Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor Mathsci deleting my comment

{{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|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}}

• {{userlinks|Wlaak}}

Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. The situation, from my point of view:

• Wlaak made a number of edits to the "Name & Identity" section earlier this month, which was partly reverted. A quite long discussion between Wlaak and three other editors was ongoing, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1285911281 this] being the last version for a while.
• Note: Among these three other editors, one have been in a dispute (DRN, ANI) with Wlaak prior to this. And so have I.
• I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928 a comment] on the recent additions, suggesting that most of it was WP:OR (or irrelevant). I further suggested that WP:RS secondary sources would be preferable. One of the third party users (i.e. not involved in similar disputes before) agreed;
• I reverted most of it suggesting that new proposals should be discussed first (while avoiding WP:SYNTH and relying on secondary WP:RS).
• Wlaak restored it.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292 I clarifed] that my initial comment served as a suggestion and notified all users involved; both third party users agreed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286594907&oldid=1286591683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563] and one added further suggestions, which I agreed to. I once again suggested that any new proposals should be on secondary WP:RS discussed first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286744356&oldid=1286742824 here].
• Wlaak restored it again, which is disruptive behaviour in my opinion. Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Pinging @Asilvering and @Robert McClenon as the users that if I recall correctly have tried to meditate the previous versions of this dispute. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• As Sesquilinear says, I tried to mediate an earlier version of this dispute. This is a content dispute that is worsened by allegations of conduct, and I think that the allegations of conduct are persistent enough that they are a conduct problem. I usually start dealing with a content dispute by asking the parties what specific paragraphs and sentences they want to change in an article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). I will ask that question at this point. If there are straight answers, maybe progress can be made toward resolving the content dispute. If there aren't straight answers, then maybe we should consider a topic-ban again. What exactly does each editor want to change in an article (or leave the same)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Hi, again:
• :I want the section to remain as it is and not be removed because the statements from three consecutive Patriarchates, Mor Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and a 2015 Publication from the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, represent the official position of the Syriac Orthodox Church, not private views. The Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod, which is the highest authority in the Church, and his statements define the Church’s religious, spiritual, and administrative matters (see the article itself), hence they are more than relevant to be included in the section. Primary sources are valid to use here because they are clearly attributed according to WP:ACCORDINGTO, and they concern the Church’s official definition of its own identity. I was adding secondary sources as well to strengthen the section, but this process has been halted because two ANI cases, one of which was reopened after being closed, were filed against me instead of following the normal process through a Request for Comment.
• :If there are concerns about WP:UNDUE, additional sourced material about the Assyrian identity can be added, as I stated on the talk page. The article already mentions the use of the Assyrian name by parishes in America, the ethnic composition including both Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians, and the former neutrality stance of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, hence I asked another editor to provide the source of a Assyrian favorable position. Wlaak (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Wlaak, this is going rather beyond @Robert McClenon's ask, at least as I understand it. To understand what the content dispute is, we don't (yet) need to know the whys and wherefores, explanations of anyone's behaviour, or any of that. At this point we're just trying to understand what the basic terms of the argument are. "I want the section under the heading Foo to say 'blah, blah'." "I want it to remain like it was in diff x." "I want to add this particular quote to this particular section." That sort of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::User:Asilvering - First, you have correctly restated what my usual question is. Second, it is true that User:Wlaak went beyond answering my question. However, they did answer my question in the first sentence, and so the extra words can be disregarded. They did say that they want to leave the article as it is. I haven't seen a concise statement by User:Shmayo as to what they want to change in the article. They have said that maybe WP:ANI rather than DRN or RFC is the forum that they want, but I don't understand what they are saying is either the content issue or the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Aha okay, sorry @Robert McClenon for misunderstanding. In that case: I want the section to remain as it is right now. Wlaak (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Robert McClenon, I brought this to ANI as a conduct issue (which I attempted to highlight in bold). My intention was not to discuss the content of the Syriac Orthodox Church article here; if content discussion is necessary, the other editors should be notified as well. In my initial post, I provided links containing my suggestion for the section "Name and identity": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292]. To summarize my suggestion, if still relevant to this case: 1. Merge or remove content related to "stance" of Aphrem I Barsoum, depending of relevance. If relevant, it should solely be based on secondary WP:RS. I agree with the third-party editor, who suggested that "statements" from individual patriarchs is not relevant and should be excluded. 2. Remove paragraphs concerning the "stance" of the other two patriarchs (per WP:NOR and suggestion from third-party editor). 3. If anything, it should include the Synod's statement (without WP:SYNTH). 4. Rely on secondary WP:RS, avoiding any further WP:OR. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1286743556 This] version should serve as basis. Shmayo (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Note:

• A WP:TBAN was suggested here less than a month ago, but closed with no consensus. The user has also been recommended not to edit within this topic area here.

Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• :See the previous closed ANI filed, no consensus was reached for you to delete everything in the section. I took in feedback from the three other.
• :the other editor who I was in a dispute with unarchived the ANI, he was initially in favor of my edits, in which he himself contributed to and added a quote which you were against.
• :the edits i had made was in no sense rejected by the other editors until you came, I worked with the feedback given, hence another editor then said "Thank you, it looks much better."
• :you came in, gave feedback in which most was incorporated, your points were:
• :to remove "stands as the latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity of the Church's faithful" (WP:SYNTH), this was done.
• :you said to merge the paragraph of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I and to remove the quote, in which two editors (me and the other editor who unarchived a ANI) agreed upon having, nevertheless, this was done as well.
• :despite this, you came back a few days later, without the intent to help implement your own feedback, but to delete nearly the entire section, which had no consensus whatsoever, i then restored it. that is not disruptive editing.
• :you said to highlight the Holy Synod statement, this was also done.
• :you also made feedback on using WP:RS, in which has been incorporated in the first paragraph but stopped after the other editor had unarchived a settled ANI for the third time, being disruptive and halting the development of the section.
• :5h ago, a reply to the article was made stating "I am proposing for a WP:RFC, It seems we are unable to establish consensus regarding this, any inputs from a third party editor would be really appreciated." indicating that there was no established consensus for you to delete the entire section, this was said from the editor you quoted to have agreed with you, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563 this], he stated it would be better of without the quote, which was done.
• :you took the other editors words as a final say, with no chance at discussion nor reasoning, what you and one other person agrees with, is not consensus if the other parties object to it or haven't agreed with it.
• :you also said that you'd have to file for a RfC, not a ANI, this is not fitting and is a unnecessary process which could be handled with a RfC.
• :i'd want to request a TBAN on Shamyo as well, not out of revenge but since if these are the grounds for him to request a TBAN on me on, I feel there is a lot of ground in which Shmayo should get a TBAN, I must note that out of awareness to WP:NPOV, a TBAN should be on both parties.
• :you have been accused of having been anti-Aramean name on following, see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (goes back all the way to 2008). Looking at your global contributions, it all seems to be on Aramean-related articles, and not in a way of contributing with edits but rather only objecting in talk pages, filing ANI's etc. this raises doubts whether if your objection is with the content or the Aramean ethnic identity.
• :for any third party admin or resolver, please see the archived thread (by another editor who has been opposing the Aramean name, both him and Shamyo being Assyrian WikiPedians per their user talk pages) in which I detailed my defense/response, see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1287490212 here].
• :the Syriac Orthodox Church just got its peer-review review and constantly involving me in ANI's (only filed by Assyrian WikiPedians, Shmayo and the other editor) is disruptive and hinders me from contributing to, in this case, the peer-review. Wlaak (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:this is not a Aramean vs. Assyrian related topic, it is a Church and I am not compromising the Assyrian name for the Aramean name, which the warning was about (see the warning issued by admin on ANI you referenced).

:a TBAN was not closed without consensus, majority was against and latest comment was "Any sanction should be two-way." since the other editor had POV and following Aramean related edits, please refrain from twisting things. Wlaak (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::While it's true that the latest comment stated that TBAN should likely be two-way, I'll note that such a ban, had it happened, would have been "The Levant, broadly construed"; topic bans are generally broadly construed in order to avoid such arguments over whether an edit "really" counts. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Wlaak, I find this statement of yours somewhat disingenuous when I find an extended discussion about whether the article should or shouldn't be in WP:Assyria on the talk page. (If this was brought up in the previous ANI thread, my apologies for overlooking it in all the diffs.) This is absurdly tendentious behaviour and I'd like to commend {{u|CF-501 Falcon}} in particular for handling that with far more patience than I would have been capable of. I cannot believe that whether a particular article ought to be in a particular wikiproject was nearly the question of an RfC. If the editors of a wikiproject say the article is in scope, it's in scope. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::already discussed in article page Wlaak (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the history of Syriac Orthodox Church to try to determine why User:Shmayo is alleging disruptive editing or other conduct issues by User:Wlaak. I don't understand what the issue is, unless Shmayo is claiming ownership of Syriac Orthodox Church and so considers four reverts in two weeks to be disruptive. I have not read through all the details of the discussion on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church, nor the details of what was being reverted. I have seen enough to see that there is a content dispute, and that there has been some reverting that hardly comes anywhere close to being an edit war. Is User:Shmayo just throwing spaghetti at a wall, or can they state concisely what they think has been the conduct issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Reviewing the few diffs that I provided in my original post would have been useful to determine what I refer to as disruptive behaviour. I never mentioned an edit war; I do not want to engage in one. Now, what I consider disruptive or tendentious:

::*I listed my suggestions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292], endorsed by impartial editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286594907&oldid=1286591683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563], but was reverted twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286222895&oldid=1286217815] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286747680&oldid=1286743556]; user ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

::*The user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT; fails to understand why other editors are stressing WP:NOR, the few example I gave were quickly "corrected", which obviously is not the point here.

::*Views edits as taking sides [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1286882756],

::If the diffs provided in my first bullet does not indicate disruptive behaviour or WP:STONEWALLing, I have nothing else to add here. Shmayo (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::See the current version, what you got consensus on was to remove the quote, which was done. I had challenged the removal of all other Patriarchates and argued for why they are important, the article itself states that the Patriarch "is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."

:::I may be new to WikiPedia, but what you and one other editor may agree on, with me disagreeing and others not participating in said question is not consensus.

:::Although, the thing you seem to have had one person to agree with you on (the removal of Patriarchates) seem to not have gone by the other editor who stated: "Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with "Although the church is not ethnically exclusive..." needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."

:::Your removal had no consensus, yet you pushed it, we were fine with it until you came and brought this to attention which later was implemented (quote, RS) and were set to move to the next paragraphs until you and the other WikiPedian part of your project, what I find disruptive, constantly file ANIs. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Robert McClenon, I agree with you that the diffs do not look particularly bad. I think you will change your mind once you read the discussion on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the discussion at the article talk page that User:Shmayo and User:asilvering have advised me to read. I agree that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. That doesn't answer the question of what should be done next. User:Shmayo has also asked that question without answering it. They wrote: {{tq|Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI}}. Why not try RFC? Not every case of POV pushing requires sanctions. I haven't reviewed the past record in sufficient detail to determine whether Shmayo is also pushing a point of view, except that their choice to go to WP:ANI without attempting a content dispute resolution is in itself suggestive that they would rather make allegations than present reliable sources to a Request for Comments.
• I am cautious when a filer apparently prefers to discuss conduct before making an effort to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Recurring disruptive behaviour should however, which I think is the case. WP:Third opinion is a way of solving a content dispute. I did recommend DRN or RfC as a next step, one answer suggested ANI, and I agreed that it was probably right to report what I believed was disruptive behaviour. One user (excluding opinions expressed elsewhere) seems to agree, whereas your assessment of it is "POV pushing". Is there any outstanding question for me as the filer? Shmayo (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::what is disruptive? four reverts in two weeks is not disruptive, this is the second ANI regarding this article, with no development, a RfC would be better, what is disruptive here in my opinion is the fact that there has constantly been ANI's filed preventing one from further developing WikiPedia.

:::@Robert McClenon even on the List of Aramean kings article, Shmayo seemed to have deleted the entire article stating no sources are referenced, instead of trying to put sources, (similiar to the Syriac Orthodox Church, where he deleted the entire section of Aramean mentions) he decides to delete the entire article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Aramean_kings&diff=1272178126&oldid=1259140763]

:::constant removals [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tur_Abdin&diff=prev&oldid=1157132837][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrians_in_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=1079412266][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram_Rehob&diff=prev&oldid=1274245611][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Assyrians&diff=prev&oldid=1077069195](even images of Arameans are removed), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&diff=prev&oldid=1083627117][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mhallami&diff=prev&oldid=1100344975][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nouri_Iskandar&diff=prev&oldid=1193390949](even removes Syriac mentionings), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BCtersloh&diff=prev&oldid=1277386874], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrians_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=1067841992], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Mourad&diff=prev&oldid=912012123], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0dil&diff=prev&oldid=890153438] of Aramean mentionings throughout Aramean-related articles, since 2008 is disruptive. (these are just the ones taken from his talk page)

:::how long is Shmayo going to get away with this? 14 years and counting. Wlaak (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Wlaak, please consider this from the perspective of the other editors for a moment: they've been carrying on as normal for quite some time, and then suddenly you appear and start dozens of extremely wordy pov-pushing arguments. It's not them who are being disruptive. This isn't a statement about the issue at stake - it's entirely possible that you're correct on the merits in this content dispute - but how you've gone about it. I've suggested it before and will reiterate it: you will have a much better and more successful time trying to get anywhere with this dispute if you walk away from it now, gain more editing experience out of this topic area, and return to it later. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::english is not my first language, me wording things in a manner of what you think is POV is not my intent, i am not pushing any edits that are POV, although i can understand that you feel i am pushing POV in talk-pages.

:::::when did i "suddenly" appear? if you are talking about to WikiPedia, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it is, in my opinion not "pov-pushing". everybody pushes a POV, it seems as the POV-pushes from Shmayo and the other editor is of no interest to you? does this only apply to me?

:::::i have been carrying on, i left the changing of Assyrian to Syriac (not even Aramean), as you warned both of us in the previous ANI to, however, even me going to a Church article, improving what was already stated, not compromising any names, i still get followed by other parties.

:::::i am geniounly curious, do you not see the suppression of the Aramean name on WikiPedia?

:::::if you are seeing this as POV, then certainly it is not one-way, but rather two-way.

:::::i am not so active in the topic anymore, i am only maintaining the articles (if i see any POV edit as in the case remove/compromise certain names, i revert and advise to go to talk page), other than that i am working on my draft. Wlaak (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::can you cite some of my words which are "extremely wordy pov-pushing", i am curious to see how it looks like/what to not push/write. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Wlaak, look how long your comments are. Whether you intend this or not, the effect is to basically wear down everyone else involved in the discussion until they go away and you "win". As for pov-pushing, {{tq|for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it}}, given the contours of this dispute specifically, is a clear expression of pov-pushing. (In most other topic areas, "this topic is neglected on wikipedia" is not pov-pushing.) Again, for all I know, your pov is systematically undervalued on Wikipedia and this needs to be addressed, but "my cause is righteous" is not a good defense here. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I strongly urge you to go work in another topic area for now. You're picking up a lot of bad habits from working in a contentious topic, and I'm increasingly worried that you will be indefinitely blocked or community banned. You cannot fix the problem of Aramean invisibility on wikipedia if you are blocked. Please reconsider your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::okay, thank you for your understanding. i will refrain from further edit any articles (if not reverting obvious changes that compromise one name for the other, if that is allowed).

::::::::i will stick to working on my draft and see other topics i find interesting Wlaak (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've been following this discussion from a distance and have glanced over Wlaak's contributions while this report is in progress. The user seems to have an unusual tendency to eliminate or replace any mention to Assyrians with their own WP:OR, often ignoring WP:RS that support Assyrian identity. A clear example of this occurred just several hours ago as a matter of fact: Wlaak removes a reliable academic source that distinctly supports Shamoun Hanne Haydo's Assyrian identity (see the referenced source, I checked it [https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ3UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58]), replacing "Assyrian" with "Syriac" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&diff=1288461529&oldid=1288402743] by citing unknown websites as a main source such as [https://www.kemalyalcin.com/yazilar/suryaniler-seyfo-ve-semun-hanne-haydo/]. Apparently Wlaak has been engaged in this tendentious erasure of Assyrian in the article since March, indicating this behavior is not new or even limited to this specific article if you look at their contributions in general. It's not just English Wikipedia either; I know these are different projects, but it's telling that in one project they've been blocked for similar editing patters like in en-wiki [https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Bidrag/Wlaak], and in another they apparently tried to remove mention of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide article there [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrische_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=69256637], [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrische_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=69256847]. Wlaak’s main focus of editing in en-wiki/elsewhere within various articles is basically to erase the word Assyrian and replace it with Arameans or Syriacs.

:On the whole, I'd say with certainty that this a tendentious one purpose account mostly dedicated to erasing Assyrian mention, violating policies in the process such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and so on. I don't think this topic or even Wikipedia in general benefits from Wlaak's contributions, in fact, it's the opposite. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac. [https://www.kemalyalcin.com/yazilar/suryaniler-seyfo-ve-semun-hanne-haydo/] is a Turkish source writing of his biography book, it is actually the website of the author of the book about him [https://www.librarything.com/author/yalcinkemal]. I have not erased the term "Assyrian", regarding the Dutch page, I was restoring a undiscussed move, or at least that is what I thought, we discussed the matter on my talk page and it seems as it was not a discussed move only done on 27th of March but goes back further than that, the reason I did not see the earlier version was, as a editor pointed out on my talk page, it was mistakingly labeled "minor", thus I oversaw it. No worries, I have no issues with leaving it as it is.

::Since my warning, I have not compromised any names in favor of the other, you using the article Shamoun Hanne Haydo is absurd to me, I was reverting what a specific user (dedicated to war-related articles between Kurds and Assyrians) did on the article, he had previously been blocked as a sockpuppet and compromised the Syriac name for the Assyrian one, by removing the Syriac sources for the Assyrian ones. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{talk quote|Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac.}}

:::That's just not true, I don’t know how else to say it. If you check the article history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&action=history&offset=&limit=100], you'll see that Haydo's background has always stirred up reverts among users; it’s never really been settled. There are no recent sock edits in the article as far as I can tell, you can't revert somebody for socking if they aren't an active sock. The reliable modern scholarly source I pointed out supports an Assyrian background [https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ3UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58], you can't deny this.

:::@Asilvering, @Robert McClenon I wonder what others outside this topic think of Wlaak's response above, is it encouraging to you? Because I personally see reoccurring red flags which isn't helped by their recent behavior; apparently (and Robert McClenon seems to have seen this) Wlaak has been taking strange ownership of articles and then lecturing users on their talk pages in a really condescending way. It’s just cringeworthy to read Wlaak's comments in this discussion (link). It's also odd how they lecture about "consensus" during that discussion when they think it aligns with their perspective, yet in the same breath, they have no problem altering long-standing consensus versions of several other articles without having a consensus. Lastly, Wlaak also appeared to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren,_Midyat&diff=prev&oldid=1289149074 canvass] a single edit IP to vote in a discussion Wlaak opened (btw the discussion is again about the same subject they're so adamant to push [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_6#Syriacs]). Doesn’t all this raise some eyebrows? Are we sure we want to give this user that much rope, only for them to likely end up in ANI again? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::One is allowed to edit an article, after it having been edited to Syriac, per the majority of sources (and now a academic source), it was later changed by another editor using a pro-Assyrian website (Hujada) as source and one other source, overlooking the majority of sources stating Syriac.

::::What ownership? I noticed for 30 minutes edits from a IP came in after a edit from a Wiki User, it changed the lead, the Name & Identity etc.

::::"Canvass", no the IP asked if there is a possibility of changing the redirect, I informed him that there is a open discussion regarding it... what's wrong with that?

::::All this feels like a coordinated attack on me, few hours after you commented your first comment, another editor with a brand new account came a few hours later and accused me of harassing him via mail... Wlaak (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Alright you just refuse to accept any wrongdoing whatsoever, at any rate, I don’t plan to have a pointless back and forth with you seeing the rest of bludgeoning. I don’t know any of the users in this discussion btw, and for you to make “coordinated attack” accusations based on no real evidence is disappointing but not surprising, to me at least. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nobody is free from having done wrongs, both parties in this ANI are guilty of wrongdoing. You also accused me of "soliciting votes" from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren,_Midyat&diff=prev&oldid=1289149074] but failed to include that the IP asked if he could change the redirect, in which I said if you are in favor of it, there is a discussion, is that soliciting votes? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AG%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren%2C_Midyat&diff=1289132341&oldid=1289105485] Wlaak (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Wlaak I have a quick question for you, @KhndzorUtogh bringing up the IP address on the opened discussion leaves me wondering something. I’ve noticed that a few times now, you seem to attract a number of IP addresses that randomly show up out of nowhere to support or encourage your stance on disputes, only for them to never be seen again. This has happened quite a few times now:

:::::* Back when you were discussing create a separate Aramean people page in March, this Swedish IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:AA1:1155:FC18:9944:9162:7DB0:36F3] made one comment opposing @Shmayo and was never seen again

:::::* This Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A420:230:B950:A5AE:11B4:1226:4D2C] made two comments, one supporting your argument and another about Shmayo. Like the above, they were never seen again

:::::* This other Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A420:276:3CA8:AD08:C33B:7F4F:8274] took part in the discussion, supporting your arguments and agreeing with you - they were never seen on any other part of Wikipedia

:::::* Yet another Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:3031:205:D594:605A:B99F:F54F:7D87] left a message on your talk page with suggestions on your current Draft:Aramean people

:::::* On Güngören, Midyat, once again another Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A45F:ADD7:1:90A7:E295:5880:604C] shows up out of nowhere agreeing with you and asking if they can change the redirect, which you've opened a discussion for

:::::It's not that this happens frequently, but it's certainly been noticeable that I wanted to bring it up. What make's matters more suspicious is that no IPs have appeared to oppose the Aramean arguments you make in support of Assyrian or other identities. Can you explain the sudden emergence of these IP addresses? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::To be honest, I have zero idea. However, the latest one from Güngören, Midyat had already been active in the talk page as of last year, I replied to him saying I was agreeing with him. He then became active again.

::::::About the IP that left a suggestion on my talk page, I tried replying to him and get him to help out with the Draft:Aramean people he was giving feedback about, but he has not responded.

::::::As of the other instances, I am not sure. I know that this topic has been very sensitive and suppressive of all Arameans, they might have been popping up when seeing new discussions, other than that, I really do not have an answer. They seem to only have been commenting on the Aramean article.

::::::It is words against words, I am not sure if you believe me, you are free to file a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on me, it was done before and I was unrelated to the accounts. Wlaak (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have been watching this unfold and it is extremely disappointing. @Wlaak and @Miaphysis have started yet another long winded debate,and it has not being going anywhere. @asilvering, Wlaak has not done s they said and moved on. I asked for a simple explanation of the changes they wanted to make and have given me roughly 3,500 words. Both Wlaak and Miaphysis have been bludgeoning and in my opinon edit warring, to get their points aross. I will file an RfC for the naming dispute (@Robert McClenon would you willing to help?). To be clear, I have no stake in this other wanting to get the article to GA. I don't want anyone to be in trouble but here we are. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I too am disappointed, and have again proposed a topic ban. You're welcome to comment below. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am sorry to have disappointed you, but in this case, I was engaging in the talk page rather than edit-warring, the only edits I did was restoring the drastic, huge and controversial edits that lacked consensus, I also pushed a edit where I implemented the agreements me and the other party had in the talk page. I understand the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON, I should have left the discussion and initiated a RfC after realizing we were just going in circles.
• ::Would a logged warning not be more fitting? Wlaak (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Wlaak, No it would not. @Asilvering, gave you a warning before and now. You have chosen not to heed it. While this may be unfortunate, you should have seen it coming from 100 kms away after the last ANI thread. As the wording of the proposed TBAN says, you can appeal it in 6 months; take the restriction with dignity and edit other areas, show the community that you can be trusted to edit. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't even know what to say anymore. I am failing to see how a talk page discussion can lead to a TBAN. I was reverting undiscussed moves yesterday, and doing so got me tbanned. Wikipedia should be inclusive, not exclusive. The undermining of other identities is worrying, really. Fourteen years and counting, one editor has managed to hinder the development of certain categories on Wikipedia. All of this feels like constant, one-sided, and deliberate attempts to have me gone. Wlaak (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Wlaak, no one wants you gone, certainly not me or the other editors who have tried to help you. In 6 months time you can certainly start to help support other identities, but right now you have been going about it the wrong way. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Further to what @CF-501 Falcon just said, @Wlaak, it's not within my power as an individual administrator to give you a tban from this topic, but it is within my power to block you outright for disruptive editing. I'm confident that, if I had done so, no other administrator would have overturned it, at least not for some time. So please understand that when I say I don't want you gone, that isn't a hollow statement. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::certainly doesn't feel that way. there was even a brand new account accusing me of harassing them via mail. With only Assyrian WikiPedians participating in the Syriac Orthodox Church article, it hurts me to say, but I think it is inevitable that it will fall to their bias. i did my best to hinder any POV, and got banned for it.
• ::::::please maintain it and keep it neutral. i have linked all (secondary) sources on the talk page, and the current version includes the references regarding the Church’s identity, so that when there are proposals or changes made to the page, you will have the ones i left. Wlaak (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::You aren't banned yet. But if you are, you will be able to appeal the ban and return to normal editing eventually, and I hope that you do. Again, you'll find it much, much easier to convince other editors that there are problems with neutral pov on these articles once you have more experience with editing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Wlaak, there's no such thing as a logged warning, since this isn't a CTOP. Sorry. I'd have handed one out ages ago if I could have. Instead I warned you several times that you should edit in some other topics until you had more wikipedia experience. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I noticed what was going on while skimming through the SOC page and checking out the talk page earlier today. I agree with @Asilvering that Wlaak's messages could be shorter, it really felt tiring to read a lot of this in one sitting because it seemed to lead nowhere. I don't want to dogpile on Wlaak because this shouldn't turn into intimidation, but I agree that a lot of these edits made by Wlaak have largely been running against the consensus, disregarding WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS - I second @Shmayo as well. An RfC should be filed. User:Ghebreigzabhier 22:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Socks gonna sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:I have edited the article under a previous account I lost the password for. This user was extremely disruptive and emailed me with harassing words. how do I report this? TheLiberalWikiEditor (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Are you serious? What article are you speaking of and what name was your account under? I just recently got a wiki-mail and I have not contacted anyone via that email apart from the Arbitration Committee. Can you share what I allegedly said? I am more than happy to prove that I have not emailed you anything, these are extreme accusations!

::Your account is brand new, literally created today and throwing these accusations. Wlaak (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Wlaak, my advice is to respond no further about this alleged harassment, and let arbcom deal with that if necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::okay, thank you Wlaak (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::@TheLiberalWikiEditor, you need to email User:Arbitration Committee with this kind of thing. Please do not post about it here. Obviously, Wlaak will be completely unable to respond to these allegations on this board; please don't put them into that position. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Could I ask participants in and watchers of this topic area more broadly to provide what they think are the <5 most single contentious articles in this topic area? I don't mean "ones currently being disrupted" or "ones currently involving Wlaak". I am quite sure that what {{u|Wlaak}} wrote above, {{tq|these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic}} is true, and, given that, it's strange that there hasn't been an arbcom case or discussion about community sanctions in the topic. It would be helpful to see the "most contentious" or "most disrupted" articles as context. Not most important/critical - I'm looking for the ones that make the clearest case that this topic area is problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, User:asilvering, for asking the editors to identify the specific topics of contention.

:If I understand correctly, User:Shmayo has been given bad advice that is wasting their time and the time of the community. They appear to be saying that they were considering DRN or RFC because they have a combination content and conduct dispute, and were advised to try WP:ANI instead. When a case is filed here at ANI without previous attempts to address the content dispute, it often ends up with an exchange of unpleasant posts and no conclusion, and that is what has happened so far, four days after filing, because RFC has not been attempted. I already said that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. It appears that User:Shmayo is also pushing a point of view. I don't think that it is time to topic-ban both editors. I think that it is time to try RFC. Maybe Shmayo doesn't know that the issues are to put in an RFC. If so, maybe they should try DRN. If there is a deadlock over a content dispute, DRN will often ask questions designed to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. I think that Shmayo was almost right in trying either DRN or RFC until they were advised to try ANI instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that if this matter were to go to ArbCom, ArbCom would, among other things, define a contentious topic area, maybe The Levant, broadly construed. So maybe the community should impose a community contentious topic area to avoid an ArbCom case. So I agree that the editors should follow the advice of User:asilvering in trying to define what the area of dispute is. Either that, or RFC, or DRN to formulate the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::"The Levant" is what I'd use if I had to tban or conditional unblock someone, to be sure I'd gotten the whole range of issues, but I think the community could probably come up with something more restricted, like Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac topics, which is an absurd mouthful but probably covers everything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am not sure if this is about me receiving a topic ban or not and if I am writing my own sentence, I hope not. But the topic would be most fitting in the Near East, as this includes basically everything regarding this topic. The Levant is very limited, most places of origin amongst all groups is far from the Levant. I am not too educated about this matter (disputes, TBANS etc.) and if "Near East" is a valid one, but that is what I would identify it as. Wlaak (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I did not say that I would support a topic-ban. I implied that I would support a contentious topic status. I already opposed a topic-ban once before. A topic-ban is necessary if efforts to resole the content dispute fail. There have not been adequate efforts to resolve the content dispute. I will support a contentious topic declaration as a way of demanding that the parties try to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:asilvering, the article "Arameans" was semi-protected during 2023 due to persistent disruptive editing. It usually attracted a high number of IPs. Other than that, I don't think there is any article that stands out in particular. Articles about places and persons (and organizations/institutions, like in this case) are all subject to the dispute. Shmayo (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hey there, having viewed the ANI from the sidelines I wanted to give an answer. I think "The Levant" as a topic of contention is too broad and would have to factor into account other unrelated topics involving certain groups, countries, people, etc. The topic I would define as contentious would fall under the banner "Assyrian naming dispute", since it is prominently disputes surrounding Assyrian, Chaldean, and Aramean identities.

:As Shmayo said above, articles about anything that ties back to Assyrians are all subject to dispute. But I think there are a few articles that stand out, which I've listed below:

:* Arameans

:* Shamoun Hanne Haydo

:* Defense of Azakh/Defence of Iwardo

:* Turoyo language

:* Basically any Assyrian village in Mardin/Tur Abdin

:* Tel Keppe

:Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, everyone. Up at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics now. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute involving Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian people and Arameans. I am saying that there appears to be a content dispute, because it seems to be impossible to get the parties to state exactly what the content dispute is, because they want to resolve the conduct dispute first. Rather than trying to resolve the messy combination of content dispute and conduct dispute, can the community assert community general sanctions over the topics of Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian people, and Arameans, and then let uninvolved administrators impose sanctions?

Multiple parties seem to want to deal with conduct first rather than resolving the content dispute, so that normal content dispute resolution will not work until sanctions are imposed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:A long exchange that seemed to have degenerated into name-calling was just closed off at Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church#Name_&_Identity and, in my opinion, illustrates that battleground editing is interfering with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would love to have the content dispute resolved and have been attempting to do that. From what I understand the actual dispute boils down to is the Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian or Aramean? I think that this requires sanctions, as people are getting very heated over it. I don't think the entire article is contentious, rather that "Assyrian people and Arameans" may need to be a CTOP (community or arbcom). Thank you for the help, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::My impression is that indeed it's not just the church where these things are being disputed, but pretty much everything related to these ethnic groups in the region. I think "Syriac" as a name has also appeared in these circumstances, and maybe a few others; regardless, I think the names of ethnic groups in the region should probably be labeled as a contentious topic in some form.

::I also believe that users have made comments suggesting offsite coordination; if any of them have evidence to that effect, then I think it may have to fall under the remit of ArbCom, so that such evidence can be analyzed. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::_{+1. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}

:@Robert McClenon, that's exactly what my post in the section above is all about - putting together the evidence to be able to make a request for GS at AN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I haven't read through the dispute presented in the ANI report here, but adding an anecdotal +1 that GS/CTOPs for Syriac, Aramean and Assyrian identity and national politics is warranted based on the amount of disruption and acrimony we see in the topic area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rosguill, before I make that suggestion to AN, do you see any difference between the topic as you've described and "Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects", as I worded it in the tban proposal below? -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No {{u|asilvering}} I think your framing is appropriate and likely safer in its inclusion of Chaldean, although (again anecdotally) I feel like most of the disruption we see is specifically over Aramean vs Assyrian _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Asilvering If it's of any assistance, I'm currently working on Draft:Assyrian identity crisis, which aims to discuss why this dispute is so contentious. As of now I plan on converting it to my sandbox so that I can publish it directly once it's finished; it's not yet complete and once it is, I want to get it peer reviewed and to ping the active editors in this topic area to hear their thoughts and concerns. For now, though, I think that it would help to consider that perspective in order to determine the extent to which this should have sanctions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @Surayeproject3, this is certainly helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I proposed this in an earlier thread here at ANI, and it wasn't taken up. Since the disruption has continued, I'm opening it up for discussion again. I don't want to give Wlaak an indefinite block. I do, however, think that they need to avoid this obviously contentious topic until they are more experienced with collaboration on Wikipedia. I've made that suggestion to Wlaak several times to no effect. Accordingly, I am again proposing an indefinite topic ban from Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects, broadly construed. This can be appealed to WP:AN in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose, I was trying to reach consensus on the Syriac Orthodox Church, drastic and controversial edits were taking place before a consensus. Wlaak (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - While I've stated that Wlaak has shown positive signs since previous disputes in March and April, the arguments being made on the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church and the other things mentioned above (namely the WikiProject Assyria template and Shamoun Hanne Haydo) clearly indicate a continued Aramean-POV. At the point where it is still being disruptive and negatively influencing the development of the encyclopedia, it's definitely grounds to reconsider the topic ban. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. At the moment, I believe Wlaak is simply not competent enough to edit in this contentious topic area. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - I have tried to work with and meditate with Wlaak. However, @Miaphysis should be given a formal warning for edit warring. This was not the best outcome possible but it is necessary. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - I have made my case as to why Wlaak is trying to give a WP:UNDUE impression of the Aramean identity in the Syriac Church giving a certain impression while omitting the details and marginalizing others. Miaphysis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment - I do think that, deserved or undeserved, it's understandable that the user in question feels a bit piled on, and there should definitely be some way to ensure they aren't completely shut out if there is an RFC or the like (albeit possibly with a word limit to avoid overwhelming the discussion) Sesquilinear (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment- The user @Wlaak should still be able to work, to some extent, on certain categories, such as his draft, to which I’ve also contributed. It would be a shame for him to lose access to everything he wish to do. Historynerd361 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is indeed a great shame. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Sesquilinear and @Historynerd361, are you suggesting that the restriction be only for namespace? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes. That way he can at least continue to work on his draft. Historynerd361 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::He can continue to work on his draft in a text file on his local machine. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::how does a draft hurt you? do you really want me to work on a text file? with no WikiPedia tools such as referencing? linkage to other articles? there will be no noise from me either way, the draft won't affect you. Wlaak (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The problem is that the area seems problematic for you. You can always use something like [https://zotero.org Zotero] for your references. Let the draft be for 6 months and work on something else. Either way, just let the proposal run its pace; otherwise it may just make it worse for you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::i really have nothing more to say Wlaak (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I was suggesting something more narrowly tailored to an RFC or ArbCom case, honestly. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Makes sense. I don't think I have ever seen anybody get a TBAN for one namespace only (I haven't been here for too long). CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Editors are sometimes banned from particular namespaces, but I don't think I've ever seen a topic ban about a particular subject formulated as only a mainspace ban. If the topic is problematic it's problematic, regardless of location. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sesquilinear, if there's an arbcom case, arbcom would probably grant an exemption from the tban for the purposes of participating in it. If there's a major RfC on this topic while Wlaak is tbanned, I would happily support his ability to make a single !vote on the topic as a limited exemption to the tban. Broader participation wouldn't work out (in my view), since we'd end up with the same issues that lead to this discussion in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment- please, allow me to at least work on my drafts. i will not be of disturbance to any of you anymore. thanks to the two of you guys writing comments. Wlaak (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, as a one-sided solution to a problem with at least two "sides". Shmayo, the Original Poster of this thread, and Surayeproject3 have both been gaming WP:ANI. I am concerned that if we topic-ban one editor, we, the community, may think that we have solved the problem for now, and may leave the problem alone instead of trying to address a problem that has been simmering for at least five years. The archives of Talk:Arameans show that a history of sockpuppetry and personal attacks, and an ongoing controversy over whether there should be a separate article on the modern Aramean people. Topic-banning one editor is not an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Robert McClenon, who is this "we, the community", you're talking about? Everyone who has taken part in this thread has said the area is contentious. Which of us do you think are going to forget about it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I mean that the community has two parts to its institutional memory: its active institutional memory, which consists of the content of its noticeboards, and its long-term institutional memory, which includes the archives of its noticeboards. Yes, I do mean that when the topic-ban is imposed, follow-up action will be a lower priority, and then this thread will be auto-archived, and then the community will remember it again the next time that an editor reports an issue here or on another noticeboard. We, the community, all take conflicts in Wikipedia seriously, but the level of attention that we give to a particular issue varies, because many of us would rather be expanding Class C articles or reviewing drafts or gnoming categories rather than engaging in drama. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support: There's too much risk compared to benefit for the health of this Wikipedia. It's not indefinite, it's not excessive - and many things can change in a few months for better or for worse. User:Ghebreigzabhier 02:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Comment: As some have suggested, the bulk of his disruptive editing is on this page in specific - so I too don't see the harm of letting him work on his drafts. User:Ghebreigzabhier 02:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The draft to which Wlaak refers has been submitted for AFC review, and is at Draft:Aramean people. I have marked it as under review, and expect to complete my review in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 8 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)

{{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)

{{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)

{{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|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)

{{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)

{{abot}}

• {{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)

{{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 = 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}}

{{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}}

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

| 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}}

{{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}}

{{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}}

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)

{{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}}

{{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

| 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

| 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}}

{{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)

• {{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)

{{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}}

{{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}}

{{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|Joseph77237}}

This editor has some 600 edits, more than 400 of them to Preterintention, their creation. Their edits to the de-wiki version of this article have all been reverted, and they are indefinitely blocked from it-wiki. Most of their talk page edits (eg at User talk:Joseph77237, which is worth a read) have been to describe other editors as being vandals (see also Special:Diff/1245797340, in which the supposed vandal is yours truly), and to complain when other editors very patiently attempted to explain various matters of policy, why they reverted, etc.

He is incapable of collaborating ({{tq|This way of working is not my style}}, Special:Diff/1244691906), and has repeatedly and over time expressed his opposition to WP:5P3 and the foundational idea of "anyone can edit". Examples: {{tq|ok. But I don't agree: the 5 pillars of Wikipedia should be interpreted through the criteria of official hermeneutics: "literal", "systematic", "teleological", "logical", "rational" etc.}} (September), {{tq|I don't find it rational that Wikipedia's specialist entries are written without having the relevant academic qualifications and expertise}} (January), {{tq|a Wikipedia article written by someone who is not a lawyer is insane}} (today). These are all from Talk:Preterintention.

He has several times declared he is done editing Wikipedia. I think we should help him make good on this promise, by means of an indefinite block. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support indef CBAN. Preterintention has been brought to WP:LAW several times now. See Special:PermanentLink/1289184872#Preterintention. I was unaware of the conduct issues. Based on the evidence, Joseph seems to be a cross-project SPA focused on presenting his theory of preterintention. His editing is not compatible with a collaborative project. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:: "Cross-project SPA" is an accurate description. Joseph, a native Italian speaker, has contributed exclusively to articles about this topic (or directly related topics) in at least eight languages, listed & linked here at his Talk page, some of which are Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Somali. One has to presume AI is being used in at least some of them (asked here, but not answered). He also has stated that he will not contribute to any other topic (diff-1) and that legal topics are or should be restricted to attorney editors (diff-2, diff-3). Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Motion Seconded

:This guy has said so himself, he is incapable of following basic Wikipedia guidelines. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:seems like a WP:CIR situation as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Be interested in hearing what he has to say before we rush him to the exits. With that, yeah, Citizendium has already been tried, and it was an abject failure. Perhaps Joseph77237 would like to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica thinks his "expertise" is worth anything? Ravenswing 02:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Mathglot offered to mentor him to avoid this very situation, and this was the response: Special:Diff/1288933534. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given that he has remained extremely consistent in his views over the past year, I don't really expect to hear anything from him that he hasn't already said. -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support CBAN per WP:CNH and WP:CIR. Wikipedia isn't a place for civil POV pushing. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 03:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Asilvering}} The links you put to September and January don't go to the quotes they're referencing - may want to check that? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :sigh. Thought I already had fixed them. I will never remember that regular diffs work differently from the ones with "oldid" in them and you can't copy diff #s out of the URL bar half the time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I took asilvering's advice and wandered over to read said talk page and noticed Joseph77237 had made a comment when logged out and then repeated it logged in. That IP, 95.75.78.144, has made significant contributions in the user's topic areas of interest - way beyond the occasional 'Oops, forgot to log' - FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: Not sure which contributions you mean, but the two anons I am aware of that belong to him are {{user|88.58.91.18}} and {{user|95.75.78.144}} but I believe the IP contributions I saw were before his first edits under his registered account. There are two other IPs with similar patterns, but they are from Stockholm and Dusseldorf so may not be him. I doubt we will get to the point where we need to dive deeper on this, but ping me if we do. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• : Support indef CBAN Narrow self-interest, uninterested in working collaboratively, denial of basic Wikipedia principles, lack of competence in editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I came across a currently banned-by-ArbCom user's talk page where multiple editors left messages urging her return. As an individual who suffered from this banned editor's behaviour, I left a note stating my reasons opposing her return and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1289168423 swiftly reverted] by {{u|Fortuna imperatrix mundi}} because my comment was not in support. Fortuna also wrote in edit summary that {{tq|...You wanna do that, it's welcome at the Dramah Boards.}} While restoring my comment, I told Fortuna that they can't only allow one-sided "support" comments and remove any that oppose their views. Fortuna [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1289174678 doubled down by reverting again] and in the edit summary stated {{tq|...yes, I make that call.}} I believe Fortuna's behaviour met the definition of user talk page ownership and also violated talk page guidelines on removing other user's comments. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how this is an example of a {{tq|chronic, intractable behavioral problem}}. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::If an editor foolishly says "take it to the dramah boards" while reverting that's basically them agreeing that there's a behavioral problem somewhere, so escalating to ANI seems reasonable in such a case. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, fair enough. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@MiasmaEternal They did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhanaUnited&diff=1289175688&oldid=1289170848 urge me] to file at ANI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:A user talk page isn't a discussion forum; it's a venue for communicating with the editor. If I were to go over to your talk page -- however justified I thought I was in doing so -- and posted "Stay away and don't ever come back," I would be troutslapped so hard I'd be seeing flounder in my sleep. That's in essence what you did. User talk pages are not the proper venue for opposing appeals of ArbCom actions. Ravenswing 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't seem helpful to put critical comments on a former editor's talk page. And formatting that page so that it seems to solicit bolded iVotes also seems less than ideal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC) (non-objective non-admin)

:A) Negative messages aren't a good idea and skirt WP:GRAVEDANCING rules. But B) "Positive" messages are also not a good idea, at least the ones that pretend that a banned user was purely innocent. It would be wonderful if all sanctioned editors could come back with permissions restored, but this requires them acknowledging they may have done something wrong. Telling such editors that actually everything was fine and they can come back no problem is going to reduce the likelihood of a successful appeal, not increase it, by suggesting "hey it was all haters and I don't need to change at all" is a viable appeal. (But if people want to give bad advice, I guess they can... just don't be surprised at the result.) SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a circling the wagons sort of thing where a long-term editor is defended by a large group of people, no matter the terrible things they do. That entire talk page should be blanked. The past two years of the archive with similar material should be blanked, imo. Silverseren^C 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. The page curation that's happening is troubling, it seems that positive messages are kept front and center while routine notices are deleted immediately even though BHG had auto archiving set up. At one point folks were even being admonished for leaving routine AfD notices. I didn't think it was worth the drama to pursue it when it happened to me, but selectively deleting negative comments is a bridge too far.

::Frankly if BHG does return so editing, it would be a huge pain in the butt for them to dig up all of those notices from the history instead of having them in an archive. At the very least we should ask that editors refrain from tampering with the page. –dlthewave ☎ 05:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have no issue with page blanking or even a section of messages from her supporters. The comment removal was the one that broke the camel's back. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Telling Ohana to take to the drama board was a recognition that they had an issue. They had already reverted once, and as unseemly as posting criticism to someone's page who cannot defend themselves is, edit warring over it would have been worse (not that it got that far of course). So better discuss here than there. The bottom line is that, whether editors should be expressing such support on a user page or not, there's nothing codified against it (and can you imagine even trying to get consensus for a prohibition like that?). Editors support each other via talk page messages; that's what they do. But it's not WP:AN/U. If BHG ever decides to return, that will involve an appeal to ArbCom, and that will be the chance for everybody to express their bolded-or-otherwise opinions, in a forum designed for it and specifically one where all parties can comment. I also think that BHG is experienced enough that if she does ever do so it will not be because a handful of editors said it was OK. I respect that Ohana had a bad experience with her. I also think that when you have a bad experience with someone, it's best to ignore them. But I don't think it justifies... it's been called ~gravedancing, I compared it to poking the bear (from the safety of the other side of the bars!). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think User:OhanaUnited behaved with incredibly poor taste by attacking BHG in a venue where she cannot reply. I told him so on his user talk page, he replied that he's "entitled to [express] my opinion on that page just like any other user". Well, maybe, but it seems to me to be him applying "the letter not the spirit", rather like his failure to notify me of this ANI thread even though I am obviously somewhat involved. Yes, he's entitle to attack someone who cannot defend herself, but it I think to do so shews bad taste, bad judgement (he must have known it would create drama, perhaps that's why he did it), and an unpleasant attitude to his fellow humans. DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: I'd just point out that the majority of those comments were made in 2024; BHG has been eligible to appeal her ban since August 2024. Given that she has never edited since her ban (in August 2023) I'd suggest that writing comments there now is somewhat pointless anyway, but posting "no, stay away, we don't want you" is very poor etiquette, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Making unsolicited negative comments about a banned user where they can't defend themselves is poor form. Much as I empathise with the compulsion to respond to comments urging a return by pointing out the reason for the ban, it's probably better to let things like block logs or arbitration cases or whatever other explanations are given for a ban speak for themselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:All of this is in poor taste. Gravedancing is not cool. Neither is downplaying/ignoring the behavior that led to the ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given all of this I just have to wonder if locking the talk page in question might not be the best solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::^ This should have been done a long time ago. -- GreenC 21:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly should be standard practice for anyone who has talk page access revoked, since its not like they can use it for an unblock request anyways. Silverseren^C 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• you are all children grow up. this behavior is below you. I have yet to see anyone invoke a policy based reason to commandeer BHGs TP. And fwiw im against this trend of manually killing deletion and other such templates on banned users' pages. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Trout for Ohana. GraveDancing and edit warring is not the behaviour I expect from an administrator. Even if they think they're right, being right isn't enough. Nobody (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with {{u|The Bushranger}} just above. BHG currently does not have talk page access anyways, so their appeal for their ban would have to be either as an IP on an AN thread or through messaging Arbcom. Meaning there is currently no need for their talk page to be editable. If we lock the page, that prevents all of this in the first place. Silverseren^C 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Technical correction: since BHG is banned by ArbCom directly (and not through the contentious topics procedure or arbitration enforcement) any appeal would have to be to ArbCom directly (the community cannot under current policy over turn it with a consensus at AN). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've stricken that part. Thanks for the correction. Silverseren^C 22:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support as proposer. Silverseren^C 22:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support The page is pushing the boundaries of what a talk page is meant for, the result it is a source a disruption. C.f WP:FANCLUB for the social dynamics at play, specifically "angry posts" that instigate and spiral into group conflict eg. "you are all children grow up" above. -- GreenC 22:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:IMHO fully protecting the talk page is an optimal way to protect the user from these irrelevant polls (and frequent reversions of required notifications, which I loathe). FTR, BHG didn't come to this end by accident. Nostalgia is often a powerful anesthetic, but BHG and the community did not part amiably. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support a sensible solution with no obvious downsides. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - Best way to put a stop to the disruption. –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

| 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

| 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}}

• {{userlinks|TurboSuperA+}}

I have serious concerns about the conduct of User:TurboSuperA+ based on a recent dispute, which I will elaborate on below.

On 20 April, TurboSuperA+ started an RFC on Talk:Azov Brigade, and cross-posted it to WT:UKRAINE and WP:NPOV/N. I was notified through the former, which is on my watchlist as I have edited it before; I voted no and provided my reasoning, as one does in an RFC (TurboSuperA+ voted yes as the RFC starter).

Today, while the RFC was still ongoing, TurboSuperA+ suddenly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1289204657 added] Template:Canvassed behind my and another no-voter's comments (User:Sonnyvalentino), suggesting that we had come to the RFC because of canvassing. This is a baseless and false accusation: nobody ever contacted me about the RFC on- or off-wiki, and Sonnyvalentino also denied having been canvassed.

I made a subsection calling this out and asking for the evidence - as you can see, TurboSuperA+ claimed repeatedly to have secret evidence of off-wiki collusion that they've submitted to ArbCom but apparently can't present in public (whatever this is, I cannot possibly be involved in it - I have never received any off-wiki communications from other editors in all my time on Wikipedia), and also engaged in childish trolling behaviour. This seems to be a textbook case of WP:ASPERSIONS#Off-wiki evidence. When I pressed the matter, TurboSuperA+ finally removed the templates with an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1289229831 uncivil edit summary], and demanded that I "stop pinging them" (so, creating a problem by making accusations against other editors, and then demanding that those editors stop responding).

I also raised this issue on TurboSuperA+'s talk page, denying the accusation, asking to see the evidence, and pointing out that it was not constructive to put accusatory templates without evidence on editors who disagreed with them in an ongoing RFC. TurboSuperA+'s response reversed the burden of proof by questioning why Sonnyvalentino would even respond to the RFC ({{tq|"What list? Where? Why that RFC in particular, despite never showing an interest in the topic area before?"}}), as if users need a {{tq|"plausible explanation"}} or TurboSuperA+'s permission to respond to the RFC they themselves started and intentionally publicised on two different boards (also ignoring the fact that Sonnyvalentino has often edited in the Eastern Europe topic area, and revealing that TurboSuperA+ did not bother to do basic due diligence before casting aspersions, because they belatedly realised here that I frequently edit Ukraine-related articles and it's not suspicious for me to respond to a Ukraine-related RFC).

A few days before the accusations of canvassing, I also had an exchange with TurboSuperA+ starting here that I found remarkable for the amount of strawmanning, refusal to get the point, and misrepresentation of both my comments and Wikipedia policy such as WP:ONUS (e.g. {{tq|"The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break"}} [between the Azov Brigade and the Azov Movement], when I had repeatedly explained that I was not saying Wikipedia should make that claim in wikivoice, but that Wikipedia should cover the dispute between WP:RSes that make that claim and RSes that claim the opposite (per WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts").

Frankly, either TurboSuperA+ was intentionally misrepresenting my comments and being disruptive in this exchange, or they genuinely don't understand the difference between writing "some sources claim X [while others claim Y]" and writing in wikivoice "X is true", in which case WP:CIR applies for contentious topics. To be clear, the issue I'm raising here is not with TurboSuperA+'s own stance on this content dispute, but with the way they conducted themselves in this discussion by writing repetitive responses to me misrepresenting and strawmanning my stance.

While I was initially willing to move past the exchange on Talk:Azov Brigade#Discussion, I feel that the false accusations of responding to canvassing crossed a line. Even if TurboSuperA+ truly suspected canvassing - and to be totally charitable, even if they genuinely have off-wiki evidence but simply misidentified the users who had been canvassed - it strikes me as deeply inappropriate to tag the responses of editors who happen to disagree with you with accusatory templates seeking to disqualify their comments, when you cannot provide any evidence that your accusations are true or even credible (rather than, for instance, asking the users how they found the RFC). Not only is this rude and uncivil, it undermines the RFC by seeming like an attempt to distort consensus and silence other users.

Worse, I see that this is not the first time TurboSuperA+ has conducted themselves in this manner. There is an archived ANI discussion from February this year about disputed closures on contentious topics, where multiple users noted their belligerent behaviour and refusal to get the point. There is also an admin warning from January 2025 about WP:AGF and not baselessly accusing other users of conspiratorial behaviour simply because they disagree with TurboSuperA+ - in other words, precisely the pattern of conduct that the canvassing accusations fit into. At that time, User:Bishonen said {{tq|"Any more baseless nonsense about other users being underhanded or the like, and I will block you."}} I now raise this here in case that or any other sanction is necessary. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I swear one of the consequences of ChatGPT seem to be that even the posts that don't appear to be actually chat-bot written (chatGPT rarely makes spelling mistakes) have that overly formal, overwritten ChatGPT style. To summarize this: TurboSuperA+ has claimed that they suspect certain editors (Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino if I'm not mistaken) may have been canvassed. When asked about this further TurboSuperA+ said their evidence was off-wiki and had been emailed to arbitrators. Helpful Cat wants them blocked for this. I think how this is addressed may depend on an arbitrator confirming:

:# whether evidence was received.

:# whether this evidence of off-wiki collaboration was non-spurious.

:If TurboSuperA+ did, in fact, have reason to believe off-wiki canvassing was going on then it's not casting aspersions to say they suspect certain editors have been canvassed. On the other hand, if this is just more battleground behaviour and not backed up by reasonable evidence then it's probably time for them to take a break from Russia/Ukraine articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, if they are just muddying the water (again) they need to be stopped. If however, they have a valid concern, a boomerang may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Even if they do have off-wiki evidence, I don't believe it's appropriate for a user who is clearly involved in a dispute to tag comments opposing them with vague accusations of misconduct within the RFC itself, and then refuse to present any evidence, leaving the accusation up to conveniently discredit editors who disagree with them while the RFC is ongoing while denying them the chance to defend themselves. It might be more appropriate to ask those users about the concerns before baselessly tagging their comments, or raise the concerns separately, or wait for the ArbCom investigation.

::It is also concerning that this fits into a pattern of groundlessly accusing others of collusion that admins have warned this user about before.

::It is also not just the accusations themselves, but the pattern of incivility and WP:IDHT behaviour. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's actually not too uncommon, if you have a suspicion of canvassing, to identify those people you think may have been canvassed. I see it regularly at AfD for instance. And it does seem a bit like you're attempting to get an ideological opponent voted off the island so to speak with how you've moved the goalposts in this last line of your comment . I, for one, want to hear from the arbitrators whether there was any reasonable suspicion of canvassing before I'd commit to how we should proceed. I do, broadly, agree with @Slatersteven here that it's likely somebody should face disciplinary action for this latest exchange. I've not really made my mind up about who. I will note that your argument with TurboSuperA+ regarding a tag indicating they suspected you may have been canvassed did rather derail the RfC and it takes two to tango but I would also agree that, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Brigade#c-TurboSuperA+-20250507071400-Helpful_Cat-20250507071200 this edit] from TurboSuperA+ was poorly advised and rather childish. Saying nothing would have been wiser in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How did I move the goalposts? I already described the incivility and WP:IDHT behaviour in my original post, which has three subsections.

::::I think it is TurboSuperA+'s action of tagging me and Sonnyvalentino (without even discussing their concerns in any more civil or reasonable way) that derailed the RFC - it seems unfair to say that I derailed it by defending myself against baseless accusations, which everyone has the right to do.

::::While it may not be uncommon to identify users you suspect were canvassed, I don't think it is normal or appropriate to do this 1) with zero public evidence, thus not allowing them to respond, 2) to users you are already in a content dispute with, when you clearly benefit from silencing those users, and 3) publicly so that your accusations influence the ongoing RFC, while no one can respond to the accusations. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I thought you had responded. It might be best to stop responding and allow Admins to judge the merits of your case, rather than testing their patience. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, let's wait for admin input, and hopefully arbitrator input about the existence and quality of the secret evidence (and whether that evidence actually identifies specific canvassed users, as opposed to general evidence of canvassing). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Helpful Cat You get Arbitrator input cases or clarification requests brought before the Committee, don’t expect it here. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I see, thanks for informing me - in that case, I guess we won't find out about the secret evidence as Simonm223 suggested above. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I have opened a clarification request at the following link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request%3A_Russo-Ukrainian_War_AN_discussion] Please note that I framed the question as best I could to respect that arbitrators are not going to violate WP:OUTING while getting at the gist of my concern regarding this element of the dispute.

:::::::::::I'm not here for treating any editor as the boy who cried wolf as I see below. But I do think that we should treat any invocation of off-wiki evidence with due seriousness and gravity. So if that is being gamed then that's an issue I would take very seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for opening this. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Just as an update: The arbitration committee has confirmed that an email has been received on this topic. They have advised information beyond that is unlikely to be forthcoming in the short term. I'm disinclined to recommend disciplinary action prior to the completion of Arbitration activity on this one - so maybe warnings to both TurboSuperA+ and Helpful Cat for some battleground behaviour and then close this off as in the Arbitration court for the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Thanks for the update. I would be inclined to leave this open slightly longer (without necessarily recommending specific disciplinary action for anyone before we get more arbitrator input on the secret evidence), because we haven't heard from TurboSuperA+ themselves, and because a user below has posted documentation of this user's history doing this exact thing (accusations of canvassing when users disagree with them), which may be worth exploring.

::::::::::::::FWIW, I disagree that I was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour - a false accusation of misconduct was made against me, and I responded to it; I was engaged in civil, constructive discussion all over Talk:Azov Brigade until I was personally accused of misconduct - although I admit I could have handled it better (I haven't encountered canvassing accusations before and am not familiar with how they are usually handled or what standard of evidence is required).

::::::::::::::I also think there is room for community discussion on how to handle accusations of misconduct where the evidence can't be disclosed. While off-wiki manipulation is real and there are clearly situations where evidence must be kept secret, it also does not seem right to let editors involved in disputes influence ongoing RFCs (or other discussions) by posting accusations against other involved editors, and then refuse to substantiate the accusations so that no one can respond. Perhaps this is an area where consensus is required on standards of behaviour and civility. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Surprisingly, the user had previously made baseless canvassing remarks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#c-TurboSuperA+-20250308054500-The_Bushranger-20250308000400][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#c-TurboSuperA+-20250305221700-Voorts-20250228014400][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#c-TurboSuperA+-20250307105700-The_Bushranger-20250307092900] which nearly [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#Topic_ban_imposed fueled] their [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#TurboSuperA%2B_closes previous] ANI sanction, to the extent of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#c-The_Bushranger-20250308074800-TurboSuperA+-20250308064700 indefinite block]. {{U|The Bushranger}} advised them to drop the stick, but they continue to exhibit the full extent of aspersions. The user has failed to demonstrate civil and non-battleground behavior, repeatedly showcasing a clear WP:NOTHERE pattern. Perhaps an indef is imminent? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for finding and documenting these - I see a concerning pattern. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This. The sort of behaviour on display here is nothing new from this editor, their WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern fuelled by aggressive bludgeoning of discussions and edit warring persisting even while on thin ice should say enough. I wouldn't blame an admin for handing out an indef, but a topic ban from Eastern Europe might suffice as well and give a chance to be productive elsewhere, assuming the intent here is to actually improve the site. TylerBurden (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{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)

{{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)

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)

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)

{{u|David Eppstein}} has been causing regular issues at WP:GAR for years, and I'd like for the community to weigh in. The way the GAR process usually works: someone notices that a Good Article has deteriorated so that it no longer meets the good article criteria, they add it to GAR, and a few people !vote to keep or delist. If there are interested editors, it sometimes becomes a talk page style dialogue where people work to fix up the article. The whole thing is very lightweight and procedural.

Except when a mathematics article is sent up for reassessment. At that point, David joins the discussion to challenge its delisting regardless of quality, and belittes the intelligence of the people involved for not understanding mathematics. He seems to believe that lowering an article's quality assessment is unfair to anyone who edits in the subject area, and this has more broadly become an attempt by David to stonewall any effort to send articles to GAR. Numerous editors have pushed back against this to no avail.

Examples:

• September 2023: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1 – Asked {{tq|What is someone with such an extreme anti-intellectual point of view doing editing Wikipedia?}} because AirshipJungleman29 said that Apollo 11 is a broader article than a prominent mathematician, and said that people are {{tq|bean counters}} if they believe that a 26,000-word article needs to be trimmed down
• January 2024: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Vector space/1 – Said that AirshipJungleman29's nomination of articles at GAR {{tq|comes across as selfish and thoughtless}} because he doesn't fix them all himself
• May 2025: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Matrix (mathematics)/1 – Criticized Z1720 for being {{tq|confrontational}} solely because Z1720 started the GAR without adding maintenance tags

The real trouble starts when this comes up at WT:GAN and is bludgeoned to death each time, with David challenging anyone who tries to explain the purpose of GAR to him:

• September 2023: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#We should never delist articles
• March 2024: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 31#Mathematics articles and adherence to GA criteria
• January 2025: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 33#Aggressive/adversarial reassessment campaigns
• May 2025: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Older GARs needing participation

We are still in the latter discussion, where David is again inciting conflict because he doesn't like that people are using GAR as it is intended. This is all over a simple quality evaluation process and it needs to stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:TBUA, no, why didn't you include the thing you said earlier today about the Neumann GA review where you accused everybody who !voted to retain the article as a GA as taking part in {{tqq|Canvassed WP:STONEWALLING}}? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#c-Thebiguglyalien-20250507182300-GreenLipstickLesbian-20250507175300] And when I disagreed with you, said I was {{tqq|going to bat for people who are deliberately slowing down a process just so they can artificially inflate the number of badges}}? I thought those statements had a bit of pizazz. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I assumed that the September 2023 WT:GAN discussion (including the evidence of canvassing, which was separate from David and belongs in a different ANI discussion) was sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But... pizazz! And ABF! We can't have an AN/I thread without that last one, can we? {{pb}} You've got a representation by the way, by the way. You said Eppstein said Airship "doesn't fix them all himself". What was actually said was that he felt they put articles up for review {{tqq|without any evidence of putting effort into cleaning up those articles yourself first}}. I mean, as you've established, the GAR review process involves very little WP:SOFIXIT; that's by design. It's not about article improvement, like you've said, it's purely about accurate talkpage ratings. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:What a severe violation of WP:AGF.

:The actual current situation:

:*I complained on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Matrix (mathematics)/1 that Z1720 was initiating GARs like the one on Matrix (mathematics) where the sourcing problems (which definitely required cleanup to maintain GA status) were not immediately evident because they were untagged. My issue here is that GAR is a process where the GAR nominator demands immediate work from someone else, often and in this case substantial work, at the threat of losing GA status for the article. For an article that is routinely watchlisted and maintained, cleaning up individual problems as they arise can be less onerous. And we have many GA-listed articles with stale cleanup tags suggesting that they are unmaintained. I requested more attention to those, and tagging instead of immediate GAR initiation to the articles that were maintained and had problems but were untagged.

:*Z1720 asked that I move the issues to WT:GAN, where I did, and where my comment was immediately severely misinterpreted by Thebiguglyalien and other GAR regulars as an attempt to slow down or halt the GAR process. For the record, I have no such intent; I think substandard and unmaintained articles should be brought to GAR. We have many such articles. My complaints are not about the existence of GAR, but about the apparent focus of the regulars on delisting as many articles as they can as quickly as they can by ambushing maintainers of maintained articles with sudden demands for immediate huge cleanup efforts, discouraging rather than encouraging article improvement.

:*While the GAN discussion was blowing up, Z1720 went to Shapley–Folkman lemma, an article that I created and was involved in the GA process for (although the nominator was someone else long-blocked for incivility), tag-bombed it (significantly differing from their previous behavior of suggesting GAR without the tag-bomb), and suggested on the talk page that it be brought to GAR. Naturally, the possibility that Z1720 was violating WP:POINT and WP:HOUND came to mind for me, but also the possibility that it might be a coincidence, as they bring many articles to GAR. I said as much on the talk page, and would have left it there. (And again, for the record, the Shapley–Folkman lemma article does need cleanup. I have started the cleanup process on it. The issue is not the cleanup request but its timing. Because Z1720 is demanding two big cleanups from me simultaneously, and because looking up sources for technical claims take significant time and effort, both cleanups will necessarily proceed at a slow pace.)

:*Instead, Z1720 escalated to WT:GAN and now Thebiguglyalien has escalated here.

:*In the course of discussion, Z1720 has exhibited multiple points on which they disagree with the written Good Article criteria and instead are enforcing stronger rules, two of those being idiosyncratic interpretations of what is reasonable to require sourcing for, instead of the WP:CRC interpration that the criteria link directly to, and an idiosyncratic interpretation that every paragraph must have a footnote marker at its exact end, differing from the GACR wording that every reasonably-sourced claim must be sourced anywhere before the end of the paragraph. This board is about behavior, but I think enforcing imagined rules in place of the actual consensus rules is problematic behavior.

:Perhaps now that we're here we can discuss the behavior of Z1720 and the dogpiling that Thebiguglyalien is exhibiting instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::No comment on the overall dispute here, but one note: {{tqq|an idiosyncratic interpretation that every paragraph must have a footnote marker at its exact end}} - this is hardly idiosyncratic. This is...honestly how I thought GA worked, and I presume many other editors as well. It's absolutely how WP:DYK works and that's a much lower bar than GA - I was honestly shocked to double-check and see that WP:GACR does indeed only mention 'reasonably challengable content' needs citation, as opposed to every paragraph requiring at least one citation at its end (presuming it's citing the the entire paragraph). I do have to wonder if that's because GACR is an older page that hasn't been updated to reflect changed community noms? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The disagreement here is merely that the requirement says that sourcing must happen no later than the end of the same paragraph, while Z1720 says it must be exactly at the end. As an example, look at the first paragraph of Matrix (mathematics)#Size; the actual claims in the paragraph are sourced, and followed by a simple unsourced example that falls under WP:CALC as not needing sourcing. Z1720 would demand a footnote for that example. That wording was added fairly recently; it is not left over from different standards of long ago. Perhaps it's because the sourcing requirement for GACR is based on putting thought into what needs sourcing rather than on just superficially checking that the footnote markers are placed in the positions they most frequently are placed. Another relatively recent change, again focusing on thought rather than superficial checks, is that GA reviewers are required to at least spot-check that sources say what they are claimed to be sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} Citation after text is it sourcing is how GA has worked for quite awhile, in line with the other quality assessment processes. The "no later than the end of the paragraph" has always been to ensure citation aren't placed at the end of sections or multiple paragraphs, I've not seen it used to add citations before text before. I suspect the GACR follows the older norms reflected at WP:V from the time when sources were rarer. CMD (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"After text it is sourcing" and "at the exact end of the paragraph" are two different things.

::::There are situations, though, where it is very inconvenient to place the citations after the material it is sourcing (text is the wrong word) and easily understood to put it before. The one that comes to mind for me is when a paragraph ends with a displayed mathematical equation. The convention has long been that the sourcing for such material goes at the end of the text just before the equation, even when the source covers the equation itself. Two reasons for this are that footnote markers in mathematical equations could easily be misinterpreted as part of the mathematics, because mathematical formulas also often involve bracketed numbers, and that the standard wikiformatting for these equations, <math display=block>..., does not allow anything but mathematical notation on the same line as the equation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure where you're getting the quote "at the exact end of the paragraph" from, it doesn't appear to be something I've said above or that you've said. I used text, I'm not sure what the purpose is for saying text is the wrong word and then giving an example that is specifically not text. CMD (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That wasn't you, it was Z1720, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1289317377&oldid=1289317141 here]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Every paragraph should have a footnote at its end, but the notion that all footnotes must be at thge end is just plain stupid. This would result in paragraphs having very large numbers of citations at the end, and make it much harder to verify the facts in the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have given an example above of a paragraph that should not have a footnote at its end. "Every paragraph should have a footnote at its end" is too dogmatic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. Your example is a good one. The MOS also allows for citations before block quotations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I regularly review good and featured articles. David Eppstein's behaviour has caused me to limit by reviews in mathematics articles because, instead of focusing on article content, their responses to my comments are filled with personal attacks and hostility towards me. Some examples below:

• March 2024 in the Emmy Noether FAR: "This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1212686414&oldid=1212641799]
• November 2024 in the Emmy Noether FAR: "Z1720's uninformed but relentless desire to remove all context and background for why Noether is considered so significant, and their failure to provide substantive comments in response to requests for detailed specifics, is noted but can be discounted." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254973750&oldid=1254567868] When {{u|Nikkimaria}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254973750&oldid=1254567868 removed the content] because it didn't focus on article content, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254994692&oldid=1254973750 DE restored it].
• May 3 in the Matrix GAR: claimed I was deflecting in the WT:GAN conversation after I asked that comments on my conduct be directed there (or at least not in the Matrix GAR). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_article_reassessment%2FMatrix_%28mathematics%29%2F1&diff=1288597594&oldid=1288580311]
• May 7: After posting a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289207508&oldid=1258180213 notice in Shapley–Folkman lemma], DE said I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289226255&oldid=1289207508 hounding him]. I do not check the article history or GAN before reviewing the article. If I did, I would see that DE has made a handful of minor edits over the past 5 years and was not the GA nominator, though was thanked by the GA nominator for helping.
• May 7: When another editor suggested that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289266046&oldid=1289260957 review another math article] (and I agreed to do so sometime in the not-near future), DE stated that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289273891&oldid=1289266046 he would consider my review as hounding him] as he had made significant updates to that article as well. He repeated accusations that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289302172&oldid=1289294998 I was targeting him], that I should conduct my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289273891&oldid=1289266046 "badge-police activity"] on articles with older tags, and to set up a GARR on articles that I have nominated to GAR. He later stated on WT:GAN that this was a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1289324335&oldid=1289322062 "not-very-serious request for a GARR"]
• May 7: Called me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1289335639&oldid=1289335316 "a self-proclaimed enforcer of GA rules"].

I just want to draw attention to status articles that need to be updated and cited. I've worked collaboratively in FARs like Chinua Achebe and in GARs to a lesser extent like Klamath River, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and on talk pages like Kali. I try to come back to re-review GAs when someone has made improvements, though sometimes real life gets in the way. Whenever I post a review or a GAR, my goal is to find someone interested enough in the article to make improvements, and maintain the article after the GAR is over so that a new GAR isn't opened in 15 years.

In regards to citations at the end of the paragraph: ANI is not the place for that conversation. I hope an RfC is opened on this topic in the appropriate forum. Others have disagreed with my interpretation of the GA criteria, and I think those discussions focused on the content. DE's disagreement with me goes beyond content and towards personal attacks, in my opinion. I am happy to address any questions others might have: feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding the behavioral issue, I recently had a dispute with David Eppstein and I did not find his demeanor to be collegial or any tendency toward self-reflection. While my report (at admin review) did not result in any overturning of his action, which may have been because I did not file it here or made it about rollback use instead of overall behavior, I was struck by his rudeness and his unwillingness to compromise or to seek reconciliation while steamrolling others in pursuit of his own opinion. In my view that is an WP:ADMINACCT issue. I see a similar thing happening here. I think admins have long been expected to collaborate and seek feedback and to respond humbly when someone criticizes their action. Andre🚐 01:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I have also had negative experiences with David Eppstein. It is my experience that he cares little about civility and is always convinced he is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. This whole drama is because David Eppstein is outraged that the entire GAR process does not bend to his whims. How dare the entire website not act in a way that's convenient to his schedule. Review all the linked discussions and this theme becomes overwhelmingly clear. Couple this with habitual incivility and you're left with someone who is failing to live up to the standards we expect for administrators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Re "This whole drama is because David Eppstein is outraged that the entire GAR process does not bend to his whims.": [citation please]. This board has rules about making claims about other editors that cannot be backed up.
• ::Some editors appear to disagree with my belief that a GAR could be an opportunity for a constructive review process that improves an article, and instead appear to prefer a GAR process that is as quick and as focused only on delisting as it can be. That is a disagreement, but we can all have disagreements, they are not the same as demands, and they do not usually cause problems. What I am frustrated by is that that every time I express the opinion that GAR should aim for constructive improvement rather than aiming for delisting, a group of people whose names you would recognize among the opinions here twist what I say into the opinions of an imaginary strawman, shout down the strawman, and then drag me here to ANI for having the temerity to have said the things their imaginary strawman said. But frustration is not outrage and it is not a demand that the entire process do what I say.
• ::So if you are going to make accusations here, on ANI, about my attitude and my behavior, that I believe to be contradictory to my actual beliefs, I think I am in the right to demand proof. That is an actual demand. Proof or retraction, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Z1720: you are misrepresenting several of my comments. For instance, you write "said I was hounding him" and "stated that he would consider my review as hounding him". What I actually wrote was that although it would be easy to interpret your behavior as hounding, per AGF I was not doing so (because it could well have been coincidence) and would not do so unless there was more evidence such as following me to another article. And it would have stayed at that statement of AGF on that talk page if you and Thebiguglyalien had not escalated it first to WT:GAN and now here. Take responsibility for the drama you are stirring up yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is that a misrepresentation of the hounding comment? Your comment "I'm sure, per WP:AGF, that the timing of this has nothing to do with WP:POINT, WP:HOUND, and the fact that we have been having a somewhat heated discussion on WT:GAR, but you must realize that as an article on my watchlist and that I significantly contributed to the Good Article nomination of, I will contribute to cleaning up at least some of the uncited statements, the ones that really do need cleaning up." feels sarcastic... If you were actually AGFing and didn't mean to at least cast light aspersions or give a warning why would you write that sentence at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::... never mind that we have no idea what articles may or might not be on David Eppstein's watchlist, nor yet any idea which articles he is or is not moved to clean up. Ravenswing 05:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you really care to know the ones I consider myself already involved in, rather than in making some kind of rhetorical point, I have a list on my user page. You could also look at the initial GA review, although for the case of the Shapley–Folkman lemma it would have been easier and more informative to look at who created the article. I might step in on others, but they wouldn't raise any suspicions from me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:GAR: {{tq|Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.}} The GAR nominator must be a subject matter expert on the article's subject area, and be prepared to work on the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::"The GAR nominator must be a subject matter expert on the article's subject area" where are you getting that from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is not what the quoted text even remotely means and I ask that you drop this idea right here and now. I don't need a PhD to tell that an article is lacking citations or out of date. This sort of gatekeeping is entirely inappropriate. For the area I am in fact a subject matter expert in, I resent the idea that anyone not extremely familiar with trains should be banned from initiating a GAR on a train article. If anyone said "Hawkeye7 should never do a GAR on trains because he isn't a subject matter expert in that area" I would call them out. What you're suggesting is simply ridiculous and would only serve to completely kill the GAR process and cause a major chilling effect.

::A nominator needs to engage with the discussion and work with other editors. They do not need to have a decade's worth of study of the subject. This is a general interest encyclopedia, not a research journal. Gatekeeping is the antithesis to Wikipedia. We literally call it "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: {{tq|The parent article should have general summary information like a lead, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered.}} So, as we drill down further, more expertise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::...I can only assume you're being facetious/sarcastic? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, yeah, it'd sure be swell if every editor was an expert on the subject matter of articles with which they interact. That's never been the case, we could scarcely prove it if it was, and we all know the propensity of people to inflate "I took a couple classes in that at university" to being shortlisted for the Fields Medal. Ravenswing 05:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{small|As we pause to remember our former colleague Essjay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::I think it is not too revealing to say without naming names that we have had at least one actual Fields medalist among our editors, years ago. Sadly he seems to have stopped editing after one too many of his creations got nominated for deletion by editors not sharing his sense for what was important to cover. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 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)