diff/1288502769). Please remove talk page access from this user. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Nearly a month ago I happened to come across a few articles on Coptic topics and noticed systemic WP:NPOV fails across the board, rooted in an ethnonationalist narrative (also invoking sectarian or theologically biased phrasing), and quickly began working on improving these along the line of what I usually do for various Egyptian topics. I also noticed that almost all of them, without fail, had been introduced by @Epenkimi, over the course of a few months.

It didn't take long for the user to begin reverting comprehensive reformulations in full, only to reintroduce a volume of new, problematic material on top of the disputed version in combination with the blanket revert ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287655245&oldid=1287505275 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287791511&oldid=1287680588 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1282853386&oldid=1282456536 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1282949589&oldid=1282925895 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=1283040341&oldid=1282977579 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_Egypt&diff=1282750815&oldid=1282446034 6]). It is a behavioral pattern that compounded the editorial burden, requiring not only the rehashing of previously addressed concerns, but also the review and correction of fresh additions that inherited and amplified earlier problems, effectively nullifying prior improvements and the effort that went into them. I can’t say for certain whether this was being done deliberately to complicate these efforts, but the editing pattern certainly suggests that possibility.

This began a protracted dispute in the main Copts article, marked by stalling with promises of compromise that ultimately served only to repackage the same problematic content in slightly different language. It was a never-ending, circular discussion. In this process the user was suspected of using a sockpuppet in attempt to manufacture consensus, according to a sockpuppet investigation. In addition to the dialogue with the user I dedicated many hours to improving the issues in these articles by going through and reformulating large bodies of text, including drafting a detailed roadmap on the Talk:Copts page to guide constructive revision. Unfortunately, that effort was neither acknowledged nor substantively engaged with by the user. I must admit to feeling a tinge of frustration and hopelessness whenever I attempted to approach this with an assumption of good faith. My initial outreach was cordial and collaborative: I left a constructive message on the user's talk page and spent weeks engaged in sustained dialogue, with nearly a hundred messages during the RfC for issue 1 alone (out of a dozen). Yet not a single point of consensus was achieved with the user, despite repeated efforts to clarify, compromise, and align content with established policies.

After the main dispute in the Copts article calmed down, with consensus reached for the roadmap introduced on the talk page (with other editors who were invited to weigh in through an RfC, 3O and a noticeboard post), it recently spilled over into the Coptic identity article where the user @Epenkimi had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&action=history introducing] the exact same content and narrative. When I addressed this on the basis of the consensus reached in the other article he went around referring to my edits as vandalism ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coptic_identity&diff=prev&oldid=1287681804 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=1287682851 2] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=prev&oldid=1287682530 3]). I then proceeded to list the dispute on WP:NPOVN for broader input on the general issue, and after the user faced objections from multiple other editors the user threw a tantrum on the talk page and the noticeboard, and then went into self-imposed Wiki-exile, but not without implicating me in his victimhood narrative on his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Epenkimi&diff=prev&oldid=1288042290 user page]. I don't appreciate this mischaracterization of my effort to improve these articles, and frankly I'm just generally frustrated at this point with this user's tone and childish conduct.

I have discussed this with two other admins, one of whom is involved in the dispute itself, and both of them recommended ANI for broader input.--Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 16:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Given Epenkimi's combative attitude in the face of their persistent, flagrant failures to observe NPOV, I think it would be appropriate for the community to impose an indefinite topic-ban from Copts, broadly construed, and for their user page to be blanked as an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's resources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I blanked their userpage under WP:IAR as it is essentially harassment. I will not make any further edits to the userpage. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's not ignoring rules, just enforcing the user page guideline (WP:UP#POLEMIC). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|Turnopoems}} I was on the fence about blanking that user page myself and thank {{u|LakesideMiners}} for doing that. Thank you to {{u|ToBeFree}} as well for linking POLEMIC. I've done the other thing I was on the fence about and revdel'd RD2 in the same spirit given how POLEMIC was applied. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I wasn't aware of polemic

::::Thank you for making me aware of that! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I concur with {{u|Rosguill}} in terms of a topic ban being imposed as a suitable sanction to apply here. While the user has stated that they've quit Wikipedia, I think that given the conduct that has occurred having one in place would be a reasonable precaution to avoid future issues. Should further aspersions occur, I would support either an interaction ban or just outright blocking. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have edited the Coptic article and have seen the article change ways by flipping from one side to the other. After further reading through the link diffs, I agree with TheSandDoctor in a TBAN. The editor seems like he just wants to improve the article but doesn't understand Wikipedia policies well. LowerUpperCase (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Flavie3025}}
• {{articlelinks|New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park}}

I don't know what's going on with recently registered editor Flavie3025 but I just reverted copyrighted promotional content for a second time.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Given them a warning template. We'll see what they do next. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Without a doubt this is a COI account and likely WP:BOSS. I think a block should just be imposed, waiting really only prolongs the pain. LowerUpperCase (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Vh bhai ke sath ja}}

Could an Admin please block this user due to reverted edit page. Thanks 124.104.16.92 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:This was removed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288518223 this edit]. I have restored it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|TikarPeople}}
• {{articlelinks|Tikar people}}

@TikarPeople has been engaged in editing warring with me and another editor at Tikar people, and refused to engage with the discussion at the page talk and warning. They are trying to include information that are not supported by sources as we explained to them in edit summary and the page talk. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Username also sounds like a COI in itself. Borgenland (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have blocked {{u|TikarPeople}} for one month for a combination of edit warring and a username violation. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Will an extension be necessary if they retain the username after said time period? Borgenland (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In that case, {{u|Borgenland}}, I would issue a username soft block. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Let’s when they are back if they are going to cool down or continue with this. We had an account (@Skets33) who tormented us for months and did similar things months ago but then stopped. Probably both accounts belong to the same person. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|tangentially related at best}}

::How is the username a COI? They’re not pretending to be someone, and if they are Tikar they’re obv allowed to edit Tikar articles. I don’t think it implies they’re sharing the account with other people at all. That being said, their edits could just get them indeffed anyway. Worth opening an SPI re Skets33 Kowal2701 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::They are certainly allowed to edit it, but they would need to declare a COI (which they have not done) since their username implies some sort of relation between them and the article subject. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don’t agree w that, that policy was intended for biographies or businesses etc., not ethnic groups Kowal2701 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is not about interpretation, it is about the literal meaning. The policy is for every article on wikipedia.

:::::If there is a Notable relationship between article and editor, then there is a COI.

:::::Whether or not you agree is immaterial. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Would you have to make a COI statement for editing Shovel? It’s ridiculous. Policies are not laws, they just document best practice. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think the COI policy has ever been considered to extend so far as to proscribe editing articles about one's ethnic group. And I think it might be possible to say that the name is obviously not supposed to represent the editor as being the entire ethnic group but it's a closer call than the suggestion that you're a literal shovel, for instance, and the plural does make it easy to say that the name doesn't represent an individual editor. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe he’d write promotionally about shovels, who knows Kowal2701 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::While I would not go out of my way to do so independently, if I was asked to confirm or deny a COI for that situation, I most certainly would in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.

::::::::And while yes, a policy is not a law, it is, in your own words, "Best Practice", and is heavily recommended to be followed.

::::::::And my proper pronouns, as said on my user page, are They/Them Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Apologies Kowal2701 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree with @Kowal2701, we do not have evidence to establish COI, but the username may violate WP:UNCONF FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I can see that as grounds for advising a username change, but not for a sanction Kowal2701 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Either way, independent of whether or not their username is a COI or Username Violation, they were edit-warring, which is a no-no. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed, I guess I was more talking about hypotheticals, the ban is good Kowal2701 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It is still a good bit of practice in Wikipedia policy, and shows where there could be some overlap between policies (COI and Username Guidelines in this instance). I think I'll look further into how/when these two could overlap. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Did anyone debating the reasoning behind my block bother to read the block notice that I left on the user's talk page? I wrote {{tpq|You must also change your username because it indicates shared use. A Wikipedia account is for use by one person only.}} And in the block log, I wrote {{tpq|Username violation. Username indicates shared use}} in addition to mentioning edit warring.

Edit warring was the primary reason for the block and the username violation was a secondary, aggravating factor. I did not block the editor for a conflict of interest per se but for violating two other policies. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:FWIW this thread starts with a response to Borgenland, I don’t think anyone is talking about your block rationale. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{userlinks|53.72.Editor.Wiki.India}} editing {{pagelinks|Rashmi Narzary}}

This editor seems to be a single purpose account, adding WP:BLP violating unsourced information, WP:MOS violating edits, and not responding to my message that I placed on their talk page. The added content onto Rashmi Narzary seems to be promotional. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 17:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Sportsfan_1234}}

Does the edit-warring/WP:BRD policy not apply to User:Sportsfan_1234? He edited Template:National Figure Skating Championships [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:National_Figure_Skating_Championships&diff=prev&oldid=1288600377 here] with the unsatisfactory edit summary "per MOS". I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:National_Figure_Skating_Championships&diff=next&oldid=1288600377 here]. Rather than opening a discussion per WP:BRD, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:National_Figure_Skating_Championships&diff=next&oldid=1288604093 reverted again] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:National_Figure_Skating_Championships&diff=next&oldid=1288605427 again]. This style of tendentious editing is nothing new for Sportsfan_1234, and I would appreciate some clarification. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I received [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&curid=41375369&diff=1288606675&oldid=1288606593 this notice] when I posted the mandatory notice on their talk page, as if I have the option of posting that notice. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Additionally, Sportsfan_1234 posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bgsu98#c-Sportsfan_1234-20250503191600-May_2025 this] on my talk page despite repeated previous notices to stay off my talk page:

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1287187083 April 24, 2025]

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1184285041 November 9, 2023]

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1162779567 July 1, 2023]

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1135673658 January 25, 2023]

:I am, frankly, tired of this user's continued harassment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Again a talk page discussion has been started here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:National_Figure_Skating_Championships]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1287187083 April 24, 2025] - Warned for edit warring because you have 5 reverts on the the Grand Prix of Finland article within the last week. Per the reporting TW template, you are required to select a warning provided. Its the same thing with November 9, 2023. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:You [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1142#User:Sportsfan_1234 were told by an administrator] in November 2023: "If a user does not want you to post on their talk page and you believe they're edit warring then you should, in the future, go to WP:AN3 and make a report." This same administrator also wrote: "I think you should respect when someone asks you to stay off of their talk page if you ask others to do the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1182711219 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1178789842 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1144156883 3])." Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::Thank you for pointing this out. To be fair this is from almost two years ago and I didn't remember. From now on I will go straight to ANI. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Again a talk page discussion has been started here" That should have happened before you reverted, per WP:BRD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Again you could have also started a discussion without reverting. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to report this user for WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Immediately after I posted this complaint, he went to Grand Prix of Finland – an article which had been a source of contention in a prior dispute with another user (see above), and which we had resolved amicably this morning – in an attempt to apparently "trap" me into a 3RR violation. This is nothing new. He slapped a bunch of nonsense templates onto articles I'd started, as well as launching this AFD in retaliation for a complaint I'd made against him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgsu98 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is ridiculous. I'll point out the article Livio Mayr was deleted by consensus at the time, ie there was policy grounds for its deletion. Not a "blind" or retaliatory nomination. I ask this user redact their false accusations immediately. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Even if you're completely in the right, it's not wise to {{tqq|demand}} things on ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Regardless of whether the AFD was successful, it was made in bad faith. After [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tennis_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics&action=history this exchange at Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics @ 19:48], Sportsfan_1234 almost immediately edited the following articles:

:* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livio Mayr @ 19:55 (I had created this article.)

:* 2024–25 figure skating season @ 20:05 (I was the most recent editor at that time.)

:* Abu Dhabi Classic Trophy @ 20:06 (I was the most recent editor at that time.)

:* 2024–25 ISU Challenger Series @ 20:20 (I was the most recent editor at that time.)

:* 2024–25 ISU Junior Grand Prix @ 20:20 (I was the most recent editor at that time.)

:Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:And here we are again today.

:* I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:National_Figure_Skating_Championships&diff=prev&oldid=1288605427 reverted Sportsfan_1234's edit to Template:National Figure Skating Championships @ 19:03].

:* Sportsfan [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_of_Finland&diff=prev&oldid=1288606246 made a WP:POINTY edit to Grand Prix of Finland here @ 19:10].

:* I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288606534 reported Sportsfan_1234 here @ 19:12], but I did not notice his edit to Grand Prix of Finland until afterwards.

:Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Through the winding roads}}
• {{userlinks|84.71.75.37}}

TTWR added puffery to Afra Saraçoğlu (example), continuing after being reverted twice (first revert, second). When I tagged the article with {{tl|tone}}, it was removed by an IP. TTWR also uploaded two non-free images of living people: :File:Afra Saraçoğlu.jpeg and :File:Mert ramazan demir, photo in winter 2024.jpg. When I tagged the first image with {{tl|di-replaceable non-free use}}, it was removed by the same IP. I then warned TTWR (with {{tl|uw-login}}) that they should not perform controversial edits while logged out. After that warning, I nominated the first image at FfD (discussion) and tagged the second image as {{tlf|di-replaceable non-free use}}. The IP removed both (first, second). TTWR edited both immediately before and soon after these IP edits, which I think shows that they intentionally logged out to perform these disruptive edits, even after being warned. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:They should be immediately blocked. They made egregiously promotional edits. See also the last IP edit, which came after they have been reported here. 84.245.120.112 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Block from editing the two articles: I have also tried to remove these images and puffery but this user keeps adding them back, often with no explanation or comment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mert_Ramazan_Demir&diff=prev&oldid=1288310074 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afra_Sara%C3%A7o%C4%9Flu&diff=prev&oldid=1288309767 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afra_Sara%C3%A7o%C4%9Flu&diff=prev&oldid=1288281647 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mert_Ramazan_Demir&diff=prev&oldid=1288281468 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afra_Sara%C3%A7o%C4%9Flu&diff=prev&oldid=1288281261 5]). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:The IP is still disruptively removing deletion discussion notices. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've blocked the IP. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Now that the IP is blocked, they're doing it from their account. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Given that, and the continued promotional editing, I have pblocked Through the winding roads from article and filespace until they discuss the issues and understand what they're doing wrong. Once they engage and show signs of understanding, anyone can remove the block without needing to consult me first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In order to create an encyclopedia, the moderators, admins and others should have a fair and vast amount of information about the subjects they intend to police. The topic/s which I added to, are a great research point of my own and therefore I saw that more accurate and in-depth information based on actual factual primary sources was needed in order to allow others to understand the scale of significance that the two subjects of the articles had.

::::: A moderator and an administrator on wikipedia should, in essence and in practice at least possesses some knowledge about the subject they wish to tyrannically delete and vandalise. If any of you actually knew a single thing about the subjects I write about then you would not protest my additions and instead you would realise that I would adding appropriate accurate information that is not written from a personal bias, nor written from a opinion.

:::::What you so easily and most insultingly call "fluff" "peacock words" and "puffery" is in actual fact truthful information written about two real people who are deserving of the grand phrases that I have written. Have you as an "admin of knowledge" even found out, understood and realised anything about the subjects I write of? I assume the answer is no. If you did then you would not remove my work. Of course I agree that my words did not contain enough sources. but I can still add them to support my writing.

:::::The truth is always in the things that sound like "fluff", the things that you call "weasel words" are actually the writings of a someone with a higher literacy skill. But of course wikipedia does not like complex expression. The reason wikipedia is so bland, lacking in anything of substance, as well as lacking in real information written by those passionate and with more information about a subject, is because the majority of the already small number of moderators lack any proper information on the subjects that they like to delete from. Something that you see as "fluffery" is actual information written from a person with more knowledge and understanding than you. millions of people will read the information in articles, and it is sad that moderators with no feeling, no understanding of the topics they patrol are the ones who achieve in taking control and deleting important and essential information from the pages.

:::::The language and emotive vocabulary that have I used is entirely accurate and not intended to be promotional but instead to convey the truthful legacy of the two individuals. The primary and many secondary articles support my comments as well as life itself, the things you can only see first hand. Of course my one mistake is that I did not add the available sources (although I did added at least one relevant source).

:::::When my edits were constantly deleted, edits that I put a lot of thought and care into writing, I felt that there is little point in arguing my case with such a forceful and uncaring community that does not seem to know anything about some of the articles they patrol with such vigilance. if moderators and administrators put as much care into research than they do patrolling, then wikipedia would be more significant than it is today, among those who know how poorly written it is. Therefore I believe that even If i am unbanned (which is completely unlikely and something I care little for right now) I will not bother with associating myself with such a poorly moderated online encyclopaedia.

:::::On the topic of the pictures I added. I wished to add pictures that would be of a better quality and timing in relation to the articles. Wikipedia is the first website that come up into google search and therefore these pictures will perhaps be the first things people who know nothing about the topic will see. therefore I wished to add better pictures to fit the quality of the articles. This was my only intention and I was greatly disheartened to see moderators constantly try to remove pictures I spent time and much care in choosing. The automatic bot also resized my "fair use" images to a smaller size so the fair use images were able to be used. But of course this has been contested by moderators who do not care about the articles they discredit.

:::::If Wikipedia is meant to be as informative as it states then it should prioritise the richness of information over the idea of creating and stripping down articles to make them threadbare. I have looked at the current wikipedia moderator rules on what types of words to delete and I am absolutely shocked and appalled at the ways in which mods are encouraged to slice away words and remove anything with "more potential" and replace it with "less potential".

:::::Is this what wikipedia is? A place where readers can find information with "less potential". I have decided that I will instead create my own encyclopedia and make sure that no moderator will act as tyrannically as those are encouraged to do on wikipedia. The only good that will come out of the work of deletion and removal is that individuals will decide that wikipedia is not as wonderful as it states and they will be be led on their own path of information and discovery. Yes. it is true that wikipedia has monopolised information, but the human spirit will not be beaten down and those will their own voice, own heart and better knowledge will find other ways to overtake wikipedia and write rich and vast history for the world to see.

:::::I write this and hope in the future you and those moderators that read this will treat other articles with more understanding and perhaps read about the topic before reverting, deleting and removing future historical writing. Through the winding roads (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I believe you came into Wikipedia with the wrong idea of what it is. Articles on Wikipedia are guided on things called guidelines and policies, and if you disagree with them, you should propose reforms at the relevant talk pages and state your case there. As it stands, Wikipedia is not an outlet to promote or extol individuals, it is a encyclopedia which presents neutral information. And even if your usage of copyrighted images didn't blatantly violate our criteria, that gave you no right to persistently derail attempts to discuss it by deleting notices. It is entirely your fault for not becoming acquainted with our standards before you decided to edit war and ignore people until you were blocked. Nevertheless, I wish you the best in your new writing venture, and I hope you may find fulfillment in that. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tqq|The truth is always in the things that sound like "fluff", the things that you call "weasel words" are actually the writings of a someone with a higher literacy skill. But of course wikipedia does not like complex expression.}} ...wow. The only thing I can get from that and the rest of that...whatever that is up there (which includes the standard "Wikipedia will die if I don't get my way" because of course it does) is that they are not here to help build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm tempted to add such phrases as "known for her eternal seraphic beauty and evergreen screen presence", "determination, kindness and exquisite performance shone through and her ethereal sophistication", and "His work was of a stellar nature and he possessed a glittering magnificence", to an essay on how to quickly get your draft G11'd. The epitome of promotional writing. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You sure you don't want to upgrade that block to an indef? -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It is the neutral information policy which is most insidiously used. There are such political biases on wikipedia which are internally condoned, but their condonement of course is never mentioned out loud. Of course political biases are often and most frequently seen on articles about core liberal and social issues as well as public figures who are well known in the alternative media. For example the article on capitalism is written with subtle yet important and noticeable socially liberal and left leaning political biases.

:::::::The article on russia contains extreme politically bias sources. for example there is source used on the russian article called called "The Resistible Rise of Vladimir Putin: Russia's Nightmare Dressed Like a Daydream" ... this is a bias source and does not contribute to neutral policy. The russian article uses predominantly western american and english source's which of course are filled with extreme bias against the country. Many politically bias sources were used to enrich the Article on Russia

:::::::Also lots of fluff is used in the article about Emmeline Pankhurst in order to promote her and the article is largely based on a primary source which is written by her daughter and also a primary source which is a autobiography which is subject to complete unproven bias. Crucial parts of the article are taken from Emmeline Pankhurst's own autobiography written in 1914 which really does not support neutral policy. An autobiography and memoir of Pankhurst's life and the suffrage movement was used extensively to contribute to the positive things written about her.

:::::::For example a line from the article reads ... "Emmeline began to read books when she was very young, with one source claiming that she was reading as early as the age of three"..... this is only based from her own words in her own biography. The paragraph on her early life is filled with promotional puffery such as "She took pleasure in decorating the house – especially with furnishings from Asia – and clothing the family in tasteful apparel. Her daughter Sylvia later wrote: "Beauty and appropriateness in her dress and household appointments seemed to her at all times an indispensable setting to public work" ' again this is all taken from one primary source : an autobiography which is purely used to promote her in this article.

:::::::In my edits I also used a primary source... but this somehow was deemed to be fluff.

:::::::There is certainly two rules here on the type of "bias" allowed on wikipedia. and one of the most well known wikipedians who has contributed to more than 33,000 articles has openly stated he wishes to promote the political idea of feminism within his work in very subtle ways. Through the winding roads (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I thought you were busy making your own encyclopedia? If you have problems with the content and references used on Russia and Emmeline Pankhurst, then go to the talk pages of those articles and make your case there. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::you directly deleted my edits and said they were "promotional"... but there is plenty of promotional non proven claims and writing added to key wikipedia articles such as the one written on Emeline pankhurst as one example. the political bias and puff on these articles is generally perceived as ok because of the perceived political relevance of the subject. But on subjects that are deemed of little importance, suddenly neutral policy is necessary and therefore is major hypocrisy going on in wikipedia. Through the winding roads (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Putting the actual content of the example articles you have brought up to one side, "other things are bad so my bad thing should be allowed too" is not the slam dunk you believe it to be. If you fail to acknowledge and engage with the critique of your promotional editing style you will not succeed in any form of unblock. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::i do not wish or care about being unblocked, I only wish to highlight the deeply ingrained and almost automatic hypocrisy of wikipedia's application of Neutral policy. Through the winding roads (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thank you for explaining, I've blocked you as not being here to build the encyclopaedia. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::If you believe the article of Emmeline Pankhurst is poorly referenced, you are allowed to make your case at the article talk page. I do believe you have a case here, considering the amount of references to the autobiography. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Oh well, I suppose I'll post it myself then. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Exciting. That was a hardblock. -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = withdrawn

| result = by filer. -- asilvering (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

This is my first time posting here, so I apolologise in advance if I have done anything incorrectly. I am also very anxious, given the issue in question.

I am raising the issue of @Cullen328 repeatedly dismissing multiple people bringing to their attention that their communication style can come across as rude, defensive, dismisssive, and threatening. I want to be clear that I do not think Cullen is especially egregious, but after dismissing almost every complaint against their behaviour, there is a clear issue with communication and being unwilling to take feedback.

After seeing some issues in the responses user Valorrr had given at the Teahouse, I went to message them about it and saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valorrr/Archive_2#c-Cullen328-20250502073200-WP:Teahouse#Question_about_political_BLP a message] from Cullen. I felt the message was somewhat harsh, which would be counter productive, so I sent them a message on their talk page requesting that they are a little gentler with new users in the future. I thought this would be fine, but instead it somehow turned into a lecture with them getting defensive, and them telling me about their disabled wife and child, which was very confusing.

Looking at their talk page, I saw that users bringing up issues with Cullen's communication style, and them getting defensive about it, was a common pattern. I understand that written communication can easily be misunderstood in regards to tone, and hold no issues with a user than unitentionally comes across as aggressive. But I feel Cullen's consistant dismissmal of all concerns relating to their communication is an issue.

These are only from this year.

User @Wikitekt said [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Wikitekt-20250411094300-Feedback they had felt threatened by Cullen's choice of words] and Cullen's repsonse was to say "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250411193700-Wikitekt-20250411193000 my comment was not threatening to you]" and to dismiss the users explanation that they were gently trying to give constructive feedback by saying "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250411182400-Wikitekt-20250411164500 I have received all of the feedback that I need from 331dot, an editor who actually understands what is going on]"

When user @Jersey Jan said that they had felt threatened by Cullen, Cullen was again defensive and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250412023100-Jersey_Jan-20250412010600 dismissed the matter].

When @Ghost writer's cat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Ghost_writer's_cat-20250421080100-Cullen328-20250421073100 explained that they had felt personally attacked and that Cullen often came across as prioritising "having to be right" over civility], Cullen dismissed the idea they have done anything wrong and told the user to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250421082300-Ghost_writer's_cat-20250421080100 "Please take your energy and please do something useful"]

When @Chess told Cullen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_107#c-Chess-20250223235200-I_think_you_could've_handled_Tdkelley1_better that they had handled another user poorly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_107#c-Chess-20250224024700-Cullen328-20250224020500 also here] Cullen did not consider they had done anything wrong, and only said "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_107#c-Cullen328-20250224032300-Chess-20250224024700 I think that you are reading into my comments things that I did not say and did not intend]

All I want to come out of this is that Cullen328 begin to take feedback seriously rather than getting defensive, and make steps to improve communication with other users. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:In all of the interactions that {{u|Notcharizard}} points out, I carefully explained my perceptions of the disagreements and responded to every concern. I encourage people to read the entire discussions in context. Notcharizard responded to me telling them that my wife is disabled and one of my sons is disabled by comparing me to a racist spouting the I'm not racist, I have black friends cliché. I do not consider that tactic to be civil or productive. I am happy to hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you truly meant that last line, you wouldn't be posting about this at ANI. Users who have...let's say 'unfortunate encounters' with an admin have a poor opinion of that admin. Details at eleven. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::@The Bushranger I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean if you only wanted them {{tqq|to take feedback seriously rather than getting defensive, and make steps to improve communication with other users}}, you wouldn't open a lengthy report on the biggest drama board on the project where you take chronic problem editors to be sanctioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah, I see - thank you for explaining. I am being honest about my intentions, there are sincerly no tricks or attempts at drama on my part - I am only wanting help. After looking at the different boards, I thought this was the best option based on the descriptions given. As I said, I have never used ANI before, and did not thing of it as a "drama board". I just wanted other voices and assistance in the matter in the discussion as my own messages to Cullen were not getting anywhere. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I believe that the fact that I responded repeatedly and politely and at length in each of the conversations that Notcharizard linked to is evidence that I do take feedback seriously. I am not perfect but I try my best. As an administrator, my goal is always to facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia, and sometimes that includes unpleasant conversations with various people. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at each of these, especially my commentary on the behavior of Valorrr, since that is the fresh situation. I feel strongly that basic competence is required of Teahouse hosts. Cullen328 (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Notcharizard, Valorrr has been warned several times to learn more about wikipedia editing before they try admin-adjacent roles or helping other editors. They're also clearly weaponizing disability justice vocabulary here. Really quite extraordinary to say that the word "competence" is an ableist slur. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Having looked into this - yeah, Notcharizard, the post you originally posted about on Valorrr's page is a nothingburger. It's something any admin would have said. It's milder than things many admins would have said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think we would need a very good deal more cause to consider taking to task an admin who regularly bends over backwards to engage with editors, and who "takes communication seriously" well beyond the point where most would just throw up their hands. Cullen is essentially AGF on legs, but unsurprisingly even he has a bullshit threshold. These complaints seem baseless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Reopening this, which was previously closed by a non-admin closer within two hours of the discussion being opened. Don't do this, folks. How are editors supposed to express concerns with administrators if we shut them down as soon as they're begun? {{u|Notcharizard}}, if you'd like to withdraw this discussion, we can close it. I won't make a recommendation either way, but you may be about to find out why others think of ANI as the "drama board". -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Asilvering thank you for this, i appreciate you not dismissing me. i would like to withdraw, and i appreciate you giving me the choice. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 06:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• As this has been reopened I'll say what I typed in earlier but was pre-empted from posting by the close. I have always found Cullen to be a delight to work with. I remember once that he said something that could have been interpreted as a very mild admonishment of me. I thought about it and came to the conculsion that I deserved a much stronger admonishment. I find nothing in the original post or his talk page that changes my opinion of him. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Any active admin's talk page is going to be filled with complaints about their decisions; it's the nature of the job. An admin active on ANI, as Cullen has been for a long time now, is going to attract that much more ire. An essential quality of any active editor on Wikipedia is a thick skin, and a lot of them don't have that. For my part, I know Cullen to be an incredibly dedicated admin, and how in the blazes he keeps his cool as much as he does on this drama board is a mystery to me. Ravenswing 03:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}
• {{userlinks|Somajyoti}}

There's currently an AfD war of sorts of articles related two Bangladesh going on between two editors, @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet and @Somajyoti in which both nominate a mass of articles for deletion that the respective other editor has written or supports. Examples include: 1 2 3 4

Both editors have broadly failed to explain why the sourcing situation warrants deletion of these articles, and generally resort to claims of lack of notability with zero source analysis, claim that other articles on related topics don't exist, or that other articles on related topics have also been deleted.

This should usually be resolved with on the respective AfD pages, but this concerns a large number of articles, and appears to be a personal feud more than an AfD issue. Nominating such a large number of articles while failing again and again to provide a proper rationale is disruptive. One of the editors, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, has also voted on their own nomination while obscuring their signature on (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FStudent_abuse_at_Islamic_University%2C_Kushtia&diff=1288426701&oldid=1288420659 here]) and in at least one case has then changed their signature again afterwards when this was pointed out by another editor (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2021_Sunamganj_violence&diff=1288445301&oldid=1288440574 here]).

This editor is also currently investigated for sockpuppetry (see here). While anyone can request such an investigation, I think this weighs heavier in light of their recent behaviour. Cortador (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, Cortador, for bringing this matter to the Administrators' noticeboard. I have observed that the behavior of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet has not been constructive. The AfD nominations by Somajyoti appear to be natural, whereas the subsequent AfD "war" initiated by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet seems retaliatory rather than organic. For this reason, I believe Somajyoti’s AfDs should remain open to allow for natural resolution, while the AfDs initiated by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet should be considered disruptive and treated as per WP:Vandalism by being closed. We can find the retaliatory nature of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet in a sockpuppet investigation. I initiated a sockpuppet investigation based on reasonable grounds. In response, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet filed a counter-investigation against me, which was promptly closed by Bbb23. I am not certain whether these actions alone justify a block, but they do, in my opinion, constitute vandalism.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I nominated for deletion with valid reasons several articles created by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet such as schools (Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College, Bangladesh International School & College (Nirjhor), Nirjhor Cantonment Public School and College, Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College) and parties (Bangladesh Popular Party, Bangladesh Social Democratic Party). But shortly afterward User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet started writing nonsensical absurd things and created discussion pages in the Article for Deletion claiming that the good articles I created should be deleted making bizarre accusations, behaving strangely, Somajyoti ✉ 20:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you provide Diffs of said nonsense and claims "that the good articles I created should be deleted making bizarre accusations"? Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No need to give diffs. If you go to the articles mentioned in my previous comment and check the discussion for article for deletion there, you’ll find my reasons written. Just look at a few random ones if you don’t want to go through many, and if you think the reason is “not good,” then mention that here. Somajyoti ✉ 21:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not asking because there is a need for them. I'm asking this because some people (such as myself) don't have the time to cut through the underbrush to find what it is you're talking about.

:::::That, and providing diffs and links to the intended comments will help in preventing misunderstanding, since I don't know exactly which examples you're trying to bring up. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, you do need to give diffs. Notice the orange box at the top of the edit window. {{tqq|Also, please provide...explanatory diffs}}. Don't toss out an accusation without direct evidence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah, I thought that only applied to the original ANI post. Sorry. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{ping|Shovel Shenanigans}} Remember, when you bring an issue here to the AN/I board, the onus is on you to show that there is in fact a reason for the admin corps to care about it. We admins dislike having to investigate issues in which claims are made but no evidence is provided, and since we are not bringing up the issue as far as most of us are concerned the absence of evidence is proof that we don’t need to concern ourselves with it right this exact second. Accordingly, every little thing you can do to show us that there is in fact a problem helps, and the gold standard for that is providing specific diffs that clearly and unmistakable demonstrate that not only is there an issue, but that attempts to resolve it have thus far been unsuccessful and therefore admin intervention is in fact needed. The more you can show that you’ve tried and failed, the more apt we are to move to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet has sent out apologies to two people involved ({{Diff2|1288485553|1}}, {{Diff2|1288485808|2}}) so I personally think no action is required for now. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, please assume good faith going forward; don't retaliate against valid/rationale AFDs/investigations relating to you by creating ones that do not have valid rationales and really are only there to 'get back' at the other person. I also have to urge them to not use different signatures as it is quite confusing and looks like another person replying; stick to one. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since they said they swap from their username to their real name from time to time ({{Diff2|1288445301|3}}). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, if you're feeling sad/angry from real life issues, I don't think you should be editing on a platform like Wikipedia to feel better, as it's a social platform and you'll inevitably have to interact with other users. I'd recommend just taking a break and reflecting on yourself. The mass AFD'ing with no valid rationales is disruptive though, and if this continues I feel like a temporary block from the process is warranted. jolielover♥talk 03:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like a feud. But it is actually not any feud or revenge afd war. I believe it was some misunderstanding. I want to indicate some incident and situation here. First, {{no ping|Somajyoti}} nominated Bangladesh Mosque Mission for AFD. The page creator was {{no ping|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}. The reason Somajyoti showed for AFD was "Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami" (Special:diff/1287679785). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet replied with "And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it" (Special:diff/1287753827). If I am not wrong, it was the first AFD of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's article by Somajyoti. You can clearly see that their relation was okay and not dramatic. Later Somajyoti nominated AFD for BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's another article. The reason showed was "A school in Dhaka. There is no point in writing an article like this because there is nothing special about this school" (Special:diff/1287681781). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's response was "Yeah funny, "there is nothing special", then why don't you add something special? hmm? Even just check, I'm not asking you to be a robot, I'm just telling you to check, and please explain how this is a valid argument and instead of saying "instead you should answer how this is...", aren't you also a Wikipedia contributor or are you only focused on AfDs?" (Special:diff/1287756077). It is clear that BangladeshiEditorInSylhet took it personally and Somajyoti failed to clarify his reason and communicate clearly (because as you know "nothing special about this school" doesn’t say us anything about notability of the subject). Then what BangladeshiEditorInSylhet did was proposed 2017 textbooks criticism for deletion, page created by Somajyoti. Notice the reason he gave "Countless similar pages with reason and importance contradicting with author Somajyoti's view in discussions that also deserve to be deleted, it is also irrelevant and insignificant compared to other similar pages and subjects unless disproven" (Special:diff/1287945901). It is clear that the comment of Somajyoti was still on his mind and that maybe led him to propose 2017 textbooks criticism for deletion. I reverted and cancelled the proposal tag as the reason he showed doesn’t make sense. And then BangladeshiEditorInSylhet brought 2017 textbooks criticism to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 textbooks criticism). I think they both still have to learn more about Wikipedia world and onwiki interaction. Somajyoti maybe didn’t consider the ways he could deal these things effectively, and BangladeshiEditorInSylhet maybe took the incident personally that led him to this state. Mehedi Abedin 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Yes, Mehedi Abedin, first of all if there was any misunderstanding, i sent an apology/request to understand what happened, to Owais Al Qarni and Somajyoti, and about the AfDs, The first AfDs were done by Somajyoti now I didn't nominate his articles for revenge but after examining the pages, the exact argument he gave on those AfDs contradicted with his contributions (Read 1 and 2 or more), and a sockpuppet investigation by Owais Al Qarni which provided no good evidence, names and who deleted a draft later is not proof, I already gave a full explanation on that page against his claim and I proved that I am not a sockpuppet, if i was too rude, please notify, And i was already angry because both I had lots of tasks to do and I had to go to Mymensingh and come back the next day, which was already tiring and after these AfDs and Sockpuppet investigations popping up, and from prior experience, not many really supported me in discussions, if so, probably 1 or 2 but not enough, so after finishing my homework and assignments, I just argued for a long time and I may have made mistakes related to AfDs which I meant for Good faith, i did not mean to be involved in disruptive editing, A temporary block is not needed, I'll try to calm myself down and read Wikipedia policies, after such AfDs and sockpuppet investigations in which you have to constantly be alert and responding even if you're in the right, I realized that I got too angry probably, if anyone knows how to deal with anger issues, please explain. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk🗣️) 12:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: I'm also trying to fix my signature and the AfDs in which I put my previous signature, I am replacing with my current signature, such issues related to Signature will be solved. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk🗣️) 09:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{IP|45.49.236.6}} is the LTA previously described in these reports:

• Sep 2024, Oct 2024
• : {{IP|64.189.18.0/24}}
• Feb 2025
• : {{IP|172.102.80.174}}
• Mar 2025
• : {{IP|2603:8002:BF0:14A0::/64}}
• Apr 2025
• : {{IP|76.33.223.20}}
• : {{IP|45.49.236.6}}

Their behavior is identical to that briefly summarized in the Feb 2025 report. They were most recently blocked on this IP for 1 week, with several prior blocks having been performed by User:Star Mississippi. Remsense ‥ 论 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some diffs of continued behavior as stated in the Feb 2025 report:

:*{{tq|"Serial comma militancy"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lake_Erie&diff=prev&oldid=1288505668][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=1288507346][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Red_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=1288644731]

:*{{tq|"Pigheaded insistence on the use of American English regardless of context"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raid_on_Port_Dover&diff=prev&oldid=1288508371][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Droege&diff=prev&oldid=1288644594]

:*{{tq|"Indiscriminate, arbitrary removal of maintenance tags"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Colt_AR-15_and_M16_rifle_variants&diff=prev&oldid=1288495824][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lake_Erie&diff=prev&oldid=1288505668][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fullerton,_California&diff=prev&oldid=1288507904]

:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I forget these things aren't instant recall for others upon comparing contribution histories. Remsense ‥ 论 10:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::of course, and if anyone is keeping track then may as well add that {{user|45.49.246.117}} appears to have been the same lta, active from from 2024-12-10 to 2025-01-07. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If either of you have a moment and want to save a responding admin some time, it would be helpful to list the specific IPs involved and the date ranges of the disruption for each. -- asilvering (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh, good call. I've grafted a fuller list into my original post. Remsense ‥ 论 15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This report is about {{Userlinks|MILAN2875285275}}

When going through all of their main space edits we see the following:

This page was created by them and is based on only one questionable source (yazidis.info) that is too close to the subject and also doesn't even exist anymore. This and other reasons like a very POV language and controversial statements have led me to start a deletion discussion here.

The event probably never even happened and the article accuses Kurds of many crimes against Yazidis.

This article was also moved to main space by them even though it was rejected 4 times. (see their talk page)

This article was created by them too and has also been nominated for deletion here because it is based on only one questionable source and questions the Armenian genocide while favoring the Ottomans.

This article was also moved to main space by them even though it was rejected 2 times. (see their talk page)

Here they've changed the narrative from a Kurdish victory to a Yazidi victory multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1288633795 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1288031564 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1287348918 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1287331857 here] contrary to what the sources say.

They discredit the Kurdish forces (Peshmerga) and claim that the local Yazidis actually won the conflict.

Here they tried to change the subject of the article from Sunni Islam to Yazidism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_ibn_Musafir&diff=prev&oldid=1287373487 see here]

Here they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yazd%C3%A2nism&diff=prev&oldid=1288658219 draftified] an article made in 2006 for some reason although I'm not sure whether this is due to their "Yazidi supremacist" standpoints seen in the other edits or just a coincidence since the article seems to have some issues and mentions Yazidis.

Overall I feel like they're not here to build an encyclopedia but are instead trying to promote their unsourced or even made up viewpoints. Most of their edits seem disruptive.

Laura240406 (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Laura240406, when you see someone editing in a contentious topic, disruptively or otherwise, it's really helpful if you can check if they've already received contentious topics notices. If they haven't, please hand them out. I haven't looked into the actual edits here, but I've just given out the two relevant CTOP warnings. Also, I note that they've tried to remove the AfD notice from Battle of Radwan 1828 (but were stopped by the edit filter). @PhilKnight, pinging you in because I see you've dealt with this editor once already. -- asilvering (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I discovered this via the AfDs. It doesn't look good. There have also been suspicions of sock/meat puppetry here. The SPIs didn't find any technical proof but I'd be amazed if there wasn't something fishy going on here beyond mere POV. Even if there isn't, the POV is bad enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = IP blocked for 2 weeks by {{np|Bishonen}} {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|180.150.37.178}} has been making repeated changes (such as {{diff2|1288490638}} or {{diff2|1288197517}}) where they introduced grammatical errors into articles. Some of their edits are {{diff2|1288545081|perfectly good}} and useful, but they react very badly to being reverted on other points, both on their talk page and in edit summaries. I can’t even list their talk page diffs as there are now too many - but purely as an example - {{diff2|1288681410}} which I think is more than enough! Danners430 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh yeah. No amount of good faith edits make up for such personal attacks. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:This IP editor, unfortunately, seems to have no ability to work collaboratively with others, and it's clear that merely being warned is a futile gesture. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note also edits disallowed by a filter. I've blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

{{abot}}

{{atopy

| status = PARTIALLY BLOCKED

| result = {{np|DelphiLore}} is blocked from Malabar Muslims for 2 weeks by {{np|Doug Weller}} for false allegations on others' editing. {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{vandal|Koshuri Sultan}} – On {{No redirect|:Malabar Muslims}} ({{diff|Malabar Muslims|1288682080|1288681440|diff}}): I am reporting Koshuri Sultan for a pattern of disruptive and biased editing on the Malabar Muslims article. Their repeated edits lack proper discussion, context, and edit summaries, and are damaging the accuracy and integrity of the article. This ongoing behavior constitutes vandalism and violates Wikipedia's collaborative standards.

I request an immediate review of their editing activity.

DelphiLore (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:For a long time, {{u|DelphiLore}} is removing content on Malabar Muslims by personally attacking other editors as "vandal" or their contributions as "vandalism" without ever providing any explanation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1288447383][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1257530131][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1288682822] Back in November, they were warned by {{U|Bishonen}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DelphiLore&oldid=1288682281#Please_answer_this_question,_and_the_questions_above] to respond but they haven't done so and are back to making the same type of reverts. They are misusing the word "vandalism" elsewhere too.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Kerala&diff=prev&oldid=1288605308] Koshuri ^(グ) 06:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:DelphiLore is now blocked from Malabar Muslims for 1 week by Doug Weller.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DelphiLore&diff=prev&oldid=1288705891] Koshuri ^(グ) 10:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|{{noping2|Rockawaypoint}} is topic banned from Vikings, broadly construed, per community consensus. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Rockawaypoint}}

Nearly every edit by {{u|Rockawaypoint}} has been an attempt to WP:PUSH for the existence of a Viking colony in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and also for those Cape Cod Vikings as the historical basis for the Vinland Sagas.

In the past, some scholars had a similar view. They were limited largely to literary analysis. The first hard archaeological evidence for the Norse exploration of modern-day Canada was found in the 1960s. Perhaps because of this, Rockawaypoint has

• Replaced or added out of date sources.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1265097046][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1269313847][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&diff=1287255346&oldid=1287251622][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1264814200]
• Misrepresented the contents of more modern sources.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1265964573]^{[https://dai.mun.ca/pdfs/quarterly/TheNewfoundlandQuarterlyvolume84no2Fall1988.pdf ref]}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vinland#c-Rockawaypoint-20250428033900-Rockawaypoint-20250428004100]^{[https://www.jstor.org/stable/48612649 ref]}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vinland#c-Rockawaypoint-20250425173900-Simonm223-20250425161500]
• Cited content to sources with an opposite or unrelated conclusion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&diff=1288290456&oldid=1288223549]^{[https://www.academia.edu/72107450/II_36_Mental_Maps ref]}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&diff=1288111604&oldid=1287700835]^{[https://archive.org/details/vikingsnorthatla00fitz/page/230/mode/1up?view=theater&q=straumfjord ref]}

Despite multiple editors explaining how their reverted edits violate Wikipedia policies, Rockawaypoint personalized these disputes as problems with:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1266515259&diff=1266518316 Carlstak]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1266538797&diff=1266539119 Moxy]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1287354899&diff=1287357662 Simonm223]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norse_colonization_of_North_America/Archive_4#c-Rockawaypoint-20250108182900-Doug_Weller-20250108175000 Doug Weller]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1264518874&diff=1264582007 Mediatech492]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1267369744&diff=1267377499 Donald Albury]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1287709966&diff=1287712753 "The other editors"]

User talk:Rockawaypoint contains a variety of warnings, and the talk pages linked in diffs above contain extensive discussions about content. After a period of raising concerns on talk pages, they have begun a [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Rockawaypoint/0/Vinland slow motion edit-war] in the Vinland article.

In their most recent post to Talk:Vinland, they state [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVinland&diff=1288366329&oldid=1288327553 'I will try once more to rewrite the lead to the article to better report the true state of the Vinland debate... NO resolution exists today, and New England theories are still valid. If the edit I make is quickly reverted again, it will be time for "dispute resolution."'] I am not sure what the best solution is, but this has become clearly disruptive, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARockawaypoint&diff=1288368748&oldid=1288141055 notified] {{u|Rockawaypoint}}, but not the editors he has been in conflicts with, to avoid any appearance of WP:CANVASSING. If anybody reading this thinks they should be notified, feel free to do so. I just think it could easily come off as inappropriate for me to make that call, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like this has been going on since December 2024, and they are adamant about their preferred version, despite consensus being against their preferred version. I don't know if dispute resolution is the best solution, but if the disruption continues, then a pblock should be considered as a reasonable solution. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm very involved with this WP:SPA, so you might want to take my words with a grain of salat, but what I see is WP:Tendentious editing and WP:Bludgeoning. DRN won't work as I'm one of the main participants and am not going to waste more time debating with him. You can also see some of my warning on his talk page. He also created Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe purely to push his pov. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Also heavily involved here and, yeah, talking to Rockawaypoint about this issue is somewhat like talking to a brick wall. They're so convinced that their POV isn't being sufficiently represented in articles that they have become very combative in their communication style - a lot of bold text and underlines - and absolutely won't stop putting variants of "most scholars think l'Anse aux Meadows is too far north to be Vinland" in the lede of the Vinland article. They cherry-pick quotations and prefer referring to sources from the 1980s and previous and they have become quite short regarding the suggestion that, for instance, statements made by an archeologist in the 1980s is superseded by statements made by the same archeologist in 2019. I honestly don't know what to do with this editor. Simonm223 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Using bold text and underlining is simply 'emphasizing', not declaring war. And yes, Birgitta Wallace did write in 1986 that it was "...impossible to equate northern Newfoundland with Vinland." Many other researchers agreed with her 100%. Like Einar Haugen, Erik Wahlgren, Magnusson and Palsson, Carl O. Sauer, Stuart Brown, etc... But what makes it now "possible" to equate northern Newfoundland and L'Anse aux Meadows with Vinland?? Sorry, but Birgitta Wallace had it right in 1986, [see page 300, "The Norse Atlantic Saga", Gwyn Jones, 1986 edition]. The Vinland debate has been underway for over 180 years. Many of the 'older' sources are still valuable and worth being 'cited' today. Kirsten Seaver thought so too. Rockawaypoint (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh brother. I'd pblock from Vinland (which, for the record, does already quite clearly mention the New England theories) but it looks like this affects things far more broadly. Accordingly:

:Propose TBAN from "Vikings", broadly construed. -- asilvering (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:The gist of my argument was that we need to make a clear distinction between sites supported by clear evidence (such as L'Anse au Meadows, and the Greenland colonies), and those sites (or alleged sites) with no confirmable evidence to support them. Rockawaypoint's position seems to be based mainly on the opinions of what he calls a "Consensus of Scholars". This steers us well into he area of WP: OR. Scholarly opinion does have its place, but it cannot be equated with documented facts. Sometimes we just have to admit that we do not know the answer to certain questions. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is this meant to be a support or? Doug Weller talk 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Carl O. Sauer stood firmly behind the southern New England "school," and he is remembered today as the, - "...dominant intellectual figure in twentieth century American Geography." He believed "Leifsbudir" was in Buzzard's Bay, Massachusetts or farther west. See his 1968 book "Northern Mists" and then try to name a better judge of Vinland's most probable location, geographically speaking of course. Rockawaypoint (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Support per my comments above. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:'Support lets see if they can edit in some other area in a positive manner. Moxy🍁 10:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Support per my comments above. Simonm223 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment RockawayPoint has resumed editing Vinland [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&curid=32545&diff=1288417492&oldid=1288346870] - this edit is far better than their average although, again, it's very much from the "Vinland must be found through strict textual interpretation of the Sagas" POV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I asked them if they were going to just edit and not comment here. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Good to see another editor has changed the first paragraph to remove the suggestion that Newfoundland is Vinland. The key sentence there now reads, - "The name appears in the Vinland Sagas and describes a land beyond Greenland, Helluland, and Markland." Great, that is neutral. Why did it take so long? Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Support The editor's disruption has gone on long enough. Their alleged "consensus" of scholars is not a current state of consensus reached by said scholars, but an aggregation of comments made by the various commentators in a range stretching over the last half-century. Carlstak (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Vikings broadly construed. We do not need POV pushers whe refuse to accept consensus and insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson are highly respected today. I believe their book from 1965, "The Vinland Sagas" is still in print today. It is cited often, even today. On page eight they say that the "majority of scholars" had inclined to the view that Vinland was most probably in New England. They emphasis that point on page 42. This was AFTER the discovery at L'Anse aux Meadows had been taken into careful consideration. Rockawaypoint (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do you plan on addressing your disruptive behavior, which is why you were brought to this noticeboard? Isaidnoway (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't agree that my behavior was "disruptive" at all. Many of the other editors were very uncivil, even rude to me. It's pretty clear that some of those editors are Canadian and are probably concerned that so many earlier academics placed Vinland in the USA. Vinland's location is still a major controversy, all by itself. But the cross-border tug-of-war has really made it worse. I've been tagged a 'problem' here, probably by people who hope to see Vinland always remain a Canadian 'possession'. But the evidence... all of it... points farther south. It's "in the literature," old and new. Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Do not cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. That's not allowed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh my! For the record, I am a U.S. citizen, and have spent a grand total of maybe two weeks in Canada, and I am not aware of any credible evidence that any Vikings reached any part of the United States. I think you need to apologize for that claim made without any evidence that editors are being swayed by American patriotism. Donald Albury 00:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Anti-American, to be correct, but- - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I stand corrected. Donald Albury 14:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What rubbish. Everyone knows that Canadians are descended from the Philistines [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE#t=2m33s]. EEng 14:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::They are not. All Canadians know they are descended from Prince Madoc of Wales' sex-starved crew, no matter what our misinformed article says. Carlstak (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support I had little interaction with Rockawaypoint, but they appear to be out to right great wrongs, and to be unwilling to engage with the community in a productive manner. - Donald Albury 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm more than willing to engage in a productive manner. Yes, I do feel strongly about certain things and I'm pretty sure something has been said about people NOT being 'out-of-line' for feeling that way about articles on Wikipedia. In the past twenty-four hours someone edited the first paragraph, and I'm very happy to see the change. If you don't think there is any credible evidence linking Vinland to New England, you are forgetting that the reports of wild grapes in the sagas are considered to be "evidence", and wild grapes do NOT grow in Newfoundland. Nor do butternuts. The butternuts found at L'Anse aux Meadows are taken today as "proof" the Norsemen reached an area were butternuts grow. They only grow inland in New Brunswick, not on the Atlantic coast. But they do grow near the coast in New England. Rockawaypoint (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::ANI isn't a forum to argue content, it is concerned with editor conduct. Please address your conduct, we're not going to adjudicate content. You've already made inappropriate speculative accusations about people you assume are Canadian on this messageboard. Now is the time to stop digging a hole. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'd say my "conduct" has been extremely "civil", considering the "charges" leveled at me.
• :::I've been accused of using "out-of-date" sources, but now I've cited Gisli Sigurdsson, 2018, in a sentence that was deleted. He is the citation for the very next sentence that follows the deleted sentence, and it still 'survives.' It that is ironic. Sigurdsson is also plainly naming Cape Cod and "...a river in New England," as a possible answer to the Vinland problem. This is the kind of "current" up-to-date information I believe should be in the very lead of the article. I'm patient, and civil about it all. And will remain that way. I hope everyone else will too. Some very nasty things were directed my way. Rockawaypoint (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::What "very nasty things"? Your conviction that you've behaved with perfect propriety is at odds with the aspersions you cast farther up the page. A strongly held belief doesn't entitle you to deflect or ignore criticism. Civil criticism of your edits isn't a personal attack. This is a collaborative project. and I see little evidence of any willingness to collaborate. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I'm not ignoring the criticism, I'm dealing with it in a civil way. Did you notice earlier I had said I was happy to see the revision in the first paragraph? Isn't that evidence of a willingness to collaborate? Rockawaypoint (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{ping|Rockawaypoint}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288487404 this] is very much not {{tqq|dealing with it in a civil way}}. It's the exact opposite, in fact, and you need to strike those aspersions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Looking at Bushranger's link, and being a native of southeastern Massachusetts, I'm fairly offended at the premise that one must be Canadian to find the Vinland = Cape Cod theory to be threadbare as hell. For what it's worth. Ravenswing 13:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I find the butternut thing funny since I live north of New Brunswick, near the coast, and have a massive butternut tree in my yard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Never mind that where butternuts can be found today have any bearing on where they may have been found a thousand freaking years ago. Ravenswing 18:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I mean yeah. My tree is outside of its "native range" but butternuts are very hardy trees that, as long as they don't get diseased, will grow in basically any well-drained soil in North America, including Newfoundland. And European scholars often forget that east-coast forests were managed forests and the Mi'kmaw Confederacy, who did some forest management was in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick. As such, notwithstanding my tree, I have a healthy skepticism for historians insisting there must have been no butternut wood available in Newfoundland 1000 years ago. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::This is not the place to discuss "content"', but since you just did, it's a good time to call your attention to this by Birgitta Wallace, - "The suggestion that the limit for butternut trees stretched farther north during the warmer temperatures of the 11th century (Perkins 2004:59) is probably unrealistic... A greater fluctuation then 2^o C would be required for a significant change [in regions]." Journal of the North Atlantic, 2009, Vol. 2, page 125. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Tell that to my tree in my yard. Which actually sums up the actual POV difference between us. I prioritize material evidence over textual interpretation. That's it. No patriotism necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::{{u|Simonm223}}, you likewise have a perspective on the issue here, it's a valuable one and could lead to some good content in the article, but i don't think some of your comments are very helpful. I see {{u|Moxy}} has pointed you towards Annette Kolodny's In Search of First Contact and that would probably be useful. I think you should read carefully tho and pay attention in particular to the section in chapter 2 "Where Was Vinland, and Who Were the Skraelings". fiveby(zero) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::I have pointed out repeatedly at that article talk that reliable sources should supersede anyone's POV, certainly including my own. The main reason I have even discussed my personal POV to the extent I have there is because of Rockawaypoint mischaracterizing it as patriotism or fear Vinland might be in the United States. I explained that my POV was actually skepticism of the sagas as an historical source basically to set the record straight. I do not have objections to including work by Kolodny on the page; I have objections to giving priority to work from the 1980s and earlier as subsequent archeological work at l'Anse Aux Meadows has caused many archaeologists such as Wallace to change some of their perspectives. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::But Wallace's change of perspective and conclusion in "L’Anse aux Meadows, Leif Eriksson’s Home in Vinland" is the opposite of your skepticism: {{tq|This is a case where archaeology can be used to test the sagas. The Vinland sagas may contain a greater grain of reality than we thought...}} Anyway your perspective i was thinking of was that you began here and it should be reflected in article content and Kolodny would probably help. Anyway i think i'm off to read read Farley Mowat's Westviking and The Farfarers; what a treasure as a storyteller he is and somehow i've neglected these two. fiveby(zero) 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Agh. Mowat is seriously fringe. But if you read his article l you know that. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::The material evidence, - pollen analysis at L'Anse aux Meadows, showed no "...traces of the Norsemen, no traces of either agriculture of any kind or of any exploitation of the arboreal vegetation." "The Discovery of a Norse Settlement in America" Anne Stein Ingstad, 1977, page 316 Rockawaypoint (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::So, what happens now? I don't think the sources I've used can be disregarded or dismissed as out of date. Rockawaypoint (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::The purpose here is to deal with your behavior, not to decide what content goes into the article, a fact you've been steadfastly ignoring and have not addressed. Carlstak (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Also, this is the same type of continued misrepresentation of sources and usage of out of date sources, that is resulting in the string of reverted edits.
• :::::::::::::{{pb}}
• :::::::::::::What conclusion does that 1997 source come to? [https://archive.org/details/discoveryofnorse0000ings/page/12/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22Vinland+should+have+lain+on+Newfoundland%22 I arrived at the conclusion that it seemed likely that Vinland should have lain on Newfoundland. (Ingstad 1977, p. 12)"] The section {{u|Rockawaypoint}} quotes above is about a specific boring point "East of House F". So what does that section of the book conclude about Vinland? [https://archive.org/details/discoveryofnorse0000ings/page/295/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22certainly+deserving+of+the+name+Vinland%22 "this part of the country is certainly deserving of the name Vinland in the Old Norse sense of the term vin - meadow or grassland. (...) the Norsemen would have had no difficulty in finding 'wineberries' other than genuine grapes. (...) Thus the vegetation today does not render either of the two above interpretations of the name Vinland unlikely from a botanical point of view, (Ingstad 1977, p. 295)"] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::As Rockawaypoint has still not struck their aspersions above, they have been given a level 3 warning for not assuming good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Isn't all this supposed to be on the Vinland 'talk' page?? But since RJJ has brought up Newfoundland again here it must be said that it is well established "in the literature" that Newfoundland has been rejected as "Wineland" by the larger academic community for many reasons. The "Pastureland" argument has also been thoroughly rejected, over and over again, by highly respected scholars such as Einar Haugen, Erik Wahlgren, Carl O. Sauer, Kirsten Seaver, Birgitta Wallace, etc... Trying to defend the "Pastureland" argument today reveals a lack of knowledge about the true state of the Vinland controversy. Helge Ingstad's efforts to convince people the "Pastureland" idea was correct fell flat with most academics. If you would like citations, they can be easily provided. So, who is really using out of date sources? Rockawaypoint (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Is there a WP:OWB about scare quotes? If there isn't, there should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::There is MOS:BADEMPHASIS which expresses "disapprobation". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::If it wasn't an unnecessary pile-on, I'd almost be inclined to support on the scare quotes alone, a practice for which my feelings run stronger than mere disapprobation. Ravenswing 13:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I feel that so-called "scare quotes" have been given a "bad rap". EEng 14:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{u|EEng}}, are you speaking "tongue in cheek" again? Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly construed. I see no indication in this thread from their replies that they are going to change their behavior if they continue to edit in this area. All I've seen is more arguing about they are right, casting aspersions, and WP:IDHT. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. {{u|Rockawaypoint}}, taking a charitable reading of your comments I believe that you are on the correct side here with some aspects of the content. The article probably would have been improved by taking account of your perspective. But your approach is not collaborative and has no chance of convincing other editors. Supporting here to let you know that this is about behavior and not content. fiveby(zero) 11:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support I think a topic ban is a good solution here. The editor is fairly new, has only been here 6 months but talk is full of disagreement. Perhaps Rockawaypoint doesn't realise that physical evidence always takes precedent over literary analysis in intellectual consensus. Either way relying on outdated sources and berating multi editors who are trying to fix the problem is not cool. {{ping|Rockawaypoint}} If your fixated on this, for example if it was a childhood book that affected you deeply, then you need to reconstruct yourself. I know when I came in here, I had a whole load of preconceived notions that were found to be bollocks and I abandoneded them in light of reality. You need to do the same. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I will continue to place great faith in what Carl Sauer said about the Vinland debate/controversy, even though he has been dead since 1975. He was firmly in support of southern New England as the true location of Vinland. Look for his 1968 book "Northern Mists." He believed "Leifsbudir" was in Buzzards Bay or farther west. Then, in 2018 in his "Mental Maps" study Gisli Sigurdsson, respected Icelandic academic, names Cape Cod and "...some river mouth in New England" as a possible site described in the Vinland Sagas. So, the New England theories can be said to still be in the running. Your mention of the childhood book is interesting, considering that Carl Sauer is still remembered today as the "dominant intellectual figure in twentieth century American Geography." What will you be remembered for? Rockawaypoint (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Can an admin please go ahead and impose this topic ban, or block this editor for continuing to cast aspersions. Asking someone what they will be remembered for, as if they have never contributed anything of value to society or their work or their family, etc. in what I believe is a snide and mocking manner, is totally uncalled for. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agreed, also for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288760944 this comment]. fiveby(zero) 19:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Forest missed for trees, forest relocated, racist OP blocked, time travel neither confirmed nor denied. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

While disputing the reversion of an edit I made on Australian Natives' Association, I was accused of "denialism", "white supremacy" and of being a "Nazi" by this user.

Further, this user felt it necessary to close the topic that I had raised on the article's talk page to allow for dispute resolution and further clarification. On top of this, several edits that I had made (that had remained for some months without issue) were all reverted by this same user.

While my area of editorial interest does pertain to controversial topics, I believe my edit was in line with Wikipedia policy and that the actions of this user represented a misuse of privileges.

Thusly, I have decided to raise it here so as to mitigate any further attempts at edit-warring. 114.77.179.191 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:One warning and you're off to ANI? I expected just a general response on my talk page after my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Natives%27_Association&diff=prev&oldid=1288291112 warning on the talk page] so either you think you have a strong case against me for an IP, or more likely you've used another IP here before and know your way around noticeboards.

:Behavior suggests silent righting of great wrongs from 114, including this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Days_in_Europa&diff=prev&oldid=1247250588 removal of content] questioning Days in Europa's album cover, getting all up in arms because the Apollo article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo&diff=prev&oldid=1230192624 mentioned LGBTQ+ themes and categories involving such], and using a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_First_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=1248567401 racist slur against a Muslim editor] on Community First Bank (and scared them off, which is highly egregious). However, this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swastika&diff=prev&oldid=1248025845 this alternative talkpage view of] Swastika without a read of an FAQ is undeniably revisionist, while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice&diff=prev&oldid=1249727866 this replacement] of the lead image in Justice of the Nuremberg trials with a generic image of a Justitia statue (as you can see, which there is no dearth of in the article with four others) highly suggested denialism.

:I strongly warned you in expectation that you would either cease those edits or discuss them on the talk page. Instead you've taken them here, and you have just pointlessly escalated something you can immediately stop by your hand and instead shone a large spotlight on your history. So before you continue, I strongly urge you one more time to stop and edit neutrally and within our guidelines. Nathannah • 📮 01:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have raised this matter at ANI due to concerns over the conduct of Nathannah, whose actions appear to be focused more on questioning my personal beliefs than engaging with the content edits I’ve made in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

::Wikipedia’s core principles are clear: edits must be based on verifiable information and neutrality, not on personal or ideological motivations (see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:AGF). The content I’ve removed or modified, particularly in relation to the Australian Natives' Association article, has been made with a strict commitment to these principles. Specifically, I removed a line that sourced the GPAHE, a partisan advocacy group that does not meet the reliability standards set by Wikipedia. This edit was made to enhance neutrality and ensure that only reliable, verifiable sources are included. At no point did I remove properly sourced content or add unreliable material.

::It is concerning that Nathannah has prioritized assumptions about my personal views over the actual substance of my edits. The accusation that I am attempting to shield a “racist group” from criticism is a misrepresentation of my intent. My motivation in editing is to ensure that articles reflect reliable sources and adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality standards—not to defend any ideological position. This is a matter of following Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines, not advancing any personal viewpoint.

::Furthermore, Wikipedia explicitly disallows any edits motivated by ideological bias or personal beliefs (WP:NPOV). I urge that this be taken into account when reviewing Nathannah’s claims. The suggestion that my edits are driven by an ideological agenda is a misunderstanding of my actual practices. My aim is simply to maintain a neutral point of view, increase accessibility, and improve the article's accuracy; not to promote personal beliefs.

::Regarding the incident involving the insult, I recognize that I may have responded inappropriately to one edit made in a language that wasn't English. While I do not recall the specific interaction, I acknowledge that my response was uncivil. I regret the comment and apologize for any offense it caused. I will make a conscious effort to handle such situations with more patience and professionalism going forward.

::I strongly encourage all parties to focus on the merits of the content and the adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than on baseless and potentially erroneous assumptions about an editor's beliefs or motivations.114.77.179.191 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::...I'm just going to note that this makes my the lady doth protest too much, methinks senses tingle. The style and wording are the sort that are usually indicitive of an editor who isn't as innocent as they're claiming (as seen further up the page right now in fact). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::LLM-dash much? Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 04:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am trying to ensure my position is not misunderstood nor mischaracterized by writing as articulately as possible. Forgive me if it is too verbose. 114.77.179.191 (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The problem is not that it's too verbose. It's that it's too robotic. -- asilvering (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I didn't even register that. It just really struck me as having the same vibes as the comment I linked to (not saying they're the same editor at all, to be clear. Just absolutely the same feeling from them). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The comment is both too robotic and too verbose. The reason the edits have the same vibes may be that both come from the same LLM, rather than the same editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's a pity the IP didn't use AI for their edit summaries as well, they rarely come up with racial slurs even when prompted to do so. The IP user should be blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, racist insults are not tolerated here and AI is as welcome as gonorrhoea. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The evidence presented by Nathannah is pretty damning regarding the clear POV editing around nazi stuff and the racist slurs against other editors are beyond the pale. Is an IP block going to be effective to deal with this disruption? Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm assuming the 'racist slur in an edit summary' is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_First_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=1248567401 here]? That was eight months ago and, as this is an IP, it's uncertain if they're even the same editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::They have apologised for making the remark, and so we can be sure that they, or the AI they fed a prompt into, has accepted responsibility. All racial slurs should be treated equally, and we know that if they had used a more widely known slur, it would be an immediate ban.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not so sure now that this complaint was written by AI. Would any LLM have come up with an abomination like "thusly"? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I was going on vibes alone, but I've run it through gptzero just now and it's 100% confident. -- asilvering (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Well, if an AI like gptzero says that it was written by AI then it must be right. I'm a mere human, so it's not my place to question it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Frankly I'm not too comcerned whether the account POV pushing in a pro-Nazi fashion was using ChatGPT or not. The racist comments and POV pushing are rather more alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::The IP should have been blocked for that racist slur right off the bat. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Funny how AN/I misses the forest for the trees sometimes. IP blocked 1 year. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there nobody who can block them quickly? It is clear they have used racist language, it being 8 months ago shouldn't make a difference.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Is negative 47 minutes later quick enough?{{FBDB}} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Seems reasonable, but I'm not sure about the physics of it.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Whatever the physics or timey-whimey or whatever, a reasonable block, and the behavior of the IP was still right in the wheelhouse, Bushranger. They could've just stopped but tossed the boomerang at me and now have a year off. Thanks, Tazmin. Nathannah • 📮 21:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Kittycat not so funky now. Indefinitely blocked by User:Ingenuity. {{nac}} Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{user|Funkykittycat}} is the indeffed {{user|Politicalscaffolder}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=1288207157][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=1288828172&oldid=1288827820] Polygnotus (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1288829499&oldid=1288829435] lol Polygnotus (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I must be so old. Nerd is a compliment at my age. Knitsey (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Knitsey We rule the world, except the seven seas because the salt water is bad for our precious computers. Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*Mobile.

:::Knitsey (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

About a month ago, around a hundred of my edits were reverted by {{u|FlightTime}} who claimed that they were improperly sourced, even though they all had reliable sources to the United States Census Bureau. FlightTime warned me I would be blocked, but when I asked for clarification, he removed the message. I asked at the help desk, and a user suggested it could be because the two references were cited at the end of the section instead of after the individual paragraphs/sentences they were referencing. (Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 66#Edits reverted)

Just now, I asked FlightTime again for clarification, and asked if a specific issue was the problem. However he didn't identify what the problem was, simply directed me to Help:Referencing for beginners (although I was already doing what was stated on that page), and told me I was wasting his time. (Special:PermanentLink/1288818653#My edits) I would like to restore my edits, but I also do not understand what I am doing wrong and would like some help from an admin so I don't get blocked. Player001eliminated (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't looked at your edits, so I can't tell you the problem (and AN/I is not the place for that; the Teahouse or Help desk is), but FlightTime's response to you was quite bitey and not civil. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did already ask at the help desk. The main response I got was

::"Player001eliminated, your version at Special:PermanentLink/1284665793 seems good to me. (I'm assuming here that it accurately represents the sources that it references.) But in its FlightTime-approved state (for which I'm assuming ditto), it's not wrong, just unnecessarily dated." (the "FlightTime-approved state" refers to the article before I updated it)

::I mainly want to restore these edits. I can make changes to them, if there's something wrong with them. But I don't want to get blocked. Player001eliminated (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You've done nothing wrong and won't be blocked. I would like FlightTime to respond to my point above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I apologize for being "bitey", all I was trying to do is inform the user on proper editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Without any reasons to the contrary, I'm going to begin restoring my edits, but with the suggested changes made (putting sources after each relevant paragraph). Player001eliminated (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Wrong venue for close request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Can someone close the RMs on 1925 tri-state tornado and Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025, and the two RFCs on WT:WEATHER? They’ve been at CR for weeks and no one seems to be interested in closing. Marus893 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:AN is where you should post this, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Close requests should stay at CR. Editors should stop trying to skip the line at AN or AN/I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Well, that was easy. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|Johnnynumerofive}}
• {{userlinks|Docholliday11}}
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Edit warring over linking "Serbian" and "Serbia"

Johnnynumerofive has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikola_Jokić&diff=prev&oldid=1288784049 declared themselves] as a sockpuppet of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Docholliday11&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=500 indef-blocked Docholliday11]. Left guide (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked by Zzuuzz, and I've tagged them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Gino March}}

Recently, I call the attention that Gino March's continuously removed all the acquired programming aired on its Philippine television and movie blocks excluded — without providing any exonerated evidences. As soon as I monitoring the abusive behavioral patterns, he also declining all of their responses without any additional evidence and he tried to unexplained content removal using MOS:TVINTL and WP:NOTTVGUIDE rule, unless there is a notable and verified sources. Until now, no response has been made since he did not communicate the talk page articles as he violated under WP:ONUS policy.

First, the potentially concerns on his talk page, he mentioned to me in a sarcastic way due to engaging edit war as {{tq|Removing personal attacks and threats}}. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gino_March&diff=prev&oldid=1264749171] Although the admin warns about his disruptive behavior, his comments substantially blanking without generate any neutral consensus. I have no idea why he continued to neglected me in a nonsense threat.

The second evidence follows that Gino's edits are massively remove the draft programming before it redirect to the original location ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_GMA_Network_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737909][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_ABS-CBN_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737934][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Heart_of_Asia_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=1286744450][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_TV5_(Philippine_TV_network)_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737958]) and all of the television drama series and other related Philppine TV channels were also unnecessary without providing any additional evidence in MOS:TVINTL as major content removal of these edits: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Ki_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1266184767][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_Sister&diff=prev&oldid=1266184887][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ngayon_at_Kailanman_(2018_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1265248193][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%27s_Up_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=1264757580][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Queen&diff=prev&oldid=1286764741][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTV_(Philippine_TV_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1286743489][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movie_Central_(Philippine_TV_channel)&diff=prev&oldid=1286740793]

So, I here to report this behavioral actions due to the massive disruptive and uncontroversial ways before he comes back in a persistent reversion. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 09:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand your grammar and reading comprehension Icarus (a.k.a. HurricaneErl 2022) but from what I'm reading is that your report is made of false accusations and gaslighting in order to continue reverting all my edits and disregard my style of editing in Wikipedia. Also, as per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icarus58&diff=prev&oldid=1264700512 you were already informed of that rule by another user], but you chose to ignore it by simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icarus58&diff=prev&oldid=1264703107 accusing me of personal threats and violating the rules]. I think you are demanding for my attention is because you're telling me to stop editing. -Gino March (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::So I learned that your report was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glenn23-408649&diff=prev&oldid=1287725579 copy-pasted] from an IP user called 2001:4453:62B:4300:683B:15DC:A61D:20D7 (which is part of the long IP range of 2001:4453:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) at Glenn23-408649's talk page, and I read the conversation has a poor grammar. -Gino March (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's unfair manner. As stated in admin last time at your talk page, it seems that you'll engaging in a edit war and did you notice that some of the unexplained content removal without providing any additional evidences are also restored. Likewise per rule of MOS:TVINTL: {{tq|... do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that carried a series outside the country of production... Editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, if reliably sourced.}} So, why did you accordance of the message from Accireroj without any observation? Until now, you didn't response from any users can mentioned an important manner (especially me) and blanking without providing any neutral consensus as a reason. Although the casting aspersions has been made to false me in a wrong attacks and significant threat as you didn't accepted, WP:AGF, WP:ONUS, and WP:BURDEN have applied as a violation of the rules (including your disruptive editing and behavioral patterns). ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Note: I did it as copy-paste, but I paraphrased clearly to understand my grammatical correction as inclusion for your report. So that, if you didn't stop any repeatedly behavioral patterns and seeking any disputed content, you will entirely block indefinitely by the admin. Apologize as my confusion. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is no point in explaining all the issues to you over and over again because it doesn't make sense and it's very useless to communicate with you. You're only wasting your time reporting for nothing. Leave me alone! -Gino March (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Gino March, those evidences that you've violated repeatedly in accordance of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies must understand your actions carefully before you can respond this in a neutrality manner. This is not wasting my time for reporting for nothing and debatable, it is an opportunity to report you as a big mistakes and to resolve in a particular issue that you've dealt within your behavioral actions made afterwards for generating a clearer consensus. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 15:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_GMA_Network_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737909][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_ABS-CBN_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737934][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Heart_of_Asia_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=1286744450][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_TV5_(Philippine_TV_network)_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737958]) and all of the television drama series and other related Philppine TV channels were also unnecessary without providing any additional evidence in MOS:TVINTL as major content removal of these edits: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Ki_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1266184767][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_Sister&diff=prev&oldid=1266184887][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ngayon_at_Kailanman_(2018_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1265248193][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%27s_Up_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=1264757580][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Queen&diff=prev&oldid=1286764741][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTV_(Philippine_TV_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1286743489][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movie_Central_(Philippine_TV_channel)&diff=prev&oldid=1286740793]

I went through all of the diffs:

As for the other diffs, they are disruptive and so I would support a TBAN (as I think they have the opportunity to become a valuable contributor) until the editor can get their act together (both editorially and behaviorally given this thread). LowerUpperCase (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC) sockstrike. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for giving a consideration. The violation in terms of Gino's behavior is not communicate with other users and the warning issues decline. In case not to communicate the talk page articles itself is also an WP:ONUS guidelines. Icarus 🔭 • 📖 • ✎ 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| result = Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{User|ForTruhOnly}} joined Wikipedia a day ago to edit the page of production company W Studios. In their first edits they removed any mention of former executive producer Carlos Bardasano from the page without an explanation,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1289121407][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1289122767][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1289125558] even though he is mentioned in references as being producer of multiple productions before leaving the company. In an edit summary they claim to be the current COO but did not provide a source that mentioned them in that position, so I reverted the edit and left them a message on adding a reliable source to his edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1289170331] The user once again added their name on the page without providing a source and replied back on their talk page with taking legal action because I am "putting wrong information".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1289263071][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ForTruhOnly&diff=next&oldid=1289265301].

{{abot}}

:'ForTru[t]hOnly', eh? WP:OWB #72 strikes again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|1=pblocked for 31 hours, then their reaction here led to a 48-hour full block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{U|CallumC.Gurney}} is inappropriately removing content from Talk:Hospental Castle ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHospental_Castle&diff=1289182593&oldid=1289182309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289181536][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289179924][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289163486])after consensus was reached against their preference and they were informed multiple times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CallumC.Gurney&diff=prev&oldid=1289173411][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CallumC.Gurney&diff=prev&oldid=1289180418]) that their refactoring was not acceptable. Cerebral726 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked for 31 hours from editing the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I do wonder if that’s sufficient given {{diff2|1289181195|this comment}} on their talk page in response to another editor? Danners430 (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::For context, here are some other instances of incivility in the relevant talk page discussion and the user's userpage: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289135122][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1288832660][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289133004][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACallumC.Gurney&diff=1289181916&oldid=848888785] Cerebral726 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Snitch CallumC.Gurney (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm just gonna go ahead and upgrade that block. -- asilvering (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{hat|reason=Hatting this given it's fundamentally compromised by being a copy of an LLM output. (Note that the original report looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1289029846#Mass_Deletions_Across_Projects_%E2%80%93_Conflict_of_Interest_by_an_editor this], various modifications have been made to prevent it breaking the ToC and removing icons etc.) The editor is welcome to file a new report using their own words. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello,

I would like to raise serious concerns regarding a pattern of cross-project deletions and speedy deletion nominations initiated by User:Osps7 (Osama Eid), which appear to be motivated by personal bias against a specific individual: Abdulrahman Thaher, a TV director and public figure.

From available records, more than 20 articles and pages were deleted or nominated for deletion across multiple language Wikipedias and sister projects. The deletion summaries and comments were nearly identical and included the following repeated claim:

> "The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria."

> — User:Osps7

These justifications contain problematic elements:

• Assumptions of identity and intent without presenting verifiable diffs.
• Subjective claims about popularity and recognition which violate m:Assume good faith and are irrelevant under notability guidelines.
• Accusations that the subject paid or coordinated with news sources to write about him — serious claims presented without evidence.
• Misrepresentation of cross-wiki content translation as “spam”.

This rationale contains assumptions, personal opinions, and lacks a policy-based foundation:

• Notability is determined by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not by local popularity or social media following.
• The pages were supported by multiple reliable, independent sources.
• Translating content across Wikimedia projects is a legitimate and encouraged practice when sourced properly.
• Alleging that someone wrote about themselves, without presenting diffs or clear evidence, is a violation of WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith).

Even more concerning is the tone used in one of the user's comments, revealing clear personal animosity:

"Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter.

The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him.

Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories?

He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online.

So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories?"

— User:Osps7 (May 5, 2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdulrahman_Thaher

These statements demonstrate personal bias, reliance on unverifiable metrics, and a lack of neutrality in applying Wikipedia's policies.

;Challenging the Claims

❌ Bad Faith Assumption: Repeated accusations that the subject “asked others to write about him” or “coordinated with news websites” are serious claims that lack verifiable evidence and violate WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes or speculation.

✅ Notability Standards: The subject has received coverage in reliable, independent sources, including news articles, interviews, and listings on databases such as IMDb, TMDB, and others. This clearly satisfies WP:SIGCOV and Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines.

❌ Cross-wiki Spam Accusation: Translating or adapting content from Arabic Wikipedia to English (or other languages), when properly sourced and neutral, is not spam. It is a legitimate contribution, especially when the subject is notable in their region.

❌ Personal Bias: Comments like “he is not known in Palestine” or “has no followers” are subjective and not aligned with Wikipedia's neutral and evidence-based notability criteria. Reliable independent coverage, not search metrics, determine notability.

;Pages Deleted

• [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher fr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher pt.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher id.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher ms.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurahman_Daher tr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עבד_א-רחמן_דאהר he.wikipedia – עבד א-רחמן דאהר]
• [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔 zh.wikipedia – 阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔]
• [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قالب:عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – Template:عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قائمة_أعمال_عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – قائمة أعمال عبد الرحمن ظاهر]

;Pages Nominated for Speedy Deletion

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
• [https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبدالرحمن_ظاهر fa.wikipedia – عبدالرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر arz.wikipedia – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/압두라흐만_다헤르 ko.wikipedia – 압두라흐만 다헤르]
• [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Абдулрахман_Дахер ru.wikipedia – Абдулрахман Дахер]
• [https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Əbdürrəhman_Zahir az.wikipedia – Əbdürrəhman Zahir]
• [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher de.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher es.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://ha.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher ha.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
• [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher nl.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/अब्द_अल-रहमान_ज़हीर hi.wikipedia – अब्द अल-रहमान ज़हीर]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher_filmography en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher filmography]
• [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikiquote – Abdulrahman Thaher]
• [https://ar.wikiquote.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikiquote – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Abduddaher Commons – Deletion requests: Files uploaded by Abduddaher]

;Request

I respectfully request the following:

• A review of the deletion actions and nominations initiated or supported by User:Osps7.
• An investigation into potential conflict of interest or misuse of admin/editorial rights.
• Restoration or undeletion of at least one page so it may be discussed by the wider community in a neutral venue.
• Unblock User:Abduddaher who contributed to translating most of these pages, to enable him to engage in discussion, commenting and improvement.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Maxpro2025 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ah, that sweet smell of WP:LLM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::The emojis are somehow worse then the LLM LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also a bit odd that the OP is a new account that has made virtually no other edits apart from this and articles relating to the artist in question. Borgenland (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you do it again, but in your own words? MiasmaEternal☎ 03:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{atop

| status = BLOCKED

| result = Indef blocked for mass copyvio 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Userlinks|AnonymousPurpose}} has repeatedly copied content from the Federal Reserve History website and created articles with it:

• Charles N. Shepardson
• John Mitchell (central banker)
• David C. Wills
• Ralph W. Morrison
• Albert Strauss (central banker)
• Philip E. Coldwell
• Philip C. Jackson Jr.
• Milo D. Campbell
• Joseph A. Broderick
• Ernest G. Draper
• Edward H. Cunningham
• Wayland W. Magee
• John Thomas (central banker)
• Edward L. Norton
• David M. Lilly
• Charles Partee
• Jeffrey Bucher
• Menc S. Szymczak
• G.H. King Jr.
• John K. McKee

Laura240406 (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:looks like the user has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169558131 blocked] forever now Laura240406 (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Varoon2542}} has been making biased POV edits on articles, primarily related to demographics. his edits are unsourced, and when reverted or brought on talk page, he typically ignores discussions. After several days weeks or months, he returns and reinstate the same content. I’m giving just few examples-

• In this edit, Varoon2542 added a reference mentioned Bangladeshis in reference instead of adding source in the reference - “[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1230154601]”

• Unsourced biased information, targeting Bangladeshis, Bengalis & Muslims
  [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1230154010], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1230907662], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1250159446]

• After some time/months he again restored those -
  [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285863176], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1273463994], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285664547]

• He repeated the same edit in another article Religion in Mauritius article, again using the content and mentioned Bangladeshis in reference instead of adding source in the reference -
  [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1287396221]

• He also restored a previously removed false claim without any explanation in the Hinduism in Bangladesh article -
  [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1287396827]

• he has had ongoing content disputes with other editors, particularly with user @Largoplazo on the Mauritius article. Even after discussions on the talk page, he returned later and reinstated the same content multiple times. See, what Largoplazo has said about his activity [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285686777]

These are deliberate disruptions. he might have any personal problem with Bangladeshi nationals but on Wikipedia it’s not acceptable. At this point, a block is necessary to stop these. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 21:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is amusing

:On the Mauritius article

:Once it was clear that there was a dispute on two issues, I brought them on the talk page

:i) On Bangladeshi migrants in Mauritius

:After taking all opinions into consideration, I was the one who wrote this paragraph

:"In 2022, the number of Bangladeshi nationals and Indian nationals had respectively risen to 1.21% and 1.19% of the total resident population with Bengali now spoken at home by 1.18% of the population. Non-Mauritians make up 2.62% of the total resident population"

:It now refers to the disproportionate presence of both Indian and Bangladeshi nationals in Mauritius

:I also decided not to state that Bangladeshis had skewed religious figures because even if I firmly believe so, for obvious demographic reasons, I have no definitive proof of it

:I don't mind removing that statement from the Religion in Mauritius article

:I edited the Hinduism in Bangladesh page once

:None of the edits are contentious

:The presumed persecution of Christians in India fills a quarter of the introduction of the Christianity in India article. I never tried to remove it given that it is sourced

:I don't understand why the presumed persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh is being removed given that it is equally sourced

:ii) On the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Mauritius

:Like I've repeatedly stated. I was not the one to mention LGBT rights in that section

:For years, the criminalisation of same sex sexual intercourse was mentioned there

:Then, after decriminalisation, the statement was updated

:I merely rewrote it in proper English

:It's only then that Largoplaza removed it

:I didn't understand his logic given that LGBT rights are mentioned in the relevant sections of most country articles

:We both tried to encourage others to give their opinions on the subject but noone seemed to care

:iii)

:I'm being presented as a bigot by someone who's profile page is conspicuously politicised as "Ultraconservative Propalestinian Bangladeshi Muslim" and who is enlisting Largoplaza, who once told me he was a "gay jewish man", to block a gay atheist from a hindu background

:This situation is a textbook example of what "irony" is

:Varoon2542 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::With this statement, "{{tq|someone who's profile page is conspicuously politicised as "Ultraconservative Propalestinian Bangladeshi Muslim" and who is enlisting Largoplaza, who once told me he was a "gay jewish man", to block a gay atheist from a hindu background}}", you have made it worse by giving religious and ethnic angle to this dispute. WP:HATESPEECH is not allowed here. Shankargb (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I find it quite ironic that you are accusing me of hate speech because I pointed out possible reasons why I was being targeted due to my perceived ethnicity and religion

:::I believe in neutrality on Wikipedia and someone who has the kiswa of the Kaaba on his profile page makes me uncomfortable. I find it oppressing.

:::Can you please review the edicts of Cerium4B before passing judgements on me ?

:::Were his or her edicts acceptable ?

::Varoon2542 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hang on -- are you seriously asserting that you feel "oppressed" by the mere fact that Cerium4B displays a picture of the kiswa on their own user page? Even presuming you can draw an inference from that (there are many non-Muslims, myself among them, who find Islamic decorative arts striking and beautiful), it is just as acceptable on Wikipedia to self-identify as a Muslim as it was for you to self-identify as being from Mauritius. To say this in the very same response as you objecting to being accused of ethno-religious hate speech is the real irony here. If you find the mere presence of Muslims on this encyclopedia uncomfortable and oppressive, then I suggest Wikipedia is not the best outlet for your energies. Ravenswing 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's in addition to the breach of AGF inherent in implying that displaying the kiswa creates a presumption of non-neutrality in one's edits. Largoplazo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I didn't understand his logic given that LGBT rights are mentioned in the relevant sections of most country articles}} I explained my logic at length in response to exactly that observation of yours, I think at least twice in our direct conversations. I also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1285941800 explained it in my ANI submission] of a couple of weeks ago. I don't know what there is not to understand about it, but neither continuing to act as though I hadn't explained it nor declaring to me, like an untalented mind-reader, that my explanation wasn't my real reason for my actions was justified. Largoplazo (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I also decided not to state that Bangladeshis had skewed religious figures because even if I firmly believe so, for obvious demographic reasons, I have no definitive proof of it}}. Proof has nothing to do with why it didn't belong there. "Skewed" is a biased word, in this case suggesting that there's some value that that statistic "should" have, and blaming those darn Bangladeshis for making the figure larger than that. I explained that to you when I removed, which wasn't the first time it had been removed. You then restored the entire passage, and then edited out the "skewed" on your own; I thought you'd decided to concede my point. Now you say that wasn't why you removed it and imply that if you had "proof" (whatever that would consist of), you'd restore it. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Varoon restoring POV content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goa_Inquisition&diff=prev&oldid=1286514742] based on misrepresentation of sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goa_Inquisition#c-Ratnahastin-20241228060700-CapnJackSp-20241228052800] for which there exists no consensus on Goa Inquisition while using edit summaries such as "{{tq|The use of the term "polytheist" instead of "hindu" is a relatively common hinduphobic slander used by monotheists. Not that there's anything wrong in being a polytheist.}}". Also adding irrelevant content such as names of members of Bollywood families to Nepo baby [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepo_baby&diff=prev&oldid=1287393614][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepo_baby&diff=prev&oldid=1287393614] with any basis. Lastly with their comments here "{{Tq|I'm being presented as a bigot by someone who's profile page is conspicuously politicised as "Ultraconservative Propalestinian Bangladeshi Muslim" and who is enlisting Largoplaza, who once told me he was a "gay jewish man", to block a gay atheist from a hindu background This situation is a textbook example of what "irony" is}}", I think an indef block is in order. Shankargb (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The terms "polytheist" or "pagan" have historically been used as derogatory slander against Hindus
• :Are you seriously denying nepotism in Indian cinema ?
• :Why do I feel that you aren't entirely unbiased ? Varoon2542 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varoon2542&diff=prev&oldid=1285930609|{{tq|Those suffering from paranoia should seek therapy. I don't lurk, I've got a life and unlike you, I'm not obsessed to the point of reverting edits within minutes. That actually says more about you.}}] (by Varoon2542, 16 April 2025) is pretty off. Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wrong link, try this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varoon2542&diff=prev&oldid=1285930609] Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, that's the one. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is outside of my wheelhouse so not commenting on the overall issues, but as Varoon2542 has made multiple personal attacks, blocked for 48 hours. No objection if any other admin can look more into this and upgrade it to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Why are the admins not looking into this case? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::it's a volunteer project, even the admins are volunteers. You need to provide a concise, very clear report of wrongdoing if you want this to result in any action.
• ::The problem is that there's not going to be a large number of admins familiar with the particular disputes around Bangladeshi politics and society. So it's harder to comb through to figure out what's going on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=It did, in fact, not require intervention from the admins. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, WP:AIIMAGES is clear "Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace" but with specific criteria and exceptions, It doesn't mean that all these images should be removed and there are already many of these images allowed in articles. I added an image that expresses the atmosphere of one of the traditions, this atmosphere has no specific form or shape and therefore my image does not distort any facts and is subject to the exception that the policy talks about, I also stated that the image is AI and I did not mislead or claim that it was an actual image.

when a user objected to the image I opened a discussion here, but now (user:Adamant1) wants to remove the image by force (he removed it twice) and does not respect the current discussion, he talks about the image being inappropriate and it is also clear in his contributions that he is against AI-images, Ok this is his personal opinion but your opinion should not be imposed by force on everyone. Now This user insists on bypassing the discussion and remove the image by force, and the issue requires intervention from the admins. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I notify the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288898346 here] --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't understand why this has been brought here. The discussion on the talk page has not finished, and content under discussion is usually removed until that happens. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Indeed. And given that there are two images in the arz.wiki article that could be used instead of a non-realistic AI image, I don't see that there is any reason for it. Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The talk page discussion is finished, it has been closed, with the AI image rejected for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I told Ibrahim.ID that this isn't a place where the exception would apply since the article isn't about AI or AI generated images and there's alternatives anyway. They clearly weren't able to get the point though. Oh well. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Banned

| result = TzarN64's WP:3X ban was lifted following AN discussion at Special:Diff/1282704798. It didn't work out. Clear consensus for an indefinite WP:CBAN. asilvering (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|TzarN64}}

{{user|TzarN64}} was recently unblocked in March with agreement to a WP:1RR restriction (see this revision for their original block). Since then, Tzar has gotten into a slew of arguments against other users to the point where I would consider it flat out harassment. The most important instance of this is most likely their behavior towards {{user|Freedoxm}}, where if you check the page history and archives of User talk:TzarN64, you will find several examples of him and other users (mainly {{user|Sergecross73}}) asking TzarN64 to stop engaging with him. This includes unsolicited user/talk page edits, warning template abuse, and targeting/reverting their edits with no explanation given. And though not related to their interactions with Freedoxm, they have also been noted to be potentially misusing the GAN process. There is an entire ANI report draft made by Freedoxm and {{user|Tarlby}} about their interactions with Tzar, which especially suggests their continued problems with the user (note that I do think that making a public ANI report draft is a bit of an odd choice, but its whatever).

Now what here exactly pushed me to create this discussion? Not that long ago, this user uploaded two files for use in the Steve's Lava Chicken article. I did not believe that they met WP:NFCC, however, so I took both of the files to Files for discussion. Almost immediately after the discussions were made, Tzar proceeded to redirect the article with no explanation given. I then proceeded to revert the redirect since, well, literally no explanation was given. Then they redirected it again (note that this violates their 1RR restriction), until I ultimately restored the article again. They then took it to AFD. I strongly interpreted that nomination for deletion as likely one made out of spite or desire for revenge, and I still think it is that. Maybe I could've worded it in my comment there a bit better, I am willing to concede that, but nothing else about this whole situation suggests to me that it is anything but that. Also note that they violated WP:DTTR by flat out accusing me of edit warring over the whole situation. As far as I am aware, I do not believe that any of what I did in this situation is edit warring based on the fact I attempted to encourage the user take it to AFD instead of redirecting it, and therefore, attempting to gain a consensus. They also falsely warned {{user|Cukie Gherkin}}, a well experienced editor, for editing talk page comments. To my knowledge, Cukie did not do anything of the sort. I firmly believe that this user is not suited to be on Wikipedia, given their violation of their 1RR restriction and clear immaturity towards other editors. λ NegativeMP1 01:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Summary of the below content in case it is confusing in some way: Several potential sockpuppets have responded to this discussion to not only attack me by accusing me of doing things I never did (misgendering) and call for me to be blocked instead, but also attempt to prematurely close the discussion (the wording of the threat also kind of confirms that it is a sock of Tzar). One even called Freedoxm Tzar's friend, which is completely false and possibly downright defamatory. Hell, one of the sock puppets even threatened Freedoxm. Also, in case it was not clear enough by my initial post, I am endorsing a re-block λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Endorse re-block - I have been trying to guide this editor in the right direction for weeks now, and they simply won't change. Im at a complete loss. They require constant babysitting, and it's nothing but WP:IDHT responses. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:@seorge numbers, you've made a strong impression, at least: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-TzarN64-20250505012600-Asilvering-20250505012500]. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Endorse partial re-block for the following pages: Especially since they reverted an edit by me, at Syria, without explanation, I am supporting an indefinite block for editing all user pages and talk pages sitewide and all ARBPIA articles. In addition, Tzar shpuld also be stripped of her rights of Twinkle and other warning gadgets. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Endorse partial re-block: Please see User:Tarlby/ANI drafting space. –HirowoWiki (📝) 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Involved comment I'll note that Tzar also broke 1RR on my talk page a little while ago (I'll link diffs in a minute [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tarlby&diff=prev&oldid=1283632607] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tarlby&diff=prev&oldid=1283635912]).

:Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Endorse partial re-block: It's always tough when it's an editor who clearly wants to improve the encyclopedia but is always getting their own way. Any area not blocked ought to be quite explicit, such as suggested by Freedoxm, in order to avoid inevitable boundary pushing. Tip of the hat to Sergecross73, who has made laudable efforts trying to keep TzarN64 o nthe right path. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:Suffice it to say, if these sudden new accounts are related to TzarN64, I'm for WP:INDEF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Support re-block: TzarN64 has continued to GAN a clearly unready article (Mario Kart 7), despite the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TzarN64&diff=prev&oldid=1283144611 warning] of Sergecross73 about her GAN activity. Although that in itself does not merit a block (in my opinion merely a topic ban from GA), taken with the evidence provided by NegativeMP1, is indicative of a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. I would usually support only a topic ban or partial block, but considering that Tzar has already been blocked before, it would be less effort for other editors for her to be blocked, as it is time-consuming to monitor her edits to ensure that she is obeying the topic ban. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:That's not even the worst of their GA activities. After their GA was delisted a week later due to concerns about article and review quality, i strongly recommended they hold off on working on the area until they understood the standards better, and recommended they not work with inexperienced reviewers that couldn't catch their mistakes. A few couple weeks later, I caught them asking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RenkoTheBird&oldid=1286599151#Request an editor with less than 300 edits to their name to review a GA], on a GA nom that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_3D_All-Stars&action=history was quickfailed for not meeting basic criteria]. This has been a recurring theme; I can't trust them because they say they understand issues, but then proceed to make the same basic mistake just a little later like this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Support re-block. Eregious abuse of GAN process. When told that editors who have significantly contributed to articles should be the ones nominating them, they proceed to inflate their edit counts on those articles without actually addressing the quality concerns, which feels like gaming the system. Also with the failed Mario Kart 7 nomination they proceeded to ask elsewhere "any ideas how to fix it?" to the chagrin of the editors who reviewed and left behind feedback. If they weren't even reading the feedback on their poor GANs, how are they expecting to improve? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Comment - In addition to Tzar's block endorsement, I will also support the stripping of her EC rights, page moving rights, GAN nomination rights, and GAR rights. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose - Having arguments is normal consensus on Wikipedia. Freedoxm is a friend of TzarN64, its just regular disputes between friends. Also please WP:AGF and put your eyes in her shoes, she is autistic and has a hard time understanding other peoples POV. She is WP:HERE, just confused. WP:DTTR is not an official policy, so it doesn't count in this AN/I thread. This sets a dangerous precedent where kids are banned on editing Wikipedia because of their "immatureness", you have never experienced what being a parent is like. Finally, you misgendered her. Its a she, not a they. If anything, you should be blocked for accusing a kid that just wants to improve Wikipedia in her own style and then proceed to misgender her. Ezprocasnita (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC) — Ezprocasnita (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

::{{yo|Ezprocasnita}} May I ask who you are proposing to block? Also, I find it a tad suspicious that out of the two edits you've made, one was creating your userpage and the other was this comment, espicially since this is regarding a user with a history of sockpuppeteering. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::MiiWiiU and SinXEqualsX down there both each have only one edit, which is their comments to this ANI thread. Forgive me if I'm being hasty, but I think this is all too convenient for this not to have sockpuppeting involved. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree. This could be socking to turn around opinions. I will start a SPI if necessary. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Freedoxm Please don't do that. Ezprocasnita (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'll do it if you continue to call @TzarN64 and I "friends". I find it ironic and disrespectful. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::you don't need to start an SPI, its obvious to everyone its socking.

:::::Any admin who comes across this will send down the ban hammer soon on all of these. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Grumpylawnchair My old account was hacked into, but I talked with TzarN64 a lot. Was just hoping to give an opinion on her. Ezprocasnita (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am not a friend of Tzar, nor have I had ever met her IRL. I will dismiss this opinion as blatant. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose - Support per @Ezprocasnita. Misgendering is pretty severe but looking through her contributions, shes here just being slightly disruptive. Give her a year or two and she'll shape up. MiiWiiU (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC) — MiiWiiU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

::@Ezprocasnita: Wdym "Slightly disruptive"? I've heard enough of this. Period. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Speedy close/Strong oppose - Support per @Ezprocasnita and @MiiWiiU. SinXEqualsX (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC) — SinXEqualsX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

:Oppose - Reviewing this thread, it becomes clear. TzarN64 is here to build an encyclopedia. Can we have sanctions against the OP? GreatXprtOnRiemann (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)— GreatXprtOnRiemann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

::Tzar, this behavior is unacceptable. Please, go with grace, otherwise it's going to be much more difficult to someday return to editing if you're ever permitted to return. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Endorse re-block - the blatant socks above show someone who is not here. @TzarN64 recently created, less than a day old accounts are very easy to spot, and they never randomly show up in WP:ANI unless someone is piloting them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Probably pointing out the obvious, but all three of the sole oppose stances are from editors with 1-2 edits to their name. Pretty clear what's going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yup. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:SinXEqualsX was made 7 minutes ago. MiiWiiU 9 minutes ago. Ezprocasnita about 18. λ NegativeMP1 03:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Attempted close by another likely sockpuppet account. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see. @Sergecross73, since you're an admin, can you speedily close this and quickly block Tzar? It's clear that this is WP:SOCK. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've contacted a Checkuser fyi. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Also consider Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TzarN64. λ NegativeMP1 03:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd like it to be a community block, which appears to be inevitable, as the only opposing parties are just Tzar socking. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Can you not just block her and wait for the de jure ban after? WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUR surely applies here Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Don't forget [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheSageofContributing TheSageofContributing], which was also created today to prematurely close out the thread, delete comments, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freedoxm&diff=prev&oldid=1288860681 post a threat at Freedoxm]. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I made a new comment at the top of this discussion to try and summarize the chaos and confusion from all of the sockpuppet talk. I have also now noted the threat that the sock puppet posted on Freedoxm's talk page - thank you for linking the revision. λ NegativeMP1 04:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This sure got weird quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - If socking and result turning continues, I will opt for a full block, indefinitely. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - They used one of their socks to post a threat to Freedoxm's talk page, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freedoxm&diff=prev&oldid=1288860681 you better watch your back]". Unforgivable. Supporting indefinite block. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Same. Forget my previous opinion, I am supporting not just an indefinite block, but a ban. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• If it was just the OP report, this could be allowed to play out. Given they have very obviously used multiple socks to disrupt this discussion, TzarN64 has been indefinitely, fully, blocked. Sock blocking {{in progress}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Socks blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{ping|Freedoxm}} I'd suggest self-reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TzarN64&diff=prev&oldid=1288870843 this edit] as it smacks of WP:GRAVEDANCING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{done}}. My sincere apologies, even to Tzar. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Don't forget {{vandal|GreatXprtOnRiemann}} ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{done}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• TzarN64's original block had to be appealed to the community at WP:AN, so just to be clear, folks supporting a reblock above, you're effectively supporting a CBAN, are you ok with that? Given the socking, I assume the answer is yes, but I wanted to be sure. -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Asilvering, yes, I support a CBAN. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Well, the user is already blocked but yes I 100% support a CBAN. λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I'm aware. If a CBAN wasn't on the table I'd just close the thread as dealt with, but since it looks like we have consensus for a formal CBAN I want to double-check that before doing the extra paperwork. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ah, got it. λ NegativeMP1 04:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :i assume this was already WP:LASTCHANCE. it seems unlikely they should get another. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::They're young. The community is pretty sympathetic to "I was young and stupid, and now I am less young and less stupid". But that will take a few years, I think. -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes. Down the road, an unblock is a possibility, but we're talking a long time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• The user is currently pleading on their talk page that they are not responsible for the accounts that were made solely to disrupt this conversation. I want to believe them now that I see their desire to want to disassociate with the site in the Teahouse discussion, so maybe it's possible that they were framed. Only a CheckUser will be able to confirm which side is correct here. Regardless though, I still think that an indefinite CBAN is in order here. λ NegativeMP1 04:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I was hit by an edit conflict to say the same thing. We should have a checkuser 100% confirm the socking. If not? I still think a CBAN is appropriate. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Another one of these new accounts has attempting to vandalize this discussion and then proceeded to threaten me on my talk page (I think?). {{ping|asilvering}} can you please deal with this one? λ NegativeMP1 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Nevermind, they got blocked already. λ NegativeMP1 05:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The CU has come back as inconclusive, which in my opinion means the likelihood that the socks were Tzar herself is lower than the likelihood that they were specifically created to harass her along with everyone else. I don't think that fundamentally changes the direction of this conversation, though. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Looks like the exact same type of socking is happening at an above thread. This is more evidence it's not Tzar who's socking but just some random guy disrupting the whole page. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Yep. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Endorse re-block as it seems a lost cause for the editor to move forward. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Sergecross73-20250505030700-Grumpylawnchair-20250505021300 Sergecross73's observation about the editor's GA issues] really hits it home with illustrating the problem. BarntToust 22:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Without wishing to re-open the above, I'll add a postscript here.

TzarN64 posted an appeal, requesting that the multiple socks in the above discussion be checked by CU. This has now been done: the results came back inconclusive to TzarN64, although confirmed to each other (I hope I've interpreted that correctly).

Other than that, the appeal says {{tq|"Let it be clear I do not want to get unblocked"}}, therefore I have declined it procedurally.

I'm not sure from the above discussion whether TzarN64 is CBANned or just plain vanilla blocked, which presumably matters in case they change their mind about unblocking or return later for a clean start. Any thoughts?

As for the socks, they should obviously remain blocked, whosever they are, but should they be retagged (they are currently showing as suspected TzarN64's), in light of the inconclusive CU? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:To me, it looks like there's a pretty solid consensus for a CBAN regardless of the identity of the socks. Only the socks objected to taking any action. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I interpreted the discussion as supporting a block and @The Bushranger’s action as a block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. I just don't want this to be seen as a voluntary thing. I know how this editor operates. In a couple days/weeks, they're going to come back and say "Well, I've learned a lot in this time, I'm ready now" and then revert back to the same problematic behaviors. Its been a recurring theme since the last unblock. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've been looking through the policies and don't find an answer to this: If an editor is conditionally unbanned and violates the conditions, is the reblock considered a reban? Otherwise, I'm in favor of opening up a new discussion specifically to !vote on a new siteban. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I assumed it was - otherwise, I don't understand how it would be considered "conditional" in the first place. Generally speaking, if conditions are given and not upheld, you revert back to the original status. If you don't keep your part of the bargain, the deal is off. That sort of logic. That's only my general understanding though, its not like I have an explicit WP:COMMUNITYREBANSTATUS clause to cite or something. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Rsjaffe, it was my intention to clarify that regarding the ban with my post to the topic. Would you mind unclosing the above, so we can close it with a CBAN with the correct paperwork, etc? I'm sure she'll appeal eventually, and future admins will certainly appreciate having things spelled out clearly for them. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Note that TzarN64 posted (and then self-reverted after being questoined about it) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TzarN64&diff=prev&oldid=1288998773 this]. Note that I had already reblocked to reflect only the disruption in the block rationaile, since the socking proved to be an apparent joe job, but to be fair that could have been missed, but still, {{ping|Sergecross73}}'s prediction seems to have been on the money, aside from its timeframe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, we went through the same process every time I warned them they weren't ready for a given venue (like GANs) - they'd make a comment of acceptance, and then completely go back in their word days/weeks later. As you say, this time was much faster than usual. On a related note, I'm also very concerned by their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATzarN64&diff=1288961624&oldid=1288961255 plan to just get community banned for a for a while], on multiple levels. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think that's a concerning plan. It's basically what we tell people in general: come back later and apologize. That's the heart of WP:SO. I don't think anyone would take an unban request to the community after only six months, anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't think they understand how big a deal it is to get banned or indeffed, or how hard it is to get it reversed. In my experience, the failure rate is pretty high. Meanwhile, Tzar seems to talk about it very casually, like one would talk about taking a Wikibreak. I've been telling them for a while that if they didn't change their ways, they were on track to get reblocked, and they just shrugged me off. To each their own, but I find it to be a concerning approach. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree with Sergecross73 their message is a little concerning. The first part "{{tqi|My original plan was to just to get CBanned for awhile}}" is not something we ever tell editors to do, because it's not acceptable. No one who wants to edit here productively should having being cbanned as part of their plan. The end part of their statement is a little bit better but still concerning or at least confusing "{{tqi|then to do a common offer and start a fresh start on a new account. Then, I’d avoid doing the same mistakes that got me into this ANI in the first place}}". While staying way for a while then asking for the WP:Standard offer is generally recommended for anyone with a cban i.e. is perfectly fine, a WP:fresh start is not valid for someone who is banned. They did say "do a common offer", but even if they were unbanned as part of the standard offer, a fresh start with a new account is still unlikely to be acceptable at least without clearly linking it to their old account. Even without a formal one account restriction limitation, receiving an unban and abandoning that account and using a new one, no matter how careful you are to not repeated the previous problems, it's still a problem IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closure reverted. Now that the dust has cleared and the socking has stopped, I have reverted my closure so that an orderly BAN closure can occur. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Newsjunkie}}

This is the third report that is going to be made on this user. Clearly, she is WP:NOTHERE. After getting involved in these reports from @Butlerblog [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Disruptive_editing_and_slow_edit_warring_against_consensus], and @Wound theology[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Renewed_edit_war], and filing a false unsigned report against me[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Claiming_consensus_when_there_are_only_two_involved_and_personal_attacks], she has not changed her behavior or her editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Official_website/Amazon_release_info_as_Link/References_at_Thomas_&_Friends]. She continues to edit war and mainly mess up with references, including adding unreliable references (one from a pirated YouTube channel)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunnyside,_Queens&curid=1796865&diff=1288629031&oldid=1288595418], and when complained about it, will WP:BLUDGEON the talk page discussion with WP:WALLSOFTEXT, or edit war to her preferred version with all of the unreliable sources. She's not going to change her behavior. Those page blocks are not enough. Given her continued pattern to add unreliable sources, WP:REFCLUTTERING, and bludgeoning when complained about, even when getting blocked from 3 pages, a sitewide block is requested. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I just replaced the Youtube link in question to an authorized source. MoviesAnywhere is owned by movie companies and you can only view the clips in question if you buy the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunnyside,_Queens&diff=next&oldid=1288629031 In the recent case I started a discussion and have not done any edits since and have made arguments based on Wikipedia policy. I believe the user above is making it personal and is somewhat intentionally following my edits on different pages as they have also been warned about. Also the issue with the Amazon reference is not that is unreliable or unverified, as the discussion has showed, but a question of notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NacreousPuma855#c-Butlerblog-20250427132900-(Hopefully)_helpful_advice newsjunkie (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP:HOUNDING "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I have been trying to correct their problems, however given their history, it is clear that they haven't learned from their past behavior. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::When I did a Request for Comment related to a CBS page, the user above also clearly posted the insubstantial/ unhelpful comment "this is how you got blocked from the main article in the first place. It’s over and done with now." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS#c-NacreousPuma855-20250426235300-Newsjunkie-20250426172100 newsjunkie (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The comment was based on their previous edits to WP:OWN the article, given their block log, it was the exact same changes that caused them to get blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&diff=1284132515&oldid=1284131139]. I'm not a bad guy, I'm just looking out for certain pages, though I do get confused sometimes when I have a disability. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It was a helpful comment. You just don't realize it. This sort of behavior is {{em|exactly}} how you got blocked. wound theology◈ 10:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::To clarify, I didn't think it was helpful to that particular discussion in the moment. But clearly, at this point there is a pattern here that is not changing. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Let's close off this portion as socks and discussion about the socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{hat|Obvious socking}}

:Oppose - Stop being so WP:BITEY and just calm down. She is here to build an encyclopedia. You are violating so many Wikipedia policies that you should be banned. SoundsLikeBITW (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose - You have no idea what your talking about. I know her in real life, shes a good friend and works collabritevly. CyclingDemocraticEncyclopedia (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose - This is WP:HARRASSEMENT. Support per the two users above. LawcraticWong (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose - You have no idea what your saying. Please stop harassing her. Your a man, you should know better. Extracommissary (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Those four accounts that are opposing are sockpuppets and possibly AI bots. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose - Not only do you violate nearly every single policy in the book, but then you harass an innocent woman. Can you not get any worse? LangramCommunion (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:{{Non-admin comment}} Hmm... Five accounts.. all created today... all who's first edit are these replies... I wonder who this could be????? Worgisbor (congregate) 19:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Did not think we had a Joe job on our hands. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support NOTHERE indef. I couldn’t be more blatant in sockpuppeting if I even tried. EF5 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did not make these accounts! I don't know the person. I am open to a checkuser investigation to investigate this. I believe I am being set up. newsjunkie (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::See the TzarN64 ANI further down on this page. The exact same thing happened and those sockpuppets weren't found to be hers (or well, they likely weren't, as established by a CheckUser). I'm not convinced that these sockpuppets are Newsjunkie's but rather someone else entirely. λ NegativeMP1 19:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ignore the sockpuppets. Probably a Joe job. Make a judgment absent the puppets. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I see. Horrible time for me to go on mobile, disregard my vote. I’ll take a second look in about ten minutes. EF5 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Dear God, the exact thing happening below also happened at the TzarN64 ANI (several new accounts being made solely for the purposes of disrupting the discussion). Initially, those were suspected to be her sockpuppets, but then it was found to likely be a Joe job. Now I'm suspecting that this is a flat out disruption attack on ANI as a whole by someone that isn't Tzar nor Newsjunkie. λ NegativeMP1 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did not make these accounts! I don't know the person. I am open to a checkuser investigation to investigate this. I believe I am being set up. newsjunkie (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Checkuser requested. I'm pretty sure that you had nothing to do with the sockpuppets. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The investigation is under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TzarN64, though TzarN64 is probably not involved. That's just where all the accounts are currently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|RaSriAiem}}

I tried to start a discussion about following Manual of Style at Talk:Miss Earth 2025 per BRD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiss_Earth_2025&diff=1283916764&oldid=1281008226]. RaSriAiem (a beauty pageant SPA according to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/RaSriAiem/0 xtools]) summarily removed my thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiss_Earth_2025&diff=1283947181&oldid=1283916764], without notifying me. When I discovered this, I civilly notified them on their talkpage that it's unacceptable to do this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaSriAiem&diff=prev&oldid=1288740151]. Ironically, the material they deleted included documentation of my prior attempts to identify and seek consensus on the MOS topic at hand.

Unfortunately, now RaSriAiem is defending their removal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARaSriAiem&diff=1288744784&oldid=1288740151]. I've made some responses on their talk why that's still unacceptable. But I think they need another person (administrator) to come in and have a look at their disruptive concept of what editing here is all about. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:@RaSriAiem: you cannot remove other editors' posts from article talk pages. Period. If someone reverts your edits, you discuss them on article talk. You don't delete the other person's comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd like to be sure they understand that if they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaSriAiem&diff=prev&oldid=1288757079 reject participation] in discussions that build consensus, and feel {{tq|I have other things to do than to join in any discussion}}, then they can't in good faith a) revert against consensus or b) complain about other users' edits in line with consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Left a note on their talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Bri@The Bushranger I truly mean it when I say this “I already understood everything from the discussion on my talk page”. And again, I sincerely have real-life responsibilities outside of Wikipedia — my job, spending time with friends, and taking care of my family. These are real obligations, not excuses.

::::Let me emphasize again: I already fully understood what I did. But it was you who brought my actions here (which I do acknowledge), and you are still asking me to respond again — and again. Isn’t that a bit excessive, considering that you already spoke to me on my talk page.

::::I’ve already acknowledged and understood my actions. So what exactly do you want from me now? The same explanation I gave on my talk page? Or something else?

::::Because if the point was to make sure I understood that I shouldn’t have removed the comment — then yes, I already understood that clearly since yesterday. RaSriAiem (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Definitely not here and now the other kind of not here WaggersTALK 08:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC) WaggersTALK 08:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|Lietuva lietuviams69}}

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. At Jonas Noreika they have have been edit warring in order to remove "Nazi collaborator" from the lead (they probably reverted while logged out as well) and then they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonas_Noreika&diff=prev&oldid=1289057428 wrote] in the edit summary: {{tq|i have noticed you have edited articles with israel wars.... Meaning you are a jew..... Calling everyone a nazi was promised to you 3000 years ago wasnt it?}}. Mellk (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wow, okay. Get this guy the fuck out. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• IP range being reported: {{userlinks|2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64}}
• Previous AN/I thread from December 2024: "2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 = block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16"

Hello Wikipedia admins. This is a second report of the IP /64 range user above, who was blocked for 1 week in December 2024 after the first AN/I thread I filed against them (linked above). They were blocked due to evasion of the block on the 166.182.0.0/16 range, which still remains there to this day. Although the 1 week rangeblock of the /64 has expired a long time ago, looking at the range's contribs history there are zero good faith edits nor any edits that are not this long-term disruptive person. Today they have returned to make yet another round of disruptions to their favourite TV show related articles.

Evidence diffs:

• On article A: diff by still-blocked /16 from June 2023, diff by /64 from Dec 2024, diff by /64 from 5 May 2025
• On article B: diff by /64 from Dec 2024, diff by /64 from 5 May 2025
• On article C: diff by still-blocked /16 from June 2023, diff by /64 from Dec 2024, diff by /64 from 5 May 2025

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Socks whacked

| result = Bunch o' spammy socks blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HydroDoesWhackyStuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Userlinks|Passyii}}

Reporting user for continually uploading copyvio pictures, potential COI, and not engaging with others' feedback or the automatic warning messages.

I previously put up a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard about them and another user, but it's been 9 days with no reply there and this user has continued uploading copyvios and making posts that seem like likely COI to me.

For evidence of copyvio pictures, see their talkpage; littered with deletion warnings. For recent copyvio pictures even past all the deletions, see :File:Priz-V.jpg and :File:Mave-metaverse-entertainment.jpeg; while before the user simply didn't upload any appropriate license (which led to the automatic deletions), they recently started putting up fake rationales to try and bypass the automatic deletions.

For potential COI, see my post at the COI noticeboard (linked above). Meanwhile, they've continued making pages that are possible COI. Draft:SpinX Games, Draft:Metaverse Entertainment

This user has been warned multiple times for their behavior, but has engaged with none of the warnings or efforts at discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Passyii&diff=prev&oldid=1286335719][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Passyii&diff=prev&oldid=1286637255][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coway_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1286725947][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coway_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1286726262]

Getting tired of dealing with this and waiting for the discussion on the COI noticeboard to resolve while this user keeps causing issues. Would save us a lot of effort to just block. seefooddiet (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Actually may as well include the other user I reported at the COI noticeboard as well in this. I strongly suspect they're related; have collaborated on multiple articles together.

:{{userlinks|Hydro0721}}

:This user has edited a very similar range of pages ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coway_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1287397366], Draft:SpinX Games, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netmarble&diff=prev&oldid=1279514577]). They've also been warned about COI but have ignored feedback. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydro0721&diff=prev&oldid=1278883115][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydro0721&diff=prev&oldid=1287435642] seefooddiet (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::It appears to be a lot of promotional editing revolving around Netmarble, its personnel, and the companies it has ownership interests in: Coway (company); Jam City (company); Kabam; Draft:SpinX Games; Draft:Metaverse Entertainment; NCSoft; Bang Jun-hyuk. 80 of @Passyii's 83 edits are of those topics, all of @Hydo0721's edits are. I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::OK, I have reviewed the issue further and have pblocked them from Article and Draft space until we get a better explanation. I have invited them here to discuss. I see ignoring the requests concerning COI, probable undeclared paid editing, copyright violations (by @Passyii), probable meat- or sockpuppeting. Again, interested to hear from them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that I have just gutted Draft:Metaverse Entertainment as it was largely stapled together from other sources. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 08:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{userlinks|JulieBole}} made 10 small edits to get autoconfirmed and then created an article for one of Netmarble's games in mainspace. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackpot_World&oldid=1226357830] There's likely a lot more SPA editors around this topic.

::ETA: Hydro0721 is probably {{u|HydroDoesWhackyStuff}}, blocked last year for spamming on Netmarble's articles.

::ETA2: SPI opened, but I'm betting a lot of this is meatpuppetry. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Nothing actionable for this (en.wp) noticeboard. {{nac}} Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding a serious pattern of deletions and deletion nominations across multiple Wikimedia projects, all seemingly coordinated or initiated by User:Osps7 (Osama Eid), targeting a single individual — a TV director and public figure, Abdulrahman Thaher. The actions appear to stem from personal bias and involve misuse of administrative or editorial influence.

Across at least 15 Wikimedia projects, more than 20 articles and files related to this individual were either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. The justifications provided are near-identical and raise serious concerns. One such justification he copied and pasted on pages is:

''"The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria."

— User:Osps7''

This reasoning reflects personal opinion rather than a policy-based approach:

• Wikipedia's notability is assessed based on WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not local popularity or social media presence.

• The articles were well-sourced with multiple reliable references.

• Accusations of self-promotion lack concrete diffs or verifiable evidence, violating WP:AGF.

• Cross-wiki translations of valid content are not considered spam and are encouraged, especially with neutral tone and citations.

Furthermore, a comment from User:Osps7 illustrates the tone of the deletions:

"Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter. The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him. Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories? He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online. So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories?" — Osama Eid (May 5, 2025)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdulrahman_Thaher

• Bad Faith Assumption: Repeated accusations that the subject “asked others to write about him” or “coordinated with news websites” are serious claims that lack verifiable evidence and violate WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes or speculation.

• Notability Standards: The subject has received coverage in reliable, independent sources, including news articles, interviews, and listings on databases such as IMDb, TMDB, and others. This clearly satisfies WP:SIGCOV and Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines.

• Cross-wiki Spam Accusation: Translating or adapting content from Arabic Wikipedia to English (or other languages), when properly sourced and neutral, is not spam. It is a legitimate contribution, especially when the subject is notable in their region.

• Personal Bias: Comments like “he is not known in Palestine” or “has no followers” are subjective and not aligned with Wikipedia's neutral and evidence-based notability criteria. Reliable independent coverage, not search metrics, determine notability.

This language clearly reflects personal bias, relies on non-verifiable metrics, and misrepresents Wikipedia’s standards for notability.

Pages Deleted:

• [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher fr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher pt.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher id.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher ms.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurahman_Daher tr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עבד_א-רחמן_דאהר he.wikipedia – עבד א-רחמן דאהר]
• [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔 zh.wikipedia – 阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔]
• [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قالب:عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – Template:عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قائمة_أعمال_عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – قائمة أعمال عبد الرحمن ظاهر]

Nominated for Speedy Deletion:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
• [https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبدالرحمن_ظاهر fa.wikipedia – عبدالرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر arz.wikipedia – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/압두라흐만_다헤르 ko.wikipedia – 압두라흐만 다헤르]
• [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Абдулрахман_Дахер ru.wikipedia – Абдулрахман Дахер]
• [https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Əbdürrəhman_Zahir az.wikipedia – Əbdürrəhman Zahir]
• [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher de.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher es.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://ha.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher ha.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
• [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher nl.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
• [https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/अब्द_अल-रहमान_ज़हीर hi.wikipedia – अब्द अल-रहमान ज़हीर]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher_filmography en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher filmography]
• [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikiquote – Abdulrahman Thaher]
• [https://ar.wikiquote.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikiquote – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
• [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Abduddaher Commons – Deletion requests: Files uploaded by Abduddaher]

I respectfully request:

• A review of all deletion and nomination actions made or influenced by User:Osps7.

• An investigation into potential abuse of tools or conflict of interest.

• Restoration or re-evaluation of at least one deleted page so that the community can discuss it neutrally.

• Transparency about how personal judgments like “lack of followers” or “search interest” are being weighed in editorial decisions.

• Unblocking of User:Abduddaher, who translated many of the affected articles, so that he may take part in the review process.

Maxpro2025 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry is your basis for asking for Administrator intervention the fact that this editor has made 2 AfDs on en.wp and done a bunch of stuff on other wikis? Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maxpro2025, please read this essay on LLM usage on Wikipedia. While not a policy, it gives you a good idea of how the community treats LLMs. ^EF⁵ 13:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The English Wikipedia has no authority on any other languages Wikipedias. You can't ask here for help there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I still feel like this is written with a LLM. I'm not sure if you're fluent in English, but even if you aren't, I feel like using a translator and explaining in your own words is much more helpful. jolielover♥talk 13:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::While I don't agree with @Osps7 regarding the deletion of the article at en.wp this is an entirely spurious AN/I complaint, notwithstanding the obvious LLM usage and I would recommend Maxpro2025 withdraw it. Furthermore AfD is within the Israel / Palestine CTOP which means Maxpro2025 should not be touching it as they are not ECR status. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Cross-wiki abuse is dealt with at Meta, not the English Wikipedia. And, as others say, don't use LLMs. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:This appears to just be a slightly better formatted repost of #Mass Deletions Across Projects – Conflict of Interest by an editor from above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tq|Across at least 15 Wikimedia projects, more than 20 articles and files related to this individual were either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. The justifications provided are near-identical}}

Even though every language's wikipedia is independent, I'm strongly in favour of consistency. Narky Blert (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Huh? How does this argument make sense? I think the individual is notable beyond doubt and it's quite silly to still be arguing contrary when there is significant coverage for MULTIPLE things he has done. Checking the pages which have been deleted, it seems like all of them were without an AfD process. I don't know the policies or guidelines of every wiki, but reviewing some of them:

:* .pt got deleted for being "cross-wiki spam" - even if the creator was blocked and was mass-creating the article across various wikis, is that seriously not allowed when the subject is clearly notable? Like, if I began creating articles for Brad Pitt across wikis where he doesn't have one, would it be reasonable to block me? The AfD demonstrates he's notable beyond doubt (there's even some kind of report analysing the impact his detention had and the subsequent reaction of the general public)

:* Most other wikis (ms., id., tr. etc) deleted for not being notable - I feel like in most of the cases, there was a lack of a source review determining notability. I've seen none that went through an AfD process, and I would like to challenge the deletions, except I don't know the languages.

:* he. got deleted because the creator got blocked. Again, I believe him being blocked is irrelevant in this scenario when the subject is genuinely notable.

:Even tho I disagree with the deletions, I'm aware I don't know their policies, and it could have been within their right for all I know. Anyway, English Wikipedia has a different set of notability requirements, and thus we should follow that. jolielover♥talk 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I also want to add not all deletions were just an article on him, some were of templates and articles such as "list of works by..." In the English equivalent, I voted to merge onto the main article, since I don't think his works are substantial enough for an entire new article yet. jolielover♥talk 15:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This does appear to be a coordinated deletion action. And while authoring your own page (if that is indeed what occurred) is strongly discouraged in many ways, it isn't an argument or reason for deletion. And even our article has a ton of proper news sources about him and his work, as does all the others I'm seeing linked above. So, beyond OP's use of LLM to write this (bad OP!), this does seem to be a real issue. Silverseren^C 14:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The only things in scope for EN.WP are the two AfDs on our project and I would not call two AfDs, even poorly conceived ones, particularly disruptive. If someone wants to raise an issue at Meta that's up to them. This is not the appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, it is rather odd to nominate every single article about a subject for deletion, when the person definitely appears notable. For instance, their article on the Arabic Wikipedia was created in 2011, so it isn't like this person popped up yesterday. I also (well, personally) believe the subject is notable beyond doubt and genuinely don't get how one can think otherwise - their detention did cause quite a stir, and they've directed and acted in several TV shows and movies which are also noteworthy. Nonetheless, this isn't a problem for the English Wikipedia. jolielover♥talk 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This should be closed immediately and with no action. I closed the editor's original report [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1289047980 yesterday] and clearly directed them that they were welcome to post here using their own words. To repost the LLM tl;dr complaint almost without any changes a second time is disappointing. Daniel (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{abot}}

{{Atop|I really, really don't understand the desire to continue an official CBAN discussion about someone for days after they've been indeffed and done horrible things as a sock, when they would never be unblocked unilaterally by any admin ever, and whose socks will always, always be blocked when discovered. Seems like a waste of electrons. But in order to make this thread go away and save everyone from themselves, I'll make it official: yes, of course there is a consensus for a community ban for DotesConks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{IPlinks|46.97.170.73}}

This IP editor User:46.97.170.73, upon loading Wikipedia on their browser immediately went to Donald Trump and fascism and started to push that Donald Trump was a fascist, neo-nazi, called his presidency "a regime", and said the article was not neutral because it didn't discard the sizeable majority opinion that no, Donald Trump is not doing what Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini did. They also claimed in later comments that "Consensus has been reached that Donald Trump is a fascist" and claimed that there were no sources (which is a lie) that said Donald Trump was NOT a fascist. Beyond that, they have stalked the talk page and commented on anyone dissenting to argue and regurgitate the same talking points. On their talk page, they have been warned for deleting peoples comments to engineer Support for calling Trump a fascist. Soon after, they received a second warning for citing that people were "whinning about the show" as a reason to discredit a reliable source (Forbes) because it did not say what they wanted it to say, basically "Donald Trump is a fascist, neo nazi, racist, antisemite and hes the WORST person EVER!111111!1111!!!!". This is a clear example of POV-warring and pushing. Once they were confronted, they immediately became extremely hostile and told them to "drop the stick". Given that he knew what WP:DROPTHESTICK was, and given that he started editing only 2 months ago, this could be a good sign of a sockpuppet operated by someone who wants to engineer the talk page discussion to call Donald Trump unequivocally a far-right fascist. Some other good signs that they could be a potential sockpuppet is that they immediately went to the WP:TALK pages instead of editing, which is the normal behavior for new accounts/IP editors. New editors and IP editors aren't aware of how Wikipedia handles content and articles and think there is no discussion page, but this IP editor knew instantly the talk page was the way to discuss what information should be put in an article. DotesConks (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:The IP editor has been editing for 2 months now in the Donald Trump space, and given that IP addresses (dynamic ones, at least) change every few days or sometimes up to 2 weeks, I believe he is operating on a static IP which means it won't change and so blocking him will put an end to this disruptive behavior for good. DotesConks (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:@DotesConks, you have failed to provide any diffs here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Asilvering I have to do something really urgent and important personally, can I provide them here later? It will only be 2 to 3 hours. DotesConks (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:DotesConks, sockpuppetry is a serious allegation. Do you have evidence of this? — EF5 ^(questions?) 19:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::@EF5 @Asilvering Their behavior:

::Note: I've highlighted the important parts and WP policy violations.

::'''- As soon as they start to edit Wikipedia, they go onto the TALK page and almost never is WP:BOLD

::- Knows a lot of Wiki "slang"/insider words

::- Knows a lot of essays'''

::His first edit was to Talk:Invincible ignorance fallacy and it was a comment bashing Christians and said quote "describe atheists poking holes in their faulty theological reasoning.". Extremely hostile to Christians, unrelated comment, and Talk pages are for improvements of the article, not a discussion (Which is ironic given what he would do later). Then in the last part of the comment they say "POV pushing", such a phrase is almost never used outside of Wikipedia. A new IP editor would not just immediately know where the talk page is, and much less Wiki slang. The diff is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invincible_ignorance_fallacy&diff=prev&oldid=1275709545

::This diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1279246913 further proves that he is not a new user. "Coatrack" is exclusively used on Wikipedia.

::Then in multiple diffs they censored comments that did not align with their personal views, which is a blatant outing of their plan to POV war over articles. They also claimed it was inappropriate/violation of WP policies when the comments are clearly not a violation and are simply good faith comments about improving the Snow White (2025 film) article.

::In total:

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283293340

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283293786

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283307218

::They also edit-warred on the talk page over censoring comments and accused them of being trolls, and cited WP:DENY as an essay as to why he was "permitted" to remove these comments.

::Heres more examples of POV pushing:

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283571069

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283476697

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283416479

::They claim that reliably sourced citations that say there is far left terrorism is just a "myth" and "fantasy".

::Now onto my initial report, here are the diffs that prove my report:

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287217422

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287213487 (This could violate No personal attacks as they accuses without proof that User:Simonm223 non-neutral)

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287158284 (Blatant disregard, if you search you can find multiple scholarly/experts claiming Trump is not a fascist, and many news sources from Vox to NYT has published articles - though later deleted them that said very blatantly that Trump is not Hitler or Mussolini).

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1286895569

::

::And finally... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&diff=prev&oldid=1287652014, another comment that they removed while accusing the editor of being a troll and again citing WP:DENY. Remember that they were warned for this already and became extremely hostile to the editor who warned them. If you look at the comment, its pretty clear that the editor was NOT a troll and were simply sharing their thoughts. Its safe to say that an indef block is needed before they get their way. DotesConks (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm getting rather fed up with allegations that a new user must be a sockpuppet because they know what they are doing. I read about things and knew what I was doing before I dared edit Wikipedia, and I'm sure the same goes for lots of other people. And, of course, the user may have edited without logging in, like the OP. As regards this particular case, Doanald Trump may or may not be a fascist; whether we say he is should depend in what reliable sources say, not Wikipedia editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I've seldom understood why a new editor needs to be chopped down because they have a handle on Wikipedia rules; I wish they all did that kind of homework. Nor, from their vast experience of less than two months on Wikipedia, am I quite willing to grant DotesConks an unearned status as a sage, canny veteran who knows all the ropes. (Nor, with DotesCokes sporting a "Greater Israel" map on their homepage, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, do I think they have much business worrying about the political extremism of other editors.) Ravenswing 01:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Phil Bridger}}, I agree. Regardless of this new editor's less-than-ideal behavior, failure to enforce WP:BITE is an existential threat in the long-term. It's too easy to get away with and I believe we need stricter anti-WP:BITE measures across the board. I'd be interested if someone wanted to hash something out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What would your thinking look like? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I'm getting rather fed up with allegations that a new user must be a sockpuppet because they know what they are doing. I read about things and knew what I was doing before I dared edit Wikipedia, and I'm sure the same goes for lots of other people.}}

::Agreed. It should be considered a violation of protocol and civility to imply a new user who isn't a moron on the basis of being new is a problem. Between Google and knowing how to ask a LLM where to look and find information on Wikipedia rules and process, it's not like this is exactly rocket science. It's not easy... but it's not like the esoteric mysteries of the universe or something. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:The OP has passionately presented little evidence this IP is coordinating with other IPs or accounts. In reading the post, I see a lot of undue bolding (which doesn't inform accusations of sockpuppetry) and a clear disapproval of the ip's positions on talk pages. I do see a heap of unproven assertions. I'd be unwilling to block (or even further warn) based merely on the evidence presented. ANI is not generally the place for registered accounts to complain about differences with ip editors' opinions in talk. (The proper venue is the article talk page where the ip is doing precisely that.) BusterD (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@BusterD Its behavior alone that makes me believe this IP editor is not a newbie. Also my main report is not about sockpuppetry, its about his behavior which is pretty severe. Edit warring over removing comments and personally attacking multiple editors while bludgeoning talk pages is something blockable. DotesConks (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Frankly, you're just not qualified to make that assessment. Typically a new user should focus on content, not user behavior because they don't have the requisite experience to keep them separate. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. DotesConks's report (and talk page edits) demonstrate a frequent tendency to personalize disagreement as opposed to freely discussing issues head on. It's always apparently somebody's fault, and that's not how we work here. This is getting to be a real WP:CIR issue. BusterD (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@DotesConks, this is an IP editor. I'm not sure why you are so focused on trying to show that they "aren't a new user". That's not how IPs work. You've been asked by a few different editors now to focus more on content and less on the administrative side of this site; please take their advice. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed - I'd suggest they go and do that before a WP:BOOMERANG comes around. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@The Bushranger I'm just upset that this user gets away with acting like he owns the Donald Trump article and tries to make the article force the viewpoint that Trump is a neo-nazi and far right even for fascists. DotesConks (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::What you call me "acting like I own the Donald trump article" consists of mostly 6 edits, most of which is me talking to User:Simonm223. I deleted exactly one comment from Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism. A comment that said, and I quote: "Shut up troll. And drop that thesaurus to come off like an intellectual. You're embarrassing yourself.". I am quite honestly baffled that your most damning evidence, is me deleting a bad faith comment that is deliberately inflammatory. I have been called before admins for less combative language. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|BusterD}}, I agree that the socking accusation was inappropriate, but it's a red herring. The provided diffs still demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND violations that shouldn't be ignored because of how the report was framed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Thebiguglyalien, I checked a handful of them and the only thing that seemed particularly inappropriate was the removal of talk page comments for WP:NOTFORUM reasons. Is there something else I missed? -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The inappropriate removals for sure, but I also believe that the "Now onto my initial report" diffs demonstrate attempts to {{tq|carry on ideological battles}} per WP:BATTLEGROUND and is becoming a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hm. I don't know - their comment, {{tq|Your list here shows 1 ambiguous and 1 NO article post-insurrection versus 11 YES articles. That is a blatant consensus}} appears to be accurate. Advocating that we take the position held by 11/13 of the best sources sampled is what I'd expect any editor to do. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you read the actual thread instead of just my comments, you will realize that I was not having an ideological battle. User:Simonm223 and I were on the same opinion. I don't think deleting a personal attack from another IP user count as an "ideological battle" either. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Regarding my removal of the comments for WP:NOTAFORUM reasons, that very same comment is now collapsed for both WP:NOTAFORUM AND WP:PERSONALATTACK, by someone other than me. The editor that initially restored my deletion of the comment claimed that even though other editors agreed with me that the comment in question was inapropriate, the fact that I gave WP:NOTAFORUM as a reason somehow puts me in the wrong. At least two people tried went out of the way to start a fight with me over it. It was weird. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The IP editor actually persuaded me that the page had some NPOV issues I had not previously noticed. They're staying on topic and being reasonable about things like the limits of scope for article talk. On the other hand, Dotes Conks regularly makes forumy posts encouraging WP:OR such as arguing for comparing the records of Trump and Obama. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287672731]. The IP's argument, while not politically expedient and while it may be a hard pill for some to swallow, is grounded in WP:NPOV and WP:V. This is more than can be said for Dotes Conks who has taken the IP's statements very personally. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:To clarify, no I am not a new user. I have been on talk pages under various IPs for over 4 years. You can check the edits done on the entire IP range to verify, most of them are likely to belong to me, including my long history of insistence against creating an account, as well as two previous ANIs from 2020 and 2021, that I've been a subject to, which have concluded with the decision that no action was necessary. I am pointing this out right now for the sake of transparency. I'm not using sockpuppets or any other forms of ban evasion. If I get banned that's the end of it, and a case could've been made back then.

:The same thing cannot be said about this instance.

:I have refrained from the sort of behavior that has led to those incidents ever since, in fact I tried to minimize my involvement in topics related to contemporary american politics, which is why on Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism I eventually stepped back from pushing the site-wide changes I requested, as I'm not the right person to request something of this scope.

:As anyone can clearly verify, my insistence on wikipedia referring to Trump as a fascist is in line with how reliable sources talk about him, which is in line with site policy.

:Furthermore, You can read the comments I deleted with the WP:DENY justification, and judge for yourself if they sound like they're made in good faith. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::You keep talking about "reliable sources" calling Trump a fascist. What are these "reliable sources" you speak of?

::In any case, I personally think you should be banned anyways for aggressively pushing your political agenda everywhere, regardless of your sockpuppetry. It's strange that some random Romanian person is so personally invested in US politics, though... DeadKom (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I reviewed all the peer-reviewed WP:BESTSOURCES presently being used at Donald Trump and Fascism and the overwhelming majority of them either called Trump fascist or demonstrated that Trump's government demonstrated characteristics of fascism. Most of the ambiguity on that page comes from over-reliance on journalistic accounts and statements from prior to January 6, 2021. Simonm223 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Simonm223}} The debate is whether his political philosophy/activity should be considered fascistic or right-wing populist. The Donald Trump article currently describes him as a right-wing populist but having been described as fascist. Distinctions include asserting legitimacy with reference to democratic principles vs disregarding democracy as a form. If you are looking at WP:BESTSOURCES, these are what needs to be engaged with. It is already a form of POV for Wikipedia to have an article on Donald Trump and fascism and not Donald Trump and right-wing populism. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Is this not something that's better discussed on the relevant talk pages? 46.97.170.73 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It can be, although questions of POVWARRING relevant here can hinge on content questions (e.g. are you going against a scholarly consensus). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And there is no legitimate evidence of the IP POVWARRING here. As I have said, they have been reasonable, and frankly, persuasive. On the other hand Dotes Conks should likely face some sort of boomerang here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed on my end, especially about a boomerang. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::(Non Admin) In case of boomerang, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DotesConks&diff=prev&oldid=1282530493 the previous block] from spaces like this for an indication of prospective mileage. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::(Non Admin) Also to consider for boomerang and namespace blocks, the past need for oversight at WP:COIN for the edit after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1284823206 this diff]. This shit is very WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE. I can't even provide diffs for this event because it concerned investigating another editor off-Wiki, and WP:OUTING of course. JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|It's strange that some random Romanian person is so personally invested in US politics, though...}}

:::I might recommend you reconsider pursuing this thought. I don't know where you think that rabbit hole goes but I don't think you're going to get any kudos for bringing up editors' possible nationalities (unless they've openly stated such somewhere) as if it changes what they're allowed to edit. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry but what is this? Special:Contributions/DeadKom This account was created today and all contributions consist of responses made specifically to me, including two posts that just say "Source" and this one here accusing me of sockpuppetry and calling me to be banned. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Anyone up for an SPI? Obviously not for you, 46.97, but DeadKom and Dotes maybe, just maybe, are the same person. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::(Not a checkuser.) DeadKom was active during a time-of-day that Dotes has never been active. I would be surprised if he was a sock of Dotes. I wouldn't be surprised if they were a sock of some user/IP out there though. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::(Non Admin) Looks like you might want to ask for 2 global CUs if you go that route. FYI Dotes was the subject of a previous SPI on behavioral grounds (with specific CU requested) and closed after the requested CU without closer comment on behavior. JFHJr (㊟) 02:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: When a user brings a complaint at AN/I, they are putting their own actions up for evaluation. This applies even to myself, of course.

:For easy reference, {{user6|DotesConks}}

:I spent a few hours today reading every one of User:DotesConks's 806 edits (plus 50 deleted edits). It would be generous to characterize this account as created by a very young person; I'd prefer to use the adjectives inexperienced and un-consequenced. Based on my reading, they seem to think en.wiki is primarily a place where they may insert and defend their opinions. Unfortunately their opinions seem to be mostly in contentious topics (AP and IPA) where others frequently disagree. As one vivid example of the problem, DotesConks's userpage display of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_map_of_Greater_Israel.png this fanciful map] is the only such utilization on English Wikipedia. DotesConks is certainly welcome to their deeply held opinions; they are welcome to support them, argue in favor of them, and display them on their userpage. But Wikipedia is not primarily a place for personal opinions and their defense; rather wikipedians endeavor to create workproduct based on assertions proven by reliable sources. At the same time, other contributors (like those above) are allowed to draw their own conclusions about this user's opinions.

:In their account's very first contribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed&diff=prev&oldid=1278790282 they claim 272 edits made under an ip address], and ask those edits to count towards advanced permissions; this was largely ignored by the responder. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed&diff=next&oldid=1278889167 DotesConks "purged" the thread] instead of allowing it to archive. At MfD DotesConks is somewhat intolerant of opinions other than their own (1, 2). As a newbie, they are often quite bad at predicting outcomes at AfD (A, B, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_supports_Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1282364475 C], D). They chose to involve themselves in the WP/ANI controversy by suggesting the Foundation merely ignore judges' rulings. They edited quite a bit in CT territory prior to the automatic application of extended confirmed status in early April. They editwarred at The Heritage Foundation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1282962657 3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1282962876 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1282977169 5]), Antitheism ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antitheism&diff=prev&oldid=1282989296 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antitheism&diff=prev&oldid=1282990168 7]), and Ideological bias on Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283041931 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283042617 9], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283042845 10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283149817 11], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283152909 12]). Recently they've been pestering Teahouse because nobody wants to review this draft and promote it to mainspace.

:I could go into quite a bit more detail, but I'm personally satisfied that this user is a net-negative. I'm not satisfied the user is here for any reasons but their own (which by itself wouldn't be a problem). I'm more of the opinion they cannot restrain themselves from doing the pedia harm. I'm proposing (at the very least) an indef CBAN from all WP and WT spaces. I'm prepared to pblock them from such spaces myself, but IMHO the user has a right to dispute my evidence. I'm interested in what others make of my diffs and links. BusterD (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::@BusterD All of the stuff you've described above is what new Wikipedians tend to do. In the long run I don't envision myself to be a net negative and what I instead envision is that if I stick around long enough I will eventually be able to put my differences aside (also caused by me growing up and becoming older) and eventually the negatives will be outweighed by the positives. I never claimed or put off the impression that I know what I am doing, infact I think I've done the opposite. It still stands today and what I envision in even just 3 months from now is that I will be a net positive to this encyclopedia. Also I do not see whats wrong with supporting Israel. DotesConks (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I just want to push back against the idea that most new editors are initially net negatives. That is not the case. Most new editors show some humility and some judgment and some willingness - no, I guess better described as a strong desire - not to mess up all the time. We don't even notice them, because they don't show up on our radar constantly. I haven't looked into this enough to know if it applies to you, but if you're the kind of person who thinks you're probably going to be a net negative for the next 3 months, then I think we should remove you now, as quickly and painlessly as possible. Your goal should be to stop being a net negative in the next 5 minutes. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I will try my best to, but I can't really demonstrate it if I am blocked. DotesConks (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, up to an indef. Excellent summary above (though even most admins can't see suppressed edits whose transgressions I described generally above). I agree and think WP and WT pblocks would be a great start. But Dotes will probably still earn a site indef for DE with enough time/rope. As an IP, after getting three "final" warnings, and just before registering an account, Dotes said "{{tq|Oh and I want to be able to vanish easily}}". If he does request vanishing, I hope that's rejected out of hand. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Noting Dotes' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DotesConks&curid=79384528&diff=1288178341&oldid=1288064415 ragequit here]. Since the SPI, it's getting more and more indistinguishable from Antny08, who also ragequit, had serious BLP and POV problems being unconsequenced, and had right-wing sock Amber Solace (admin specs required to see the revdel right-wing fantasy userpage), but maybe the beliefs and reaction are just more common than I thought. Here's hoping he actually quit (but we all know it's actually unlikely). JFHJr (㊟) 00:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::DC has been indeffed. See Knitsey's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Knitsey-20250501001900-Urgent_attention thread below]. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm aware. Thank you @Bbb23. JFHJr (㊟) 01:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block or community ban I have been watching this editor for about a month now. I consider them a net negative and do not think that will change. I've seen many of the edits BUsterD refers to above when they were made, and notice the map of Greater Israel on their userpage. Enough is enough. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :A confirmed sock of theirs posted to my talk page that they will celebrate my death and “ When people like you are in the dirt (mentally ill), Christ will finally come back. Trump and Elon, even if they are not cs are still doing good for this country. God Bless. God punished you by giving you parkinsons. This is what ATheists get. Heil Trump!. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::See also their Wikimedia Commons contrives, where they decided to add 950,000 bytes of junk to my talk page, and overall were just being racist and disruptive on several talk pages. ^EF⁵ 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::contribs*, mobile source editing is heck on Earth so I can’t fix it at the moment. ^EF⁵ 19:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per BusterD's assessment; the OP is demo demonstrating most of the behavioral issues they ascribe to the anon. Floquenbeam's comment and their response suggests that, yes, we can look forward to more of this in the future if it isn't stopped now. The OP is unsure how they can demonstrate they are a net-positive to the project while blocked; the answer is at WP:Standard offer. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support some sort of sanction. I have been keeping an eye on this editor since I created an archive page for them in an attempt to help them stop blanking their talk page. The constant warnings, lack of AGF, and edit warring in numerous CTOPS aren't a good look for being here. Some additional recent behavioral examples include pov-pushing in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism#Trump_fascism? this thread] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-left_politics&diff=next&oldid=1286169587 this edit].

:I was also concerned, for lack of a better word, by the "Greater Israel" map, (the one currently present on their userpage being the second version of such map on their userpage) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DotesConks&diff=prev&oldid=1286299134 here] and arguing about RFK Jr.'s article/politics in a previous [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DotesConks&diff=prev&oldid=1283045230 talk page discussion]. They were warned by the discussing editor to "{{tq|tread lightly on such pages}}" related to him as they mentioned being a supporter, and tried to push the discussion to email. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The user's response has been to publish Draft:Vape crisis in the United States this morning as if there were no concerns from other editors about their prior edits. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support either an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds or, at minimum, a topic ban prohibition against editing in literally any CTOP. Apologies for the indentation - had to use the reply function as the pagination appears to be broken when trying to edit directly. And I would honestly point to the draft @BusterD references above as another example of WP:CIR. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :In light of the vandalism spree last night I'm changing my !vote to Supporting a CBan - this supersedes my previously preferred suggestions but I do also still support more lenient handling over nothing if a CBan is found to be overreach. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Not super familiar with this person or their previous activities, so it's a bit too soon for me to opine on whether a block is justified, but I was scoping their recent contribs after skimming this article, and just wanted to note this edit to their sandbox: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DotesConks/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1288058818]. I've since revdelled the edit for serious unsourced BLP violations, so that link is admin-only. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support a community ban or indefinite block based on their overall contributions to the community and the project. I began lightly monitoring their edits when they, without prior discussion or seeking consensus, moved It – Welcome to Derry to It᠄ Welcome to Derry, because it "looked better" while using a non-unicode character in the article title. They then moved It᠄ Welcome to Derry to It꞉ Welcome to Derry again because it "aligned more properly". This unnecessary series of moves created work for myself and for the editor who fixed it. DotesConks seemed unfazed by the fact that using a non-unicode character in the article title was against policy. Granted, a minor issue compared to some of the other things this editor has been involved in, but it annoyed me enough that I've kept a light watch on their edits since, and I have not seen any notable improvement in their editing style or their behavior with other editors. In fact, I'd argue I've seen their behavior become worse with time, especially given some of the examples provided by others above. GSK (talk • edits) 14:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose indef as I want to see if they'll really stick by their {{tq|I will eventually be able to put my differences aside}} promise, but only if the "eventually" part is changed to "immediately".Support CTOP TBAN per Simon. (Nevermind, see below). — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :While I think that an indef on WP:CIR grounds (which could be revisited if Dotes Conks could show competence somewhere like Simple English Wiki) would probably be an appropriate remedy I do think, as I think about it, that a strict topic ban from contentious topics would stop disruption, as disruption has been mostly in CTOPS or administrative pages in conflicts related to CTOPS, and would grant Dotes Conks the grace to demonstrate they can edit in a manner that is not net-negative. This would be pretty significant constraints considering the scope of our various CTOPS but would give them some latitude to demonstrate improvement and growth. As such, while I'd support either measure, if it comes down to one or the other, I think I'd prefer the TBAN. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Simonm223, nevermind, strongest possible support for formal CBAN. Was going fine till the "heil Trump" and "Wikipedia is biased", this user is just here to stir up the pot. — EF5 ^(questions?) 00:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::"Heil Trump?" Yeah, WP:NOTHERE CBAN it is then. Simonm223 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Wow and some remarkable racism that may need to be revdelled too. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{ping|EF5}} you should strike your original !vote using < s >< /s >. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Sorry, was sleeping. Fixed. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see a second thread about draft review times in that same Teahouse archive when Draft:Illinois Education Association has a bullet pointed section copy-pasted directly from [https://www.wifr.com/2025/03/27/large-majority-illinois-residents-believe-public-education-is-right-report-shows/ the source], including the obvious error {{tq|"62% support pension reform to allow those in the Tier 2 pension system to retire before the age of 6"}}. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Well that escalated quickly. Support CBAN after they decided to throw their toys out of the pram. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I support a CBAN. Richly deserved. Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC).
• Support Apologies for the vulgar comment, but to quote Jim Cornette: "Thank you, fuck you, bye". No place here for an editor like that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yep. Bye, Felicia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per The Bushranger. We can AGF only so far, and we should not give anymore good faith to be squandered by an imploding editor Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per above. I tried to extend good faith after the initial indef, even leaving them a message about the standard offer, but further review of their contributions has thoroughly disgusted me. Their conduct goes against the disruptive editing guideline in every way (not counting the outright vandalism), and even outside of my own disgust towards the political views on display, they are WP:NOTHERE. No-brainer CBAN, in my book. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - This is the slowest all-CTOPs% speedrun ever. That doesn't make it any less disruptive than when someone does it in a matter of weeks; if anything it makes it even worse. The vandalism spree comes across more as Guy Fawkes jumping off the gallows than anything. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Site ban, having seen the page-move vandalism. We might as well formalize this as a community ban just so that they don't make a frivolous unblock request. And thanks to Steward User:AntiCompositeNumber. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The other stuff made in the report is debatable, but I think most people involved in this thread agreed that edit warring over censoring legitimate comments and then claiming they are trolls is a violation of NPA, EW, Talk page guidelines. The comments are perfectly reasonable, such as this comment which the IP editor censored and said WP:DENY. I do not see anything wrong with this comment and I'm sure neither do you.{{Quote|I don’t think you can bluntly say that the MAGA movement is far right or neo fascist. Trump collaborated with Afro-Americans, Muslim Americans, this is not xenophobia, fascism or far right rhetoric. He’s definitely right wing, no doubt about that. But not far right.

2A06:C701:4F25:FA00:7D73:B377:C31E:8251 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)}}

As far as my recollection gets me, this is a violation of Talk Page Guidelines, NPA (by saying they are a troll when they are reasonably not), and in earlier diffs which are linked above they edit warred over removing other comments, were warned for it and then did it again. It is also this action by the IP editor that led me to believe they were POV pushing, they only censored comments that defend Trump not being Hitler but it does seem like that is debatable so I will not comment further on it, but understand that this is my opinion and the conclusion I have reached. At the very least for all of this, censoring multiple comments after warning, making personal attacks, and edit-warring (they said in this thread that they have been on the site for 4 years now and so should be aware of the WP:EW policy) they should receive a warning but it should really be higher given not only their actions but their knowledge of Wikipedia. Newer editors, like me are held to a lower standard because they simply aren't aware of all of the Wikipedia policies. DotesConks (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq| Newer editors, like me are held to a lower standard because they simply aren't aware of all of the Wikipedia policies}} isn’t necessarily true - as a newer editor, it’s your job to still adhere to policies. “Being new” doesn’t give you a free pass to be disruptive. — EF5 ^(questions?) 23:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::In fact it's not true at all. I'm honestly struggling not to just indef on the spot here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::OP starting off by including a link to WP:DROPTHESTICK is supremely ironic at this point. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd call the link illustrative. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it should be true; I think we should be far, far more patient with new editors than we tend to be. But boy am I ever struggling here. @DotesConks, you can't have this both ways. You can't accuse other editors of being too clueful to be new and then fall back onto "I should be held to a lower standard because I'm new". You can't call someone a pov-pusher while you're baldfacedly paraphrasing their position as {{tq|"Donald Trump is a fascist, neo nazi, racist, antisemite and hes the WORST person EVER!111111!1111!!!!"}}. You're asking everyone else to extend you grace and good faith, and you're not offering any of it yourself. I agree that it was wrong to remove that particular IP comment for WP:DENY reasons. But for Pete's sake, get the stick out of your own eye. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::To be entirely fair, being more patient and given more leeway doesnt' mean 'held to a lower standard', but a good point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure where to put this, but I've indeffed DotesConks. The ragequit wasn't the biggest problem - they went on a vandalism spree.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Block applied by Bbb23. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Urgent block required. {{U|DotesConks}} adding some homophobic/transphobic changing, page moves etc, account may be compromised. Knitsey (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks {{u|Bbb23}}, Knitsey (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Knitsey, see above, I doubt it's compromised. Was the "ArthurN_____" page move vandalism also deleted? Would revert, but my UV decided to give up on the spot. — EF5 ^(questions?) 00:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I saw that after I posted here. I've had enough of foul people tonight. Knitsey (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm near certain they're just ragebaiting us knowing that many of us here are democrats. Good block. — EF5 ^(questions?) 00:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This isn't an airport; there was no need for him to announce his departure. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:Note this was closed despite the ongoing CBAN discussion. I assume rsjaffe missed that and have requested they revert their closure or reclose reflecting the (unanimous after 24+ hours) cban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Reverted close to allow cban discussion to continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Requesting closure of the cban discussion before this rolls off the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = BYE BUDDYYY. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

The only edits of {{userlinks|HIBUDDYYY}} thus far have been warring over the name/description of Grenada station. This includes 6 edits changing the name/description (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) despite my repeated explanations that a requested move was the proper venue, a nonsense comment when someone else filed an RM, a rude response after I filed an AIV report, and now a contrary-to-consensus move after the RM was closed as not moved. I do not believe this editor has any intentions of productive and collaborative editing, and I think a block is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Reeshavp}}

User @Reeshavp is appending honorifics to the names of several college and university chancellors, presidents, and other esteemed figures. Despite prior warnings and further advisories, they persist in this inappropriate practice. As evidenced by their recent edit made on May 7, 2025 and majority of their edits, their disregard for warnings must be addressed and rectified. VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit" 04:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:@VeritasVanguard Please provide diffs demonstrating this behavior. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::These are only the some that I found. This user edits many pages adding honorifics to every page where there are not even when they know it is against the wikipedia policy.

::{{diff|I. K. Gujral Punjab Technical University|1288660140|1288462163}}{{diff|Christian Medical College Vellore|1289204873|1289204755}}{{diff|Dr. B. R. Ambedkar State Institute of Medical Sciences|1289204164|1277223954}}{{diff|Panjab University|1283219914|1278678762}}{{diff|Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences|1288582703|1283207382}}{{diff|Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College|1285919768|1283796815}}

::VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit" 04:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = socks blocked. asilvering (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

@User:ModSkeptic started disrupting the page Battle of Qaqun, deleting reliable sources, adding unsourced things and stating: Your article is based off of speculative interpretations, Michael Prestwich and Marc Morris are not primary sources or eye witness accounts. They are 21st century writers. The Chronicle of the Templar of Tyre is a first hand eye witness account of the what happened at qaqun. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Qaqun&oldid=1288996746]

In the talk page they began using personal attacks against another user who opposed their edits, stating: Chronicle of the Templar of tyre is more valid than any if your sources as is the report from Arab sources, there is no mention of a rout. you are obviously a Muslim, attempting to appear as the winners all the time. Stop spreading false information.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Qaqun&diff=prev&oldid=1289134946]

Additionally, there was another new account created a day ago which is User:SwordAndScroll mentioning exactly what ModSkeptic said. Here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SwordAndScroll]

The user doesn't seem engaging in fruitful discussion on talk page and keeps vandalizing. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:User:Acroterion has now taken care of both User:ModSkeptic (blocked indef for edit-warring and sockpuppetry) and User:SwordAndScroll (blocked indef as a sockpuppet). — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Much appreciated. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Duplicate

| result = Looks like you’re getting your answer at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Anonymous user being extremely disruptive, where you also posted this. One venue only. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.2.164, is being extremely disruptive.

They continuously make edit, claiming something when it’s not true, and then gets upset when edits get reverted.

They’re also attacking me.

They don’t appear to be stopping anytime soon.

If I was in charge, I would block them for disruptive behaviour and edits (but of course I can’t and never will). Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Indeffed

| result = Chronic incivility, with plenty of cursing sprinkled in. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|Dipper Dalmatian}}

I came across Don Spencer and the issue other the date of birth in the article after reading a post on WP:AN, see WP:AN#Anonymous user being extremely disruptive for reference. After reading the articles talk page, which includes a discussion about the date of birth, I spent some time seeing if I could run down a source for the full dob. After a bit of work I found a marginal source and pinged Dipper Dalmatian on the articles talk page to see what their opinion was.
From this point on I'm unsure what is going on. Dipper Dalmatian has edit warred to remove my comments from the article talk page in violation of WP:TPO [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Spencer&diff=prev&oldid=1289245788][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Spencer&diff=prev&oldid=1289246342][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Spencer&diff=prev&oldid=1289247314][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Spencer&diff=prev&oldid=1289247544][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Spencer&diff=prev&oldid=1289247748]. I posted a message to their talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dipper_Dalmatian&diff=prev&oldid=1289247001] which was ignored, and when I posted again pointing out WP:TPO they removed my comment with the edit summary {{tq|"FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING FUCKFACE"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dipper_Dalmatian&diff=prev&oldid=1289247639]. I don't know if they haven't checked and have mistaken me for the IP editor they have a disagreement with, or something else, but could an admin ask them to stop? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Notification was posted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dipper_Dalmatian&diff=prev&oldid=1289249128]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Noting that there may be an element of deception here; each time they've reverted a message on their talk page, Dipper Dalmatian [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dipper_Dalmatian&action=history consistently make two dummy edits] adding and removing a space. I presume this is so a watched page doesn't display the removal, and instead displays the dummy edit. While not against any policy I know, an intent to deceive may be a red flag. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: Blocked a few days. If there had been one edit or two edits to remove the talk page comment and maybe a simple "fuck off" comment, I'd wait to see what's going on here. Maybe out of morbid curiosity to see what possible explanation there for be for this. But with that many edits, and that kind of pointless, over-the-top hostility, nope. I'll just block, and they explain it in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::They've so far responded by removing the block notice and doing the same two +1 -1 edits afterwards. Their edit history demonstrates an ability to use edit summaries; they clearly have the capacity to communicate. Interested to see whether they decide to do so. IMO this block should be extended if they attempt to ignore it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::: They only seem to be doing that dummy edit thing inside their own userspace. This whole "fuck off, I refuse to communicate" thing isn't new, though. It goes back years (see Special:Diff/1094109148). Anyone who posts to Dipper Dalmation's user talk page gets told to "leave me alone" or "fuck off". Drmies even gave them a final warning over this refusal to collaborate or communicate in 2022: Special:Diff/1094111955. I personally think this should be their wake-up call. If they ignore it, yeah, I'd say it's time for them to give us assurances that they'll start civilly communicating and collaborating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Lots of whitespace-only edits in their recent contributions, too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have blocked them indefinitely based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADipper_Dalmatian&diff=1289270083&oldid=1289258688 this] fascinating response. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Best case solution: Two adults realize they should avoid each other. Worst case solution: Two editors are permanently blocked from each others' talk pages, with site-wide blocks for anyone who continues snarking at the other elsewhere on here. {{ping|Ibrahim.ID}} you've escalated a minor disagreement to ANI twice now. {{ping|Adamant1}} you're being needlessly aggressive. And both of you: stop claiming UCC violations to make a minor disagreement somehow more critical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Adamant1}}

I think this user violated WP:CIVIL Policy and attack me, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288898298 created] a discussion here and notified the user in his talk page according to instructions, But in an uncivilized manner he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288989059 reverted the message] and call me "trolling" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288989110 he do it twice], then he responded to the discussion in a harsh and disrespectful manner, This is not a proper way to deal with other users, this is something that clearly violates the Universal code of conduct and I think the admins should intervene according to Blocking policy --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

=== Boomerang ===

The user filed a false report having to do with me a few days ago because I removed a AI generated image from an article, which was both in line with consensus on the articles talk page and the new policy that AI generated images are banned on here. Filing a false ANU report as way to get back at someone for something is trolling. I'd say the same goes here. On their talk page Ibrahim.ID claims to be an admin on another project. If that's true, then know the difference between a legitimate ANU complaint and one being filed purely to get revenge on another user. They also reported me to ANU on Commons. Point 3.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct clearly states that harassment is unacceptable. Filing multiple ANU complaints across multiple projects just because someone removed an image from an article is clearly that. Harassment, pure and simple. So I think they should be blocked for obvious trolling and NOTHERE behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Scope creep}}
• {{articlelinks|West Side (San Francisco)}}

I'm reporting a pattern of aggressive and unilateral editing from User:Scope creep regarding the West Side (San Francisco) article. The article was moved to draft without discussion and over my objection, which violates WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I moved it back per policy.

Since then, the editor has:

Repeatedly removed large portions of content (historical timelines, geographic listings, school names) as “unsourced” despite most of it being either verifiable or WP:BLUE-compliant.

Made misleading accusations that the article was “machine generated”

Issued warnings threatening to take me to ANI if I restore content they personally deem unworthy

This behavior feels like WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's interfering with collaborative editing. I'm happy to discuss article content on the Talk page and improve sourcing—but this editor's intimidation is preventing fair development of the article.

I’m requesting neutral admin attention and oversight to ensure policy is being followed.

I spent months developing this article in my sandbox before publishing. It was carefully written, well-sourced, and created in good faith. It does not deserve to be gutted based on exaggerated or false allegations by a single editor acting without consensus.Goldrock95 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Content that does not have an inline citation may be removed by anyone, at any time, without discussion or notification. Looking at their edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_%28San_Francisco%29&diff=1288461700&oldid=1288432603 here] I don't see any referenced content being removed. Directly threatening to take you to ANI over unsourced content is not on, and I can't opine on whether it is in fact human or machine generated, but the {{tqq|[removal of] large portions of content}} is entirely within policy and reasonable. Once it's removed in good faith as unsourced (which it was) restoring it requires the use of inline citations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the response. I’d like to clarify a few important points.

::While I understand that any content without an inline citation may technically be removed, Wikipedia’s own guideline at WP:BLUE provides an important exception: “Uncontroversial knowledge, especially when easily verifiable by checking other Wikipedia articles or common sources, does not require inline citations.”

::The sections that were removed included:

::A historical timeline based on well-documented events (similar in structure to the one found at Presidio of San Francisco which also lacks inline citations for most historical entries)

::A listing of public schools located in the neighborhoods discussed

::A geographic breakdown of neighborhoods commonly referred to as the "West Side"—information that is supported by several citations already present in other sections and clearly aligns with how sources define the region

::These removals were not about removing contentious, unsourced claims—they involved basic civic and geographic facts that are both non-controversial and verifiable.

::I understand and support the need for verifiability. That’s why the article already includes a number of high-quality citations. But requiring an inline citation after every sentence, even those making uncontroversial and well established factual statements goes against both the spirit and letter of WP:BLUE.

::Finally, I agree that threatening to escalate to ANI over content that is clearly being discussed in good faith is inappropriate and discourages collaboration. I welcome further editorial discussion on the article's talk page and am happy to add inline citations where truly necessary, but I don’t believe wholesale removal of non controversial information was appropriate. Goldrock95 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As a point of comparison, the article on the Westside (Los Angeles County) follows a nearly identical structure and intent to my article on West Side (San Francisco). It outlines a loosely defined region, lists neighborhoods commonly associated with it, and provides general geographic and civic context—without requiring inline citations after each neighborhood or point. The sourcing expectations being applied to my article seem to go beyond what is expected of similar articles, and the uneven enforcement of citation standards here feels both arbitrary and unfair. Goldrock95 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I see your still complaining about standard processes. Your Westside (Los Angeles County) article is much better sourced and it not an identical structure. You can't have new mainspace articles that is 50-60% unsourced and then complain about when its drafted. You took the decision to move it back to mainspace not me. scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:BLUE is an essay, while WP:V is policy, which is pretty clear - All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you choose not to fulfill that requirement, then unsourced content can be removed by any editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:BLUE is concerned with things that are obvious to everyone, not just those who live in or near San Francisco. I, along with most other readers, had not heard of West Side in San Francisco (or indeed most other districts of that city) before. We are the people you are writing for, not those who already know the subject inside-out. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The article was reviewed as part of a WP:NPP sprint thats on the moment. I forget to click on it. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I just read that WP:BLUE. I'd not seen it. Its highly subjective and gives bad advice to any new editor who is just scanning it. It needs to be rewritten or deleted. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I want to respond briefly to a few points that seem to be getting lost in this discussion.

:::::::The West Side (San Francisco) article was developed in good faith over a period of months, based on reliable sources, with the goal of documenting a region of the city that (while loosely defined) is widely referenced in civic, journalistic, and academic contexts. The article includes citations that support the basic definition of the west Side and references to the neighborhoods commonly included in that classification.

:::::::A major point of contention appears to be the historic timeline. The information in that section includes events like the Spanish-American War, the founding of SF State, the founding of Golden Gate Park, and the opening of institutions that have been in operation for over a century. These are not obscure claims, they are well established historic facts. There is no reasonable expectation that every date or event in such a timeline should be accompanied by an inline citation. Articles like Presidio of San Francisco (which i did not create and have nothing to do with) and many others on Wikipedia contain timelines of historical milestones with no inline citations because they are summarizing general knowledge, not introducing novel claims.

:::::::If someone wants to challenge the inclusion of a specific item, I’m open to providing sources or trimming where appropriate. But wholesale removal of non controversial information without even a talk page discussion is not reasonable, and certainly not necessary to satisfy WP:V.

:::::::Frankly, this is nitpicking at its finest... If the article were asserting a controversial political position, or inventing new definitions, I could understand the level of scrutiny. But this is a regional overview backed by NUMEROUS citations up front and internally linked references. The neighborhoods, institutions, and landmarks mentioned align with what’s cited in the body, and with how other Wikipedia articles describe the same areas.

:::::::The expectation that every item on a regional or historical list (no matter how obvious) must be followed by an inline citation seems to be selectively applied and inconsistent with how other location based articles are treated. If there's a consensus here that certain parts need more sourcing, I’ll address it, but let’s not treat general civic or historical facts as though they’re controversial theories requiring a footnote per sentence. Goldrock95 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::We are talking about this article. We can't clean up the whole of Wikipedia here. Stop trying to be consistent. If we were to be consistent all the time then we would have to edit millions of articles at the same time. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_(San_Francisco)&oldid=1288432603#Historical_Timeline unsourced timeline]. I see at least a dozen entries on that timeline that I don't know about and certainly don't consider "well established historic facts", and I would expect an inline citation to verify those facts. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia read by an international audience, that may not be aware of those well established historic facts. If there are citations in the body of the article that can be used, then use named refs, and put inline citations to the timeline. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I also wanted to add that sometimes when I am creating a new article, I have looked at other similar articles for structure/style/layout ideas, but if that said article was lacking sources or inline citations, I didn't take that as a cue that I could do the same, and not use inline citations. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm starting to get hints of a WP:CIR issue here. I thought this was simple case. Every sentence on Wikipedia in mainspace needs a reference per long established consensus. There is no argument under any circumstances that negates that consensus at time. That is our core function to reference information so its verifiable. Building an argument on some indeterminate state of the project is a falsehood. Your effectively advocating for editor control of the content your writing, essentially deciding what is what. That is WP:OR. Your deciding what is need referenced and what doesn't. There is no cogent argument there. You need to careful here. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I’ve already said I’ll add inline citations where needed. That doesn’t justify blanking entire sections including historically well established events like the creation of Golden Gate Park or the Mexican-American War without even distinguishing between what’s verifiable and what’s not. That’s not collaborative editing, it’s overreach.

:::::::::::Claiming that inconsistent application of citation standards is acceptable because “we can’t edit everything” is exactly the problem here. I’m being held to a stricter standard than multiple other regional articles that use similar structure and tone including Westside (Los Angeles County) and Presidio of San Francisco, and no one wants to acknowledge that. That’s selective enforcement.

:::::::::::And to ScopeCreep specifically: vague threats like “you need to [be] careful” and tossing around WP:CIR are is not just inappropriate, it crosses the line into intimidation. That kind of rhetoric has no place on Wikipedia and reflects the exact problem here: one editor instigating conflict, acting as gatekeeper, and then using threats to discourage further participation. I’ve followed process and cited policy every step of the way. I won’t be bullied off the project because someone doesn’t like having their actions questioned. Goldrock95 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|I’ve already said I’ll add inline citations where needed.}}

::::::::::::They are needed wherever unsourced content has been challenged and removed, so please go ahead and do that. If you want to start a wider discussion about 'inconsistent applications of citation standards', then please free to initiate that discussion elsewhere, as ANI is not the place for that discussion. This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and in my view, you have failed to demonstrate that any sanctions are warranted for the behavioral issues that you have raised. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Understood. I will move forward with improving the article, including adding inline citations where appropriate. I'm not resisting that step.

:::::::::::::That said, I want to make it clear that the issue I brought to ANI was not just about the citation standards or content removal. It was about the behavior of ScopeCreep, who has continued to escalate inside this very thread, most notably with a veiled “be careful” comment and the invocation of WP:CIR to suggest incompetence. That’s not collaborative editing, and it’s not appropriate conduct especially on a noticeboard meant to address behavioral concerns.

:::::::::::::I respect that you may not view this as sanctionable behavior, but I disagree that it should be brushed aside. ScopeCreep has shown zero interest in engaging constructively, and his tone toward me has been arrogant, hostile, and personally targeted from the start. If this is considered acceptable editor behavior within dispute resolution forums, then that’s a separate issue worth discussing.

:::::::::::::Regardless, I’ll continue working to improve the article. But the conduct I’ve experienced throughout this process should not be normalized. Goldrock95 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::ScopeCreep is not always right (that is an impossible standard), but in this instance he is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Well, almost impossible -- see User:EEng#correct. EEng 02:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Scopecreep's editing here is pretty clearly in violation of WP:V as a whole. Removing non-controversial material because it doesn't have an inline citation isn't how it's supposed to work.

:::::::::::"Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added" (my emphasis). And "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Also from WP:V:

::::::::::::"Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed."

::::::::::::"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis is mine). -- Mike 🗩 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Leaving aside everything else here, I'd like to note two things. {{tqq|Wikipedia’s own guideline at WP:BLUE provides an important exception: “Uncontroversial knowledge...does not require inline citations.”}} Once material is challenged and removed for being uncited, it's no longer uncontroversial. Also, several of Goldrock95's replies in this thread carry the hallmarks of WP:LLM use. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If calling someone a robot is your rebuttal you’ve already lost the argument. Goldrock95 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Saying "you've already lost the argument" is the last resort of somebody who's lost an argument. Also I wasn't rebuttal-ing you. I was pointing out the simple fact that you have been blatantly using LLMs to communicate here, which is seriously frowned upon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

: The article is almost entirely synthesis and should probably be deleted at WP:AFD. The appeals to how much effort you have put in are not an argument to keep this article. I'm not sure the draftification was appropriate, but it has been un-done; continuing to argue about it here is simply a distraction from the multiple severe problems with this newly-created article by a new editor. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see how scope_creep violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Articles can be boldly moved to draftspace without prior discussion, and editors can object to that move and return it to mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this section should be closed, we don't need more meta-conversations/discussions about the article. Please discuss the article on its talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Iloveleetcodesomuch posted this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_India–Pakistan_strikes&diff=1289303109&oldid=1289302646] at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan strikes, saying {{tq|Failure to [remove some content] so will for sure attracted Indian Government to announce strict actions against this}}. Placeholderer (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's not WP:NLT in its strictest sense, since the user isn't saying they will take any legal action themselves. It may well be intended to cause a chilling effect, but considering certain shenaniganry it could well be believed to be an honest warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Stevencocoboy}}

I am once again bringing User:Stevencocoboy here for continued WP:CIR and WP:IDHT violations.

I previously reported this user here on January 27th. I'm not going to relitigate that report again; interested editors can read the archive for the history of this situation.

Stevencocoboy's inadequate grasp of the English language continues to be problematic. He has repeatedly reverted edits to the {{Medals table}} templates on numerous figure skating articles on the grounds that they are against the rules of the template or something like that. Honestly, I don't understand what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_de_France_(figure_skating)&diff=prev&oldid=1287936271 this edit summary] was even supposed to mean: "I know but accept wiki rules IS NOT any problem and it will more better. It's not a revert reason". Stevencocoboy was allowed to continue editing after his previous visit to ANI on the promise that he would cease his disruptive editing. I am not sure how re-ordering the coding of templates so as to make them more difficult to navigate and maintain is supposed to be beneficial to anyone. I have tried to explain that the template does not require the data to be entered in any particular order and will still display properly, yet here we are. I don't know if it's WP:CIR and WP:IDHT or both. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have already answer many times, I'm following Template:Medals_table#Example edit the medal information. It's definitely not disruptive editing and many medal tables are following the example. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Bgsu98}}, can you list some examples (with diffs) where this user has been disruptive since the last discussion closed? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stevencocoboy has re-ordered or reverted the data in numerous templates] despite being advised that the order of the information's entry does not affect how the template displays. The idea was to make the templates easy for future editors to maintain without having to continuously hunt for a particular country, or reshuffle the data based on the accumulation of medals. I honestly think he believes the template will only display the data in the order it is entered. The explanation "it will more better" fails to explain how ordering the data in a difficult-to-navigate format will make anything better. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you maybe explain this to him in simple English? What I see here → User talk:Stevencocoboy#Figure skating templates is very wordy and includes the word "hell". ("The template does not require the data to be entered in any particular order." ← Nice, but maybe too fancy for him to comprehend.)
The issue is so minor... Blocking him for this would be too much. I can't believe he won't stop if asked politely and explained what he is doing wrong. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I left a message to him: User talk:Stevencocoboy#Template:Medals table. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, {{u|Stevencocoboy}} is right. He is just following the example shown in the template's documentation (Template:Medals table#Example):

{{Medals table

| caption        =
| host           =
| show_limit     =
| remaining_text =
| flag_template  =
| event          =
| source         = [http://wuni15.sportresult.com/HIDE/en/MedalTally?sport=00&medalKind=DefaultSports Medal Tally]
| gold_FRA = 7 | silver_FRA = 4 | bronze_FRA = 4
| gold_GBR = 5 | silver_GBR = 5 | bronze_GBR = 5
| gold_USA = 5 | silver_USA = 3 | bronze_USA = 2
| gold_AUS = 3 | silver_AUS = 5 | bronze_AUS = 7
| gold_RSA = 3 | silver_RSA = 4 | bronze_RSA = 3
| gold_GER = 1 | silver_GER = 3 | bronze_GER = 3
}}

--Moscow Connection (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

(Pinging participants from the previous AN/I discussion {{ping|1=Liz|2=guninvalid|3=rsjaffe|4=HandThatFeeds|5=Bgsu98}}.)

Stevencocoboy is a prolific editor, makes many positive contributions, and almost never uses edit summaries, which makes it very hard to evaluate his overall record. To answer Phil Bridger's comment above, yes I have seen disruption since the last AN/I discussion closed. Here is a chronology:

• Sept 21 2024: In the first sentence of Christina Carreira, Stevencocoboy erroneously changes Carreira's nationality from Canadian-born to American.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=1246790916&oldid=1246399702]
• December 16: Knowing nothing about the history of the article, I notice the first sentence of Christina Carreira is incorect and fix it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1263368555]
• January 26 2025: Stevencocoboy changes Carreira's nationality from Canadian (correct) to Canadian-American (incorrect).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1271859666]
• January 29: Stevencocoboy says on AN/I, {{tq| I'll focus update a result only from now, the others I'll not continued edit because grammar mistakes is my main problem. I feel sorry for guys. I have a promise in here and if I break my promise, you can block me whatever you want.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1178#User:Stevencocoboy]
• February 21: I notice Christina Carreira's nationality is wrong again and change it to Canadian.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1276865292]
• February 21: Stevencocoboy again changes Carreira's nationality to Canadian-American, with edit summary {{tq|See Piper Gilles. I think Canadian-American more better than Canadian xxx who complete for the United States}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1276866156] At this point he has broken his AN/I promise, reverted others three times to add a serious error to the first sentence of a BLP, and given a bizarre irrational rationale for it. (I think his argument is that since we correctly describe a different skater, Piper Gilles, as having dual citizenship, we should add a second nationality to this skater too regardless of what citizenship she actually has.)
• February 25: In the first sentence of Deanna Stellato-Dudek, Stevencocoboy erroneously changes Stellato-Dudek's nationality from American-Canadian to American[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deanna_Stellato-Dudek&diff=prev&oldid=1277518986] without an edit summary. This too broke his AN/I promise.
• February 26: I give him a vandalism warning for his edit to Deanna Stellato-Dudek. He replies, saying {{tq|Hi there, I've receive your message and you said that I'm vandalize Deanna Stellato-Dudek pages. You're so funny and I think you have a mistake. I'm not vandalize because I'm not seen the references with that she has Canadian citizenship. But it doesn't matter, she born in U.S and her hometown also in U.S. She also has U.S citizenship. But don't worry, I'll not change anything and I agree American-Canadian is best edit. But I strongly disagree with you said that I'm a vandalize in wikipedia. Thanks.}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clayoquot&diff=prev&oldid=1277703756]

I don't know if he has done anything this egregious since then or if he has further broken his AN/I promise. I don't know exactly what should be done here but I think something should be done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Despite Steven's promise to not edit prose any longer, he did just that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_and_Maia_Shibutani&diff=prev&oldid=1288370821 today]. He also does not seem to understand the basic principles of WP:BRD, as he skips the Discuss portion and goes directly to Re-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_of_Finland&curid=74200237&diff=1288358161&oldid=1288280615 over and over]. This edit summary – Again and again, It's definitely NOT disruptive editing and we can following Template:Medals_table#Example to edit, no rules specified we must alphabetical listing. If you think it's difficulty, you can abjuration and let the other user to edit. Thanks. – is incomprehensible. Again, if he cannot adequately communicate in English, he should not be editing on the English-language Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_and_Maia_Shibutani&diff=prev&oldid=1288370821 this], I only add the medalists which major event they won at junior level (add the result), so I didn't broke my promise. Changing nationality because I can't see references in first time, I think it's mischief but after I found that and I'll stop change it. It have nothing to do with grammar problem. You can viewing edit history, I've only update results, included U.S sport team, U.S sport men/women, some sport championships result. etc. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This sentence – "At the junior level, they are 2009 World Junior silver and 2009–10 JGP Final bronze medalists." – needs an article after "are", but it is not a serious issue and one I wouldn't have otherwise brought up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also, with regards to the matter that I brought up here originally, he acknowledges on his talk page that he understands that the template will automatically sort the data regardless of how it is entered, but still chooses to overcomplicate the coding for... reasons? "I know the template sorts the lines automatically by medal count, but following Template:Medals_table#Example edit the information did not wrong and no rules specify we can't listing in the order." Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's unfortunate. I guess {{u|Stevencocoboy}} doesn't understand that he may soon be blocked on the English Wikipedia and that's it, finita. Given his "intermediate"/"lower-intermediate" English language skills, it will be very hard for him to get unblocked. Could you maybe try to convince him to stop? As {{u|Clayoquot}} has noted, Steven is a prolific editor and makes a lot of useful edits. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This has been a long-time problem and I didn't bring him here the first time without exhausting all efforts and my patience first. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As have several other editors (yourself included). Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have an idea. You can just propose to change the :Template:Medals table's documentation and show it to him. (After all, currently it does say to order the countries by medal count.)
The talk page seems to be active: Template talk:Medals table. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have started a discussion about whether we should consider changing the examples in the template's documentation. Here: Template talk:Medals table#How about a change to the examples?. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Moscow Connection blocking an editor indefinitely is a last resort. We generally try discussion, warnings, short blocks, and restrictions on reverts first. On the one hand we have to consider the impact on other editors (I hear Bgsu98's comment about their patience being exhausted) and the risk to content (particularly biographies of living persons). On the other hand we want to to give individuals chances show they can succeed and we want to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked into history a bit more and I'm unhappy to see that Moscow Connection is commenting here. An administrator proposed that MC be given a one-way interaction ban from Bgsu98 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#h-User:Bgsu98_mass-redirecting_articles_about_major_figure_skating_competitions-20250419212700 one week ago]. MC, I strongly recommend that you stop commenting on anything to do with Bgsu98. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy, regarding your changing of skaters' nationalities, I'd like to know what you would do differently in the future. If you open an article and the nationality of the subject looks wrong to you, what will you do? After seeing the issues that people have raised here regarding you repeatedly reverting, do you plan to do anything differently the next time another editor reverts you? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Clayoquot}} Don't worry, it's a single incident. I'll not often editing about nationality information. But in the future, if I have a question, I'll open a discussion in talk page and ask the other users opinions first and we need waiting for a consensus. Also I will not revert while the next time another editor reverts my edit. I'll open a discussion too. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Stevencocoboy I just showed you above that you added erroneous nationality information in four separate incidents, and you're stating it was a single incident. This is concerning. It's good to hear you plan to use Talk pages when you have concerns. If you think there is consensus on the Talk page to change a person's stated nationality, what would you do? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Bgsu98}} I won't argue with you anymore. I have a suggestion. Both alphabetical and in the order can acceptable. If the medal table already using in the order, keep using in it. On the contrary, if the table already alphabetical listing and you can keep going to edit. For example, you recently make a new table in Rostelecom Cup and already alphabetical listing, so I will accept and won't change it anymore. Do you agree the suggestion? Also {{Ping|Moscow Connection}} you can give some opinion. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:All of the Grand Prix events will maintain an alphabetical listing since I was the one who added the tables. The championship events that were already in place can remain as they are. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Bgsu98}} Okay, so it means you agree my suggestion, right? Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's what I said. The articles which already used the template (Worlds, Europeans, Four Continents, Junior Worlds, etc.) can keep them as is. The articles where I added the templates (all of the Grand Prix events, for example) will maintain the alphabetical listing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|Bgsu98}} It's great. Thank you very much. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I have a question avove for Stevencocoboy that has not been answered. There are at least three issues to address: 1) tendency to edit war, 2) writing prose in English, and 3) understanding source material. Regarding #1, I think I see above a commitment above to discuss instead of reverting. Regarding #2, I am unclear on whether Stevencocoboy plans to keep to his earlier commitment to refrain from writing prose. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Clayoquot}} Sorry I think it's over because I and Bgsu98 already make a consensus so I forgot answer your question. Regarding #2,3, I'm sure will keep my promise in the future. Thanks for your concern. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Stevencocoboy OK, thanks. I'm fine with letting you have another chance. Please be careful. We hope you'll continue successfully. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User10|Aaron geo}}
They've been editing Indian film related articles and very persistent in addition of uncited/unreliable box office figures into articles for a while. They were blocked last week for 31 hours by {{u|Ad Orientem}} but resumed disruptive editing right after end of block. Their talk page is littered with warnings and notices, and seems like a WP:ROPE to me. I suggest a topic ban from film articles or a longer block. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_geo&diff=prev&oldid=1286405540 Personal attacks] too. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Can you translate that, {{u|Benison}}? Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Cullen328, it goes like "hey you Beni, you've been saying you will block me for a while now. If you block me, can't I survive on my own, you sneaky pig?"(roughly from Malayalam)
Not the first guy to call me that and I don't care, but NPA is applicable. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, {{u|Benison}}, that was an unacceptable insult, but it was just before their 31 hour block. Their only substantive post-block edit was to cite the Times of India, which is admittedly a poor source for show business content, but not really a blockable offense, I don't think. Other administrators may have a different view. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Mr I have been doing my job efficiently and correctly,editing many articles from past two years. I was editing the collection of the movie after carefully observing many trackers figures, who are closely working in the movie industry. Many of my edits were reverted by Beni because of unnecessary reasons. Aaron geo (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::hey beni stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself Aaron geo (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Aaron geo}}, are you aware that the Times of India is a dubious source, especially for show business topics? Have you read WP:TIMESOFINDIA? Are you aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are required to assume good faith regarding your fellow editors? Are you aware that it is unacceptable to call another editor a "sneaky pig" in any language, and that you should communicate in English on the English Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah I am aware of all of this and also I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia. Aaron geo (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|Aaron geo}}, that remark is a non sequitur which is not responsive to the substance of this discussion. Please try again. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia. Aaron geo (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Aaron geo}} You have still not answered Cullen328's questions. Please do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:┌───────────────────────────┘
@Aaron geo, Your response is awaited, please. — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:ICTFSOURCES is pretty straightforward and crystal clear in terms of the sources to be used in Indian film articles. The table there has been rewamped (by me last year), even color coded, so that even newbies can understand and use those wisely. Additionally, notices and hidden text also has been places in the articles to guide the editors on using reliable sources. But Aaron geo conveniently ignores it all, as clearly evident from their edits. They have been notified of it earlier too. I'm almost assuming a WP:CIR here. — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy Aaron geo (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Rewamped? EEng 10:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::EEng, Revamped*. I had changed the layout of the entire table and color coded it for easier understanding last year. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Too bad. Rewamped would be a great word for something. EEng 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::rewamp, v., transitive, to add a further amusing comment; “as is his style, {{u|EEng}} rewamped ANI, this time including a cleverly captioned picture” ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Given their lack of response, I have pblocked Aaron geo from articlespace until they acknowledge the concerns about their editing and address the questions posed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I was not well from last few days,so I didn't resy. I deeply regret my mistakes and will try to be more respectful Aaron geo (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I didn't really know that Times of India was not an adequate source. I am just an amateur trying to edit these because of passion towards the field Aaron geo (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• C-Ban given their replies here which are merely highlighting the broader issues. (I.e., that they're currently blocked from editing article space, which is the one thing we are here to do and is thereby literally prevented from being here to help, or their "sneaky pig" comment from before the block, or the mass of unsourced additions. All of which is sufficient to indef over anyway, I suspect.) But responses such as {{blue|stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself}}, {{blue|I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia}}, {{blue|i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia}}, {{blue|i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia}} and {{blue|Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy}} are not just what Cullen328 (very politely, I think!) called non sequiturs, but uncivil, aspersive and frankly tangential to the point of baffling incomprehensibility. Either this is for their amusement, or there is a language barrier; in any case, either we are being trolled or WP:CIR applies.{{pb}}I see no upside to our allowing this user to remain part of the community, and as far as preventing future disruption and saving editors and admins a ton of time and trouble, a whole lot of reasons not to. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think that the existing block placed by Bushranger is going to be adequate here.—Alalch E. 20:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Their answers do not unfortunately fill me with confidence regarding CIR. But, we'll see. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm half-tempted to look for a revision to the MOS to forbid bloody box office figures in infoboxes. They're almost all pure prognostication it seems. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That aside, given they have returned and are engaging, even if...well, per Fortuna, I'm inclined to lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Per WP:ROPE, I have lifted the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Simonm223, I'd totally support that. It's such a huge headache every single time. Aargh. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{nac}} Now blocked for 31 hours by User:Rsjaffe. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|2600:6C40:5900:CDC:FE33:612:AB6A:1564}} This IP Editor used profanity when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:6C40:5900:CDC:FE33:612:AB6A:1564&diff=prev&oldid=1289364276 replying] to a topic on their Talk page Pibx (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Imdeadinside12}}

User:Imdeadinside12 has been completely ignoring their own talk page, never even making an edit on it and rarely use the edit summary. In addition, this user is constantly going against Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources using unreliable sources and going against other Wikipedia rules, such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR and many others especially constant reported disruptive editing. I mean just one look at this user's talk page shows a mile long list of warnings from editors like myself which have gone completely overlooked and ignored. There also seems to be a level of incompitency regarding this users edits as stated before. I have been biting my tounge for a while, however I am tired of having to revert edits and check over any discrepencies this user has caused, they've been editing Wikipedia longer than I have and yet refused or ignore basic things all edits are require to do, thus I had no choice but to bring this here.

Examples (all are within past 6 months):

• WP:COMMUNICATE - [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Imdeadinside12] and see talk page.
• WP:NOTNEWS - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&oldid=1273938864] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&diff=prev&oldid=1272489200]
• WP:OR - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1283639102] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271673048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271829380] (latter 3 are the user's edits being reverted, to which the user kept changing them)
• WP:PW/RS - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1283639102] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&oldid=1273938864] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&diff=prev&oldid=1272489200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Savages&diff=prev&oldid=1274547086] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271284543] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271673048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271829380] (latter 3 are the user's edits being reverted, to which the user kept changing them, also same as WP:PW/RS but cover the same Wikipedia rule)
• WP:DIS - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxanne_Perez&diff=prev&oldid=1276261304] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IShowSpeed&diff=prev&oldid=1285135182] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobee_Minor&diff=prev&oldid=1287649381]
• WP:CIR - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxanne_Perez&diff=prev&oldid=1276261304]

Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Imdeadinside12}}, I have no interest in professional wrestling so I will not comment on the subject matter, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project so you need to communicate. If you do not do so then you are likely to find yourself blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::okay i understand i edit for fun and i dont have the time to check my talk page all the time but i'll do so going forward i apologize for any inconvience but i will add that getting upset at me for not using the edit summary is little bit ridiculous cause no one that ive seen uses it or barely does so i dont understand why i am being singled out on this matter Imdeadinside12 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe this may be enlightening, along with this quote from that page.

:::"According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)" Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Secondly, when reverting an edit, an edit summary is highly recommended.

::::"It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If you don't have the time to check your talk page (what, it takes a few seconds!), you surely don't have time to make mainspace edits. Ravenswing 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Textbook WP:CIR. You refuse to communicate/read/learn. This is the reason why you repeat the very same mistakes every time; e.g. violation of WP:OR and WP:MOS, ignoring PW guidelines WP:PW/RS and WP:PW/SG, adding your personal opinion to articles, and etc. Yeah, you can have fun and contribute to WP:PW articles. But remember WP is not a personal blog. Collaboration and WP rules matter. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand. I apologize for the inconvenience I caused and I will communicate going forward. Imdeadinside12 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Imdeadinside12 Appreciate the response, however going forward remember to communicate to other editors, use edit summary, and, most importantly, respond to talk page queries. That way, Wikipedia can be an actual collabritive project as is intended. Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::i understand i will do better at communicating i'll try to use the edit summary more but there will be occasions where i just simply forget Imdeadinside12 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = {{ping|Neutralhomer}} This does not require admin attention, and you don't need to post the same thing at AN and AN/I. Please follow WP:DR. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#concerns_with_wides-pread_use_of_links_to_copyvio_material_in_references an ongoing discussion] on WP:MCQ regarding the use of a website as a reference and if that website violates COPYVIO. A consensus needs to be reached, hence the request for eyeballs. (I will be posting this on AN too for the same reason, admin eyeballs and not forum shopping) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Superior6296}}

Superior6296 has over 1,000 edits since 2022, but their quality leaves much to be desired. There have been several previous attempts to communicate with them, including 2 ANI threads around a year ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Plagiarism_of_flag_list_page], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#User_adding_hoax_flags_to_article]), the second of which culminated in a short partial block, but at no point has Superior6296 engaged with any of the criticisms or requests for communication.

Since then, they have continued in their pattern. As {{u|R Prazeres}} noted on their user talk page, they do not appear to have ever cited a single source in their 1,009 edit tenure. Most recently, they've added baseless, patently UNDUE content at Religion in Egypt, unreferenced statements at Languages of Rwanda, unattested native names at a range of articles (Special:Diff/1289345688, Special:Diff/1289345119), assertions of the presence of religious minorities without references at Sakhalin Oblast, and sometimes even adding large paragraphs of analysis without providing any sources Special:Diff/1284179275. Particularly given their focus on low-traffic pages with lots of demographic data, these edits have flown under the radar, but they are a massive disservice to the encyclopedia. At this point, given the numerous past efforts to contact them and get them to engage with community policies and guidelines, I think that we have reached the end of the road and need an indefinite communication is required block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Without getting into the meat of the actual issue, noting that Superior6296 has never edited any type of talk page, and has only gone outside of article space for 3.7% (37) of their edits. They need to demonstrate an ability, and more so a willingness, to communicate. The previous block clearly had no effect on their (non-existent) use of citations, or enthusiasm to discuss or acknowledge issues. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just looking through now, it doesn't look like they've even ever included a real edit summary! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've indefinitely blocked the user. As an aside, many of the user's recent edits are unsourced and yet have not been reverted. Because I felt my reverting them would make me WP:INVOLVED, I left them alone, but someone should review them and take appropriate action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've cleaned up their most recent and concerning additions, although I've left most of the flag gallery additions alone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For what it's worth, one of the main things this account did was creating and/or expanding "List of flags of [...]" or "Flag of [...]" articles, typically with large numbers of unsourced, WP:OR, or irrelevant flags, especially in sections about "historical" and "proposed" flags. (Note: the Santiago Ríos Undurraga account, possibly the same person, also contributed along very similar lines but became inactive shortly before Superior6296 was created.) I've removed some of this material before in Middle East and North Africa-related articles (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Yemenite_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1272262648], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Lebanese_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1251444711], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Libyan_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1251445883], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tunisian_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1210763155], all from Superior6296's edits), but I suspect this problem is now widely distributed. Any interested editors, with a bit of common sense and moderate historical knowledge, could probably clean up a lot of the unsourced and tangential clutter in those articles at some point. R Prazeres (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Blissfully blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

On 1 April, I submitted a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1183#IP_adding_%22brutally_beaten%22_again report] due to an IP editor continually making unsourced changes to articles, for example repeatedly adding "brutally beaten" (this looked like trolling). 2600:4040:5E5C:5500:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for a month but the disruption has resumed since the block expired.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artemic_Khalatov&diff=prev&oldid=1288337502][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlas_Chubar&diff=prev&oldid=1288337411][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C4%81nis_Rudzutaks&diff=prev&oldid=1288336485][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_People%27s_Army_Air_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1288584005] Would it be possible to impose another block on this range? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've reblocked the range.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:584D:DE00:0:0:0:0/64

Judging by geolocate info, contributions such as these [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Lee_filmography&diff=prev&oldid=1287944206][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Lee_filmography&diff=prev&oldid=1263543743] editing in similar topics (pro wrestling, hong kong cinema) and making identical grammar errors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kung_Fu_Kid_(1994_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1288220454] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three_Kingdoms:_Resurrection_of_the_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=1263544597], this appears to be Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:59F4:7300:0:0:0:0/64 who is blocked for another month.

I doubt this is intentional block evasion, and their contributions have been mostly constructive since they began editing in this new range(though they've previously begun edit warring and engaging in personal attacks when they notice me cleaning up after them, which I doubt they have yet). With all that in mind, I'm not sure if a block on this new range would be warranted, but I want to report just in case it is. I initially brought this to AIV where I've previously reported this user, and was directed to bring it here by ScottishFinnishRadish(unsure if I need to tag them?). Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: If they're on the same /40, yeah, it's probably the same person. Blocked for block evasion. This is likely the same person who's been a pain in those topics for several years now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Faster than Thunder}}

I have received a warning in List of rider deaths in motorcycle racing, being accused of 'adding random content' when all I have done is broke some entries off into new sections and altered red links into an interwiki link. This warning is done out of poor faith, in my opinion. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Okay- have you notified them of this discussion as required, and what administrator action are you seeking? Have you attempted to discuss this with them? 331dot (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The vandalism warning comes off a little strong, but this is not fundamentally an issue for ANI in my opinion. Especially without any real discussion between the two users. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@SpacedFarmer, can you really assume those edits were done in poor faith without actually talking to them? See WP:AGF. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree this isn't ANI-worthy (assuming it's an isolated incident), but why tell SF to AGF but not say anything to FTT?

::{{ping|SpacedFarmer}} I don't think that warning was in bad faith, I think FFT just didn't understand what you were doing. {{ping|Faster than Thunder}} looks like you made a mistake, and in any case a level 4 warning was too strong. An apology wouldn't hurt. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::AGF was supposed to be directed at both of them, sorry if that was unclear. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::(It is not an isolated incident)

:::I had a strange encounter with Faster than Thunder recently concerning this kind of behavior, and another came to my attention just today.

:::

:::First:

:::On April 2nd I warned a user for spam[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirajsultanov&oldid=1288408698] and reported them to AIV[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288410400] where further action was declined.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288415290] As part of that process I also reviewed the user's other edits and effectively reverted an unsourced contribution they made to Shahbuz District.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahbuz_District&diff=prev&oldid=1288411354]

:::After all this FtT left this warning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirajsultanov&diff=prev&oldid=1288427820] (uw-vandal4im) to the same user for that same unsourced addition.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahbuz_District&diff=prev&oldid=1288403584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahbuz_District&diff=prev&oldid=1288403627] As I didn't see the addition as vandalism I asked FtT about it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1288428845], they told me the reason for the severe vandalism warning was for adding unsourced content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1288429082], I explained WP:VANDAL and asked them to strike the warning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1288430163], which they did.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirajsultanov&diff=prev&oldid=1288432412]

:::Yet after I'd asked about it on their talk page and before replying, they made a curious addition to my denied AIV report where they requested the user be banned for adding unsourced content and claimed that they were the one who reverted it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288429453] I challenged them on this and their behavior in-thread but received no reply.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288431538]

:::

:::Second:

:::I was notified back to their talk page when a new user accidentally replied to me[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1289445721], so I decided to have a closer look. That brand-new user made this good-faith contribution[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archie_Clement&diff=prev&oldid=1289435732] to update a name based on WP:OR. For this (their first contribution) FtT gave them a {{uw-test3}} warning. The user, understandably unenlightened, replied with their reasoning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Clements&diff=prev&oldid=1289444863], and FtT responded with a frosty {{tq|"Then you should have sourced your edits to that page."}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Clements&diff=prev&oldid=1289452149] and coi notice.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Clements&diff=prev&oldid=1289452273]

:::

:::I've not looked for more but given that these two were recently brought to me unsought, and considering SpacedFarmer's recent interaction, there appears to be some combination of a lack of good faith, moving too fast, lack of policy understanding, or proclivity towards biting with FtT's edits. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:DilovanKovlii always seems to edit while logged out after creating a new article. Here's the editing history of some of their new articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bedel_Berwar%C3%AE&action=history Bedel Berwar], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doski&action=history Doski], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muthanna_Amin&action=history Muthanna Amin]. The strange thing is that these IPs appear to be from different locations, so they could be using a proxy or some software to change their location. I've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DilovanKovlii&diff=prev&oldid=1288911659 asked] them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DilovanKovlii&diff=prev&oldid=1288913567 twice] why they keep doing this, but they fail to respond appropriately and simply blank their talk page without appearing to acknowledge what others have written. They've also created some questionable articles, see: Dilovan Kovli, which appears to be entirely a hoax. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{non-admin}} Out of interest I checked Dilovan Kovli the references appear to be nonsense, so I checked Doski and the first three references I checked also failed verification. They appear to be the result of either AI hallucinations or deliberate hoax. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:They seem to be {{userlinks|Jonathan duski}}, who is checkuser blocked but with no sockmaster or SPI case linked. I'm preaching to the choir, Cyclone already filed this at SPI here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I thought the same, but they appear to be unrelated (as per the SPI). Struck comment since SPI is still ongoing. What also concerns me is that they fail to WP:ENGAGE with anyone at their talk page, and the lack of a response from them here was expected. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: Non-admin comment The SPI page was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289422123&oldid=1289406397 blanked] by the user in question. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 14:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given that, the very heavy overlap between them and {{noping|Jonathan duski}}, and the severe overlap in editing areas between the two accounts, especially the fact that Jonathan duski was the creator of the (AI-generated) previous incarnation of Dilovan Kovli - {{megaphoneduck}}. Blocked. I see Bbb23 had the same thought and pulled the trigger as I was typing this up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Before this gets closed, can an admin block User:SDFResearcher? Created Draft:Wahid Kovli with the same fake sourcing, uses similar AI generated edit summaries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamar_Fattah_Ramadhan_Kuchar&diff=prev&oldid=1266466386] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Wahid_Kovli&diff=prev&oldid=1265910129] as our sockmaster: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barzan,_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=1286759790] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Zab&diff=prev&oldid=1286520651]. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = content dispute

| result = other editors of lying when they simply disagree with you is going to become a conduct dispute if you keep it up. asilvering (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello,

@Chetsford has lied several times about sources being cited in Draft:Christopher Mellon and its talk page.

Recently, @Chetsford made AfD nomination on the [https://archive.ph/mwthk original Christopher Mellon article]. The article was deleted.

I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples. Nevertheless, I solicited BuySomeApples' help, and we put in a bunch of work to vet suitable sources to satisfy Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Throughout this process, Chetsford was commenting on our drafting and sources (and in some cases [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288276727&oldid=1288229029 actively lying] about whether sources had been used in the previously deleted version).

Based on a reference in my re-drafting efforts, I suspect Chetsford then put in an AfD nomination for The Sol Foundation. I suggested that this article should be kept in the AfD discussion, and I believe this attracted the attention of @Very Polite Person.

Very Polite Person then asked if he could help with the drafting of the Mellon article, and I agreed. They redrafted and submitted the article in a day.

Chetsford then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288537313&oldid=1288512298 commented on the draft], suggesting that it should be rejected on the basis of "SIGCOV problems." He listed out 9 sources that he deemed to have these problems.

Very Polite Person's redraft was met with a rejection from @Bonadea, with a justification of "Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome."

In response to this, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288635827 written a rather large comment] documenting Chetsford's mendacity in his "source evaluation." Here is the part that details his mendacity:

Regardling "Chetsford's source evaluation" of the recently submitted draft, here are the falsehoods that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288537313&oldid=1288512298 he wrote] in bold, with my refutations in plain text:

"7. [https://www.space.com/ufo-report-military-dod-to-congress-next-month Article] is about flying saucers; Mellon is briefly quoted in it speaking about flying saucers - WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV This article never once mentions "flying saucers," nor is Mellon "briefly quoted in it speaking about flying saucers." The article details Mellon's past positions in presidential administrations, and how Mellon gave declassified Navy UFO videos to the New York Times, resulting in their "blockbuster story" about the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. It also describes his "60 Minutes" interview and includes his assertion that UAPs are a national security issue. This is significant, reliable, independent coverage of a high-profile individual in the UAP disclosure movement.

9. 12 page [https://web.archive.org/web/20250503002342/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596867.pdf article] on a piece of legislation mentions Mellon once ("Christopher Mellon, Cohen’s staffer, later said: [quote]") - WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV This is demonstrably false. Mellon is mentioned three times, but even if that weren't the case, one mention would still evidence the claim that: "In interviews with Joint Forces Quarterly, Mellon in 2002 discussed his time and memories working in the United States Senate." Regardless, here are THREE mentions that show Chetsford's outright telling of falsehoods:

On page 44: "Christopher Mellon, Cohen’s staffer, later said: “One thing about Senator Warner that I always admired . . . is that he maintained an open mind. He was willing to change his point of view based on new evidence and information. Senator Warner might go into something with a great deal of conviction on one side and argue furiously, and yet as new information would come to light, he always listened.”

On page 45: "Looking back at the committee’s work, Mellon said: “It was an example of good government. It is the memory I would like to have of the Senate. There weren’t parochial motives that I was able to discern. Members were motivated by national security considerations. People were dedicated; everybody was engaged; they were working with a great deal of vigor, energy, and commitment. Issues were decided on the merits and substance. It was the kind of experience that makes you want to go into government and be involved and participate.”

On page 46: This process strengthened the bill and achieved consensus. Mellon compared it to forging a sword: “Warner and the Navy were the hammer, and Goldwater, Nunn, and the staff were the anvil. Warner kept firing in these amendments and concerns and objections to provisions. In a way, they helped to strengthen, sharpen, and harden some of the provisions and forged the bill in a hotter fire.”

10. Mellon is briefly mentioned in two short sentences in this [https://archive.org/details/darkterritorysec0000kapl/page/n1/mode/2up?q=mellon 360 page book]. False. Mellon is mentioned in THREE sentences that do justify the claim "In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, author and journalist Fred Kaplan wrote of Mellon's involvement during his Senate career with the National Security Agency and J. Michael "Mike" McConnell, former Director of National Intelligence, and Mellon's research into the NSA's budget." Nevertheless, the important part is that Mellon cracked the NSA's books and revealed their meager budget "for programs to penetrate communications on the internet." This led to McConnell assuring "the Senate commitee that he would beef up the programs as a top priority." This content can be read on page 36 of the book:

"McConnell feared that the NSA would lose its unique luster—its ability to tap into communications affecting national security. He was also coming to realize that the agency was ill equipped to seize the coming changes. A young man named Christopher Mellon, on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff, kept coming around, asking questions. Mellon had heard the briefings on Fort Meade’s adaptations to the new digital world; but when he came to headquarters and examined the books, he discovered that, of the agency’s $4 billion budget, just $2 million was earmarked for programs to penetrate communications on the Internet. Mellon asked to see the personnel assigned to this program; he was taken to a remote corner of the main floor, where a couple dozen techies—out of a workforce numbered in the tens of thousands—were fiddling with computers. McConnell hadn’t known just how skimpy these efforts were, and he assured the Senate committee that he would beef up the programs as a top priority."

12. Mellon is mentioned in one paragraph of [https://web.archive.org/web/20210427234352/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously this article] on a congressional hearing; a large portion of that paragraph is a direct quote from him - WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV Again, a falsehood. Mellon is mentioned in FIVE paragraphs, and perhaps more important than Mellon's direct quotations are the implications of his work: Were it not for Mellon, Kean would not have been able to break her New York Times story and the UAP-related provisions in the 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act would not have been added. Additionally, the article highlights that Mellon has confirmed that the"government possesses stark visual documentation" of UAPs. Nevertheless, here are the five distinct paragraphs where Mellon is mentioned:

On October 4, 2017, at the behest of Christopher K. Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Leslie Kean was called to a confidential meeting in the bar of an upscale hotel near the Pentagon. She was greeted by Hal Puthoff, the longtime paranormal investigator, and Jim Semivan, a retired C.I.A. officer, who introduced her to a sturdy, thick-necked, tattooed man with a clipped goatee named Luis Elizondo. The previous day had been his last day of work at the Pentagon. Over the next three hours, Kean was taken through documents that proved the existence of what was, as far as anyone knew, the first government inquiry into U.F.O.s since the close of Project Blue Book, in 1970. The program that Kean had spent years lobbying for had existed the whole time.

After Elizondo resigned, he and other key AATIP participants—including Mellon, Puthoff, and Semivan—almost immediately joined To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science, an operation dedicated to U.F.O.-related education, entertainment, and research, and organized by Tom DeLonge, a former front man of the pop-punk outfit Blink-182. Later that month, DeLonge invited Elizondo onstage at a launch event. Elizondo announced that they were “planning to provide never-before-released footage from real U.S. government systems—not blurry amateur photos but real data and real videos.”

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, their story—“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program”—appeared online; it was printed on the front page the next day. Accompanying the piece were two videos, including “FLIR1.” Senator Reid was quoted as saying, “I’m not embarrassed or ashamed or sorry I got this going.” The Pentagon confirmed that the program had existed, but said that it had been closed down in 2012, in favor of other funding priorities. Elizondo claimed that the program had continued in the absence of dedicated funding. The article dwelled not on the reality of the U.F.O. phenomenon—the only actual case discussed at any length was the Nimitz encounter—but on the existence of the covert initiative. The Times article drew millions of readers. Kean noticed a change almost immediately. When people asked her at dinner parties what she did for a living, they no longer giggled at her response but fell rapt. Kean gave all the credit to Elizondo and Mellon for coming forward, but she told me, “I never would have ever imagined I could have ended up writing for the Times. It’s the pinnacle of everything I’ve ever wanted to do—just this miracle that it happened on this great road, great journey.”

The point of using the term “unidentified,” he said, was “to help remove the stigma.” He told me, “At some point, we needed to just admit that there are things in the sky we can’t identify.” Despite the fact that most adults carry around exceptionally good camera technology in their pockets, most U.F.O. photos and videos remain maddeningly indistinct, but the former Pentagon official implied that the government possesses stark visual documentation; Elizondo and Mellon have said the same thing. According to Tim McMillan, in the past two years, the Pentagon’s U.A.P. investigators have distributed two classified intelligence papers, on secure networks, that allegedly contain images and videos of bizarre spectacles, including a cube-shaped object and a large equilateral triangle emerging from the ocean. One report brooked the subject of “alien” or “non-human” technology, but also provided a litany of prosaic possibilities. The former Pentagon official cautioned, “ ‘Unidentified’ doesn’t mean little green men—it just means there’s something there.” He continued, “If it turns out that everything we’ve seen is weather balloons, or a quadcopter designed to look like something else, nobody is going to lose sleep over it.”

In June of 2020, Senator Marco Rubio added text into the 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act requesting—though not requiring—that the director of National Intelligence, along with the Secretary of Defense, produce “a detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting.” This language, which allowed them a hundred and eighty days to produce the report, drew heavily from proposals by Mellon, and it was clear that this concerted effort, at least in theory, was a more productive and more cost-effective iteration of the original vision for AATIP. Mellon told me, “This creates an opening and an opportunity, and now the name of the game is to make sure we don’t miss that open window.”

In addition to all these falsehoods, @Chetsford frequently implies that coverage about a topic not "significant or in detail" based on what percent of a source it constitutes or how long the source is. This is fallacious. Coverage can be significant and in detail even if it is a small portion of larger work or even if the source is subjectively short. All of Chetsford's arguments to discredit a source based upon proportionality and length should be discounted, especially given that Wikipedia does not have specific guidelines for SIGCOV on the basis of proportionality and length. Arguments based on proportionality and length are a mere attempt to misconstrue the relevant facts of the matter—Those being the ones cited in a given source, regardless of the source length or what proportion of the source is relevant. Attempts to discredit the significance of a source based upon proportionality or length are strawman arguments that draw editors into a quagmire. Chetsford makes arguments of this kind in all of the above cases and more. It is a complete misrepresentation of WP:BASIC's statement that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." In fact, you can find Chetsford outright denying this principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288214004&oldid=1288213827 here], when he responds to my assertion that "I also think these establish his notability, especially when taken together cumulatively."

So, in sum, Chetsford has told several lies that make writing and editing articles very difficult. He also misrepresents critical basic criteria that should be understood for proper sourcing.

Thanks so much,

Ben.Gowar (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:So the TL;DR I get here is that UFO - wait, sorry, UAP enthusiasts get mad when their pet phenomena are held up to actual scrutiny and sourcing requirements. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Anger has nothing to do with it. Brute facts do. Lying is incivility per WP:ICA. Ben.Gowar (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reply from Chetsford. This appears to be a continuation of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#IP_editor_WP:NOTHERE and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#I've_been_banned_from_reverting_a_Wikipedia_page_back_to_its_original_status_before_it_started_being_brigaded.] previous discussions at ANI (and voluminous similar threads spread across ANI, article, and admin Talk pages across the project). In broad strokes, UFO believers recently became incensed that I nominated Christopher K. Mellon for deletion and have started organizing on X and Reddit after convincing themselves I'm IRL either the former director of the CIA editing WP, or a CIA-controlled AI trying to suppress the truth of flying saucers and so forth (e.g. [https://x.com/Duke87242518/status/1916405510581997921], [https://x.com/YouThrall/status/1916943675646742580], [https://x.com/GoodTroubleShow/status/1917016886417699099], [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOB/comments/1k6k04t/harald_malmgrems_wikipedia_page_is_being/], etc.). I was even recently the topic of the first two hours of Coast to Coast AM [https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2025-04-27-show/]. UFO leaders appear to have convinced their community that, despite me running the CIA or something, I can still be doxed, desysoped, banned from editing WP by an act of Congress, and sued to death for RICO Act violations. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIboIo8z6bg]. (There seems to be some overlap between Ufology and pseudolaw in this respect.)
  In any case, the last two weeks of accusations are of similar word count to this one so it's no longer really feasible for me to reply to each of them point by point. However, I think I've addressed the crux of this in the (I think) identical complaint this editor filed at the Tea House [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1288662371] and I'm happy, as always, to address specific questions otherwise. Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Frankly, who you are is irrelevant to whether your statements are factual or not. In the case of the statements I have cited above, they are not. This is incivility. Why you refuse to address your incivility is not my concern. Ben.Gowar (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::*I previously apologized to you here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1288662371] for any offense I caused by referring to aerial vehicles purportedly piloted by space aliens or interdimensional etheric entities as "flying saucers" rather than "UAP"s. I truly will endeavor not to do that in the future if I am aware you are a participant in a discussion. Please also consider this a blanket apology for anything else I have said that may have inadvertently offended you. I follow this space somewhat, but only lightly, and it can be difficult to keep up with your community's preferred terminology from moment to moment. But I will try to do better. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:Per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, please strike through each of your lies and apologize for each. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, I'm not going to do that. Calling a "UAP" a "Flying Saucer" isn't a lie anymore than calling an "Escritoire" a "Desk" is a lie. I offered you a perfunctory apology for no other reason than to assuage any personal offense you may have experienced. And I'm happy to do that as it takes de minimis effort on my part. But I'm not going to reorganize reality itself to accommodate you. This is the best offer you're likely to get. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If that were your only lie, I might agree with you. But you've lied at least five times (as documented in the post above). The fact that you have "no other reason than to assuage any personal offense" indicates that you truly have no problem with lying and are indeed committed to the mendacity that is specified as uncivil in WP:ICA. You put effort into telling lies, now please put effort into correcting them. Facts are important for an encyclopedia. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You wrote a 2,126 word thesis. I simply don't have time to reply to ever pronunciamento I've received in the last week. But I'll look at one additional of your claims beyond the referring to UAPs as Flying Saucers is a lie and your are guilty of lying claim. You write {{xt|"[Chetsford wrote] 12 page article on a piece of legislation mentions Mellon once ... This is demonstrably false. Mellon is mentioned three times"}}. I affirm my statement. Mellon is mentioned once. There is a narrative mention and two attributed quotes. The fact that I wasn't referring to surname counts by the word "mention" should have been self-evident since the context of the discussion was SIGCOV which isn't established by drop quotes. Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the rest of the treatise doesn't get any better and bow out of this discussion. I wish you the very best in all your endeavors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I can tell, at worst, Chetsford is guilty of counting sentences incorrectly and not using Ben.Gowar's preferred terminology. Most of this looks like simple disagreement on an issue. I'd suggest as suitable penance that Chetsford be made to re-read this entire rant a second time, at least if that does not conflict with Eighth Amendment caselaw.

:All this should be hatted, though I guess Ben.Gowar can make a second filing, with clear diffs of explicit lies and without the whole Manifesto-ization. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Tax fraud is is just incorrect counting too. Lies are lies. Chetsford chooses to quantify statements as an indicator of significance. Then he lies about the quantity to downplay the signficance. As you point out, he is guilty. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:The world has really gone topsy-turvy when a believer in little green men accuses someone who is trying to put him right of lying. This should be closed per WP:DNFTT. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::You have not presented a sound argument. Either Chetsford made false statements or he did not. I claim he did and provided evidence. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Ben.Gowar}} wrote at the beginning of this saga {{tpq|I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples.}} But the draft was declined, not rejected. Should I start a new thread about that called "Ben.Gowar Lying"? I could but I won't. This whole thread should be used as the the basis for a low budget UAP science fiction screenplay called "The Attack of the TLDR POV Pushers!" Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{reply|Asilvering}} personally, I think repeatedly calling other editors liars already constitutes conduct abuse warranting a block. They've done it several times already. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::They were blocked 48 hours by Cullen328 for general ABF and personal attacks. Their response was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289158230 wikilawyer]...after responding to the block with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289011140 this]. Given the repeated flippancy and personal attacks against the blocking admin, I've upgraded to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks {{u|The Bushranger}} (for your block extension, which was absolutely necessary, and acknowledging my post), I've only just seen this so apologies for not replying until now. I'll close of this bit of discussion too for archiving. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|220.137.188.187}} has been rewriting China's and Taiwan's status contrary to the consensus in basically all edits they've made so far and edit war with anyone who reverts those changes. Laura240406 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{Userlinks|220.141.223.191}} appears to have been the same user. @Laura240406, I think enough of these edits constitute vandalism that you could've reported this IP at WP:AIV instead; admins tend to respond more quickly there. Toadspike [Talk] 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Desoldered

| result = Indeffed for treating editing Wikipedia as a battle against evil forces. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

SolderUnion was created only 15 days ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SolderUnion&target=SolderUnion&offset=20250503190153 1]) and has ever since been engaging in disruptive behaviour on a large number of articles, with wp:personal attacks and aspersions, wp:editwarring, and POV-pushing. Although disruptive newly-created accounts are pretty common, I just found out that in the past few days their behaviour has only deteriorated, with the user making accusations, personalized to other experienced editors or vaguely to the wikipedia community as a whole, about serving alleged agendas or generally working in bad-faith:

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5: {{tq|There are additions [...] added by a group of nationalist. There are on purpose because there are many and every time have pro Greek national agenda.}} when they -ironically- reported an old editor for vandalism. diff6: {{tq|...If you don't revert especially this edit I will use it as evidence against you.}}, (update) diff7: {{tq|This is totally propaganda and will be used as evidence for a collusion of people that promote Greek nationalistic agenda.}}

Aside from their talkpage, they have been warned several times for the editwarring (e.g. diff8) as well as the attacks and accusations. (e.g. diff9, diff10). They have exhibited this behaviour in a number of -completely unrelated- articles/talkpages, such as Rum millet, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Epirus etc., where the only thing in common is that they are all one way or another Greek-history-related, and always accompanied by accusations. In fact, it appears that disruption in Greek-related content is almost always the intention (even in a random edit here), which makes me wonder whether the user is wp:nothere for anything else. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for example, when discussing in the article of Arvanites, they brought up a completely unrelated edit by User:Remsense in Alexander the Great from nearly a year ago (!) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArvanites&diff=1288804455&oldid=1288801385 diff11]), I guess trying to justify their accusations (in that edit Remsense, along with other editors, had in fact merely reverted another newly-created edit-warring account) The user generally appears to be familiar with older edits, for example, they seemed to know that User:PericlesofAthens had made a certain edit 8 years ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=1288713958 diff12]), which along with the large recent activity in a span of days, is somewhat suspicious. Piccco (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Anybody know of any previously blocked Macedonian nationalist accounts with an interest in history as a vector of propaganda? If so I'd suggest a checkuser might be appropriate here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Simonm223 Yes, I do have something in mind. Although the user has also been involved in other articles (nearly all of them Greek-history-related), I also believe they are actually Macedonia-focused. Piccco (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The edits seem uniformly someone who is POV pushing that Macedonians are not Greek. It's pretty obviously a nationalist account. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Piccco Hello! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm unfortunately far too busy with actual work and an FA review of Augustus to deal with all of this unserious monkey business by silly sock puppet accounts, so I appreciate your due diligence here in documenting it. The "editor" in question just left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PericlesofAthens&diff=prev&oldid=1288823606 this rosy little message] on my talk page, which I'm sharing here if you'd like to add it to the pile of offenses they're busy piling up. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would kindly ask any admin to check my contributions carefully. All my contributions are supported by sources. I'm new here and don't know how actually wikipedia works. If I've been disruptive I would like to apologize and I promise I will not engage in any wp:personal attacks and wp:editwarring SolderUnion (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would recommend becoming familiar with (at very least the basics of) how Wikipedia works before making substantial edits. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. Sorry. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I made it perfectly clear this editor needed to drop their paranoid delusions of a Greek nationalist conspiracy if they wanted me to keep spending time engaging with them and their questions. They clearly have no other reason for being here than said delusions, though. Remsense ‥ 论 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Clearly a WP:NOTHERE case. Looks like a sock of banned {{user|HelenHIL}}. Khirurg (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Khirurg Not a huge surprise. I see they've also been making a rather unnecessary concerted effort to 'kick up dust' (so to speak) about cited sources over at Talk:Ancient Macedonians as well. This is a multipronged effort at POV-pushing across multiple articles, all with the same theme. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up: It appears that after a day and despite the user's promise to avoid the aspersions, their rhetoric largely remains the same, notably: {{tq|I have very strong suspicion (would say rather I'm certain) about a particular group of people that are active in wikipedia for many years and silently promote their agenda. Little by little they have made big changes...}} (diff1). Meanwhile, as another editor noted (diff2), the part of the article that the user refers to as alleged product of wikipedia propaganda had been in fact written by a Turkish editor (!). In the same reply, the user mostly talks about the article of the Ancient Macedonians, itself clear wp:canvassing ({{tq|Please check Talk:Ancient Macedonians...}}), something completelty unrelated to the article of Rum Millet, further confirming the initial "nothere" suspision, as their main motive is seemingly to disrupt any Greek-history-related article. I haven't looked more into their replies, because my time is limited, but I'm reporting some cases that stand out. Piccco (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see anything on Talk:Ancient Macedonians to be canvassed to? There's a discussion, but no RfC or other "!vote" thing there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:there's also this edit on the Ancient Macedonians talk page trying to start an entirely tenedentious debate without any specific reference to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Macedonians&oldid=1289171987 Golikom (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Update: This user is going around canvassing users that he thinks will help him, in a very WP:BATTLE manner [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishjan&diff=prev&oldid=1289286904] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorthern_Epirus&diff=1289285408&oldid=1289273094]. Admin intervention is needed at this point. Khirurg (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would like t bring to admin attention that 2 more editors (3 including me) have come to the same conclusion that nationalistic agenda of a specific country is promoted in many pages. The fact that some people are here and truly contribute to wikipedia's project doesn't exclude them from being able to commit this kind of things. Here are the two other editors concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Epirus#Name section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rum_millet#Recent edits . Statistically speaking this cannot be coincidence. I would be very happy if admin takes a closer look at what is happening. SolderUnion (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::So, yet more aspersions. If there's a good reason why a WP:NOTHERE block isn't called for, I can't think of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not only that, but blatantly lying by conflation regarding what the other editors actually said (there's of course been no paranoid delusions of a conspiracy from them). SolderUnion's happy to have unneeded scrutiny potentially drawn to other editors for potentially enabling their disruptive behavior, when in fact words are just being put in their mouths. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would be extremely happy if you provide me a way to give you information about this group outside of Wikipedia's page the reason being not wanting data to be lost and not expose identities. SolderUnion (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why would you need to provide their doxx to me (don't!) if I and many others are colluding with them? Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at this case one more night, not only has the aforementioned rhetoric not been toned down the slightest (in my opinion, it might have gotten worse, like here: "{{tq|I have a strong suspicion of a group of people that are editors for years and they truly contribute in Wikipedia but at the same time promote nationalistic narrative in a very sneaky way.}}"), but they misinterpret other users' words, per Remsense, and now even imply that they could potentially wp:out other editors (?). Keep in mind that the parts of the articles they refer to were in fact written by various people, like the Rum Millet, as User:Jingiby noted, was written by a Turkish editor, or big parts of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) were written, if I'm not mistaken, by PericlesofAthens. Regardless. I also thought of proceeding with an SPI, although, in my opinion, with that alone the line has long been crossed at this point. Piccco (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Having looked into this, the suggestion that this is a sock of {{noping|HelenHIL}} seems to have considerable merit: note HelenHIL edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonians&diff=prev&oldid=1096027783] vs. SolderUnion talk page suggestion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Macedonians&diff=prev&oldid=1289260367]. Looking more into HelenHIL's background edits, the feeling grows stronger: same topic area, and the same sort of Greek-bias allegations. I've seen enough to block as a probable sock, on top of the WP:ASPERSIONS alone. (Note that {{tqq|a way to give you information about this group outside of Wikipedia's page}} may or may not be WP:OUTING; it's certainly eyebrow-raising and the end comment {{tqq|not expose identities}} as a reason to do it off-Wiki certainly makes it sound like real-life identities are being discussed). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• And after being blocked their response was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SolderUnion&diff=prev&oldid=1289454739 double down]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|User blocked for 3 months. Wbm4567 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

@98.22.4.143 has been continuing to vandalize Wikipedia by making joke edits to Nickelodeon (movie theater) and TF1. That user has been warned three times after their edits to pages like Gros Caillou and Roger Roger (composer) blocked once for 48 hours, and was warned 3 more times by @Adakiko and me after their edits to Jean (surname), and the joke edits to the pages I mentioned above. Also, that user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Wbm4567 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Blocked for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@PhilKnight Great, thanks! Wbm4567 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Immediate action taken|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Please take immediate action [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.56.92.133]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} – robertsky (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Indef applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Itsallabout42}}

All of this user's edits are AI-generated. This is especially obvious from the fake sources: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_McKee&diff=prev&oldid=1281441735] (obvious), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monpura&diff=prev&oldid=1281439843] (broken DOIs in refs 9 and 14), and all the deadlinks in Robert Leitz. The long edit summaries are also clearly AI. I have checked every single one of their edits and reverted them all for similar issues (except for the Robert Leitz article, which I have AfD'd). Notably, about half of their edits were made after they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsallabout42#c-BalaM314-20250320113800-March_2025 warned] for LLM use by User:BalaM314. This user needs to be blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 19:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:They have now returned, presumably prompted by the AfD notice, but I do not think their edits have improved. Their comment at AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Leitz&diff=prev&oldid=1289539624] seems AI-generated. Their purported efforts to improve the article involves a lot of shifting stuff around for no apparent reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Leitz&diff=1289551461&oldid=1289539477]. They continue to reword things in a way that is both promotional and a sign of LLM use (though at least they have started linking to real websites, if not always reliable ones) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Leitz&diff=1289539148&oldid=1289500578]. They have stopped using edit summaries altogether, presumably because I flagged them above. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's at least one fake source in La Vida Lena too (see Ref 8) in that it has a made-up ISBN and I cannot find any evidence the book exists. The IMDB link (not that one should be using IMDB anyway) goes to an Amazon Prime series starring Sissy Spacek and JK Simmons, so I'm guessing the LLM couldn't figure out a link there. The editor has not replied to any of the concerns whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks both. Indef'd. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked.}}

• {{userlinks|Polvixv}}

This user is making repeated edits to Angry Birds Fight!. I asked why this is happening on their talk page, but there has not been a response. But the edits continue. Possible gaming of the system. Pibx (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This matter is urgent. At the time of this post being written, these edits are continuing to happen. This account seems to be a Vandalism only account, and probably ought to be blocked indefinitely Pibx (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Guy's already blocked. Scoophole2021 (talk). 05:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I posted before my computer refreshed to show that the blocked happened. Pibx (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Jeira banki}}

All edits from {{User|Jeira banki}} are either ChatGPT-based or unreferenced. All are suspect and unreliable. I'd recommend a preventative indef block too, but I'll defer the closing admin's discretion on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ping {{ping|Asilvering}} who handled a similar case above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I hate it. These companies can't run out of venture capital soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=They wanted it, they got it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gabriel_Portes_Albino look at me..... I really want to get blocked] Moxy🍁 01:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = BLOCKED

| result = Indeffed and TPA revoked {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|Boobybanjo}} Vandalism only account. Pibx (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you, or someone else also suppress their edits, especially the ones containing profanity? Pibx (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Blocked

| result = Blocked and rev del'd. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Please take immediate action [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.118.118.147] Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Dawnseeker2000}}

MOS:GEOLINK makes it clear that cities of birth should not be de-linked, but administrative region and country should. {{user|Dawnseeker2000}} is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1288971352&oldid=1287068648 aware of this]. Despite this, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Henry_%28footballer%2C_born_1979%29&diff=1289169053&oldid=1283468606 continue to remove links to towns and cities], something which has been an issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1279295759&oldid=1279179928 for some months now]. I have exhausted communication with them, so welcome assistance. GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:OVERLINK specifically calls out London as shouldn't-link-if-obvious, so that was a good removal on their part. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::GEOLINK has (or should have) precedence, as it is more precise. GiantSnowman 18:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Precision isn't in question here. GEOLINK says {{tq|For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit.}}. OVERLINK says {{tq|In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked... Settlements or municipalities (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario)}} In my view, Do Not Link clearly overrides Link Only. And I see Dawnseeker has {{diff|User talk:Dawnseeker2000|prev|1279850780|pointed you at this information before}}. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, precision is in question here. The MOS conflicts, so which do we follow? I say GEOLINK, as applying directly to place names, is preferable to the more general OVERLINK. Are you going to enforce OVERLINK and remove place name links from yesterday's FA, William D. Leahy? GiantSnowman 19:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The thing is, taken to reductio ad absurdum, following MOS:OVERLINK to the letter would leave London (England) an orphaned article. Clearly that's not what is intended, but the thing is that common sense needs to be applied. IMHO, having the city, even a common, well-known one, linked in an article in the infobox and/or first-time-appearing-in-prose is entirely appropriate. Further IMHO assuming "everyone knows London, we don't need to link it" could well be taken as a subtle form of systemic bias - no, not every user is going to be familiar with London, and those who aren't are probably going to be outside the Anglosphere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Right, removing all the links would definitely be an issue, and that is not what I'm intending to do. London is a pretty good example, though maybe not completely representative of all the cities that I'm working on. I've just looked at the numbers and I came up with a crude estimate. It's about 26% of all the links to London. Many of these links will, of course, be reinstated, and that's fine. I'm not at war with the links.{{pb}}I do have a sense that the OP is at war so to speak. They've reverted me outright on a small handful of articles where they could have just reinstated the link. Throwing out my other work isn't necessary.{{pb}}This allegation of disruption comes about because of my date formatting work, which I've been doing since July 2019. It's the AWB settings file that focuses on municipalities, states, and countries. There's about 1700 entries and I target well known items. Working with obscure cities would also be problematic, so of course I don't do those.{{pb}}My take on the MoS is pretty close to what SarekOfVulcan said earlier: GEOLINK and OVERLINK can be seen to be at odds with one another, but stepping into the grey area a bit, one can sort of see that how I'm doing it does make sense. I follow OVERLINK in the sense that I'm unlinking well-known cities (the number of links to London and London, England total ~130K) and I'm also following GEOLINK because of the SEAOFBLUE component. {{pb}}It's probably fine that Snowman brought this here, but this is a pretty minor complaint considering that many of the links will be restored and that our readers can put the city name in the search bar. If no administrator action is taken here, or if this becomes stale, I'd ask Snowman to simply restore the offensive removal. Dawnseeker2000 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, it's petty, but you have continued to edit (in my view disruptively) and did not respond to my last tab;k page posts. All I want is for you to adhere to GEOLINK and stop de-linking cities. As the Bushranger suggests, where does it stop?! GiantSnowman 17:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::GEOLINK doesn't say that you must link cities, so it's impossible to adhere to it in that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It says "link only the first unit". That implies the first unit should be linked. GiantSnowman 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No, it says you shouldn't link the others. It says nothing about whether you must link the first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Given that the verbatim text of MOS:GEOLINK is {{tq|q=y|link only the first unit}}, I agree with GiantSnowman's interpretation; it is clearly an instruction to link something. Which something? The first unit only. If it had been phrased, "only the first unit may be linked", then it would be a prohibition (don't link more than 1st unit) rather than a mandate (link the first unit and nothing else). EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with {{ping|The Bushranger}}.

::::::In my opinion, maybe we should amend MOS:OVERLINK.

::::::{{tq2|Be conscious of your own demographic biases when determining whether certain terms have this level of recognizability – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less so for others.}}

::::::Not everyone is going to know what London is, and to never link to London or the other entities in that section would be unhelpful to those users. Maybe it should be removed. Wikipedia usually just links the first occurrence anyway, so it can’t be that cluttered. 2601:182:B00:8DA0:E16A:5628:7B82:6D3B (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I support reinserting the link and striking out provisions in OVERLINK page that tells you otherwise. This idea of "never link in the entire article" is unhelpful. 2600:1012:A021:7A65:5C8E:C69B:4D52:695 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} Pinged the OVERLINK talk page re: the reductio ad absurdum argument. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note that, despite this ongoing discussion and the points above, {{ping|Dawnseeker2000}} continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Douglass&diff=prev&oldid=1289666059 remove links to cities]. that is totally inappropriate. Can somebody please ask them to stop whilst we await consensus/resolution of this issue? GiantSnowman 09:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Blocked

| result = Blocked and rev del'd. Ping me if I've missed any. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{IP|2405:201:A006:23E5:AED:5C35:9F1C:DF17}} used racial/ethnic slurs (see Paki (slur)) in two edit summaries located at {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289768569}} and {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289769120}}. I have warned them on their talk page but thought it may be best given the subject matter and recent events to bring it up here too. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ableist slurs also from the same /64 {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289702889}} and {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289650505}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=What a mess|1=OP initially blocked 24h for edit-warring. Etcnoel1 then blocked initially 24 hours for PAs before upgrated to indef for doubling down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The user {{Userlinks|Etcnoel1}} keeps vandalizing/disruptive editing the page Assyrian rebellion and harasses other users with their alleged ethnic background or nationality (which is not even true regarding mine background) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289394204. Asked the user to use the talk page, but clearly refuses to do so https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&curid=60517284&diff=1289439959&oldid=1289438135 And now he/she continues to revert edits despite the fact that I added sources or corrected existing ones. He claims that ‘’A user is not obligated to message another user on their talk page because of a simple revision on a Wiki page.’’, but its not a simple revision. He reverts back any edits of other users without even using the talk page and then accuses me of vandalism. I also added a clear Turkish source yet he just deletes all my edits. Would appreciate it if a admin could at least warn this user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woxic1589 (talk • contribs)

• Both of you appear to be misusing the term "vandalism" to the detriment of civility. Both of these edit summaries are completely uncalled for, and they appear at the beginning of this edit war (Etcnoel, Woxic1589). You should both have immediately gone to the article talk page to discuss, rather than continue editing the page. I will say that Etcnoel1's most recent edit summary on that page, ...It’s clear that you are unaware of Wikipedia guidelines so I recommend that you read them. A user is not obligated to message another user on their talk page because of a simple revision on a Wiki page. is concerning in its misunderstanding of relevant behavioral norms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:So calling someone an ‘’Kurdish tiktok’’ user is normal? I didn’t see a answer on that part. Its not even because I’m not Kurdish, but its simply wrong to call anyone on their background. Another user called {{Userlinks|Termen28}} just reverted my edit again. Could be one user using multiple accounts here. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think you've misread my comment. And you continued to edit war, so now you can sit out a 24-hour block. Further edit warring on this or any other article will result in further sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I think this seems perfectly reasonable. Etcnoel1 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, the user is disruptively editing the Assyrian rebellion page and then tells me to stop editing and to rather take it to the User’s talk page.

:first of all, a simple edit shouldn’t be taken to the talk page. He’s practically asking me to stop removing his vandalism.

:the user vandalized in multiple ways, more specifically by trying to add the “Turkish-KURDISH” victory. Well first of all, Kurds didn’t do much, I’m not saying that just because there is no sources on it, but also because Kurds incited multiple rebellions at the time. it was the Turkish forces that defeated the Assyrians. Kurds may have been helping a little, but that does not make it a Kurdish victory all of a sudden. I’m confused, cause the user attempted to make it seem like Kurds did the most by saying so in his/her summary. The user also don’t understand the Infobox guidelines, the Infobox is a simple summary of the whole page, nowhere in the page are Kurds described as the victorious. Etcnoel1 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Etcnoel1, please immediately familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL. You are working in a contentious topic and in danger of a block. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Got it. Etcnoel1 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You didn’t got it as you and Termen28 still removed sourced content and content I corrected. You are calling the edit ‘’Turkish-Kurdish victory’’ vandalism? Based on what is that even vandalism? Do you even know the meaning of the word vandalism? Have opened a new talk page discussion on the same page now so you are free to respond there. Stop removing every single EDIT I make. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::if you want your edits to stop being removed, then you should perhaps consider editing better? Your vandalism is clear to me, considering the page doesn’t state anywhere of a “Kurdish victory”, and you break the Infobox guidelines. Do you even know what the point of an Infobox is? Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again, you use the term ‘’vandalism’’ without even knowing the meaning of it. And who are you to tell other people to ‘’edit better’’? Do you even know what the point of a talkpage is? Clearly not because you still refuse to use it nor do you respect other editors and call them Kurdish TikTok trolls. Woxic1589 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::First of all, stop jumping back to the word vandalism. The question isn’t whether I know it or not, because I do, but if YOU know what vandalism is.

:::::::and how many times do I have to repeat this, a simple Wikipedia edit shouldn’t be discussed on a talk page? Since when was it obligated to discuss on a talk page before editing on Wikipedia? Show me that.

:::::::As I said, you vandalized on clear grounds by the reasons I mentioned. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, I’m leaving this here for the admins: ‘’ a simple Wikipedia edit shouldn’t be discussed on a talk page?’’. You didn’t just revert a ‘’simple edit’’ of mine, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289439959. You reverted back much more content than just a ‘’simple edit’’. And if two editors do not agree on it, its very usual and normal to use the talk page for that. But its clear that you are not willing to do so. You keep accusing other editors of ‘’vandalism’’ while literally doing it by yourself. Can a admin intervene now? Woxic1589 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, what you did is cause disruptive editing. Admins have already reviewed and determined that you should’ve been blocked for a few hours. I expect you to learn from those hours, I am again not in the wrong. I see that you’re desperately attempting to put me in the wrong but it won’t really work considering you vandalized and did excessive editing. You just kept editing and editing, removing anything out of your liking with random and sometimes invalid reasons. So unnecessarily done, you removed anything out of your liking and you attempted to do so in SECRET like I wouldn’t notice. Go and look back at your edits once again and see who’s in the wrong. Etcnoel1 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I’m just gonna wait for the admins to take action. Its clear you are not even able to understand the situation and continue playing as a victim here. I didn’t even remove content but added more now and corrected them per sources. But its clear that you are not willing to listen nor wanting to work together to improve these articles. Your disrespectful behavior against other editors should not be allowed like this. Especially not on a site like Wikipedia. Also you using a possible second account to revert back the exact same content before shows that its not me, but you being the disruptive editor. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Woxic1589, please don't end up blocked for personal attacks as well - accusing someone of being a sockpuppet isn't ok. If you have evidence of this, though, can you please post diffs? -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Sorry, I meant a possible sockpuppet In case the admins could check it out. He reverted back the almost exact same content I added at the same time, see: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289483735] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289451501]. He still kept doing it despite receiving a warning. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thanks. That's not enough for me to justify a block, but I'll start an SPI request. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Well thanks for your help Woxic1589 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Termen28. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Also, for this part ‘’Go and look back at your edits once again and see who’s in the wrong’’: if you actually, carefully read what I edited you would see that I added sources and corrected the existing ones. You are the one refusing to use a talk page to further discuss it. Can the admins please take action against this behavior? Woxic1589 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Woxic1589 You are so in the wrong here. You are POV warrior because you edit constantly because your type of people cant resist eating children. WPEditorsAreTooSubmissive (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Can the admins perma ban/block User:Etcnoel1? He’s literally making new accounts and attacks me for no good reason after his main account got blocked. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Checkusers will investigate but I suspect that these are not Etcnoel1, and are rather a troll who likes to harass random editors here. Regardless, if you see comments like this, report them and remove them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I will, just never saw something like this happening before. But I really do suspect it to be related to each other. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Unbelievable. You literally just said you weren't going to do this again! Blocked 24hr for personal attacks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Here from WP:AE. That unblock request doesn't give me much hope, @Rosguill. -- asilvering (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think at this point unless we see a sharp course correction from Etcnoel1, a community topic ban from Assyrian topics is advisable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::+1. -- asilvering (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've upgraded the block to indefinite due to Etcnoel1 continuing to not get the point. Between the attitude issues, basic misunderstanding of vocabulary, and the repeated failures to engage with markup correctly, this is starting to look like a CIR situation. At any rate, a topic ban can be imposed as an unblock condition at this point, so I think that makes discussion here mostly moot unless someone disagrees with this approach. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Indef applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello, I am reporting this user "user:Dermashgan" for personal attacks and harassment and here are the messages

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dermashgan&diff=prev&oldid=1289740020 on their talk page]

and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R3YBOl&diff=prev&oldid=1289740205 on my talk page]. I am Requesting appropriate admin action. R3YBOl (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Indef'd. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like a sock of banned {{user|Mael700}}. But now they are blocked. Kajmer05 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Sent packing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

IP Editor {{userlinks|31.23.174.241}}. They're using profanity in their unblock request. I attempted to blank the page, but an edit filter prevented it. The language ought to be removed and the Editor's ability to edit their own Talk Page ought to be revoked. Pibx (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{nacmt}} @Pibx this is a Long-term abuser named {{noping|MidAtlanticBaby}}. Wikimedia-foundation banned, WP:socks a gazillion times with proxies, so ye. I would just leave it, admins will eventually see it, delete the page, and block the open proxy. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for letting me know, I read, in the guidelines of Wikipedia, that it is not appropriate to edit comments on a Talk page unless it violates WP policies. See the policy on Editing others' comments. Don't know why the edit filter was triggered. Anyway, thanks again for letting me know. Pibx (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Not sure if [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leehsiao&diff=prev&oldid=1289834373 this] is a personal attack, but I don't think it is a productive response in consensus-building. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Talk about eating your words! EEng 09:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's a funny typo but he obviously meant "editing" in a disparaging way, as he resorted to using an insult instead of commenting on the actual content dispute. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Shoriful islam46}}

As can be seen in the edit history of the five articles on Indian-Pakistani border skirmishes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmish][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%932015_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%932018_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes], in the last two weeks, and most especially during the last 24 hours, there have been a number of attempts by the newly-created account @Shoriful islam46 to insert false Indian and Pakistani casualty figures that are contrary to the cited references, calling them "corrections", despite being reverted by a number of editors. It would then seem this is simply a single-purpose POV-pushing account. The user has been warned at least once that his edits are unconstructive and despite this continued with his disruptive behavior. I wanted to point out the situation since all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic, as per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/India,_Pakistan,_and_Afghanistan], and to consider either higher protection for the mentioned articles, like at this article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff] which was recently protected so it requires extended confirmed access, or that action be taken against Shoriful islam46 for his POV-pushing editing behavior. Thank you in advance. EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what happened to your post, but you links are just [text] rather than leading to diffs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested Yeah, I corrected this. Sorry, was a result of a copy-paste, my bad. I provided the links to the relevant articles now. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@EkoGraf you are supposed to provide these diff links: 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish; 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmish (1), 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmish (2); 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (1), 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2); 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (1), 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2), 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (3); and 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (1), 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2), 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (3). -- I.Mahesh (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks @i.Mahesh, I thought it would give a better overview of his disruptive editing to just see the edit history of each of the five articles, considering the high number of disruptive edits in as much as five articles. Nevertheless, thank you very much for your effort to list all of his unsourced/disruptive edits. It should also be noted he has continued this behavior even today and even after being notified this discussion has been initiated. 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (3), 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (4), 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (4). It should also be noted that in some instances (like today again) he does not even insert the same false figures as before, but different ones. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:@EkoGraf, you mention the IPA CTOP, but this editor has never been formally warned for it. I've just done that now. I encourage you to give this warning to every new account you spot in the topic area, since it makes dealing with their disruption much easier. I've also given them a warning about marking edits as minor, and I'll block briefly for edit-warring. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::@asilvering, I thought the warning user @i.Mahesh gave him (and he ignored) that his edits were unconstructive was enough. Thank you for pointing this out and I will send out the contentious topic warning next time when needed. I also don't have much hope as @Shankargb has said that given the editor's lack of communication he will correct himself in the future, but we will see. Thank you for your efforts! EkoGraf (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Shoriful islam46 has been blocked for 24 hours by Asilvering. Given their lack of communication, I don't have enough hope but let's see how they will edit from the next time. Shankargb (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Talk:Desmond Doss is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, I’m not quite sure if this is the right place for it, apologies if it isn’t, but I was reading the Desmond Doss article and saw that his father was in WW1, won a Silver Star, and suffered PTSD, this information was marked as “needing a better source.” A newspaper clipping I found from October 18, 1918 listing Lynchburg Virginia draftees I found contains William Thomas Doss, but seeing as the war ended 24 days later, he would not have been deployed to France, I could not find a record for his supposed Silver Star either

Sources cited of course

"About Lynchburg daily Virginian" - www.chroniclingamerica.loc.gov

"The News & Advance Archives" - www.newsadvance.com

"World War I" - www.lynchburgmuseum.org 173.218.209.217 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I apologize for the lack of punctuation before the cited sources. I clicked return to move it down a line, but when I submitted it, it didn’t keep the formatting, I again apologize if this makes it harder to read. 173.218.209.217 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The right place would likely be the talk page of the article itself, Talk:Desmond Doss.

:This place is generally for reporting user conduct, it is not intended for discussing content. – 2804:F1...83:E6B9 (::/32) (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::2804 etc. is right - if you have worries about the content of an article, start by opening a discussion on its Talk Page. Heck, I've sometimes done that on my own articles when I've known something "for sure" but couldn't prove it. Happy editing! Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::I apologize 173.218.209.217 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Sock drawer opened|1=Alijnr, socking to block evade, turned out to be a sock of Alijanhz. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Alijnr}}

User has not used the edit summary let alone talk page once, and they are completely ignoring the warnings they have received and my attempt to communicate with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289282657] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289282954] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289475927] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289556451]. They are mindlessly changing whatever they see from Persian to Dari (there are countless examples, here are some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tajiks&diff=prev&oldid=1289556236] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durrani_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1289245599] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khanate_of_Bukhara&diff=prev&oldid=1289245687] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emirate_of_Bukhara&diff=prev&oldid=1289245816] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khanate_of_Kokand&diff=prev&oldid=1289245942] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamran_Mirza_Durrani&diff=prev&oldid=1289251503] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shah_Shujah_Durrani&diff=prev&oldid=1289251407] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaman_Shah_Durrani&diff=prev&oldid=1289251455]), even edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timur_Shah_Durrani&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sultan_Mohammad_Khan&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayub_Shah_Durrani&action=history]. This seems like a WP:SPA.

There may also be some meatpuppetry involved here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akram261. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I also earlier noticed {{user|Alijanhz}} who was making Dari/Persian changes, but they only edited on 18 April and then disappeared. Username is also awfully similar. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Disruptive_IP_changing_Dari_to_Persian_and_other_POV_edits this] previous report. This is probably the same person. But there was no interest in taking action. Mellk (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hopefully action will be taken this time. This user is still mindlessly disrupting countless articles as we speak. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've given them a pblock from articlespace for 31 hours in hopes of their coming here to discuss. If they just go quiet and then resume, we'll escalate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you The Bushranger! HistoryofIran (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::And they came back immediately on a sock, without any indication they even paused to consider another course of action. {{User3|Afghzr}} Remsense ‥ 论 13:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|Holocaust survivors}}

Is anyone able to clear the page preview cache for Holocaust survivors? A reverted edit from May 7 by a now-blocked user is still displayed in page previews four days later. The article is linked in the lead of a Recent Death on the front page. An administrator has already tried the steps listed here without success. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think I fixed it using ?action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1, as discussed here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#c-Chipmunkdavis-20250509075900-ClaudineChionh-20250509071100. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::For clarity, I didn't try anything else. It's possible a simple purge now would have fixed it. I don't know when someone last purged the page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Many thanks, it’s fixed from my end too. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have done a lot of technical editing and I've never heard of the forcerecursivelinkupdate url param, so maybe this would be condign to add to a documentation page somewhere for debugging. jp×g🗯️ 18:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=NOTHERE editor no longer here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Reporting AssyrianPatriot (talk | contribs) for deliberately hindering the development of the project by pushing a WP:POV and WP:FRINGE on Aramean people.

AssyrianPatriot edited the newly accepted Aramean people article in a disruptive and clearly ethnic POV manner, substituting the flag and name of the people, please take note of his edit summary. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aramean_people&diff=1289818027&oldid=1289777731]

His edit was later reverted for being WP:POV and WP:FRINGE, however, he still pushed the same edit again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aramean_people&diff=1289881281&oldid=1289818794]

He then commented on the AfD filed for the article, which was submitted by someone he referred to as one of his "fellow Assyrians." After doing so, he went to this "fellow Assyrian," or more precisely two "fellow Assyrians," and wrote a very concerning message stating that they would canvass people from "the other groups." This raises concerns about whether the three are already part of a coordinated group, and overall the message was very troubling. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surayeproject3&diff=prev&oldid=1289883225] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shmayo&diff=prev&oldid=1289883714]

Mind you, his account was created just a few days ago with the sole purpose of commenting on the AfD. I'm not questioning that in itself, since the article is new and might naturally attract many people. I understand that a brand new account can be created to cast a !vote fairly and in good faith, but in my opinion this was not one of those cases. Wlaak (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::thank you @EvergreenFir, is it possible to hide once !vote for this reason? i do not know the template Wlaak (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would leave the !vote as-is. Any reviewer would look at the language used in it and see it for what it is (POV pushing). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::ouch ok, i just put the WP:NOTHERE collapse, will undo hahah Wlaak (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The vast majority of closers would look at that hot mess of an AfD and go elsewhere. Honestly, as a long veteran of AfDs, I'd just nuke it and start over, preferably with an admonition to keep one's word count either advocating Keep or Delete to 150 words or less. As it stands, it's absurd. Ravenswing 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I understand it is absurd. However, this AfD was discussed in an ANI, it is a very contentious topic, and we were supposed to use the AfD as a form of consensus and discussion. But I do understand the mess it has become.

:::::I will refrain from making any further comments. Wlaak (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{User links|98.143.78.57}} has made a clear legal threat here.

Note that this editor has used a variety of IPs, including {{User links|98.143.66.189}} just last week. They have been at ANI several times before, most recently last January. I have notified the latest IP. CodeTalker (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:User blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked. WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{User links|175.52.478l}} Vandalism only account. Pibx (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked. In the future vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Reeshavp}}

Despite multiple warnings from editors @Benison and @Jimfbleak, Reeshavp continues to add honorifics to institutional titles against Wikipedia's guidelines, even after three warnings.

Additionally, they have vandalized my user page, which is unacceptable behavior. This persistent disregard for policy and the warnings necessitates administrative intervention and potential sanctions.

This topic was added to Noticeboard before the third warning was issued which since is ignored by this editor. No response from the administrators was received, and was archived in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186.

VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit" 10:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:User now blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:The user was blocked from editing for one month to prevent vandalism. Thank you for your attention to this matter.VeritasVanguard☎ 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Blocked by Ponyo. {{nac}} Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 23:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Footnote: OP originally WP:BOOMERANGed for 31 hours by Sarek of Vulcan; their response to that led Ponyo to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

“File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jéské Couriano” is removing factual and verifiable information from the Salem, Massachusetts Pioneer Village page. Information is presented with sources and is being taken down for political reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValueOurHistory (talk • contribs)

:I will point to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pioneer_Village_%28Salem%2C_Massachusetts%29&diff=1290103082&oldid=1290101503 this series of edits] and explain the same thing I've been saying to them at the Help Desk and in edit summaries - This is an emotional appeal to try and gin up opposition to this (regardless of the veracity of the content) and has no place in Wikipedia full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::It also lacks the necessary sources - citing 'Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties' and claiming that it applies is pure original research. ValueOurHistory would be well advised to read up on Wikipedia policy regarding article content, find the necessary sources (i.e. sources discussing this specific issue), and then discuss it on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::For what it is worth, he has used the talk page, albeit in the same "accuse everyone of being a political hack" manner as here and the Help Desk. (One person did reply with a response that prompted me to contact wikipedia-en-revdel, but other than that nobody, unsurprisingly, has engaged.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The ongoing conversation on their talk page indicates that the short edit-warring block isn't going to subdue their desire to right great wrongs and fight the good fight for the(ir) truth. Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking over their contributions what I'm seeing is a Cato-the-Elder who focuses solely on Pioneer Village (Salem, Massachusetts), generally writing a soapboxy rant that condemns Kim Driscoll, accuses her of essentially defiling both Pioneer Village and another culturally-significant site in Salem, and suggests (with no cited proof) that residents are protesting/resisting this. Anyone removing or otherwise contesting this content gets accused of removing it for {{tq|political reasons}} (disclosure: I don't live anywhere close to the same region as Salem, Massachusetts and know nothing about the situation) and defends their edit by saying it's sourced, which it demonstrably isn't (and even if it were, a soapboxy rant does not become okay just because it is sourced).

With all this in mind - and noting they haven't edited outside of Pioneer Square and Kim Driscoll (where [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Driscoll&diff=1112688354&oldid=1111411399 they violated BLP with another soapboxy rant]) - I am proposing one of two options:

1. Indefinitely topic-ban ValueOurHistory from the Salem, Massachusetts and Kim Driscoll topic areas; or
2. Indef ValueOurHistory as a single-purpose account that has no intention of collaborating with others

With that, I open the floor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Absolutely agree that this user should be banned from further editing at Pioneer Village (Salem, Massachusetts) and Kim Driscoll. The very definition of "single purpose account". Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:They refuse to listen to anyone. At a minimum, they should be p-blocked from the Salem article. I'm pretty sure there will ultimately be an indef WP:NOTHERE block, now or later. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Given that this editor is still going at it full blast on their talk page, and shows no indication of making any effort to resolve issues in a manner that could possibly lead to an unblock, I think TPA ought to be revoked so as to not waste time of other editors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Was about to say, JJMC89 had already handled it; I'd asked for a revoke on IRC once it became clear they didn't have any other sources to offer. (I haven't found anything substantial about the matter outside of the two Salem News pieces they offered.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|A1B3C5}}

Has a username pattern that makes it difficult to track/remember their actions. I've recently encountered several of their edits that include obsessive and strange additions of age information to biographical articles. Sometimes they add current age summaries at the end of article introductions, and other times they change ages with edit summaries like "She lies about her age..."

My English isn't good enough to properly communicate with this user, much less monitor their activities. From what I can see, their contributions are minimal and potentially disruptive enough to warrant blocking. However, I'll leave that to your discretion.

If someone could review a sample of their edits or examine their 10-20 most recent contributions, I believe you'll reach similar conclusions. If I'm mistaken, I apologize in advance.

Thank you for your time. ביקורת (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Diff/1285829066 Diff/1288945247 here are the ones in your comments just to start; also note that this user has already been warned the requisite four times for the same issue. Sesquilinear (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is absolutely nothing problematic about that username. Fram (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I assume for the reporter, it was because of confusion with an IPv6 or MAC address, which for a non-English speaker certainly makes things less clear than a regular name; I understand it fine, but someone without proficiency would not, or within a log of IP edits. Nathannah • 📮 13:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Fram is correct that the username is fine. However, changing dates/ages with no explanation and no reliable sources is not. I have indefinitely blocked the user from editing articles and have invited them to respond here. Johnuniq (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Insane i have to revert and revert the editing. Which is redundant addition and revert the non-announced links. --116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I done my editing with meaningless revert session which seen the user keep assuming the ownership by sticking to a redundancy of the contents, non-valid, not follow MOS. --116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:The admin told you to add convincing reasons on the talk page, but you took the wrong path and continued to sabotage and insist on your wrongdoings. You have hundreds of sabotage IPs. It is clear from the article archive page that you have a history of sabotage. With this IP, you also edited about football matches, which are on other sabotage accounts in the same articles, your sabotage user accounts.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{IP|116.87.80.136}}

Several admins told him to interact on the talk page. He did nothing for a week and only bullied, insulted, and vandalized various articles over 50 times with different IPs. He manipulates very simple and minor edits and considers himself the owner of the articles through bullying. More than four admins have acknowledged his vandalism. But it seems that the users' time is not important to you here and you allow this troll to continue his vandalism.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.189.68.127
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Numbers
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jianzi&diff=prev&oldid=1289053823
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:118.189.68.127#Trolling

Hello. This user's behavior is just destructive. After a week, he didn't have a single line of interaction and immediately started to sabotage after a week. Please lock both articles and block the IP.

By the way, this is very clear and simple. We are not going to ask permission from an IP troll to add a simple number or make a minor correction. Closing the article for a week and asking for interaction was also wrong. He simply intends to continue his wrongdoings and feels ownership over the articles.

By the way, I think one or two accounts from this article are associated with this IP.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Protected_edit_request_on_4_May_2025
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zul_Alfarisi
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fahrurozi.86
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aleenf1

Also he add hate speech here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326

Vandalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.87.80.136

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe2023 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Jooe2023, you need to stop removing their posts and stop calling them a vandal or troll, claiming they've written "hate speech", etc. right now. You've demonstrated none of that. The edit warring by both of you across multiple articles is egregious, but you look far worse than they do at the moment. Remsense ‥ 论 08:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This user was given a week to write his comments on the talk page. But he took the rude path. I added the evidence on the talk page. But after a week, without writing his defense on the talk page, he started attacking on the user page and has been continuously vandalizing with different IPs for a few days now.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Again, you need to stop this immediately. You have not demonstrated any vandalism on their part. I see them pointing out issues they see with your edits (while egregiously edit warring, which you gladly reciprocate) but you're the one who has no arguments and merely insults them, as far as I can see. You haven't engaged with their concerns at all. You're seemingly trying to leverage the fact you've (very recently) registered an account as if that makes you superior to an anonymous user, which is also totally unacceptable. Remsense ‥ 论 08:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Jooe2023: if I see another edit summary like {{xt|This idiot IP should be polite. He seems too stupid and ignorant. IP troll Vandalist}} from you, I'd encourage administrators to consider a block for incivility, regardless of what the IP has or hasn't done. Remsense ‥ 论 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm appeared like a vandal? Please looking what are you done so far? You have a long road to become a successfull Wikipedian, and you doesn't, you think you owned the article after your editing. in the earliest day of Sudirman Cup that's no real database to call it, we don't know how many edition and teams, and you just "assume" it, not even BWF website list it. I'm going to revert for final times, if you revert, that's what it should be tell about you. Also, you revert like blindly for a non-announced tournmanet, which should not be appeared too soon to avoid vandalism. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:You also failed to notify User:Zul Alfarisi, User:Fahrurozi.86, or User:Aleenf1 that their conduct was under discussion here, as you are very clearly told you must do, so I've had to do that on your behalf. Remsense ‥ 论 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't agree with you. The previous admin suggested locking the article for a week to reach a conclusion on the talk page. The user said in an ugly and impolite tone that he doesn't interact on the article's talk page. I also told him that your opinion doesn't matter to me. If you don't have a correct argument after a week, the article will return to its correct state. I did the correct way of interacting on the talk page. This IP is someone who is looking for a fight and conflict. Since he had nothing logical to say in return, he has taken the path of conflict by bullying. At least 4 admins have warned him on the talk pages of his destructive IPs.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:He started the rudeness and insults, and I responded. If he had been polite, he would have received the right answer. See the rudeness he started here.

:Also he add hate speech here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326 Jooe2023 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is the final time I will ask you to stop making this particular accusation. That is not "hate speech"—it is a far more civil expression of frustration than literally any remark I've seen you write. Remsense ‥ 论 08:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Beyond that, Jooe2023, when you come back from your block, you had better take a look at WP:CIVIL. Every other editor on Wikipedia should receive the "right answer," whether or not you believe they're being rude. You do not get to be uncivil to other editors, ever. Ravenswing 10:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:He uses IP so that his malicious accounts are not compromised. Here I will show you which is his main account.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::See, reverted again without proper explanation. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given your refusal to stop making any of these WP:personal attacks, as well as serious accusations without proof, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is clearly in order regardless of what is or is not the case with other editors. Remsense ‥ 论 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::(I have now explicitly warned both Jooe2023 and 116.87.80.136 for edit warring.) Remsense ‥ 论 09:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't mind you block me, but is that any reason you want to keep the article on the wrong foot? I know Wikipedia has a lot of policy but this policy is somehow manipulated by somebody who is keen to see his editing stick. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It is generally considered the primary priority to get editors to engage in discussion when there are disagreements, because Wikipedia operates according to editor consensus. The MOS (which I agree with you about as applies here, for what it's worth) is a guideline that is the result of a broad editor consensus, for example.

::::Clearly demonstrated by these tugs-of-war is that the encyclopedia cannot function if editors only consider what they personally think is correct without establishing consensus with others. Remsense ‥ 论 09:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm assuming you are right, but i made reverted for one last time for right revision, if he going to revert again, you think yourself a conclusion. Sorry done here. Thanks for your reply. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I wish you had not done that. You're making your case harder. Remsense ‥ 论 09:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What is so harder than let it go, if does the right things exchanged with the pain from the policy, who wants to make edit. Don't be silly, i'm already voice it "legitimately". 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't know what to tell you, other than I agree with you as regards the substance, but repeat that edit warring is not acceptable, regardless of whether you're right. Like I said to Joee2023 below, you likewise could've reached out for help to other editors to help establish consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 09:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::"Consensus", if same page can reach, if doesn't just like a troll also for them, i seen a lot of case already, even i am not a regular editor. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Other Accounts of this Ip:

:He love Broadcast Football Article and badminton like:

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup_broadcasting_rights&diff=prev&oldid=1166024761

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2027_AFC_Asian_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=1289384349

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.189.68.127

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aleenf1

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hongqilim - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHongqilim

:Aleen and Hongqilim and Ip. They look very similar and they have done enough sabotage in these articles.

:You (Remsense) also seem to be taking a one-sided view of IP. Jooe2023 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can only judge what I see, and what I is entirely unacceptable conduct on your part. I'm not exaggerating—you have not listened to a single thing anyone else has said to you, save to interpret an admin's remarks such that you were not being asked to do anything, only the IP. As you continue to accuse others of engaging in sockpuppetry with no basis other than them editing the same articles, I see no way to make this disruption end other than a block being applied to your account. Remsense ‥ 论 09:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This IP showed interest in editing war instead of interacting on the talk page. I started interacting on the talk page. But you take the IP's side. I understand everything. Just judging based on taste.

:::I hate here now. Jooe2023 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've made it perfectly clear you both are liable to blocks for edit warring—it takes two to tango, and you've reverted exactly as much as they have. If they didn't engage but continued to revert, you had many options (like posting a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football asking others to engage and help establish consensus). The difference—that you have baselessly accused them of sockpuppetry and hate speech, while yourself making unacceptable personal attacks against them—is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. That you've continued apace with this behavior is your responsibility, not anyone else's. Remsense ‥ 论 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For the sake of admins perusing the "evidence" of sockpuppetry (if I can even decode what it is meant to be):

:::::* User:Aleenf1 hasn't edited since July 2023.

:::::* User:Fahrurozi.86 last edited Sudirman Cup in June 2023.

:::::* I do not even understand why they are accusing User:Zul Alfarisi or User:Hongqilim, who've never edited either Sudirman Cup or Jianzi. I do not understand how they were even singled out.

:::::* There are no meaningful parallels I can identify between the editing habits of any of these users.

:::::This shows an unbelievable disregard for potentially opposing evidence by Jooe2023 and a willingness for others to face repercussions based on their kneejerk emotional responses to others disagreeing with their edits. I am not certain they're being deliberately dishonest, but that they are not taking a step back from their substanceless accusations, and instead adding more to the pile, is a sign they can't collaborate at all with others on here, unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 09:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think Remsense's judgment on this issue has been exactly on point. You've thrown a lot of accusations at this IP that have yet to be substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Just because one has a good-faith basis to believe that another editor is making bad edits does not justify any behavior whatsoever about that person. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326

The politeness and goodwill of IP is clear from this link. It seems that instead of creating an account, it is better to edit with IP and insult whoever we like. Instead of writing documents on the talk page, let's start a war on the article a hundred times because that is exactly how you like it?Jooe2023 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who opened the way for interaction, and I have no other words. I also complained about your one-sided judgment.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Numbers

And the one who started reversing the hundred times was IP.Jooe2023 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Quinlan

This admin can confirm my opinion. You have wasted enough of my time. While everything is clear and obvious. Adding the period of the competition in all sports competitions is in hundreds of articles and I have to waste several hours of my time arguing with you for such a ridiculous and simple thing. It is really a pity.Jooe2023 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Both Jooe2023 and the IP have been blocked 31 hours for treating WP:3RR as if it were the Grand Prix of Monaco. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also fully protected the article for a week, since the previous lock for a week apparently did nothing. Everyone be advised that if the edit war resumes again when the protection expires, the next blocks are gonna be for a lot longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry I was away from my computer for a while. I hope the above feedback, followed by these necessary blocks and the restored page protection, will help both parties come to their senses, stop edit warring, and either have a civil discussion or walk away. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Daniel Quinlan}} Does he ever want to have a civil discussion? You know the answer from his comments already. Don't be silly. If he means to discuss, he won't always keep saying the same things. Eventually he wants his contributions to stick, which I have pointed out already. Admin did the job of block people who evade 3RR, but is it a long-term fix to an issue? 39.109.235.55 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Jooe2023 blocked one week for persisting in those personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Jooe2023 returned to pit by The Bushranger, per WP:BOOMERANG. {{nac}} Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remsense

At the suggestion of admin Quan Lan, an article was to be closed for a week so that a conclusion could be drawn on the talk page. I wrote the reasons on the talk page. But IP had no reason. This user is favoring IP based on taste instead of examining the evidence. If IP had any reasons, he should have added them on the talk page. I took the interactive route, but IP resorted to an edit war. I complain about this wrong and one-sided judgment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.189.68.127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.87.80.136

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326 Jooe2023 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:You ought to retract this while you still have the opportunity to do so. Adding a frivolous complaint against another editor just makes it less likely that your accusations against the IP editor in the section above were made in good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Jooe2023}}, you are advised to retract this now, because this will only end with you being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Struck that because, having looked at the article in question...dear lawd have mercy. Jooe and the IP are both now blocked as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just noting Jooe2023's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jooe2023&diff=prev&oldid=1289709195 response to the block]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Userbvvc}} has engaged in the removal of longstanding sourced content, source quotations as well as addition of unsourced, unreliably sourced and original research based essay-like stuff since their very first edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1286192491] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1286197987&oldid=1286192748] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1287211200&oldid=1287029708] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1286240592] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1286425752] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1287364411&oldid=1287211398] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1287416955] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1289101639&oldid=1287417347] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1289256298] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1289373245&oldid=1289260129] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1289540500&oldid=1289405036]. Their edits have been reverted by multiple users and have been warned, but apparently isn't interested in a talk page consensus.

Possible case of sockpuppetry as well since these edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1125813510&oldid=1112782213] (blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vk8435820]) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1241363404&oldid=1234498808] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1047170462&oldid=1046654528] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1286197987&oldid=1286192748] are similarly unreliably sourced and full of OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Userbvvc's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Userbvvc&diff=prev&oldid=1289540735 comment] on their talk page is clearly written by AI/LLM/chatbot. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::They haven't edited since, and they've been given two CTOP warnings in the meantime. If the disruption resumes, please report back here again. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This user has made a couple edits to Orh today, but due to my unfamiliarity with the subject I can't comment on the quality of the edits. Hellbus (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::pblocked from Orh. -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

this message full of personal attacks by {{userlinks|MrEarlGray}} speaks for itself 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The above user misuses the incidents noticeboard to censor anyone who disagrees with their edit warring. I stand by my speculation that they are using Wikipedia to push nationalist sentiments and potentially using sockpuppet accounts. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Again with the baseless claims. I am okay with running a cu on me, tho, I am interested in knowing who you think my socks are 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|MrEarlGray}} Do you have any diffs of this alleged edit warring? Or evidence of Abo Yemen pushing 'nationalist sentiments'? Without any diffs, this is just casting aspersions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The user's edit history demonstrates hundreds of incidences wherein any mention of "mixed Arab culture" is replaced with statements of "Yemeni heritage". This is especially the case if any mention of Saudi Arabia is made likely due to the ongoing Saudi-Yemen conflict. The Kabsa article is a prime example of this behaviour, wherein sources demonstrating mixed cultural heritage are purged and cherrypicked blog and self-published book sources are substituted to suggest the foodstuff is being purely Yemeni origin. Similar actions can be found across a number of their edits and this pro-Yemeni bias is what I attribute to 'nationalistic behaviour'. Unfortunately, such behaviour naturally leads to edit wars and when the community disagrees with a purging or biased source, the user locks the article behind a vandalism tag to keep their point of view held until the tag expires. I've noticed they also misuse this incidents noticeboard to censor those who speak out against their POV in talk pages - as is being done now. This is not the behaviour one should expect from a Wikipedian, hence my criticism. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not a single diff provided. Plus, this statement of yours: "{{tq|1=The Kabsa article is a prime example of this behaviour, wherein sources demonstrating mixed cultural heritage are purged and cherrypicked blog and self-published book sources are substituted to suggest the foodstuff is being purely Yemeni origin.}}" is just false. The article's lead clearly says {{tq|1=Kabsa [...] is an Arabian mixed rice dish that originates from Saudi Arabia or Yemen.}} There are simply no sources claiming a {{tq|1=mixed cultural heritage}}, and if you find any then please go ahead and change the wording to my proposal on the talkpage of changing the wording to "originates from the Arabian Peninsula" instead of ignoring it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::There is no need to treat this page as an article talk page. However, the article only reads as such because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1158229391&oldid=1158228129 you have been pushing that narrative since 2023 as shown here] and have been removing counter sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1163309261&oldid=1162373506 as shown here]. MrEarlGray (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Those edits were made when I just created my account. Saying that I have been doing that since 2023 is a lie. I denounce that first edit, but I see nothing wrong with the second one 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Nvm now that I've rechecked the source that was used, my removal of it was warranted. The source (or blog article) was being misrepresented: {{tq|1=Kabsa (Arabic: كبسة, transliterated to khabsa, khabsa and kapsa) is a blend of spices originating in Saudi Arabia and used, especially in the Arab world.}} It was about a completely different thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I've also added back a source in the following edit which was removed by JohnnyPedro1998 a few days before that edit 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Kabs/Kapsa never known in Yemen. It’s Saudi national dish and it’s authentic Saudi Chicken or meat Kabsa.

:::https://saudipedia.com/en/article/1215/society/food-and-drinks/saudi-kabsa

:::https://www.munchery.com/blog/a-food-tour-of-saudi-arabia-the-10-dishes-that-define-a-cuisine/

:::https://www.icicilombard.com/blogs/travel-insurance/ti/exploring-food-culture-of-saudi-arabia 2600:1017:B110:7BE:49DC:1FB0:EB71:5035 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::this is the Administrators' noticeboard and not the place to discuss a content dispute. Though telling someone who lives in Yemen and eats that food there, that {{tq|1=Kabs/Kapsa[sic] never known in Yemen}} is funny 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately, you used Yemeni blogs to falsely change Saudi Arabian origin! Please stop what you did is just a crime misleading people just because Saudi-Yemen War. All Yemeni people know Kabsa is a Saudi dish never belongs to them !

::::https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772753X25000437

::::Kabsa never known among Yemeni people until they started working in Saudi Arabia. You seem upset about Saudi Arabia and tries to spread misinformation about their dishes.

::::again, Kabsa/Kapsa is national Saudi dish throughout the history:

::::https://www.commisceo-global.com/resources/country-guides/saudi-arabia-guide

::::https://www.abouther.com/node/6436/lifestyle/travel-food/get-taste-kabsa-saudi-arabia

::::https://saudipedia.com/en/article/1215/society/food-and-drinks/saudi-kabsa AArabHistory (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's very disheartening to see comments like this being made. MrEarlGray is clearly casting aspersions (baselessly accusing Abo Yemen of sockpuppetry and POV-pushing) and their allegations of nationalist editing from Abo Yemen remain unsupported. MrEarlGray's comment is very clearly a personal attack. From what I know of Abo Yemen's editing, they are one of the few editors in this topic area to actually care about creating content and not pushing a POV. Their content is very well-written and I would guess that by the end of the year, they'll have multiple GAs under their belt. MrEarlGray should be reminded to always be civil and to avoid making personal attacks and casting aspersions at other people. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I stand by my claims that the user is pushing a biased POV to further pro-Yemeni sentiments by scrubbing articles of Saudi and Arab content. A simple inspection of their edit history demonstrates this to be the case in numerous instances. Furthermore, my original statement was not a personal attack no matter how it may have been interpreted, it was instead a statement that the user continues to purges articles of content and sources they disagree with on a massive, daily scale. It's also especially poor behaviour to also lock articles behind a 'vandalism' tag whenever someone changes what they want represented on Wikipedia. Using the incidents noticeboard like this to repeatedly censor users who disagree with his edits is a gross form of misbehaviour and should never be tolerated. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You accused them of sockpuppetry with no evidence. That is a personal attack which is a gross form of misbehaviour and something that is tolerated. It is not censorship, you don't have any free speech rights here and have to obey our policies and guidelines including refraining from making personal attacks if you want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tqq|simple inspection of their edit history}}. No. You must provide diffs to back up your claims. WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@The Bushranger, did you already click through to the remark in question? ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289713657]) I don't want to take admin action if another admin has already looked and declined to do so, but that's really quite unusually bad for the genre, and MrEarlGray isn't exactly a new editor who hasn't yet learned that this isn't reddit. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Asilvering}} I have now, and yeah, that's absolutely unacceptable. If you want to take action first, then by all means. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am genuinely surprised to find that's a first-time block. @MrEarlGray, when that expires, you're welcome to return to the discussion on that article, but you'll need to reset your WP:AGF. That's not a particularly easy ask, so if you want my advice, my advice is: stay away from that article, and from Abo Yemen, to the greatest extent possible. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Given I was banned before I was able to answer the questions asked above, my response is rather late.

:::::::

:::::::I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not Reddit; I've been editing here for years defending articles which primarily attract vandalism from COVID-19 denialists, snake oil salesmen and pseudoscientists, but the community has done its best to uphold scientific rigour and for that I'm thankful as this has likely saved many lives. On the other hand, cultural topics of national pride are more contestable.

:::::::

:::::::Unfortunately, this experience has played out exactly as I said it would and how it has to other editors of Abo's touched articles, because Abo's method is a simple but effective one: he begins by making repeated changes which scrub or cherrypicks sources from articles concerning Arab / Saudi topics and then replaces them with mentions of 'Yemeni culture', others protest these unfair changes, he then engages in an edit war, after a while he locks the article behind a vandalism tag and then uses this board by having those who complain censored (read: banned and warned "do not interact with him or (his) articles" again (as per asilvering's wording) to isolate the article for his editing alone.

:::::::

:::::::Surely, anyone can see how this practice would lead to a monopolisation of articles and a pushing of biased POV's which align with his edits, because those who disagree are now intimidated not edit again - lest they lose access to their account. How anyone can assume such behaviour is acting in good faith, I have no idea. I assumed good faith when I engaged in occasionally quietly editing Abo's changes which agreed with the established community consensus.

:::::::

:::::::Regarding my ban, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith states "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack"; my comment was a singular event, one which donned the sarcastic tinfoil hat to say he 'likely' has sockpuppets rather 'certainly' has them and as such, was far too tame to be considered by anyone well-versed with the internet to be a wounding 'personal attack'. But if merely speculating out-loud that someone may potentially have more than one account or may be acting unfairly is a crime then I've served my 31 hours of time. Comparatively, Abo's poor-faith edits, although well-written, likely number in the hundreds and are far more damaging to the many years of knowledge imparted to the global readers here on Wikipedia.

:::::::

:::::::As for the diffs; I went for a drink at the pub whilst this report was being commented on and given I don't use any wiki tools I was hardly going to be able to do all this collating there. Here they are:

:::::::

:::::::1. Abo’s first edit to the article claims “Saudi origin” is “vandalism”, changes to origin to “Yemen” and deletes a source with no evidence nor rationale: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1158229391&oldid=1158228129.

:::::::

:::::::2. Abo later removes another Saudi blog source and replaces it with a book source which explicitly names the dish as being from “Saudi” and named “Saudi Lamb Kabsa” (per the Sharjah Heritage Museum in the United Arab Emirates) yet claims the book states says the dish “originates from Yemen”, which is a lie: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1158306682&oldid=1158305997

:::::::

:::::::3. Abo then begins removing Saudi sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1163309261&oldid=1162373506

:::::::

:::::::4. These sources are re-added by another editor (Julietdeltalima): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1165189492&oldid=1162373506

:::::::

:::::::5. An edit war begins: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1167511100&oldid=1167028675

:::::::

:::::::6. And continues: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1174120211&oldid=1174012004

:::::::

:::::::7. And continues: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1177610897&oldid=1177456503

:::::::

:::::::8. And continues: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1180720450&oldid=1180651280

:::::::

:::::::9. And continues…: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1182343649&oldid=1182301104

:::::::

:::::::10. I find the article after eating the food one day, see the mess, and introduce the “contested origins” lede to prevent further edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1185549365&oldid=1185430744

:::::::

:::::::11. A potential sockpuppet who just happens to be named YemeniFriend, “in school” (remember Abo also being only 17 this year?) arrives to revert this change, support Abo’s edits, requests the article be protected, only to then vanish: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1186962118&oldid=1186840464

:::::::

:::::::12. Abo suddenly accuses other editors of sockpuppeting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1186971221&oldid=1186964458

:::::::

:::::::13. And then again, removes a counter source, by defending his book which says explicitly otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1187336992&oldid=1187306431

:::::::

:::::::14. Abo then removes mentions of the dish being eaten in India rather than using a ‘citation needed’ tag as is the norm (again, potential elements of nationalism as Indian-Yemeni relations have been tense since the civil war). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1187337926&oldid=1187336992

:::::::

:::::::15. And back to edit warring…: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1223848570&oldid=1223844461

:::::::

:::::::16. A new editor arrives who provides new sources on Saudi origin. Abo removes sources provided ‘because it adds undue weight to Saudi origin’ (aka, contradicts his increasingly nationalist POV): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1249180434&oldid=1237223075

:::::::

:::::::17. Another new editor arrives and changes origin to ‘Arabian’ to reflect the mixed heritage to prevent edit warring. Abo deletes this and claims the foodstuff comes from ‘Bedouin’ culture, again relying upon the (incorrect) book source which makes no mention of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1255124377&oldid=1255123226

:::::::

:::::::18. A new editor notices the book source as being incorrect and removes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1281638935&oldid=1275642228

:::::::

:::::::19. Abo re-adds the incorrect book source (which explicitly states the foodstuff is from Saudi) and yet again states that the foodstuff originates from Yemen. Abo also introduces a new unreliable blog source and uses his new privileges to lock the article to prevent further editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1289298598&oldid=1275642228

:::::::

:::::::20. As for nationalism: along with the above changes; the ‘methods of cooking’ section claims of all things that: earthen oven, flat stone cooking and pressure cooking techniques all “originate from Yemen” despite the technique being found around the world. This statement was written by an account named ‘Ab.no2024’ which began editing the page a few days before Abo Yemen arrived and given that “Ab.no” reads suspiciously similar to ‘Abo’, it would be fair to suggest this edit was likely his work: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=prev&oldid=1155490653.

:::::::

:::::::21. On other pages, Abo accuses others of ‘nationalism’ for changing ‘Yemen’ to ‘Saudi’ concerning connected dishes, which have a similar history of edit warring, removal of any mention of India and cherrypicked sources by Abo to support supposed Yemeni heritage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1281977349&oldid=1281977291 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1223849054&oldid=1223844803 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1258716777&oldid=1258710151 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1263195005&oldid=1263194811.

:::::::

:::::::Ultimately, Abo’s supported sources of ‘Yemeni origin’ are from either unreliable blogs or private restaurants, or books which state the exact opposite of his claims. Yet, he dogmatically removes and decries any similar source which makes counter claims concerning Saudi sources and I feel this behaviour is either nationalistically driven or simply not acting in good faith.

:::::::

:::::::I'm sure people can understand that much like the ongoing Yemeni-Saudi civil war, culture is complex, people become passionate over what they believe to be true and we often make mistakes, but one's own heritage and one’s own point of view should never be used as a rationale to erase the people nor contributions of their neighbours, no matter who they may be, or where it might be. MrEarlGray (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@MrEarlGray you're basing your view of me on edits made by me almost 2 years ago. But let me address the stuff that you're mentioning. 1 The source was clearly being misrepresented, as I've explained in this message above. 2 after seeing that the source was misrepresented, I opened the history section to see who added it, and found out that it replaced a book which was being used to cite the Yemeni origins [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=prev&oldid=1157169610] and then I've restored that book, without really checking the contents of it. Already explained this above, too. 3 Maybe read the edit summary that I gave, no? 4 He wasn't adding sources, he was re-adding the specification that it is a national dish of Saudi Arabia when in the second sentence it says that it is {{tq|1=a national dish in all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula.}} 5-9 oh no a newbie who wasn't warned that "edit warring is not allowed" is edit warring 10-11 I genuinely don't know who @YemeniFriend is, and I don't mind running a cu on me to prove that I am not them 12 @AArabHistory and @Arabian Dishes are both accounts created on the same day doing the same edits within only a few hours to the same article. I don't know why I never filed a SPI tho, after all you're picking on 2 year old edits by me. 13 already told you above that my 15 year old ass never bothered opening that book and it was only a few days ago that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&oldid=1289294921 I realized that I've never done that and removed it] 14 Are you literally defending the addition of uncited content? Also, I'd like to know more about this deteriorating India-Yemen relations thing that you're talking about 15 one revert != editwarring 16 Okay, I think this edit summary that I gave was inaccurate. But now that I'm reviewing the sources, the first one says
"{{tq|1=Kabsa, a traditional Arabic dish primarily known as the national dish of Saudi Arabia, has its roots in Yemen. }}," again misrepresenting the source, and the second one has a link pointing to nothing. 17 I don't know what is wrong with my edit here 18-19 saying "no clear source" when deleting a source that is clearly there, yeah a very constructive edit. I don't know what "edit privileges" you're talking about. I don't have permissions to lock articles. if you're talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=next&oldid=1289297890 this], this is just me adding a missing pp template that was supposed to be added when the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&oldid=1187055747 got protected on September 2023]. 20 another baseless sockpuppetry accusation. Abo means "father of" in Arabic and I've explained what my name means on my userpage. Ab.no2024 means... nothing. 21 only one of those links provided shows me saying "Nationalism", but if you check the edits of the IP that I've reverted for what I described as "nationalism" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kleicha&diff=prev&oldid=1281977491] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peninsular_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1281903468] and their edits on wikidata [https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=51.39.79.133] (Which they issued personal attacks towards me, saying "Curse you, oh houthi"), you'll know why I called their edits as so 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'd also like to remind you that the comment you've made was in the middle of this discussion that we were having and you've decided to not WP:AGF and join that discussion where I've suggested to change the wording to "that originates from the Arabian Peninsula" instead 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@MrEarlGray, {{tq|and then uses this board by having those who complain censored}} is one hell of a euphemism. Your "complaint" was that Abo Yemen is a {{tq|spoof account ran by a team of pro-narrative nationalists}}. Abo Yemen would have had no basis for getting you blocked from editing if you had not lead with a bizarre personal attack. -- asilvering (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::As my block has been served and lifted, it would be prudent to address the content of the diffs rather than further condemn the removed euphemism. MrEarlGray (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Ok, let's talk about your diffs. The only diffs you presented that are even remotely current are the ones pertaining to the Mandi (food) article. The rest can be discarded as absurdly stale. Remember that AN/I actions are preventative, not punitive, so there is nothing to prevent with actions from two years ago. Looking at the article history, Abo Yemen has made three edits this year. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_(food)&action=history] One edit is entirely unrelated to any dispute on the article and can be ignored. That leaves two edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1281977349&oldid=1281977291 this one] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1289891205&oldid=1289889304 this one.]

::::::::::These edits were more than a month apart and I don't think any reasonable person would call a single repetition of a revert after a month edit warring. However Abo Yemen was not the only editor who reverted this change [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandi_%28food%29&diff=1282148529&oldid=1282148444] {{Ping|Alachuckthebuck}} made the same edit in between the two instances of Abo Yemen making the edit. There is no article talk history regarding this edit at all but what we see here is a very slow content dispute between two named editors on one side and between an IP editor and a new named account on the other. This named account has only ever made about five edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sager123] and their first edit is significantly after the last edit ever made by the IP who also engaged in this dispute which means we cannot discount the very real possibility that Sager123 is the IP having decided to make an account in the meantime. (Nothing wrong with that of course.) But it means that we have a content dispute playing out over months with in between 3 and 4 participants in which Abo Yemen was one of two parties on one side of said content dispute.

::::::::::This doesn't even rise to the level of trout nor of an informal admonishment. Frankly your diffs show an editor who has matured in the last two years and hasn't been acting inappropriately at all. I strongly recommend you withdraw this complaint as entirely spurious. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I should note that another one of Sager123's edits was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarawat_Mountains&diff=prev&oldid=1289745143 removing Yemen from the Sarawat Mountains article]. As this mountain range straddles the border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen this is a bit of a nationalist edit. As the IP who kept removing Yemen from the Mandi (food) article geolocates to Saudi Arabia this further suggests that there may be some connection between Sager123 and the prior IP. All this is to say that this exchange looks more like Abo Yemen preventing Saudi Nationalist POV editing than inserting Yemeni POV. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I've no knowledge of the other articles you've introduced so I cannot comment on them and my complaint on the talk page was removed when it was purged from the site. I was taught that edit warring occurs when one editor insists upon having their point of view pushed regardless of time, if that was correct, then this was a slow war of editor attrition. Given the Kabsa article is about a topic of little importance, it's hardly going to be frequently edited and thus the monthly edits are to be expected. The nonsense that "all of these (historic cooking) techniques originate from Yemen" needs to be removed, but I suspect it'll be reinstated if I do that either for no reason - or - I'll be banned for further editing the article even without complaints. Ultimately, if Abo is cherrypicks and posts unreliable personal blogs that support Yemeni heritage, but condones that same type of source for Saudi content, then that is not acting in good faith. It's not up to me to decide that, I simply noticed it. MrEarlGray (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Ok, being really clear, the diffs you provided show no evidence of problematic editing. Simonm223 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I take it then you are suggesting allowing unreliable sources for one nationality whilst condemning the same type of source for another nationality, as shown in the diffs, is not problematic? If so, I disagree. There's also a new edit war on the page between Abo and another individual, which I said would happen. It seems to be either his way or no way. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{outdent|2}} I restarted the discussion on the talk page. I've done lots of work on that article today and added another view on its origins. But you're still here unwilling to stop attacking me 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You really need to stop imagining any of comment from me as an attack on you. You've changed much in the article, but you've also undone practically every constructive edit which wasn't your own. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{outdent|1}} That's an absurd statement that I can disprove simply by pointing towards the only edit that you've made on that article since more than a year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=prev&oldid=1290194460] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I am not talking about my edits. I'm talking about the edits of others. Years ago I proposed the notion of 'contested origins' in the lead to set aside any nationalistic edit warring which was removed for reasons unknown and then I merely watched the article experience constant bickering. Just because you have done a lot of editing to an article does not mean it grants you superiority over editors providing alternative sources. I am not criticising you as a person, instead I am criticising your current editing methodology. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{outdent|1}} You are not criticizing my {{tq|1=current editing methodology}}. You're criticizing my 2-year-old edits. I've also never claimed or done something that indicated that I have superiority over editors?? This is just more WP:ASPERSIONs being cast 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Now you are twisting my words, because stating "I can disprove simply by pointing towards the only edit that you've made on that article since more than a year" you are indirectly saying as I've not contributed to the article in a while, I don't have a say in the matter. This is not true. I am aloud to criticise your _current_ editing methodology and that is what I am doing. Let me make it clear: you need to let others contribute rather than delete opposing POV's and sources as you have been doing today. I can't make it any clearer than that and consequently I don't see the point in continuing a discussion with you if you have no intention of changing your methodology when reminded to do so. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{outdent|1}} {{tq|1=you are indirectly saying as I've not contributed to the article in a while, I don't have a say in the matter.}}
talk about twisting words
{{tq|1=I am aloud to criticise your _current_ editing methodology and that is what I am doing.}}
Yes you are allowed to criticise my current editing methodology using diffs. But if @The Bushranger @Asilvering @Simonm223 yall want, you can check the article's history and verify MrEarlGray's claims above are true or not 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I would suggest that MrEarlGray should drop the stick. I've said what I am going to here. The evidence they've presented is entirely lacking and I would suggest that, if they aren't willing to walk away from this, further boomerang measures might be advisable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Disappointing to see you suggest I be subjected to another WP:PUNITIVE when rules state not to do so. Be assured I have no intention of further commenting here or interacting with Abo directly. My intention has been and will remain to create and improve encyclopaedic content, nothing more, nothing less. MrEarlGray (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Glad to hear it. -- asilvering (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Simonm223, Did you intentionally ping me? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yeah, I thought it'd be rude to mention you without pinging you. Please note I think it was a good edit. Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)