Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1192

Vandalism in James Bond 007 articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't understand what a guy named Barry Wom has a problem with me when I simply want to contribute to Wikipedia. My crime according to that guy: including sources in the two cited articles because it is block evasion. There must be something wrong here. If this guy thinks everyone who edits Wikipedia is evading blocks, then (Personal attack removed). Please take action because I don't understand what's going on.--2800:484:7385:3F0:F06B:6AED:EB75:F6A8 (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you strike "he's not right in the head", as it is a personal attack. And you didn't notify them of this discussion, which is required, nor have you bothered to discuss this matter with them on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

One thing, though, I'd like to hear from User:Barry Wom about reverting edits with "block evasion", because I can't see the block that's being evaded, and the edits are clearly good faith otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be a frequent edit summary they use for IP editors, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but all for IPs from the same area, which is why I'm interested in who the blocked editor is; I can't see any previous blocks on those IP ranges. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's from a blocked/banned user. What's wrong with the blocked person or someone else editing something for good? 2800:484:7385:3F0:785A:21A7:63AB:BC7F (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Because block evasion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, thus it very much does matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked a month for block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppeting from an editor who has been evading blocks for over eight years. Their most recently used IP range was blocked a month ago by @Daniel Case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Barry Wom (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I should probably identify the blocked LTA user here. This account was created in 2023, but they have been tracked back as far as this account from 2017. Their first language is Spanish and they've also been indefinitely blocked from the Spanish Wiki. Barry Wom (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You're just like that guy. I think you're even worse. And I'll tell you why: looking at that whole sock-puppet history, it's clear that guy was being uncooperative, but neither are you with your actions. Why sabotage what others do? Another one who starts saying "violation of Wikipedia policies"; as if that would lead to jail. Finally, I see that you have, I don't know if I should call it xenophobia, toward people who speak Spanish, and it's also clear that you sow a lot of intrigue. 2800:484:7385:3F0:35CA:2F2E:9:A3BB (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Brutally beaten" IP returns

See this for context. On 3 June, 2600:4040:5E53:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for two weeks by Rsjaffe, but after the block expired they immediately returned to make the same edits. Can we get a longer block this time? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Since rangeblocks haven't helped it may be better to blacklist that particular phrase. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done one month. – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel: Might be worth posting at WP:EFR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Done! Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Mellk (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: Someone came along and said it would be discussed on the mailing list, whatever that is. 😊 Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Found another edit. Not sure if this is the same person since this is from a different location and there are no other similar edits from this range. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that it's a different vandal. Edits in general are quite different though all in this /64 are vandalism. This one frequents AN/I so probably just picked up on the pattern. The IPs are only 40 miles apart, so there is a very slight possibility it is the same person. Not very active, so don't think action is necessary.n. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. I saw the previous edits to ANI and thought the same. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MoneyWikipedian creating articles with nonexistent sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

As far as I can tell, all of the articles User:MoneyWikipedian has created are AI-generated; they mostly cite nonexistent or irrelevant sources. I draftified several of their articles and got one deleted at AfD; they then blanked their user talk page , which also contained warnings from two other users regarding nonexistent sources. After they reverted one of my draftifications without fixing the sourcing issues (instead they seem to have simply run the text through an LLM again ), I left them a personal warning message . They have now blanked their user talk page again without responding to the issues and have just created another article where four out of five citations simply do not exist. I'm hoping an admin can apply a pblock from mainspace until this user can explain their behavior. Toadspike [Talk] 14:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Communication is required. Only response I've seen to the concerns is the one-word response: "prove?". Blocked from article space and invited to discuss here.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

They removed an {{AI generated}} warning with the edit summary "no prove im use Ai", which isn't a satisfactory response to anything. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that "Raja Kecil Rebellion" was pushed off into draft world. Maybe we should do the same for Battle of Perak (1658). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I am very busy at the moment, but I hope to check the remainder of their creations (and other content contributions) in the coming days, draftifying or AfDing as needed. If someone else does this before I get around to it, I would be very grateful. Toadspike [Talk] 18:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern about editor CNMall41's behavior: COI accusation, tag addition without discussion, and article flagged without due process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Admins,

I’m raising a concern regarding editor CNMall41 on the article Shashwat Singh.

On 12 June 2025, CNMall41 made the following edits:

Removed content from the Discography section claiming sources do not mention the subject — but they do.

Added the tag without first opening discussion on the Talk page.

Flagged the article with a message that “A major contributor to this article has a close connection with its subject.” This is not true.

The article was also flagged as not meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG) — though no clear reason or guidance was offered.

Diffs for reference:

COI tag added without discussion

Content removal with unclear sourcing claim

I (user Msmimiin) have contributed to this page in good faith — with:

Proper citations

Neutral, verifiable content

A single account (I earlier edited from IP 103.115.24.85 just to fix a typo)

I have no undisclosed connection with the article subject, nor am I paid or promotional. The accusation of close connection is unfounded. I am happy to declare anything transparently if asked.

My requests:

1. Can an admin please review whether CNMall41’s behavior (tagging/accusations/removals) is appropriate and collaborative?

2. Can someone advise how to properly address the "not meeting guidelines" flag? I’d like to improve the article constructively and according to WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO.

3. Is it appropriate to remove the COI tag if there is no valid evidence and no discussion?

I appreciate any help resolving this in line with Wikipedia policies.

Thank you,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmimiin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Msmimiin, please do not post LLM-generated comments in Wikipedia discussions. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, please note that when you start a discussion about other editors on this noticeboard, you must notify them. I've notified CNMall41 for you at User talk:CNMall41 § Incidents noticeboard discussion. The instructions at the top of the noticeboard explain how to do this. — Newslinger talk 17:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I am new , this information is helpful, but it would be much more helpful and kind if you can help me solve the problem for which I have raised my concern. For a new editor , it will be helpful to get support from the experienced ones.

Thanks 🙏 Msmimiin (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Msmimiin I can't find evidence of CNMall41 doing anything wrong on that article. They have made 9 edits to that article. It would be helpful if you listed which WP:DIFFs you find problematic and why. Polygnotus (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I request you to check the articles flag . I am not able to understand why the article have been flagged as not meeting the wikipedia guideline after providing several reliable secondary sources to each point of the article . Also, it has been tagged as the major contributor has a close connection, where's the proof of these two points ? If there are 9 edits I believe that's for the betterment of the article but why not removing this flags . Msmimiin (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an adequate explanation on Talk:Shashwat Singh for how you came to possess the rights to File:Shashwat_Singh,_Indian_playback_singer,_2025.jpg, which you claimed to own when uploading the image. Can you please explain this? Further, that article has seen repeated sockpuppetry by UPE editors, which is also true of the one other article that you've made significant edits to, Aditi Paul. CNMall41 could have done a bit better of a job explaining their reasoning, but their caution seems prudent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I could have (and should have) and I'll take the trout if warranted as it was lazy on my part. I should have done the SPI on that date so sorry that we are now here wasting everyone's time. Just filed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Since you guys are from the west I don't expect you guys know many Indian celebs so I request you to be kind and patient and don't come to any conclusion so fast for 'new which belongs to the Indian celebs be it a single or actor or anyone , also please don't make it so difficult for new editors those who have the knowledge about the subject matter and contributing, if you point out the error and guide me what to do without flagging the same with your valuable comment , I can try and fix the eroor . We can make this a better community with each others help and support. Your comment is valuable so kindly and wisely use it that's a request.

Thanks 🙏 Msmimiin (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any bylaws in wikipedia to prove the rights belongs to the uploader ? As a matter of fact as per wikipedia guidelines when anyone uploads a pic on Wikipedia commons the details of picture already exists there , when I have uploaded the picture in Wikipedia commons means I have the right very simple. Why you guys making it so difficult for Indian celebrities to have a wikipedia page and the editors who contributed their knowledge on that particular page ? Yes I have also contributed to Aditi Paul's page and other pages too where I have the knowledge about the subject matter ,those who are Indian celebs . If there's a problem let me know how to fix it , I will follow your guidelines. Msmimiin (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

By uploading as "own work", you state that you are the photographer (that's what it means for the photograph to be your own work). If that's not the case, then the rights statement needs to be updated accordingly. It is, in fact, Wikipedia policy to correctly identify image material and ensure that its license is compatible. If it is your photo, you should clarify what event it was taken at or how else you came to take such a close range photo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned in the talk page and clarified the photo has been taken from a public press meet , where I was present and took the photo hence the rights belongs to me. Hope I have clarified. Now please don't ask what is the event where is the event etc because in India specifically in Bollywood or Mumbai film industry there are events happening in every 19 mints at a random public place , may be the wall looking good and I take good pictures that's why you guys are thinking it's a professional shoot but it's not , can't you see the image details , it has the phone details, date etc then why this question is being raised I don't understand. Msmimiin (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

To be specific during the song promotion of the song 'zamaana Lage' singer Shashwat Singh in Mumbai 2025 , do I need to put this caption ? I have the rights to the photo , does that match wikipedia policy? Msmimiin (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'm satisfied with this response, without having looked at the sockpuppet case evidence, which I expect SPI clerks will resolve separately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and guidance. I would like to request you to also look into the SPI matter , I strongly feel it's being mixed up , there are ids which are blocked and being tagged as sockpuppets, but when someone is genuine how they prove it is there any policy or guideline to prove not guilty here ? My IP address is different, device is different, everything different just because I have edited a same page where someone else contributed does that mean I am with them ? In that way in every wikipedia pages there are atleast 5/6 editors contribute or may be more than that then what admins will conclude ...all of them from same team or farm ? I am clueless how to solve this puzzle and allegations. If you can guide will appreciate.

Thanks in advance. Msmimiin (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion was closed by Star Mississippi in 1296885077, but the linked SPI report does not seem to have resulted in a block. I am not familiar with the purported sockmaster and do not have any insight into this particular match, although as I noted above the suspicion of sockpuppetry is certainly reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hi I think you guys are doing SPI on some other ID's where I have no relation or connection , neither anyone can establish that connection when I don't have the connection, admins can check the IP and location feel free to check it and come to a closure and release me from your suspect list , this is absolutely not needed , suspecting an innocent and genuine contributor is not required..

  I hope you or other admins will come to a closure soon and release me from your sock puppet suspect list.

  Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have no objection with your reopening @Rosguill. @Msmimiin please stop asking multiple people to review and expedite the SPI. It will be handled as a matter of standard practice and will not be expedited just because you request it. But to paraphrase @Robert McClenon, if you don't want to be accused of being a sock, stop behaving like one. You are not a new editor. Star Mississippi 01:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  That sounds like WP:Canvassing to me. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Much needed unbiased POV. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think I should clarify that my comment was referring to Msmimiin directly asking individual editors to help them. That is what canvassing is. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks again . Since I am a new editor I don't know lot of terms , educating myself and applying it here . I didn't know how to react or do the needful ence asked for the guidance here didn't know it's called canvassing, will not repeat the mistake. Msmimiin (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It is 100% CANVASSING and it continues.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• When multiple admins are commenting about my id , I am requesting all of them . I am a new editor that's the reason I am shocked to know I am suspected as a sockpuppet, well I don't know how they behave, definitely not like me who is defending politely. Sockpuppets will never defend since they know they are guilty, they will wait for the verdict since I am new , I don't know all this hence genuinely seek help . Anyway, thanks for your valuable suggestion, will wait for the conclusion of the standard practice.

  Thanks again. Msmimiin (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so there is no system of due process. Everything is done through the required communication and consensus building. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Much needed reply . Thanks for the neutral POV. Msmimiin (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Msmimiin. I know it's stressful being named in an SPI case. I know, I was accused of being a sock when I first started editing here, many longtime editors have. But, in these sorts of cases, being impatient can often cause one to lash out and say inappropriate comments which can make the situation worse. Our Checkusers are volunteers, just like you and and I are and they will get to review SPI cases when they can. Just be patient and continue with your regular editing.

Also, since you are a new editor, you probably are unaware that anyone who files a case at ANI or AN is scrutinized as much as the person they are naming in a complaint. It's because of this that many editor guides in Wikipedia essays warn against editors coming to ANI to file complaints. You might have opened the complaint but you do not control the direction of the discussion and if it turns out that editors have more questions about your editing than CNMall41's editing, well, you become the topic of discussion, not CNMall41. That's not a factor that is under your control. So, again, answer questions that are posed to you and be patient.

Finally, do not make assumptions about longterm editors. You said that we are from "the west" but as you are here longer, you'll soon discover that editors here are from all over the globe, from Pakistan, New Zealand, Myanmar, Ghana, Canada, the UK, Iran, from all continents and many countries. We don't represent one location, country or philosophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. Very helpful insights for a new editor. Will be patient. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The SPI already fond Msmimiin having a connection to another account. If this is open because of possible sanctions of my accusation, let's proceed. If not, I see no reason why this should be open. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi I am msmimiin and I don't have any connection with any other account as per as editing is concerned to any wiki pages , I have only one account through which I am contributing as an editor here . I had opened an account named 'Lopamudra Das' but forgot the password of that account and never able to logged in hence I am using my gmail account which is Msmimiin and I have never used any other account than Msmimiin for any editing , SPI team can check that for sure and come to a closure . My IP address and editing details are visible to all the admins. Msmimiin (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

21st century genocides

• 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parts of the article are covered by WP:ARBECR. Since it's only parts of the article, the article is not ECR protected. Additionally, many people enjoy arguing about the word genocide, so IPs and non-XC accounts are edit warring over the contentious topics part. I've posted here rather than request protection because I don't know which venue is likely to produce the most effective outcome (which I also don't know - IP/account blocks vs protection). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean... if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

But is that necessary? Editors aware of A-I ARBECR requirements are supposed to self modulate when needed. If the numbers get overwhelming protection might be needed. But it looks to me like semi would be enough to cut out most of it any hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. I admire your optimism, but I find that this sort of thing is rarely paid attention to by IPs and the like.

To be honest an article like this should be indef semi'd. It's always going to turn into a battleground. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If a non-EC editor wants to make changes to it they can always request it on the talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity, this sounds alright, but as a decision procedure it doesn't scale well because the parts of articles covered by an extended confirmed restriction can range from just over 0% to just under 100%. Somewhere in that range is a fuzzy transition zone that causes people to not add the section=yes or relatedcontent=yes part to the talk page template so that ECR applies to the entire article rather than part(s) and the article can be protected. The whole ECR thing is a little...nondeterministic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning if it's something like a line in a BLP that says "so and so said this thing about this ECR topic", but this is a list of genocides. Even in the lines that aren't ECR'd, it's still such a topic of contention that we're better off locking it up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Now, I must admit I am also a bit guilty for being a bit to harsh condisering this editor has only like 200+ edits and I also am partially responsible for the edit war, but I hugely suspect a WP:NOTHERE editor due to targeting of Chinese sources.

Reason being quite blatantly marking reliable chinese sources as "questionable".(hell, they marked a chinese police website as questionable in regards to a quite uncontroversial claim about chinese police) Most of the sources I used are typically considered relatively reliable(such as The paper or people's daily).

Now, I seriously hope this is just a case of a new editor not being aware of the 3 revert rule or someone unfamiliar with chinese sources along with WP:RSPMISSING, though the user has engaged in multiple edit wars from what I have seen on the talk page, and has often cited incorrect policies from copy paste responses, such as WP:ONUS().

They also claim that they need to see "consensus"(despite me pointing to multiple pieces of evidence of wikiproject china along with other users considering the sources(or goverment affiliatted sources in general) can be considered reliable in most cases) for "my opinion is that they should be deemed inadmissible since the sources are all state owned publications" even though I cited multiple times where the state owned sources have been considered reliable, or state owned sources in this context, though they have shown ignorance to the examples I have given and insist on reverting my edits.

Additionally, they have also done edit warring(which i am also unfortunelately responsible for,) in the previous articles of Chengguan (agency) and SWAT along with several others. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an entirely frivolous report. There's been no targeting of Chinese sources, there's been targeting of state owned/influenced sources which is an entirely different matter. My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality (i.e. the United States). If administrators want to intervene more directly or know more about the background to this dispute, they can go to these two article sections and . Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality is simply incompatible with consensus. As described at WP:RSP, several state-owned or funded sources are considered generally reliable (Such as WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE and WP:RSPVOA), while others are considered unreliable (such as WP:WENWEIPO or WP:TELESUR). As such, the reliability of state-owned sources must be determined on a case by case basis. With that said, I think you'd be hard-pressed to successfully argue a source is unreliable solely on the basis that it is state-owned. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Still, I question whether you are aware of what is a "questionable source" considering you marked the police website as a "questionable source". In fact, even if I were to use something like idk global times, it could still claim WP:ABOUTSELF(Per WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases) and possibly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#State-owned sources. I don't know which is lamer, edit-warring or arguing about who should start a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger thanks for setting it up! – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly never even planned a discussion due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in the first place. I'm gonna be honest, I question whether the person even understood policies, and I made it quite clear that the sources are, from my experience and from the perspective of editors about Chinese related topics(along with several previous discussions, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV)). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Updates:

User has demonstrated lack of WP:AGF That is a claim you simply fabricated.(For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating" claims of a discussion which The linked discussions do not address the reliability of the sources in question here. which the discussion I linked covered ALL of state covered sources) along with borderline WP:BLUDGEON along with more WP:ICANTHEARYOU, claiming As a follow up to my initial complaint, I have found there has been almost no source which has been verified as reliable that has actually covered this dispute. even though I have repeatedly showed the sources are reliable and have informed them to see WP:RSPNOT. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nghtcmdr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on Tactical Police Vehicle. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(I previously already posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I haven't received any response after my updates, even though the conduct of the user has simply gotten worse)

User:Nghtcmdr has repeatedly shown generally uncivil behavior(WP:NPA, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) along with edit warring and ignoring consensus.

There are already multiple incidents involving edit warring such as here and here. The user has also engaged in rather uncivil behavior, such as:
WP:NPA and WP:GASLIGHT

• Your linked noticeboard discussion shows one person who said Chinese state controlled publications could be used as long as "it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda." That is entirely different from the claim which you fabricated, which is that the participants there would have concluded that Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article. (For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating claims" when I explained how consensus on the discussion meant that in this case the sources could be used)
• That's not my burden to bear because I'm not the one appealing to consensus. You can't provide the location because you fabricated the positions of the participants who took part in that discussion. (For context, they are again falsely accusing me of "fabricating claims" after I told them the consensus following the discussion would apply to this instance)

Borderline WP:TAGTEAM

• You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them. (For context, I tried to explain policies which they did not like)

Ignorance towards consensus(WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and policies, along with WP:FILIBUSTER

• Complete disregard of warnings related to WP:3RR
• Ignorance to what WP:BURDEN actually means. Also falsely labeled WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE sources as "Unreliable"
• They have been reminded multiple times that state affiliation does not change whether a source is reliable, and have also failed to understand WP:NEWSORG, WP:ABOUTSELF , along with what "Reliable sources" are (labeling multiple overall reputable sources(if you want to cross check, I could possibly suggest discussion with WT:CHINA) along with literal goverment sites as "reliable")
• Lack of understanding of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (claiming the source was disinformation for purely being state affiliated, when none of the sources had anything that can be considered "disinformation" (Hunan Daily; Source is about a SWAT unit in China receiving new vehicles) (China News Service; Source is about SWAT training, and no, it's not some sort of out of the world disinformation) (The Paper; Source is discussing the role of Prison SWAT in China)
• Again, a complete lack of understand to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. even though I have repeatedly warned them of this on multiple occasions

I originally hoped and assumed these were simply rookie mistakes from an new editor, though the ignorance of rules along with incivility even under multiple warnings makes this really questionable.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The heart of the issue is that this user makes claims but doesn't provide the supporting evidence when asked to do so. At this point, someone needs to step in and mediate the disputes directly because this is just getting out of hand. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr: Again, I directly linked the discussion, you chose not to read it.

In fact, you fail to acknowledge the fact that you have repeatedly been ignorant to many policies(Such as WP:RS, WP:RSPNOT) and have also been, in general, incivil. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The point is no longer about the supporting evidence(Which i provided, but you chose not to read or deliberately misinterpret it), it is that you repeatedly have engaged in incivil behavior, such as edit wars(not just with me, but other editors . In fact, such behavior falls under WP:BRDWRONG) along with WP:PA(falsely accusing others of "Fabricating claims") and lack of WP:AGF . Even regardless, you have shown lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is, as you have marked many WP:REPUTABLE(and even government sources) sources as "questionable" due to them being government affiliated, something that many other editors have repeatedly told you has nothing to do with reliability.

In fact, you have deliberately misinterpreted policies for the purpose of WP:GAMING, such as ignorance to what WP:BURDEN and WP:ABOUTSELF means, and have purposefully ignored attempts by other users to try to explain the policies correctly . This is quite blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is, frankly(I don't mean to insult you, but I have no other way to explain this) a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE or just downright lying on multiple occasions here where you made claims of the content added being "controversial and sensitive topics", when the content I added was regarding the equipment, training and role of SWAT which is absolutely uncontroversial, as pointed out multiple times both by me and other editors.

Your own behavior needs to be addressed before the discussion regarding the sources(Which, country to your claim , is not disputed content). In fact, it has been pointed out that the content is not "controversial" or "disputed", and hopefully this is just simply a rookie mistake on your end at best, though I am really questioning whether that is the case considering your conduct. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like even in this discussion he is WP:ICANTHEARYOU Rhinocrat (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Disclosing that I am somewhat involved as I made a comment in the previous topic about this user, and one of my comments has been referenced by Isaac in this topic. At this point I do not think there is any way that Nghtcmdr's conduct is not blatant WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:FILIBUSTERing and WP:IDHT. As detailed by Isaac, in every discussion, Nghtcmdr demands proof of these sources' reliability ad nauseam, but dismisses every single discussion Isaac or any other user presents as being insufficient. They seem to be under the impression that there is a null hypothesis, and that it is that sources are unreliable unless proof of reliability can be given. This is not the case. Reliability is subject to consensus, and the consensus — based on the fact that we have one user continuously refusing to actually listen to anything anyone says, even as multiple people try and explain to them why they are wrong — is that these sources are reliable reliable in this circumstance. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that the approach Nghtcmdr represents a kind of cybernetic reinforcement of existing neutrality problems regarding China. I've expressed concern in the past that Wikipedia systematically treats the dissident experience as more reliable than the experience of Chinese people who are not dissidents. This is systematic because Wikipedia tends to treat as unreliable those sources that are in-line with the PoV of the Chinese state and because those sources that Wikipedia tends to treat as reliable simply care more about the dissident experience than that of people who are doing fine in China. I don't think this is an individual-editor problem but rather one that extends beyond Wikipedia and into the various materials we use. I also think much of this is a linguistic bias. The two biggest enemies of China are the UK and the USA. It's not surprising, then, that English language media, most of which comes from the USA and the UK communicates those biases and that academics in the anglosphere, and in that media environment, are more interested in dissidents than others. But this is where that self-reinforcing loop comes into play. Because the default on Wikipedia is to treat Chinese sources as less reliable, a new editor coming into these spaces looks at perfectly reasonable uses of Chinese sources (such as a description of their police or fire services) and goes, "well Chinese sources are unreliable so these should go."

As I view this problem as being systematic I don't really blame Nghtcmdr for that but what is in their control is to recognize they've pushed too hard and that they're missing some of those valuable context-driven queues for source reliability. What they should be doing is recognizing that they are missing subtleties here regarding source reliability and that they've thus made a mistake from which they should step back. I hope that they will recognize this and that this thread can be closed without sanctions. But if they cannot we may need to ask them to stay away from Chinese topics until they have a chance to learn more about handling these situations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly said. I agree that a lot of times, Chinese sources are often treated unfairly, thanks to geopolitical issues and systematic bias along with the language barrier. As you have said, I also have hoped(from the start) that Nghtcmdr is doing a rookie mistake, though I do have my concerns regarding the false accusations directed towards me(I'm not that scared of the accusations themselves, rather the lack of civility is what concerns), along with ignoring explanations. I do hope with enough convincing they do understand policies, though I do think sanctions may be brought out should these issues persist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has engaged in even more WP:GASLIGHTING and falsely accused me of "distorting claims", which is a completely baseless allegation, and is pretty ironic considering they completely did WP:ICANTHEARYOU . Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yet more WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:ICANTHEARYOU .

He has claimed 1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version, though seeing the revisions it is quite obvious this is not the case, and is the contrary. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: User has shown even more ignorance of consensus or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments. For the China-related disagreements, my write up of the section should be preferred(Even though consensus has shown my one has nothing wrong, and their's is blatant deletion of content from my version) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Even more WP:ICANTHEARYOU Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has now engaged in WP:HOUNDING. On WT:MILHIST, they made baseless accusations of me doing "The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem."

This is a serious breach of WP:AGF, and shows the user is openly engaging in WP:HOUNDING, and also is repeatedly harassing me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I seriously request immediate admin intervention. At this point, the user has started to harass me on topics outside of the original discussion, and has started to make even more baseless accusations against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further update:

User has again, attempted to edit war , citing a discussion which has yet to be finished yet as "consensus". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Even after I explained the discussion was unfinished , the user has still repeatedly attempted to edit war, and is willing to do WP:POINT.

Additionally, his claim of so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. can be interpreted as slightly racist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

User has reported me on WP:AN/3 and has taken my quotes out of context. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 3 days in response to the edit war report. This can be undone by the admin closing this discussion without notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but I would suggest that the editor's other misconduct be addressed. The edit war seems to be part of a harassment campaign by them directed towards me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

More updates:

User has posted a DNR thread about me and has continued to use an UNFINISHED discussion as proof of consensus.

@Nghtcmdr Please stop opening threads about me before you have addressed your incivility Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would seriously recommend an admin take literally any action here. Even without considering the merits of either parties arguments, it is clear that these editors cannot work with each other and at the very least a no-fault two-way IBAN is needed. This has been going on for almost a week with exceptionally little in the way of substantive responses to Isaac's concerns. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's now escalated to the point that Nghtcmdr's behavior has gone past WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GASLIGHTING, it has reached a point of borderline harassment and possibly even WP:HOUNDING.

Me and @RovingPersonalityConstruct were having a rather civil and normal discussion on WT:MILHIST , when Nghtcmdr decided to go to said discussion and making extremely incivil comments towards me, and proceeded to edit war on said article, and even decided to take my edit summary out of context.

Immediate actions are needed. This no longer has plausible deniability as "Rookie mistakes" as I have hoped for a week before, and seems more like targeted actions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You engaged @RovingPersonalityConstruct on the discussion board only after they extricated themselves from your edit war with them by starting the discussion there even though that was your responsibility as you were the one who sought to include the disputed content. Nghtcmdr (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Point is, I still decided to engage in the discussion constructively and provided my opinion, while you decided to make completely false accusations and conspiracy theories about me on said discussion. It doesn't really matter who starts the discussion, as long as it exists and we respect said discussion without violating policies.

Additionally, your conduct on the discussion(which you brought up but failed to address properly outside of repeatedly blaming me) is only the tip of the iceberg of all your misconduct here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac No, the point is you are treating this encyclopedia like a battlespace where you need to win every disagreement you get into by doing everything you can to ensure your version of the material stays published. If you really respected policy, you would have, without reverting @RovingPersonalityConstruct back, started the discussion after their first revert of your edit. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, please address the other concerns regarding your own misconduct.

I'm not the one treating this as a battlespace(Ironically, you have targeted me multiple times on several different edits), nor will I treat this as a battlespace. The point is, I have went to the discussion and explained my edits(It does not matter who starts the discussion, as long as it is used productively), but you decided to attack me personally for topics completely irrelevant to the discussion, and have spread false lies about me, reverted my edit when I explained that the discussion was still ongoing.

You are the one choosing to edit war and harass me here. And, keep in mind, this is just your most recent misconduct, as our previous edit wars and incivility still need to be addressed. Again, I remind you, shifting the blame on me(when I respected the discussion, and stayed civil) is not going to help you. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac The point is you "discussed" only after you "won" your edit war with @RovingPersonalityConstruct. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, I remind you to address your incivility issues. In fact, in regards to the discussion, what you should be addressing is how you decided to personally harass me and engage in what could be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING. The order of when the discussion was started does not matter, that does not make me more or less right, nor is it about WP:WINNING. I chose to gave my opinion on the matter, and I listened to RovingPersonalityConstruct's own opinion respectfully on WT:MILHIST.

In contrast, you chose to use this as an opportunity to WP:SMEAR me and engage in harassment. This needs to be addressed by you immediately.

Again, I would suggest immediate admin intervention. At this point, the incivility of Nghtcmdr has been going on for quite a long time by now, and it is quite questionable how long it is taking for any meaningful admin involvement. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

should I ping the Bushranger or Liz? These are some serious accusations... And they aren't getting responded to Rhinocrat (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I already messaged Liz before, but no response yet. But yeah, feel free to do so. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Ironically, @Nghtcmdr is falsely accusing another editor without evidence of "WP:OR" and "Bending policy" on a TALK PAGE.

Again, I would highly advise admins take action here, as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from said user has been going on for multiple weeks by now. It's honestly ridiculous how long this is taking. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Said user has now went on a vandalism spree of removing non-english sources and replacing them with english sources that do not cover said info, or just completely deleting properly sourced info if they are in other languages.

User has also added unverified info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have filed a report against @Thehistorianisaac for harassment (hounding) Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Stop falsely accusing me of "hounding". You chose to incorrectly remove info, I restored said info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dununderud9894

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dununderud9894 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user replied to their block notification using a bad word, which I reverted. Could you please revoke their talk page access? Thanks! Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here}

The comment was on-topic to asking about their block and not directed at a specific user, so I'm not inclined to take action just for that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

However—and I'm intentionally not linking diffs—after looking at the edits the user made, block-without-warning was 100% appropriate in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

21st century genocides

• 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parts of the article are covered by WP:ARBECR. Since it's only parts of the article, the article is not ECR protected. Additionally, many people enjoy arguing about the word genocide, so IPs and non-XC accounts are edit warring over the contentious topics part. I've posted here rather than request protection because I don't know which venue is likely to produce the most effective outcome (which I also don't know - IP/account blocks vs protection). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean... if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

But is that necessary? Editors aware of A-I ARBECR requirements are supposed to self modulate when needed. If the numbers get overwhelming protection might be needed. But it looks to me like semi would be enough to cut out most of it any hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. I admire your optimism, but I find that this sort of thing is rarely paid attention to by IPs and the like.

To be honest an article like this should be indef semi'd. It's always going to turn into a battleground. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If a non-EC editor wants to make changes to it they can always request it on the talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity, this sounds alright, but as a decision procedure it doesn't scale well because the parts of articles covered by an extended confirmed restriction can range from just over 0% to just under 100%. Somewhere in that range is a fuzzy transition zone that causes people to not add the section=yes or relatedcontent=yes part to the talk page template so that ECR applies to the entire article rather than part(s) and the article can be protected. The whole ECR thing is a little...nondeterministic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning if it's something like a line in a BLP that says "so and so said this thing about this ECR topic", but this is a list of genocides. Even in the lines that aren't ECR'd, it's still such a topic of contention that we're better off locking it up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Now, I must admit I am also a bit guilty for being a bit to harsh condisering this editor has only like 200+ edits and I also am partially responsible for the edit war, but I hugely suspect a WP:NOTHERE editor due to targeting of Chinese sources.

Reason being quite blatantly marking reliable chinese sources as "questionable".(hell, they marked a chinese police website as questionable in regards to a quite uncontroversial claim about chinese police) Most of the sources I used are typically considered relatively reliable(such as The paper or people's daily).

Now, I seriously hope this is just a case of a new editor not being aware of the 3 revert rule or someone unfamiliar with chinese sources along with WP:RSPMISSING, though the user has engaged in multiple edit wars from what I have seen on the talk page, and has often cited incorrect policies from copy paste responses, such as WP:ONUS().

They also claim that they need to see "consensus"(despite me pointing to multiple pieces of evidence of wikiproject china along with other users considering the sources(or goverment affiliatted sources in general) can be considered reliable in most cases) for "my opinion is that they should be deemed inadmissible since the sources are all state owned publications" even though I cited multiple times where the state owned sources have been considered reliable, or state owned sources in this context, though they have shown ignorance to the examples I have given and insist on reverting my edits.

Additionally, they have also done edit warring(which i am also unfortunelately responsible for,) in the previous articles of Chengguan (agency) and SWAT along with several others. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an entirely frivolous report. There's been no targeting of Chinese sources, there's been targeting of state owned/influenced sources which is an entirely different matter. My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality (i.e. the United States). If administrators want to intervene more directly or know more about the background to this dispute, they can go to these two article sections and . Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality is simply incompatible with consensus. As described at WP:RSP, several state-owned or funded sources are considered generally reliable (Such as WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE and WP:RSPVOA), while others are considered unreliable (such as WP:WENWEIPO or WP:TELESUR). As such, the reliability of state-owned sources must be determined on a case by case basis. With that said, I think you'd be hard-pressed to successfully argue a source is unreliable solely on the basis that it is state-owned. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Still, I question whether you are aware of what is a "questionable source" considering you marked the police website as a "questionable source". In fact, even if I were to use something like idk global times, it could still claim WP:ABOUTSELF(Per WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases) and possibly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#State-owned sources. I don't know which is lamer, edit-warring or arguing about who should start a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger thanks for setting it up! – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly never even planned a discussion due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in the first place. I'm gonna be honest, I question whether the person even understood policies, and I made it quite clear that the sources are, from my experience and from the perspective of editors about Chinese related topics(along with several previous discussions, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV)). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Updates:

User has demonstrated lack of WP:AGF That is a claim you simply fabricated.(For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating" claims of a discussion which The linked discussions do not address the reliability of the sources in question here. which the discussion I linked covered ALL of state covered sources) along with borderline WP:BLUDGEON along with more WP:ICANTHEARYOU, claiming As a follow up to my initial complaint, I have found there has been almost no source which has been verified as reliable that has actually covered this dispute. even though I have repeatedly showed the sources are reliable and have informed them to see WP:RSPNOT. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nghtcmdr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on Tactical Police Vehicle. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(I previously already posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I haven't received any response after my updates, even though the conduct of the user has simply gotten worse)

User:Nghtcmdr has repeatedly shown generally uncivil behavior(WP:NPA, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) along with edit warring and ignoring consensus.

There are already multiple incidents involving edit warring such as here and here. The user has also engaged in rather uncivil behavior, such as:
WP:NPA and WP:GASLIGHT

• Your linked noticeboard discussion shows one person who said Chinese state controlled publications could be used as long as "it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda." That is entirely different from the claim which you fabricated, which is that the participants there would have concluded that Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article. (For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating claims" when I explained how consensus on the discussion meant that in this case the sources could be used)
• That's not my burden to bear because I'm not the one appealing to consensus. You can't provide the location because you fabricated the positions of the participants who took part in that discussion. (For context, they are again falsely accusing me of "fabricating claims" after I told them the consensus following the discussion would apply to this instance)

Borderline WP:TAGTEAM

• You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them. (For context, I tried to explain policies which they did not like)

Ignorance towards consensus(WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and policies, along with WP:FILIBUSTER

• Complete disregard of warnings related to WP:3RR
• Ignorance to what WP:BURDEN actually means. Also falsely labeled WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE sources as "Unreliable"
• They have been reminded multiple times that state affiliation does not change whether a source is reliable, and have also failed to understand WP:NEWSORG, WP:ABOUTSELF , along with what "Reliable sources" are (labeling multiple overall reputable sources(if you want to cross check, I could possibly suggest discussion with WT:CHINA) along with literal goverment sites as "reliable")
• Lack of understanding of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (claiming the source was disinformation for purely being state affiliated, when none of the sources had anything that can be considered "disinformation" (Hunan Daily; Source is about a SWAT unit in China receiving new vehicles) (China News Service; Source is about SWAT training, and no, it's not some sort of out of the world disinformation) (The Paper; Source is discussing the role of Prison SWAT in China)
• Again, a complete lack of understand to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. even though I have repeatedly warned them of this on multiple occasions

I originally hoped and assumed these were simply rookie mistakes from an new editor, though the ignorance of rules along with incivility even under multiple warnings makes this really questionable.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The heart of the issue is that this user makes claims but doesn't provide the supporting evidence when asked to do so. At this point, someone needs to step in and mediate the disputes directly because this is just getting out of hand. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr: Again, I directly linked the discussion, you chose not to read it.

In fact, you fail to acknowledge the fact that you have repeatedly been ignorant to many policies(Such as WP:RS, WP:RSPNOT) and have also been, in general, incivil. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The point is no longer about the supporting evidence(Which i provided, but you chose not to read or deliberately misinterpret it), it is that you repeatedly have engaged in incivil behavior, such as edit wars(not just with me, but other editors . In fact, such behavior falls under WP:BRDWRONG) along with WP:PA(falsely accusing others of "Fabricating claims") and lack of WP:AGF . Even regardless, you have shown lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is, as you have marked many WP:REPUTABLE(and even government sources) sources as "questionable" due to them being government affiliated, something that many other editors have repeatedly told you has nothing to do with reliability.

In fact, you have deliberately misinterpreted policies for the purpose of WP:GAMING, such as ignorance to what WP:BURDEN and WP:ABOUTSELF means, and have purposefully ignored attempts by other users to try to explain the policies correctly . This is quite blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is, frankly(I don't mean to insult you, but I have no other way to explain this) a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE or just downright lying on multiple occasions here where you made claims of the content added being "controversial and sensitive topics", when the content I added was regarding the equipment, training and role of SWAT which is absolutely uncontroversial, as pointed out multiple times both by me and other editors.

Your own behavior needs to be addressed before the discussion regarding the sources(Which, country to your claim , is not disputed content). In fact, it has been pointed out that the content is not "controversial" or "disputed", and hopefully this is just simply a rookie mistake on your end at best, though I am really questioning whether that is the case considering your conduct. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like even in this discussion he is WP:ICANTHEARYOU Rhinocrat (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Disclosing that I am somewhat involved as I made a comment in the previous topic about this user, and one of my comments has been referenced by Isaac in this topic. At this point I do not think there is any way that Nghtcmdr's conduct is not blatant WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:FILIBUSTERing and WP:IDHT. As detailed by Isaac, in every discussion, Nghtcmdr demands proof of these sources' reliability ad nauseam, but dismisses every single discussion Isaac or any other user presents as being insufficient. They seem to be under the impression that there is a null hypothesis, and that it is that sources are unreliable unless proof of reliability can be given. This is not the case. Reliability is subject to consensus, and the consensus — based on the fact that we have one user continuously refusing to actually listen to anything anyone says, even as multiple people try and explain to them why they are wrong — is that these sources are reliable reliable in this circumstance. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that the approach Nghtcmdr represents a kind of cybernetic reinforcement of existing neutrality problems regarding China. I've expressed concern in the past that Wikipedia systematically treats the dissident experience as more reliable than the experience of Chinese people who are not dissidents. This is systematic because Wikipedia tends to treat as unreliable those sources that are in-line with the PoV of the Chinese state and because those sources that Wikipedia tends to treat as reliable simply care more about the dissident experience than that of people who are doing fine in China. I don't think this is an individual-editor problem but rather one that extends beyond Wikipedia and into the various materials we use. I also think much of this is a linguistic bias. The two biggest enemies of China are the UK and the USA. It's not surprising, then, that English language media, most of which comes from the USA and the UK communicates those biases and that academics in the anglosphere, and in that media environment, are more interested in dissidents than others. But this is where that self-reinforcing loop comes into play. Because the default on Wikipedia is to treat Chinese sources as less reliable, a new editor coming into these spaces looks at perfectly reasonable uses of Chinese sources (such as a description of their police or fire services) and goes, "well Chinese sources are unreliable so these should go."

As I view this problem as being systematic I don't really blame Nghtcmdr for that but what is in their control is to recognize they've pushed too hard and that they're missing some of those valuable context-driven queues for source reliability. What they should be doing is recognizing that they are missing subtleties here regarding source reliability and that they've thus made a mistake from which they should step back. I hope that they will recognize this and that this thread can be closed without sanctions. But if they cannot we may need to ask them to stay away from Chinese topics until they have a chance to learn more about handling these situations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly said. I agree that a lot of times, Chinese sources are often treated unfairly, thanks to geopolitical issues and systematic bias along with the language barrier. As you have said, I also have hoped(from the start) that Nghtcmdr is doing a rookie mistake, though I do have my concerns regarding the false accusations directed towards me(I'm not that scared of the accusations themselves, rather the lack of civility is what concerns), along with ignoring explanations. I do hope with enough convincing they do understand policies, though I do think sanctions may be brought out should these issues persist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has engaged in even more WP:GASLIGHTING and falsely accused me of "distorting claims", which is a completely baseless allegation, and is pretty ironic considering they completely did WP:ICANTHEARYOU . Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yet more WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:ICANTHEARYOU .

He has claimed 1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version, though seeing the revisions it is quite obvious this is not the case, and is the contrary. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: User has shown even more ignorance of consensus or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments. For the China-related disagreements, my write up of the section should be preferred(Even though consensus has shown my one has nothing wrong, and their's is blatant deletion of content from my version) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Even more WP:ICANTHEARYOU Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Update:

User has now engaged in WP:HOUNDING. On WT:MILHIST, they made baseless accusations of me doing "The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem."

This is a serious breach of WP:AGF, and shows the user is openly engaging in WP:HOUNDING, and also is repeatedly harassing me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I seriously request immediate admin intervention. At this point, the user has started to harass me on topics outside of the original discussion, and has started to make even more baseless accusations against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further update:

User has again, attempted to edit war , citing a discussion which has yet to be finished yet as "consensus". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Even after I explained the discussion was unfinished , the user has still repeatedly attempted to edit war, and is willing to do WP:POINT.

Additionally, his claim of so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. can be interpreted as slightly racist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

User has reported me on WP:AN/3 and has taken my quotes out of context. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 3 days in response to the edit war report. This can be undone by the admin closing this discussion without notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but I would suggest that the editor's other misconduct be addressed. The edit war seems to be part of a harassment campaign by them directed towards me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

More updates:

User has posted a DNR thread about me and has continued to use an UNFINISHED discussion as proof of consensus.

@Nghtcmdr Please stop opening threads about me before you have addressed your incivility Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would seriously recommend an admin take literally any action here. Even without considering the merits of either parties arguments, it is clear that these editors cannot work with each other and at the very least a no-fault two-way IBAN is needed. This has been going on for almost a week with exceptionally little in the way of substantive responses to Isaac's concerns. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's now escalated to the point that Nghtcmdr's behavior has gone past WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GASLIGHTING, it has reached a point of borderline harassment and possibly even WP:HOUNDING.

Me and @RovingPersonalityConstruct were having a rather civil and normal discussion on WT:MILHIST , when Nghtcmdr decided to go to said discussion and making extremely incivil comments towards me, and proceeded to edit war on said article, and even decided to take my edit summary out of context.

Immediate actions are needed. This no longer has plausible deniability as "Rookie mistakes" as I have hoped for a week before, and seems more like targeted actions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You engaged @RovingPersonalityConstruct on the discussion board only after they extricated themselves from your edit war with them by starting the discussion there even though that was your responsibility as you were the one who sought to include the disputed content. Nghtcmdr (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Point is, I still decided to engage in the discussion constructively and provided my opinion, while you decided to make completely false accusations and conspiracy theories about me on said discussion. It doesn't really matter who starts the discussion, as long as it exists and we respect said discussion without violating policies.

Additionally, your conduct on the discussion(which you brought up but failed to address properly outside of repeatedly blaming me) is only the tip of the iceberg of all your misconduct here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac No, the point is you are treating this encyclopedia like a battlespace where you need to win every disagreement you get into by doing everything you can to ensure your version of the material stays published. If you really respected policy, you would have, without reverting @RovingPersonalityConstruct back, started the discussion after their first revert of your edit. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, please address the other concerns regarding your own misconduct.

I'm not the one treating this as a battlespace(Ironically, you have targeted me multiple times on several different edits), nor will I treat this as a battlespace. The point is, I have went to the discussion and explained my edits(It does not matter who starts the discussion, as long as it is used productively), but you decided to attack me personally for topics completely irrelevant to the discussion, and have spread false lies about me, reverted my edit when I explained that the discussion was still ongoing.

You are the one choosing to edit war and harass me here. And, keep in mind, this is just your most recent misconduct, as our previous edit wars and incivility still need to be addressed. Again, I remind you, shifting the blame on me(when I respected the discussion, and stayed civil) is not going to help you. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac The point is you "discussed" only after you "won" your edit war with @RovingPersonalityConstruct. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

Again, I remind you to address your incivility issues. In fact, in regards to the discussion, what you should be addressing is how you decided to personally harass me and engage in what could be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING. The order of when the discussion was started does not matter, that does not make me more or less right, nor is it about WP:WINNING. I chose to gave my opinion on the matter, and I listened to RovingPersonalityConstruct's own opinion respectfully on WT:MILHIST.

In contrast, you chose to use this as an opportunity to WP:SMEAR me and engage in harassment. This needs to be addressed by you immediately.

Again, I would suggest immediate admin intervention. At this point, the incivility of Nghtcmdr has been going on for quite a long time by now, and it is quite questionable how long it is taking for any meaningful admin involvement. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

should I ping the Bushranger or Liz? These are some serious accusations... And they aren't getting responded to Rhinocrat (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I already messaged Liz before, but no response yet. But yeah, feel free to do so. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Ironically, @Nghtcmdr is falsely accusing another editor without evidence of "WP:OR" and "Bending policy" on a TALK PAGE.

Again, I would highly advise admins take action here, as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from said user has been going on for multiple weeks by now. It's honestly ridiculous how long this is taking. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Further updates:

Said user has now went on a vandalism spree of removing non-english sources and replacing them with english sources that do not cover said info, or just completely deleting properly sourced info if they are in other languages.

User has also added unverified info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have filed a report against @Thehistorianisaac for harassment (hounding) Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr Stop falsely accusing me of "hounding". You chose to incorrectly remove info, I restored said info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dununderud9894

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dununderud9894 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user replied to their block notification using a bad word, which I reverted. Could you please revoke their talk page access? Thanks! Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here}

The comment was on-topic to asking about their block and not directed at a specific user, so I'm not inclined to take action just for that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

However—and I'm intentionally not linking diffs—after looking at the edits the user made, block-without-warning was 100% appropriate in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued page disruption

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

Previous Report: The blocked IP in the previous report has been using a different IP to continue with their disruptive edits to the same Hot Wheels Let's Race page despite no sources to prove their edits. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the IP in this report is a possible sock puppet of the IP blocked in the previous report, as the IP in this report had been disrupting the same pages multiple times. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after block expired (/64 has been blocked 4 times previously, most recently for 6 months), also see the three previous ANI reports regarding this range (September 2024, September 2024 again, December 2024). Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The last ranegblock just expired and they're back to the same edits that led to the previous blocks. I've reblocked the /64 for a year.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MarcinTorun1971

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MarcinTorun1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MarcinTorun1971 keeps persistently adding unsourced material in articles as can be seen here and here. I think they are not the only articles where they add unsourced material. They are also an unresponsive editor, since they have been warned about it before and I also reached out to them on their talk page (diff), but they never responded or corrected their conduct. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a pblock until they can contribute to this discussion and explain themselves. If they don't, it's a WP:CIR case. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Honest question for others -- looking at the history of Frankfurt mafia (as linked by OP), is that vandalism+reversion over and over, or is that an edit war with both sides violating 3RR? I don't disagree that User:MarcinTorun1971 is being disruptive in their edits and non-communication regardless but I'm curious of peoples' thoughts on the distinction. — tony 18:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a better way I could have phrased my question is whether this meets the threshold of obvious vandalism. If it does, WP:AIV is the place to be; if not, then is this an edit war? — tony 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If I violated WP:3RR, I will self-revert, but I do not think I did. The editor is definitely "slow edit warring" and being disruptive, despite me telling them the issues with their edits. It is definitely disruption and violation of WP:V. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that edit warring, disruption, and even WP:V violations are not vandalism. This doesn't appear to be vandalism, but, as a search for "Veles crew" turns up absolutely nothing, it does appear to be something likely made up one day. That said, there is no 3RR violation here - both MarcinTorum1971 and StephenMacky1 are at three reverts. I'm going to revert the page to the status quo ante bellum and protect it for a week so this can be disussed on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:OspreyPL’s COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Hello, I am opening this thread because I am seriously concerned about the edits made by the account OspreyPL. It seems to me that there is an undeniable conflict of interest, although I cannot say with absolute certainty it is related to paid editing. It is essentially an account created in 2009 that edited in a reasonably acceptable way for a year or two, then went dormant with very few edits. Around 2022, it became active again, showing a particular interest in Duolingo and related articles.

However, the edits on Duolingo-related articles seem overwhelmingly biased, constantly removing criticism and adding primary sources in an attempt to support original research. What stands out most to me at the moment is when they removed a criticism from The New York Times. The critique was about the lack of human interaction in the app. OspreyPL’s justification for the removal was almost laughable: Duolingo now allows users to “talk” to its characters…

In another edit, they quietly removed the information that a Guarani course exists. That may have been a mistake, of course, but I had already pointed it out to them, and they seemed to accept it well. In fact, just a few days later, they removed a reliable source from a well-known author in the field who criticized the Guarani course on Duolingo, claiming the course is only accessible via direct link. They ignored the fact that this is a legitimate criticism from a real person about a real (and still existing) course. I want to stress that they were already aware of this.

Also, in this edit, they also quietly added that the courses are “well-developed”. According to OspreyPL, the source for this claim is the website “duolingodata.com”.

The entire article seems like a mess. For example, this particular edit remained in the article for six months. Whether it is true or not, the source was terrible, and the language just as bad. I would like to bring this issue to the community’s attention, and I believe the problems with this account are just the tip of the iceberg. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I cleaned the article up a bit (so anyone looking to see if RodRabelo7 is correct should look at an old version of the article). It is indeed a mess. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a COI and will presume there isn't unless there's evidence to the contrary, but at the very least this is a WP:NPOV issue. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

They have not edited since May 1, but the problematic edits are ongoing and they have gaps in their editing previously. I have p-blocked Star Mississippi 22:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Alirana24 disruptively using AI and is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Alirana24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been almost exclusively using AI for writing and communication, and is mainly here to promote their essay about preventing World War III. Most important are these recent bizarre comments where he defends his usage of ChatGPT and claims that ChatGPT told him to publish his essay. Note the edit summary My truth my reality also all my thinking written by my friend chatgpt. More context below.

His articles Prevention of World War III and Informal economy of South Asia are clearly AI-generated; Prevention of World War III contains broken URLs such as https://www.undp.org/publications/sustaining-peace-through-development and https://www.unaoc.org/intercultural-dialogue/. An original version of the latter article also contains broken URLs such as https://www.fao.org/south-asia. The writing style is pretty clearly AI-generated too.

Prevention of World War III and Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III have both been nominated for deletion for violating WP:NOTESSAY. He he has bludgeoned the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III with AI-generated comments, and falsely claimed he didn't use AI to write the article before backtracking in his more recent comments. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree this person is NOTHERE, or at the very least doesn't understand how we view using LLMs on Wikipedia. Additionally you forgot to inform them of this discussion as required. It's been an hour so I've done that for you. » Gommeh (he/him) 23:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I did notify them here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it you're supposed to use the ANI notice template. » Gommeh (he/him) 23:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I see it now. Most people put it in a separate section so I missed it (I use the iOS app). Thanks » Gommeh (he/him) 23:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on his comments at the two deletion discussions I'd say this is CIR more than anything. This user clearly doesn't understand our view on the use of LLMs and why they are detrimental. I'm confident both of those pages will be deleted (not to WP:CRYSTALBALL or anything). Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Also note the user Zahid131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In this diff, he says that he works for Alirana. @JBW (courtesy ping) initially blocked both of them for being sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer respectively, however unblocked both after comments on Zahid's talk page. Zahid too has been using AI and commenting on the same discussions as Alirana. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to all respected editors for your review and input. I now understand clearly that my contributions did not meet Wikipedia’s standards. I admit I used ChatGPT to help me express my thoughts, and I realize that relying on AI-generated text without full understanding of the policies was a mistake.

I did not come to Wikipedia to promote myself, but rather to raise awareness about peace. However, I now understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for essays or advocacy. I sincerely apologize if my actions caused disruption.

Going forward, I will not use Wikipedia to post such material again. If my account remains blocked, I accept that with respect for the community’s rules. Thank you all again — I learned from this experience and still admire the work that editors here do.

— Muhammad Ali Rana (Alirana24) Alirana24 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Noting that this comment is also AI-generated, as can be seen by comparing to his non-AI comments such as this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Case in point. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't want to indefinitely block someone that's talking about peace and love. He's obviously got the wrong idea about Wikipedia, though. Well, I'll leave a message on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, if it makes you feel better, you could make it a sock block. But you'll want to check in with JBW. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zahid131. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the CU data says they're the same person. The data needs to be interpreted by a human, so the final result could vary by CheckUser (and their skill). I don't really feel like debating the CU results or getting involved in block-drama right now, so I'll leave it to either the community or another administrator. I also see a pretty big difference between Special:Diff/1296888894 and Special:Diff/1296962021. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust CheckUser data can't say that they are the same person: the most it can possibly say is that they are editing in the same place either on the same computer or on different computers with the same software setup, which is completely compatible with their claim to be owner and employee of the same business. That doesn't mean they are not the same person, but it does mean that it's not proven that they are. I initially blocked both accounts for sockpuppetry but further evidence that I saw led me to doubt that, so I unblocked. Nevertheless, I do see at least one account, and probably both, as NOTHERE, and so I am close to reblocking for that reason. However, I am inclined to give them a little more time before deciding whether to do that. JBW (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, in the short time since I wrote that message I have seen yet more blatant lies from Alirana24, which has pushed me off the fence, and I am going to block that account again. I will consider whether to block Zahid131 too. JBW (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior and personal attacks over WP:AIRSPECS

I was going to wait until after I got over my jet lag to start this, but so many lines have been crossed that I can no longer wait. I wrote this topic while waiting for a connection flight, so please forgive its rushed structure. For context, this dispute revolves around WP:AIRSPECS, a 20+ year old consensus regarding how aircraft specifications are displayed (specifically stating that only one variant should be covered in the specs section of each article) in articles that was not followed on about a few dozen airliner articles. When this was pointed out (I believe this is where it started), I began fixing the articles in question (Airbus A350, Boeing 707, Boeing 720, Boeing 717, Boeing 727, Boeing 737, Boeing 737 Classic, Boeing 737 Next Generation, and Boeing 777 are the articles I remember), but was met with extreme backlash by several editors who preferred the old versions despite the long-standing consensus. Several discussions were started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) (including an RfC), and after a while I tagged as many non-compliant articles as I could find with Template:Overly detailed.

Instead, I'm bringing this here to discuss the behavior of several editors; Planeandaquariumgeek and Electricmemory. Planeandaquariumgeek was one of several editors to restore the AIRSPECS-violating version of the Boeing 737 article's specs section, which I promptly reverted. The following week, they started the Removing airliner specifications for no reason discussion on my talk page. A few days later, after another editor mass-reverted my edits, Planeandaquariumgeek created an attack page in said user's userpage. I brought this up to The Bushranger, who nominated the page under WP:G10.

Fast forward to today, and Electricmemory enters the mix and things start moving fast. In chronological order:

• Electricmemory removes the maintenance tag from Boeing 737 MAX, claiming the discussion ended with no consensus,
• Electricmemory makes three posts on my talk page, in which they say AIRSPECS and whatever can go to hell. and I don't give a flying fuck about some style guide written twenty years ago that you steadfastly stand by despite it plainly being wrong...,
• Planeandaquariumgeek posts two replies cheering them on, one with a personal attack,
• Electricmemory posts another reply on my talk page (nothing too egregious),
• Electricmemory reverts the Boeing 737 article's specs section,
• Electricmemory posts another reply to my talk page (nothing too egregious),
• Electricmemory performs an involved close of the RfC,
• Planeandaquariumgeek posts another reply to my talk page (nothing too egregious),
• Electricmemory posts another reply to my talk page (nothing too egregious),
• I reply to Electricmemory,
• I notice Electricmemory's involved close and revert it,
• I reply again to Electricmemory, voicing my intention to bring the matter here at a later time,
• Planeandaquariumgeek posts this bizarre rant at WP:AIRMOS about including detailed specs about every single variant on aircraft articles,
• I finally notice Planeandaquariumgeek's personal attack and come here.

This series of events indicates to me that these two editors share a mindset of not only ignoring, but blatantly rejecting consensus, and patterns of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEA _T\^C 10:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Without comment on the rest of the issue, I want to point out that project-specific style guides can only be viewed as recommendations, not rules. See WP:ADVICEPAGE. So a "violation" of a style guide is not a basis to revert an edit. However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

While true, they're still best-purposes guides - and the discussion around this has been absolutely atrocious, with the side wanting to change the discussion (which is legit) starting with bad faith from the start (which isn't) and with what looks like off-wiki collaboration due to numerous accounts that had been idle for years (at least one since 2011!) suddenly appearing in the discussion to back up the point. This is just the unfortunate end of a disgusting process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

So to be clear I have nothing to do with off-wiki collaboration. I’m a introverted autistic teenager I don’t know nearly enough people to do that. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's obvious you came by the discussion in good faith. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for multiple other participants in that mess. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

rsjaffe While I see what you're getting at, it seems most the part you quoted from WP:ADVICEPAGE is intended for such pages that ask users to ignore a wider consensus. As far as I'm aware, WP:AIRSPECS does not attempt to ignore or override such a consensus, but please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay part, WP:CONLEVEL states that WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus. I had assumed that a style guide followed for 20+ years and does not violate any wider consensus would constitute a valid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

By saying "may or may not represent..." they are saying that absent an RfC, these cannot be relied upon to be a broad community consensus. Duration is not listed as a factor in it representing consensus. The only factor establishing broad community consensus is having it go through the policy and guideline proposal process. As The Bushranger stated above, it still serves as a best-purpose guide. However, it isn't the "law", unlike the WP:MOS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So, you’re accusing me of making an attack page and then you come down here and rip my character to shreds. Got it, not. Also citing me telling another Wikipedian to fix a problem as an attack is insanity. I’m not gonna do this with you quite frankly.Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Also citing me telling another Wikipedian to fix a problem I assume you're referring to this edit. Which isn't insanity, it's absolutely a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

First of all, no. 2nd of all you need to shut your mouth. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Calling someone a moron is certainly a personal attack. And this comment is also not civil. Apologizing and continuing the discussion politely is the correct move here. LordDiscord (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Take this to the arbitration committee for all I care, I couldnt give any less of a flying fucking fuck. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It won't require ARBCOM. It just requires the first admin to deal your upcoming indef block. See ya. Ravenswing 20:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I don’t think blocking anyone is needed. What I do think is needed is some kind of mediation. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You have proven numerous times that you cannot be trusted to conduct yourself civilly, so forgive me for not trusting that you would suddenly conduct yourself in any kind of mediation. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Planeandaquariumgeek certainly was not being civil. I don’t see Electricmemory ignoring consensus or being disruptive – they responded to Planeandaquariumgeek and said “Despite my opinion on this I know better than to just revert everything immediately”. LordDiscord (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would call performing a close on an RfC after reverting one of the edits related to it with an edit summary clearly indicating they have taken a side in the dispute (not to mention numerous posts on one of the involved party's talk pages doubling down on such) to be a highly disruptive case of WP:INVOLVED. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There was no consensus to begin with as you are insinuating under WP:CON and you leaving messages on my talk pages forcing through your changes is the exact kind of egregious violations that you're committing right now. This kind of Goebbelsian behaviour is apalling and reverting edits made by hundreds of contributors over the years smacks of arrogance. Long story short, unless you have consensus, I saw all articles edited by @ZLEA must be reverted to their original state with detailed variant tables as they do not in their present form convey information to the user in a logical format. Swapcv (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am afraid that is incorrect, consensus for the style guide that ZLEA is following has existed since the first iteration of the guideline (which was known as 'page content' at the time). I noted this on the talk page earlier this month.

An RfC was raised to gain consensus for table formatted specifications to replace Template:Aircraft specifications. The RfC would not be needed if a consensus guideline supporting the table format already existed. The RfC is still open, I have expressed my views there in a civil manner, no consensus for change has been gained there so far. It has been raised elsewhere here that project guidelines are not necessarily the law which may be so but there is a world of difference in clarity between six variants and one variant. I explained how seas of numbers are not encyclopedic as well but have now stopped as the problem is not being acknowledged. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That maybe true, but the tabular format was accepted as the format to explain all the discrete differences between each variant within an aircraft family. Also given that this format has remained so for a very long time and was a result of contributions made by hundreds of editors over two decades so a form of consensus already exists. Thus for a contributor to then come along all of a sudden make sweeping changes citing obscure style guides which are non-binding and then stonewall the process by weaponising editing policy then it sets in deep suspicions about the users intentions. Therefore it is my recommendation that unless this dispute is resolved all changes made by the parties involved be reverted to the original state as it existed before, i.e with the specification tables intact, until either {{WP:AIRMOS}} is amended or a RfC for either side of the argument is achieved. Thank you. Swapcv (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Swapcv Did you seriously just compare me to Joseph Goebbels? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to irreconciliable differences with you on this topic, due to the accusations you've put on me and the vitiated atmosphere as a result, I will no longer be engaging in a direct discussion with you on this. If you wish for a mediation, I am all for it and happy to cooperate. Good day. Swapcv (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked one week for doubling down on Godwin's Law. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Planeandaquariumgeek has now performed a mass revert at Airbus A350, Boeing 707, Boeing 720, Boeing 717, Boeing 727, Boeing 737, Boeing 737 Classic, and Boeing 737 Next Generation. I request they be immediately blocked to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no intention of causing disruption. My point is that right now you have 1 supporter and I have one. That’s why I advise we get a neutral mod in on this. Also honestly I’d be a bit happier if you make the info on the 727 about the -200 instead of the -100 since that’s the more common and thus more well known variant. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Also at this point if this escalated any further I intend on escalating to ARBCOM. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• esclates

Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You say you don't intend to cause disruption and are willing to talk through this, but then you pull stunts like this. This user has demonstrated numerous times today that they cannot be trusted to not abuse editing privileges, so I once again ask that they be immediately blocked. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly have 0 intent of causing a disruption and that’s why I’m asking for a neutral mediator. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor who has no intent to cause disruption but is repeatedly disruptive anyway is arguably worse, since it indicates a severe WP:CIR issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So if you’re gonna accuse me of being incompetent I’m just gonna explain something: I’m in honor, my name is in honor, my person is in honor, and that means that attacking my person could come with fees. And before you further call me incompetent I’m just making it clear that I am soul possessing flesh and blood and not an oxymoron. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not call you incompetent, I just pointed out a fact that repeated disruption without intent is a sign of a lack of the required competence to contribute constructively. Your personal attack was an obvious case of bad faith. Whether you intended it or not, this rant of yours was both inflammatory and disruptive, as were your numerous reverts against the current consensus. You have not demonstrated that you are willing or able to constructively engage with editors who disagree with you. Whether you are acting in good or bad faith is beside the point, continued disruption will get you blocked regardless of your intentions. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

That is quite literally calling him incompetent. Electricmemory (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This was a really poor idea. Arbitration cases are quite rare -- there are only a handful a year -- and they're typically absolutely last resort community things not bog standard routing conduct disputes (which this is). If you were trying to cause disruption, I can't think of many things more disruptive than filing an obviously frivolous arbitration request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the arbitration case request as obviously premature (talk page message). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Basically what’s happened is that ZLEA is refusing mediation, so we basically have no other option that i know of. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Basically what’s happened is that ZLEA is refusing mediation. Should mediation be required in the dispute and it is requested by a far less disruptive editor, I will accept it. Obviously, I have no interest in debating with an editor this disruptive. It's too late for you to request mediation. You gave up that privilege when you made this edit. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So basically here’s the deal. If this goes into mediation we could probably resolve this in 24 hours. If it doesn’t we’re gonna be going back and forth for a while. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As I stated before, I have no interest in debating with an editor this disruptive. It's too late for you to request mediation. You gave up that privilege when you made this edit. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem is clearly you have no interest in debating with anyone, at all. You have made it exceptionally clear you refuse to accept change of any sort, even if it's in-arguably an improvement. Electricmemory (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked Planeandaquariumgeek for 72 hours for personal attacks, with note Take a few days to chill out and just not think about this. When you come back, either find something else to focus on, or find a way to express your opinions on this dispute calmly and civilly. This is a courtesy because I can tell you do care about building an encyclopedia. A second block regarding the same conduct will likely be indefinite. I hope they take that advice. I haven't looked at Electricmemory or ZLEA's conduct; just trying to step in here before P&AG says something they can't unsay. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

An IP seems to have continued Planeandaquariumgeek's mass reverts. I have opened an SPI case here. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Mm, here's a twist, though, Tamzin: his statement above of So if you’re gonna accuse me of being incompetent I’m just gonna explain something: I’m in honor, my name is in honor, my person is in honor, and that means that attacking my person could come with fees. That sounds like a legal threat to me. Ravenswing 00:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin Ravenswing On the other hand i think that Wikimedia’s policies are very much ableist and in violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would be grounds for at minimum a lawsuit, but potentially a class action lawsuit since this has affected many people. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. This is in the gray area of Wikipedia:No legal threats § Perceived legal threats, since they're not actually saying they'll sue, but it's certainly an issue. I've left a follow-up comment on their talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I had started to respond but then I saw you posted your response before me. I'll wait to see what happens next before I respond again. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin@ZLEA I haven't said anything that qualifies as a personal attack, not sure why ZLEA even said that to being with... Electricmemory (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

One has to wonder if ZLEA is really interested in solving this, given that he has refused any form of mediation or dispute resolution, did not attempt to message me personally even once, instead going straight to ANI in an attempt to get everyone he disagrees with blocked. If you're actually interested in solving the dispute, this is very much not the route to take. This is something that belongs in an RFC, not here. Electricmemory (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It might help if you stopped making *new* personal attacks after the old ones. Especially on the ANI page like this. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please tell me where I've made something which qualifies as a personal attack. Electricmemory (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

A) The post I replied to.

B) The post where you called ZLEA a moron.

IF you don't believe that kind of thing is a personal attack, you need to go re-read WP:NPA.

EDIT: My mistake! Sorry, the 'moron' comment was from another user. But the rest stands. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who called anyone a moron. Please double check the comment signature. And the comment you replied to is a statement of verifiable fact; ZLEA did not attempt any other forms of dispute resolution, let alone ones that would solve the primary content dispute. Electricmemory (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I did go back and check, as you can tell by the 'EDIT' I added along with the strikethrough and apology that I added before you replied.

And also before you went back and stealth-edited the comment I had replied to in order to remove your claim that It feels to me like ZLEA is interested only in getting his way. Please do not edit your comments after people have already replied to them, unless you make the change clear. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Electricmemory is so keen on misrepresenting the purpose of this discussion, I will reiterate that my coming here had nothing to do with attempting to meditate a dispute. I came here to address disruption and incivility from two editors involved in said dispute. I, perhaps more than anyone, want this dispute to end as soon as possible. However, I do not believe that is possible given the behavior we are all witnessing here. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Reporting editor, Etzedek24's Disruptive Editing and Mass Deletion of Madison West High School article

The editor Etzedek24 recently made a mass deletion on the page: Madison West High School, as he claimed NPOV violations yet clearly deleting expansions of the article that is completely natural or merely informative of the school's history (e.g. it's history of location selection, architecture style, number of students sacrificed in WWII, and 21st century news reportings of the school's controversies.)

Because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know how to directly cite his change, so I copy pasted Madison West High School page's History:

" 00:39, 24 June 2025 Etzedek24 talk contribs  21,951 bytes −11,702  Restored revision 1294040524 by Etzedek24 (talk): Revert to last good version. Removed POV language in the lead. "

And Etzedek24 has intimidated me in my talk page, instead of the article's talk page, that if I revert those changes I could face potential ban.

I has restored the current Madison West High School page to a previous consensus version by a senior editor, EvergreenFir.

I see this as unfair, and his editing clearly disruptive, and I request an impartial arbitration and necessary intervention from administrators to resolve the editing war. Feather943 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You were supposed to alert the editor of this discussion per the big alerts at the top of this page. I've done so for you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I am unfamiliar with many Wikipedia's functions, and I will continue to learn. Feather943 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Latest disruptive editing from Etzedek24 was made. He again deleted all expansions to Madison West High School, including ones that do not violate NPOV.

03:00, 24 June 2025 Etzedek24 talk contribs  21,865 bytes −11,142  Restored revision 1297071153 by Etzedek24 (talk): Last good version. You did not have consensus, other editors were reverting the edits you made. Feather943 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I has restored the current Madison West High School page to a previous consensus version by a senior editor, EvergreenFir. - This does not seem to be the case? @EvergreenFir reverted your edits, and you proceded to revert their revert? GoldRomean (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not revert his reverts yet, because he could easily do it again and this won't end. I will request a page protection and further administrator interventions. Feather943 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

And @Etzedek24 reverted my edits, not @EvergreenFir. Feather943 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about the part where you said, "to a previous consensus version by a senior editor, EvergreenFir". GoldRomean (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Response from the accused: This user has been engaged in a low-intensity edit war going back to April. They were adding clearly partisan prose and sources that violated NPOV and GNG, and whenever their edits were reverted or removed (by me or other editors), they simply reverted them back. I recognize that I have not engaged in as much discussion as I should have, but as I am not active on Wikipedia much these days, I did not think they would WP:LISTEN. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

But you could just deleted those NPOV sections, if I accept your premise tentatively.

There are good-faith contributions I made to the article including expanding the school's major academic competition clubs, founding history, style of architecture, Golden Star alumni during WWII, and recent school renovations. It clearly becomes disruptive editing, when you delete ALL of them without distinguishment. Feather943 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you try to

peacefully talk with Etzedek before trying to get them reprimanded? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I made a comment in Madison West High School's Talk page, and to Etzedek24's talk page. That comment is as below:

"Hello Etzedek24,

I do not wish this to involve an editing war. The WILL findings were accurate and true; they directly cited West High School's email without distortion or paraphrasing. And West High School's action of dividing students' parents into "white student room" and "student of color room" can be described as racism by Webster dictionary definition, "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and could violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This would be more likely true under the latest Supreme Court 9-0, Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). ruling, pointed to the text of Title VII, which contains no language that requires an individual in the majority to meet a higher standard than that of an individual in the minority. Moreover, this was significant news reported by local papers and a point of contention between parents and the district at the time.

Additionally, the lawsuits regarding the use of forced pronouns in the School Policy were a significant issue as well. You deleted it without any reason.

It is the spirit of Wikipedia not to censor, and what has happened needs to be shown as they were.

I have deleted the Trump 2025 Executive Order part, as you reasonably mentioned, it did not mention West High School. I deleted the introduction part that mentions' West's 'Scandals and Controversies' because they would not reflect recency as time goes forward.

What do you think about removing the "Scandals" part, and keeping "Controversies" as the section title, because I believe our disagreement is that you or some others holding different political views could disagree what WILL be cited as Scandals; however, it is in all accuracy to say they are controversial because of that.

Please let me know if you have further comments or dissents. I appreciate your time and this civil discourse, and let's keep it in good faith.

Sincerely,

Feather943 Feather943 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "

Etzedek24 accuses me of not Listening, but he never talked to my page until today's mass-deletion and this comment to my talk page:

"Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Madison West High School, you may be blocked from editing. The language and content of your edits are a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy. Much of the prose and citations you inserted into the article are unreliable, not independent of the subject, and in many cases, concern the school district itself and not the school. Continued reversions to this material will be taken to ANI or AN3. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

The version that Feather943 keeps restoring is largely based on primary and low-quality sources and adds a section about a "policy that allowed students to change their gender identity" cited to Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and another that connects the school with Executive Order 14190. On top of this, there are sections on the Talk page about "forced pronouns" and a DEI officer implementing Critical Race Theory and silencing conservatives, plus a plea to report examples of bias to media so they can be included in the article. All of this sounds like WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE behavior. Woodroar (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Untrue. a DEI officer implementing Critical Race Theory and silencing conservatives has been deleted by @EvergreenFir. Citation from WILL was reported by local medias at that time, and it was about Madison West Administrators dividing students into ""white student room" and "student of color room" per unedited direct quotation from school email.

Not addressing @Etzedek24‘s mass and unexplained deletion of sections:

About School

1924-1930: Founding

1939-1945: World War II

2020-2024: Renovation

2020–2022: Academic and Policy Changes Feather943 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been restored to that version again. I would revert, but am approaching 3RR territory. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It was reverted so the Administrators can clearly see the damage done by your mass-deletion. Feather943 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Explain & Justify your deletion of:

About School

Extracurricular Activities (new edits to include a list of current academic competitive clubs via order of alphabet, and hyperlinking them,)

Main Events of School

1924-1930: Founding

1939-1945: World War II

2020-2024: Renovation

2020–2022: Academic and Policy Changes

Feather943 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Objection to WP:RGW per evidence above.

Objection to WP:NOTHERE accusations. per my effort of major expansions of the page under Main Events of School, and @Etzedek24 also deleted my addition to Extracurricular Activities. In his mass-deletion, he deleted the link I provided to the School's most updated list of current clubs, and a listing and hyperlinks of it's academic competitive clubs. Feather943 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Per the very top of this page: This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. None of this qualifies. Take it to the talk page and knock it off with the edit-warring or you can both find yourselves in time-out. Additionally, all of those alumni listed at the bottom need sources, or they need to be removed, per WP:BLP. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it was an urgent incident of deleting of my weeks of efforts of expanding the page. It's not possible for me to wait and see the subsections of Main Events of School are mass-deleted without reason.

  I have compromised by including About School's Equity Vision, and have deleted unverifiable sources.

  It was encouraged in my new wiki Guide to contribute by expanding pages, and seems now, is that still the case? Feather943 (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, I suggest following the process at WP:DR, perhaps a WP:3O? Staying here might result in you both being blocked for edit warring, which neither of you would like. GoldRomean (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with your suggestion and will not continue to evolve to a loss-loss situation. I will break away from editing Madison West High School and this noticeboard, until I introduce the page to WP:DR and WP:3O, which will be done within 14 days. Until WP:DR and WP:3O processes is finished or 14 days passed, I will not interfere with any edits made from @Etzedek24, disruptive or not. Feather943 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I would suggest a review of WP:OWN might be in order as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I had reviewed it and it was helpful to learn No one owns Wikipedia articles. Feather943 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am quite aware of the edit warring policy and do not intend to violate it. But as I said upthread, and other users in this thread have pointed out, this has been going on since April and demonstrates some NOTHERE issues, especially because Feather943 has reverted edits from users other than myself. They have put so many blocks of text in this thread that it is somewhat hard to navigate. I introduced this issue at the relevant Wikiproject hoping to get more eyes. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Restored by UPE account after sock creation – G5 applies?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page Guard (2025 film) was initially deleted under G5 in March, as it was created by a sockpuppet of Taffystone. Later, the user IX1883 —who has since been blocked as a sock of the same farm—removed the redirect from The Guard and recreated the page Guard (film). Subsequently, Onel5969 moved it to Guard (2025 film) due to some reasons. Then, CNMall41 moved the page to Draft space, citing that it was originally created by a sock. Later, Thesazh moved it back to mainspace but was later blocked for undisclosed paid editing. All these events trace back to the recreation of the Guard film page. Given the chain of actions—especially the multiple recreations by confirmed sockpuppets and UPE —this appears to qualify under G5 or PROD.? Refer to this case2405:201:C410:3058:480B:B793:A1A2:4E2E (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

(A gnome writes) I've tagged Guard (film)Guard (film) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The prefix "the" is almost never a good disambiguator (though I know a couple of examples, such as The The) . Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Narky Blert hi, What about Guard (2025 film)? Created by sock and draft moved by UPE.

2405:201:C410:3058:CDCD:C325:31A5:7AEC (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

No comment. That article is at AFD. I have no opinion on its merits. I lack the enthusiasm and energy needed to form an opinion. Narky Blert (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

To be precise, it was PRODdded, not AfD'd. That said, this was expanded from a redirect by a sock, and restored by a now UPE-blocked editor. Given that, I'm going to delete, restore the original redirect, and then move to Guard (film) where this was orignally, then restoring that redirect's current history. What a mess. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genre warrior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• CrimeFind31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been persistently engaging in genre warring across multiple articles, without sources, discussions, or consensus. They have received plentiful warnings about this on their talk page, which also include links to WP:GWAR, but they are still continuing their disruptive editing, causing more work for other editors to clean up. Magatta (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Magatta, can you please provide diffs and links to previous discussions with the editor? Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Diff of the user's talk page can be found here. There are discussions from January, February and this month. I'd like to point out that they replied to the one from February saying they'd provide proof supporting their genre changes (diff: ) but have yet to do so satisfactorily using a reliable source, and that they also said they'd proven I Touch Myself to be in the alternative rock genre (diff: ) when they did not. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Here is one instance where I left a warning on the user's talk page back in February following a undiscussed insertion of a genre at If You Only Knew, which was also backed by RYM (an unreliable source) . The user then responded claiming they will have more "proof" the aforementioned song is of that style.

Please note that until last week I went off Wikipedia for a while, so I never properly documented a lot of their subsequent edits until recently, but a look at this user's contributions gives a clear track record of their disruptive editing surrounding genres.

More recently, about two days ago, the user at Miss You Much, which I reverted, and left a level 3 warning on their talk page, advising them to participate in discussion before inserting potentially controversial genres. There was no reply from this user, and five days later, made another insertion at Digging Your Scene, which prompted me to issue a level four warning. This also got no response, and most recently, the user made another undiscussed genre insertion at Video Killed the Radio Star., which is why I brought the matter here.

Also, this is not my interaction, but User:Doctorhawkes issued a level one warning to this user back in January, following a similar edit made at I Touch Myself. The user responded saying they "proved" the song was in that style because they believed so, and didn't provide a source, or start a discussion, in order to give other editors a chance to reach consensus. Magatta (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to CrimeFind31's persistent addition of unsourced musical genres, I have indefinitely blocked them from editing article space. They have been violating the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. They are free make neutral, well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. If they want to add a genre, they must provide a reliable source verifying that genre. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RocketDwiki mass-reverting my edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• RocketDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This might be better suited for the edit warring noticeboard, but User:RocketDwiki is mass-reverting my addition of Template:Use American English to articles about Californian towns (here is example). I have asked on their talk page for the reason behind this but all I'm getting is "Please stop randomly mass adding to articles in areas in California that do NOT necessarily use American English." I cannot understand why an article written in American English about an American town should not use American English or does not satisfy MOS:TIES. This noticeboard might be overkill, but I'm not getting an answer and I don't want to start an edit war. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your edits. Tagging EEng and Magnolia677 because they were also involved in the discussion on Rocket's talk page and might want to contribute here. I'd say this is a case of WP:CIR for violating the MOS, however, it's possible that Rocket didn't know about the guidelines. Not an excuse, of course. Have they been warned specifically about the MOS before? » Gommeh (he/him) 20:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

never been warned about the MOS. @Panamitsu should have been more polite in their request and pointed out the guidelines. RocketDwiki (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

In general, what MOS:TIES says is that if an article is related to a place that speaks English (US, Canada, India, UK, etc) then you are supposed to use the national variety of English spoken there. This includes spellings (e.g. "color" for US-related articles vs "colour" for UK-related articles) and vocabulary (US "trunk" vs UK "boot" to refer to the part of a car where you put your suitcases). » Gommeh (he/him) 23:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The edit summaries of my edits all were "add {{Use American English}} template per MOS:TIES" so I assumed that you had read MOS:TIES. When in doubt, please discuss, and please don't make reverts in the middle of a conversation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

RocketDwiki, if you haven't taken the time to find out the appropriate usage of a template, you shouldn't be removing it. It is down to you to look for guidelines before you start messing around with such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Did you have any other issues, Panamitsu, or can we consider this incident resolved? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it's been resolved I reckon. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hounding by Thehistorianisaac

The editor has been following my edits in violation of policy by reverting contributions that I've made across multiple articles and joining a discussion between myself and an unrelated third editor for an article which I have edited. In light of their report against me, I am requesting administrative action against this user. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's time for a two-way interaction ban? —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@C.Fred

This is a completely false report intendent to harass me. This is not hounding, @Nghtcmdr incorrectly removed info(In fact, they have targeted info I have added, so if anybody is hounding, it is them), and I simply added back the info.

Additionally, @Nghtcmdr has failed to address his misconduct on ANI.

In fact, ironically, @Nghtcmdr has been hounding me on places such as WT:MILHIST. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

You are taking things out of context. In fact, I highly suspect the edits that I reverted were exactly WP:HOUND. You have targeted articles where I have added info, and deleted said properly sourced info.

In fact, you have yet to respond to your own misconduct on ANI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac explain this edit . How were you able to find that change that I made for such an obscure article if you weren't monitoring my edits? Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

I DO monitor your edits, as I have seen a pattern of them being disruptive and involving unsourced info. Such behavior is NOT WP:HOUND. Other users have tracked my edits before(Back when I was new and my edits were, frankly, not that great), and such is a commonly done practice among people who prevent disruptive editing as WP:HOUND has stated. I have not reverted all your edits, as I do acknowledge some are okay, however when I revert edits where you have removed properly sourced info(without proper explanation) or add unverified info, that is not WP:HOUND. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You reverted five edits that I made across five articles within a matter of seconds. That's called hounding. Nghtcmdr (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not hounding. YOUR edits removed information(properly sourced) by the way, and I had to restore it. Instead of falsely accusing me of hounding, read the policies you are citing and STOP making disruptive edits. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Whatever's going on here is clearly starting to disrupt a number of military-related topics, and it needs to stop now. Nghtcmdr, I'd be *real* careful about throwing around accusations of WP:HOUNDING -- on at least two of those pages Thehistorianisaac's edit history doesn't appear to back up your claim. On Commando for instance, his first edit to that page appears to be June 10th, while yours appears to be June 18th and completely reverts his edit. Similarly, his first edit to List of military special forces units is from back in 2024; you've never shown up on that page before now. Further, your edit summaries are absolutely not OK here -- just saying WP:HOUND on an undo, repeatedly, does not adequately explain why you're reverting the content nor does it show any serious attempt at consensus building (and yes, I've been following the back-and-forth on y'alls talk pages for several days now and am not impressed). If you want admins to dig into the root cause of this, y'all better be prepared for boomerangs to fly.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

As I explained to @C.Fred on my talk page, the reason for the proximity in timing is because I took a sustained interest in law enforcement/defense-material on Wikipedia only after I started editing it again in light of the 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators. Nghtcmdr (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

What got you into editing does not matter here. What DOES matter is that you are falsely accusing me of hounding(along with all of your previous misconduct, which you have yet to address), when ALL the edits I reverted were very openly bad edits(either simply unsourced info or just quite blatant removal of properly sourced info). Instead of complaining when I undo your bad edits, how about you read the policies properly and see why I actually reverted them? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester

I would also suggest immediately addressing @Nghtcmdr's long list of misconduct . It is ridiculous how long it is taking for any admin intervention to arrive, considering that other editors have also voiced their concerns. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Both Nghtcmdr and Thehistorianisaac have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. I don't think 24 hours will be sufficient to put this dispute to rest as it has already gone on nearly two weeks. But, hey, let's see if anything changes tomorrow.

If this bickering continues, I'd support an IBan. What I've observed over June is that Thehistorianisaac rejects Nghtcmdr's editing and I don't think Thehistorianisaac will stop following Nghtcmdr unless Nghtcmdr receives a substantial sanction which despite several noticeboard complaints, no admin has found necessary to impose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz

I don't "reject" Nghtcmdr's edits, I reject all edits that go against wikipedia's policy and/or are disruptive, which includes quite a lot of @Nghtcmdr's edits.

Nghtcmdr is obviously very ignorant to the policies he cites, and has shown blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. He has repeatedly deleted reliable sources "because they are not in english". Unless either Nghtcmdr chooses to actually read the policies he claims justify removing properly sourced info, I will continue to ask for sanctions.Also, Multiple other editors have requested sanctions be taken against Nghtcmdr

I seriously question why no actions have taken place against Nghtcmdr. Again, if you see the original ANI, you can see Nghtcmdr has often done personal attacks, ICANTHEARYOU, WP:BLUDGEON, general harassment and ignorance of policies. I seriously do not understand why no admin has found it nessecary to giv seanctions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Persistent POV by User:Surayeproject3

Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

On the 2025-04-07, User Surayeproject3 was formally warned not to edit article related to Assyrian, Syriac, Chaldean, and Aramean, without talk page discussion beforehand. See this. (Ctrl+F: "block for edit-warring").

On the 2025-05-06, Surayeproject3 made a list of articles that are highly sensitive to the topic Assyrian/Aramean. See this. For example, user Surayeproject3 proceeded to edit villages which he had listed as highly sensitive, including Anitli and Haberli (see below). (Ctrl+F: "Assyrian village").

On the 2025-05-20, I, Historynerd361, was informed by an mediator that Surayeproject3 has has agreed to "move away from the contentious aspects of the topic for the time being." See this.

User Surayeproject3 has since his warning on April 7 kept on editing articles related to the sensitive topic. Mostly templates was added by Surayeproject3. However he has swiftly went back to editing Assyrian/Aramean related topics and once again, pushes a POV. One example is shown here where his edit summary says Condensing some references into Bibliography but he simultaneously adds the term Assyrian. Here he creates a diversion.

Examples of edits made after the warning: Edits made before the warning: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Violations

WP:EDIT WARRING: edit-warring to push a POV.

Actions Attempted

Warned on 2025-04-07. Ignored the warning and returned to his old habits within a short time. Surayeproject3 talk page archive includes several attempts by other editors not fuel the Assyrian/Aramean dispute more than necessary.

Suggested Action

Indefinite block or topic ban to prevent further disruption.

{{Historynerd361 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)|Historynerd361}}

OP, please make sure to give them a notification about this discussion as required by policy. I noticed you didn't do that and have done that for you. Additionally please remember to sign your comments with four tildes per WP:SIGNATURE. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Whelp, can't say I'm impressed by their edits. Last time I remembered seeing them on my talk page, they replied:

Sounds good with me. I've been recommended by Hammersoft to follow the same path, so I'll mostly focus on other topic areas for now. Would it be a problem to edit articles in the topic area that are not contentious or part of the controversy (say for example, cuisine, or something related to the Syriac alphabet)?

A bit sad to see them making edits more directly related to the main controversy without communicating on Talk:Haberli, İdil (although they did communicate on Talk:Üçköy, Nusaybin!)
By the way, in the discussion you linked, @Asilvering did later rescind their warning, although that shouldn't have been interpreted as a go-ahead for making changes without prior discussion either. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Some points to respond:

• The moderator who stated "any further undiscussed changes of this nature will receive a block for edit-warring" rescinded this following lowered disputes
• The mediator mentioned, Chaotic Enby, stated that I am OK to edit articles in the topic area that were no part of recent controversies - for villages (this applies to both Anıtlı, Midyat and Haberli, İdil), I discussed this with another editor in the topic area to ask their opinion
• Historynerd361 has stated there was editing warring taking place, though he has not stated where the edit warring has happened

@Chaotic Enby If nobody contested the changes on the actual article itself, is it still disruptive to the topic area? I'm not sure that every change like the ones on Haberli, İdil requires a talk page message every time. I've also edited outside of the topic area as well. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's technically not disruptive editing, but, regardless of the article you are doing it on, changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian" is still close to the heart of the controversy. You mention Haberli, but another editor explicitly contested it on that article's talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Syriac is still there. I added Assyrian in front of it to make it "Assyrian/Syriac", so it was the only type of change like that on the article, see this diff . User623921 was Wlaak's old username, so it's not a different user contesting it . Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, especially since the link is to the article that is currently titled Assyrians.

@Historynerd361, I gather you're not on the same "side" of this dispute as Surayeproject. If you're interested in taking part in some mediated discussion on how to handle the topic, would you add your name to the list at User:Asilvering/List of ACAS parties? This was my earlier attempt to see who we could gather into the same room to talk about all of this, but since Wlaak has basically disappeared after being topic-banned (and that SPI is still outstanding), I haven't tried to push it forward, out of the worry that we were missing someone from the "Aramean side", so to speak. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I sure will add my name to the list. However I just want to note that Syriac redirect has already been retargeted to a disambiguation page, not to any Assyrian article. I also want to point out that surayeproject3 has been editing the same area he listed to be highly sensitive and listed for GS, the same area he said he'd step down from after being advised to. Even though he was advised to use talk page before editing he did not go through with that on the villages listed above. Surayeproject3 adding the term Assyrian just adds more to my skepticism. Even if he claims Assyrian/Syriac is a more neutral term, he won’t surf around wikipedia and add the name Syriac to where Assyrian stands alone. I am pointing this put in order to avoid POV edits, as he has proven to do in the past. Historynerd361 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder, ACAS was placed under General Sanctions last month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

User:121.169.43.133 adding speedy deletion tags to seemingly random articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 121.169.43.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Special:Contributions/121.169.43.133 The articles don't meet the speedy deletion criteria by a long shot, so this is obvious vandalism. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Materialscientist proxy-blocked it, likewise Special:Contributions/71.231.165.84 that they were abusing just prior to that. And several admins gave various other blocks to other IPs and ranges. DMacks (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GRocasFan2024 repeated NPA violations

• GRocasFan2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GRocasFan2024 has been continuously been violating WP:NPA by posting swear words and even middle finger emojis to other users who are posting vandalism warnings. See their edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GRocasFan2024&action=history, most egregriously Special:Diff/1293882691.

Plenty of users have warned them for their edits since April and they have been continuing to make these edits; only recently has it gotten much worse. The warning in April didn't get a reply, and the one in May got a polite "sorry" reply. However, the replies this month are very rude and violate WP:NPA.

This continued aggression has been getting very inappropriate and I believe a permanent block with no talk page access is warranted. MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Since the last offensive reply (10 days ago) Gro... seems to have been a productive editor, and there are no reverts in the last 50 edits. While the behavior was unacceptable, the user appears to have reformed. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so blocking at this time doesn't seem appropriate to me. If the behavior recurs, sure, but not now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear from User:GRocasFan2024. Wikipedia has kind of a wishy-washy attitude about "swear words". If it's a personal attack, they are usually sanctioned. But swear words used in isolation, as an expression of frustration? Well, some of our editors who've been around the longest have used them so it doesn't seem fair to censor new editors but allow longtimers to let the expletives fly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  As the target of said profanity and bird, I took no offense as I was only trying to help correct their expectations about sourcing and writing articles (and there would be no block from me since I'm not an admin). They're improving and need some guidance, and I've had no issues with them since. Nathannah • 📮 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, I agree with your overall point and wish that all editors of whatever experience level would refrain from emphasizing their points with F-bombs. However, it is a rare longtimer who would write JUST BLOCK ME FOR EDITING IF YOU FUCKING WANT!!!!!!!!!! I DON’T FUCKING CARE!!!!!!!!!! followed by the predictable emoji. All caps. Twenty exclamation marks. Given the editor's chosen topic area, there may be a question of maturity involved. GRocasFan2024, this is a collaborative project. Please refrain from angry profane outbursts if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Nathannah, thank you for your mature response. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have seen longtimers post messages like that in the past. But it was on their way out, leaving Wikipedia in their wake. Comments like that are hard to come back from. Editors who encounter them don't easily forget explosions of harsh words. So, I guess it's a question of how much ROPE to offer. Being called to ANI is often enough to scare editors straight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

As the person who warned GRocasFan2024 almost 2 weeks ago for incivility after they responded to a warning for disruptive editing at 2 articles with a middle finger emoji directed at myself, I agree with Nathannah that I have had no issues since my warning. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Continued vandalism/disruptive editing by User:43.252.60.197

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 43.252.60.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just undid this edit. Looking at their talk page they have received plenty of warnings for vandalism. They received blocks in the past, but it looks like their last block expired. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they've only made one edit since the block expired in January. If they continue, we can look into blocking them again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I thought the previous edit was January 2025, not 2024. My mistake. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acmeonel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Acmeonel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been repeatedly changing genealogical information of Ottoman royalty without any sources, in some cases removing unsourced sourced information. They are continuing to do so despite reverts and being warned on their talk page. Diffs:

• Gevherhan Sultan
• Nurbanu Sultan
• Ismihan Sultan
• Şah Sultan
• Selim II
• Roxelana

Elestrophe (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I see now they were temporarily blocked by User:Materialscientist at the same time as I was writing this report, so I suppose nothing else needs to be done. Elestrophe (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SounderBruce

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SounderBruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm making this post because of my interaction with SounderBruce and Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss in regards to Pattullo Bridge which I split Pattullo Bridge Replacement into.

When I made the change SounderBruce, they reverted it here with the comment 'Should not be split without discussion', which was unclear. At this point, I didn't do anything. I didn't undo it. I asked on their talk page to see if there was a policy I wasn't following and if they disagreed they should have explained in the articles Talk page. I did that here, which I think is fair. Instead they undid it from their talk page and did not add anything to the talk the page or explain anything to me. I then try again to get them to discuss it. Same response, this time using rollback to undo my questions and requests for discussion on their talk page.

This is where I'm very confused. I don't know if he's disputing it, if it's because I didn't do attribution or anything. This is when I undo their undo but also start a discussion on the talk page.

SounderBruce undoes it and this is the only short time they participate in any discussion. I get a sense of misunderstanding (there's name change which SounderBruce doesn't know about) and SounderBruce doesn't think the replacement bridge information should be there. I think that's fair and think the 2nd paragraph should be moved to the History Section and the first paragraph can stay. This is where I think there's understanding and so I make those changes. This is my mistake and it was fully reverted by SounderBruce. However, they have still yet to have a discussion on the last 2 paragraphs and refuses to participate. User:EducatedRedneck suggested we use Excerpt template, which I think is a good idea, but once again SounderBruce isn't saying anything.

I'm really at the end of my rope and feel like I'm being bit as a newcomer. I don't know all the policies, which is why I asked upfront. --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Created Account For Old UI, I've read the discussion on the article talk page and it seems to me that SounderBruce has a pretty straightforward position: there should not be an article on the new bridge until the new bridge has been named. But you've created the article, and SounderBruce hasn't nominated it for deletion, so I'm not sure what is left to dispute? The WP:3O you called to the talk page appears to have the same opinion. So I'm not sure what remains in the dispute here? You can go ahead and implement the suggestions by the 3O. -- asilvering (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the content dispute that I'm posting here. It's the interaction that I'm talking about here. The failure to discuss. I'm not sure if I implement's EducatedRedneck idea that it won't just be reverted by SounderBruce.

The fact that SounderBruce didn't discuss anything (until I undid their undo) and consistent reverted my requests for their train of thought. How do I know SounderBruce doesn't like EducatedRedneck idea or is in favour of it? I don't. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If I understand their meaning, SounderBruce's first revert included the message The notice exists for a reason, which refers to the Please keep discussion of specific article issues on their respective talk page instead of dispersing the discussion; any additions here will be reverted and ignored notice at the top of their page. A bit cryptic and bitey on their part. Woodroar (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm rather more unimpressed with this one. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Why though? Why is it that I tried multiple times to engage and was getting stonewalled? Why is it okay to ignore the requests for discussions? Isn't that going to annoy other users who are trying to edit an article in good faith.

I don't get how that behaviour can be accepted. I can guarantee you that if I did that at work. I'd be fired. At some point the user will snap. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, luckily for all of us, we're all volunteers, and no one can or will fire us. For the same reason, none of us are obligated to do much of anything at all, and that includes taking part in discussions, for the most part. If SounderBruce doesn't have anything to add, or doesn't care to say anything, they're under no obligation to. If someone both fails to discuss and prevents you from editing the article, then that lack of discussion presents a problem. So, like I said, and like the 3O said: just make that next edit. They will either come to the discussion, or they'll let it stand. You've done mostly everything right so far, so just keep going.

As for the more general existential questions you're asking: my advice is that you stop worrying about what other people may or may not be thinking. You can't make anyone do or believe anything. The only behaviour you control is your own. If your own behaviour is patient, calm, and in good faith, you have very little to worry about. Take a deep breath, make the edit you want to make, and deal with the reaction to it if one comes and not before. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. This is good advice. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't, but now it's 2:1. And if SounderBruce reverts you again in those circumstances, without any further discussion, I would consider that to be edit-warring. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Created Account For Old UI, what did you find unclear about "Should not be split without discussion"? That seems quite a clear statement. SounderBruce's lack of response on their User talk is not the best outcome, but they are correct that the best place to discuss article content is on an article talkpage. If you're looking for specific policies to govern every actions permissibility or lack of, those don't exist. However, in general any bold edit can be reverted, and in general such reverts should be discussed on article talkpages. CMD (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to discuss it on their talk page. I put on their talk page that they should explain their reasoning for "Should not be split without discussion" on the article's talk page.

That's not clear though. Shouldn't users have to explain why they didn't like the split. Because without that it sounds like 'oh I don't like it'.

Maybe this is just me but I feel like if you don't like an edit and you undo it, that you should be obligated to explain why not just "Should not be split without discussion" Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no. If an edit is disputed, it's ultimately up to the person who wants to make the edit to build consensus for it. In the meantime, the status quo should prevail in the article. And since we're volunteers, you can't really make someone say more than "I don't like it". So your options at that point are to wait and see if more people join the discussion, go to 3O, post at a relevant WikiProject, etc. That being said, of course it's nearly always better for editors to explain their viewpoint. If your reason for changing the article makes sense and doesn't violate any policies or guidelines, and the other editor doesn't explain themselves, there's a good chance that consensus will eventually go your way. Woodroar (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm too used to places where the reason you disagree is expects. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It is expected to come up as part of discussion, but the onus for initiating discussion leans towards the person seeking a change. CMD (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not know that. If I was told as such, I would have done so. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not a problem, there's always more to learn. CMD (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why this is important enough for AN/I, because it looks like a fairly benign content dispute that isn't even really a dispute. I do agree with SounderBruce that it was premature to split without a name for the new bridge having been announced, and the content at the split article would fit fine within the existing article until the name is announced. I was tempted to DRAFTIFY it (as it's very WP:CRYSTALBALLish right now), but will defer to others if they feel strongly enough to do it or not... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an extreme and unwarranted escalation. No editor should be expected to be on-call for the entirety of a weekend, and I would advise that patience is necessary when approaching Wikipedia. I have not had time to look at Talk:Pattullo Bridge yet, so the last paragraph in this original post is completely unsubstantiated and I will respond only to the accusation of incivility that is being made here.

Clearly, there is some confusion here. The initial split was made without a discussion and appeared to be a mass removal of content, including information that would only pertain to the original bridge rather than its replacement. I reverted and neglected to request that a discussion be opened; it was a mistake on my part, as it was 2 am local time and I was about to log off for the day.

As for my talk page message: I do not think it is unreasonable for an editor to ask for discussions to be in a single area for accountability and housekeeping purposes. I have previously had editors take issue with my use of talk page discussions, so this is something that I use to ensure compliance with site policies. I do not think it is appropriate for an editor to accuse another of "making it impossible" to discuss a topic or "engaging in uncivil behavior" and not expect to have that kind of language removed from a user talk page. SounderBruce 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You could have easily replied to my first talk page message with 'I'll post on the articles talk page in due time' (which is all those messages were to begin with). You reverted it twice. I can't give you the benefit of the doubt when the alternative isn't much work, so the on-call isn't expected at all. It gives the impression that you are avoiding the discussion. Heck, you could have done nothing. Didn't revert or anything and in due time add it to the article's talk page and then delete it from your talk page. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"Avoiding the discussion" is not a credible claim when there's only been a mere few hours between responses. The essay linked above even advises that a wait of several days is recommended. There is no obligation to swiftly respond to a content dispute, and there is certainly no obligation for an editor to do nothing if there is a sudden and undiscussed change to a stable article. SounderBruce 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There was no expectation from my side. The problem is the undo and revert of the talk page messages without anything else. Like I said. You could have done nothing. If you did nothing. I wouldn't have said anything and went on with my day and wait for a response on the articles talk page. You did reply. You replied by nuking my messages. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Icaneditalot42

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Icaneditalot42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit-warring, belligerent behavior. Lots of messages and warnings on user talk page, behavior doesn't change. Previous two-week block didn't help either. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked one month for DE. Could have been any number of reasons. Will leave a note that any further on expiry will not be tolerated Star Mississippi 11:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive editing and bad-faith engagement by @XYZ 250706

• XYZ 250706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am bringing this here after months of attempting to resolve a prolonged, frustrating content and conduct dispute with user @XYZ 250706 regarding several India-related communist articles.

Despite my repeated efforts to engage constructively through article talk pages and avoid edit warring, XYZ has consistently stonewalled any meaningful discussion, frequently misused edit summaries to accuse me of disruption, and has shown signs of WP:OWN behavior. They have also engaged in repeated reverts without building consensus, misrepresented consensus when it didn't exist, and generally made collaboration impossible. At first, I was considering taking this to Content Dispute Resolution, but this is much more about behaviour and user conduct which is why I have opened this in ANI.

Details:
1. In the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), XYZ has repeatedly reverted my attempts at adding a sourced history section, which deals with expulsion against dissidents and supposed revisionists. XYZ reverted it repeatedly, calling it "badly sourced" even though the source is extremely reliably and scholarly and the authors are highly reputed. I opened multiple discussions. XYZ refused to engage and continued reverting, providing no policy-based rebuttal, only "I disagree"-style arguments. This article has no other active editors apart from the two of us, yet they insist I must "gain consensus" from them alone while rejecting all my attempts at discussion.

2. In the Communist Party of India (Marxist), XYZ added a list of political buzzwords, such as Anti-neoliberalism, Anti-imperialism, etc., to the infobox. I removed them because they were badly sourced and redundant and opened a discussion. XYZ opened a discussion on the talk page of the article, which also attracted some other editors. The discussion was quite polarized yet XYZ claimed majority support and continued editing accordingly. They have since also began removing the Far-left label from the article, as well as the article List of political parties in India without any meaningful reason why.

3. XYZ refused to compromise, and has accused me of bludgeoning, being disruptive, and edit warring, despite my repeated efforts to deal with the matter through discussions. Looking at their user history, this is not a one-off behavior. They have previously been blocked by an admin, from editing some articles because they bypassed the article creation draft process and were disruptive at the AfD. Some weeks ago, they were given a notice by another editor for adding WP:OR content. Furthermore, in their user talk page, a discussion was opened by a separate editor due to XYZ's use of "reverting things based on WP:CONSENSUS without actually stating what makes the changes controversial." XYZ has since deleted the discussion but it can be accessed at the talk page edit history here, at the discussion titled 'People's democratic state'.

I would appreciate admin input, advice, or actions. Thank you. EarthDude (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

60% editors who took part in previous discussion supported my view. I requested User:Robert McClenon to review sourcing and his report supported my view. The issue related to people's democratic state was resolved with other editor. There was misunderstanding, but I and the other editor reached consensus through discussion. User: EarthDude blatantly imposes his edits over others to his POV. I removed far-left as it is nowhere mentioned in his source and previously other editors have removed adding far-left added by some IP address and sock editors. I told no other sources says that EMS Namboodiripad removed any Politburo member and history of CPIM politburo also doesn't indicate any removal/purge. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Imperialism is mentioned here (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=AgybDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and even in other sources and Earth Dude continuously removed those things. Besides he thinks discussion not holding his views cannot be regarded as consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

One editor also accused EarthDude for imposing his POV. User Talk: EarthDude#Stop deleting and imposing your POV. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

What you are talking about was a seven day old account who reverted my edits and attacked me for POV pushing, even though all I did was grammatical fixes, removing minor and non encyclopedic information (like the number of languages someone knew) and adding some reliably sourced content. Said wikipedia usee had also attacked other senior and more established editors for a supposed "anti-Indian" agenda, and after which they stopped all engagement with the platform. Im pretty sure the last time I checked, basic wikipedia editing work was not "POV pushing."

Also, once again, you are manufacturing a non-existent consensus. A simply look at the discussion would show how polarized it was and how no full consensus was reached.

On 30 May, a third-party editor opened a discussion titled "Battleground conduct and edit warring" on your talk page regarding your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, edit warring, and misrepresentation of wikipedia policy, and suggested you open a dispute resolution. You have since deleted the discussion without meaningfully engaging with that either. EarthDude (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

See the issue was resolved between us and that issue was regarding you. I want to draw the admin's attention to Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist) where 3 editors supported adding multiple ideologies and 2 opposed it and one more editor supported clarifying ideologies here Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024. The idea to analyse sources by Robert McClenon was given to me by Wikipedia admin Star Mississippi. Previously also multiple ideologies were added in the article and any editor removed that without any consensus or discussion. You didn't support any idea doesn't mean there is no consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding, the Politburo debate, I have already placed my view in the discussion opened by EarthDude here in Talk:Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)#Regarding the History section. Not supporting his views/ideas can't be disruption or bad faith edit. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute ranging over several articles and it looks like the situation would be aided by the Dispute resolution process. Has that been attempted yet? You both have to be willing to participate and understand that a compromise might involve you not getting "your" way. But trying to eliminate an editor who has different perspective than your own doesn't work. You have to be willing to engage without attacking the other editor and right now, I'm not seeing much mutual respect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz Once more I want to emphasize the fact that I opened discussion regarding CPIM's ideologies. There three editors supported adding more ideologies and two opposed it. One more editor in one previous discussion (edit request) supported clarifying ideologies. So I added multiple ideologies. But User:EarthDude reverted those changes saying that consensus is not arrived. Then he opened another discussion. He was first saying that sourcing was not at all good and then when I am showing reliable sources, he is saying those are redundant. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even when you opened a discussion, and mind you the only attempt at consensus building you ever made, you still kept bypassing it by editing into the article your proposed changes, far before any consensus was ever reached. From the start, I said much of your proposed inclusions were somewhat redundant but I agreed with some points and all I did was highlight the issues with your sourcing. Just some days ago, I even included one of your proposals to the article. But then you began accusing and attacking me, and going to unrelated discussions of my talk page to further attack me, and as a whole acting as if there was some kind of war going on between the two of us. EarthDude (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, I removed changes like NCERT sources, ideology like environmentalism, democratic socialism as they were steongly opposed by others in discussions. I didn't made any personal attack to anybody. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, multiple ideologies were added to the article even about 8 months ago. One editor removed it without consensus. I added them with some tweaks. Besides somedays ago, one more editor User:Ahammed Saad edited the page [the version revised by me (without NCERT sources, environmentalism)] and he just added Communism also. No opposition for adding other ideologies was done by him also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  I had been thinking of opening a dispute resolution for quite some time but there were strict rules written at the top that it should not have anything to do with user behavior, so I was quite conflicted on that. I ended up deciding ANI because this is much more about user conduct than a simple content dispute. I have opened a lot of discussions. I have compromised on a LOT of issues. But I see none of that from the other side. EarthDude (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Untamed1910

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been having some problems with Untamed1910 (talk · contribs) today. He/she has been calling me names today and he even said I should go and kiss a cow. He even attempted but unsuccessfully to make up false claims and said that I was retarded. He/she has been doing this from late last night through today and while I'm not sure what his/her problem is, but someone needs to seriously give him/her a good talking too. Last but not least he even said I should put my head in a Ceiling Fan. 71.33.184.243 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide the diff of the alleged name-calling please? Gommeh 🎮 19:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I see no sign of anything of the sort from Untamed1910 in the last 24 hours, only a little routine reverting and warning of various editors. Which of those were you? NebY (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh That is completely false. The IP has been harassing me by making up false agitations and False Reports against me at WP:AIV and WP:ANI , this is clearly the same person using 75.166.65.148, 75.166.91.31 and 75.166.94.120 Untamed1910 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly the same user that has been spamming this report in the past under various IPs. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked 71.33.128.0/17 and 75.166.0.0/16 from WP:ANI and WP:AIV (WP:BOOMERANG). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JaylonN

• JaylonN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JaylonN has been making a series of edits to pages, largely for awards shows, that violate various manual of style rules, including WP:OVERLINK. They also break tables and templates in their edits. They have been warned multiple times, including a final warning, and have not responded to any of them. They do not use edit reasons to explain what they are doing. I reported this user to AIV and it was suggested to me that I bring the report in here instead. I'm also pinging @Livelikemusic:, who has also been reverting JaylonN's edits and made five of the seven warnings on their talk page. Doc Strange (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Doc Strange,

Did you read the instructions at the top of this page? Among other points, it states Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem. It's hard to judge this complaint when you have provided no examples of behavior that you find disruptive. If you expect editors to go out and find all of this on their own, you probably will be waiting a long time for a response. It's the filer's responsibility to lay out an easy-to-understand and compelling case and that includes diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, they received this warning (13:53, 24 June 2025) and this warning (15:26, 24 June 2025) concerning the Manual of Style and then went on to make this edit (08:41, 25 June 2025), ignoring the warnings. Perhaps there might be a competence issue at play here with this user? Their refusal to acknowledge any warning on their talk page is alarming, as well, and their non-response to this AN/I filing is telling. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, it's been a while since I've made an ANI report. Here's a couple examples of the examples I have:

• 62nd Annual Grammy Awards: here, they don't seem to understand that WP:OVERLINK is a rule even though they've been warned about the manual of style - there is no specific warning explaining why you shouldn't link every single time an artist's name is mentioned. There are several different edits here, which seem to indicate they are not using the preview option and are making different edits for everything they want to do. There are many, many instances over the course of their edits.
• BET Awards 2025: More overlink], just as an example. Failure to understand WP:OVERLINK despite multiple warnings and reverts is a repeat issue with this user's edits.
• 54th Annual Grammy Awards: Here, they make several more edits, including something that breaks a table and causes the bottom portion of the article to be messed up because they did not include a div col end.

All of their edits have no edit summaries, which makes it difficult to parse what they are doing They have not responded to any of the many warnings about these issues on their talk page. Their edit history is voluminous, and largely seems to be on these award show accounts. I don't think this is single purpose account territory, but it comes awful close to one.Livelikemusic has covered some of the other basic issues here with this user's edits. Doc Strange (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on "Weizmann Institute of Science" page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The new user with IP 37.142.39.223 keeps dismissing edit war warnings despite having been warned. It has been the 3rd time that he/she removed sources and the part of the paragraph that he/she did not like, despite being backed from previously existing sources. Also showed signs of not reading them after being advised to review sources backing statements before removing content. The 1st warning was issued on the edit description, the second on his/her user page and still proceded with the 3rd removal of sources and statement. He/she ignored the warning that another revert would result in the present request for blocking and went ahead. For the said, I request provisional blocking. Josep a11 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see much of a reason for blocking especially since WP:3RR was not necessarily violated. However, the IP editor is citing WP:POV and also is having a discussion on the talk page in which they said they'd like to avoid an edit war by opening up a discussion (which is the right thing to do). If anything, I would make sure there's a WP:CONSENSUS regarding whether or not the Israeli attacks were in fact in retaliation by discussing the issue with other editors on the talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

After looking at the IP's talk page, it seems like you were POV pushing when you said It is very obvious that if the initial attack on iranian soil was perpetrated the 13th of June 2025, that the attack on the Weizman Institute 2 days after, the 15th, was a retaliatory attack. The IP was correct in saying that we base our content on what reliable sources say and not original research or synthesis. WP:SYNTH says, Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that the sentence I used to defend against the first revert is POV, but the background of the problem is that he/she removed the initial source that backs the statement from the page. As far as I know, one does not remove sources on Wikipedia unless specific rather special conditions happen, right? Josep a11 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:PIA, neither Josep a11 nor the IP should have been editing that page to add content concerning war between Israel and Iran, although Josep a11 is close to reaching the relevant XC milestone. I have gone ahead and EC protected the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • As a footnote, it's WP:XC, not WP:EC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA abuse by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:2A04:4A43:873F:F26C:610F:8832:7072:11E5 Should have their TPA removed ASAP for posting stuff like this. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes please. User is still making threats. Nubzor (T | C) 15:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Another example diff. Yuck. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Several admins semi-conflicted tightening the block in several ways. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawsuits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My lawyer is suing Wikipedia. 200.88.232.106 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Since we don't know who you are, no reason to worry. Meanwhile you are blocked for the legal threat. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does one have a COI with one's 'public personality' / crimes against humanity in outer space

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Quinhonk (talk · contribs)

I first became aware of this editor through their additions of some incorrect information about the SARS virus (. In discussing these inaccuracies on the talk page, I was told that those records ought not to be erased from history just as how Nazis tried to erase the holocaust.() and It either falls into the crimes against humanity or complaints to the journal on the ethics of it. ()

Many of their additions depended on citations to an author called 'Yang Pachankis' (Also sometimes called 'Yang Cao') who tends to publish mostly through selfpub preprints (), predatory publishers (), or vanity presses (, here). There are also oft declined biographical drafts at Draft:Yang_Cao and at the now deleted Draft:Yang Pachankis.

A previous version of Quinhonk's user page (here) stated a conflict of interest with regard to Pachankis, though that notice has since been removed. They've called these cites 'my work' () in talk messages.

After they abandoned the AFC process and moved the autobiography to article space, I asked them on their user talk to respect our COI guidelines. In response they stated that it isn't self promotion because Myself is myself, as I said, and the public personality is separated from myself. ().

In a talk page discussion in which I opposed the addition of cites of theirs from a predatory publisher, they responded that It concerns the remedies for the crimes against humanity in outer space. I am making the documents public at the same time as an expert witness. Principally the ICC waived my confidentiality obligations. I only weigh the matter of responsibility. ().

This is starting to feel like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You only assume a subjective epistemology on the words, and then you demand the others good faith while your action on reverting the feminist movements too without clear reasoning evidenced your faith and motivation is against me as a person, and not as an editor here. Quinhonk (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being blunt, you have been in a power struggle mentality. Quinhonk (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Myself is myself and that is my privacy and Myself is myself, as I said, and the public personality is separated from myself what is that even supposed to mean?

you have been in a power struggle mentality actually, they have been extremely patient with you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

At this point their edits are indistinguishable from trolling. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure that this person is WP:NOTHERE personally, at the worst they're just unaware of our policies and expectations, particularly COI.

I had a look at Quinhonk's talk page and want further clarification on a few things OP and Quinhonk said. Under User talk:Quinhonk#Respecting Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines MrOllie said, You've already admitted it elsewhere on Wikipedia, you can't deny it now that it has become inconvenient. To which Quinhonk replied, Myself is myself, as I said, and the public personality is separated from myself. [...] Now you can reflect on my assertions on the wording on who is Xi Jinping. Can you please elaborate on what you meant by this and provide the relevant diffs?

Finally, I'm inclined to agree with @M.Bitton in that MrOllie has been very patient. Gommeh 🎮 14:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: I was referring to the user page version () and talk messages (One example: ). These links are also in my message which opened this section. They've also added the 'connected contributor' template in various places. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks @MrOllie, that clears things up for me. @Quinhonk, have you read our policy on WP:FRINGE theories? Gommeh 🎮 14:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Indef, only here to promote themselves and their own WP:FRINGE theories. Fram (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• I've just indeffed them for behaviour indistinguishable from trolling. Not even 100% convinced there's a person here rather than an AI random generator learning to speak. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wow, and this was their (very fast) response. Still not convinced there's a person, other than a potential professional troll, behind the account. Canterbury Tail talk 14:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AlAhlyAC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• AlAhlyAC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need to step back from dealing with this user, and am hoping someone else can step in.

AlAhlyAC has been submitting problematic edits for about a week. Issues include making multiple test edits (6 separate edits to change one number), various nonconstructive, unsourced, and error-filled changes, and, most importantly the huge issue with the username itself (re Al Ahly SC). Many warnings given. No response from user on talk page, neither to myself nor other editors.

Today, AlAhlyAC changed all the text on my own User page to read "Ban this person," and then subsequently removed all content from my page.

If someone could have a word about any or all of these issues, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. Their edits to your user page were clearly malicious and unacceptable. Any further disruption from this user is likely to end with an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 1.141.36.112

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1.141.36.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings - behaviour continued after a 31h block on the 15th. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Reblocked, this time for a month. This is mostly vandalism and there are a bunch of abuse filter hits as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ToadetteEdit, Project Space Again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did not want to be here, but consider myself too involved to take unilateral action. ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (TE) is just not getting the terms of their unblock. On February 21 at User_talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive_9#unblock_2, @Voorts converted my block to a project space ban with some carve outs. All good. But TE since then has shown they do not understand or are unwilling to abide by them and I believe enough is enough and they need a full project space ban. They actually requested elimination of the exceptions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive371#My_topic_ban but that was mercy closed, which was appropriate. In that discussion, @Phil Bridger suggested that they just not edit those areas, but they seem unable to understand, comply. I know they are young, but I think they have been given more than enough rope.

• Today wandering into an SPI discussion which was not at the level of requesting admin action, and is not one of their sanctioned exceptions.
• Read disputes on project pages and weigh in on the Talk with bad advice which they are not qualified to give because they do not understand the issues. (Discussion: User_talk:ToadetteEdit#Comments_at_another_user's_page
• April using talk space to participate in RFAs that they were not allowed to participate in. They consistently, April, June claim to "forget" these guidelines which is part of why I don't think they can handle grey areas.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive371#h-Topic_ban_exemption-20250425215800 which they opened seeking an exception because they didn't understand asking someone to add them was proxying. I know some of the carve outs were because they did good work at AfC, but I do not know if the good work is outweighing it anymore.

I am not advocating for a site block, but I think this user and the community would benefit from a ban from project space so there is no grey area for them to struggle with. If something truly necessary that affects them comes up, they can alert a user via their Talk and this would not be PROXYing, but the community will not collapse without TE's participation in project space so there is no need for them to edit. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support project space block per WP:TIMESINK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Now support full siteban per below. Honestly, how many chances can someone get? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

    Unanimous decision would be expected. TE is already wasting their time debating repetitively. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have occasionally left a comment on TE's talk page to offer encouragment and advice as, over a couple of years, I could see where this was heading. I haven't kept up with their editing lately as the issues were becoming a timesink. I do think that the time has come to make the project space ban, without exceptions, indefinite. What I would add is, that sometimes topic ban can be confusing to some editors, especially those who like to see things as black and white with no grey areas. That said, numerous other editors have tried to help by explaining the topic ban, sometimes having to repeat themselves. TE has had a lot of assistance in this. 'Forgetting' such issues is now causing the same problems. I think it would be simpler for TE by removing exceptions.
  Knitsey (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support non-appealable PS ban. Several people have put much of their time into helping Toadette, but they just can’t get the point. The WP:ROPE arguably ended after the numerous earlier boundary-pushing actions by them. ^EF⁵ 14:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, change that to a project ban. ^EF⁵ 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  A projectspace ban or a site ban? Giraffer (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  “Project” as in siteban. Didn’t even recognize the Greghenderson2006 issues till Star Mississippi brought them up. ^EF⁵ 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Siteban would be good, so TE can understand and learn from their mistakes committed last year. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support I hate participating at ANI but in this case I think it is evident that Toadette simply does not get it and a complete topic space ban is needed to save everyone time. Hopefully this will get the message across, but if it doesn't I see no other alternative than a sitewide block, which I sincerely hope we can avoid. As much as it does genuinely pain me to change this, their response to this ANI thread has shown quite clearly that not only do I no longer believe they pass the WP:CIR bar but that for their own health they should be sitebanned. Maybe in a few years once they have matured they can return as I do believe they have the project's best interests at heart, but right now I do not believe being here is healthy for them or for Wikipedia.
  CoconutOctopus talk 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support some expansion of the block, as necessary to limit the problem. The not unusual situation where an editor is restricted from something, then finds the next-closest thing to replay just the same problems, without being in literal breach of the previous terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Are you thinking of using pblocks (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces) as a technical enforcement mechanism? I would support a project space ban that was enforced with a block to eliminate "wandering over the line" that has been occurring. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ToadetteEdit has requested a self-pblock on AN in response to this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Why can't we formally do this instead of them self-requesting something again? Last time that happened it clearly didn't work (nor did they actually honor it after the discussion was mercy closed), which is why we're here. — ^EF⁵ 18:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    • We absolutely can - was just noting the attempt to solve the issue/forum-shopping to dodge the issue (depending on how you want to view it...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

      I think we (unfortunately) need to keep this going @The Bushranger @EF5. TE flounces after any discussion doesn't go their way and then they return to the exact same disruptive behavior, which is why we're back here and I think need to enforce the flounce. @Rsjaffe I think your solution is best otherwise they will edit project space once the discussion and sanctions are no longer top of mind. Star Mississippi 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

      I have posted warnings at ToadetteEdit's User talk page over the past two years but have also been hoping that the situation would improve as they got more experience here. Star Mississippi, do you think a block from Project talk space is also required here, meaning complete cold turkey? Or could they have access to Talk so they could participate in discussions but not be able to take direct action? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

      @Liz participating in discussions are as much of the problem of late, but I do not feel strongly about a WT block. If I'm being honest, I'm expecting the disruption to move to User Talk if they remain unblocked since they do not understand the issues. Star Mississippi 00:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

      This is part of the challenge with this editor. They were mistaken in thinking they could not participate here so decide to use their Talk. While they are welcome to participate here and I advised them of such when I notified them because I knew it would be confusing, this is how they treat discussions they're not able to participate in. They have them elsewhere. @CoffeeCrumbs I'd have agreed with you re: articles before the recent renewed interest in Henderson's articles, but agree they're not as problematic there as other areas. Star Mississippi 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• ToadetteEdit. I have played the part of the nice cop with you so far, but I don't have infinite supplies of patience, so can turn into a nasty cop pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support expansion of block per EF5. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support rsjaffe's suggestion. I can't see any value in actions that rely on TE's judgement or the constant supervision of other editors because here we are AGAIN, bending over backwards and sideways for this person. Honestly, if that doesn't help,(Edited after seeing the shenanigans with the blocked editor below) I would support a complete site ban. Joyous! Noise! 05:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, and also support a full, lengthy or permanent, Wikipedia-wide ban at this point. The amount of time spent policing ToadetteEdit appears to be endless, as they just constantly are either asking for the terms of their restrictions to be changed in some way, or just actively violating the terms of their restrictions. And then inevitably they start complaining about how the community is picking on them for no reason and how they will never edit ever again. At this point, I don't see that ToadetteEdit will ever change to stop taking up huge amounts of community time after so many editors have tried earnestly to help, so in my opinion it's time for this all to stop. GraziePrego (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Toadette is now blaming the community entirely for and taking no responsibility for what has transpired? This is extremely, extremely immature behaviour that cannot be allowed to continue, both for Toadette's own sake and for our sakes too. I wholeheartedly endorse a Wikipedia-wide block. GraziePrego (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  "As for my background, I was told that I have autism/ADHD. I did not realize that! But it may influence my so-called poor performance in the backstage pages. I have great ideas, but execute really poorly"

  This also feels, VERY manipulative to me. I have AutADHD, it's not an excuse. Using it as one, as you said, shows a massive level of immaturity. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  +1 I also have medically-diagnosed ADHD and will be seeing a doctor for a formal autism diagnosis soon (we do have a lot of similarities, I'm just realizing!), and if you have ADHD "management tactics" should be used instead of saying "oh, sorry I have ADHD, you'll just have to deal with me". I do feel bad that they're getting so many maturity-related comments, but they're relevant. — ^EF⁵ 18:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I also have autism, professionally verified by a doctor at early age. TE, please accept the consequences, grow up and learn from mistakes you've committed before. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• support a ban, with no opinion on a block. toadette should at the very least take a break. make some bean soup (big yum), find out why people buy knife sets, reenact florida man headlines, study a fictional language like brazilian portuguese, anything to get their mind together, with at least the usual 6 months before an appeal can be made to make sure they've had time to, as the younger folk say, "touch some grass". then, and only then, do i think the idea of letting them back in the fray should be considered

...is what i would say, if the other problems with proxy editing detailed below weren't there. once they're ready to appeal the ban, they should definitely address what's going on there, maybe even over the issues raised in this part of the thread, because we can't just leave those sussy shenanigans unaddressed consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 13:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a siteban because this is becoming a timesink. Would have initially supported the project space ban but the below from Star Mississippi and the frankly astonishing diff above from GraziePrego has swung me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban, with the usual proviso that indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent. Many of this user's edits seem to be about ToadetteEdit, rather than about improving the encyclopedia. They can come back in a year or two when they have matured enough to edit without becoming a timesink. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban in light of the issues raised below. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban per ser! and Phil Bridger. I hope that this user can eventually return to the site and edit without becoming a timesink. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

TE proxy editing

I omitted this from my filing as I did not want to pile on, but now that User_talk:ToadetteEdit#Hansen_Bridge_(Downieville,_California) exists (thanks @Netherzone), I think it's time to raise this simmering issue. Even prior to his site ban, TE has accepted Greghenderson2006 drafts. At first I thought they were just a novice AfC reviewer unaware of the complex issues behind his drafts and blocks but now in the last week they have recreated (not accepted, created out of whole cloth) two drafts that happened to be created by his latest sock. I think there is something going on here. NB: I have draftified the latest as it should not be in mainspace without experienced eyes. Star Mississippi 22:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know what to make of this. Part of me is wondering if they knew full well this would attract negative attention. I'm not a reviewer so I don't know how they even found the articles? Or how they found out the editor had been banned. TE started out with vandalism reverts for a while, I'm not sure how they wouldn't know that recreating a socks articles would look suspicious?

I would rather try and assume good faith and that this was done as they thought the articles were noteworthy and they were helping out the project. Knitsey (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, regarding proxy editing, Toadette had a list of all the articles that Greghenderson2006's sockpuppet, Historyjunkie2024 had created on her user page (it was listed under "To do"), she just removed it with this edit: . (It was a Special:Log listing of Historyjunkies's creations. some articles need checking). GregHenderson/Historyjunkie had a habit of reaching out to inexperienced NPP/AfC patrollers to review his articles. I'm pinging @Graywalls also as they may recall. This contradicts that she came across the sock articles by "randomly clicking on links", (and randomly coming across two of the sock's deleted articles and recreating them) sure seems to indicate coordination/communication with the blocked editor after he was blocked. I would Support a block based on the violations of restrictions in the above section and also for willful proxy editing for a known blocked user and their sockpuppet. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This is certainly concerning. I do still want to believe that despite the issues ToadetteEdit does have the projects best interests at heart; I would be very interested to hear what she has to say on this topic. CoconutOctopus talk 13:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

TE putting a link to that list on their User page is incongruent with them understanding that recreating those articles would be problematic. If you know it's a bad look to recreate a sock's deleted articles then then you would keep that link literally anywhere else. Their writings on this draft talk page as well as their user talk page make me think they just saw the sock's articles get deleted and decided to check to see if any of them were worth re-creating because they (presumably) enjoy creating articles. I don't know TE but in reading multiple related noticeboard and talk page threads it does not seem crazy to me that they simply do not know that this could be seen as problematic. If we assume good faith then it's premature at best to suggest a site block for recreating those articles without evidence of coordination. — tony 19:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt - Just to clarify, there is also a history of TE answering GregHenderson2006's COI edit requests without properly checking the sources when it was a known that the blocked editor had a habit of misrepresenting sources , if you read thru the thread he even challenged her edits for not being to his liking while he was blocked back in March 2024. So it seems she was aware there were problems, and even admits that (after GH was banned) I looked at Greg's talk page and saw the simplewiki entry linked from it. (His sock created those on en-Wiki.) Then later said I read pages and click on random links. Re: the message on the recent draft talk that you linked, I had to ask her to do that for future reviewers. Over the past couple years great deal of patience, mentoring and good faith have been extended to TE for quite a long time by several editors. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Netherzone for the further background. In light of the to do list and the clear deception, I am now in support of a full block which makes me sad. Star Mississippi 00:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for those details. The longevity of their association is something I somehow missed until reading through that thread. I support a block. As an aside, you have been an extremely patient person with all of your communication with this editor. — tony 05:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I always recognized her potential. Sadly she became her worst enemy. I wish her well and hope she can apply her skills elsewhere in life to great success. If she does get fully blocked she will have the time to devote to other avenues. I think she is just as frustrated here as the rest of us. Netherzone (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support There is a clear lack of comprehension going on here, coupled with persistent denials and attempts to evade restrictions (well-meaning or not). If this is the only way to stop that, it needs to be done. Intothatdarkness 12:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support based on application of WP:DUCK based on Netherzone's argument. I'm really familiar with Greghenderson2006 issue since I've noticed his COI edits a few years ago. He has a strong tendency to communicate Wiki related matter off Wiki and people associated with the article's subject or connected with the article subject often tend to pop and make edits to articles Greg is working on. I feel the pattern is adequate WP:DUCK to establish ground for WP:NOTHERE Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, Just another of the many problems, I've watched all of this far hoping TE would course-correct, but that doesn't seem to be the case. My only interaction with them was when they managed to accept an AFC draft without reading any of the sources. It left a sour taste in my mouth, but I did not think much of it, but coupled with this, it makes me think they are not a good fit for AFC and NPP reviewing. The fact they are also topic-banned from project space makes me also open to supporting a CBAN. Sohom (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support full site ban - TE didn't comprehend enough about the terms of PS ban. I would support pblocking TE from respective PTS pages. We are running out of options to help TE. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban, the fact that they went on Wikibreak (which is a pattern it seems) and removed something that makes them look bad, especially considering the socks historical behavior, makes it clear they either have zero desire to change or are unable to change. The fact that they aren't engaging with this ANI thread at all despite clearly having seen it is also not in their favor. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support block from project space. Oppose siteban. I remain of the notion that the previous blocks shouldn't have had such a complicated set of exceptions, which basically just set up failure for a young editor lacking in maturity (though the block exceptions were made with the best of intentions). TE isn't a vandal, a spammer, a UPE, or a copyright infringer, so I think the danger to articles is limited. I also would urge TE to take a voluntary step back from Wikipedia no matter what for their own good; it's simply not healthy for Wikipedia to be such a large part of a person's sense of self, especially a young person. This is a worthy project, but you should be seeking out a far wider set of experiences at your age. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Support a block from project space but I oppose a site ban per CoffeeCrumbs. I think TE has a lot to offer this project but they need some restrictions. I would think this is 'last chance saloon' for TE. Knitsey (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Support project space block, oppose site ban. I have basically the same reasoning as CoffeeCrumbs. If TE really continues to do the proxy editing problem after this thread is done, I wouldn't oppose a site ban. (I hope this will never happen, though.) I am relatively younger than pretty much anyone here, and I do feel that sometimes, we all need to take a break. What I'm hoping is that a WikiBreak with a projectspace block gives some time to relax, chill out, and focusing on real-life matters more helps some thoughts to be sorted out. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  How much more ROPE are people willing to give? They’ve already been told to take a step back. ^EF⁵ 13:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, sadly. Every time this user has made a poor choice or decision, it's always someone else's fault. I've seen no demonstrated ability to really learn from past mistakes, only a series of slight temporary course corrections and a failure to understand what they did wrong. Perhaps an enforced break will allow them to gain perspective and learn how things work here. Clearly they can't be counted on to step back on their own (which is unfortunate). Intothatdarkness 14:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Also adding that they’ve already been given a last chance (multiple, actually) and blew every single one. Why should we continue to give them “last chances” which they will predictably not follow? I myself am in the same age range as them, if that adds any sort of significance, especially as they’ve been using their age for pity points. ^EF⁵ 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I started editing when I was like, 14-15? I don't remember, I could never even imagen using my age as an excuse, others bringing up that I was a bit young so should be cut slack, sure, I could see that, but using my age myself would just be, shitty. Wikipedia is an adult space, there is nothing wrong with younger folk editing(and that should be encouraged imo but that's besides the fact), but we all should be expected to act like adults regardless of age. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a project space block, oppose a siteban. Hopefully by having the software determine what is and isn't allowed will stem the disruption caused by prior references to the ban. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support project ban/block, but not site ban/block. I don't think a sitewide ban should be considered right now, but if disruption/ban violations occur, then it might be time. Also by having a look at Toadette's talk page, the user is taking a break because of this and even accepting a ban/block. And they never touched onto this thread, although they did open one at AN. The current ban (located at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings / Unblock conditions) allows Toadette to participate in this thread, which is one of the exceptions, provided that Toadette is involved, which this one definitely is. JuniperChill (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange message from Amazigh Bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I got this message: ⴰⵣⵓⵍ ⵎⴰⵙⵙ(ⴰ) Aron02065! ⴱⵔⵔⴽ ⴳ ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⵉⴷⵢⴰ ⵙ ⵜⵓⵜⵍⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ, ⵢⴰⵏ ⵙⴳ ⵉⵙⵓⵎⴰ ⵉⵎⵇⵇⵔⴰⵏⵏ ⴳ ⵓⵎⴰⴹⴰⵍ ⵏ ⵡⴰⵏⵜⵉⵔⵏⵉⵜ; ⵏⵡⴰⵜⵜⵙ ⴰⴷ ⵏⵚⴽⵓ ⵢⴰⵏ ⵓⵙⴰⵎⵓ ⵉⵍⴻⵍⵍⵉ ⴰⵎⵇⵇⵔⴰⵏ ⵙ ⵜⵓⵜⵍⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ ⵜⴰⵏⴰⵡⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱⵉⵜ. ⵏⵥⵓⵥⴹ ⴰⴷ ⴰⵏⵖ ⵜⴰⵡⵙⵎ ⴳ ⵓⵡⵜⵜⴰⵙ ⴰⴷ.

ⵥⵕ ⵜⴰⵙⵏⵉⵡⵉⵏ ⴰⴷ ⵎⴽ ⵜⵓⵙⵔⴷ ⵜⵉⵡⵉⵙⵉ:

ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⵉⴷⵢⴰ:ⵙⵎⵎⵓⵙⵜ ⵜⵉⵔⵙⴰⵍ - ⵜⵉⵔⵙⴰⵍ ⵏⵏⴰ ⵖⴼ ⵜⵥⴽⴰ ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⵉⴷⵢⴰ.

ⵜⵉⵡⵉⵙⵉ:ⵜⵓⵎⴰⵢⵉⵏ - ⵓⵙⴽⵉⵏ ⵏ ⵜⴰⵙⵏⵉⵡⵉⵏ ⵏ ⵜⵡⵉⵙⵉ.

ⵜⵉⵡⵉⵙⵉ:ⵜⵉⵏⴳⴰⵍⵉⵏ ⵏ ⵡⵉⴽⵉ - ⵜⵉⴳⴰⵍⵉⵏ ⵏ ⵓⵙⴼⴰⵍⴽⵉ ⵏ ⵓⴹⵕⵉⵚ.

ⵉⴳ ⵓⵔ ⵜⵓⴼⵉⴷ ⴰⵢⵏⵏⴰ ⵖⴼ ⵜⵔⵣⵣⵓⴷ ⴳ ⵜⴰⵙⵏⵉⵡⵉⵏ ⵏ ⵜⵡⵉⵙⵉ, ⵜⵙⵇⵙⴰⴷ ⴳ ⵡⴰⵡⵡⵓⵔ ⵏ ⵜⵡⵉⵙⵉ.ⴰⴷ ⵓⵔ ⵜⴻⵜⵜⵓⴷ ⴰⴷ ⵜⵙⵙⴳⵎⴹⴷ ⵙ ⵜⵎⴰⵜⴰⵔⵜ ⴰⴷ 109.38.129.254 (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC) ⴳ ⵜⴳⵉⵔⴰ ⵏ ⵓⵙⵇⵇⵙⵉ ⵏⵏⴰ ⵜⴼⴽⵉⴷ.

--Amazigh Bot (ⴰⵎⵙⴰⵡⴰⵍ) 08:17, 26 ⵢⵓⵏⵢⵓ 2025 (+01)

You likely received that (on another IP address?) on zgh.wikipedia.org. It appears to be a welcome message. CMD (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a contribution here on the English Wikipedia. For questions about that bot on zghwiki, see its operator here: w:zgh:ⴰⵎⵙⴳⴷⴰⵍ_ⵏ_ⵓⵏⵙⵙⵎⵔⵙ:Lhoussine_AIT_TAYFST. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BeProper

• BeProper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mindåny9841 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today, BeProper was blocked from editing about Trump. BeProper's line of argument was that we should include more positive coverage of Trump and that WP editors are biased against Trump , , . Almost immediately after the block, a new user is registered, Mindåny9841, whose entire edit history since then is to advance the same argument using the same phrases . As per WP:DUCK, this seems an unusually obvious attempt at block evasion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• If you suspect block evasion/sockpuppetry, the place to report is at WP:SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing strongly linking the two accounts, although there has been likely proxy use. As far as Mindåny9841 goes, I just blocked 30 socks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

BeProper was never blocked from Talk:Donald Trump, although they apparently recognize that others are losing patience. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

To let you know, Mindany whatever is not me. Just to clarify. Thanks. BeProper (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd also point out FalseClaimsByTrump107%Issue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I cannot make a case for SPI based on the limited number of diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think they're trolling us, and a NOTHERE block is in order regardless of the potential of them being a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that removed my post [], yet here play dumb []. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident. I affirm again that I did not intentionally delete your post. I thought that was something else. BeProper (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The basis for this report is flawed, Jeppiz. It's not possible to be blocked from editing about Trump; users can only be topic banned from editing about a particular topic, and that has not happened to BeProper. They have merely been blocked from particular pages, namely Trumpism and Talk:Trumpism. (And not "earlier today" — not sure where that came from — but on 12 March this year, so the timing of the creation Mindåny9841 isn't relevant to any socking suspicions.) That does not affect their editing of Talk:Donald Trump, which is a different particular page. Note the difference between blocks and bans. Bishonen | tålk 10:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC).

I don’t see the evidence required for an SPI. But BeProper’s overall behavior here screams WP:IDHT, they never provide sources, their posts are repetitive, and their TP is a stream of warnings because they either don’t understand or agree with Wikipedia’s policies and possibly not even its mission. They have been advised multiple times to avoid CTOPs until they have the hang of editing here. If they continue along the current path, ultimately there will be a proper filing here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC).

Emoore2914

• Emoore2914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After disruptive edits, uncivil behaviour, and alleged use of generative AI and sockpuppets,[1][2][3] Emoore2914 was given a warning by Drmies.[4] Despite this, Emoore2914 has now vandalised my talk page,[5] and attempted to revert an admin's removal of a {{Merge}} tag.[6] I've lost all confidence that Emoore2914 will change their behaviour, and believe they'll simply continue harassing me and making further disruptive edits. Pinging MarioGom and Significa liberdade, who've also previously interacted with Emoore2914. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• I warned them for that edit on your talk page, but that long slew of disruption contributed to that warning. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

IP User in violation of WP:AGF and disruptively editing both Democratic-Republican Party and its talk page

• 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Democratic-Republican Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP user has numerous times disruptively reinstated a disputed edit, the most recent occasion of which was in violation of WP:3RR.

On top of that, after I submitted an Edit Request on the talk page, they've responded numerous times to said edit request, refusing to provide actual reasoning against my requested changes, at most simply claiming that their edit wasn't a case of original research (despite my explaining multiple times precisely how it does constitute original research) and wrongly accusing me of bad faith or of "not engaging" (with the talk page/with their points) several times: .

This user is consistently being disruptive and refusing to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:NOR, WP:AGF, and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Frankly, the most recent discussion I've been engaged in with them has been exhausting, and I think my later replies to their messages demonstrate that.

As this is an IP User, I'm not sure precisely how blocking them would work, but I'd greatly appreciate a sysop weighing in on this user's behaviour and doing something about their conduct. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I recommend reading the discussion of the page in question. It should be quite illuminating about how dishonestly he's framing things here. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the IP is engaging in OR on the whole, as displayed by the quote from the source. The actual wording is a bit harder to defend, but since this dispute has been going on the talk page for a couple of years now, it needs a closer reading than given on this page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

User not responding to talk page concerns after consistent addition of unsourced and improper English skills

User:LepYd258 has been consistently making edits that do not have proper sourcing.

This account is newly created, split from Ydlp19 following some sort of e-mail verification issue, which I believe is properly disclosed on the new account, LepYd258's talk page. Ydlp19 first created their account back in 2019, editing football-related articles similar to what they do now. Issues with adding unsourced content, as well as a standard of English not up to encyclopedic standards can be seen then. Select diffs:

Over the years, surprisingly few concerns have been raised on their talk page, but of the few that have been added, none of them have been addressed. In fact, they have only ever made one edit to their own user talk page. This is a violation of WP:NOTHERE, as the user seemingly is not making an effort to collaborate with other individuals.

They have also been WP:UNRESPONSIVE within their own edits, nearly never using an edit summary.

• As Ydlp19, 1.4% edit summaries used, (172/12,655), a surprisingly low number.
• As LepYd258, 0% edit summaries used, (0/531).

Last month, User:Gommeh warned them several times in a short period of time, as well as left a note directing them to other language encyclopedias. It was around this time that I began editing Swiss football-related articles and saw Ydlp editing a lot. I left an auto-numbered warning around this time for general uncited content. I then noticed that the user was involved at ANI. The discussion did not result in any outcome, I had also left a message at this discussion with my own experience, but ultimately nothing came of it, most likely because the warnings had been issued too quickly after each other. A note that Ydlp did not participate at all in the discussion, nor did they acknowledge that it was happening.

Since they created their new account, I noticed the account with a similar name and left a note for anyone coming across the page that the user had moved to a new account. On the talk page of the new account, I have left warnings for various pieces of unsourced content I have come across while editing football articles. This diff is a good example of what sort of content they consistently add, a poorly formatted sentence that is unsourced about promotion or relegation to a new league, with dozens of these edits being made. This edit that I came across is another similar example, but there are several more.

The user makes constructive edits a decent amount, simple updating of data or adding tables that do not contain much prose for the article. Overall this pattern of editing has gone on for multiple years, and after no communication I feel the need to open up a second, more in-depth discussion here, at the very least in hopes of getting some response from them. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said at our last discussion about Ydlp I still don't see them responding to our concerns. They've edited since then, so I'm assuming they've had more than enough time to look at their talk page. At this point I think it's safe to assume that they need a block per WP:CIR.

Tagging @Cenderabird as they were the person that originally brought Ydlp's problematic editing to my attention. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Before requesting full blocks against a fellow editor, I've asked them on their User talk page to participate in this discussion. I'm not optimistic that they will engage but I think this is a necessary step.

And I just want to comment that it used to be very rare to see an editor or admin suggest an WP:CIR block, it was only for instances where an editor under discussion did not understand the basic rules about how Wikipedia operates usually because of their age or a lack of facility with the English language. But now I see this suggestion every day that I stop by ANI. This is not a casual request to make and it should only be proposed in situations where it is truly deserved, not just for instances where editors don't respond on their User talk page in a timely manner. By proposing a CIR block, you are, in effect, stating that the editor is incompetent which could also be seen as a personal attack. "Let's block" should not be your "go to" solution for every problem. Years ago, ANI used to be a noticeboard full of hanging judges but thankfully, those days are long gone. Now if we could get more editors to leave personal messages and not plaster User talk pages with multiple templates, I think the atmosphere would improve. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the only hope currently is a block that leads to them noticing, then hopefully participating here. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I restored this section. For some reason, OneClickArchiver archived the completely wrong section. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 83.219.39.190

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

83.219.39.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. IP has been blocked 4 times previously, most recently in September 2021 for 3 years. The edits leading up to the 2021 block are to articles related to cartoons, similarly to their recent edits. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I blocked for another 3 years. Deor (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Truthmatter25 Making Legal Threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Threat can be seen here LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Normally I'd want to see prior warnings, but given that this is their only edit to date, it's pretty clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:DOLT I've suppressed the edits they were talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I see there's a news station that's reporting what I assume are the allegations in question, but there's only the one report at present. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've also requested more eyes at BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LordDiscord's gaming of the extended confirmed permission

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• LordDiscord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LordDiscord has engaged in permission gaming (WP:PGAME) to bypass the extended confirmed restriction (WP:ECR) of the Russo-Ukrainian War topic area (WP:RUSUKR), which is covered under community-authorized general sanctions. The following timeline illustrates this behavior:

• 4 June: As of this date, LordDiscord had made 62 edits on their account.
• 5 June: LordDiscord made an edit to the New START article about the Russo-Ukrainian War.
• 9 June: Mellk alerted LordDiscord to the WP:RUSUKR general sanctions.
• 13:27, 10 June: LordDiscord made another edit to the New START article about the Russo-Ukrainian War.
• 14:52, 10 June: Mellk reminded LordDiscord that the topic area is covered under WP:ECR.
• 15:17, 10 June: Mellk warned LordDiscord that LordDiscord's 10 June edit to the New START article was in violation of the extended confirmed restriction.
• 15:45, 10 June: LordDiscord said to Mellk, "I will avoid editing the page because you asked", referring to the New START article.
• 15:51, 10 June – 05:25, 11 June: LordDiscord made over 200 small edits to various articles, marking most of those edits as minor.
• 07:12, 11 June: Mellk warned LordDiscord about making 200 small edits, and informed LordDiscord of the WP:GAMING guideline.
• 13:50–22:04, 11 June: LordDiscord made over 200 additional small edits to various articles, marking almost all of those edits as minor.
• 23:46, 11 June: LordDiscord created their user page with the template {{User typo team}}.
• 23:51, 11 June – 22:54, 12 June: LordDiscord made over 60 additional small edits to various articles, marking almost all of these edits as minor. LordDiscord automatically gained the extended confirmed permission during this batch of edits.
• 23:15, 12 June: LordDiscord edited the Minsk agreements article, which is covered under WP:RUSUKR.
• 23:19, 12 June: LordDiscord deleted their discussion with Mellk, using the edit summary "Content restriction notice no longer applicable."
• 15:54, 15 June: LordDiscord edited the article Dmitry Rogozin, which is covered under WP:RUSUKR.
• 17:15, 15 June: LordDiscord placed a {{Ds/aware}} template on their talk page, indicating awareness of four contentious topics, including the Arab–Israeli conflict (WP:CT/A-I), which is also covered under WP:ECR.
• 22 June – present: In another discussion on this noticeboard, LordDiscord defended Jensenjan's gaming of the extended confirmed permission in the WP:CT/A-I topic area, gave them a barnstar with a message that included "And congratulations on getting to Extended Confirmed!", and encouraged them to reapply for the extended confirmed permission shortly after it was revoked by Star Mississippi.

Based on the above behavior, I recommend revoking LordDiscord's extended confirmed permission and allowing LordDiscord to reapply for the permission after they accumulate an appropriate number of non-trivial edits and demonstrate a better understanding of community norms. — Newslinger talk 18:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per Newslinger. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 18:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

9 June: Mellk alerted LordDiscord to the WP:RUSUKR general sanctions.

13:27, 10 June: LordDiscord made another edit to the New START article about the Russo-Ukrainian War.

The template posted was confusing and said on it that it didn’t mean any of my edits were wrong. I had zero idea that there was a sanction blocking me from editing a treaty page at this point, or that I violated any rules. The template needs to be way more clear.

14:52, 10 June: Mellk reminded LordDiscord that the topic area is covered under WP:ECR.

After which I never violated the policy again.

15:17, 10 June: Mellk warned LordDiscord that LordDiscord's 10 June edit to the New STARTarticle was in violation of the extended confirmed restriction.

The edit I made was before Mellk’s “reminder” above. Again, I never violated the policy after I was made aware of what it was.

23:15, 12 June: LordDiscord edited the Minsk agreements article, which is covered under WP:RUSUKR.

Why are you leaving off that I posted my proposed change in the talk page first and then was told to make the change myself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minsk_agreements#c-Lova_Falk-20250612052700-LordDiscord-20250612042800 I made no unilateral change, and my changes seem uncontroversial, just grammar/wording/formatting.

15:54, 15 June: LordDiscord edited the article Dmitry Rogozin, which is covered under WP:RUSUKR.

The page has no ECR protection, and if it had, I wouldn’t have edited it. I had no idea it was covered under WP:RUSUKR.

22 June – present: In another discussion on this noticeboard, LordDiscord defended Jensenjan's gaming of the extended confirmed permission in the WP:CT/A-I topic area, gave them a barnstarwith a message that included "And congratulations on getting to Extended Confirmed!", and encouraged them to reapply for the extended confirmed permission shortly after it was revoked by Star Mississippi.

I defended Jensenjan because I felt like he was facing the same false accusations that I did, and that these personal attacks against new contributors making useful edits are detrimental to the project. I don’t think he gamed permissions, I think he made constructive edits and then made one good-faith mistake.

Can you show any unconstructive edits I made on ECR pages? LordDiscord (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I have made over 350 edits to pages since getting ECR. The last 77 of them minor, but I guess this is just more “gaming” for some unknown purpose. Can you point to any unconstructive edits at all from any of these? What exactly is the urgent problem here?

If you wish to get rid of my ECR, I actually have no objection to this. I have not been editing ECR pages anyway, which I am not comfortable doing, except for typos, which I could put in the talk pages (which would be more annoying, but whatever) and the Minsk agreement page, which I put in the talk page first to get a consensus, because I didn’t want to make an even remotely significant change to such an important article without consensus. But I strongly object to false accusations about gaming (which none of this is evidence for whatsoever) or going after me because I took the side of another user.

Nor do I see how why this couldn’t go in my talk page first. If you don’t want me editing any ECR articles, you could have asked, and I would have been perfectly happy to accept your request. LordDiscord (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

LordDiscord, the point of the earlier diffs in the timeline is to establish what happened before you made hundreds of small edits. While the Dmitry Rogozin article also goes beyond the Russo-Ukrainian War contentious topic, your edit Special:Diff/1295744057 added citations of sources such as this Politico article, which is squarely within the contentious topic. No editor is expected to be aware of whether you have gained your extended confirmed permission through hundreds of small edits, so the fact that an editor agreed with your talk page suggestion is not an excuse to edit material covered by WP:ECR after obtaining the extended confirmed permission through hundreds of small edits.

I opened a separate noticeboard discussion about your conduct to avoid going off-topic in the Jensenjan permission gaming discussion. Mellk had already explained WP:ECR and WP:GAMING to you in a discussion on your user talk page and warned you about making hundreds of small edits, so your continued permission gaming after that discussion is grounds for being examined on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you identified two edits to articles under ECR protection after LordDiscord reached ECR status.

I looked at both of those edits, one was a simple typo fix, the other was mostly grammar corrections with one word change that someone *might* consider controversial.

I don't see how WP:GAMING would apply if those edits were all constructive and nothing against policy was done in the ~385 edits since then. Are there any other diffs you consider troubling? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at a randomly-selected one of those 'over 200 small edits, most marked as minor': Entirely cromulent small, minor edit, making an entirely valid typo fix. Let's check a few more. Valid typo fix, valid typo fix, valid typo fix. I could check more, but I have a feeling the rest are just like these - which are pretty much exactly the sort of edits we want an XC-seeking editor to make - demonstrating constructive, productive contributions. Suggest this be closed with a {{trout}} to the OP, and a suggestion that in the future they check the acutal content of edits they're suggesting are evidence of misconduct to see if they are, in fact, evidence of misconduct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I trouted the OP as you discussed, and they accepted it on their talk page. As such I'm going to treat this as closed - can always be reopened if need be. Gommeh 🎮 00:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t see how this is GAMING either. Suggest a close. ^EF⁵ 19:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I doubt this is GAMING either.

As a side note, I would have recommended that you use the user warning Template:uw-gaming1 to discuss this with the user before coming to ANI. I saw no warnings issued on their talk page and thought I'd point it out for the future. Gommeh 🎮 19:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Templating the editor is/was unnecessary. They were already advised by Mellk on their user talk of WP:GAMING. TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and vandalism on List of dinosaur genera

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 193.36.220.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 193.36.220.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of dinosaur genera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These two IP users have vandalized List of dinosaur genera by adding false dinosaur names and writing what could be taken as death threats against me, SlvrHwk (both frequent contributors to the page), and Justjourney (who reverted the initial threat not including them). So far the vandalism edits have been reverted, but I’m preemptively reporting this here in case it escalates.

First, remember to sign all comments you make on Talk pages and noticeboards so other editors know who they are responding to.

Both IPs have received blocks for vandalism. In the future, you might report them to WP:AIV. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jensenjan and WP:XC WP:GAMING

• Jensenjan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jensenjan has gamed their way to 500 edits in a bit over a month and then on their 503rd edit inserted poorly sourced material into the article at Zionism. Can an admin please yank their XC. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Poorly sourced from a wiki perspective perhaps, but "a truly non-biased, factual opening paragraph without citations from angry Arabs" according to one of the many people involved in targeting that article in the media and social media. Like ban evasion/sockpuppetry, new accounts 'gaming' the extendedconfirmed privilege then making a significant proportion of revisions in the topic area is not very unusual. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

When I found the page that has that quote, my internet security told me not to open it. I took the guidance. TarnishedPath^talk 11:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously your internet security is antisemitic. Gaming is not the major issue for me. The most troubling thing is not that there is gaming, or influence operations that cause susceptible people to come here, it's that when they get here, they very often credulously implement the task assigned externally, rather than engage with Wikipedia processes by reading previous discussions, the sources cited etc. I assume this is because our articles are written by (checks notes) "random internet assholes", or because "Wikipedia let NeoNazis vandalise theiir site", or because "the antisemites...can brigade and pervert a structure like Wikipedia". I can see gaming. But I can't see susceptibility to misinformation/external influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The gaming is a symptom of a desire to act in a certain manner. In this circumstance to act in a manner pushed by other parties. So while you might not see it as the major issue, in and of itself, it is indicative of a issues. TarnishedPath^talk 14:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I see it as one of many issues that are not really being addressed. 2161 accounts have been granted the extendedconfirmed privilege so far this year. How many of them gamed EC? Nobody knows. What we do know is that accounts that acquire EC quickly are significantly more likely to be blocked than accounts that take their time. So, recognizing gaming and yanking the grant may be a good preventative measure. A confounding factor is the notion of 'staleness'. Gaming might not be noticed until long after the grant was issued and the account has gone on to make many, many edits in the topic area. Another confounding factor is the 'what is gaming?' question. Wikipedia provides several tools that help new editors make many edits in a short time, through the Growth Team features and other tools. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I, do not understand your point. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Gaming EC to edit in the PIA topic area happens. There should be better countermeasures and the EC grant should be removed if there is agreement that gaming has occurred.
• We don't monitor EC grant acquisition to spot gaming.
• We should do a better job at spotting gaming. It may save time in the longer run because rapid acquisition of the EC grant is positively correlated with blocks.
• EC gaming is usually found by luck or too late. Here is an example of what looks like gaming EC to edit in the PIA topic area. I didn't notice this until almost 2 years after the gaming occurred, well into 'stale' territory. And that account may be sanctioned soon.
• It is not always clear whether something is or is not 'gaming'. Wikipedia provides tools to help people game privileges by making constructive edits. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Entirely agree that we should do a better job at spotting it. In this circumstance if the editor had gotten their WP:XC and then gone onto edit some of the lower profile articles in the topic area for a month or two, by the time they came to disruptively edit Zionism it would have been harder to notice and even if noticed going into the territory of being stale. TarnishedPath^talk 04:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why Britannica would be flagged by security software. It's, a well known website. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the only site where a search on the phrase "a truly non-biased, factual opening paragraph without citations from angry Arabs" got a hit. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

okay, I took a look at it, and yeah, a site having a self-signed/expired/invalid ssl cert, is a massive red flag. It doesn't even load on my phone when I click though it, root domain loads just fie tho, but its overran with ads, like every time you click a link, you get a full screen ad when it loads, as well as those "click allow notifications" popups that are used as a vector for phising scams. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Meta issues aside, I have removed EC from this particular user. They're welcome to reapply if needed and gaming can be addressed then. Star Mississippi 21:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I gotta say I don't get the claim of “gaming” here. Someone wants to edit a topic that requires XC. We tell them they can’t do that until they have 500 edits. They go and make 500 edits in a different topic, now they are XC and they edit they article they want - and we accuse them of “gaming” because they went and did exactly what we asked them to, and we want to take away their XC? WTF? EscEscEsc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

They are expected to make 500 constructive edits. Look at their edit history - for instance on the 19th, instead of making 2-3 large edits to Eve, they made 57 tiny edits, only seven of which were over 100 characters, and a number of which were "just adding a space" or "just adding a period" before clicking save. This isn't an editor 'learning the ropes' through editing and understanding how Wikipedia works, which is the intent of XC/ECR; this is an editor "speed-running" gaining WP:XC (note, it's XC, not EC, even though extended confirmed restricted is ECR - this inconsistency should probably be discussed somewhere...), which is blatantly WP:PGAMING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 to The Bushranger. The point of making 500 edits is to learn the ropes of Wikipedia before diving into difficult topics, and that takes ''time.'' No one learns how to navigate Wikipedia's intricacies in a couple of days. (Hell's bells, no one really can learn them in a month, however gung ho they may be.) This is not a race, and a disproportionate number of editors who Absolutely Have To Edit a contentious topic article Right! Now! are the ones with partisan axes to grind. Ravenswing 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

So, 3 months is insufficient? Why not change the policy instead of sending people to ANI for following the policy. Maybe PIA takes 5,000 esits and a year if that is the goal. 12.75.114.25 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

30 days (not three months) is entirely sufficient, if an editor has 500 constructive edits during that time. The system is fine. People gaming it is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Its only 30 days? I didn't realize that. That seems great to stop accidental entries, but not close to being able to stop anyone who wants to write about politics instead of focusing on improving an encyclopedia. 12.75.114.25 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is an example of WP:ASPERSIONS absent evidence. LordDiscord (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

While true, it is - as I pointed out - evidenced by their contribution history. Making 57 tiny edits to a single article in a single day, many of which are 'add/remove a space' or 'add a single punctuation mark', is clearly gaming the system. AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I beg to differ. As a non-native English speaker, I sometimes have to work hard at a sentence or a paragraph until it looks like good English. I would like to compliment myself on what looks like solid, idiomatic English, which is not always the case when I begin to work on an entry or being able to incorporate additional information as I work my way through the text. Additionally, I do not yet consider myself an experienced editor, but with the kind help that I expect to receive from you and others, I hope to advance at a good speed. I thank you for the opportunity to explain myself here and for the time and effort you took in addressing my hard work. Jensenjan (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Bushranger, would you be kind enough to tell me where I supposedly made 57 tiny edits to a single article in a single day? I will look it up and explain myself. I am most certain that something like that never happened, but I'll check and promise to revert to you with a serious answer to that claim. Again, thank you for your kind interest. Jensenjan (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

They are referring to the Eve page. LordDiscord (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

LordDiscord, thank you very much for making the effort to point out to me where that unjust accusation came from.

I am looking at my edits of 19.06.2025 which were indeed multiple and I am flabbergasted that anyone could call these edits "gaming". Yes, there were also many small edits to get the language or the order in place, but I rearranged several paragraphs in the entry to make it more logical; I made sense of the two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, which were not clear before; I explained the interpretations of the Lilith story, the equal male-female versus female inferior problem; correctly cited biblical verses and Hebrew names of Cain and Abel; put certain items into their correct chronological context and added references to various sources, all of which are valid and relevant. If there is such a thing, I respectfully ask to make a big note on my WP resume saying that I'm a good and serious person trying to do a good job. I wish I can do as good a job on other entries as well. Jensenjan (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not clearly the case. Gaming says they must be unconstructive or trivial. What percentage of the edits were not constructive or trivial? Adding a needed comma or space is absolutely constructive and important to the project. The examples given in the article are dummy edits and unconstructive edits to a sandbox, not edits that improved actual pages.

I haven’t looked through all the cases, but the edits were made continually over a period of three hours and the few I looked at seemed useful. Spending three hours to improve the encyclopedia should be praised, regardless of whether it got them 11% closer to ECR. Again, I have not looked at all of them though. LordDiscord (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

LordDiscord, what distinguishes evidence of gaming from an aspersion? Is this evidence of gaming - many small edits over an extended period with some revisions to ECR pages immediately after XC was granted? Someone described this as gaming and the party responded with a statement inconsistent with the evidence, which is a bit odd, but whatever. If that evidence was presented to support a claim of gaming, would you regard it as a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS? My point is that evidence of gaming is tricky, often ambiguous, because it is trying to be evidence of intent, and we can't see intent. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Absent evidence, absolutely this would be WP:ASPERSIONS. The small edits could be overwhelmingly changes that legitimately improved Wikipedia (typos, grammar, etc.) and the behavior after seems similar to the behavior before (mostly small edits). Another important thing to look for is if the changes to ECR pages mostly like these other changes and if they were discussed beforehand. Gaming would be making irrelevant changes in a sandbox or making changes back and forth or something else that doesn’t improve the encyclopedia, and then making controversial changes to an extended confirmed article (ones that would not have been made if they asked for it in a talk page). Are there any edits from this user on an XC page that were controversial? If not, what would even be the purpose of gaming? Additionally, if not, I would recommend talking to the account who accused this account of gaming, and showing them WP:ASPERSIONS. Wikipedia should be friendly and open to new users, and personal attacks are greatly detrimental to this. Older editors need to be talked to when they step out of line too. LordDiscord (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, would be curious which statement this party made that was “inconsistent with the evidence”? Please post on the user’s talk page and inform them they are being discussed here, so they may defend themselves. (“When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.”) LordDiscord (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi LordDiscord,

The person who made the accusation is TarnishedPath.

I may have overstepped my capabilities to edit what apparently is a very contested entry, but it seems to me that the entry "Zionism" indeed is skewed and does not mirror a truthful description of the subject. Somehow, several articles have popped up in some of my other feeds on this subject's treatment in WP, so apparently it has caught the attention of other people as well. I respectfully suggest that senior editors seriously look at this entry to make it more balanced. Further, I found it strange how fast and furiously TarnishedPath jumped at me when I added a small addition with a valid reference. Perhaps it is worth the while for senior WP editors to look into this esteemed editor's history concerning this entry and other ones concerning similar subjects. Of course, all for the benefit of improving WP, which I am sure that you and I work hard to do. I thank you for that. Jensenjan (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Sean.hoyland was bringing up a graph of a third-party. If this is about you, I am curious what they think you said in response to gaming accusations that was inconsistent with the evidence. I think you have responded to the accusations completely consistently with the evidence. LordDiscord (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear LordDiscord,

Yes, after TarnishedPath objected to - and apparently removed - my addition, a few other people attacked me. I think we have exhausted this issue for now and I thank you again for supporting my innocence in this case. Hopefully, we can now all go back to what we are here for, to improve on WP and bring balanced knowledge to the world. Jensenjan (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

LordDiscord, there is no need to inform anyone because the plot is anonymized, it is presented as an ambiguous edge case (there are many), and it is not for Jensenjan. And thank you for your response. It illustrates many of the challenges with the notion of 'gaming'. There's a mismatch between what Wikipedia wants from editors in contentious topic areas (someone recently used the term 'true WP:CLUE' to describe this) and the crude proxy we use to try to measure it, 500 edits+30 days. In practice, there's often no relationship between these 2 things. If XC is meant to be some kind of proxy for experience, knowing the rules, rationality, ability to collaborate, things like that, which seems to be the intention, are small edits that legitimately improve Wikipedia (typos, grammar, etc.) useful indicators? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the ability to collaborate on talk pages to find consensus is a better indicator. I disagree with limiting it to obvious things like "making irrelevant changes in a sandbox" because people keen to tunnel through the barrier to get into contentious topic areas (or get back in after being banned) are usually smarter than that. I do agree though that when 'the behavior after seems similar to the behavior before' a claim of 'gaming' should be much less persuasive. As for 'Are there any edits from this user on an XC page that were controversial?', my view is once you are asking a question like that about complicated properties of revisions you are not talking about 'gaming' anymore. Almost any edit can be controversial to someone in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, generally anonymized — but only if it isn’t someone participating here who would recognize through keen observation the pattern of edits. Otherwise it would have a chilling, accusatory effect, as Jensenjan felt when they thought it was them. You could imagine a scenario where someone defended someone else on gaming accusations and an editor who disagreed posted a graph like that along with such veiled accusations (such as “responded with a statement inconsistent with the evidence”) — this would be generally be seen as threatening (seen as quietly hinting that if they continue defending the other user, they will get accused of the same thing) and would likely send the anonymized user into a state of fear, stifling open discussion. I am sure you wouldn’t do such a thing, of course, but can you just confirm it is not anyone else participating in this topic to put my old mind to rest?

Sandbox and dummy edits are the only examples given for WP:PGAME. I don’t see how useful edits would be unconstructive or trivial.

Regarding, “Almost any edit can be controversial to someone in a contentious topic area”, you didn’t say what this anonymized user’s edits on XC pages were. For all I know, perhaps the only edits the anonymized user unilaterally did on XC pages could be changing “seperate” to “separate” or “occured” to “occurred”. These are obviously just examples I fabricated, and are almost certainly not what the anonymized user actually did — but if this were the case, would you consider these “controversial”? LordDiscord (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have opened a separate discussion about LordDiscord's conduct at #LordDiscord's gaming of the extended confirmed permission. — Newslinger talk 18:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That discussion was closed with consensus that LordDiscord was not permission gaming. I had seen LordDiscord's conduct as a more clear-cut case of permission gaming than Jensenjan's conduct, so in light of this, I am revising my interpretation of the WP:PGAME guideline to exclude small edits that are constructive from being considered permission gaming. With this revised standard, I do believe Jensenjan's small edits were in good faith and support their re-application for the extended confirmed permission. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

My understanding from reading the gaming article is that it does not just involve how you get to ECR, but that you acquire it in order to abuse it. I think the abuse is a key part. Both of the examples in WP:PGAME bring up abusing the ability:

Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles, moves a promotional draft to article space, vandalizes articles, or otherwise edits disruptively.

Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles.

The section itself is very short and does not specify that, but gaming in general is defined as “deliberately misusing Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community”. Unconstructive edits are at the expense of the community, but I think the opposite is true for constructive edits.

Had the anonymized user went on to make unconstructive edits, I don’t think a post about them would have gotten much dispute. I think that is by far the main reason for (mostly) support for XC suspension in this case (where there was an unconstructive edit right after ECR) and (mostly) opposition in the other case (where there was not).

In any case, regardless of ECR, I think less experienced users (including myself and Jensenjan) should be especially careful that what we add is constructive and to collaborate on controversial articles, because we obviously don’t know Wikipedia’s policies on articles as well as more experienced editors. There is no disadvantage (and indeed much advantage) to discussing in a talk page for anything that might be controversial, there is generally no urgency. And certainly there should be no edit warring if something is removed. Which is what I intend to do and hopefully the same is true for Jensenjan.

Sorry for the long post. LordDiscord (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Refocusing (Jensenjan)

• @Jensenjan: Could you please explain the decision process that led you to make the edit Special:Diff/1296492089 to the article Zionism, and your understanding of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to that edit? — Newslinger talk 21:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I was wondering that exact thing, given Sean's comments above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  I apparently walked into something complicated that I did not fully understand. My edit was to add what I saw as a more balanced definition of Zionism (cited from Britannica) on top of the one that was already there. I did not change any text or delete anything. I will be more careful in the future and continue my path of learning. I did see the immediate backlash, but I have been busy with other things, so I only answer today. Sorry for that. Now I can't find the reactions from last week. Perhaps you could be helpful and direct me to that.

  Two things concern me: I saw a notice that my editor status was changed. I respectfully ask to have it reinstalled. Second, an editor attacked me and claimed that I had "gamed" my way to 500 edits. I vehemently protest that unfair and untrue accusation. I have worked hard on editing many entries on many different subjects and, I think, improved on the content, sources and language of all of them.

  Lastly, if I need to take any further action, please help me out in that as well. Jensenjan (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Having gone through more of your edits (which were clearly very time-consuming and improved the project – not unconstructive) and given your promise to be more careful in the future, I support this. LordDiscord (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Jensenjan, one of the purposes of the extended confirmed restriction is to ensure that you obtain sufficient experience while editing less controversial topic areas so that once you are eligible to edit in a highly contentious topic area, you would have an adequate understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to avoid making elementary mistakes such as your edit Special:Diff/1296492089. As you did not understand how the edit Special:Diff/1296492089 is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it appears that Star Mississippi made the correct call by revoking your extended confirmed permission.

  For your information, the style guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (MOS:LEAD) explains how Wikipedia articles are supposed to begin, and why no policy-compliant Wikipedia article starts with a copied-and-pasted excerpt from another encyclopedia before introducing the name of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 21:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Retracted assessment — Newslinger talk 20:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, you can reapply here: WP:PERM/EC

  I would suggest noting in your request that it was removed by Star Mississippi after you made a mistake editing an EC page (and link to this discussion), and that Star Mississippi said that you were welcome to reapply. Additionally, I suggest mentioning that since then you have promised to be more careful. LordDiscord (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Dear LordDiscord,

  Thank you for this suggestion.

  If I understand correctly, I was demoted from EC to XC and now I can reapply to get my status back?

  When I go to the link above (WP:PERM/EC) I don't see where I can reapply and who I should direct my request to.

  Would you be kind enough to help me with this?

  Thank you. Jensenjan (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  You haven't been demoted, EC and XC mean the same thing, 30 days and 500 edits. However your EC/XC status has been removed, you are now AC (4d and 10 edits). Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 07:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for making that point clear.

  Please direct me to where I apply to get my status as EC/XC back, as the link LordDiscord suggested did not work.

  Thank you in advance. Jensenjan (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Here: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. You'll need to hit "Add request" for it to work. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 10:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Long term WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior, WP:BATTLEGROUND and harassment

This is by far not the first ANI regarding this user, as I have previously made two ANIs regarding said user, and they have also made their own ANI making false accusations towards me.

User:Nghtcmdr has repeatedly shown a huge amount of misconduct, particularly WP:ICANTHEARYOU in regards to policies, consensus, or people explaining policies. They have also shown general lack of understanding regarding reliability/sourcing related policies, despite other editors( ) trying to explain policies, they tend to simply ignore policies or consensus.

They have also shown a general tendency to be incivil towards other editors and have edit warred and have done various forms of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, from WP:BLUDGEON to harassment.

Here is a list of all their policy violations(there are likely more):

Edit warring

WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and failure to understand policies related to WP:RS, False accusations

Multiple editors(outside of myself) have voiced concerns with how they assume all sources are "unreliable"(I have also pointed out WP:RSPNOT) and delete properly sourced info, along with some editors also pointing out potential bias towards chinese sources. They have also used WP:NONENG incorrectly to justify removal of (properly sourced) info since "the sources are not in english". In fact, when I revert such bad edits, they have falsely claimed I am "WP:HOUNDING", when I suspect they are doing exactly what WP:HOUNDING is, as it is quite suspicious that the info they removed had been edited by me before.

This has happened, well, way too many times:

- Source was PLA website, which somehow was called "unreliable", which really questions whether @Nghtcmdr actually does research on what the sources are, or whether they understand what a reliable source is. - Removed sources simply for being "Non english" - Ironically, adding unsourced info - Claims that "sources are not needed" - Removal of "non-english sources" that were reliable - Mass removal of non-english sources and replacing them with a source I doubt covers that info - Removal of reliably sourced info - Removal of reliably sourced info

WP:BLUDGEON

- Showed bludgeoning behavior on this discussion.

WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:ICANTHEARYOU

- Falsely accusing me of "fabricating claims" even after I posted a link to the discussion I was citing

Harassment

The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.

In the same topic, they have reverted my edit citing an unfinished discussion to start an edit war.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The previous discussion is still open. And you don't get to demand that admins get it over with. Have you considered the possibilty that no admin action has been taken because admins don't believe any action is necessary? Also opening this with I won't be available for the next two weeks...I won't be here tomorrow is throwing a grenade and running away. I'd suggest you drop the stick, withdraw this complaint (given both the grenading and the fact that the previous discussion is still open), take that vacation, and see if you have any new feelings about things when you return. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger; Thanks for the reminder that the quote is grenading, I removed it; I probably phrased that horribly, as I will be going on a vacation tmr night and will not be able to respond;

I seriously question how "No action is necessary". This user has shown known ignorance to policies and explanations of policies, and has also been quite incivil towards others. I suggest that again, the actions of Nghtcmdr be reviewed(and sanctions be administrated), as at this point, multiple editors have pointed out that sanctions are needed in the case that they continue to ignore policies/the reliability of sources they remove, which is the case here.

I have pointed out and helped to explain many of the above policies to @Nghtcmdr, however they still have chosen to continue their spree of "if it ain't an english source, I will remove it"

Listen: I don't like biting the newcomers, but this has been going on for a long time now and their behavior hasn't gotten better(in fact, arguably it has gotten worse), and they refuse to listen to any explanation of policy that they don't like. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake, if Nghtcmdr needed any evidence of hounding, opening this while there were already two ANI topics open between these two is solid gold. Yes, Thehistorianisaac, we get that "Nghtcmdr Delenda Est!" is one of your raison d'etres on Wikipedia right now, and it must be galling that you have to go on vacation without them already having been indeffed, but enough is enough. Right now, I'd support a two-way IBAN, and if there are other editors who feel strongly enough about the issue to see it through, they can do so. Drop the damn stick already, and if admins don't react the way you like to this, then they don't. Ravenswing 06:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been going on for a while, and it's beginning to disrupt law enforcement/military related topics, and there has been harassment/personal attacks coming from them on multiple occasions as pointed above. I believe in avoiding sanctions whenever possible, though at this point I really doubt there is any way they will listen to policy. I don't think it's beating a dead horse to try to ask for some action(at the very least, somebody needs to tell them not to remove sources for simply not being english on their talk page). I already have tried to explain policies properly, which they have often ignored. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac has continued to follow and revert my edits ( ) despite their awareness of the hounding accusations I had made in an edit war report that I filed against them. In one of these cases, they reverted against consensus that was formed when a third editor said they preferred my version of the article content to theirs. Nghtcmdr (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

For each of the edits I have reverted, there were very obvious problems with them(Either lack of sourcing or removal of properly sourced content). WP:HOUND explicitly states 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. which my edits fall under.

As for the chengguan article, consensus from said user said BOTH sources can exist. You are leaving out the fact that said editor stated BOTH versions is fine and never stated they "preferred your version"

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

I apologize if I was a little bit too harsh, considering you are a new editor. I believe(and hope) you are acting in good faith, and simply are not completely aware of policies. I also believe you could be a good editor, as seen by some of your edits.

However, what I would suggest is that if you do not understand a particular policy, feel free to ask on the help desk or teahouse, and if someone explains a policy to you(e.g. all sources are presumed reliable if they have not been discussed or are self published, or WP:NONENG means prioritize finding english sources and not to remove them), do listen to them.

Additionally, if you have questions regarding the reliability of a source in a different language, feel free to reach out to me(after I'm done with my vacation) or relevant wikiprojects/WP:RSN, and avoid removing them before you discuss so(Especially not stuff like the Chinese military website or MOD website). I hope that this resolves the dispute in the most friendly way possible. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

More hounding from the editor 10:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Nghtcmdr (talk)

@Nghtcmdr

As for the Hounding accusations:

Yes, I do understand why you are frustrated, I had my own edits tracked by other users before(and trust me, it was not fun, though they taught me the vast majority of my knowledge regarding wikipeida rules), the reason I am tracking your edits is because I see a tendency for you(as said above) to remove properly sourced info. Such tracking of your edits falls under 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. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. and is not considered hounding.

I, again hope this can help to resolve our dispute, and if you find sources questionable, feel free to always ask me, or WP:RSN. I am always willing to help out if you need me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac:, at this point, I would strongly suggest you stop following Nghtcmdr's edits entirely, no matter how justified you feel it is under that "Correct use of..." part. Even if you're 100% in the right, being right isn't enough, and Wikipedia will not fall apart if, for instance sources claimed to be the Chinese MoD are replaced with a United States Air Force source. At a certain point that "valid following" becomes harassment, and it really seems you've gone far beyond that line. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger

The problem is, I have reminded them multiple times that they have misunderstood the policies they are citing, yet they have chosen to completely ignore it. Could you explain to them that WP:NONENG does not mean "delete all non-english sources" as they believe?

The most preferable outcome is obviously Nghtcmdr stops their incorrect deletion spree and listens to policies. At this point, since Nghtcmdr has shown to be ignorant towards policies(such as WP:RSPNOT) or attempts to explain policies to them, this does not seem the most likely.

Yes, I understand WP:BRIE, but as I said before, I(along with other editors) have already tried to explain policies to them, which they have blatantly ignored despite multiple reminders. Listen: I don't like to bite newcomers, and I have dealt with many new editors not aware of the rules. Usually, per policy, I just tell them their edit was against policy, and they understand the edit. However, this is obviously not the situation, as at this point they have blatantly chose to ignore policy(or deliberately choose to misinterpret said policies despite being reminded that it is not what the policy means), and attempt to edit war when someone points out their edit was not right.

I have already tried to explain policies in a civil manner multiple times, and have also attempted to ask for admin intervention when it was obvious that this was a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation(which had been completely ignored). Could you tell me if there is any other alternate way out of this, as I have pointed out again that a lot of Nghtcmdr's edits are often problematic and go against policy/consensus. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

More hounding from the editor ( ) In one of these cases, they asked for content verification despite my edit which already satisfied that requirement. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

You are taking my quote out of context. I reverted it BEFORE you added the verification.

Now that there is verification, I will not revert it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thehistorianisaac, right now it seems that you are violating WP:NOTGETTINGIT. When The Bushranger strongly recommends drop the stick, they mean DROPPING THE STICK. That means, stop commenting on Nghtcmdr, stop reviewing their edits, stop opening complaints on noticeboards about them, just pretend that you are both on this enormous project of 7 million articles and try not to run into each other.

It means that you need to move on, don't ask for alternative ways to try to get Nghtcmdr to do things the way you want them done, you need to forget that they are even editing this project and focus on the articles, not them. If another admin wants to enforce a twoway interacton block or even a oneway interaction block, I would support it because it seems like it is only the threat of being sanctioned that could result in you never uttering this editor's name again. If you haven't been able to tell by the responses from other editors, we are tired of hearing about this feud and if you continue with this, it will BOOMERANG on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparent COI at Mark Nesler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MarkNeslerMusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mark Nesler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MarkNeslerMusic (talk · contribs) has been making multiple COI edits on Mark Nesler. I issued them a warning about the COI and relevant policies at 2:13pm my time, yet they still continue making edits to the page. Additionally, according to @JBW and @Knitsey's warnings they also made unsourced promotional edits at and unexplained deletions at and . Both of those edits were made after I gave him my warning. They have not responded to anything we've posted on their talk page. Gommeh 🎮 21:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The removal of the marriage , they might be removing that due to privacy but they are not communicating or using edit summaries so I'm only guessing.

I did ping them on their talk page in the hope they would see the messages but they have continued editing. Knitsey (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. JBW (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It is tragic he didn't know the correct acronyms to remove improperly sourced information from a BLP. An interview with Marty Dodson isn't a reliable source for Mark Nesler's relationship status. Hopefully someone removes that block of policy violating prose for him. Or at least adds a reliable source. 12.75.41.116 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That has been done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MotorolaBoy's love for calling me a nationalist

MotorolaBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Since their first two edits on this website, MotorolaBoy seems to have beef with me and my username. They've been accusing me of WP:Nationalist editing for seemingly no reason at all. We've never had any contact when they made their first edit. I've warned them multiple times not to make accusations like these, but just a few moments ago, they've went on to write a 3 paragraph rant accusing me of being a nationalist (With their only proof being His name literally translates to "father of Yemen") and gave a reference to a no-longer existing page title (Sabaean colonization of Africa) that I've supported renaming where they have made acusations suspiciously similar to the ones Apprentix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made towards me 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:NPA violation to me. Can you please describe the issues Apprentix has had with you in the past? » Gommeh (he/him) 20:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This discussion that we've had on that article's talk page (link) where they've accused me of nationalist editing multiple times.

You can see this ANI post about him Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Apprentix 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen has been attempting to ban me, accusing me of sockpuppeting because I edited using my IP a handful of times prior to making this account (which I never hid, stopped doing when informed not to, and he wouldn't have known had I not said it was me), and now claiming I'm the same person as a banned account I've never seen at all. To know what our disagreement stems from check User talk:Asilvering/Archive 21#Block evasion. Abo Yemen is targeting and harassing me in an effort to stop me from opposing his obviously historical revisionist edits which would either be described as nationalistic or racist. After he followed me across multiple pages he never contributed to so he could revert my edits, leaving antagonizing comments I naturally accused him of having motivations I believed did not align with proper conduct on this site (or so I thought).

If you ban me like he's wanted since I began editing or take his side in harassing me further like everyone else up to this point has I don't care. My experience here has bene nothing but unpleasant to say the least. It was only when someone left a message on my talk page stating I would likely have my ability to edit revoked because of Abo Yemens campaign to stop me from opposing his obviously biased editing history that I decided to reply after deciding I would no longer do more than read on wikipedia due to him. Abo Yemen should be banned, as I said in the other thread I'm not requesting anyone do so yet. That will come in due time provided I'm treated fairly now. Theres a litany of evidence against him I'll be bringing forward.

You can take away my editing ability though, if you don't want me to defend myself from his aggression or rightfully criticize his manipulation of history then this is not the place for me. MotorolaBoy (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@MotorolaBoy, it is really important that you assume good faith, and that you bring evidence if you're going to accuse another editor of some kind of misconduct. If Abo Yemen is making racist edits that push a nationalist point of view, we'll get him to stop. But we're not going to do anything whatsoever without any evidence. Meanwhile, Abo Yemen has provided evidence of you harassing him, and that absolutely will get you blocked if you don't cut it out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@MotorolaBoy It aint that deep. Just stop it with the personal attacks. I literally have nothing against you, and I am definitely not a racist (like, wtf??) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Brother I've only been on here for a week but you started it and might still get me banned. You've definitely been following me around and trying to mess with me. I'm gonna accuse you of racism and harassment since you're playing dirty. MotorolaBoy (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What's most likely to get you blocked is the way you keep making personal attacks against another user and not providing any evidence of your claims against him.

Abo Yemen isn't forcing you to do that, it is your choice. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

He also very clearly did not "start it", since MotorolaBoy's first edits are personal attacks. I've tempblocked as a final warning, since "I'm gonna accuse you of racism and harassment since you're playing dirty" is pretty unambiguous, but since a bunch of this went down on my own talk page, some other admin should handle it if it keeps going. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• They have been actively editing today. I've posted a request for them to come and respond to your complaint, Abo Yemen. Let's see what they have to say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Abo Yemen, since you brought it up, can you provide a link to that 3 paragraph rant? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, that's at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 21#Block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz they said in that same discussion that they stand by everything they said User talk:Asilvering#c-MotorolaBoy-20250624212700-Abo_Yemen-20250624071100, and this comment of theirs where they said I'd like both you and Abo Yemen to look through not only this reply chain but my activity and come to more logical conclusions. Well, I don't expect that of him is another implied personal attack. They also claimed that their intention in this conversation was to not only defend myself from his attempt to ban me but explain my previous comments accusing him of nationalist motivations. Like I said above I will bring forward evidence (of which there's plenty) (emphasis mine) but never did. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Apprentix has been evading his block using IPs, the one at User talk:Kowal2701/Sabaeans in the Horn of Africa geolocates to his location and there was another one a while back. Perusing exchanges at here this looks very WP:DUCKy, a CU would be good. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, feel free to file an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BasedHistorian PHD. If you can provide diffs that clearly make the connection between MotorolaBoy and Apprentix, you can ask for CU. -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry not at my laptop. Might be able to later. I’ve seen CUs requested in AN threads Kowal2701 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd also suggest CUing them to check if they're Habesha212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also have evaded their block using ips (See this discussion that was started using their IP Talk:Sabaeans in the Horn of Africa#Flagrant misinformation) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just noting that asilvering issued a short block to MotorolaBoy today for harrassment. I guess we'll see if it influences their behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and pulling out what I said above, for clarity, since a bunch of this went down on my own talk page, some other admin should handle it if it keeps going. Don't anyone expect me to take any further action in this thread. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

2601:140:9200:C090:0:0:0:0/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2601:140:9200:C090:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This IP range was blocked twice previously for vandalism/disruptive editing, most recently back in March for one month. After a short break, this editor returned to editing a little less than two weeks ago. Their contributions since returning are all still WP:NOTHERE: I could not identify a single constructive edit since they returned from their last block. Here is a short selection of their most recent edits from the last few days: , , , (and these don't even include edits that were disallowed by edit filters--there are a bunch of these).

Can an administrator please consider re-blocking this range? Looking back at their edit history, the /64 range seems to be static going back about five months, so there should not be collateral. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yuck. Six months block this time. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Thank you very much for addressing this so quickly. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tygx IDHT and harrasement pings

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

After consensus were reached at Talk:Girls Will Be Girls (EP) by me and @Chyx1095, Tygx started another discussion on the same talk page in an attempt to overturn the consensus by persistently pushing their views through rehashing their earlier rejected arguments. Their version was not accepted, yet they continued engaging in behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies on disruptive editing (WP:IDHT) and harassment (WP:HARASSMENT).

I repeatedly warned Tygx to stop pushing the issue and to respect the consensus, and also clearly warned them to stop pinging me. These warnings were ignored.

Given Tygx's continued refusal to respect consensus, persistent disruptive editing and talk page behavior, ignoring multiple formal warnings, and ongoing harassment via pings, I request intervention and believe that a temporary block is warranted. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion, and it's not quite as clear as Paper9oll sets out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to go over the discussion on the talk page of Girls Will Be Girls (EP), and you will that see we agreed on a lot of the points raised. At the moment, I am only flagging an ambiguous sentence in the first paragraph that needs to be reviewed. I have not edited the article recently or harassed anyone, these are false claims. It appears that @Chyx1095 and Paper9oll are teaming up and being overly protective of the article. They reverted every edit made, which seems unfair. Tygx (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issue here apart from a content dispute, and I have to say I am unimpressed with this threatening message from the OP. I am even more unimpressed with Talk:Girls_Will_Be_Girls_(EP)#Writing, where the OP closed a discussion themselves in which they were 2v1 opposed to Tygx with the statement "Consensus passed with super majority". There's more than a hint of WP:OWN and the OP needs to take a good long look at their own behaviour here. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to unclose the discussion if the closure lacking. I am not "owning" this page; I simply stated my point and, in my view, there was consensus with approximately 2.5 out of 3 supporters. Proper venues like 3O or DRN remains open thereafter, but for reasons unknown to me, wasn't exercised. Instead, I was met with repeated pinging despite explicitly stating multiple times that I was stepping back and requesting the pinging stop—hence the tone of that message. If this is not harassment, then I don't know what is. Likewise, if calling me "pathetic" on the same talk page is not a clear personal attack, then I don't know what is. If a temp block is overkill, then I believe a formal warning from an admin would be justified to stop such persistent harassing behaviour and get the message across. I also acknowledge that my "threatening" message on the talk page may have come across as strong, however considering the situation, gotten too hot-headed. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am slightly bemused that an experienced editor like yourself thought it was OK not only to close a discussion in which you had commented multiple times, but to close it in your favour as a "supermajority" when there were only three editors discussing it. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverted the closure. My judgment stands that there was a clear majority in favor of the change among those who participated. Uninvolved venues like 3O or DRN have been available from the start and remain open to anyone seeking further input from uninvolved editors. For my part, I do not intend to engage further in content discussion on this issue, as I have stated multiple times. Accordingly, I do not expect any further pings from Tygx regarding this exact topic or variations thereof, having already explicitly requested that the pings stop. If there are still concerns, I encourage the use of appropriate dispute resolution venues. I am, however, fine with being pinged by uninvolved editors should they require my input. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 20:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Three editors can barely be a majority, much less a supermajority. In fact, if this closure was 1-2, I'd say that was hardly even a consensus and it could be challenged at any point. I was curious about this but when I went looking to see if there was any discussion on policy pages about "supermajorities", I just found Wikipedia:Supermajority which is a failed proposal from 2006. So, I think claiming a "supermajority" that has some special authority has no basis in Wikipedia policy unless you can find some mention about it that I have missed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I used the term simply to indicate there was clear support among the participating editors, in the plain dictionary sense. I’ll avoid that wording in the future and use something simpler. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a better idea than that: do not close discussions in which you're a participant. It's always good practice to have an uninvolved editor close.

That being said, there's a perfectly good word to indicate clear support: "majority." Ravenswing 05:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not sure why the above replies are focused on berating Paper9oll's conduct, when this is about Tygx's harassment. Regardless how the matter was conducted by Paper9oll, it does not justify Tygx's constant pinging, especially when Paper9oll had requested for them to stop and provided the justification. Tygx can either wait for other editors to comment or request for other editors for their opinions, instead of harassing us to change our prior decision. Additionally, after previous consensus had passed and the changes were implemented, nothing is stopping Tygx from editing per WP:BOLD if they find it justified to correct that single statement. If any other editors (Paper9oll and myself included) find that it's not an improvement, it'll be corrected accordingly, or reverted and brought to discussion again. There is absolutely no reason for Tygx to constantly ping us. Correct me if I'm wrong. — Chyx1095 (🗣️ • 📜) 16:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Because three long-term, respected admins examined the matter and found that it wasn't as clear-cut as all of that, and because the conduct of any participant editor is liable for review at ANI, not just the ones posters prefer we focus on. Ravenswing 17:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that. But while the OP's conduct might have been unacceptable, is it right for "three long-term, respected admins" to disregard the behaviour of the reported participant editor? It takes two hands to clap. As I said, there is absolutely no reason for Tygx to constantly ping us, especially when they have repeatedly been told to stop, "threatening" or not. I'm not sure if this matter has been looked at objectively as to what would have led to an experienced editor to act as such. — Chyx1095 (🗣️ • 📜) 16:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There was a content dispute, as both of you have been reverting every edit I made with the vague edit summary "Not an improvement". However, closing a discussion in your favour by claiming a "supermajority" despite the issue being unresolved felt inconsiderate. My replies were thoughtful and considerate of your opinions, so responding to all of my proposals with warning messages seemed unnecessary. Tygx (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

You are not getting it. It isn't that the admins are ignoring the situation. It's not that they're not understanding the situation. It's not that they're incapable of objectivity regarding the situation. It is that they do not agree with you. This honestly can't be so difficult to wrap one's head around as all of that. Ravenswing 18:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Block of 2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40. Collateral damage?

• 2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

There is an irregular block on this mobile ip range which block even logged in users which is unusual. Bringing here for review 71.24.67.81 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Logged in users can request an exemption from IP range blocks. See more at WP:IPBE, in particular: Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (except for Tor blocks). Other editors can request for IP address block exemptions on a per-user basis if they can show good cause. If you're affected by this, you can submit a ticket at WP:UTRS. Gommeh 🎮 20:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

UTRS and IPBE are very poorly advertised. The first time (of three) I was caught in a global block (imposed by a steward who didn't respond to email), I failed to find them, and it took three admins a couple of hours to get it lifted. At the time, I was a newbie with only one hundred thousand edits. Narky Blert (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That ipv6 address belongs to ASN 6167 which only advertises a /42 of the blocked /40. That means 3/4ths of this block impacts other ISPs than the one targeted. Seems inappropriately scoped. 12.75.41.116 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Materialscientist just bumped it up to a block on 2600:1001:b000::/38. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

IP refusing to be civil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2601:18E:D004:BD40:58E:9AF4:FDC4:4841 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) has been uncivil towards myself and other editors on their talk page. I originally reverted one of their edits to Disney Channel (Spain) for not citing a source, for them to reply on their talk page with a personal attack at . When @Alith Anar warned them for said personal attack, they kept on making more of them (, ). I admittedly should have directed them to the civility essay first, so I did that (too late) to which they responded with . This is a blatant refusal to act civilly towards other editors. In all, I had to revert a total of six personal attacks against me and Alith by this IP.

Finally, I'm pretty sure 2601:18E:D004:BD40:E04A:5899:D315:9B20 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) is the same person given the similarity in IP range, editing topic and writing style, so I'll add this one too. That IP was uncivil towards @Aydoh8 at . Gommeh 🎮 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

IPs blocked from AIV report. And, yes, they are in the same range. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke TPA for Harsita Tiwari

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Harsita Tiwari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user replied to most of her warnings with simply the word "Unblock," so since these are obviously unconvincing, you should revoke her talk page access. I'm also going to request an account lock. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 00:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but does anyone else think that they could have been trying to get another account unblocked? Or perhaps a sock? Thoughts, anyone? Gommeh 🎮 00:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

First, we usually only remove talk page access if the editor is being very disruptive and posting offensive comments but this editor hasn't posted any messages for many hours and they have all been inoffensive. I don't think removing TPA a necessary step to take or a reason to come to ANI. And as for your comment, Gommeh, looking at this editor's contributions, I don't understand what led you to posing this theory. Don't be so quick to jump to conspiracy theories. I think this was just a new editor who didn't know what they were doing. I wouldn't have blocked them over their edits but YMMV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. I suppose I was intrigued as to why they were posting "unblock" and what that could possibly mean. Gommeh 🎮 03:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh? Are we on the same page? How do these edits warrant WP:TPA? They're just trying and failing to create an unblock request. And that part about requesting a global lock is even more baffling. Enlighten me on what I'm missing here. — DVRTed (Talk) 02:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I requested a global lock because shortly after a block here, they repeated the same behavior on Commons as images. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 02:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:R2025kt reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

• R2025kt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:CLOP copyright violations at Barbara Allen (journalist), Dave Brandt (sportscaster), Nelson Sears, Joan Klein Weidman and Jeff Werner (sportscaster). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the copyvios are blatant; however, I might suggest that it would have been preferable to warn R2025kt first rather than bring them straight here. I have now put a copyright violation warning notice on their talk page. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

They just readded a link to the deleted Dave Brandt article at WGAL. They might try to recreate the article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Dave Brandt recreated with MOS:PUFFERY. I think we may have a WP:NOTHERE situation on our hands. Pinging @Sammi Brie: for help. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of policy-compliant content and lack of talk page engagement – Scott Russell Surasky article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Subject: Repeated reversion of policy-compliant content and lack of talk page engagement – Scott Russell Surasky article

I am requesting administrative input regarding repeated reversions of sourced, policy-compliant content to the article [[Scott Russell Surasky]].

Several experienced editors—including [[User:Bearcat]], [[User:Alpha3031]], and [[User:Molikog]]—have reverted significant additions without responding on the [[Talk:Scott Russell Surasky|talk page]], despite multiple attempts to engage them in good faith.

Summary of issues:

• I expanded the article using reliable, independent sources, including:
  • National TV networks: Fox News, NewsNation, OANN
  • Academic affiliations: Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health Hospital System
  • Legal case databases: Justia, Midpage
  • Major publisher: Simon & Schuster
• The subject, Dr. Surasky, is a double board-certified neurologist, holds fellowships in the AAN and ASAM, and has provided expert testimony in both federal and state court proceedings.
• He has appeared regularly as the sole medical expert in televised segments about major public health issues—including President Biden’s cognitive status, COVID-19 mandates, and air quality risks—on programs like Tucker Carlson Tonight, Cavuto Live, Newsmax, and Fox Business.
• Each claim is sourced and written in neutral tone. I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m open to revising tone or trimming content collaboratively.

Behavioral concerns:

• Repeated reverts are being made without edit summaries or talk page discussion, despite my clear invitations to collaborate.
• Past deletion discussions are cited as justification for reverting, even when new, independent sources are added.
• In one edit summary, a user dismissed my contributions as "AI slop that would be funny if we didn’t have to wade through it." This kind of language violates [[WP:CIVIL]] and discourages constructive engagement.
• Another user accused me of having a conflict of interest, despite the fact that I have disclosed my identity and am not the subject of the article.

Request:

I ask that an uninvolved administrator review:

• Whether continued reversion of fully sourced content—without addressing it on the talk page—constitutes disruptive editing.
• Whether the conduct of involved editors violates Wikipedia's principles of collaboration, civility, and consensus-building.
• Whether further administrative guidance or protection is appropriate to allow neutral discussion to proceed.

Thank you.

–– User:Neurodoc99 05:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Literally the only thing I've ever done to this article is remove a redlinked category from it, as articles are not allowed to be filed in redlinked categories per WP:REDNO. I've not had one single solitary second of involvement with any of the disputed content whatsoever, because again the only thing I ever did is remove it from a nonexistent category that can't have pages in it because it doesn't exist to have pages in it. So I'll thank you to keep my name out of any of this accordingly, since it ain't got nothing to do with me. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Neurodoc99, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Do you have a relationship to the subject of the article?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You say you have disclosed your identity. Can you point to the edit where you did that? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, WP:LLM senses tingling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

'''Correction:''' In my original post, I incorrectly stated that I had "disclosed my identity." To clarify: I have '''not''' made any formal COI disclosure because I am '''not affiliated with the subject''' of the article in any way. I am not the subject, and I am not editing on behalf of the subject or anyone related to them. All of my contributions have been made in good faith, based solely on reliable sources and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

My LLM senses are burnt out from the sheer magnitude of blatant falshoods and errors in the editor's every single comment (I've only edited the AFD and not the page in question, and thus have not had occasion to make any reverts), I suppose I shouldn't be encouraging people who are WP:NOTHERE to be more subtle by correcting those LLM errors. Since administrative action is called for here though I'm curious to see how soon it gets done. And by "it" I mean getting hit by the boomerang they just threw. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Alpha3031 – I’d like to respectfully note that, so far, you haven’t responded to a single specific source, factual point, or notability argument I’ve raised. Instead, your replies have focused entirely on tone and editor motive, using dismissive language (“blatant falsehoods,” “boomerang,” “LLM errors”) rather than engaging with the content.

As a newer editor seeking to contribute based on policy and reliable sourcing, I would sincerely appreciate your response to the actual material in question. To be specific:

• The subject has appeared as the sole physician and neurologist in nationally broadcast segments on Fox News, NewsNation, Newsmax, and OANN, addressing high-profile issues including: • Presidential cognition (multiple appearances including full-length segments) • COVID-19 mandates and vaccine policy • National stimulant shortages (e.g. Adderall) • Opioid and fentanyl overdoses (including in the context of the Columbine survivor) • Air quality and neurological risk during California wildfires
• He has been interviewed on national television by Neil Cavuto, Tucker Carlson, Dr. Drew, and Newsmax anchors, often as the only medical expert featured.
• He is a double board-certified neurologist, holding fellowships in both the American Academy of Neurology (FAAN) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (FASAM).
• He has authored a nationally distributed book on addiction medicine, published by Simon & Schuster (via Post Hill Press), which includes a foreword by Dr. Drew Pinsky and a printed endorsement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
• He has also served as an expert witness in both federal and state legal proceedings, cited by name in court rulings related to addiction medicine and neurological injury.

The article text I proposed was written in a neutral, policy-compliant tone, with reliable secondary sources cited throughout. I’ve repeatedly invited collaborative editing—not POV insertion or advocacy, just proper representation of WP:SIGCOV.

If there are substantive objections to any of the above, I’d sincerely welcome discussion. But ongoing reversion, silence on the talk page, and remarks that target the contributor rather than the content discourage participation and undermine the encyclopedic mission.

–– [[User:Neurodoc99|Neurodoc99]] Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called out for WP:MEATBOT then stop doing it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Neurodoc, on your three national news networks, see WP:FOXNEWS and WP:OANN. One is of contested reliability, and the other is unreliable (NewsNation is generally reliable, but I doubt it's enough to establish notability on its own). Also, I'm pretty sure the rest of what you mention is not in and of itself enough to establish notability.

2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:5A6:7C50:F43E:F1F3 (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:5A6:7C50:F43E:F1F3 – I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that under [[WP:RS]], the issue isn’t whether a source is universally reliable for all claims—it’s whether the source is a reliable secondary source for factual coverage in the specific context cited.

In this case, appearances on Fox News, NewsNation, Newsmax and similar national TV networks are cited only to establish notability under [[WP:SIGCOV]]—not to assert biomedical facts. These are independent, third-party sources covering the subject in non-trivial, recurring detail.

Dr. Surasky has been the sole physician—specifically, the only neurologist—interviewed on Fox News regarding President Biden’s cognitive status prior to his 2024 withdrawal. He has been featured in solo interviews with interviewers including Neil Cavuto, Tucker Carlson and many others. Full length, solo interviews on topics include:

• Cognitive decline in political leaders
• COVID-19 mandates and vaccine policy
• Opioid and fentanyl overdose trends
• California wildfire health effects
• Mask mandates in neurologically vulnerable populations
• National stimulant shortages and Adderall misuse

These are substantive, sustained, subject-centered broadcasts—not passing mentions or press releases. Under [[WP:SIGCOV]], this kind of media exposure qualifies as significant coverage, especially when the individual is the only expert interviewed on matters of national interest.

While editorial slant may be debated, properly cited interviews in top-rated outlets like Fox News (per Nielsen ratings) meet notability guidelines when used to demonstrate prominence—not to support contested facts.

If balance is a concern, I’m open to collaborative additions. But rejecting this level of national media coverage outright would contradict longstanding [[WP:N]] precedent and misrepresent the threshold for notability.

– ~~~~ Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we allow the use of LLM's here? Isn't consensus to roll em up and ignore them? - Roxy the dog 07:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand concerns about the use of LLMs. I used a language model to help draft sections, but I’m not uploading content blindly. I'm working to verify sources and ensure the tone and citations meet Wikipedia standards. That said, I’m still learning, and I welcome corrections where something falls short of policy.

I’ve made repeated efforts to discuss on the talk page and revise in good faith. It would be much more helpful if editors addressed the content directly—what sources are lacking, which sections need trimming—rather than dismissing the entire contribution based on how it was drafted.

–– ~~~~ Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AITALK. On my phone right now so don't want to mess with templates, but it's probably better for someone to hit the emergency stop button first otherwise there's probably just going to be more of it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is being discussed at AfD. I see no reason to keep this duplicate open, unless there is a case for a WP:BOOMERANG. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OP blocked as a sock.Doug Weller talk 10:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues with a student project

Hi, I learned today about a class taught by User:Hanyangprofessor2 (a declared alias of User:Piotrus), which seems to be outside the Wikipedia:Education program and doesn't really follow the Wikipedia:Student assignments guidance it seems.

The students are, as far as I have seen, expected to translate articles from Chinese or Korean to English or vice versa. Many of the articles are poor (machine?) translations (often unattributed), many with very close paraphrasing issues. I have draftified some of them (from the ones I could find and where the sources were available to check for copyvio), but receive pushback from the students because apparently they only get graded if the article is in the mainspace, not for drafts.

It's rather exhausting dealing with this as its apparently deadline for these so we have a rather large influx, and the responses of the instructor have been for the most part not very encouraging (they have agreed to stop saying the students that they can use AI to create lead sections at least). See User talk:Hanyangprofessor2#Translations for the first and longest discussion, and e.g. User talk:Fram#About Draft: Mini figures for e;g. the information about the grading being dependent on being a live article.

All help, guidance, cleanup ... is welcome. Fram (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a few clarifications. My courses follow the best practices (I've been involved in designing some of them; I've been one of the first educators assigning students to work on Wikipedia way back in the 2006 :P; heck, WMF even profiled me a decade ago  :). My students created more than 1,000 wiki pages since then (list). The current courses have the usual dashboard pages (https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Hanyang_University/Collective_Intelligence_and_Wikipedia_(2025) , https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Everyday_Life_(2025) ). I don't know how Fram calculated that the student creations are "often unattributed". The students are explicitly required to attribute their work in the assignment instructions, which I already told Fram about. Since most of my students are not native speakers of English, some rough or machine translations happens; again, the students are told to proofread their work and follow Wikipedia's guidelines (User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator, Wikipedia:Translation, etc.). Of course, some will not follow the instructions or such, and complain, beg, etc. Business as usual in the edu corner. The attempt to make this into an AI issue is not particularly fair, to say the least; I've told one student they can try to use AI to help them draft a lead section that they should proofread and check for accuracy (it's the AI era in education, and we all experimenting with it, see my AI class module). It's not cool to see this framed as a suggestion that I've been telling students to use AI as a common practice (mob with pitchforks, incoming?); although, realistically, many do this already and will do it more, and we need to figure out aways to deal with it. As for grading being dependent on the article being live, well, that's pretty standard. I guess Fram is pretty new to the WEP and such? Anyway, I've been running these courses for 10+ years, as I've said, and AN(I) dramu doesn't happen often (to say the least; check archives to verify if you want). Business as usual, from my perspective - it's end of the semester here, students are submitting work, and some who have slept through the class till now will try to complete it, and earn extra credit in the last few days, rushing, and creating some below-average content. They are supposed to work in their sandboxes, and publish only after I give them permission, but again, not all pay attention to such details, for which I apologize. If anyone knows how to make student follow instructions and not make mistakes, I'd love to learn :) Anyway, feel free to draftify or userfy anything that you think does not meet our policies. Business as usual, really. Cheers, --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding AI, I would suggest trying to stay out of it as a whole. Yes, I do understand that AI is widespread, though I would suggest reading WP:LLM. I have also seen questionable AI fact checking, and AI often pushes POVs and does not have understanding of wikipedia policies. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am catching up on the recent VP discussion; I'll make sure to advise students to be careful when using AIs (and preferably to avoid them). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Unattributed, examples:

• Draft:Shenzhen Satellite TV: no attribution (and no indication of being a class assignment)
• Draft:Wanping Metropolitan Park has a completely failed attempt at attribution
• Guangzhou Jianye Building Fire, no attribution
• Liu Jintang: only attributed after I complained at Piotrus talk page
• Jianye Building: no attribution
• Shoulder Pole Dance: no attribution

The same seems to be true for older ones, e.g. Fireworks (video game). Fram (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you found out that not all students will follow the instructions to attribute their work. Many others do. And some of the examples here are so recent the students who wrote them might not have had the time to read my (or your) feedback asking them to attribute stuff. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

See below, nearly all the ones from the previous few years seem to be unattributed translations. Fram (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It's nothing new at all https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/instructors/new-instructor-orientation/never-grade-on-what-sticks

It's literally part of the new instruction orientation. Wayback machine first captured it back in 2020 and I remember hearing it really early on in my career as an editor back in 2018-2019? I forget exactly when, but it's nothing new LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fram

I recently accidentally finished one of his student's drafts, and sort of got to know him, and he asked if I could help ensure the quality of translation.

Now, I do think he is acting in good faith, and I agree with the general idea of improving coverage of Chinese(I think there are several other languages he covers but I don't understand those languages) topics by translating Chinese articles. However, I must note that the quality of quite some of the translations, are, rather questionable at times. However, this is a problem for all articles translated from Chinese. Tonnes of translated articles from Chinese(and, I assume, other languages, just that I know Chinese) lack proper attribution(hell, the articles on chinese wikipedia lack attribution themselves, when many of the sources are very easily found), and this isn't a unique problem.

Personally, i don't see much inherent problems(except I maybe would suggest for @Hanyangprofessor2 to maybe change the deadline system to be more flexible) to this project, and I do support all efforts to improve coverage of Chinese topics, though I do believe more supervision to ensure translation quality is needed. I will, per his request, check some articles translated from Chinese to ensure quality Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, for starters grading should not be dependent on being in the mainspace, this puts the students against the new page reviewers and leads to rushed moves back to mainspace without regards for the issues. The work a student put into an article, and the quality of the result, is not dependent on whether it is in userspace, mainspace or draftspace. I have moved some articles to draftspace because I could check the sources and be sure of close paraphrasing issues: these students would now be punished, while others where such a check could not immediately be done by me would be rewarded. One can argue that that isn't our problem, but it leads to students hiding the issues or, like I said, rushing things back to mainspace. No idea how Piotrus will even judge all of these considering that he doesn't speak Chinese. He seems way too optimistic about the quality of these articles though. Fram (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

My optimism is based on the ~20 years of history, with 1000+ of articles, out of which, as far as I know, only few percent have been declined post publication. However, it is possible we are seeing a significant decline of quality this year (which may be tied to the growing popularity of AI, as well as some COVID aftershocks in the current crop of students; the jury is still out, but a lot of educators I know are seeing more than their average share of problems this year...). As for deadlines, they require students to be finished a month ago. A lot of them, however, have a very holistic approach to deadlines, so to say... _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see much difference, I have to say. For starters, the "1000+" articles you boast about are across language versions, let's restrict ourselves to articles on enwiki perhaps? From your list, first one I pick, Liberation Monument in Chongqing, no attribution. That article is a poor, poor translation. The title isn't even in the lead, which lists two other names. It has "sentences" like "The common crystallisation.", or constructions like "The War Victory Monument, one of the projects to implement the "10-year plan or the construction of the accompanying capital", was specially set up as a preparatory committee, [...]"? Other one, Night Corridor, again no indication that it is a translation. Liangshanpo nomenclature dispute, no attribution. IPartment 5, no attribution, in fact, it seems that none of the older ones have attribution, although I undoubtedly have missed some. I see exasperated edit summaries like this one, pages were 80% has been removed as "promotional material"... Fram (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Like what I said before, the articles on chinese wikipedia lack sources is a long-time problem since 20 years ago. We have many times less user than enwiki.

What's more, most of articles you gave are Simplified Chinese written by PRC users. In my experience on reviewing articles, Simplified Chinese drafts have more copyvio, unreference or promotional problem than Traditional Chinese ones. I think you shouldn't blame all the problem on the students. Kanshui0943 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: Liberation Monument in Chongqing, we appear to have a halfway decent article on a significant monument that we didn't have before. Yes, there are some minor problems, but on the whole it doesn't look remotely WP:TNT, and the first sentence was changed by a different editor just yesterday. We don't require new users to create GAs-or-nothing. The attribution/translation thing does seem like an easy thing Piotrus could address. Was there a "Hey Piotrus can you make sure your student translations have a translation template" message before escalating to ANI? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the last part, Fram posted about this on my talk page, and I've told him that yes, this is part of the project. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my explanation (he did so when it was pretty much midnight for me, and I've been grading effectively non-stop since morning). I've no idea why this escalated, really. Something I'll note (that I've said on my talk page too) is that some articles Fram complains about are pretty recent, and the students likely did not have time to read my feedback, which includes the reminder to add the attribution template. In some other cases, they forget about it (in the past I told them to use an edit summary attribution, but they often forgot). Reviewing the older articles and adding the translation attribution template is on my to-do list, but it is also something others can help with (since the list of articles created by my students are public and already linked above). I am also thinking about designing a student activity, in which students of the next few classes will review work of students of the older years and add missing talk page templates (attribution, etc.).

That aside, I do think there's a tendency at AfC or RCP for some folks to demand above-average standards for publishing stuff (as you say "We don't require new users to create GAs-or-nothing" - but I have seen some reviewers who refuse to publish or draftify stuff that would survive AfD). For example, I am concerned about Fram's draftificatins of the following student articles, based on ambigious rationales: Draft:Shenzhen Satellite TV ("Poor quality translation of Chinese article, needs thorough checking to make it even intelliible in parts"), Draft:1958 air battles around Fujian Province ("Translator clearly hasn't checked their sources, as 2, 4 and 6 are useless links"), Draft:History of Chinese Air Force ("Sources time out or are not accessible, and article seems to end at a random place, and has no lead (the "lead" is just the first section chronologically, not a summary)"). For me those read like Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Surmountable_problems, and I believe that if these articles went to AfD, they'd be kept. In fact, I think they should be mainspaced and AfDed (if Fram thinks they don't belong there). Such decisions such be made by the community, not by one random reviewer (and I think this is policy based; no AfC reviewer can hold an article in the draftspace - if the creator insists on publishing content. AfD is the next step, unless problems are serious enough for a speedy). On that note, I am not sure if the speedy request at this student article (Jianye Building) is correct. The linked Jianye Building | Earwig's Copyvio Detector report gives me a whooping 0.0% similarity - not just because our article is in English, and the source page is in Chinese; I rerun the check with zh article: 建業大廈 | Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got the same 0%. So what's the problem? The initial reason Fram draftified this was Poor quality unattributed translation. Surmountable problems, again, this wouldn't be deleted at AfD, again. This is some overzealous draftificaiton here, IMHO. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

PS. That said, I do agree some articles Fram drafified were not ready for mainspace, and if the students followed the instructions and asked me for review before mainspacing them, I'd have told them to wait and fix various issues (ex. Draft:Wanping Metropolitan Park, Draft:Mini figures), and likely moved them back to their sandbox myself . So thanks for the help here.

But I am concerned about how Fram arrives at the close paraphrasing verdicts. Another case: Draft:Gao Yuhan - claim " Very close paraphrasing of https://web.archive.org/web/20120702080224/http://www.ah.xinhuanet.com/jg60nahp/2009-09/28/content_17836424.htm and perhaps other sources". Well, copyvio report for zh texts again is 0%: 高語罕 | Earwig's Copyvio Detector Another: Draft:Du Guoxiang ("very close paraphrasing of https://web.archive.org/web/20081121182001/http://chaozhinan.com/blog/hxz/article/7492.html). 0% again. 杜国庠 | Earwig's Copyvio Detector What's going on here? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Because it will compare every word in the website. I tried the tool many times, but it wasn't usefull. I still have to check by myself. And I check the Chinese version of Draft:Du Guoxiang, it definitely copy others. So does Jianye Building Chinese version. Kanshui0943 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kanshui0943 Thank you. Will you report those articles for cleanup on Chinese Wikipedia? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reported. Kanshui0943 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kanshui0943 Thank you, it's good to see constructive outcomes from this discussion _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am draft reviewer from zhwiki, we recently found the problem too. The articles translated from en to zh usually have bad translation. I suggested the proffesor to let the students read WP:TNESE in zhwiki before, but the problem still. I think it's the students' problem.

(btw @Thehistorianisaac, the articles on chinese wikipedia lack sources is a long-time problem since 20 years ago) Kanshui0943 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

All Wikipedias have the same problem, old articles on en are no different. Tnx for the link, I'll add it as a required reading for students translating to zh wiki (alongside zh:维基百科:翻译腔/城墙, zh:维基百科:翻译腔, and zh:维基百科:翻譯指引.) Of course, whether they actually read it, and understand it, and bother to follow the rules, that's a separate issue... _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Another suggestion: in different language link, zhwiki often use zh:Template:Internal link helper, not Template:Interlanguage link . Kanshui0943 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update my instructions accordingly. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Does seem like pretty standard end-of-semester stuff (and I sympathize with the whole students and reading-the-rules stuff :) ), but two quick things for Piotrus: a quick "I'll be checking these articles for translation templates and other obvious errors when the semester wraps up" would probably be reassuring (it's possible you've already done this). Also, just FWIW, I think the education program broadly (or at least Wiki Education in particular) discourages grading based on what "sticks" in mainspace, given desperate students are prone to doing desperate things when such conditions are present. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites Good points. As I've told Fram on my talk page, adding the translation attribution template is part of the instructions for the students, and is a common part of my feedback to them, since many do forget about it. And it is something I am stressing much more this year. If you CTRL+F for WP:TFOLWP on my current talk page, you will see that I mention it oh, 50+ times or so (i.e. I remind about ~50 different students to follow this). Maybe next year I'll design a module in which the students practice doing this more.

And I see the point about "what sticks". Of course, students get points for effort, too; but it also makes sense that the ones who do a better job (whose content is successfully mainspaced) get more credit that the ones who fail to do so and whose work is never good enough to leave the draftspace or whose work is returned there quickly and who are unable to address the problems raised. Another way to look at it is that students who successfully complete steps related to research, writing, and such (to quote WikEdu's recommendation, "they're graded on the research process and quality of the work they add") should be able to mainspace their stuff. So just as the cited recommendation says, "Never grade based on what sticks", of course, majority of the grade is not based on that, but in practice, being able to mainspace their work without it getting rejected (draftified/userfied) is a proof that they completed previous, required steps. Which means that students who fail to get their work mainspaced will be sometimes be getting lower score, not because they did not get their stuff to "stick", but because (if) they failed to do successfully complete the "research process and quality of the work" parts. I say if, because it is case based. Sometimes the students will choose an article to translate that passes my initial inspection but other problems surface later, such as close paraphrasing from a foreign language source or such (this is particularly common late in the semester when students choose their own topics without asking me for permission first, as they are required to do at the beginning of the semester). In such cases, I will still give them pretty much full credit for effort - it is not their fault they faithfully translated and wikified content that was just problematic at the target wiki.(To avoid this, I generally recommend them to choose articles which are at GA+ level, but there's just not enough content at this level to work with, sadly; particularly after all these years, and given other GA+ translation initiatives such as OKA). I hope this is clearer now? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

But according to LiAnna from Wiki Ed as of this April: “Being graded on content actually appearing on Wikipedia is not allowed in Wiki Education's program”

See this page and select “Class demanding published/reviewed articles for a grade” 173.177.179.61 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my teaching is not supported by Wiki Ed. Wiki Ed provides no support to programs outside US & Canada. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Strange, above you claimed that "As for grading being dependent on the article being live, well, that's pretty standard. I guess Fram is pretty new to the WEP and such? " But when the evidence that it isn't standard in WEP gets too much to ignore, your cop-out for doing it anyway is that your teaching is not supported by WEP? The longer this goes on, the less I'm impressed by your defense and your attempts to shift the blame. Fram (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

And I am less and less impressed with your behavior, too, likewise (blame for what? For introducing hundreds of students to Wikipedia, and having them create hundreds of articles, vast majority of which is still in mainspace?). C'est la vie. Feel free to have the last word in this thread - I have work to do; and since this branch of discussion is not looking pretty, well, if one has nothing good to say, I am going to try to follow the advice of one of my GAs: Speech is silver, silence is golden. (And when grading is done, I am looking forward to some constructive editing as well; rather than doing the oh-so-constructive discussing at ANI although I appreciate the few constructive ideas here, which I've used to revise my instructions for the students - thanks to those that suggested them). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If only you had followed your advice a bit earlier instead of obstructing cleanup efforts and creating more work, like with your remark at Talk:Jianye Building, where more and more close paraphrasing is found but all you can do is question whether deletion or extreme stubifying is really needed. Still taking the credit for the "hundreds" of articles, which better all get checked for the same issues as the ones from this year. We already saw that many of them lacked the necessary attribution. Checking a random one from the previous series, Nanko Historical and Geographical Society, I see e.g. that the article has

• "On March 24, 1943, the inaugural meeting of the Chinese Historical Society was held at the National Central Library. More than 120 individuals attended the event, including Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Fang Hao, Lei Haizong, Miao Fenglin, Chen Xunci, Zhang Qiyun, Zheng Hesheng, Wei Juxian, and Wu Qichang. Gu Jiegang served as the chair of the meeting and delivered the opening address. During the meeting, the Constitution of the Chinese Historical Society was adopted, and directors and supervisors were elected, including 21 directors.On March 26, 1943, the first joint meeting of the board of directors and supervisors of the society was convened. Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Zhu Xizu, Miao Fenglin, and Chen Xunci, among others, were elected as executive directors, totaling nine in all."

while the source has

• "On March 24, 1943, [...] the founding meeting of the Chinese Historical Society was also held at the National Library. More than 120 people attended the meeting, including Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Fang Hao, Lei Haizong, Miao Fenglin, Chen Xunci, Zhang Qiyun, Zheng Hesheng, Wei Juxian, and Wu Qichang. Gu Jiegang served as the chairman of the meeting and delivered the opening speech. The meeting passed the "Charter of the Chinese Historical Society" and elected directors and supervisors, including 21 directors[...] On March 26, 1943, the first joint meeting of directors and supervisors of the Chinese Historical Society was held, and 9 people including Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Zhu Xizu, Miao Fenglin and Chen Xunci were elected as executive directors."

I hope that your "constructive editing" when this is over will be "going through all these enwiki articles and getting rid of all copyvio and close paraphrasing". Fram (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If you provided detailed rationale first, instead of draftifying content using vague edit summaries on Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE problems (diff), we wouldn't have to deal with much of this, either. Copyvio issues are serious. Few awkward sentences or forgetting to attribute a freely licensed source (another wiki), much less so.

Anyway, I've added instructions to my course that should, in theory, reduce this type of problem - if students follow instructions. As I said before, I also encourage you to start a discussion at aforementioned official translation guides, applicable to all editors, not just my students, suggesting such checks (for close paraphrasing) are suggested as best practice. Right now, they are neither required nor recommended for translators. A separate issue concerns the question what percentage of articles from zh wiki is affected by this issue, and should be discourage any and all translations from that project? I doubt my students are the only people around here translating articles from zh wiki to en wiki. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was started after the copyvio with that and other articles was indicated, and your whole contribution to that article is this useful but hardly exhausting edit. At the time of that first draftification, the article was called Central China Building, a term that didn't appear in the article. The image caption read "A building wrapped in a construction shed after a fire, 2020". The notes about the copyvio on that article followed 43 minutes later. The notes about copyvio on another article in the project was already posted 4 minutes after the first draftification of the Central China Building article. It's not as if these copyvio issues only were raised after this discussion was started or days in the process; they were there within minutes of this.

And all of that doesn't explain how, if I had draftified that one article with a close paraphrasing indication 41 minutes earlier, "we wouldn't have to deal with much of this, either. Copyvio issues are serious. " You are again, just like I said right above, shifting the blame. And are here pretending that you believe that copyvio issues are serious, but at the same time complaining that a copyvio-riddled article would be reduced to one sentence without even checking if there was further copyvio there (Talk:Jianye Building). Your replies seem to be worth as much as your words in your previous post here, "Feel free to have the last word in this thread". Fram (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

While I believe you should work on your adherence to Wikipedia:Civility (see this proverb), as I said, I recognize good suggestions have been made by you and others, and I've revised my instructions - I will be tweaking them more later. In particular, I am going to prioritize acceptable translations from zh and ko to only articles that have passed GA+ level screening on zh wiki, given the widespread problems we learned about, or to articles where the student assures me, they have verified that references support the content, and that no close paraphrasing exists I am also going to stress to them that they should work in sandbox or draftspace, and not publish their work unless they receive permission to do so from me, another reviewer, or if they feel confident they understand the requirements for article to exist in the mainspace and feel they have met them. Once again, I appreciate your feedback, but pretty please, try to remember about CIV, WP:AGF, etc. We are all here to improve this project, and translating content between Wikipedia is, in principle, a best practice.

To quote from Wikipedia:Translation#Classroom_collaborations:

“ Wikipedia welcomes the involvement of students in article editing. Article translation is particularly well-suited to student involvement. Such efforts provide useful, real-world translation experience for students, who will be motivated by the fact that their work will be seen by thousands of Wikipedia readers. They also benefit Wikipedia readers, who gain access to information about other cultures and peoples. ”

_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that programs outside Canada and US are able to act without any guidelines at all? I would assume they would be stricter than associated programs, not less so. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am an educator as well, but probably a lower grade level than Piotrus's class above. I sympathise that students struggle with following instructions, especially when approaching a deadline. However, Wikipedia is not a dropbox of student work: it is an encyclopedia. Other editors should not be draftifying and removing articles from the mainspace from students that Piotrus is supervising, and the instructions should not include extra points for having work published on Wikipedia. I would also caution Piotrus that getting marks for having work published on Wikipedia might conflict with WP:PAID, as students are being compensated with grades for publishing edits.

Instead, students can write articles in the Wikipedia style and publish in a userspace or course module run by the institution. After work is marked and assessed by an instructor, it can be recommended for posting on Wikipedia, but the decision to publish should be up to the student. It is also bad pedagogy in my opinion to require student work to be published on the Internet, as not all students want this and publishing their work on Wikipedia is not required to demonstrate learning.

Piotrus should reach out to WikiEd immediately for additional guidance: even if they don't officially run courses outside North America, they might be able to provide guidance. Piotrus should also immediately remove the extra marks for publishing on Wikipedia from the assignment, as grading student work does not require publishing it on Wikipedia. I would support a topic ban for all of Wikipedia (not just Piotrus) for any educator to require or give extra marks for students who publish their work on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Should WikiEd instruct teachers how to set up a local install of MediaWiki to have a class-specific instance to work in? That would allow them to do this sort of work in a safe space (safe for them and us). Students could always publish to en.wiki when they think it is worthwhile, but wouldn't shower en.wiki with student projects as happens currently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720 Fair points (some). Although a lot of what you proposing is not, AFAIK, standard procedure for most courses or wiki-a-thons, I'll double things with WikiEd. Perhaps some things have changed in the years since I was involved in designing the best practice guides, which WikiEdu and others relied on (many) years ago. In the meantime, I'll revise my instructions to recommend to students that they are not required to publish their work in the mainspace, that doing so in their sandbox is sufficient for their grading purposes, and that publishing it in the mainspace is not required. Note that my instructions already state that the students should work in their sandbox first, and this is where all the main project are started, and later, it states that "can" publish in the mainspace - they do not require the publication. Perhaps some of my individual advice was worded a bit differently, as I thought student contributions, on average, are improving Wikipedia and are welcome. I will double check that with WikiEd. In either case, , some students are rushing now and creating articles in the mainspace forgetting about their sandbox - I'll revise the workflow for the next semester, although in the end I don't have perfect control over what the students edit, exactly, and in which mainspace. Note that this will affect future editing; the editing for this semester is almost finished. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to remove all mention of mainspace from the grading criteria, both for passing and for extra credit. Its effect has been to place the students in conflict with people doing maintenance, to the frustration of both and imposing load on our processes. I have seen this in Chinese topics over very poor quality additions, and even experienced it personally on one occasion. Kanguole 08:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Propose Indefinite Block of both Piotrus and the student accounts for WP:NOTHERE. 70.20.38.238 (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to block the students. Educate, warn, block, not instant block for following (more or less) the instructions they received. Fram (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Above, Piotrus expresses concerns with my close paraphrasing claims, where he can't find any similarities (well, he let's a tool do the job for him). Some examples from a really quick check of one source on each article (the source text translated by Google Chrome, rightclick, translate to English)

1. Jianye Building from here, currently source 3

• "The indoor fire hydrant system and fire system of the building have been installed, but there are walls, temporary transformers and communication and power overhead lines on the fire lanes on the south and west sides of the building, which affect the use of the fire lanes, resulting in the building not obtaining the 《Fire Acceptance Opinion》."
• At present, the building's indoor fire hydrant system and fire system... have been installed... However, due to the presence of walls, temporary transformers, and communication and power overhead lines on the fire lanes on the south and west sides of the building, the use of the fire lanes has been affected, resulting in the building not obtaining the "Fire Acceptance Qualification Opinion".

• "In 1993, No. 271-231 Guangzhou Qiyi Road [zh] , Yuexiu District , was approved as Jianye Building, to be developed by Guangzhou Jianye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. In 1995, after approval, construction began, and the sales process began in December of that year. According to the contract, Jianye Building should be delivered to the buyer before June 30, 1998."
• "In 1993, No. 271-231 Qiyi Road, Yuexiu District was approved as Jianye Building, and the developer was Guangzhou Jianye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. After review in 1995, construction began and in December of that year, the sale process began. According to the contract, on June 30, 1998, Jianye Building should be delivered to the purchaser for use."

1. Draft:Gao Yuhanversion I complained about vs. current source 2, examples:

• "In his early years, he studied at the Jing Shi School in Fengyang County. In 1905 (the 31st year of the 光绪 [zh] Emperor's reign), he was admitted to the Army Surveying and Mapping School in Anqing."
• " In his early years, he studied at Fengyang Jingshi School. In the 31st year of Emperor Guangxu's reign (1905), he was admitted to Anqing Army Surveying and Mapping School. "

• "At the end of the 3rd year of the Republic of China (1914), Gao Yuhan went to Shanghai and joined Chen Duxiu and others in initiating the New Culture Movement. He subsequently published a series of articles in New Youth, including Youth and the Nation’s Future, The Enemy of Youth, and A Painful Memory of Qingdao.In the autumn of the 5th year of the Republic (1916), Gao moved to Wuhu, where he served as the academic inspector of 安徽省立第五中学 [zh] and also taught English."
• " At the end of the 3rd year of the Republic of China, he went to Shanghai and actively participated in the New Culture Movement initiated by Chen Duxiu and others. He published articles such as "The Future of Youth and the Country", "The Enemy of Youth", and "The Painful Story of Qingdao" in "New Youth". In the autumn of the 6th year of the Republic of China, he went to Wuhu and served as the supervisor of the Provincial No. 5 Middle School and taught English."

• " That same year, Gao joined the German Branch of the CCP European General Branch. In June 1924 (the 13th year of the Republic), Gao wrote a preface for Jiang Guangci's new poetry collection New Dream (Xin Meng)."
• "In the same year, he joined the German branch of the Chinese Communist Party's European branch. In June 1924, he wrote the preface for Jiang Guangci's new poetry collection "New Dream"."

• "On March 20 of the same year, the Canton Coup occurred. Chiang Kai-shek accused Gao Yuhan, Yun Daiying, Deng Yanda, and Zhang Zhizhong of being the “Four Evils of Whampoa” and ordered their arrest, though the order was later withdrawn. Gao then relocated to Shanghai. In the autumn of that year, Gao introduced A Ying to the Chinese Communist Party."
• " On March 20, the "Zhongshan Ship Incident" occurred. Chiang Kai-shek accused Gao Yuhan, Yun Daiying, Deng Yanda, and Zhang Zhizhong of being the "Four Evils of Huangpu" and ordered their arrest, but later withdrew the order. Gao Yuhan went to Shanghai and introduced Ah Ying to the party in the autumn."

And so on...

1. Draft:Du Guoxiangversion I complained about vs. source 2

• "In the spring of 1925, Du Guoxiang left Peking University due to ideological disagreements with its leading figures, Hu Shi and Jiang Menglin. He returned to his hometown and became the principal of 澄海中学 [zh] in Chenghai County, Guangdong Province. In October, after the victory of the National Revolutionary Army’s Second Eastern Expedition, he was invited by Zhou Enlai, then serving as the Administrative Commissioner of the Dongjiang Region, to assume the roles of Chairman of the Kuomintang Chenghai County Executive Committee and Principal of 潮州金山中学 [zh]. In 1927, when the Nanchang Uprising forces entered the Chaoshan area, Du was once again appointed by Zhou Enlai as County Magistrate of Chaoyang County. However, he did not take office due to the uprising’s defeat in Chaoshan."
• "In the spring of 1925, Du Guoxiang left Peking University and returned to his hometown to serve as the principal of Chenghai Middle School due to disagreements with Hu Shi and Jiang Menglin, who presided over Peking University. In October of that year, at the invitation of Zhou Enlai, who served as the administrative committee member of Dongjiang after the victory of the Second Eastern Expedition of the National Revolutionary Army, he served as the chairman of the Executive Committee of Chenghai County of the Kuomintang and the principal of Jinshan Middle School in Chaozhou. In 1927, when the Nanchang Uprising Army entered Chaoshan, he was appointed by Zhou Enlai as the county magistrate of Chaoyang County (but he did not take office because the uprising army failed in Chaoshan)."

• "In February 1928, Du Guoxiang arrived in Shanghai and, through the introduction of Jiang Guangci and Qian Xingcun, joined the Chinese Communist Party. He helped initiate the founding of the 太阳社 [zh] (Taiyang She), one of the most prominent literary groups of the time. Together with fellow Chaozhou-born writers active in the Shanghai literary scene, such as 洪灵菲 [zh] and 戴平万 [zh], he also co-founded the We Society我们社 [zh] (Women She). Du translated a large number of theoretical, social science, and literary works from Western and Japanese sources."
• "In February 1928, Du Guoxiang arrived in Shanghai and joined the Communist Party of China through the introduction of Jiang Guangci and Qian Xingcun. He actively participated in cultural and academic activities under the leadership of the Party, participated in the establishment of the "Sun Society", one of the most famous literary groups at the time, and organized the "Our Society" with Chaozhou writers Hong Lingfei and Dai Pingwan who were active in the Shanghai literary world. He translated a large number of Western and Japanese theoretical, social science works and novels."

• "In August 1937, Du Guoxiang successively served as a captain-level secretary in the Military Law Section of the Eighth Route Army, leader of a battlefield service team, and later as Chief of the First Section (in charge of foreign publicity) of the Third Department of the Political Affairs Commission under the Military Affairs Commission of the National Government, where Guo Moruo was the director. Later, both Du and Guo resigned from their posts after refusing to join the Kuomintang, and Du was reassigned as a member of the Cultural Work Committee, which remained under the same Political Department."
• "In August 1937, Du Guoxiang successively served as the captain secretary of the Military Law Department of the Eighth Route Army, the captain of the battlefield service team, and the chief of the first section in charge of external propaganda in the third department of the Political Department of the Military Commission of the National Government, where Guo Moruo served as the director. Later, he resigned with Guo Moruo because he refused to join the Kuomintang and became a member of the Cultural Work Committee, which was still under the Political Department."

I fear that many of the translated articles have the exact same issues of copyvio/close paraphrasing, but from sources I couldn't access. It would be unlikely that I just stumbled on the only ones with such issues. And apparently we can't rely on the instructor to catch these, as they can't find them even when the source of the problem is explicitly given. Fram (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

So Earwig does not work on Chinese texts? Good to know; I thought it did and I was relying on it. Is there a better tool to use for Chinese corpus?

It is unfortunate that zh wiki has such content. The close paraphrasing was not added by student; they just translated content from zh wiki, which contained the reported problem. Most translation guides, as far as I know, do not require translators to check for close paraphrasing, as it is assumed that the original text has been checked for that. I do not see a mention of checking for close plagiarism in translation guides I am familiar with (Wikipedia:Translation or User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator, as well as the excellent, IMHO, meta:OKA/Instructions for editors). It may be an interesting best practice to consider, however. I'll add a note of this to my instructions for future classes so that my advice and requirements for students go beyond what even our best practices for average editors, cited above, require. Thanks for spotting that in the listed articles; I suggest you add that analysis to their talk pages and ping their creators. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

So Earwig does not work on Chinese texts? Good to know; I thought it did and I was relying on it. In general Earwig does not detect copyright-violating translations. This isn't unique to Chinese; it's a limitation with the way Earwig works in general. It is also possible to closely paraphrase in a way which is undetectable by Earwig and yet still forbidden by Wikipedia policy. See my essay WP:NOTEARWIG for further discussion of Earwig's limitations. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"It would be unlikely that I just stumbled on the only ones with such issues." Yeah, this is puzzling, I've been thinking about it for a while now, since you mention it. Is it a widespread problem on zh wiki? Should we ban all translations from zh wiki, or introduce special requirements? (In the past, most of my students were Korean and were translating from ko wiki; in the last few years the percentage of Chinese exchange students in my classes skyrocketed, however, which means about half of the content being translated, if not more, is now from zh wiki. That could be a partial answer, if zh wiki does is affected by this to a much bigger degree than ko wiki - but is it? Do we have any data?). Or is there some bias in the type of articles my students chose? The sample above is two biographies and one architecture topic; I don't know what others you checked. The spotchecks I did in the past and do did not found such issues - not regularly, at least; it happens every now and then, of course, in which case I tell the student to rewrite the affected content, of course. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fram@Hanyangprofessor2 My solution is, we simply allow for more supervision of translated articles to make sure the translation and sourcing is correct. Reliable sources are not hard to find usually, just people, for some reason, forget to add them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

PS. I'll ping @TheLonelyPather, whose guide that I linked above was designed explicitly with Chinese students in mind. Maybe they have some ideas on what the source of the problem is, and what best practices to adopt to deal with it. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hanyangprofessor2, thanks for pinging. If you don't mind I will get back to you in a few days on this—the discussion above will take me an hour to go through at least. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hanyangprofessor2 I've now read through the conversation above. A few thoughts:

1. I believe that Wikipedia is a good educational tool at the end of the day to practice cyber-citizenship, public information use, and many skills critically necessary for our age. I do appreciate Piotrus' good intention on this matter. His past experience is extensive.
2. I also agree that many students produce poor translations that are not suitable for English Wikipedia. I wrote my translation guide with them in mind, but it seems that many of them have not read it. (Perhaps I should write a Chinese version?) Poor translations are due to many different reasons. From my own experience the following are the most substantial factors:

i) Chinese Wikipedia has a lot of poorly written articles. This is something we cannot change. The internet in China, generally speaking, has poor copyright enforcement. Unattributed information fly around.

ii) Students may not be proficient in English. Indeed, competence is expected, but educators and other Wikipedians could be slightly more lenient to students, provided that they demonstrate intention to learn.

In this discussion I do not wish to dive into specific articles and their problems. I think the crux of the problem is that students need to take accountability over their work. To me this is a fair expectation, as it is expected in all other academic settings. In this sense, I recommend the following practices:

• Make each and every student read Wikipedia:Translation and User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator, or some compiled info hosted on a personal page under the Hanyangprofessor2 account. I am happy to amend my guide for educational purposes.
• Create a vetting mechanism over the initial article chosen by the students. One may use some key figures to ensure fairness, such as

• • Number of different references / sources
  • Density of references / sources, which can be roughly calculated by the number of footnotes divided by the character count

Alternatively, the student could give a brief explanation to Piotrus on why the article is suitable for translation after reading the translation guides.

To say my philosophy in a different way: students are not responsible for the existence of poor articles on Chinese Wikipedia, but they should be responsible for their translations.

To aid this issue, it would be good to build a good collection of translatable articles from Chinese Wikipedia. I believe that WikiProject China has a list of them, and any China-savvy Wikipedian would not hesitate to share a few articles. With this in mind, I offer the third recommendation.

• Encourage students to translate articles suggested by WikiProject China or other important articles, and perhaps discourage them from translating articles that pertain to their own personal background / interest but may be poorly written.

I believe that @Fram raised a valid question on this issue. I would like to know what you all think about this. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather A Chinese language version of the guide would help - a bit . I am pretty sure that a significant percentage of my students can't be bothered to read the syllabus. For example, one of the classes has a requirement that the students need to edit Wikipedia weekly (making small constructive edits), or receive a penalty. This is written in the syllabus and I reminded my students about it several times. Yet only about half of the students carried out this activity.

"Students may not be proficient in English". Indeed. I estimate that most of my students are not, and some are barely at the beginner level. My class theoretically requires them to be fluent in English, but to actually check if this is the case is not in my power (it's an administrative technicality, long story; boils down to the reality that many students who take my classes don't understand English and rely on machine translation, up to and including for listening and communicating with me). This is why I have long ago allowed students to translate to Chinese and Korean, languages in which they are presumably fluent. To be clear: no student of mine is REQUIRED to translate content to English Wikipedia. It's their own choice which language they translate to.

"Make each and every student read [policies]". Of course - they are required to do so, and reminded often. But many do not do so, and no instructor can force an unwilling student to do stuff.

"Create a vetting mechanism over the initial article chosen by the students." I have this at User:Piotrus/Ideas for students, but the vetting I do is limited to English content, since I can read it myself; for translation to en wiki (which, I repeat, are not obligatory for my classes) I have fewer and mostly more generic suggestions that include various to-do and wanted articles lists and such. But from my experience most students seem to choose topics at random; if I see that has a good density of references that look reliable (books, newspapers, etc.) I approve it. Note that this is the procedure for early selections. Later, as students become familiar with Wikipedia, they behave like any other editor - they chose and translate whatever they want to. I am not their lord and overseer, or gatekeeper of the content they translate or edit; they are not my wiki-slaves :P Anyway, I am going to revise this and stress that it's best idea to select articles that are GA or FA. I'll see if I can get a Wikidata query to output such lists, but I fear that there may simply not be enough topics that are officially recognized at that level to translate sustainably. "it would be good to build a good collection of translatable articles from Chinese Wikipedia" - I'd love to be able to do this; again, what I've done is at my "ideas" page. If anyone is familiar with a better resource I can add there, or such, please let me know. I'd love for my students to translate only the best quality and least problematic content, but how to find such content in practice is something that is not easy. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if it is just me, but it seems extremely strange and counter-intuitive to teach a translation class when one does not speak one of the languages involved. I speak barely passable French, which is why I would not try to edit in French or translate French pages to English. Similarly, I would view myself as wildly unqualified to teach French speakers how to translate French articles to English; I would have no way to adequately verify the translation as accurate! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Chinese articles sometimes violate copyvio, especially those wrote by China writer. In zh:WP:CV, lots of articles having copyright problem copy Baidu Baike. Kanshui0943 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kanshui0943

This ain't just a chinese wikipedia problem. Outside of english wikipedia rule enforcement is seriosuly lacking(and even on EN wikipedia it still is).

There is a possibility that baidu baike editors may have also copied it from chinese wikipedia(or both, really). On the same topic, Chinese articles often have a bit of POV in them, partially due to the fact that it's quite hard to avoid POV completely when writing in Chinese, though if you read any article on Chinese wikipedia about chinese female celebrities it's to the point it's hard to look at(as in it's not just promotional, it's just fans glazing them.). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

By its design Earwig only catches copyvio in the same language (and it can be hit or miss for same text, non-English languages). it will never catch copyvio if you run it through a machine translator and post on a different language wiki.

You need to have a lot of experience to spot translation copyvio, and even if you suspect something is amiss it is not always possible to confirm whether there is or not.

IMO it is better to avoid having an article than to have a bad or worse yet illegal one—so I'm very skeptical of projects that give rewards for getting stuff into the mainspace. I agree with other editors that it's a perverse incentive. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty basic in education to require students to complete stuff. It's also pretty standard in our Wikimedia community; this is how most edit-a-thons and such work. The ones I've seen involve folks creating articles in the sandbox, that are then published by the end of the even as long as they meet minimum standards (i.e. the reviewing organizers think they are not likely to end up deleted :P). The educational assignments just stretch that period from a single day (rarely, few days for larger edit-a-thons) to weeks or months. Not to mention that some stuff involves expansion of existing articles rather than outright creation of a new one (which bypasses a lot of AfC/RC control, for better or worse...); I've never even heard of an event, class or edit-a-thon, that would involve copying existing article to sandbox/draft space, improving it there, then merging back (so such edits happen in mainspace, and cannot even be reasonably expected not to).

As for not having bad articles better than having them - do you think we should speedy deleted everything tagged by {{unreferenced}}? :P The community consensus has long ago made this a WP:DEADHORSE. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Are the students actually instructed that they should check the sources and verify that the information they post here is actually included in the sources? Because in many cases, I see sources that aren't accessible anymore. I draftified Draft:Battle of Subei for this reason, but something like Beijing-Miyun Water Diversion Canal is largely based on an unavailable source as well (both the direct link] and the archive link give me no usable results). And when sources are accessible, e.g. for China Movie Channel, we get something like this??? (and of course again close paraphrasing where I could check it, e.g. from here). If we wanted editors who posted machine translations without even checking the references, we could better use bots and spare them the work. Fram (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Offline sources like books and such are perfectly fine. The Canal article is a GA on zh wiki. The source can be tracked down with some effort: ISBN 7-200-04180-7, p. 312. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no" to my actual question then. If the translators have not checked the original sources, they don't know if their translation matches the meaning of the source, they clearly don't know if the source has been summarized or plagiarized (hence many problems with this), and so on. Fram (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the idea itself isn't bad, I did add it to the instructions. But if you expect most of the students to actually, do it... Anyway, it isn't even a best practice we require from your average translator. Shrug. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. On the one hand, WP:PAYWALL is absolutely, and rightfully, a thing, when it applies to the original article creation. On the other, Fram makes a good point - a translator who doesn't have the original source can't be sure it was correctly used. On the gripping hand, we need to assume good faith that it was unless demonstrated otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Having read this thread, I would say we definitely should not assume good faith from the original Chinese articles with regards to copyvio/source fidelity. Articles that have multiple inaccessible sources providing meaningful text support just shouldn't be translated for this class. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As an example of perverse incentives of requiring an article in mainspace, here is one of these students, after having their poor translation deleted multiple times, begging for the text to stand in mainspace until the end of term. They then pasted a copy under another title. Kanguole 19:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair; I am revising the instructions to make it clear mainspace publication is not tied to the student's grade. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 09:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I sympathize with the difficulty in getting students to follow instructions, but clear instructions can help. On the one hand, the instructions link to TheLonelyPather's guide, which says Do not use machine translation, but later the instructions say Please carefully proofread your work. Poor translation quality resulting from not proofreading machine translation output is the most common error for articles to be rejected by the reviewers. The implication of the latter is that machine translation is fine, as long as one cleans it up a bit.

Another problem, as many above have noted, is that many zhwiki articles are riddled with references that do not support the content they are attached to. Wikipedia editing is not simply creating text containing things that look like references, but rather creating text that accurately reflects what the references say. I would like to see students encouraged to take responsibility for the relationship between the text they add and the content of the references they attach to it.

Requiring students to check the content of the references they are adding to the enwiki articles they create would also help with the copyvio problem, which is also rife in many of the source articles. Kanguole 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kanguole Good ideas, I've updated the instructions accordingly - do let me know if you have any other suggestions. That said, realistically, I expect most students will use MT. And not just students, most editors in general. And local wiki practices varies; Korean Wikipedia for example is quite friendly to MT. And AIs. See VP(T). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 04:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Junie Yu and WP:NOTHERE by 1bisdak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1bisdak (talk · contribs) created Junie Yu, a biography of a Filipino politician facing an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junie Yu) on WP:NPOL grounds as well as issues of poor referencing, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. They have consistently engaged in WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND in keeping the article, even going as far as to rig consensus by placing multiple keeps despite several warnings and go WP:FORUM in , all of which may suggest some sort of WP:COI. Borgenland (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What is worse is that they have also engaged in WP:OWN and edit-warring in article space, reverting fixes by multiple editors to restore nonWP:RS sources and unencyclopedic, WP:PROMO statements, removing serious tags for concerns, WP:CRYSTAL for making the subject an incumbent official even when his inauguration is due to take place 4 days after the posting of this complaint, and shutting out editors who despite voting for delete, have acted in good faith to make the article readable in the offbeat chance that it could pass notability, all while hypocritically demanding that we "improve" the article, for example , and despite this decent explanation by Vegantics (talk · contribs) Borgenland (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Users must exercise common sense; post-deletion-vote edits are futile. Abusing granted permissions harms Wikipedia's credibility. Administrators, monitor such conduct. 1bisdak (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows any editor to make meaningful and constructive edits regardless of one's reservations towards an article. What harms Wikipedia's credibility is trying to WP:OWN the article and falsely accusing those who try and help of abuse. Borgenland (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Users like you must exercise common sense; post-deletion-vote edits are futile. 1bisdak (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Let it be stated on record @1bisdak that this illogical reply of yours is further evidence of WP:NOTHERE behavior that is being documented here and a classic example of trying to intimidate users from exercising the common sense you keep demanding of others, not to mention a clumsy attempt to retain tons of inappropriate edits you have made. Borgenland (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Post-deletion-vote edits are just as valid as any other edits, and you are not the arbiter of what can and cannot be done to the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

You must exercise common sense. Why improve an article if your aim is to have it deleted? 1bisdak (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

One can decide that an article in its current state is worthy of deletion and attempt to improve it regardless. A AfD !vote is not set in stone. I would strongly suggest you stop referring to common sense and - speaking frankly - start exercising some. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, voting for an article's deletion does not mean that I am trying to do everything to destroy it. Editing Wikipedia requires that you act as impartially as possible and question your own judgements (something that I struggle to believe that you are doing). I genuinely considered the arguments for keeping the Junie Yu article, including alternatives such as merging or draftifying and looked for other sources outside of Wikipedia to improve the article rather than deleting it. Seeing no alternatives, I supported deletion but I also sought to create improvements so that, if other editors could sufficiently improve the quality, I could change my vote to keep. Your active efforts to WP:OWN the article are preventing progress. Vegantics (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

If you're suggesting improvements to the article and truly want to help it be accepted, why did you vote for its deletion? Your actions don't seem genuine. 1bisdak (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor can reach the conclusion that sources for a subject don't support notability and also want to make the article better just in case the discussion reaches a "keep" or "no consensus" decision. I don't see any contradiction there. Schazjmd (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

1bisdak, I strongly suggest you read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And I just found this casting of WP:ASPERSIONS at the AfD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

At this rate, I do not believe they are here to edit constructively or work in a collaborative manner. Borgenland (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Imagine contributing to an open-source project while your aim is to delete the public repository of the project you're contributing to. 1bisdak (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears that you have not bothered to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. But given this ongoing WP:IDNHT, you are further making the case against your absence of WP:AGF and other malicious behavior more clearer. At this rate I think you should drop the stick, learn that Wikipedia is not a place to recklessly dump tons of undue information, and stop deluding yourself about a cabal being out to get you. Your own behavior is only getting negative attention to you and the AFD, and your unwillingness to objectively edit collaboratively in the article will make it more likely that you will be the only one to be held responsible in the event it is deleted. Borgenland (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Now, that proves you're against the existence of the article I created. This demonstrates your dishonesty, as you're pretending to help while your actual agenda is to completely remove the article. 1bisdak (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no agenda, just policy. If the article isn't backed up by reliable secondary sources, it's not staying. 222.252.88.235 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It is sad though that despite every explanation given to you that you choose to scapegoat me and other responsible users for your subpar behavior. Anyway, you don’t need my “dishonesty” to enable your article to deleted, only your own WP:CIR and WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Finally, this is a noticeboard for chronically unacceptable behavior, not an extension of AFD. You have done nothing to prove that you are not a WP:NOTHERE editor throughout this discussion so I suggest you stop whining about what others think of your content and start convincing admins that you can be trusted to edit responsibly in this project. Borgenland (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Funny how you whine about dishonesty when it is has become apparent that you cannot be trusted to create articles in your very own thoughts

See also:

• Pangangan Island ()
• Amay Bisaya ()
• Draft:Bitcoin treasury companies ()

Borgenland (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You know what's funny? Not knowing how to use LLMs is the new illiteracy. 1bisdak (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that you are too illiterate and dishonest to understand warnings made to you . I suggest you read other ANIs here and count how many users have been booted off this project by antics similar to yours.Borgenland (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Stop calling him illiterate. I happen to know that his mom and dad were married several years before he was born. EEng 14:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Given the ongoing...discussion above, it seems we have a confluence of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR that is summed up by the essay 'Not compatible with a collaborative project'. Given that, and the repeated creations/recreations of LLM-generated articles, I have indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CornerLunar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• CornerLunar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, despite advice and warnings, insists on adding unsourced allegations against broadcasters on their articles - see Special:Contributions/CornerLunar. They do not make any other edits other than veiled incivility on their talk page. I can't see it stopping without intervention. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. They've been warned enough already, and responded to most of the warnings with "f off". They also made what could be considered a legal threat while I was in the process of blocking them, so I have a feeling this isn't going to improve by mid-day tomorrow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And made a much more blatant legal threat in an unblock appeal, which I have declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

An indef block is in order (until they retract their legal threat). M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see any inclination towards wanting to help build an encyclopedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended the block to indef due to the legal threats. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Philippine City Editor: incivility, refusal to cite sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Philippine City Editor clearly understands the requirement to cite reliable sources when tjey are adding information to articles, but refuses to abide by them (see their talk page for a plethora of warnings). They have insulted fellow editors who reminded them of the policy on wp:verifiability.

After User:Soetermans warned Philippine City Editor of unsourced additions, they responded: You add it yourself bitch🖕 It's on the news Don't ban me, shit. After User:AsianStuff03 reverted an edit due to a lack of reliable source, Philippine City Editor responded using Filipino. Here is a translation by ChatGPT as I do not speak Filipino: Son of a b*tch, you're Filipino but you're stupid, hahaha. Where am I supposed to get a source about Calabanga? It's just a town, you idiot! That's why projects or establishments there aren't reported. I was going to use a source from Facebook but apparently that's not allowed. F*** you, I hope you die." Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Heal4one

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Heal4one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked for 2 weeks for moving pages to inappropriate namespaces. A few days after the block expired, they moved three pages to the Wikipedia namespace. They also did not respond to any notifications regarding their page moves. Annh07 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Heal4one also blanked this thread shortly after being notified. The inappropriate moves continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New SPAs, possibly socks?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It would be useful to get more eyes on the following WP:SPAs:

• Jercikade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Korpace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)

Not sure if they are socks for the previously-banned SPAs of DonaldJuniorTrump, Truthpedic, Liberty666, and Free258, but they seem to be pushing the exact same POV content using the same recycled phrasing and sources. - Amigao (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify that I’m not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked accounts. I’m a good-faith contributor who is genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia and building high-quality, neutral, and well-sourced content.

If some of the sources or phrasing in my draft appear similar to older material, it’s purely coincidental or due to the limited pool of reliable references available on this topic. I’m very open to feedback and would appreciate any guidance on how to improve the article and ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards.

Let’s work together to make the content better for everyone. Thank you. Korpace (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't insult us by posting obviously AI-generated baloney here. EEng 03:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao, if you're accusing them of being socks then WP:SPI is the venue you may be looking for. —tony 02:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil IP user now making veiled threats (possible repeat of Sydney Scouting IP)

The user at 115.42.8.109 (talk · contribs) (also 115.42.13.151 (talk · contribs), 115.42.10.20 (talk · contribs)) has been engaged in combative ("Oh Brian, you're getting it all fuddled again!" and "Erp, You change your argument, endlessly") and uncooperative behavior on the Talk:Scouting page and repeatedly reverted edits against consensus on the Scouting article. Various users have encouraged him to get a proper account and to engage civilly with little result. User Boynamedsue (talk · contribs) pointed out that a similar set of IPs was engaged in similar behavior back in 2022 (Sydney Scouting IP user) After which the IP posted what I consider a veiled threat on my talk page "Look through the list of your Wikiproject group members. We publicly outed a disproportionate number of your group over years and they've been permanently blocked while others fled and ceased editing. Some of our team are interested in editors with presences on other sites and the dark web, others are researching what passes for editorial discussion and control and then that's capped off by Wikipedia's notorious administrators" Users North8000 (talk · contribs), Bduke (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) have also been involved in the discussions. --Erp (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure how WP:ROLE relates to IPs, but we...our team applied to an account would absolutely be a role account. Note that the range appears to be Special:Contributions/115.42.8.109/20, which covers all three IPs listed here with no apparent collateral. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I just spot-checked a few edits and didn't see any disruption but I'm not familiar with the subject area. If there is disruptive editing, I think a range-block would be appropriate for a limited amount of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I blocked 115.42.8.109/20 for three months. That's more than a "limited amount of time" but the threat linked above is not acceptable and the stable range was blocked for a week in April 2022 for "Disruptive editing + personal attacks". Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Johnuniq ninjaed me here, but I'm going to leave the post I wrote for the record because it sets out the facts with diffs:

This is a clear threat to dox someone, especially when combined with this post which explicitly uses the term "out", and not acceptable. It also displays WP:NOTHERE, which is noticeable throughout the totality of their editing. This user can hardly make an edit without getting into a massive fight, they put far more energy into arguing than editing. In any case, they also constantly edit war., , , , , , , , . The last set of reverts were adding a disputed tag which they showed no interest in justifying on the talk page, refusing to state the changes they wished to see despite being directly asked. As well as this, they show a tendency to "revenge tag" when annoyed with other users, for example this senseless tag-bombing .

If this user is allowed to continue to edit, best case is that they remain a massive time sink, worst case is that they are telling the truth and they are going to dox someone. Range block is essential here.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Everything here is just my opinion / take. This user has been immensely disruptive at the Scouting article......a read of the talk page, the article history and the warnings given them at their talk page would produce I'd guess 30-40 issues at that article alone. I was working my way up to wasting a 1/2 hour of my life detailing everything reporting. Not wanting to spend that 1/2 hour now, I'm just going to make general notes from memory. I think they did about 7RR edit wars (reverts or the equivalent) on the top level "factually disputed" template, each putting back in their general complaints, mostly about other editors into the template itself. And, other than asking for a specific factually wrong outlandish first sentence in the article early in the process, they refused to say specifically what they wanted or what their proposed change was. Even requests for them to say what they wanted were answered with insults or vague complaints rather than saying specifically what they wanted. Same with not saying what the templated "factual dispute" was ....even what they were warring into the template was just mostly general complaints about what other editors said in talk. And I think that the insulted nearly every one of the other participants at the article. I my mind I viewed it as "arguing for the sake of arguing" or maybe some kind of resentment of / pushback against some of the name changes in scouting organizations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

IP 49.178.197.204 doing disruptive bad faith edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP is doing vandalism across multiple pages as can be confirmed by the users contribution history below. Special:Contributions/49.178.197.204

Admins please look onto it. Thank you. Editking100 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Editking100 -- this is not the right place. Obvious vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, though it looks like the user's last edit was 36+ hours ago. If they vandalize again soon, please report to WP:AIV as having vandalized after final warning. —tony 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay got it. Thank you for letting me know this User:TonySt. Editking100 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constant edits by blocked IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:183.177.226.26 is constantly editing their user talk, possibly to try and overload or prevent people from editing it or adding new warnings, but I have been reverting it. Requesting TPA removal. Thanks. PerryPerson (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what they're trying to accomplish. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Me too. PerryPerson (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Done This wasn't an urgent or disruptive incident. For situations like this, I'd recommend contacting an admin you might know, not opening a case on ANI which is for more serious problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ghghgh99 seems to be WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user User:Ghghgh99, maked 3 reverted edits, and seems being WP:NOTHERE. PixelWhite (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Joyous! already blocked this editor for vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

oktayey and gender identity issues (again)

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

admittedly, i considered taking this another venue, but ani seems more fitting, as this isn't his first time causing such problems. but i'll ignore that for now, and start with what's actually going on at this moment

oktayey has been engaged in a discussion in talk:kris (deltarune) that's been all kiinds of unproductive, of which the biggest problems are

• getting "sex" and "gender" mixed up (diff). definitely pretty small, though the distinction is pretty important in the context of discussion, and i believe someone should know that if they intend on discussing it. my mentions of them being distinct (diff) seem to have gone unheard, but i'm kind of willing to not count this one, partially due to the relative inconsequentiality, but mostly due to my generally unclear wording. though if it is intentional, it can pretty easily be seen as malicious
• spending most of the discussion wasting other editors' time by arguing towards the possibility of there being no solid evidence of kris being non-binary (diff probably not needed as it's the meat of most of the discussion, but i guess this one will do as a good start). his argument being... that it might not be a literal narrative?

• ignoring sources and in-universe evidence to contrary for this argument, with arguments that boil down to "what if no?", which really doesn't work for productive discussion (again, diff probably not needed, as it's most of the discussion)

• arguing that no reliable sources existed to prove the claim (diff), despite the claim being reliably cited, and ignoring that fact later on
• as a variation of the first one, getting "non-binary" and "androgynous" mixed up (diff). this one i can say with a larger amount of certainty is likely intentional, as it was preceded by cukie and some "consarn" guy clarifying that they're different, albeit to other people at first, so it might've been a case of him not reading too much into it
• answering to concerns about his behavior in the discussion by... accusing cukie and i of socking (diff)!? i don't even act like cukie, this one just confuses me. why would i learn brazilian portuguese (whatever a brazil is) for the purposes of socking? he did provide a reasoning later on (diff), but it definitely seems flimsy, like he thought of it after the fact. plus, if he was right and it was an accident, where i meant to answer with my good hand account, i don't think i'd be writing in lowercase like in the one i use for vandalism and bludgeoning

just from this one discussion, which already had multiple other people with their own arguments (and problems), his part in it came out as showing severe cir and idht issues. now i'm no longer ignoring the past, as this really ain't his first rodeo. he's been through this at least thrice (first discussion, second discussion, ani thread that proceeded the second discussion, third discussion), of which at least one case i might be missing eventually resulted in a tban from the topic of gender issues (notice), and it doesn't seem like he's learned much from those, despite being here for longer than me

i don't know if a block would be excessive, as he has shown himself to be a little less unproductive in other areas, but i do think some measures might be needed. maybe a longer (or indefinite) tban on gender and lgbt+ matters (extremely broadly construed), a temporary block, or even just cutting the knot and indeffing. i won't outright make it a vote for any action, but i do think the issue's gotten out of hand pretty long ago, so i'm in favor of at least doing something consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 23:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a very confusing report and hard to follow as it goes off on several tangents. It's a stream of consciousness report.

Can you state in just two sentences, what policies were violated and produce diffs of them? Generally, we don't police talk pages to make sure they have the right "tone" unless there are clear policy violations. Editors come to edit and talk on the project with different levels of education, different life experiences, different cultural backgrounds, it's not uncommon that an editor could put forward a point of view that you disagree with or doesn't align with your own. That's why we have talk pages, in order to hash out consensus regarding our articles, but not to be a forum to chit chat on topics of interests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

for the request, "bludgeoning and stonewalling, showing a disruptive streak with and seemingly limited understanding of gender identity issues (on gender, on being nb)", or just "nothere in this specific area"

for the rest, i'll admit that his tone is pretty much the one thing i can say with full certainty isn't a problem. just what that tone is being used for, which is the aforementioned disruption consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 02:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

as for the diffs, do you mean of past instances? the current ones were already provided consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 02:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

By "diff" Liz means this: WP:DIFF. The request is not saying you didn't provide any, it's a request to make a clear, focused report that describes the problem succinctly with the most straightforward evidence for it. (I haven't looked through your initial post, so I don't have a personal opinion about this request, I'm just translating.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

i recommend looking, because the diffs provided there were even labeled as such consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I left a comment in this discussion only because you said you didn't understand something Liz wrote, to help clarify what she wants; I am not going to involve myself beyond that. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

what actually confuses me about liz asking for diffs is that i already provided them. i don't think there's really any way to miss them beyond a plugin that un-highlights links, or not having read the report at all (which i really hope isn't the case)

if you haven't read my report or the subsequent reply to liz, then i don't think you should've been involved at all consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please go re-read my first message in this thread; it contains all the clarification you should need. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

there, i edited the version that has been shortened to the point of being nearly meaningless to include the same diffs from the initial one, if that's not enough, i really don't know what either of you want consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 13:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

on this note, i should probably have pinged @Cukie Gherkin before, since she's involved in the discussion that led to this consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Consider a boomerang (or just a 'bang everyone's heads together and suggest they move on"...which is my next move on this topic); Based on @Consarn and @Cukie Gherkin's refusal to listen and bludgeoning in the talk page. Trying to have a conversation on the content there and we're treated to a stream of multiple replies going over and over the same points without any hint of listening or compromise. I've tried to offer a compromise, and they're reply shows they're clearly not interested in even reading such an idea

The way they are double-teaming makes @Oktayey's question about socking entirely reasonable; although admittedly not helpful to the conversation. For example, in this diff, Cukie answers for Consarn. Moreover they not only totally misrepresent my replies (I said nothing about NPOV...) ; they mis-represent the facts of the matter (the article itself says that there is in fact some debate over this), and closes with a stonewall 'no point discussing this further'.

Infuriating. JeffUK 14:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent your messages, I said that what you wanted was a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, the author cited as having said there was a debate over them being non-binary is a nonsense point when there's also debate over whether the character Bridget is trans, despite the creator affirming her to be so. There is debate over climate change, but we do not acknowledge that the debate has merit. Who are the ones debating this? Are any of the people arguing against Kris being non-binary reliable sources? If you can't provide an affirmative answer to a question of their gender, then why are you asking for this false balance?

The suggestion that I am not listening to what you are saying is also patently silly. I have listened to everything you said. That I did listen to you is the reason why I disagree with what you're saying. If you do not provide a policy or guideline-based reason to change the article, what am I meant to compromise on? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

my pc bluescreened twice while writing this, enjoy my third draft lmao

it's less that we're "teaming up" and more that we "agree". we have the same arguments to make, so we'll make the same arguments, regardless of who a reply is directed at. if i disagreed with cukie on something, you can bet your 5 kromer i'd have an equally long discussion with her, and maybe only bet 2 kromer that someone else would be in my current position of agreeing with her and making a lot of the same arguments

similarly, it's less that we haven't bothered to listen, and more that we have, we weighed it against the sources and policies on how to handle them, and we think you're ultimately wrong

however, one thing that definitely bothers me is that multiple unrelated people have proven themselves willing to have the same conversation multiple times, as opposed to just adding to the ongoing ones. i could use this as grounds to wonder if you and the others in that thread are all socks as a joke, but unlike oktayey, who spent the most time wasting our time, you actually proved that you checked (at least some of) the sources in the article, so i actually think that chance is zero to none

but let's reiterate and add on the points i've made anyway~

• arguments against the in-game evidence boiled down to theorizing if it might have been...
  • a figurative representation of kris's indeterminate gender (for which no solid evidence was presented beyond the possibility of it)
  • obscuring kris's actual gender (for which no reason was given towards why people familiar enough with kris would be doing that, or who they'd be hiding it from, since pretty much everyone knows kris)

in both cases, the only real response was stonewalling by repeating the same questions, hence my previous description of them as boiling down to "what if no?"

• arguments against devs boiled down to nitpicking. sources being weak, screenshots being blurry and cropped, and so on, but nothing beyond that. more sources obviously related to the devs saying the things have thus far gone unaddressed
• arguments towards sources that doubted the claim were, as cukie said just now, going to be violations of wp:falsebalance even if they were correct. by giving equal weight to an overwhelming minority, we'd effectively toss most of our sources under the bus for no good reason. even then, the two sources that doubt it say that kris being nb would add up, so they're not even actually usable as proof that that's not the case

i could swear this thread was about oktayey before... consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 16:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

a little late, but i noticed one point i forgot in the first draft

the npov argument is fair. you never mentioned it. however, that doesn't mean it wasn't still an issue there wouldn't be concerns about, as it was still a dispute partially about what sources said, so i don't really think the mention was unwarranted

that's... kind of it, really consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• What I was asking for was examples of policy violations and then a diff to illustrate this charge. Except for the question of whether or not two editors were the same person, the diffs I looked at were just incidents of an editor expressing an opinion which is not a policy violation. Because some of your report is a little vague and abstract and covers a lot of ground, I was hoping you could just boil it down to a list of a) violation + b) diff of that violation. Because that is what ANI is for, to address conduct concerns, not differences of opinion.

But since it seems like my comments aren't helping make this discussion get any clearer, I'll step back and let others take a crack at providing their advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I think that an ANI may have been a little hasty, though I cannot deny that I also found concerns over the user's repeated behavior from Gays Against Groomers (namely, arguing that LGBT sources have a bias that affects their reliability) and their (currently inactive) TBan on topics related to gender identity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

the concerns i addressed about oktayey were of conduct (that is, bias against certain sources over alleged editorial slants and repeated disruption over it, diff i believe represents both), and happened to take the shape of a difference of opinion (that certain claims were reliably enough sourced for their inclusion, and that there wasn't enough dispute around said claims from rses to justify removing them). does that count? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• I vaguely recalled the name from the GaG dispute, and went through their contributions to see if this was a reoccurring thing; I ended up finding this incident (look up their name on the page if you can; I’m not hunting down the exact diff). Basically it’s just them saying an LGBT+ source (Washington Blade) is biased seemingly for no reason other than being LGBT+ focused. While minor, it shows that they consistently treat sources as unreliable or biased just because they are LGBTQ-centric. This is… unfortunate. I don’t think a block is appropriate because the vast majority of their edits seem fine or at least uncontroversial, but a broad topic ban from LGBTQ subjects, particularly controversies, is probably in order. Dronebogus (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

User:2409:40F3:100F:67FE:8000:0:0:0 submitting drafts that I created that aren't ready

• 2409:40F3:100F:67FE:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP range has been previously blocked for vandalism. They are also vandalising my Talk page, diffs: . As to why this is happening, I could have brought this on myself by looking at recent changes and reverting bad edits and marking userpages for speedy deletion under U5 and G11. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

If your edits were justifiable then you did not bring this on yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I know, it was a tongue-in-cheek remark. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like they've wandered off. If they resume, report to WP:AIV and they'll get blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought as much, but I've seen plenty of people worry about things that I would simply laugh off. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Amber Atherton

By User:Discussthis at Special:Diff/1294635970, "Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning". I can't block myself because I'm involved. Rusalkii (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Rusalkii, why in the world would you block yourself??? EEng 08:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Undisclosed COI, didn't you read the talk page?

(I assume this was a joke but just for clarity, because I did spend a few seconds trying to figure out an interpretation that made sense, I did not block myself or anyone else involved and do not have a COI here.) Rusalkii (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It's EEng, if it's not plausibly a joke, that's when you've got to worry. It got a groan out of me too. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't find an edit on this project where Discussthis issues an actual legal warning, at least there is nothing posted to a User talk page. I know I have a different standard for LT than other admins but I'm not sure this deserves a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The meaning of the phrase "legally warned" here is not clear. It may just possibly be intended to mean "warned under Wikipedia rules" rather than a reference to external laws or legal proceedings. I agree that it is necessary for Discussthis to clarify the meaning. However, I am frankly more troubled that 100% of Discussthis's edits over 18 months on Wikipedia are focused on this one article, invariably taking a negative view of the article subject and anyone who agrees with her. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning.

That sounds like a legal threat to me. It would also be good to know what connection @Discussthis has to subject of the article, since they know that Atherton has been legally warned. It is also a WP:SPA by definition. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. @Discussthis please clarify your connection to the article's subject. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've directly asked them for comment on their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No reply yet, but that's not particularly surprising given their edit history. @Newyorkbrad, I share your concerns and I'm really struggling to imagine a good-faith motivation here. It looks like a vendetta. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Discussthis hasn't edited since the 19th, so I have significant doubts over whether they will even respond to this discussion. And I agree, it does look like they have some type of vendetta. Gommeh 🎮 01:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've added the user's talk page to my watchlist. If I would've seen this 9 days ago, I'd have been happy to hit the block button myself. But since it's stale now and the user only seems to edit once every 6 months, I'm going to just monitor. But the combination of a semi-legal threat, single purpose account, pure attacks to trash a biography of a living person...I don't think this user has any encyclopedia-building interests and is set out on a personal vendetta. They claim that other users have a conflict of interest with the article subject, but I am seriously wondering what Discussthis's connection to the article subject is.--v/r - TP 15:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  @TParis, I think if your only hesitation is that it's stale, you should go ahead and set the block. It's not like they've been editing for the past nine days and this incident is in the past. Just my 2c. -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm puzzled by 9 days being "stale" in this context. Seems live to me. I'm equally puzzled by the earlier doubts on whether WP:NLT applies. "legally warned" + "editors may want to heed warning" is precisely the intended chilling effect that NLT is aimed at addressing. DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced material at Antolín Pulido

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An anonymous user, 95.60.13.200, has been persistently re-adding unsourced (and I would say unverifiable) content to the above article. (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 etc, full record here). User has been engaged on article talk page and user talk page (by User:Augmented Seventh) but has not responded, apart from one edit summary in which they said:

• Antolín Pulido does not usually collect verified information of his achievements as he is far beyond that. While it may not be verified, it is true and we should not interfere with someone who has been called "the hope of the oppressed" - suggesting conscious WP:V violation, WP:PROMO, WP:COI and possibly WP:AUTOBIO. Jdcooper (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

While it may not be verified, it is true. Just like the fact that the moon is made of green cheese. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1 TRACE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 1 TRACE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:1 TRACE (OSINT) (edit | [[Talk:Draft:1 TRACE (OSINT)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AliveNull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article was deleted, and today I see it popped up as Draft:1 TRACE (OSINT) by a fresh new account AliveNull (talk · contribs). I suspect a sock. Can an admin check who wrote 1 TRACE? --Altenmann >talk 01:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Written by two socks of User:Btw Santhosh: User:Kingmatrix and User:Markeste02. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Right. I added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Btw Santhosh. --Altenmann >talk 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and complete disregard for Wikipedia policy

I was referred here from AIV where I was told this was a more appropriate forum.

• Onemillionthtree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a several month history (most of the lifespan of the account) of persistent edit warring, disruptive editing, and stubbornness as evidenced on their Talk page. This has already resulted in a previous 3 week block in May for edit warring and disruptive editing.

Today, I noticed they tried to "move" the page Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis to Extraterrestrial hypothesis by cut-pasting the entire contents of the page over. Additionally (though maybe more minor), this was done without establishing consensus for the move, even though the page had been moved the other way before and therefore likely not an uncontested move.

I reverted the cut-paste page move and explained in both the edit summary and a message on their talk page that cut-pasting is an inappropriate way to move a page. They reverted my revert, which I had to undo again. Of note, this user has also previously performed, and been warned about, a disruptive page move.

I have attempted at great length to warn/discuss/explain the issue in a message thread at their talk page, and signpost to appropriate resources about page moves, all to no avail. In this discussion, they have been completely unwilling to consider any point that's not their own, or to productively engage with any policy/guideline pages they were signposted to, in what seems to be a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In their replies, they have shown flagrant disregard for consensus, copyright/attribution, established procedures, and the concept of following Wikipedia policies at all. They are also trying to WikiLawyer justifications for why their disruptive edits aren't technically explicitly disallowed in a page that is specifically labelled "policy", including citing WP:IAR.

This is not something I say lightly, as I do understand the gravity of it, but I am concerned that this editor is a case of WP:NOTHERE. SI09 (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hiya, you probably need to add some diffs here demonstrating that each allegation is true.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Onemillionthree has a habit of descending on a chosen topic in a manner that is overwhelming and problematic in its intensity. They seem to like to dig in, make dozens or hundreds of edits in a short span of time, perform saturation bombing with excessive cites, and roll right over anyone who tries to sanity-check the flood of alterations. By way of illustration from another arena, see the history of Crocodile from 14-17 April of this year. Filling edit summaries with acronym-studded dissertations does not help. The material is actually often good (Crocodile#Etymology is now certainly in a better shape than before, if arguably too detailed and navel-gazing) but the mode of operation is disruptive. They seem to apply the same approach to Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis at the moment - I can understand the irritation. I don't think they are NOTHERE, but they are certainly hard to collaborate with. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the user's past edits and clearly they were disruptively moving a page without consensus. That said, the move suggestion they made is actually a pretty good one and they correctly identified that it's the more COMMON title. Feoffer (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I ran into this user earlier with an edit war on Orders of magnitude (temperature), tried to explain "edit war" as a term of art on Wikipedia, and got a spiel about not being at war that frankly makes me think WP:CIR is relevant. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well it's rather painful and annoying that I have to defend myself against false accusations in the first place - when the opportunity to learn something new from one's own mistakes could have been the situation instead:

"most of the lifespan of the account) of persistent edit warring" - can't be true because if I had edit warred for most of the account, since 26 January 2025, I wouldn't be here now and would be banned already. My input for most of the convo. with SI09 was trying to establish what position of authority I had to observe with regards to the supposed policy which this user was suggesting. My findings were:

1st block of comments down SI09: "Unambiguously not allowed under Wikipedia policy at WP:Page movement."

2nd block 03:30: I discovered "U not allow." was a false premise - "This page is currently inactive" so I couldn't therefore proceed to observe "WP:Requested moves " - " WP:RM#CM" as SI09's direction in the 1st place was an error - this doesn't give me any legitimate principle which I could rely on to use to base my own actions

3rd block down SI09 continues to indicate some idea of principle "policies" but infact the page indicated is "guidelines": WP:MOVE. If we look to the 1st block, SI09: "under Wikipedia policy at WP:Page movement." Block 3 comments by SI09: " WP:Page movement is out of date, that's my bad, the up-to-date page is WP:MOVE" SI09 has fwice indicated a page for me to observe policy on and in both instances made an error.

5th block down SI09 again: "Yes, I am 100% suggesting that the article having what you consider to be an error in the title for a few extra hours or even days does not outweigh violating the attribution policy." In reposne for my prompt (also 5th block of comments): "if you would now indicate policy which shows your imperative that no page move could be made for "attribution"." 6th block of comments:

6th down SI09 provides: "WP:HM WP:CWW#Repairing_cut-and-paste_moves_of_a_page"

7th block down I discover SI09 in error again: "WP:HM isn't policy" and also the same discovery as shown in the penultimate comment "WP:CWW#Repairing (etc)" is guidelines - you see this obvs. Also the section you have indicated doesn't stop page moves "the licensing violation can be repaired through the use of the history template" (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

At the time the policy I was basing my actions on is observable in 5th block comments: "WP:NC is actually policy "Wikipedia:Article titles": Use commonly recognizable names:" which I showed in the editorial summary - 02:59: "the sources don't show +"UFO" " (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 18:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you try to express the point you were trying to make by asking if Wikipedia is a political organization? "Policy" may look like the word "Political" but they do not mean the same thing, and that isn't a reason to ignore the policies and guidelines the way you said you intend to. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the case that I stated I would "ignore the policies and guidelines the way you said you intend to". The meaning of Block 2: 03:20: (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 - is shown in that block: "if there is a valid reason for the page move - which is to not enforce an error" - which you can observe a response of in 3rd block: "WP:IAR only applies when doing so is the only way to improve Wikipedia.". My meaning of 03:20 was - the spirit / reasons which cause the policy to exist at all - that is the value of all legitimate policy - is basically to ensure the addition of information continues in a flow uninterrupted by error / bad / evil / non-civility: for the evident reason that within the species intelligence is the energy which keeps us all from making errors which both waste life and sometimes end lives. So what I was stating at 03:20 was that the greater good of solving a problem - of which the reasons for the change I had already given - and the change is not a controversial / unusual difference should be tolerated / accepted - immediately - instead of delaying the change because of the sense that the more good would be done by observance instead of the protocol of policy. Really policy is a safeguard which is used in an environement where multiple entities, i.e. user / individuals must corroborate-collaborate all with different personal problems / perhaps temporary issues in life - lack of sleep, worries or woes - which could interfere with their usual ability to rationally / reasonably deal with the problems of processing information and servicing this in the correct way free from error. As a lone human policy isn't strictly necessary for anyone who simply wants to make the world a better place and knows that the way to do this is providing intelligence in a way that is understandable to others - obviously teaching / lecturing is a good model for this. What I think is policy shouldn't rule people, it is good and understanding that should rule. This is same as saying: A. Policy rules: is like a force governs lesser humans whose behaviour is more like animals / primitive - the observance of existing policy is the governing value. B. The good and understanding rules: all humans are incentivized expected to know that good exists as their value, at least within wikipedia, and to understand the good in what is happeming, in wikipedia, that humans are good in principle - this is the same as thinking: policy exists within us all - in this type of environment - directing someone to policy should usually not be necessary. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is infact wikipedia policy - not an essay or guidelines. The reason for this is that it presumes the good rules - not policing. That is the motivation which I was trying to express at: 03:20. Hopefully you will find my response allays your fears of my complete "ignoring of policy and guidelines" which infact I didn't state anywhere - so you have perceived erroneously in the words of my writings. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 00:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Support lengthy, but time-limited, block on the grounds that they just took 3K bytes to say "policy? ha! iar r00lz" SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That might be the most verbose version of sticking your fingers into your ears and going "lalala" that I've seen in some time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Onemillionthtree: You need to get better at communicating. You cannot write a wall of text in response to a post at ANI, people who do this wind up getting banned. Two questions, short answers essential. Do you understand that you must never use the copy paste method to move a page again? Do you accept you must follow the rules of wikipedia as laid out in its various policies from now on?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  If I may, I'd suggest broadening the scope of the second question beyond the word "policy". There is a demonstrated tendency (in the discussion on their Talk page and even here in their first block of replies to this AN/I thread, e.g. diffs here, here, here, here and here) of using WikiLawyering to justify completely ignoring pages on guidelines, strong recommendations, best practices etc. because they do not explicitly call themselves a "policy". SI09 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable. I would change the second question to "Do you agree to follow the rules of wikipedia and the guidelines and policies which set them out?"Boynamedsue (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Right now, they're blocked for personal attacks, so don't expect an immediate answer. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give them a couple of days then see what they say.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Their resonses since the block are not promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

And I am fairly sure what the answer I'm going to get will look like, too. But sometimes people surprise you. If they don't, I would imagine OMT will get an exciting opportunity to be right all the time somewhere else.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

191.109.82.27

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

191.109.82.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continuing to change sourced genres on various music articles despite having warnings up to level 4 by several other editors. I went to submit this to WP:AIV but there was already a report there from another editor which was dismissed as not obvious vandalism. —tony 03:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Given a two week break. Izno (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Diademchild

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Diademchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was conditionally unblocked on April 24th, 2025 as a result of accepting a three-month topic ban from all pages relating to biographies of living persons. They almost immediately violated their TBAN with edits to Nia Sanchez (diff), Diamante (musician) (diff), and Kae Kurd (diff). More recently, they have made extensive edits at Talk:Amouranth (here) and Bonnie Blue (actress) (both article and talk page). In fact, most of their recent contributions consist of adding birth dates and other biographical trivia to articles, including BLPs.

Diademchild has made several dismissive comments toward the subjects of ongoing disputes at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, such as there doesn’t need to be [reliable sources], because this female subject isn’t (that) societally important/respected/valuable, even after receiving a contentious topics alert. To me this suggests a WP:NOTHERE mentality as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indef for multiple BLP violations. If people think indef is too much, let me know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, definitely not too much. See comment below. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I see that Diademchild's first TBAN violations were already noted at asilvering's user talk page back in April. Posting here for future reference. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Diademchild also deleted two messages on their user talk page indicating they were aware of the TBAN violation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing related to David Woodard

After a week of investigating why the article on David Woodard had the most translations of any Wikipedia article, I came across a network of accounts and IP proxies which demonstrated a clear intent to promote Woodard as far and wide as possible. My initial post on Wikimedia Meta resulted in over 200 of the articles being deleted, and a slew of single-purpose accounts being globally blocked. In my full report which I have published in my user space, and in a subsequent report on persistent problematic editing on the enwiki article, I concluded that the following enwiki users were involved:

• Swmmng (talk · contribs · count)
• BarunH (talk · contribs · count)
• BardRapt (talk · contribs · count)
• CWells (talk · contribs · count)
• FlenBotoz (talk · contribs · count)
• Judgtastic (talk · contribs · count)
• Špačkovití (talk · contribs · count)

After consulting asilvering for their advice as an administrator, I'm coming to ANI to raise this with other enwiki administrators. I personally believe that each of these users should be blocked over this editing behaviour, and that the English Wikipedia's article on David Woodard should be put under extended-confirmed protection for at least a year, but I defer to your judgement on how best to proceed. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you may have and provide specific data points (many of which you can see in this Cryptpad spreadsheet). --Grnrchst (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll file an SPI on this so we have a paper trail where people are likely to be looking for one.

Also, fun one in the deleted revisions for Barun H: Joseph A. Stirt. Beginning in 2004 Stirt has actively published bookofjoe, his popular blog covering a wide range of interests—"fashion, medicine, art, history, design, poetry, books, movies, sports, inventions (my own and those of others), writing, science, food, technology, cars, current events… you name it." Subjects have included, among many others, Steve Wozniak, treadmills, ketamine for depression, David Woodard, and water scarcity. -- asilvering (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Removal of properly sourced text, POV pushing, probably sockpuppet

@Amir.RostamDoost is a recent iteration of several IPs removing a properly sourced edit at Ali al-Sistani after the page in question was protected for violations of WP:BLP . Probably a sockpuppet. Montblamc1 (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Montblamc1 If you are accusing them of sockpuppetry then WP:SPI is probably the venue you're looking for. —tony 12:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt, SPI isn't going to do anything about someone who was editing as an IP, was not blocked, and is now editing as an account. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

78.81.123.235

• 78.81.123.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP was previously blocked for two weeks due to persistent violations of WP:RUSUKR after this ANI report (they also previously edited under a different IP address which was also blocked for the same reason). I had to give them another warning on 15 June because they again made edits related to the topic. They assured me again that they would not make any further edits related to the topic. Despite this, they have continued to make edits that are clearly violations of the restriction. See for example this edit on 19 June where they directly reference the war. Another editor told them about the restriction after this edit and just now they made another edit to Russian occupation of Crimea that is a blatant violation. See also this edit for example. I have not taken a look at their other recent edits so there might be more. Mellk (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

My last edit to Russian occupation of Crimea is to clarify the legal case Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2017) and don't reference the war at all. Or, later one, clarify the reference in the same article. It's important for readers. I assure of my adherence to CTOP rules at Wikipedia. And would self-revert if suggested. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You should self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Done at best of my ability. Thank you

78.81.123.235 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You did not fully self-revert. You also did not explain the rationale for the other edits that violated the restriction, for example this edit from yesterday where you changed war with Ukraine to war against Ukraine. Mellk (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

And like before, more POV edits. Here you created a piped link for no good reason. Since the IP is still continuing to make edits and has not provided any real assurance that they will stop making edits that violate the restriction (they have done this multiple times before and continued to make such edits), I see no other option than a much longer block this time. I have lost count of how many times they've said they would stop making edits related to the topic only to continue making edits related to the topic. Mellk (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Another violation just now. This is despite the ANI report. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Even more violations now. This is very clearly about the war. Seriously, it does not get any more blatant than this. Mellk (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why 78.81.123.235 doesn't create a named account - for increased anonymity and safety as well as quite likely being able to achieve extended-confirmed status reasonably quickly on topics unrelated to WP:RUSUKR, broadly construed. On the particular article Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which is why I noticed this AN/I entry, I'd personally prefer for 78.81.123.235's edits to not be self-reverted, because they only needed moderate editing and overall are quite useful.

@User 78.81.123.235: the Wikipedian community is patient, but not infinitely patient. While the RUSUKR topic is indeed an important one, it's also one that is difficult for the community to manage in terms of edits, so trying to make exceptions in your particular case would be difficult. You've been editing non-anonymously (revealing your IP number) for over 30 days and your edit count looks like it's in the several 100s. If you create a named account, it will be in your personal interest in terms of security, you'll learn a lot of interesting things by editing topics outside of the RUSUKR areas, and it looks like it shouldn't be difficult for you to do 500 non-trivial edits within a month.

It looks like you've misunderstood several requests to stop editing in the RUSUKR area broadly construed, so you'd have to make an exceptional effort now to convince others not to block you. You really must read WP:BROADLY. Boud (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have re-read, WP:BROADLY. Sorry again for not meeting the community trust. As to the rational of war 'against' vs. 'with', for me, non-native speaker, it seems obviously as an grammatical error: 'with' could be understood 'pro', while 'against' is clearly 'contra'.
Really sorry, as jurisprudencial articles are non-exempt from CTOP. Now, it's clear after your thoughtful briefing. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

With this editing [], I was experimenting with new wiki orthography, badly, and was to delete it, but after, it was already reverted. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for late response. As Olexandr Dovzhenko and Alexander Dovzhenko spelling are different in the initial letter, my understanding is that spelling convention allows to chose according to the context which it is used. The articles edited were from the List of Ukrainian films, and spelling with initial O seems more appropriate. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to transliteration both versions of the name are odd for using the letter "x" instead of "ks". I'd expect "Oleksandr" or "Aleksandr" (without an "e" between "dr" at the end). Nakonana (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A quick spot-check of contribs seems to indicate 78.81.123.235 has been making uncontroversial edits to mainspace since this discussion. Anyone opposed to this being closed? —tony 03:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Page move vandalism cleanup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are a few instances of page-move vandalism from a user I just blocked. I haven't done much with moving pages back over a re-direct, so I was hoping for some assistance in cleaning this up. Joyous! Noise! 23:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there's really only one page left to move back, which is Marven Gardens (it is at A plane destroyed Marvin Gardens?). Since I don't have admin or page mover privileges, I did what I could which is tag the redirected original page name with CSD G6 to be able to move the page back. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse from ModaraDo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After other editors and I have removed excessive quotes at Seyyed Amir Hossein Feghhi, they started hurling abuse and bad faith assumptions:

• at Robby.is.on my Talk page at 220 of Borg's Talk page: "You just worship every piece of news that comes your way", "You are a vandal.", "a fool, an irresponsible person, a stubborn individual, and a loser like y.."
• in an edit summary: "if you want another order, go and make your own damn article and shit on it like when your mother born you, when she shits on the earth and delivers you"

Robby.is.on (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Indef, as they came in swinging with their very first edit and didn’t let up thereafter. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BlackAfrican2006

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BlackAfrican2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 350 edits over a month, one AN/EW visit, and several protracted battles on pages caused by their seeming inability to be told they are wrong about their edits to our most important articles. The most recent cycle is with the lead of Religion, in which explications of WP:ONUS went in one ear and out the other, and now they think they're teaching me some lesson by following me around and messing with my other edits, even where they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. They have yet to acknowledge instances where they were wrong in literally any of their communications, and I really think they've been given enough straight talk about how untenable their behavior is. Remsense 🌈 论 07:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be some WP:STALKING: . Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to be explicit that I sometimes peruse someone's edit history to check for similarly problematic edits when I notice something off, and a lot of editors don't like that so much. I'm not going to characterize it as stalking, that would be hypocritical of me, but it's clear as day they're trying to needle me by doing what they think I do, which is flat-out vandalism. Remsense 🌈 论 08:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

So you just admitted you were checking my edit history reverting my edits, if I do it i get reverted and threatened. By the way you broke the edit war policy multiple times on reverting more than 3 times on a page and 24 hours and of course he doesn't get warned or anything because he's an "experienced editor" so he could do no wrong. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's the context. Remsense reverted four different edits of mine on four different pages. I think he was following me first. I reverted one of Remsense's edits because I disagreed with it, and in his edit summary he said "this will get dangerous real quick" which is basically a threat. On the talk page of religion, I explained how is revert goes against sources and he basically ignored me and when I showed him a source that backs my edit be said my edit was unsourced. I didn't "revert his edits" because 98% of his edits are reverts, I reverted one of his reverts I disagree with, he constantly reverts me all the time and I get threatened BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated that you essentially concurred with my above characterization of what you're doing. How do you think you can agree you're editing with retributive motivations and think that's going to go good for you? Remsense 🌈 论 08:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not editing with "retributive motivations", I'm reverting your edits i disagree with because I know you reverted me for no reason, so you probably revert other people for no reason. I'm not reverting all your reverts, I'm just reverting stuff I disagree with, because if you have a right to do it with other people than shouldn't I have that right without having to get threatened and reported? If you just put "A religion" instead of just"Religion" for the lead sentence because of Grammar issues, can we both agree to drop this whole thing and move on if you self-revert your newest edit at Religion BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edits i disagree with because I know you reverted me for no reason, so you probably revert other people for no reason.

Unbelievable! I couldn't've said it better. Remsense 🌈 论 08:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Now you're taking me out of context. I'm only reverting edits I disagree with, I don't disagree with all your reverts. And you revert me for the most harmless edits and admitted it's because you look at my edit history. so yeah why can't I revert edits I disagree with. What made you above me where I get reported for doing so while you say "Things are going to get dangerous". BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, we are now in the dangerous place, if the connection wasn't clear. Because this isn't your personal playground. Acting under inspiration of your petty disagreements (as if that sounds better???) in areas you clearly know exactly nothing over the quality of the encyclopedia is exactly why we're here. Given you've tripled and now quadrupled down on that you've clearly got to go, and fast. Fun flailing sockpuppetry accusations you've pivoted to on Talk:Religion now, too. Remsense 🌈 论 08:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

BA2006 repeatedly breached WP:GOODFAITH; see diff for the latest: Are you his alt account or a friend. Accusations of socking should be substantiated, and certainly not directed at obvious senior editors who don't need socking or tag-teaming. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they looked at your edit history, because they believed you had a history of unconstructive edits. That is normal. Following someone and making reversions to edits I disagree with is not that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Bushranger says "yes they looked at your edit history, because they believed you had a history of unconstructive edits." I believed Remsense had a history of unconstructive edits, they can stalk me and follow me around but I can't revert edits I disagree with and check their edit history, aka reverts I think aren't constructive? Joshua Jonathan says I'm not acting in Good faith, well if someone was stalking your account reverting all of your edits first you think you would "act in good faith". Remsense clearly didn't because he reported me, but I'm supposed to act in good faith why it all doesn't apply to Remsense. The contradictions, double standards etc. are crazy. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean, arguably the primary distinction would be whether you're making the encyclopedia better, and since your campaign was panning out with results such as "why are you calling Palestinian Jews Arab?", that means you did bad, and there was something wonky with your approach! and it's blowing my mind how you're incapable of admitting that for anything you do. Remsense 🌈 论 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say "why are you calling Palestinian Jews Arab", I'm saying why did you make an edit saying "Palestinian Jew" when the wiki article about Palestinians calls Palestinians an Arab group and not a Jewish one. How does that mean "I did bad", I'm literally trying to fix Grammar on the article religion and you won't let me, and your edit isn't factually correct here isn't factually correct. The edits I mentioned aren't backed by sources, because the stuff you put recently goes against all sources, I provide a source and then you say on the talk page I didn't. People are telling me to Assume good faith so I'll do it, I'll assume you're not lying and you've made a mistake, but if that's not the case can you please stop. Also administrator you don't have to take his side just because he gots tens of thousands of edits, 98% of which are reverts of other editors, you should take a side based on the facts presented. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That you will never get it into your head that maybe you should ask before reverting with something like this, something about which you clearly know very little, means it's not going to work out for you here. Remsense 🌈 论 09:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm literally providing sources and backing up my claims with what other articles are saying, but apparently I know nothing, you're a god compared to me, apparently I'm nothing, I have to ask to revert your edits now? Why aren't you asking me if you could revert mine then. Saying "you dont provide a source" when I did, saying you don't know anything when I'm literally providing sources that go against your claims, saying you can revert my edits, I can't revert yours, I have to ask you like you're my boss is crazy. Can we please just put "A religion" instead of "Religion" and drop this whole thing, that's a massive grammar issue and not a way to start a sentence. You can revert all my edits I don't care anymore I just wanna go to sleep peacefully this is bothering me. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The degree to which you do not listen to others is profound. I've been ignoring your characterization of the first sentence of Religion as a grammatical error because I and others have literally explained what is going on there to you about ten different times, and you couldn't care less because you've already concluded you're right and your job is to ram yourself against the wall until you break through and get your way. It's infuriating and no one here should have to deal with another second of it. Remsense 🌈 论 09:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I literally just came up with the idea to just say "a religion" and not rewrite the whole paragraph like I originally had done because me and GlorytoCalifornia tried making compromises. You haven't explained to me "what's going on ten different times" or a legitimate reason why I'm wrong. I'm supposed to assume good faith, so I assume it, but i must ask this question, are you purposely making stuff up. And just like you I just wanna get this over with but I can't sleep peacefully because the Grammar issue out of anything on the whole page bothers me so much. BlackAfrican2006 (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. @Remsense needs to review Narcissism. 2600:1700:1D21:A0B0:D1E4:6A0C:1AA4:5BF0 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Good point! While an admin is here, could they please kick this annoying sock off Problem of evil? Remsense 🌈 论 09:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I was going to remove that personal attack, but since you've replied, R, I'll leave it. 2600:1700:1D21:A0B0::/64 blocked for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | tålk 09:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC).

You fundamentally expect others to cater to your personal preferences and wishes over anything else, and it's not something I have to respect. I don't care about how quickly you expect your messages, I don't care about your refusal to understand basic sentence structure, I don't care what you pretend site policy people have sent you says while clearly having total contempt for said policy. Remsense 🌈 论 09:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Accusations such as, above, BlackAfrican2006's "By the way you broke the edit war policy multiple times on reverting more than 3 times on a page and 24 hours and of course he doesn't get warned or anything because he's an "experienced editor" so he could do no wrong" make a terrible impression: that quote is a complete aspersion, since there are no specifics, let alone diffs, and it's also an egregious assumption of bad faith against all admins ("of course he doesn't get warned or anything"). And indeed "I'm reverting your edits i disagree with because I know you reverted me for no reason, so you probably revert other people for no reason". Plus in the whole Definition in lead section on Talk:Religion, they demonstrate assumptions of bad faith, unreasonableness, and also, sadly, incompetence. This is a completely uncollaborative editor, and I have blocked them indefinitely as a bad fit for Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Paper9oll – Inappropriate tone and conduct during image discussion (now closed)

Issue: I am submitting this report to document a pattern of dismissive and borderline uncivil behavior by User:Paper9oll during a now-concluded discussion over the infobox image in the Kim Hye-yoon article. While the content matter has been resolved, I believe the user’s tone and engagement style violated Wikipedia’s expectations around WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and may warrant administrative attention to prevent recurrence.

Context: During the image discussion on the article’s talk page, the user made several comments that were passive-aggressive, sarcastic, and dismissive of collaborative input. Examples include:

> "either this or this would be acceptable options — take it or leave it."

> "I won't be surprised if..." (followed by a sarcastic prediction)

> "If there is no intention to work towards consensus when we are already close, then so be it."

> "I'm not interested in engaging in unnecessary back-and-forth... if the goal is to 'find a winner', then sadly, I'm not the editor you're looking for."

These remarks were not isolated but part of a pattern that undermined civil discourse and discouraged consensus-building. The language used is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s principles of assuming good faith and maintaining a collegial editing environment.

What I’m asking for: As the issue itself is closed, I’m not seeking sanctions, but I do think a formal reminder or administrative note on the importance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF would be appropriate. I hope this helps prevent similar issues in future discussions involving this user. Resurehtonatsuj (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Resurehtonatsuj, per instructions, it is required that you notify the person via their talk page if you start a discussion about someone at this page. I have done that for you now. —tony 03:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Resurehtonatsuj, as it says at the very top, This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. In other words, this page is not for discussing closed matters or a single conversation that you found unpleasant. While I agree that Paper9oll was somewhat curt and dismissive with you, there is nothing in the quotes that you presented that requires the attention of an administrator. Although you wrote These remarks were not isolated but part of a pattern, you have not presented evidence of any such pattern. There are many forms of dispute resolution available to you. ANI should be a last resort, not a first resort. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, ideally one should write something themselves instead of using a LLM. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Okay noted, rather than looking back on past behaviour issues, I'll proceed with WP:DR if the user's behaviour continues instead. Thank you. Resurehtonatsuj (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Resurehtonatsuj - Did you use a large language model to compose your original post? If so, that is far more serious than rudeness. If so, just drop the stick so that your own conduct can be overlooked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

User Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael) (talk · contribs)

Appears to be WP:NOTHERE. I don't know why he wasn't considered for a block after the very first edits from this account back in October. --Hipal (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to block until I saw what happened with the Only Warning, but... no. Just, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sibbleiue impersonating an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Sibbleiue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 174.229.242.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user is impersonating Discospinster in order to close AFD discussions. They're doing this both on this account and on the IP (sometimes they'll make a trivial edit on the IP afterwards in order to 'hide' the initial close from watchlists). — Czello ^(music) 12:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This was dealt with several hours ago.--— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Might a feed of AfD closes help to prevent this sort of abuse?꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

An edit filter to flag IP / new accounts closing AfDs could be another idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This came up recently. IPs are not allowed to close AfDs. An edit filter to outright stop this would be desirable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, this is an LTA known as 'BuickCenturyDriver'. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger There are two filters designed to catch that. As I understand it, one is set to disallow, but as a result LTA's have been able to figure out how to work around it, and one is set to log only. Zzuuzz, you might want to look into the IP edits from Special:Contributions/174.229.209.183, which get caught by your filter when testing it against the history of the AfD they tried to close, but don't show up in the filter logs and were somehow still allowed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pmbma - complete refusal to use anything other than bare URL references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pmbma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of adding completely bare URL citations to articles - I first encountered them doing so in September last year , and they've since been bombarding Newcastle International Airport with them - , , , , , , , , and . In the middle of all this, they were requested to use some form of structured citation style on the article talk page , which they refused , stating they had limited time in which to add sources. They continued adding bare URLs after this exchange, and despite continued efforts by myself and User:10mmsocket to clean up after them.

I fully understand, and wholeheartedly applaud, that they are replacing Citation Needed tags here, and I agree with WP:BURL that a bare URL is better than no citation at all... however, I'm growing concerned with this user's complete and utter refusal to change their style of editing in response to genuine concerns, even after I made them aware back in September of some of the many easy-to-use tools that automatically generate structured citations at the click of a button. I also do not understand their insistence that there is some kind of WP:DEADLINE, especially when it's been reiterated multiple times that structuring citations adds seconds to the time taken to make an edit.

The net result of this style of editing is that users like myself and 10mmsocket end up running after Pmbma's edits, cleaning up as we go using ReFill and Citation Bot - something that 10mmsocket understandable referred to as tedious. I wholeheartedly support and agree with inexperienced users adding bare URL citations in lieu of no citation at all - we all started somewhere, and it takes nothing more than a quick polite note on their talk page and they've learned a new skill in citation structuring. But how can a user that's been here since 2008 and with over 20k edits outright refuse to use structured citations? Danners430 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I refer you to the essay at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bare_URLs

In particular, I refer you to the section "What is right with bare URLs?"

Pmbma (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue under discussion here is clearly covered by the "What is wrong with bare URLs?" section. Please explain how that doesn't apply to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have limited time in the day. I'm offering to add references where citation-needed has existed for months. Ultimately, does wikipedia want me to volunteer the time I have available, or no time at all ? Pmbma (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

In that section: However, please note that a bare URL reference is also much less helpful than a fully formatted citation. Please help readers and editors by using full citations instead. Editors have asked you to up your game repeatedly. Please don't stick your fingers in your ears and do it. – robertsky (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Does wikipedia want the references or not ? Or would we prefer to just stick with citation-needed ? I am not an employee of wikipedia - I am a volunteer. Pmbma (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

And we are all volunteers as well. What we all are telling is to incorporate citation formatting into your contributions. You think citation formatting is a waste of your time. You are wasting others' time as well to clean up after you. – robertsky (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Please ban me from wikipedia for life. Pmbma (talk) Pmbma (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not something bannable or blockable yet. – robertsky (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I am also concerned about his use of sticky notes to sources, like he has done here and on many articles. Those sticky notes are useless and in fact make the - paper - sources look less reliable as it seems he has to defend the use of the source. The Banner talk 19:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note - I am happy to point Pmbma towards tools that they can use to generate structured citations in seconds, like I have claimed in my original post is possible. I really, really don’t want to lose this editor, as the work they are doing, aside from the small issues that have been raised, is invaluable - I don’t want to go in to airport articles and mass delete unsourced content when someone with better subject knowledge than me knows how to find sources, and that person is Pmbma. They just need to tweak how they’re doing what they’re doing and take other editors’ feedback on board. Danners430 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

At first glance those edits you linked in the first statement here appear to have incrementally improved the articles, which is not something administrators would want to stop. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing more than bare URLs are required. Believe me, I've dropped and run enough times that I have no grounds to criticize here. It's better to future-proof the URLs by filling in all the data IF YOU HAVE TIME. If you don't, we'd rather have a reference to improve than nothing, which we'd have to spend more time building from scratch. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that at least two people here have been behaving rather dickishly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If I have to actively defend myself in the ANI court for adding references... then I really don't want to be involved in wikipedia. I act out of good faith, give the time I have available and try to add reliable references where either there citation-needed has been present for a few months or no reference has existed for months. If doing this gets me into trouble... then this is not the place for me. Pmbma (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve said this a couple of times - please don’t leave, as you do make invaluable contributions. As I said above, I really don’t want to mass delete content - you’re the person that finds the sources that I often can’t, so you do make a difference. Please accept the offer of assistance in finding a tool that helps you turn bare URLs into fully structured references without additional effort. Danners430 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to this. Real life and all that. @Phil Bridger there are shades of dickishness and I believe Danners430 is way less dickish. We've overlapped on a good number of articles and I don't think I've ever had to correct anything Danners430 has done, or come into conflict in anyway. As a net positive editor on Wikidpedia (Danners430) I support him bringing this issue here. We really shouldn't be needing to cleanup after someone who refuses to play nice. As has been said we are all volunteers with differing degrees of commitment. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, I quit wikipedia. It's clear that adding refences in an imperfect world is not welcome. Pmbma (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

One point that needs considering here is whether citations - whether bare URL or fully filled in - are actually useful. I'd have to suggest that in the specific context under discussion - a list of airlines and the destinations served by an airport - some of those being added by Pmbma aren't. See this edit to Glasgow Airport for example. Nothing wrong with the source, but all it tells us is that back in 2019, the airline was going to recommence flights. It tells the reader absolutely nothing about what the current situation is, in a context where airlines routinely change the destinations they serve. I've noticed this issue in similar articles before, where citations are years out of date, in what purports to be current status. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Under WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT we already have a policy that neither the airline nor the airport website can be used as a source to verify that an airline still flies a route. A large number of references that link to an airline or airport website have already been replaced with citation-needed under this policy. That already makes it difficult to find sources to show that airline X is still flying from airport P to airport Q. No, linking to Google Flights is not going to work. Nor Twitter. If you want a source to be less than a year old and be compliant with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:V and WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:PRIME and not breach licencing laws for a commercial data product - then we're rapidly running out of places to find a reference. As the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good. Pmbma (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

That's an argument for not including content that can't be properly referenced. It isn't an argument for leaving it in when you can't reference it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Or consider tha argument that airlines tend to continue flying the same routes every year. A large Japanese airline that currently flies from Tokyo to Los Angeles is very likely to being flying it again next year. Do we really need to get a new reference to reverify this every year without linking to an airline or airport website ? Or would we be better off finding a link to a news article saying that airline X will stop flying from airport P to airport Q and use that as a reference to justify deletion of the relevant information on wikipedia and thus keep wikipedia current ? Pmbma (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

How exactly is citing something from 2019 for a statement about destinations served keeping Wikipedia current? And no, we don't second-guess what airlines might be doing, for the same reason we don't second-guess anything else. If a list purporting to represent current status can't be supported by references that reflect current status, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you also propose that any wikipage about a train station, bus station or port should also have all information about where trains, buses or ships run as well ? We need to be consistent but we're talking about removing a LOT of information from wikipedia. Pmbma (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A list that doesn't actually contain what it purports to isn't 'information'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off-topic for this ANI discussion, but... Maybe these lists of airlines servicing an airport are a case of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If I understand correctly, keeping these lists up to date is a lot of work, and it's difficult to find reliable sources. If that's the case, it might be better to simply delete these lists. I guess they're not really important for most of our readers. For example, I feel that Lyon–Saint-Exupéry Airport#Airlines and destinations is much too long and detailed. Instead, we could provide general statements that are unlikely to change, e.g. "the airport has been an important hub for airlines X, Y and Z since the 1990s", or whatever reliable sources say. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The list in the Lyon–Saint-Exupéry Airport article is a good example of how not to do it: cited almost in its entirety to a source (Aeroroutes.com) that is self published, by "an airline schedule nerd" which clearly isn't WP:RS, despite being cited over 1,500 times on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• No offence to the OP, but I'm with Pmbma on this one. They're doing useful work on the project, providing references which ensure articles comply with WP:V, one of our most key policies. Of course preferable to have a full citation over a bare URL, and it's good to inform editors of this guideline, but if they say they don't have the time to put the full citations then so be it, it's certainly not a disciplinary matter for ANI, which seems to be risking driving them off the project. It's hardly the end of the world if it's left as a bare URL for a while and it's generally 1000 times better than no citation at all. The OP cites WP:NODEADLINE but that also applies here. If you don't want to clean up the bare URLs then don't, leave it to someone else. In 99% of cases we'll still be able to follow the URL or else find it on the Web archive anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I get the frustration, with concern to linkrot, but I don't think there is a rule violation here. It's annoying at best. But it meets WP:V. v/r - TP 00:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverts from article format prescribed by MOS:GEOCOMMA followed by WP:GAMING

Amakuru (talk · contribs)

I recently moved 10 mayoral election articles because their names did not follow the MOS:GEOCOMMA part of the Manual of Style. Amakuru today moved them back to the format violating MOS:GEOCOMMA, referring to a discussion on local talkpage, as if such a discussion can override the Manual of Style. It should be noted that the MoS does not mention an exception for article titles, and thus there isn't one.

In another discussion, on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#RfC re: proposed proposed new naming convention for local elections, I started a discussion, proposing a new format for local elections. The discussion was snow closed as opposed. I obviously respect that outcome.

There was also another, parallel discussion – actually, there is where the discussion started (it's in the collapsed part) – which involved the closing comma for parentheticals, you know, that which MOS:GEOCOMMA prescribes. Amakuru apparently doesn't like the comma and said that.

Amakuru has now reverted my 10 moves to the format without the closing comma – reminder: it violates MOS:GEOCOMMA – without a discussion, referring to an old RM on a local article talkpage (Talk:2015 Columbus, Ohio mayoral election#Requested move 28 November 2016), where moves from one "old-style" name format (with the year last, and without the closing comma) to a format with the comma, but still "old-style" with the year last, was requested. The RM was closed as "not moved".

After I noticed that Amakuru had reverted my moves, I contacted him on his talkpage, pointing out what the Manual of Style says, that discussions on local talkpages (obviously) cannot override the Manual of Style, and that if he does not agree with the MoS, he has to start a centralized discussion there, rather than objecting or opposing on dozens and dozens of local talkpages. (I didn't say the last part.)

By the way, there are also local talkpages where discussions on the closing comma have ended with the MoS prevailing.

Finally, I asked if he will self-revert, or if I will have to revert his moves back to the MoS-prescribed format.

Soon after he read that, he started editing the redirects that were created (or re-created) as a result of his page moves, with the effect that moves to the correct format can only be done by admins. These actions constitute gaming the system.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I know the pettiest things in the world feel like they're incredibly important when you're deep in them, but I think it would be best to just forget about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru's conduct, which is what should be discussed here, is not a petty thing. The comma discussion should take place on some MoS talkpage. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"he started editing the redirects that were created (or re-created) as a result of his page moves, with the effect that moves to the correct format can only be done by admins": can you explain this part a little more? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

He added "R from alternate punctuation", which also has the effect of blocking non-admins from undoing the move. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

News to me! How so? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There is often an old redirect "in the way" when you try to move an article back to a previous title. If the redirect has not been edited, it can be deleted to make way for the move. If it has been edited, it can't, unless you're an admin. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that I knew. Any page mover should be able to move over the redirect. Regardless, since your initial bold moves were undone, anyone (regardless of whether they have the page mover right) would want to avoid moving them back without discussion.

Since the redirect categories appear appropriate on first glance, I don't see that the charge of gaming is supported. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You knew that, and still claim that "[a]ny page mover should be able to move over the redirect"? No, any page mover can't if the redirect has been edited, unless they have admin rights.

Regardless, the edits may look appropriate, but they were made just for the purpose of stopping other people from moving the articles to the format required by MoS. That constitues gaming, and editors have been blocked for that. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I thought page movers had that ability. Can someone else confirm either way? Rest of my point still stands, and I don't think you're correct about A's motivation here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella Any page mover can do a WP:SWAP, which has the same end result of undoing the move. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

[T]he edits may look appropriate, but they were made just for the purpose of stopping other people from moving the articles[...] -- this is a serious allegation. Do you have any evidence, or is this just WP:CASTING? —tony 00:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru just indirectly admitted on his talkpage that he gamed the system. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

That's starting to skirt close to WP:NPA. Please don't put words in other editors' mouths. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

hmm... On the other hand, admins have had used WP:RMUM to justify blocks on others who were like you, seeking to revert a reverted move. If you had moved the articles enmasse again, who would likely be blocked isn't him, but you and with a greater livelihood. – robertsky (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't read his comment that way at all, and I don't think it's reasonable to interpret it that way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I think there's about to be a second Arb case regarding the interaction of the MOS and AT, and the way people handle the discussions therefore, so you might want to keep the temperature down. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have much to say beyond the thoughts of those above, and what I've already said to HandsomeFella on my talk page. They made a set of bold moves and I reverted them per WP:RMUM. I also later tagged the resulting redirects with {{R from alternative punctuation}}, which is pretty commonplace for such redirects where they are from a minor variation in such punctuation, that's what the template is for I think? I added that when I saw HandsomeFella's comment because their comment reminded me that I'd forgotten to do it earlier. (And by the way, a page mover can still perform a move on such a page - they do so via the WP:Page swap mechanism). Anyway, HandsomeFella asked me to revert myself, which I'm not going to do, since WP:RMUM supports my right to revert an undiscussed move, and they also said in their opening comment "will I have to revert you?" which sounds to me like a threat to WP:Move war over this issue, so I also reminded them in my most recent talk page comment that reinstating a reverted move is explicitly not permitted by WP:RMUM and that the next step is to open a full RM discussion. As far as I'm aware I've followed the correct process here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• You moved pages, boldly. The moves were reverted. That's how the system works. The next step is for you to open a RM on the pages you want moved to establish consensus (or not) for the moves you want to make. The next step is not for you to come to ANI accusing the other editor of bad-faith and gaming. Drop the stick, and open RMs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know how the system works. The moves were reverted in violation of MoS, referring to old cherry-picked discussions in which Amakuru was on the "winning" side. Then he gamed the system, but in a "smart" way. It's naïve to believe otherwise.

  If I do a bold move, and then immediately edit the redirect that is created in a similar way, will I be shown the same leniency? I guess not. NB: Dolovis was blocked for this.

  The next step for Amakuru is to start a discussion on Talk:MoS if he objects to grammatically correct article titles. Having discussions on local talkpages overriding the consensus that has created today's MoS? What's next, can we decide on a talk page that "we really don't need WP:RS in this article"? HandsomeFella (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @HandsomeFella:, I suppose I wasn't clear in my initial comment above, so let's make this clearer: drop the stick or face a boomerang. The next step for you is to either open RMs explaining why the pages' current titles violate MoS and why it should be followed, or walk away from the issue. Bold, revert, discuss. The titles may well, as you claim, violate MoS. But once you have made a bold move, and it has been reverted, you must then discuss, not them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Neither following nor not following any particular interpretation of manual of style gives an exemption from edit warring. If you move an article away from a stable title and someone reverts you, you have exactly two choices: 1. let it go. 2. seek consensus for your preferred title. This applies regardless of what the stable title is. It applies regardless of why you want to move the page. It applies regardless of what the manual style says the title should be. It applies regardless of what a policy says the title should be. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Took me a few moments to dig for Dolovis' issue as it was before I became active on wiki. See: User_talk:Dolovis/Archive_4#c-Elen_of_the_Roads-2012-01-01T17:47:00.000Z-January_2012 and two sections up. I have not looked at the AN discussion, but judging from the talk pages, there was other consideration such as an earlier topic ban, and that the block was made possibly in response to gaming around the topic ban among other things. – robertsky (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like the Arbs are unfortunately trying to dodge the open case request related to MOS as much as possible. I expect they will try to limit that case to only capitalization, if it gets heard at all. 50.75.177.210 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Previous MOS discussion: Matching commas on attributive nouns in titles. Jruderman (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell selectivelly removing reliable sources from several articles

Since early May the editor Grayfell has been removing a huge amount of content and reliable sources from articles such as White Mexicans, Mexicans, White Latin Americans , White People etc. on a very selective manner, targetting specifically sources related to European ancestry, usually vaguely claiming that such content is SYNTH, OR, Primary or unverifiable when it isn't. Examples of this are:

• Here tagged a source that textually states that the population of western Mexico "resemble the northern Spanish people -tall, well built, often with blue eyes..." because according to him it doesn't mention the term White
• Here Grayfell removed a large scale study by the University College London source because it isn't only about Mexico and is a primary source but let another source (LatinoBarometro) stay in there despite being about multiple countries (and being an actual primary source).
• Here Grayfell removed a field survey that used the presence of blond hair to classify a Mexican as White arguing that it was a blatant misrepresentation of the source when it can be easily verified here in the page 19 (he also claims that its a primary source when it isn't, (the American Sociological Association is retelling field research carried out by Mexico's MIT panel years earlier).
• In the article of White Mexicans and White people he removes the results of surveys carried out by Mexico's government claiming that the phrasing is OR, SYNTH etc. when it couldn't be more literal, even when such phrasing was accepted by him and is present in the article of Mexico.
• When he abandoned the discussion in the talk page of the article of Mexico and I reached a consensus with other editors he re-appeared only to revert and start the discussion all over again, dismissing multiple sources with talking points such as that a person is described as being of European appeareance does not mean that the person has European ancestry (in that discussion he has been called out by other editors for being difficult to work with).
• Grayfell also claims government produced data has to be removed because they are primary sources (I'm certain that to start removing official governmental from Wikipedia because they're primary sources would have a very negative impact on the site as a whole).
• Despite repeatedly dismissing sources on the pretense of them being primary or tertiary he removed 4 secondary sources from the article of White People .
• He claims that the pie chart in the source of Encyclopedia Brittanica cannot be used to state that 31% of Mexico's population are "other" ethnic groups on which European ancestry is significant despite such statement appearing in source because the pie chart says 31% "other" but he has no such problem when it comes to the World Factbook which says that 10% of Mexico's population are other (months earlier he understood what Encyclopedia Brittanica was saying as he added himself that White Mexicans are about one third of the population to the infobox but then started claiming that he didn't read the source well).
• Has repeatedly removed tables related to blood groups in Mexico claiming them to be SYNTH and OR when literally ever single sentence used in the article appears in source (explained with extreme detail here).
• Days ago he added a failed verification tag to a source because it doesn't seem to support that the term "light skinned Mexican" is commonly used even though by now he is undeniably well aware that such term is very commonly used and earlier the same day he removed multiple sources that use it right before tagging that source.

There's even more edits by him that are like this, but I think this gives a good idea of the way this editor is acting, when confronted about any of this on talk pages he will ignore the discussions and move onto other articles to do the same contested edits and more, if one tries to edit those articles he reverts them claiming OR, SYNTH etc. or that an editor does not have consensus (as if his edits that remove a huge amount of sources had consensus or didn't needed to be discussed to begin with). I've written on Grayfell's talk page twice but he closes/deletes my messages so it seems this venue is needed. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Notification process is processed. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've issued Grayfell the notification about this discussion on their talk page - please remember to do so next time. Not going to comment on their conduct. » Gommeh (he/him) 00:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

GommehI did so nearly at the same time as you, now there's a duplicate notice in there, thank you for your attention regardless. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Gommeh, it's disruptive to snipe ANI posts notifications. You didn't wait 100 seconds after the post before sniping and complaining. Wait a few minutes. 12.75.115.75 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Must not have seen the time lmao » Gommeh (he/him) 01:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The timestamps are on the posts. Maybe it was 120 seconds instead of 100. You didn't contribute anything, you simply sniped a warning and walked away. Not constructive, disruptive. 12.75.115.78 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It takes way less time than that to go to their talk page and copy paste the template but point taken. I'd expect it to be done in 30-45secs max since it has to be done soon after. » Gommeh (he/him) 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been simmering for a while. In my opinion, this is filibustering by Pob3qu3 to preserve their preferred changes, and I don't accept that Pob3qu3's summary of these edits is accurate.

Here's my brief summary: In the last few months I've tried to clean-up these articles. There is a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH etc. related to this topic. One problem here is that some of this content is/was superficially supported by sources (at a glance) but some of if has been totally unsupported. Sources are also interwoven and selectively chosen, which makes untangling this a chore. These dense text-wads are usually copy/pasted across multiple articles without regard for context or due weight. Multiple times I have found some bit of wording which was poorly supported by a source and thought 'didn't I already remove this?' only to realize it was at some other article.

I have spent months trying to explain the issues with these changes, but Pob3qu3 either doesn't understand what I've been saying or chooses not to accept it. In January I started this: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 53#White Mexicans and blood type. I thought focusing on a single issue would be helpful, but this was a mistake. It dragged on far, far, far too long, and I can't reasonably expect anyone to read the whole thing, but my interpretation is that there was, at least, broad consensus for some sort of change. I was certainly not the only editor to see problems with Pob3qu3's understanding of Wikipedia's policies. In response, Pob3qu3 filed a spurious retaliatory SPI against me and their other apparent opponents. As far as I can tell, they have not acknowledged how inappropriate that was, much less apologized. In February, Tiggerjay started this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus which lead to more filibustering and CIVILPOV.

There is also a WP:FRINGE issue. It appears that all of Pob3qu3's edits have been related to race and ethnicity in Mexico. Most of these edits have been related to what percentage of Mexico's population is "White". Pob3qu3 is willing to disparaged or editorialized some sources to death, sometimes without sources at all (as one of many examples). Other sources, no matter how flimsy or passing, are included in excessive detail, again with unsupported editorializing and commentary (a later edit from the same batch). Parts of these edits have lingered in the article for years, and even when sourced, the wording is often adjusted without apparent regard for those sources. Obviously, this is a mess. Occasionally other editors have tried to clean this mess up,(one arbitrary example) but Pob3qu3 has restored their preferred wording, citing 'consensus' or similar. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Your reply reads as if there hasn't been discussion and changes in the recent months related to these points when there has been newer discussions and consensus, at times with the participation of other editors even, like on the article of Mexico. One of the biggest issues here is that you prefer to remove completely reliable sources instead of discussing rewordings/rephrasings (it is clear by now that I do not oppose rephrasings that are closer to source or that reduce editorializing), at times you've made proposals which I've told you are good but then you never talk about them again and instead keep removing reliable sources. The SPI was dismissed for being a content dispute, not sure what else to say about this as many SPIs are filled in the midst of severe content disputes, you probably could go to the SPI noticeboard and find examples of this right now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd propose indefinitely topic banning Pob3qu3 from racial topics. It's astonishing that editors put up with the tendentious arguments in the "Contentious" discussion they linked. Pob3qu3 says they reached consensus with other editors, but I'm instead seeing other editors raise serious issues with Pob3qu3's proposal leading to no consensus at all in February. Then, in April, one other editor joined and agreed with Pob3qu3, at which point the proposal was inserted into the article. It's not unreasonable to revert and restart discussion in a situation like that, and the diff is misleadingly presented here. I find others to be misleading as well. In looking into this, the verbosity of both Pob3qu3 and Grayfell was a barrier to understanding, so I'd urge both editors not to bludgeon this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers did you read the discussion carefully? as the February-April discussion progressed everybody proposed and was ok with the different paragraph proposals except Grayfell, in fact he was the only one being called out by other editors for being uncooperative . Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That was an exhausting read. Looks like FF counted correctly, One editor agreed with you. You linked to both comments that agree. They are both from the same person. 12.75.115.75 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Well given that there was 4 active editors in the discussion, (me, Grayfell and other two) that amounts to something doesn't it? Also, Even if only one called out his uncooperative behavior directly all editors except Grayfell were ok with the proposed additions to the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I hesitate to ask, but have you had a look at WP:NORN#White Mexicans and blood type? I'm fairly sure that's the noticeboard report @Johnuniq refers to below. Yes, it's still about racial topics, but... -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems you didn't link to the actual report, but in the talk page of White Mexicans there's currently a discussion focused on sources realted to blood groups, as that one progressed, issues with Grayfell similar to those observed in the article of Mexico arose, as simply every text proposal was SYNTH to him, it got to the point that I had to make an extremely literal and detailed explanation to him even giving him the page and paragraph number for each sentence for him to leave the tables on the article until he returned to remove them months later still claiming it to be SYNTH. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3, please do not assume intent of other editors. I linked precisely where I meant to. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, if I'm picking up what you're putting down, you're saying that discussion is evidence that a stricter sanction might be needed. I don't disagree, but even this limited TBAN hasn't gained any explicit support. As with many ANI reports, bludgeoning can make response from uninvolved editors/admins difficult. Maybe we need a subsection for the sanction proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I honestly find confusing how you've been repeatedly trying to get me sanctioned on this discussion despite all the diffs in the opening report that exhibit questionable behavior from Grayfell (most of which you haven't on commented yet) and a ban/block for Grayfell having actually received clearer support. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, yes, you've read me correctly. Truthfully, I'm struggling to articulate a satisfying reason why I shouldn't at least set an indefinite pblock from the most-affected articles and talk pages (eg Mexico, White Latin Americans, etc), if not a unilateral indef. Presently the most satisfying one is "well, Firefangledfeathers didn't, and they're very sensible". The comment above, asserting that a ban for Grayfell has clearer support, is yet another mystifying example of the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to articulate a satisfying reason why I shouldn't One would be that to block an editor (without any actual reason, all that you've commented on me is that I make lenghty replies) that filled a report with several diffs showing questionable behavior at best from another editor would set a negative precedent and drive away other editors from using ANI or another noticeboards to report conflicts in the future. Another reason would be that you haven't commented on any of the aforementioned questionable diffs at all, which is totally relevant to this discussion as much of my lenghty replies have been caused by the behavior that Grayfell exhibits in those diffs (not replying to discussion and instead going to remove sources from other articles for example, thing that he did even after being reported here ).

The comment above, asserting that a ban for Grayfell has clearer support, is yet another mystifying example of the problem This looks like a more explicit and substantiated ban proposal to me and so is my subsequent reply in support . Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, I do find that Pob3qu3 has the lack of receptivity to feedback that often leads to an indef being necessary, but I didn't see enough for a unilateral siteblock yet. The pblock suggestion is a good one, and I hadn't considered it. Part of me feels that once you get past 4 or so pblocks (if we're including talk pages), a TBAN is probably a better sanction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That's true. @Firefangledfeathers, if you'd like to start a subsection for the tban proposal, I do have hopes that will help. I'll certainly support. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

So, what's an appropriate way/mechanism (this is, that is not considered that I'm bludgeoning/filibustering etc.) to get the discussion to focus on the behavior of the user who was actually reported to ANI, a quick glance to other ANI reports show that discussion pertinent to the behavior of the reported user is the one that is prioritized and for some reason that is not happening here, the big majority of the discussion has been focused on the comments in the talk page of Mexico with the rest of the diffs (objectivelly unjustified tagging/removal of sources) being almost completely ignored, in fact various times I've called the discussion to focus on the behavior/diffs rather than to recreate the discussion of the talk page of Mexico here (which is like the opposite of bludgeoning). Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The above comment is one sentence. This, and the description of my edits as objectivelly unjustified, are good demonstrations of Pob3qu3's battleground mentality. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

How is it justified to tag as failed verification a source that textually states that Mexicans from the western regions of Mexico "resemble the northern Spanish people -tall, well built, often with blue eyes..." because because according to your summary it doesn't mention the term White? Another example would be you repeatedly removing mentions of blond hair being used as a criteria to classify a Mexican as White from different articles when its verifiable in the page 19 (I told you this on talk pages before) here besides removing mention of blond hair again you also tag it as a primary source when it isn't (the American Sociological Association is retelling field research carried out by Mexico's MIT panel made years earlier) or as failed verification even after being reported here for doing so. These are some examples of edits by you that simply have no possible justification. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Pob3qu3's reply to me above is a neat illustration of the problem for those who want quick insight.

1. Pob3qu3 says "all editors except Grayfell were ok with the proposed additions"
2. Johnuniq's last two comments in the February–April discussion were warnings to Pob3qu3 about staying on-topic and the very clear "Do not edit the article with anything concerning Mexican ethnic composition unless there is a positive prior consensus." (comment 1, comment 2)
3. Tiggerjay's last two comments in the discussion were both expressing skepticism that sources discussing about skin-color-based discrimination correlate exactly with estimates of racial population numbers (1, comment 2). TJ had gone to great lengths to be clear that their silence afterward should not be taken as agreement: "understand that my silence is NOT to be interpreted as agreement or consent. As such, do not consider my absence from conversations consent, but rather more of a WP:DFTT and WP:BAIT mitigation" (user talk comment).
4. Remsense's last few comments were exhortations to follow the sources, ending with the warning to "Just say what sources say, and don't go out of your way to make other points if they're not themselves expressly stated by sources. If the sources don't support a specific percentage, don't add one implicitly. That's tendentious." (comment)
5. Davemc0 did a commendable amount of crafting compromise proposals and grew evidently frustrated with the length of the discussion, blaming Grayfell in particular. They dropped out with support for their last proposal and advice for Pob3qu3: "when your patience wears thin you try to pull in fresh opinions, such as at WP:DRN". (comment). Davemc0's proposal was completely different from the content Pob3qu3 eventually added to the article, so there's no reason to assume Davemc0 was "ok with the proposed additions". (see collapsed comparison below)
6. Vers2333 was the only one who was actually ok with the proposal. Vers2333 joined the discussion on April 20 to support Pob3qu3's changes, and Pob3qu3 inserted them a day later.

Collapsed comparison of versions

Dacemc0's version:

White Mexicans are another major ethnic group in the country; and according to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population, and Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.Studies in 2017 and 2022 by the Mexican Institute of Geography and Statistics were framed in terms of skin tone, rather than race. In the 2022 study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones.

Pob3qu3's version:

Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity), according to 2017 and 2022 surveys by Mexico's Council to Prevent Discrimination 28-29% of Mexican people identified with light skin tones, more than 40% did so in a 2010 survey. Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 31% of Mexico's population are other ethnic groups of which White Mexicans are a significant component. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.

Pob3qu3 deeply misrepresented the discussion, and this came after I expressed concerns about the initial diffs being misrepresented. This editor is abusing ANI after they abused SPI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Actually the first venue on which I tried to open this complaint was DRN, but turns out its limited to 2000 characters so it wasn't possible for me to make this case there. On my previous reply, I specified "active editors" or what would be editors that activelly participed on the discussion, Johnuniq and Remsense were not active on it, Tiggerjay was more active on the discussion (albeit left early) and his posture is more complex as he claimed that the proposed paragraph was fine as long as it was specified that it was physicial appeareance, to which I replied that it was no issue because Mexico's government ethnographic research is based on physical appeareance, then on his final comment he talked about how the article of White Mexicans described them as being people of European ancestry, not people of European appeareance, to which I replied that I was ok with changing the definition of White Mexicans on their article to Mexicans of European appeareance (I still want to do this change), so I think it can be said that if we count Tiggerjay, there was actually 4 editors favouring the paragraph additions in one shape or form (me, Davemc0, Vers2333, and Tiggerjay) vs 1 (Grayfell). Regarding the differences between Davemc0 and my version, that's actually Vers2333 version which I added because he was the last person to make a proposal (and it isn't that different of the other versions). Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Also, you've been focusing only on a tiny part of the problem (the discussion in the talk page of Mexico) what about all other edits and behaviors of Grayfell such as mass removal of sources and abandoning discussions on multiple talk pages (and even erasing my comments from his talk page) that I pointed out at the start of my complaint? Don't those warrant filling a report?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on their past talk page behavior, Pob3qu3 will drag this on indefinitely, if they are allowed to.

In one of Pob3qu3's comments they link above, they say "in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry". I think this is useful as an example of the quality of editing here. This statement is not factually or logically correct. I'm not convinced it was even all that relevant to the discussion. The proposed phrase "Mexicans of European appearance" is just a clunky and euphemistic way of saying 'White Mexicans'. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not use phrase "Mexicans of European appearance" at all, much less define what that actually means in a usable way. This is a pseudo-compromise. Trying to tweak the wording cannot bypass the much deeper source and OR issues, and this is another example of where it would make these problems worse.

WP:USERTALKSTOP is not a valid justification for bringing my behavior to this noticeboard. I have already explained the problems with these edits multiple times on multiple pages in excruciating detail. Demanding that I re-re-re-explain these issues is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained the problems with these edits multiple times on multiple pages in excruciating detail Most of the examples on my report haven't been explained at all, even when I asked you directly to do so in the talk pages, and in the case of the ones you explain your explanations are like what you just said in your last reply about how the statement "in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry is not factually or logically correct", how isn't it factually or logically correct that a person of European appeareance has European ancestry? If I'm dragging or better said, contesting your edits is because the reasonings you are using to remove several reliable sources are disconcerting to be honest. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Even though he is in the midst of a discussion here on ANI, Grayfell has moved on to continue the mass removal reliable sources/text from other articles, this time in the article of Mexicans, the behavior he exhibits here is similar to how he would ignore my questions on talk page discussions and continue removing sources/texts from articles. As can be seen various of his edits are direct reincidencies of points for which he was reported, such as the removal of text regarding blood type distribution and the removal of Encyclopedia Brittanica and ethnic discrimination surveys performed by Mexico's government (that its "editorializing" is not really a valid argument for their removal, as a more literal rephrasing of those sources had already been agreed upon), regarding those governmental surveys in particular, in the previous diff and in the article of White People a dynamic can be seen on which Grayfell does not remove these sources completely from the article, but removes their results only (an example of the more literal phrasing of these sources that I talk about appears there), I've commented to him that this is rather odd but he hasn't said anything about it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Right now, the lead article in WP:DYK is about one Diandra Forrest (which I have had the honor of writing most of). She has white skin, blonde hair, and green eyes; in fact she is known for it. And this is not at all due to European ancestry. --GRuban (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

According to her article that is because she has albinism, which is a health condition that is not related to race/ethnicity, not sure why to bring it here. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

In multiple places throughout this section you state that the presence of these characteristics - white skin, blonde hair - is a way to determine European ancestry. In fact the paragraph I'm responding to is one of them, "how isn't it factually or logically correct that a person of European appeareance[sic] has European ancestry?" Here is a specific case where it is neither factually nor logically correct. Since her picture is on the main page right now, I could not help but see the fallacy. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

You are overlooking that albinism is a fairly rare condition and the fact that the source we were talking about uses the term European (I hope this reply, for being to a comment that is aimed at me is not taken as bludgeoning too!). Pob3qu3 (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:VNOT, the simple fact that a source exists for something doesn't necessarily guarantee inclusion. And at least at a glance, the arguments made here (that eg. the source doesn't mention the term "white" and its usage is therefore WP:SYNTH / WP:OR, or that these are primary sources that are being misused) are reasonable ones. (Also, at a glance, Pob3qu3 was using opinion pieces for statements of fact in the article voice, which is generally inappropriate even before the risk of WP:SYNTH - eg. an opinion piece from El Universal is used here as a source for the statement that seems to be at the core of the dispute.) And Pob3qu3 is clearly misrepresenting the consensus - going over the discussion here, I see Tiggerjay, Grayfell, and Johnuniq all raising core concerns with the proposed additions that don't seem to have been really addressed. Beyond that, if you feel that there's a consensus, the thing to do is to take a concrete proposal and start an WP:RFC on it, or identify the locus of dispute and hold an RFC on that. There's certainly not a clear-cut enough consensus to rush to WP:ANI just because someone disagrees, anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Aquillion do you think that tagging this source because it doesn't mention the term White like Grayfell did was reasonable or were you talking about another of the events included on my initial report?. Also the opinion piece and other press sources were used because they speak about the social dynamics the government surveys were documenting, press sources are one of the best resource for this I think. It has to noted that since then I made a proposal using another governmental source to back that statement and Grayfell rejected it (Later I even made a proposal without using Encyclopedia Brittanica and he rejected it too), to later on admit that the contested statement has always been obvious. Johnuniq didn't really participate on the discussion and I already elaborated in deep about Tiggerjay concerns. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, let's look at that tag. The source is from 1963 (which does matter), the ISBN was wrong, and it didn't appear to be directly supporting the attached claim. I tagged it so someone with access to that specific edition of that source can verify it. The source is still in the article, just with more context.

There are so many issues like this throughout the topic.

As for press sources being the best, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:EDITORIALIZING, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS are all important on Wikipedia. We have been over this. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You went to tag that source on other articles after even after I showed you a direct citation to it, in fact, its still tagged (similarly to what you do to the American Sociological Association source, which you keep tagging even after I showed you a direct link to it and I explained how it is not a primary source). Going on more detail regarding the press sources, they are one of the best sources to document social phenomena, mainstream usage of terms aswell as social dynamics. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on more than FOUR MONTHS after we tried to resolve it! As you summarized, I jumped in and tried to help in mid-late February. We DID have a consensus on about Feb. 14. I believe it was me, Tiggerjay, and Pob3qu3 in favor of a certain version, and then Grayfell opposed. This continued with proposed edit after proposed edit for the next two-ish weeks, and on Feb. 27 Grayfell finally broke me and I checked out.

I just scanned through Talk:Mexico again, and Pob3qu3 has continued for all these months to put in sincere work to make an acceptable and positive contribution to the article. He had a few proposals with WP:SYNTH or WP:CALC problems that needed to be corrected, but I found that he was surprisingly willing to learn, adapt, and accommodate others' feedback. Grayfell has come at this differently. He's a more experienced editor. He has much stronger and more academic beliefs about race, ethnicity, and skin color, and the interplay between them. He clearly doesn't want any of Pob3qu3's or others' changes to go into these articles until he finds them absolutely flawless. And he has a great deal of energy for critiquing / criticizing others' proposed edits, while somehow not having energy to improve them. Specifically, in my perusal of the sordid Talk:Mexico page I find 52 comments by Grayfell. I classify these as follows: Complaint / criticism: 30; Requests that others make changes or find more sources: 12; Arguments or procedural discussion: 9; Proposed contributions: 1.

While he expects Pob3qu3 to do all the work to make an edit that is perfect in Grayfell's eyes, Grayfell (from what little I've read) does plenty of edits in this same mildly contentious topic space, but without any collaboration. This feels very unfair. I have the strong sense that Grayfell is behaving like the older child with a sharp pin of criticism. Every time Pob3qu3 works hard to blow up a balloon and present it for acceptance, Grayfell trivially pops it with his pin and sends him back to start all over again, when instead he could've put in a little bit of effort and actually helped reshape the balloon into something more acceptable to him.

I'm a little rusty on my WP policies. I really don't know what the solution is, except for Grayfell to complain less and help more. Maybe a TBAN on race for six months, with the exception that he be allowed to contribute proposed changes on a talk page, but not make other talk page comments. Davemc0 (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the issue following a report at a noticeboard. I tried to get the participants to focus on a single contested assertion so that the claim and its source could be evaluated. Despite reading several walls of text, I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source. From what I saw, Grayfell was the only editor capable of understanding my request. It's pretty simple: what goes in an article has to be verifiable, so provide a source that directly supports the proposed text. In the hour that I spent trying to find a needle in the talk-page haystack, the very few concrete assertions I found were not supported by the provided source. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Davemc0 proposal, don't know if from the topic of race as a whole as he has made various comments that clash with the content of the article of White people itself, like Devemc0 says, Grayfell has very academic/personal views of race as he states that a definition of White people does not exist and cannot ever exist while the article of White people states that its generally agreed to be applied to people with predominant European ancestry (he has inserted this view into the article of White Mexicans ) but a ban (or block) at least from race/ethnicity topics related to Mexico for Grayfell is appropriate. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This is another distraction from the fundamental point. Rather than post diffs of someone commenting in a wasteland talk page, please post a link to a straightforward proposed change with supporting source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq three different users made proposals with sources (and other was ok with them as long as it was stated that was based on appeareance/physical traits) in the Mexico talk page and you didn't like any?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please post a link to a straightforward proposed change with supporting source. As requested before, please do not talk about anything else such as "three different users" or "didn't like any". Comments that are padded out with distractions add up to impenetrable walls of text. Focus on article content. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq you are overlooking that a little ago Grayfell acknowledged that the contested text (whose addition was one of the main reasons behind the original conflict, other being the removal Encyclopedia Brittanica) has always been obvious, in other words, for months he was arguing, denouncing SYNTH/OR and demanding/rejecting multiple sources for a piece of text that Grayfell all along knew was obvious, no straightforward change with a supported source was ever going to convince him, in fact even after he admited that the text is obvious he is not convinced of its addition yet. Grayfell's tendency to accusse that a piece of text/source he dislikes is SYNTH/OR/unverified etc. infinitely no matter what one presents or does to back it up when he knows the text/source is actually ok is a common denominator on this conflict and likely on other edit conflicts he's gotten into on Wikipedia. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 is badly misrepresenting my words and actions here. There is one point in particular that I want to address: At no point did I say that "a definition of White people does not exist and cannot ever exist". I said that no universal definition of "White people" can exist. There are many definitions of white people, but many of these sources don't bother defining it at all. Picking a source that mentions (often in passing) European ancestry, or arbitrarily light skin tone, and then using that to make simplistic claims about "White people" is textbook WP:SYNTH. That is one of the core issues here, and I'm not sure why having an "academic view of race" is supposed to be a bad thing.

As for the proposal, yet gain, the proposed source doesn't support the proposed wording. My 'acknowledgement' is just another attempt to explain this fundamental problem. In order to cite that source at all, the wording had to become so vague it was pointless filler language that stated the obvious. This is a waste of a source and a waste of the reader's time. Just like these talk pages, the articles do not need more pointless filler. Grayfell (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You are once again saying simultaneously that a source doesn't support the proposed text and that the proposed text is obvious, don't you see the contradiction there? also, even on instances on which I've copied text that outright appears on the article of Mexico (this is, without the proposed/disputed text on it) like in here you keep removing it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3, @Johnuniq isn't "overlooking" anything. He has a very clear request: post a link to a straightforward proposed change with a supporting source. Don't post anything else. Just that. -- asilvering (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think ANI is not really to discuss content to such extent or is it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Truly astonishing that you have been accused of filibustering, I can't imagine why. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Actually the first venue on which I tried to open this complaint was DRN, but turns out its limited to 2000 characters so it wasn't possible for me to make this case there. Pob3qu3, I think this should have triggered a moment of self-reflection. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since a couple of weeks ago I realized that to bring this issue to a noticeboard was likely going to be needed but I was unsure on which would be the best one. Looking at the fact that even after being reported here Grayfell continued with the removing/tagging of sources I think this was the best course of action. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  We are not going to have a discussion about content here but that does not rule out posting a link. The issue is that above I wrote "I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source". Your options are to post a link, or to decline, or to state that no link is available because there is no straightforward proposal with source. Declining would indicate an unwillingness or inability to collaborate and that should have consequences because litigating an issue (what issue!?) for an extended period while being unable to follow simple advice would be highly disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  The thing is, when you say "I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source" you are being being highly subjective and holding an opinion that is not shared by most editors that participated in the discussion. Among the proposals in the talk page there were various about skin color stating what given percentage of Mexicans identified with light skin colors, and the source that states so is there too, like outright there (here are direct diffs so I don't have to copy-paste each here), if those still doesn't look like straighforward proposals to you I don't know what would, they look like an straightforward proposals to me and to the other editors that participated (except Grayfell). Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  The first proposal is above the signature found by searching for "05:22, 14 February 2025" at Talk:Mexico#Contentious (permalink). The discussion following the proposal shows a lot of doubt with people pointing out that the document was not a census, and that certain text in the proposal was not verified in the source. I was hoping for something more straightforward and which did not require an hour's work to decipher. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor that showed doubt (Tiggerjay) accepted it later as long as it was stated that it was based on physical appeareance, here's the exchange I had with him about it on Mexico's talk page (I've linked it on here before. Also, that a proposal is straightforward and that another editor externs doubts for what seems (according to those diffs) his own conceptions of race/ethnicity shaped by personal experiences are different things, the proposal is very straightforward. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That ain't straightforward.

Here is a comment I made on Talk:Mexico on 29 May where I attempt to summarize Pob3qu3's updated proposal. I gave three reasons I don't think the proposal would work. As far as I can tell, Pob3qu3 hasn't really sufficiently addressed any of these, or just doesn't see them as valid. Or maybe they have addressed the issues and I just didn't understand what they were saying. I guess maybe Pob3qu3 misunderstood what I meant when I said I wanted more context from the source itself, because in follow-up proposals, they started copy/pasting the entire paragraph every time they made any minor adjustments to any sentence of the proposal. This seems pretty WP:POINTed to me. The talk page was already very, very bloated. It's now about 177,000 bytes. It was less than 5,000 when this began. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• I guess maybe Pob3qu3 misunderstood what I meant when I said I wanted more context from the source... In that reply you kind of explained (albeit still vaguely) what you meant with the context thing, what I understood is that you wanted the source to be mentioned in context alongside other sources that mentioned things such as social inequalities, discrimination, skin color etc. to which I replied to you right away that such context (this is, mentions of social inequalities, skin color) is already present in the article and you added it yourself (even the term European is present), in the comment that you linked in your last reply you are also once again saying that the contested text is obvious while at the same time saying that a source that exactly says is needed, but even if I put the contested text aside (and even put Encyclopedia Brittanica aside) and add solely whats present in the race and Ethnicity section of Mexico you keep reverting me claiming that its SYNTH. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Pob3qu3, you seem to have missed the point of Asilvering's post (either that or I have misinterpreted it). It is that you should have reflected on the fact that you are far too verbose. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  You have not misinterpreted the post. -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Pob3qu3 from race topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pob3qu3 has edited tendentiously at multiple race-related articles, talk pages, and noticeboard discussions. Issues include SYNTH, OR, bludgeoning, and failure to drop sticks, all of which have persisted after warnings. I propose the we indefinitely TBAN Pob3qu3 from race topics, broadly construed. Hopefully Pob3qu3 can absorb the feedback given so far, edit more collaboratively in other topic areas, and successfully appeal after a good long while has passed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Maybe a ban from making TL;DR reports at ANI too? This seems to have wasted far too much of everybody's time without any merit. Just clicking on a few of the links complained about at the outset shows Grayfell making good removals of bad content. I mean, wtf does anybody think that completely irrelevant stuff about blood groups was about? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  Additional note: I have now skimmed Pob3qu3's contribution history going back a year and then got bored and jumped to the first page, from 2017. They are very close to being a continuous SPA on this topic, to the point where a TBAN would not be much different from a block. I do see a few edits which are about Mexico but not about race but it is a very small proportion of the total. They also have also edited the Spanish language Wikipedia on exactly the same topics. I recommend that a Spanish speaker look into those edits too and alert the administrators there, if necessary. DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Severe WP:IDHT, plus the clearly retaliatory proposal below. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck can the proposal be considered retaliatory when its the user on which the report was filled on to begin with? I'm also not the original proposer. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not call the proposal retaliatory, since it's clearly what you've been hoping for since before this sub-section was opened. However, you were the original proposer. You've even supported as proposer. -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

asilvering I guess its a matter of semanthics? I mean Firefangledfeathers was the original proposer of this ban and opened this section themselves. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Of particular note is FFF's explanatory comment here and the (months ago) discussion at WP:NORN#White Mexicans and blood type. The WP:IDHT behaviour is chronic and not improving, as can be seen in this very thread. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Particularly convincing is the evidence from Firefangledfeathers, which shows intractable issues. It's a tricky and contentious area to be editing in, and no evidence they are able to do so in a manner that would avoid future disruption. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I haven't been able to get through to Pob3qu3, despite months of attempts. I'm sure someone else could have better chances. Until then, Pob3qu3 has exhausted good faith and has not demonstrated the ability to edit in a collaborative environment. Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Constant WP:IDHT and bludgeoning can be seen both above and in the linked discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is unsubstantiated and the accusations vague, a brief example could the two editors above mentioning the blood types discussion, with claims such as it being irrelevant to race/ethnicity topics even though many sources exist that claim that blood type diversity is related to ethnic diversity, in fact the source that was the main point of the blood types discussion states so as soon as in the page 1 (which I pointed out with detail during the discussion , I don't think that to want to include and follow what reliable sources say can or should be considered bludgeoning/hear etc. (I read the pages related to such policies and they do not elaborate on whether this includes defending a point that is backed by reliable sources or not, I think it is be important to clarify that). The proposer also states that all the things I'm being accused of have persisted even after warnings, thing that is unsibstantiated, actually I've been commended by other editors I've interacted with in those discussions. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that continued kvetching along these lines could well justify an even stronger sanction, either as disruptive behaviour or under WP:CIR. At best, this is an editor who doesn't realise that they are engaged in original synthesis and who won't listen to anybody who tries to tell them. At worst, this is just POV pushing nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Here you claimed that "stuff about blood groups was irrelevant" to the topic of race and ethnicity, so I showed you multiple reliable sources that assert that blood group diversity is related to ethnic diversity, don't know how that could be SYNTH really. As I said on my previous oppose comment, I think that to clarify whether to defend content that is backed by multiple reliable sources constitutes bludgeoning/hear etc. or not is needed (for this one and for future cases). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in objective truths, such as whether X is objectively backed by WP:RSes Y. Every editor believes they're right. That's why Wikipedia deals with consensus. Note that WP:BLUDGEON does not differentiate between whether someone is right or wrong, only when that person is inappropriately dominating the conversation. So yes, if you find yourself responsible for a disproportionate amount of posts in a discussion, backing off is the appropriate response. After all, if you're right, someone else will pick up the slack. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in objective truths, such as whether X is objectively backed by WP:RSes Y. Every editor believes they're right. That's why Wikipedia deals with consensus... This is not entirely true, the lede of WP:NPOV states that all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic must be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias and goes as far as to say that such principle cannot be superseded by editor consensus (meaning that to supress as much well sourced content as is being supressed on this case is against this policy). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

You've missed the point. What constitutes "significant views", "reliable sources", etc., are all editor opinions since, as far as I know, humans lack an organ that senses objective truth. And everyone thinks their opinion is right. I hope you can understand this, because if someone can't accept that they might be wrong in their interpretation of facts, they might not be a good fit for the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

What constitutes "significant views", "reliable sources", etc., are all editor opinions since, as far as I know, humans lack an organ that senses objective truth. Wikipedia does have various policies designed to determine which sources belong in an article and which ones don't (Governmental sources, books, and peer reviewed sources being the preffered ones), and in case of more serius disagreement regarding the quality of other sources noticeboards such as Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution exist, in fact back then, I told Grayfell to take the disagreement about the Blood types source to "Third Opinion" if he was so convinced that it didn't belong on the article but he didn't, Encyclopedia Brittanica is another source that could be taken to such noticeboards. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have various policies... yes, which are all interpreted by humans who cannot determine objective truth. I tried to explain to you, but at this point, you're not hearing me. I'll take my own advice; I trust the community will tell me if they believe bludgeoning does not apply when an editor believes they're right. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel safe in asserting that your interpretation is correct, and it's still bludgeoning, even when one is Righting Great Wrongs. Especially given the utter determination to not hear or understand what anyone is saying to them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your words, but then what would be a proper way to "Right the Wrongs" that couldn't be considered bludgeoning? As I said above maybe noticeboards such as Dispute Resolution, though in cases such as the tagging of sources shown in the diffs at the start of my report I honestly didn't thought specialized venues like those were going to be necessary. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support IDHT, unconstructive editing, etc plus a short block for bludgeoning. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Tendentious, bad-faith timewasting has gone on long enough. Zaathras (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Tendentious, bad-faith timewasting indeed. DeCausa (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: 6 month TBAN for Grayfell from race topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Retaking Davemc0's proposal Grayfell has shown to be deeply uncollaborative on discussions and has refused to work with other editors on articles related to this topic, additionally he has a tendency to remove reliable sources selectivelly with misleading edit summaries (see diffs on opening report) and ignores talk page discussions on which he is asked to explain such edits, the fact that he has continued doing so after being reported to ANI (and repeating edits for which he was reported for ) is a good example of his problematic behavior and makes clear why such restriction is needed. Pob3qu3 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• I support as nominator as I told Davemc0 before , in fact now I'm more convinced that such sanction is needed for Grayfell. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Entirely without merit. Just glancing at a few of the diffs shows good removals of bad content. Boomerang worthy. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Grayfell's conduct appears, from evidence presented in this thread, to be well within Wikipedia's norms. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Grayfell is a very careful editor, who works carefully and collegially, well within the norms and policies for this project, and this despite working in a contentious area. This proposal appears to be without merit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I know you are free to "vote" however you want but, how is for example tagging a source that describes Mexicans from the western regions of Mexico as being very European looking because according to Grayfell it doesn't mention the term "White" well within Wikipedia's norms?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3, please refrain from directly replying to individual participants here. You've already said your piece many times above. If you'd like to make a general comment about these two tban proposals, feel free to open a new subsection below for general discussion of the proposal. (But please, just one comment there, too.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

While not the norm, I've seen that to have some discussion below votes is not that rare, specially in atypical cases, which I think this one is. Through this entire discussion it has been as if nobody wanted to talk about Grayfell edits, which I'm convinced evidently go against Wikipedia's guidelines and its confusing really. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Another atypical thing I just noticed was that on this diff here the editor Sirfurboy removed a comment by asilvering, and on a case that is not even this one, Sirfurboy what happened there?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It was some weird edit conflict, now fixed. I suspect I must have somehow been looking at a specific rendition of the page when I edited, as I got no warning. Nothing to see here though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Grayfell means well, but is so overly careful with other people's proposed changes in these topics as to be obstructionist. As I see interpret it, his chronic unwillingness to contribute to any proposed change or help move any proposal toward consensus is a strong negative for the project. If he were willing to help more and criticize less, we definitely would not be where we are and these articles would be in a much better state. Davemc0 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Obviously petty and retaliatory, and also meritless. Zaathras (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - obviously retaliatory.

MiasmaEternal☎ 22:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, with the pushing of this proposal and the misrepresentation of the evidence being a point in favor of the Pob3qu3 TBAN proposal above. I wouldn't describe Grayfell's conduct as being perfect. In particular, I'd counsel him to respond about half as often with about half as many words. That said, his pursuit of policy compliance has been commendable, and few of us could act perfectly when confronted with tendentious editing at P's level. G has participated in talk page discussion, the prior ANI discussion about P (which also noted misrepresentation problems), the NORN discussion, and the abusive SPI P filed against G and others in the dispute. Through that lens, there has been a months-long community failure to properly address problematic content and conduct, and it would be shameful to sanction G for sticking in the trenches and getting a little messy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

I think this case has highlighted various moot points in Wikipedia's procedings that may be worth looking into with attention, such as the direct contradiction that exists between WP:NPOV and WP:BLUDGEON. WP:NPOV, which is a core policy on the site, states that all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic must be represented which is why I filled this case for, as if its looked at the diffs at the start of the case, much content backed by reliable sources is being removed, however because I've been wanting to uphold the principles of this policy Im being accused (with much seriousness) of bludgeoning and what not by multiple editors. I think its necessary that such policy contradictions are cleared out to prevent scenarios like the one seen on this case from happening (this surely isn't the first time it happens), as they ultimately have a negative impact on the project as the quality and variety of content of the articles diminishes and dedicated editors are driven away. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Everybody here has looked at at least some of the diffs. They do not agree with your characterisation of them. They see the whole report as meritless because it is. Now you want the rules changed to make it easier for you to disrupt Wikipedia? Or maybe you just want to bog us down in pointless metadiscussion? Irrespective of whether this is sincere or done in bad faith, this can't go on. Clearly, there is no prospect of making you understand this if you do not already.

I worry that, if only topic banned from race, then the disruption may spread into other areas. I think we need a reasonable length block here with the understanding that any further disruption, whether in the form of bogus reports, insertion of OR or SYNTH, or anything else, would lead to an indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

More than wanting rules changed, I want there to be clarification on the rules that currently exist, especially relevant to this case is the part on WP:NPOV that states that such policy supercedes user consensus, because that "its me vs other editors" is all that has been used against me on here. It is also important to clarify it because as its been used on here, any piece of information on Wikipedia, (even official governmental sources) can be removed if one or more editors decide so, because they can accuse the editor defending the source of bludgeoning/hear. Replying to your note here, to not make the discussion lenghtier above, besides race and ethnicity on my edits I have updated nearly the totallity of the information on multiple articles related to Mexico (over 90% of the edits in the timelapses on those diffs are mine), as much of it was still using sources from 2010. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

When you find that a very large number of people are forming an agreement that your behavior is disruptive, and no one is saying "Well actually I agree with Pob3qu3's interpretation of policy is right", you should perhaps consider the possibility that the way you're behaving is disruptive (possibly because your interpretation of policy is way out of line with the broader consensus, or possibly for other reasons). Then you should perhaps reflect on what you need to change about your behavior (and possibly your interpretations) to bring yourself into line with the standards that other people expect. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 to the IP. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Here on the case with the exception of Davemc0 most people are disagreeing with me (some rather energetically), however until before opening this case most editors active on this topic (cue the discussion in the article of Mexico) agreed with me, or at least we were discussing collaborativelly and seemed to have reached a consensus, during this time Grayfell was the only one actively opposing changes. Having editors who I have never seen before suddenly against me and commenting as if they have been in conflict/arguing with me on talk pages for months comes as a surprise (their participation would have been appreciated in those at the time), there's been no time to, as you say "reflect." Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Pob3qu3#Blanket Reply was February. -- asilvering (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

While that reads as something negative, Tiggerjay continued discussing (and addressed me directly) in the talk page of Mexico after that, his last reply on the matter was this one . Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This thread was started by you, 9 days ago; the basic pattern of almost everyone disagreeing with you has been uniform since the beginning. That's ample time. Even the hour between your response at 02:00 and 03:02 UTC would have been enough to do some reflection, but all you came up with is reflexive defensiveness. It is probably too late at this point to prevent yourself from being topic-banned (an outcome I think is very reasonable under the circumstances), but if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia in some other topics then you should still endeavor to learn something from this and improve so that you don't repeat the same mistakes elsewhere. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There's been important irregularities on this time though, for example Firefangledfeathers first comment being calling for me to be banned to then open the request themselves rather than waiting for an uninvolved editor to do so, which in practice invalidated my posteroir TBAN proposal for Grayfell (which I didn't open earlier because I was following the aforementioned principle of waiting for an uninvolved editor to propose it) as it was seen as retaliatory even though the focal point of when opening this case was Grayfell behavior. There's also the previously mentioned question of whether WP:NPOV supercedes user consensus or not, if it does then theres no causative for the ban, as all I've been doing the last months is trying to keep material, some of it being official governmental sources, from being removed of articles through different talk page discussions (and at the time of the discussions there was no opposition from multiple editors at all, the multiple editors opposing me started appearing here).

Even the hour between your response at 02:00 and 03:02 UTC would have been enough to do some reflection All that happened on that hour was Asilvering linking to a talk page discussion of mine, what was I supposed to say?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to consider the first Law of holes. You've made your case. If people are going to agree with you, they'll do so. It seems that the people who don't only become more firm in their opinions as you respond more. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, if somebody invalidated my posterior I wouldn't stop digging until I reached Australia. DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Nicknames03

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Nicknames03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been warned countless times recently to stop overlinking (also for other problematic edits) but they are still continuing to do this. No response on their talk page. In fact, every single edit of theirs is to mainspace. Mellk (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, i'll second this; i reverted one edit that appeared on my watchlist, took a look at the contributions, and i have now reverted another, maybe, dozen edits which added wlinks unnecessarily, before coming here.. If Nickames03 does not respond, a pblock from mainspace may be necessary to grab their attention ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It is a bit bizarre because a few days ago they decided to mass remove links (example) and now they are doing the complete opposite. Mellk (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG linking the nationality American to DAB page Americana like here and here is really bad and displays a distinct lack of clue. They presumably intend Americana (culture), but that would still be wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, i think that may be a typo ~ i've noticed them make several typos and then correct them in the next edit; possibly they didn't notice they'd hit the "a" instead of the "s" they intended in the William Morris Hunt diff (your second diff doesn't show "Americana" at all; the introduced wlink goes to Americans). I agree, though, on the lack of clue diagnosis ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Still no response or change in behavior. Can an admin p-block them from mainspace please? Mellk (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Still ongoing... Mellk (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPs from Paris appear to be block evasion by Pheonix hoe1998&

• Pheonix hoe1998& (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• 2A04:CEC0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Paris got blocked for NOR and SYNTH violations about five weeks ago, and they created a username to evade the block: Pheonix hoe1998&. The person was adding their own analysis to music articles. The IPs are doing the same thing again, which is that they are comparing chart stats between different albums, songs, and artists to create a narrative arc about the relative success of the music. This is a classic WP:SYNTH violation.

This IP range does not break down neatly into /64 groupings, even though it was a /64 that got blocked on 29 May: Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1923:757A:0:0:0:0/64. Multiple 64s are at play here. If we block the /32 there will be some collateral damage to good faith users, but I think the damage is minimal. Or we could block two /40s: Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40 and Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1900:0:0:0:0:0/40.

Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and bludgeoning by Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) won't stop WP:BLUDGEONING the RfC at Talk:Saddam Hussein despite being warned against doing so multiple times. They're leaving duplicate votes, repeatedly replying to other votes and telling editors why their choice is wrong. Given this pattern of disruption, I suggest they be topic banned from Saddam Hussein or Iraq-related articles. On Saddam Hussein, they've repeatedly reinstated their preferred edits despite multiple reverts. Their edits included loads of spelling and grammar errors, requiring extensive cleanup from other editors. They've made similar disruptive edits on Iraq, and repeatedly bloated the article unnecessarily. Skitash (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I never forced anyone to support my view in the RfC. I just gave my opinion like others did. In fact, I also supported some people's comments too. If I said I disagreed with someone, it was just part of the discussion — not to tell them they are wrong or force anything. If I replied to others, it was only to discuss my view — not to attack or dismiss anyone’s view. Whatever consensus adopted and finalize the resolution and wherever they reach, I would accept it. After @Abo Yemen told me about it, I stopped doing it.

About the grammar and spelling mistakes, yes, I admit that I made some errors. But that doesn’t mean I was trying to harm the page. If something was not written well, it could have just been improved or fixed — not used as a reason to suggest banning me. I’ve seen many others do the same — make mistakes, then fix or improve them with help from others.

Also, I haven’t made any edits to the Saddam Hussein page or any other Iraq-related major article for weeks now. I’ve stayed away on purpose, waiting for the RfC to be over. I’ve only shared thoughts on the talk page and have been working in my sandbox on related content.

I only spoke on the talk page, and I’ve been working on related topics in my sandbox, not in the main articles. You can check here Here

I know I’ve made mistakes, but I’m trying to do better. I’m open to working with others, following the rules, and building consensus. I hope we can sort this out without a topic ban, and I’m ready to cooperate with the community however needed.

----

Thank you

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This response was hatted because of suspicions that it was AI-generated. I think it is more important to allow the editor's opinion to be presented, otherwise it looks like they didn't respond to this complaint. It looks like you were censoring an editor who was being complained about. You can tolerate a brief LLM response. Please do not obscure their response by hatting their words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If you were talking to me, i wasn't the one who hatted it. PerryPerson (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Why would I think that, you haven't even commented in this discussion, PerryPerson. I don't care who hatted it and I understand why comments that are longer and more rambling are hatted sometimes, I just don't think that is necessary in this instance. I also hope editors active on ANI realize that when they hat remarks, they are silencing an editor. The disruptiveness of the content has to be worth the imposition of silence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah. PerryPerson (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this diff probably caused you to be pinged instead of KG when Liz replied to KG (as an aside, you generally should avoid editing others' signatures and timestamps). —tony 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. It was way ahead and it was always showing "Just now", so I had to edit it so new "Just now" topics or replies will appear. PerryPerson (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't understand Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz see Talk:India#This article doesn't follow FA trends. More use of LLM.. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was before this report, but I've AI-hatted, because just look at the English in the later reply that KG clearly did write (I am saying peoples' images in this article is totally of dull personality and representation). Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

They're still using an LLM to generate their talk page comments. You can see the contrast between their usual writing style ("Histroy", "This is main section covers about politics", "This section have two subsections") and the sudden shifts into a formal tone, their use of lists, and the excessive use of spaced em dashes. Skitash (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is totally without LLM. I have wrote it by my own Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive misuse of CSD G5 by KhndzorUtogh

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

I'm reporting User:KhndzorUtogh for misusing CSD G5 to tag my article Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922) for speedy deletion, claiming it violated general sanctions on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics.

1. The article **does not relate to the Armenian Genocide**, nor to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute. 2. It covers **a military campaign in Central Asia (1922)** by Enver Pasha during the Basmachi movement. 3. I am **not banned or blocked**, and the article has **no connection to any topic currently under GS enforcement**. 4. After tagging it with G5, the user **deleted the article without waiting for AfD consensus**, and has continued to interfere with the content’s existence.

This appears to be either a **misunderstanding of policy** or **deliberate abuse** to suppress valid content. I've contested the deletion and posted on the talk page, but I would appreciate admin input before this escalates further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selim beg (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought about reporting Selim beg but it looks like they’ve made a report already so I’ll just comment here instead of making one. I warned and reverted user Selim beg recent edits almost all of them were about Enver pasha, the main perpetrator of the Armenian genocide, thus violating WP:GS/AA. My thinking is that it’s at the least a broadly construed WP:GS/AA violation since all of the edits I reverted involve Enver pasha battles when he’s the leader or the movement leader himself, and deletion requests like this are an explicit violation if anything (though it was blanked later by them). The user, despite my thorough additional explanation on their talk page , has reverted several edits and restored their version / articles without gaining extended confirmed, you can see it in their contributions . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Enver Pasha was indeed the main pepetetrator of the Armenian genocide, but that doesn't make everything regarding Enver Pasha WP:GS/AA related, even under 'broadly construed'. Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922), for instance, doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with the AA topic area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I see. What about article/template of Basmachi Movement? I had nominated the template for speedy deletion, but I don’t have a problem withdrawing it. This revert here though I believe it is a violation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You could stretch that one, since there were Armenian volunteers, but overall it's a World War I battle between the Ottoman Empire and Russia and the edit linked doesn't appear to affect the Armenian-related content. I'd WP:AGF on that one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was a violation but wasn’t 100% sure so I didn’t revert it. I see that it can be a stretch and agree with assuming GF. FYI, the user now restored all their article versions and made a GS/AA violation here. I can’t assume GF on this one as it’s a blatant violation, especially after all the discussion here and on their talk. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• The GS/AA sanctions are for modern political disputes, mostly post-1900, especially:
  • Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict
  • Nagorno-Karabakh
  • Genocide debates
  • Soviet/post-Soviet territorial issues etc.

The 1877–78 war (aka the 93 war) is a 19th-century Ottoman–Russian conflict, and while Armenians participated, it's a historical military matter — not directly under GS/AA unless you make it political which i didn't and especially put an academic source supporting my claim. Selim beg (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m a bit concerned about the level of incompetency here. Selim beg is actively reverting / editing in Enver Pasha main article , while at the same time arguing it not being in the WP:GS/AA scope? It’s like editing Hitler’s article while simultaneously arguing it’s unrelated to the Holocaust.

Additionally, they’ve restored their previous violation in a war article , where they added Armenian volunteers as belligerents and where Armenia is mentioned more than 30 times. And yet here they defend this too? I won’t revert you again, please revert yourself if you understand that these are general sanction violations, you may be sanctioned if you don’t self revert. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not how WP:GS/AA works. The mere presence of the word "Armenia" or the fact that an article mentions Armenian individuals does not automatically place it under General Sanctions. GS/AA applies specifically to modern political disputes — namely, the Armenian Genocide, the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh, and related nationalism-based content disputes.

My edits to the Enver Pasha article are limited to his ethnicity and military career in the Balkans, not to any content related to the Armenian Genocide or the Azerbaijan–Armenia dispute. Therefore, GS/AA does not apply to those changes.

Likewise, my addition of Armenian volunteers in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 pertains to a 19th-century imperial war, and is:

• Historically accurate
• Widely documented by reliable sources
• Not presented with any modern political or nationalist framing

Comparing these edits to “editing Hitler while denying the Holocaust” is a gross mischaracterization and not remotely analogous. I have not edited anything relating to 1915, genocide claims, or nationalist narratives.

Unless you can show how these specific edits fall within the actual scope of GS/AA as defined by ArbCom, I see no reason to self-revert. Selim beg (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If you insist, that’s fine, I won’t be the judge of that. The diffs are there for admins to look at, but I still advise you to reconsider and self revert for your own benefit. Also this sounds like an AI generated text and if it is, at least quote me accurately; I didn’t say anything about you denying the holocaust. The supposed validity of your edits has nothing to do with extended confirmed sanctions either. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Selim beg:, you are wrong in your assessement of GS/AA. It is not limited to modern political disputes. GS/AA applies to Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed. Not there is nothing about "modern", and there is "broadly construed". The 1877-78 war, in which (as you note) Armenians participated, is, therefore, a "conflict involving Armenia" and thus explicitly covered by GS/AA. Now, reasonably, not everything about the war falls under GS/AA, but anything involving Armenians (or Azeris, if they were present) about the war is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the belief that the G5-tagged articles were covered by GS/AA is a reasonable one, so I don't think any admin action against KU is warranted here. GS/AA is not limited to modern conflicts, so SB is wrong about that part and should consider some self-reversion. The gross misquoting of KU ("denying the Holocaust") is a serious issue, and it should stricken ASAP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers @The Bushranger It doesn’t look like Selim beg is going to self revert because they have been active since the comments here, and yet they made more edits in Enver pasha main article , , . I personally would’ve liked them to self revert, but it increasingly appears they’re not going to do so. I reverted them in both articles , , and left another message on their talk . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Selim beg, would you please disclose the extent to which you have used a large language model (LLM), such as an AI chatbot or other tool, to author your article edits such as Special:Diff/1296570440 and your comments such as the first one in this discussion? — Newslinger talk 14:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

i write the paraghraps myself in turkish and ask ai to translate it for me Selim beg (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Selim beg, what are you using to translate your Turkish text? There is a distinction between using machine translation services such as Google Translate, which may use LLMs in their technical implementation but still aim to create a faithful translation of your text in the target language, and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, which generate all kinds of outputs including ones that are not translations of your text. The use of machine translation services is acceptable in some cases when not done disruptively, but the use of AI chatbots is often problematic for the reasons listed at WP:LLM. — Newslinger talk 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Selim beg, can you please respond to the above? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a temporary block might be necessary here. SB has continued to edit without responding to concerns here. In this request for page protection, they inappropriately referred to good-faith contributions from experienced editors as "vandalism". I'm not sure they are able to edit collaboratively in areas that are even adjacent to AA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: pblock for Selim beg

I propose that Selim Beg be blocked from article space until they can show that they have overcome their case of ANIflu. Insanityclown1 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support: serious case of ANI flu. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Pblock from articlespace imposed until communication improves. Anyone can lift it once it does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

IPs from Paris appear to be block evasion by Pheonix hoe1998&

• Pheonix hoe1998& (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• 2A04:CEC0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Paris got blocked for NOR and SYNTH violations about five weeks ago, and they created a username to evade the block: Pheonix hoe1998&. The person was adding their own analysis to music articles. The IPs are doing the same thing again, which is that they are comparing chart stats between different albums, songs, and artists to create a narrative arc about the relative success of the music. This is a classic WP:SYNTH violation.

This IP range does not break down neatly into /64 groupings, even though it was a /64 that got blocked on 29 May: Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1923:757A:0:0:0:0/64. Multiple 64s are at play here. If we block the /32 there will be some collateral damage to good faith users, but I think the damage is minimal. Or we could block two /40s: Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:F000:0:0:0:0:0/40 and Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1900:0:0:0:0:0/40.

Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and bludgeoning by Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) won't stop WP:BLUDGEONING the RfC at Talk:Saddam Hussein despite being warned against doing so multiple times. They're leaving duplicate votes, repeatedly replying to other votes and telling editors why their choice is wrong. Given this pattern of disruption, I suggest they be topic banned from Saddam Hussein or Iraq-related articles. On Saddam Hussein, they've repeatedly reinstated their preferred edits despite multiple reverts. Their edits included loads of spelling and grammar errors, requiring extensive cleanup from other editors. They've made similar disruptive edits on Iraq, and repeatedly bloated the article unnecessarily. Skitash (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I never forced anyone to support my view in the RfC. I just gave my opinion like others did. In fact, I also supported some people's comments too. If I said I disagreed with someone, it was just part of the discussion — not to tell them they are wrong or force anything. If I replied to others, it was only to discuss my view — not to attack or dismiss anyone’s view. Whatever consensus adopted and finalize the resolution and wherever they reach, I would accept it. After @Abo Yemen told me about it, I stopped doing it.

About the grammar and spelling mistakes, yes, I admit that I made some errors. But that doesn’t mean I was trying to harm the page. If something was not written well, it could have just been improved or fixed — not used as a reason to suggest banning me. I’ve seen many others do the same — make mistakes, then fix or improve them with help from others.

Also, I haven’t made any edits to the Saddam Hussein page or any other Iraq-related major article for weeks now. I’ve stayed away on purpose, waiting for the RfC to be over. I’ve only shared thoughts on the talk page and have been working in my sandbox on related content.

I only spoke on the talk page, and I’ve been working on related topics in my sandbox, not in the main articles. You can check here Here

I know I’ve made mistakes, but I’m trying to do better. I’m open to working with others, following the rules, and building consensus. I hope we can sort this out without a topic ban, and I’m ready to cooperate with the community however needed.

----

Thank you

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This response was hatted because of suspicions that it was AI-generated. I think it is more important to allow the editor's opinion to be presented, otherwise it looks like they didn't respond to this complaint. It looks like you were censoring an editor who was being complained about. You can tolerate a brief LLM response. Please do not obscure their response by hatting their words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If you were talking to me, i wasn't the one who hatted it. PerryPerson (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Why would I think that, you haven't even commented in this discussion, PerryPerson. I don't care who hatted it and I understand why comments that are longer and more rambling are hatted sometimes, I just don't think that is necessary in this instance. I also hope editors active on ANI realize that when they hat remarks, they are silencing an editor. The disruptiveness of the content has to be worth the imposition of silence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah. PerryPerson (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this diff probably caused you to be pinged instead of KG when Liz replied to KG (as an aside, you generally should avoid editing others' signatures and timestamps). —tony 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. It was way ahead and it was always showing "Just now", so I had to edit it so new "Just now" topics or replies will appear. PerryPerson (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't understand Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liz see Talk:India#This article doesn't follow FA trends. More use of LLM.. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was before this report, but I've AI-hatted, because just look at the English in the later reply that KG clearly did write (I am saying peoples' images in this article is totally of dull personality and representation). Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

They're still using an LLM to generate their talk page comments. You can see the contrast between their usual writing style ("Histroy", "This is main section covers about politics", "This section have two subsections") and the sudden shifts into a formal tone, their use of lists, and the excessive use of spaced em dashes. Skitash (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is totally without LLM. I have wrote it by my own Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

LukeWiller

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• LukeWiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Further reading: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#LukeWiller

Bringing this to the community for further attention and input. LukeWiller made the following comments at itwiki about his conduct on enwiki - namely, "provoking" editors to "flush" them out, and also reporting editors to the Police & Interpol. Please see below three comments with Google translations:

• This comment, which Google translates to "There is a plethora of users on en.wiki that I have reported to the right people: I provoked them to make them come out into the open. Serious stuff, considering that I have also been to the police station in Milan for this matter."
• This comment, which Google translates to "It is impossible to explain it in detail: since I was at the police station, most of the information is covered by investigative secrecy. What I can tell you is only one thing: at the police station they fully supported my suspicions and the users I reported, and an Interpol investigation was also launched. I cannot tell you more."
• This comment, which Google translates to "I have never been an irredentist, but on en.wiki I pretended to be one in order to flush out the core of suspicious users, which is made up of Croatian users (obviously users of other nationalities are involved)."

I contacted Luke at his talk page, providing him the opportunity to a) clarify the translations (given they may potentially have been imprecise) and b) explain what he means by both provoking editors to flush them out, and reporting editors to authorities. (I had to follow-up, as my message was not responded to despite Luke continuing to edit.)

Luke then replied on my talk page, stating "Hi, sorry, I have nothing to add, I thought it was understood, the translations from Google translator are correct. If you want more information ask the questura di Milano, I can not disclose more."

I think this is a totally unacceptable response, and I bring here for further review. Stating on-wiki (even on another wiki, but commenting about enwiki editors and activities) that you have reported editors to the Police & Interpol has a chilling effect similar to a legal threat, and refusing to disclose further as to their conduct is contradictory and inconsistent to making the statement on-wiki in the first place. Secondly, Luke has failed to explain what they mean by "provoking" editors to "flush" them out on enwiki. Keen for everyone's thoughts.

Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NLT states A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. Going to the police is engaging in a real-life governmental process that would target other editors. Sounds like a legal threat to me. My only question is whether the remote location of this threat has any bearing on the response, since it occurred on it wiki (though in a very public venue). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Threatening to take legal action may have a chilling effect, but taking legal action does not have this effect unless it is mentioned on Wiki in order to prevent and stop others from editing. LukeWiller described his behaviour on another project, and there is no reason to believe that anyone on en.wiki felt threatened or intimidated. In fact, this report gives publicity to an action that I'm confident will have no effect, either on Wiki or in real life. Besides, having checked LukeWiller's edits carefully when I noticed the it.wiki discussion, I corrected some questionable ones (here), but wasn't able to identify the targets of his alleged threat with any degree of certainty. It's not a threat; no harm was done. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

What a cop-out.--v/r - TP 00:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:NLT is to minimise the chilling effect on Wikipedia editing. While there are no direct threats being found, the expression of that he had opened a police case against another and expressed that he had engaged in entrapment practices (at least from how I read it), in absence of further replies from him that he does not engage in the practice further and/or stop opening police cases against others, the continued presence of him here on wiki is a perceived threat to others who continue to interact with him. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If the people working the same articles on the same contentious whatever is going on find out about this, the chilling effect applies. Is there not a zero tolerance policy for this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not the first time LukeWiller has threatened people. There have been unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry (in many of his edit summaries; see a reaction by @SigillumVert here) and meatpuppetry or what not (here), pretty much in any topic LukeWiller felt he had to protect his POV. He misrepresented two sources in numerous articles, and edit warred about it, saying all the data is in the sources. When I asked where exactly the numbers are in the sources, all he had to say was "Is it mandatory to participate in discussions?" There was another incident, involving administrators @Joy and @Peacemaker67, who noticed some additional POV push, here. I have his talk page on my watchlist and I cannot unsee @Daniel's recent posting. Though I hope Interpol has better things to do than to protect the accuser's blatant POV push, I do feel threatened and I do think LukeWiller is no longer here to build an encyclopedia. Ponor (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ponor it looks like I was overly lenient in that holiday season interaction. I'm sorry. We probably should have used WP:AE much sooner. (I don't like to do it myself because it's usually a time-consuming, bureaucratic process.) --Joy (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Joy: I'm sure nobody likes this, as I'm sure that's what NNPOV editors, to put it mildly, really hope for. Meanwhile, the list of the things that need to be fixed after them grows longer and longer. I've wasted too much time asking LukeWiller for sources, any sources; my only other option was to EDITWAR. To what avail? Ponor (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, actually, your other option was to file a WP:AE report yourself. Sorry :) --Joy (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd think this would be an open and shut case, where they'd be blocked per WP:NLT. Why are we even having this conversation? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Solely because the threat is not on English wikipedia. If it were, I would block immediately. As a comparison, however, I don't believe anyone would block for a legal threat expressed on X/Twitter. This is somewhere in between, so not quite black and white. I lean towards blocking, but am interested in hearing if there is any preexisting experience with threats on other wikipedias. Note that in many cases, we don't block based on behavior on other wikipedias. This behavior, though, has some bleedthrough to the english wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly and precisely, rsjaffe. I still think this is within our scope as a) part if not all of the misconduct directly relates to enwiki, and b) the editor is SUL-linked to the itwiki account. But there was enough gray that I didn't just push the button without discussing here first, even if I think the editor should indeed be blocked. Daniel (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Editor should absolutely be blocked. I don't believe anyone would block for a legal threat expressed on X/Twitter. Legal threat? No. Legal threat against en.wiki editors? Yes, 100%. Per WP:NLT: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia.. While the page does start with Do not post legal threats on Wikipedia., (1) the definiton of "legal threat" doesn't mention "on Wikipeida", only "that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself", and (2) note that even the first part doesn't say "on English Wikipedia". And regardless of how we define this as a legal threat, the apparent "provoking" of en.wiki editors is absolutely behavior that is WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What I can tell you is just one thing: in the police station they fully emarried my suspicions and the utilities that I reported, and an Interpol investigation also started.

@The Bushranger We have a user that reported other Wikipedia users to the fucking Interpol. Why are we discussing this and waiting for their response? Do we expect the truth from them when they have, in their own words, been "pretending" on en-wiki to achieve a hidden goal? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The rules seem to clearly state the threat doesn't have to be issued on en.wikipedia.org. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This can be resoled by the local self-governance capacity to enforce the foundation:UCoC or by m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee for all WMF projects.

• Harassment includes: Explicitly or implicitly suggesting the possibility of ... intimidation by suggesting gratuitous legal action.
• Abuse of the projects: Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view (also by means of unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources and altering the correct way of composing editorial content) (per discussions linked in my report above and the archived ANI report).

Ponor (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This all seems pretty clear-cut to me. If we accept for the sake of argument that it's not technically a violation of WP:NLT, it seems obvious that the intent is to threaten/intimidate other posters to "undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing," which is a violation of WP:HARASS CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Everyone appears caught up on the NLT issue, but the user is editing to make a WP:POINT regardless of the legal process. As they have said their edits are designed to 'provoke' editors for their external cause. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• This is my preference as an administrator but I'd prefer that no action be taken until we hear from LukeWiller here on ANI. I haven't read his User talk page yet but I'd allow more time to see if he wants to respond here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that browsing around on the Italian Wikipedia, LukeWiller is currently undergoing reconfirmation as an admin there (see this discussion) and it looks like this is a very stressful experience. Episodes on EnWiki look like they are a factor in this discussion on It.Wiki. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Luke was asked on his talk page about these exact same issues, and after I followed-up (he continued editing without responding), his eventual response was that he had nothing further to say or clarify. This is all clearly outlined in my original post, with links to the comments. Further, all the translated comments from my original post above were from that reconfirmation discussion - everyone would already be aware of its existence. Daniel (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, on ANI, once a situation has been brought to light, there is this fire under some editors to act immediately as if the status quo can not go on for another single day without the project imploding. I was just expressing my own approach to adminning which is to hear both sides of the story. I see that you only confronted them about this situation about 24 hours ago which, in my book, is not much time, given other distractions and pressures, to react. But I'm only one voice here. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't eventually support a block, I just wanted to hear from the editor if only to get some insight into what exactly they've been up to as it affects our editors. The more information, the better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

LukeWiller was very clear as to what they've been up to. They even referred further inquiries to the police in Milan. Are we waiting for the carabinieri to weigh in? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

As was somewhat predictable, Luke showed up to edit today, but rather than editing here at ANI to explain his actions, he chose to edit elsewhere. I hope that puts to bed any suggestion of needing to 'wait' for someone who clearly had no interest in engaging, and explicitly said so to me when I first challenged him on this (as he also said to people at itwiki when they challenged him on it, too). Daniel (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried to bring this user to the attention of the community before for nationalist POV-pushing, adding Italian names as currently-used alternative names for Croatian cities. While an argument can be made for some cities, LukeWiller added the Italian name to every Croatian city and town that was under Italian fascist occupation before and during WWII. In this discussion LukeWiller linked to a book about an Italian fascist to argue for including an Italian name for "also known as".

LukeWiller was successful in provoking a response from me and other editors, which we can now see was his goal all along.

I have never been an irredentist, but on en.wiki I pretended to be one in order to flush out the core of suspicious users

He "pretended" to be a fascist on en-wiki so that he could file a police report against editors who had a problem with his (self-admitted) irredentism. We have an editor who's stated goal on en-wiki is to report anti-fascists to the police, am I understanding this right? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Me, I'm with Liliana: why are we even having this conversation? This is a guy who openly admits to using Wikipedia as a tool to ferret out people whose politics he doesn't like. With that, I don't give a good goddamn what he has to say; he's said enough already. We've indeffed newbies for a fraction of that much offensiveness. I therefore propose, and support, a community ban on LukeWiller. Ravenswing 06:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Like Ravenswing, I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. We have a user who is trying to lure editors into speech-related behavior so that he can tell fucking Interpol about and is proud of it. We rightly cban editors for behavior a fraction as frightening or damaging to the community. We can't effect a SanFranBan, but we can certainly remove an editor who is trying to intimidate editors in an awful way. If we can't protect our editors from a bad actor like this, then what's the point of all this? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Support full ban - NOTHERE to build ENWP. We don't want him to waste his time here. Administrators should have expected full professionalism when carrying out duties. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Even regardless of the various claims that haven't been externally verified, overall this seems like a user who has admitted they've engaged in a long trolling campaign. How would we even really know that this isn't some classic like Brunodam or Velebit or whatever other long-time abuser? --Joy (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

No, this is not the case. It's quite more likely that this is a good faith editor who is experiencing some kind of personal difficulties and stress, which affected their on-Wiki behaviour in an indirect and limited way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This wasn't "indirect" or "limited". This was an editor who explicitly by their own admission has harassed en-wiki contributors with what is, to call a spade a spade, trolling, and has been unrepentant when questioned about it. I would have blocked them on the spot, except other admins had already brought it up and were discussing it. I respect Liz's opinions above, but I would like to lay down a line here: @LukeWiller:, your response to this is required, and you need a very good explanation for the comments linked by the OP, or you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Their first edit to an irredentism and Croatia/Dalmatia related topic was on 19 May 2021, so they've been on a 4-year long campaign to push a nationalist POV. From what I can gather they wish to portray Croatia (specifically Dalmatia and Istria) as Italian lands, that Italians were expelled from and ethnically cleansed. Then to continue to claim these formerly occupied cities are still called by Italian names (thus implying they will one day be returned to Italy) is by definition (and by the editor's own admission) irredentism.
• The user uses Italian on en-wiki Talk pages, WP:ENGLISHPLEASE.
• They have also heavily edited the Italian Fascism article, removing sources by saying Eliminating information without source in the edit summary. They did the same here
• In February 2023, they started adding Italian names as "other names" (i.e. alternative names currently in use) to Istrian and Dalmatian cities. Which they continued. Here they say that the Italian name is the "original name" of the city, and use it in the Wikipedia article.

This is not "limited" in any sense of the word. They have been at it for years. It doesn't matter that the user was "only pretending" (although I don't find that explanation convincing), they've done willful damage to Wikipedia by pushing a fascist narrative across many articles. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

JFTR, not all of these things individually are necessarily pushing a fascist narrative, as we have historically had interesting debates about the various nuances in describing the history of these regions. I happen to still remember Talk:Italy (geographical region)#Sourcing where they seemed somewhat reasonable - even if they never actually resolved the problem they introduced. However, if this user's contribution has now deteriorated from merely being of questionable quality - that we assume good faith about - to these weird trolling stories and editing patterns that are suspect to so many, it's time to react. --Joy (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

When I'm stressed about something on Wikipedia, I take a deep breath and a step back, I don't try to bait people so I can report them to the police or Interpol or threaten other editors. It's right to show understanding to someone who has a reasonable reaction to a stressful situation, but LukeWiller's actions are far beyond the pale, and he's shown zero remorse for his behavior, which is certainly not limited to this incident. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(gawks at Gitz) Good grief. We all have had personal difficulties and high stress. We've all lost loved ones, had relationships break up, been in financial straits, had the boss/professor yell at us, had health problems, and/or dropped something heavy on our foot. And we don't all bait people so we can report them to Interpol. What the hell? Ravenswing 13:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

More problematic behaviour:

• Unilaterally removed a merge tag less than an hour after it was placed by another editor, with the edit summary I don't agree.
• As recent as May 2025 they've been conversing in Italian on talk pages. That is something they often do.

More irredentism and nationalist POV CPUSH-ing:

• Here they added a picture of Italians in Rijeka cheering on the fascist D'Annunzio and his "Legionnaires". They also added a source for the population numbers in the caption (guess who they favour); even though the source specifically says the numbers were claimed the image caption is written in Wikivoice.
• Here LukeWiller writes that Italy was to "reclaim" territories from Austria-Hungary in WWI, but the cited source uses the words "territorial concessions" and "territorial demands".

They routinely misrepresent what the sources say and it is no accident, this editor is here to WP:CPUSH. Therefore, based on their edits, I support a TBAN from topics related to Italy and Croatia, broadly construed. But because of their unapologetic legal threats, reporting of editors to the police, and poor communication, I support a CBAN per WP:NOTHERE and their disregard of WP:NLT policy. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I am particularly sensitive to WP disruption on Twitter this week, you know, because of everything, but I honestly don't see these threats as being better for being off-wiki. The spirit of WP:NLT is to prevent threats from chilling discussion. Regardless of lawyeristic rules-parsing, it's clear the intent was to use threats to chill discussion. As such NLT should be enforced. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that NNPOV caption too, @TurboSuperA+. Typical of LukeWiller's copy&paste habits, it got propagated to 19 articles. Obviously, he never went far enough with his behavior to deserve a block (WP:CIVILPOV), but (IMO) he used his "experienced editor status" to push less experienced editors into 3RR/WAR, knowing they'd be blocked. That's the reason I got involved, though on any mention of our content policies he'd just say they're my interpretations and not how he sees them. So I gave up, until now. Ponor (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Site Ban for Cross-Wiki Abuse

Cross-wiki abuse is especially serious and must be dealt with. I see a few supports above for a community site ban but will put in a heading for one here.

• Support a site ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support Threats against other editors over content disputes have no place on Wikipedia and neither do those editors who traffic in them. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support This is an obvious legal threat cross-Wiki. qcne (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is beyond legal threats and is actually legal action. Provoking other editors should be reason enough but in this case the provoking is just the corn on this shit Sunday. I'm wondering if a global ban should be though about at this point, but, that's probs overkill and doesn't meet the criteria. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support for a blatant WP:LEGAL threat, which says in a nutshell, If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. — ^EF⁵ 15:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The legal threats are bad enough, but admitting to being an agent provacateur is outrageous. Narky Blert (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Clear and unavoidable evidence. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support The admission of WP:POINT editing "pretended to be an irredentist" is bad enough alone. If they actually reported people to the police and had an investigation opened over a content dispute, they are not a safe person to have editing here, even if they are feeling stressed. That is not an appropriate reaction. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Clear legal threat. As for 'pretending to be an irredentist', I'll pretend to believe that isn't just a bullshit excuse for being one, but either way it is an admission of WP:NOTHERE behaviour and/or outright dishonesty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support as the editor who started the archived report linked above. The pro-Italian POV pushing should be enough to warrant a ban. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support as the rules here seem to be clear cut that the legal threat doesn't have to be issued on the English Wikipedia itself. Also, this would seem to imply they're here not to build the encyclopedia but to advance their own whatever it is they're up to. -- Very Polite Person (talk)
• Support. Ciao, Felizia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support Not even a close call. This case should also be referred to T&S for possible WMF action. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support This isn't "I'm talking to my lawyers", this is "I dragged Interpol into it". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support completely bizarre behavior; "agent provocateur" sums it up in a nutshell (or case), but their entire behavior is disgraceful, and ban-worthy on multiple counts. "Arrivederci Roma". —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support for this reason. A legal threat on any Wikipedia should, IMO, be taken as a legal threat on enwiki if it affects en.wiki. If I were to go on the Spanish Wikipedia and saw a legal threat there directed at me, I'd be just as chilled from editing on the English one as I would have been had the threat been made here. There's no good reason to differentiate between wikis when it comes to enforcing NLT here; a legal threat is a legal threat. Gommeh 🎮 15:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Just would like to add that I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats regarding how we can handle cases like this in the future given how serious legal threats are. I felt like it needed to be discussed. Gommeh 🎮 16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  A legal threat on any Wikipedia should, IMO, be taken as a legal threat on enwiki if it affects en.wiki.

  Why would it be limited to a WMF site? If someone does it on Twitter or some other site and the person's identity can be assigned to an En.wiki user, surely the same standard would apply? If I threaten to sue you on Twitter for stuff done on here, I would and should be immediately nuked. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Off-wiki legal threats should have been dealt by the U4C and the WMF, if the threats are clearly harming the editors. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Enwiki has an ArbCom. UCoC can only step in if there has been a systemic failure by ArbCom. Cabayi (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I never mentioned whether I thought that should apply to other non-WMF sites but I agree with you there. Gommeh 🎮 16:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NLT. —tony 16:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Dragging the police into matters simply to win an on-wiki dispute isn't just overkill, it wastes the time of police officers who have to deal with this nonsense rather than deal with more pressing matters. I agree with referring this to T&S; this looks like grounds for a global ban. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE, at the very least for (by their account) editing en.wiki deceitfully to draw out opponents and report them to the police. Yes, it's also an on-wiki, but off-en.wiki, legal threat against anyone engaging with their edits on en.wiki - we can't tell which falsely represent their position and which are honest. Yes too, we can't tell if they did go to the police, if the police listened or warned them against wasting police time or what, and even if this justification for their editing is truthful. Even disregarding all that, by their own account their edits are WP:Tendentious editing (one major form of WP:DISRUPTIVE) and several types of WP:NOTHERE. NebY (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• comment While the outcome might look obvious it might be worth giving it another 24 hours to see if LukeWiller has anything further to say.©Geni (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  But it might not. If they shock everyone by providing a valid justification then a ban can be undone. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  And the 'explanation', whatever it might be, isn't going to be able to confirm that the legal threat is withdrawn and will not happen. Luke said that the investigation is already underway and doubled-down when asked to clarify. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  As of writing this, there are 23 people who have voted in support of a ban, including myself. Even if they did that, I doubt they'd be able to convince a majority that they shouldn't be banned. Gommeh 🎮 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Erm. You're a smart fellow, Phil. Let's indulge our flights of fancy. Can you -- or anyone reading this -- possibly come up with a justification you legitimately think we'd swallow, never mind pass policy muster? If he somehow convinced WMF that he was an accredited agent of his government, assigned to smack down terrorists on Wikipedia, that still would be a NOTHERE written across the sky in blazing golden letters. Ravenswing 22:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Luke is clearly aware of this discussion since he responded to the original complainant and has since been editing on Wikipedia. He should have been banned by now, and certainly doesn't deserve another 24 hours of benefit of the doubt. Waffle stomp that nugget down the drain and be done with it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Even with this very clear consensus, per WP:CBAN the discussion must be kept open for at least 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I apologize; I was responding to the mention of "another 24 hours". Perhaps that applies to this specific proposal and not the original report? Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'd count the 24 hours from the first support of a community ban, so starting at 06:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Do we even know what exactly this dispute is about? While I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't be involving public law enforcement in the operations of a private website lightly, and ideally users should exhaust all internal mechanisms through WMF Legal or T&S first, the mere fact that someone felt disturbed enough with something to make law enforcement contact shouldn't be overlooked either. Not everyone knows that WMF Legal or T&S exist. Additionally, I would think most people would know that deliberately making frivolous complaints to law enforcement is itself a criminal offense in many jurisdictions, and thus I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss this as an "abusive attempt to win a content dispute" without further details and investigation by WMF or other appropriate individuals. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure the WMF would investigate if they thought it necessary, but I don't know if we'd even need to go that far just yet. At most, it looks like Luke was unfamiliar with our expectations and is going to be c-banned for it. Gommeh 🎮 21:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Per the OP, it wasn't "feeling disturbed", it was deliberate trolling. I'm not sure where the "content dispute" bit came from - perhaps there's more context in the original it.wiki coments? - but from what was posted here it was deliberate disruption/harrassment for no reason other than "I want to report these people". That's very much not unfamiliar with our expectations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm... what's the likelihood that this whole thing is indeed an exercise in trolling and that no report or other contact was actually made? As I noted above, deliberately making frivolous complaints to law enforcement is itself a criminal offense, and therefore I can't picture someone actually reporting people just for "trolling" or "harassment" - there would have to be a plausible case that the reported person(s) had done something to warrant a law enforcement investigation. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that he *probably* was lying about his threat of legal action does not make anything better. If he changes his mind about doubling-down on his claim, then he can explain it in his unblock request. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I got the feeling he was reporting people for being "antifascist". Does he know Italy's history with fascists? 🧐 Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Bgsu98, have you read this complaint? He made these statements on the Italian Wikipedia where he is an admin. He lives in Italy. I think he is familiar with Italian history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Liz that's dead right. He's still living in the Years of Lead or something. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• We can see the diffs where he said what he did and why he said did it.

  This does not require investigation by some specialized group of people. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the links that were provided here? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  What recourse does the WMF have here? It isn't a law enforcement operation, and there's no point to an "investigation." We ban him, that's pretty much the limit. Ravenswing 22:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  As per ToU, the WMF may refer criminal investigations to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support get rid. CNC (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support: as the original proposer. Like some others above, I'm militantly unconcerned about what might be the provocation, whether he was lying or not about doing it, whether he was just trolling, or what he has to say in his defense. It's indefensible, full stop. Ravenswing 22:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Comment While I agree that publicly announcing your intention to file legal or criminal proceedings against someone is poor judgment at best, and at worst possibly is a violation of the law itself (depending on the jurisdiction - at least from my experience, you're not supposed to publicly comment on an ongoing legal matter at any place or with any person other than privately with the named complainant(s) or their attorneys until the matter has been resolved), we should not overlook the severity of this. I agree that a block for making legal threats is appropriate, but let's not completely sweep this under the rug until we are completely sure that it was just trolling, and that there isn't anything else to it. Just for the record, @WMFOffice: @WMF Legal: have your teams received any communication regarding this matter? Obviously you can't give any details, but a simple affirmative/negative should suffice. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is the second time you've tried to imply that there is "something" going on that might mean Luke is right to say that he intentionally lied in his posts to trick people into arguing with him about the names of cities and then report them to the police.

  Could you give us a little more information on what you think that might be? What are we to avoid "sweeping under the rug"? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, that's the problem. We don't know. That's why the WMF needs to be informed if they haven't been already. Sure, we can block the user for disruption/making threats/harassment, and I don't oppose that, but we also have to assume that there was a legitimate concern that led to the user making a police report, until it has been undeniably proven otherwise by someone with the proper expertise (full disclosure: I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer, and I wouldn't be comfortable making such proclamation right now). As I said above, because of the fact that deliberately making frivolous complaints to law enforcement is itself a crime, I'd be reluctant to believe that someone would actually file a police report if there wasn't something that seriously concerned them. If, upon investigation by the WMF, it is determined that a). A report was indeed filed with law enforcement, and b). The report did indeed have legitimate merit (i.e. editors possibly engaged in criminal activity), this community could be accused of being complicit by summarily dismissing it as "trolling" and not doing due diligence. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Frankly, I have difficulty in understanding how enforcing standard Wikipedia practice - which is to block those who make legal threats, regardless of whether they seem legitimate, or even plausible - could be seen as 'complicity' in anything. We have a project to run, and given the obviously disruptive effects of such threats, we try to deal with them consistently in the same manner. We are in no position to prevent anyone from going to the police, or suing, or doing anything similar, and nor are we attempting to. We are merely acting to ensure that such external matters are not being brought on-Wikipedia in a public manner. They don't need to be, and as a lawyer, I'd have thought you would advise anyone in such a position not to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  For sure, I don't agree with the initial comments even being made. As I alluded to above, it is definitely not advisable, and in some cases not legal, to publicly disclose details or, in some situations, the mere existence of, a criminal proceeding with uninvolved parties until said proceeding has been completed. That's why I do support blocking the user who made the comments for doing exactly that - even if it wasn't an explicit violation of site policy it would merit a censure anyway. What I am cautioning people about is to avoid having the entire flowchart be "Editor A said he reported Editors B and C to the police. Block or ban Editor A immediately, no questions asked, end of story". That's not sufficient. Regardless of whether or not Editor A is blocked, the allegations need to be looked into by professional legal counsel, which I am told the WMF employs. Enforcing site policy is indeed a good thing and should be encouraged. But, on the other hand, the fact of the matter is that we have been informed that there is a possibility that an editor believes another editor(s) has engaged in criminal activity (because why else would they involve the police? Again making frivolous police reports is itself a crime so I don't think that someone would make a report without having solid evidence of something - otherwise they'd be facing charges themselves). We have an obligation to try and determine the context/background for the allegations as best as we can with publicly available information, and then to inform the body that can investigate the private aspects and actually make a legal conclusion about the plausibility of the allegations, which we can't do. Failure to do these things, especially the latter, is being complicit, even if unintentionally. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  You're over-thinking this. The most likely cause of this is Luke trying to troll people who made edits he doesn't like. The next most likely is that there is some kind of unfortunate mental episode going on.

  Luke is an experienced editor, if there was something real happening, that other people could see, then there are plenty of ways to report that, Wikipedia has dealt with things like that before plenty of times.

  And as a lawyer, you should already know that having someone yell, "a crime might have happened but I won't tell you what it is!" and then run away does not impose a liability on literally anyone. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  See, my view is that we ought to be treating this far more seriously than just someone yelling "A crime may have been committed!" You're right that this could just be a giant exercise in trolling, and this could be a result of a mental health crisis. But it could also be much worse than that. Any my general view, and what I advise all people across all disciplines, is that when it comes to legal threats or threats of criminal proceedings, you are to take it seriously and treat it as though it is legitimate until you have definitive proof otherwise. Never assume that something is "just trolling" or hollow without investigating. I was actually looking to see if this project had any guidance about this, and it turns out we do: WP:DOLT. I'd be more inclined to believe that this is just trolling/harassment/intimidation if it was just an "I'll sue you" type of threat. Because even if a lawsuit is deemed meritless and tossed out, there usually isn't any criminal repercussion for the person who brought it unless it was blatantly done in bad faith. That's not the case for an actual police report - if someone makes a report to the police, and it turns out to be frivolous, that person can very realistically face legal consequences themselves. Even more so when we start talking about Interpol. Therefore, if a report was indeed made, that means that there has to be something of serous concern going on, and no, other people won't always be able to see it (and that's not a prerequisite anyway). But it's not the place of unpaid volunteer editors to make a conclusion as to whether a report was indeed filed or not. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Your last sentence is *why* it is not our responsibility to make up complicated theories about how disagreeing about the name of cities on the Adriatic could somehow be a matter of urgent legal concern.

  And I understand you're a lawyer, but I can tell you aren't one in the US, I assure you that there exists no law or tort here for anyone to be held liable for arguing about the names of cities. Even if there is some strange law in Italy that prohibits being mean to fascists, the SPEACH Act prohibits anything like that being applied to anyone in the US.

  If Interpol wants to request logs from WMF, they've got the phone number. It has nothing to do with us. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  If this dispute is/was solely about the names of cities, then I'd agree that there doesn't seem to be anything worthy of police involvement (unless, say, someone else made a direct threat to the editor who then filed the report). But why would someone file a police report in the first place if that was the case? Do they not know that making false reports to the police is a crime itself? This is why I'm convinced that there may be more to the story than what meets the eye here. If someone is contacting law enforcement, there has to be something more than just a dispute over city names. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then you are absolutely welcome to go look up the email for WMF and inform them that "someone" committed "a crime*" against "someone" at "some time" based on evidence that is not viewable on Wikipedia and that they'd better do... something... about it without waiting for any authorities, witnesses, or purported victims to contact them.

  I wish you luck.

  • apparently under the laws of Italy, where they are not incorporated

  MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8, I see a lot of problems with your comments. You are reading much more into this incident that is not apparent to anyone else. Have you actually read the messages that were posted? Because you are talking as if they contained specific content that they didn't. Read the three messages that were reported that were posted on the Italian Wikipedia, read LukeWiller's reply to Daniel. Get out of the abstract area of "what might be true and possible" and ground yourself in the facts as we know them here. They might disabuse you of the denial that this wasn't trolling on the part of LukeWiller and that he was referring to some actual crime. Read HIS WORDS about what he did. It's all linked to the top of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Again, we *do* know what Luke was talking because they told us, and we've seen the diffs in which they did so and then confirmed that the editor who spoke to him was understanding him correctly.

  There is no secret information that we haven't seen, as you can confirm in this section.

  And the due diligence in this case was satisfied by asking Luke if what he posted was what he intended, and if there was anything he wanted to add.

  If you can think of any way that changing the names of cities on the Adriatic can be controversial enough to involve Interpol, you're welcome to ask Luke to confirm your theory, but the rest of us have to go by the facts in evidence. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  "we also have to assume that there was a legitimate concern that led to the user making a police report, until it has been undeniably proven otherwise by someone with the proper expertise ..." We "have" to assume nothing of the sort. We don't need to wait for a judge or jury; we ARE the judge and jury. This is not a courtroom bound by statutory rules of civil procedure. Ravenswing 00:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Re; "we also have to assume that there was a legitimate concern that led to the user making a police report, until it has been undeniably proven otherwise by someone with the proper expertise", no, we don't. We're not the police and neither they nor we are in a position to "undeniably prove otherwise" about any such allegations. If someone was to allege here that they had reported you, 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:879:A6D9:6CA3:76A8, to the police for something untoward they found in your arguments here or elsewhere, it would not be our role to assume there was a legitimate concern or to even consider undeniably proving the unprovable. Your approach would empower trolls, fantasists and malicious actors, to the detriment of our work in building and maintaining the encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support Agent provocateur by his own admission, clearly WP:NOTHERE. “Flushing-out” other editors to report them to police is utterly deranged and must not be tolerated. SigillumVert (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• The entertaining thing about legal threats is the invariable stupidity of the people who make them. Anyone who talks about an Interpol investigation (Interpol doesn't investigate things) is a WP:CIR case, and deserves an indef on that basis. All this debate is unnecessary. EEng 02:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Apparently he was an admin on the Italian WP, and was up for reappointment (which failed). I particularly liked this oppose !vote - Unknown viruses, police headquarters, interpol, agents provocateurs, etc. Are we writing an encyclopedia or a spy novel? I'm sorry but given the reported episodes, but above all Luke's explanations, I can no longer trust him as an admin.

  Given his behavior here, I support a cban, either this guy is trolling us or is a WP:CIR case, but either way, he shouldn't be editing here. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Completely agree, even without the NLT issue an indef block for NOTHERE would be appropriate. Really unsure why it's come to a cban proposal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. LukeWiller is active again today diff1 diff2. They have edited 6 times since the notice was posted to their Talk page. They are clearly ignoring this thread and have no intention of commenting. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'll make a last-ditch effort asking them on their itwiki talk page to come over here and have a discussion since it's possible they don't pay much attention to the English Wikipedia compared to the Italian one. Let's hope they finally respond. Gommeh 🎮 13:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  it's possible they don't pay much attention to the English Wikipedia compared to the Italian one.

  Before Daniel posted on their Talk page and before this ANI thread LukeWiller edited on en-wiki every day. Not to mention that you get cross-wiki/project notifications. This is a clear case of ANI flu. If you want to give it a shot go ahead. Once they don't respond we can say that all possible avenues of communication were tried and exhausted. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  I know, and I agree this is ANI flu. I just wanted to make sure they couldn't go back and say they didn't know a discussion was taking place here when they should have. Gommeh 🎮 14:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  LukeWiller has already said they don't want to provide details about their accusations. They've been notified this discussion and pinged multiple times. Besides, it's quite unlikely that anything they could say would change the outcome. So, I suggest you avoid posting on their it.wiki talk page, as it's pointless and borders on harassment.

  On a side note, some editors here seem to have forgotten that LukeWiller's most serious confirmed action was writing "weird stuff" on another project - admittedly, very weird staff, including mentioning a "virus" that prevents them from editing it.wiki (but not en.wiki) from their hometown. Anything more - whether they went to the police, attempted to intimidate and coerce editors, tried to "flush them out," whether they are ideologically motivated/fascist, have ANI flu, etc. - is pure speculation. I hope this will be taken into account if they ever appeal this CBAN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  LukeWiller has already said they don't want to provide details about their accusations. Oh, they have? I didn't know they said that; I must have missed it. Can you point me to it? Gommeh 🎮 14:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  It.wiki reconfirmation and Daniel's talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! For clarification; I interpreted their comments here as meaning they may not be able to discuss much more because of potential legal matters. I personally think it's best for them to clarify but if they don't want to then that's fine. Gommeh 🎮 14:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Posted an apology on their EN talk page just to make sure they know. Gommeh 🎮 15:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• So ANI flu can be fatal after all. EEng 16:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.