Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Furkanberk52

    [edit]
    There is consensus here to community ban Furkanberk52. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Furkanberk52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Editing pattern suggests they are trolling and POV-pushing Armenian genocide denial, with them calling properly sourced info by experts in the field of the Armenian genocide "biased" or not "objective". ([1][2][3]). A topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan seems fitting. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed- topic ban may be best here. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    experts in the field, hmm. Does expert in the field only mean 1 man or men who's names end with yan/ian? These towards are literally "biased" and one sided.
    This is like in newton-modern pyhsics arguement, only using newton's sources.
    You are writing, you are playing, then who will counters it? asperagasmanchini (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments for @Furkanberk52:
    1. Your signature is confusing, as I see no connection between "asperagasmanchini" and your username. It would be nice to fix that. I believe it has slowed down responses to this issue, as people are having trouble seeing the connection between your post and the original complaint.
    2. Why do you refer to Armenians that way (by surname ending)? Seems a bit off-putting to me. Please answer.
    3. The references you objected to (as linked above) do not seem to be from Armenians, so you putting down Armenian sources seems to be a non sequitur in this discussion.
    4. If all Armenians and people of Armenian heritage (with those last names) are "literally biased" does that mean that all Turkish people and people of Turkish heritage are also "literally biased" and using them for denial of the Armenian information is worthless? Please answer.
    5. If you object to a source as non-reliable, please also post objective evidence that it is unreliable. Otherwise, your objection could be seen as frivolous.
    Thank you in advance for your reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of this. @Furkanberk52 if you want to check whether a source is reliable, please see WP:RSP for a list of sources generally seen as reliable by the Wikipedia community. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 23:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Furkanberk52 has not edited since the 13th. Their pattern historically is to sporadically edit, so this is not too unusual. However, given the general trend in the ban discussions, I have preemptively blocked them from Article space and Article talk space, and invited them to participate here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    [edit]

    The editors below are proposing a topic ban. To formalize this for anyone else who wishes to comment/!vote, I believe the following summarizes their wishes. If not, please reply and clarify: Proposal Topic ban from Armenia, broadly construed. This includes the Armenian genocide, the Armenian people, and persons of Armenian descent. This discussion must stay open for at least 24 hours per WP:CBAN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC) This discussion will stay open as long as the community ban discussion does. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

    • Support ban This is not a constructive editor. Suggesting that a source is reliable or not based on the ethnicity of the author is frankly racist. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe Then, [name removed as per WP:OUTING], there is a lot of racism going on Wikipedia, as prolific Turkish scholars like Yusuf Halaçoğlu are judged based on their ethnicity. Taner Akçam, on the other hand, is funded by Dashnak supported Zoryan Institute and has ties to the terrorist organization PKK. Kiisamyu (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban. There has to be some other sort of policy violation for this as well. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • support TBAN at minimum: obvious POV-pushing and anti-Armenian rhetoric - invoking last name suffixes as evidence of unreliability is problematic to say the least ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban at least. The user with the two confusing names seems to be editing in a crudely nationalistic way. The thing about "men who's names end with yan/ian" above is deplorable, and makes me ready to support an indefinite block as an alternative. Taner Akçam is recognized as a "leading international authority" on the Armenian genocide, per Wikipedia's well-sourced article about him. To then write, as Furkanberk52 did on Talk:Armenian genocide, that "[Akçam] is anti-Turk and funding by EU. I'd suggest another sources, it can be from USA genocide researches" and to fall silent when asked for sources, speaks volumes.[4] User:LunaEclipse has given further pretty striking examples. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
      @Bishonen Taner Akçam is an operative of German Intelligence Agency BND and is funded by the Hamburg Institute for Social Studies. Source Kiisamyu (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan but would prefer CBAN. Using two usernames to edit is definitely not on, nor is calling Taner Akçam anti-Turk. That's also a BLP violation. The edits linked are unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Oppose Wikipedia is controlled by lunatic leftists and globalists. They want to smear Turkish history under the guise of encyclopedia building. This thread is just as deceitful as the imperialist lie of Armenian genocide.
    Kiisamyu (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A brand new account that has found their way to this conversation to not only defend OP but spew weird conspiracy theories. I'm sure this will end well. — Czello (music) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i wonder who it possibly could be ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it was Wallis sabiti who may be Zenzyyx. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban

    [edit]

    For the reasons I give in my post above I'm proposing this alternative. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Open for at least 72 hours according to WP:CBAN unless outcome is obvious after 24 hours with limited opposition. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing from Hollowww

    [edit]
    AMICABLE RESOLUTION
    Hollowww recognizes the issue now and agreed to work on fixing things. Here's hoping it all works out. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reported editor has a battleground mentality and is engaged in edit-warring, tendentious editing and disruptive editing. They blatantly misrepresent what sources say [5], going as far as edit-warring for the inclusion of a dead king (Shapur I) who died two years before a war [6], [7], [8] while they have been told that the king died two years before. They move articles they created [9] under the pretext that their outcomes have been changed by some "Iranians". I'm ready to hear anything, but an editor who edit wars to include a dead king in an article about a war that took place two years after his death, an editor with a battleground mentality who misrepresents what sources say is not here to build an encyclopedia. Pinging other editors who have interacted with the reported user : @Kansas Bear:, @Iranian112:, @HistoryofIran:.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I confirm, see other examples of Disruptive editings from Hollowww[10][11][12][13][14]Iranian112 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As of 20 April, user:Hollowww has reverted the Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign three times,15 April20 April20 April while ignoring the on-going discussion(started 2 April). That in my opinion is reason enough for a 24hr block.
    User:Hollowww's articles are, simply put, Roman propaganda. They use primary Roman sources(some of which are used for original research(see Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273, to include dead Emperor Shapur I), simply to include the Sasanian Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also has reverted the Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273 three times 15 April 20 April 21 April Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem was that I used primary sources to create articles, and I have realized this too. In my most recent ones, such as Battle of Europos and Siege of Nisibis (197) I mainly relied on secondary sources. As of the previous articles I made, I don't know when, but I will rewrite them from scratch. Thank you all again for reporting. Hollowww (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In Islamic Central Asian and Middle Eastern war-related articles, there is a long ongoing trend of racking as many wins (I guess "points) for the favoured side, generally with poor sources. It seems Hollowww is doing the same to these articles of the Late Antiquity, without being thorough with what sources they use, just taking whatever they find on Google ebooks, instead of citing (preferably leading, there is fortunately not a lack of them) academics. If Hollowww could just do that (and communicate more rather than keep reverting with no proper edit summaries), then that would be great, but it seems this thread hasn't even caught their attention. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hollowww is still edit warring and adding poor citations as we speak. Here [15] they cite a book about a "financial crisis" in the USA that will "end" its status a superpower in an article about a battle between the Romans and Parthians in 198. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    More WP:OR, after checking Caracalla's campaigns of 214–216, I've found zero mention of any siege at Edessa from any of the sources I've checked. The article is historically inaccurate, depicting Abgar as being taken after a siege and not traveling to Rome with his son(per the sources). See here and here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment : since Hollowww posted this message on my talk page, I think this report is no longer needed. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am willing to believe that this editor will rewrite things to conform to policies and guidelines, but, Hollowww, please be aware that there are many eyes on you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fremrin: created hoax article

    [edit]
    BLOCKED FROM ARTICLE AND DRAFTSPACE
    Hoaxing to make article subject notable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Fremrin created the second version of Elvire Jaspers, which was speedy deleted at AfD as a hoax. No evidence could be found to support the assertion that she was a Latvian member of parliament, which would have given her a guarantee of notability as passing WP:NPOL.

    Jaspers exists, as a Dutch media businessperson. An earlier article about her was brought to AfD on 26 March 2025 and speedy deleted G7 on 2 April 2025. Fremrin created a new article, with the apparently unveriable information about her Latvian political career. They did not contribute to the discussion at AfD.

    I suggest that an editor who appears to have deliberately introduced fake information in an attempt to make an article Notable should be blocked to prevent them from damaging this precious encyclopedia. PamD 20:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a block until they acknowledge what they did and promise not to do it again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to hear Fremrin's explanation, but as they haven't edited since 11 Apr and they edit infrequently, perhaps it would be safer for the project to apply an article-space block until the issue is resolved. IMO, deliberately adding false content to an article is one of the worst wiki-offenses. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they do not respond here, I will partially block them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, sounds like a plan. Even if they don't know about this discussion, they shouldn't continue editing articlespace until it's resolved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread for 4 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Now blocked after two days with no response. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025

    [edit]
    WITHDRAWN
    Please take any necessary comments to the open thread at WP:AE, thanks. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs) has been told [16] to not canvass [17] the editors who apparently shares the same view as them on Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025. Now they are openly WP:VOTESTACKING to circumvent the process [18]. Heraklios 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pings have been done by the other side too [19]. WP:VOTESTACKING mentions that it applies to RFCs, AFDs and CFDs, but doesn't mention RMs. I've participated numerous RMs before, and editors have very often notified other editors though pings or other ways. Only in AFDs, have I noticed that notifying other editors is strictly prohibited, but never in RMs. PadFoot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what that guideline states. The votestacking section merely lists those as examples: such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD. The canvassing behavioral guideline clearly states Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.. Note the breadth of the definition: notifications that try to influence a discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that any decision coming from this RM will be lasting. Maniacal ! Paradoxical was supposed to leave a neutral statement/question and those opening comments have a clear POV. And, PadFoot, referring to editors with different opinions as "sides" shows a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that canvassing is as inappropriate in RMs as anywhere else; pings are acceptable only as long as editors are not notified according to their expected viewpoint on a discussion. However, RMs are not expected to begin with neutral statements like RFCs. In fact, it is expected that the editor suggesting the move will advocate for it (WP:RSPM), so there was no problem with the original request incorporating an opinion. Whether the opening statement was one that might reasonably be expected to convince those in disagreement and lead to consensus is a separate question. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yeah. I'm not sure how you could be expected to propose a move with a "neutral statement". Wanting the page to be moved is kind of the point. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Rsjaffe, I still had a slight bit of confusion, does this apply to a simple talk page discussion as well? Like say editor A wants to include a newer figure of the lifespan of the Common Irish Mountain Dragon, and an editor B disagrees so they both go the talk page to discuss, and editor A pings another editor C there, would that be canvassing too? PadFoot (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that might be canvassing. In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way.
    The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):
    1. Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.[1]
    2. Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
    3. Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
    4. Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
    5. Soliciting support in indirect ways, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.
    — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks! PadFoot (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They only pinged users from the previous RM that agreed with them/were friends with, which is blatant canvassing, and then have continued to do so after being warned. Surely that’s sanctionable. Couple that with the original research conducted in the previous and current RM, and gaslighty WP:SEALIONING, like trying to argue ngrams, which gave a massive lead, can’t be used to assess common name because of WP:CIRCULAR, or that Maratha Empire is somehow a WP:POVNAME despite most reputable scholars using it. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous concerns were raised about Padfoot’s OR and POV pushing (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing) by three experienced editors which archived without admin input. They raised concerns about anti-Indian bias. There is also User:PadFoot2008/Great Indian Sockwar (2022–present) which seems to be parodying historical conflicts and seems WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is also an ongoing AE case against him. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Padfoot was also warned for canvassing in a AFD discussion here Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having received that warning, Padfoot's comments above claiming that they didn't know canvassing applied to RMs now appear specious. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsjaffe, as I mentioned before, I was thus aware that canvassing applied to AfD, because of that warning. However, since RMs are not mentioned, and as I have seen that editors often ping others in RMs, I had been under the impression that canvassing was not applicable to RMs. PadFoot (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be more convincing if you hadn’t continued after being warned. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned right at the top, I had seen WP:CANVASSING before, but as I had seen editors being pinged on RMs before, I thought it wasn't for RMs, and only for AfDs. After rsjaffe cleared it up for me, I haven't pinged any more editors. PadFoot (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't only pinged the editors but have also notified them of the discussion, and failing to admit that is not helping at all. Heraklios 16:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The response by PadFoot is deceptive; they had previously done the same thing by canvassing editors for the move discussion on the same page, which is Maratha Confederacy. Most of the canvassed editors eventually voted in PadFoot's favor [20][21][22][23][24] Similarly, they also canvassed for AfDs [25] and RfCs [26], and in both cases, the canvassed users ended up supporting them. Even the Move Review process wasn't spared:

    [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Despite being aware of WP:CANVASSING, PadFoot chose to repeat the same mistakes. They were also warned previously for unilaterally moving pages, which led to them losing their page mover rights. However, they still didn't learn and recently carried out another undiscussed move: [37] [38] This caused unnecessary exhaustion of other editors' time: [39] [40] [41] They have also cast aspersions and refused to accept consensus-driven RMs, as seen here: [42] Their comment was: all these Empire move pushes in India-related articles have been brought about by just you three in a sudden quick succession. Now they continue making these same mistakes, the only remedy remains to restrict PadFoot from moving pages and participating in mainspace talk discussions to prevent further canvassing. Heraklios 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support TB from page moves and talk mainspace: I think this is the best remedy one could suggest after witnessing repeating disruptive moves and open canvassing. Given that they were warned about these problems and still chose to repeat the same mistake, I don't think PadFoot2008 should be allowed to roam freely on talk pages and moving pages. Heraklios 17:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely ridiculous, after I was told that canvassing shouldn't be done in AfDs, I didn't notify anymore editors in any other AfDs that I did after the first one. For RMs, after rsjaffe clarified to me that notifying/pinging editors on RMs was not allowed, I have not notified any other editor since then. PadFoot (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately you're out of WP:ROPE, you knew the consequences for canvassing but disregarded it on this very report by indirectly saying "I wasn't aware of moving discussion canvassing, so it should be ruled out", you want to be warned everytime and for every type of discussions? That isn't how it works and as evident from the above diffs, you haven't only blatantly canvassed editors on RMs but also in AfDs, RfCs and even MRs. Heraklios 18:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to know that canvassing wasn't allowed on AfDs after I was told so, and so I never notified any editor on any other AfD again. Your disingenuinity is apparent from your attempt at giving others a false impression by mentioning ROPE, which applies specifically to unblocking blocked editors, and is thus irrelevant to this discussion, as I've never been blocked. As for the move review, I notified every single editor who had participated in the RM, and thus canvassing doesn't even apply in the first place. PadFoot (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from page moves, RfCs, RMs, and AfDs, only way to prevent further disruption. A ban from talk pages might as well be a site wide ban since being able to engage in discussion is needed to edit. Their canvassing has mostly been in these higher level discussions.
    Kowal2701 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanctions - I have never seen a more flagrant example of battleground mentality, just what in the world are you even trying to say? How can we ban someone from " talk mainspace", what is even that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that someone should be banned from talk pages because they are canvassing? When they clearly have acknowledged their mistake and said they were not aware about the specifics of the policy then why are you trying to re-litigate this thread with such an outrageous proposal? WP:BOLD Moves are not always bad, if they are contested, RM is the way. I see zero evidence of any misconduct that would warrant a sanction here. Shankargb (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you talking about? they were aware of canvassing and that's a fact and if we're being specific, then they could be sanctioned for participating in user talk pages. Their moves have always been overturned and questioned, you need to relook at the above given diffs. Dympies (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from page moves and user talk mainspace except their own and talk mainspace, of course. Per Kowal they can be restricted from participating in any move, AfD, RfC discussions as an alternative. If we won't sanction them from user talk pages, then I don't know how it can be assured that their canvassing would stop. Their moves are poor which is evident from the history. Dympies (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and close - No evidence has been provided that why a long term productive editor should be topic banned. Furthermore, a report already exists at WP:AE about this user, there was no need to open this report per WP:FORUMSHOP. @Asilvering: can you close this report since one already exists at WP:AE? Azuredivay (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I agree that AE is a better venue for this, someone should summarise this thread there (including the AfD warning, Maniacal’s warning, and Rsjaffe’s comment about Padfoot’s 'defence'). Don’t think a CBAN would be appropriate Kowal2701 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @HerakliosJulianus, I haven't looked much into this and compared it to what's at WP:AE right now, but if both an "oppose ban" and a "support ban" editor agree this should be at WP:AE instead, I'm inclined to believe there's merit to that - are you alright with this ANI thread being closed? -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've addressed the canvassing substantively in my examination of the AE report and expect that the conclusion of the AE discussion will likely make this thread moot. signed, Rosguill talk 03:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm ok as well, Rosguill has already picked up the AE report so it's unnecessary to keep this open. Heraklios 14:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Azuredivay,
      The report on AE is about their earlier misinterpretations of sources which may need a remedy of a Topic ban from the entire IPA, however this is mainly about recent canvassing and roughly executed page moves which are subject to immediate sanction from ANI. There is a bunch of evidence suggesting unconstructive editorial by PadFoot. Dympies (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from page moves and user talk pages Padfoot has demonstrated a a pattern of Battleground behavior, they had shown similar behavior in Tripartite Struggle article, where they casted aspersions on me and 2 others in that discussion. On the Maratha Confederacy talk page, despite being previously warned not canvas editors [43], they selectively pinged @Mithilanchalputra7 and @Oxiyam.Primal and a few others, who had voted in the last move discussion to oppose the page move just like they themselves. Additionally, they went to canvas another user:
    "Hello @User:Someguywhosbored, your opinion and participation at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025 would be appreciated." [44]. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych

    [edit]

    I'm kind of at a loss of how to proceed. Perhaps there is a better forum for this? I suppose this is a breakdown of the BRD cycle.

    I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [45], [46], [47] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

    First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[48] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [49] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[50] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [51] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [52] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

    Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [53] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [54] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [55], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

    In conclusion, I don't know how to engage with this user and need some help figuring out how to engage. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.
    he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.
    It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.
    It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .
    It's the opponent who returns [56] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby (t) (c) 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.
    On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [57][58][59] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.
    In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.
    Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.
    I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[60] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.
    I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your IP Block failed dismally old man, I'm way too tech savvy for you🤣🤣🤣. 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block attempts will fail like every other admin before you you may as well just block my entire City 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We could continue playing this game forever or we could come to a deal where my original account is unblocked, you should look at the reasons why I was blocked, it was because I opposed manyareasexperts nonsensical contribution to the BRICS article but if you don't want to unblock me then I will continue doing this for many years to come. 41.144.1.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I blocked any IPs, just some accounts. I guess a few IPs might have ended up autoblocked. Anyway, I've now put in place a couple of range blocks that might have an effect, and won't have much collateral - that might be more effective, I guess we'll see. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.
    ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.
    Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.
    All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accidentally misplaced. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    (edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise let's rap 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
      First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
      Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
      With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
      I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
      With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
      MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [61] [62] [63] [64] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
      @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
      @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.
      Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [70] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [71] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([72]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([73]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [74] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.
      Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.
      No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).
      With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.
      What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      concern with is a combative attitude
      I heard that. I would appreciate some examples of that, and how the communication could be done better. I need to learn a better more diplomatic approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Manyareasexpert You should consider some of the issues people have raised, such as: the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent", acknowledge that you brought up issues unrelated to the issues at hand, making dealing with the present issues raised more difficult and confusing, and acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence.
      Some behavior of other parties is also not great, however it's important not to get into the mindset of letting that justify substandard behavior in yourself. In general, if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation.
      There's also been a fair bit of miscommunication going on, more than people may realize (this is partially related to your level of ability in english). So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it.
      I hope you appreciate this advice. Like, I said, I think outlining where the way you've done things hasn't been great, and how you can do better in the future, would be a good idea. Tristario (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent"
      Thank you, I appreciate the feedback and will not use these
      acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence
      That would confirm I went "lurking" with some evil intentions to introduce disruptive edits into Wiki articles, which is not the case. Very serious accusations of "evil behavior", supported by the community, really curb the motivation for volunteer work.
      if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation
      Thank you for the advice. Will do that, and will look for the 3rd party feedback more often.
      So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it
      Thank you, will look for the 3rd party feedback more often. I will also look for a mentor to work contested edits and discussions with them and to help my discussion be more diplomatic online. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Re vanishing, see WP:ANIFLU, it’s pretty common for people to avoid editing Wikipedia when there’s an ANI case open against them, hoping it passes and gets archived Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like my responses here are working against me. So the case could be very well concluded without them.
      And even with the case archived, would you be called an atrocities supporter, get this designation supported by the community, and return back to the topic? I don't know where would I get such a motivation. The correct approach is to step out if your edits are not appreciated, regardless if you are thinking you are right. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.
      I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.
      A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:
      However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.
      What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.
      Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.
      Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is valid discussion for a talk page and editors should be allowed to discuss it, without accusations of "Holocaust revisionism". I've already agreed with the questioned content removed.
      Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism?
      No, I asked [75] to check if the article contend corresponds to sources provided. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)      [reply]
      Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was).
      It's not just the Roman Shukhevych page. On a lot of articles on Ukrainian neo-Nazis (sorry, ultranationalist, far-right people and groups aligned with Nazi Germany or linked to Nazi ideology), you are there questioning sources or introducing sources that whitewash their Nazi connections:
    • Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B. On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert and then question the reliability of Le Monde. Another editor questions your motivations: if your claim is that Stepan Bandera was not Nazi collaborator, it is hardly tenable, as it was discussed here zillions of times.
    • Here you introduce a source that argues that "Slava Ukraini" is not a neo-Nazi salute "imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity" while at the same time arguing to remove statements that connect the salute with its fascist roots.
    • Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party).
    • Here you remove a Newsweek source titled "Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes" citing WP:NEWSWEEK as a reason to remove it, ignoring that it actually says "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
    • Here you argue for removing Nazi Germany as an ally of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
    • Here you start a discussion on the reliability of sources regarding the "controversies" of the 3rd Assault Brigade and when editors try to meet you half-way and address your concerns all you can say is "Perhaps...".
    And on and on...
    Your defense against allegations against you is to dig up previous disputes I and others have had with other editors and suggest that we're the problem and that we simply throw accusations around without good reason. This leads me to believe that you actually see nothing wrong with your behaviour and think that everyone else is the problem.
    Based on the evidence I laid out above, I think you are here on Wikipedia to whitewash far-right, ultranationalist, fascist (take your pick) people and groups, to remove information that links them to Nazi Germany and (neo-)Nazi ideology. For that reason you should receive a TBAN from any area where you might continue these efforts. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B
    ... and then I add that ... being well informed about the violence, was however "unable or unwilling to instruct Ukrainian nationalist military troops (as Nachtigall, Roland and UPA) to protect vulnerable minorities under their control". As German historian Olaf Glöckner writes, Bandera "failed to manage this problem (ethnic and anti-Semitic hatred) inside his forces... [76] sourced to academic book.
    On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert
    No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Maryna Shevtsova not an expert .
    and then question the reliability of Le Monde
    No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Le Monde an unreliable source .
    Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party)
    ... and then I replace sources containing no such designation with the actual academic source [77] containing such designation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ... one of edits I would like to bring attention to is [78] , where the editor removes content referenced with UN, EU Council, ECHR reports, academic books, academic articles, instead adding WP:TASS, unknown "civic-nation.org" , WP:RIANOVOSTI and such, under the description of "sockpuppet account". How can I politely note that such an edit is not an improvement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic Ban

    [edit]

    This has been going on for some weeks now, and the current one vs. the world contest of wills does not seem to me to be accomplishing much at this juncture. There seems to be clear (indeed, pretty uniform, outside of ManyAreasExpert themselves) consensus that there are colourable concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism.

    These issues may very well have been resolvable short of a sanction, with proper discussion and engagement with community concerns, but I believe there is also an extremely clear consensus that MAE has themself consistently thwarted those avenues for resolution through an WP:IDHT attitude towards the concerns raised, compounded by efforts to evade scrutiny through abuse of process. Therefore, to bring this discussion around towards some sort of useful outcome rather than the unfocused castigation it is presently trending towards, I propose the following sanction:

    ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history, broadly construed

    SnowRise let's rap 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: per consensus by all respondents up until this point, up to and including Kowal2701's !vote, the original proposal has been amended to refine its focus. Additions appear in green. SnowRise let's rap 20:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MAE, for purposes of explaining the thinking behind this proposal, I'll just assume that you're correct about the assertion that most of your edits in this area are regarded as non-controversial and non-problematic by other editors of the related articles. I don't know that that is actually true, and I'm pretty sure the respondents here would not agree, but for the sake of argument let's take that truism. I believe that even if that concession were granted, consensus would still be that your tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits constitutes such a source of disruption and drain on community time and manpower (much of it from how you approach the criticisms raised and those who raise them) that allowing you to contribute in this area would still be a clear net negative. I don't think these issues can just be set aside because you are convinced your overall performance average is decent. SnowRise let's rap 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explanation, which is actually quite friendly.
    tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits
    Had to look it up, it means "fierce fighting". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MAE; I'm very gratified to hear that the observation was taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise let's rap 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN - holocaust denial and revisionism is a huge red flag for community, and the lack of real apology and willingness to address shortcomings in this thread sealed the deal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN although I'm not entirely sure about the proposed scope. "Modern European political organizations" is vague, with differing definitions of when modernity starts (and/or ends). Most of the problems on display also seem to narrowly concern Ukrainian history, or more broadly Eastern European history, rather than "European political organizations" writ large. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the battleground attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict expressed in this thread, and would thus want to consider a Jewish history scope as part of the proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I considered multiple variants of that last entry, as narrow as "Modern far-right European political organizations" and as broad as "modern political organizations". I believe the "broadly construed" probably removes any real concerns about the "when does the modern era start?" insofar as any broad definition of the modern era includes the entire period in which the Nazi party was created and rose to prominence (the 1920s and 30s) and thereafter. But I admit that leaves reasonable concerns about the scope. Having seen a lot of TBAN discussions, including those arising from editors playing at the edges of their ban, I felt it was best to prevent temptation by circumscribing all topic matter that might be reasonably connected to direct influence by Nazi ideology, and went as broad as I could without completely shutting MAE out of socio-political topics, which would be too broad in my opinion.
    All that said, I have absolutely no issues with anyone re-defining the focus of the proposal if there is even basic consensus for it. It should be changed sooner, rather than later, if it is to be changed, so as not to frustrate any eventual closure. SnowRise let's rap 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN with the wording of ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed per Rosguill. @Rosguill: does the clarification regarding the history topic work for you? {{ping|Snow Rise| @Simonm223: @Bluethricecreamman: does this tweak look alright to you?. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Snow Rise:. Curse you typo'd pings. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        works for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes this is fine as a refinement of the proposed ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I was uninvolved in the previous discussions, but as other editors have pointed out, restricting this to Eastern European political organizations post-1941 misses a big chunk of potentially problematic history. In the discussions mentioned above a prominent role is played by debates rergarding the Nazi ties of the OUN. One of our sources for that article, Per Anders Rudling's "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications", describes the group thus: Founded in 1929, the OUN was the largest and most important Ukrainian far-right organization. Explicitly totalitarian, the movement embraced the Führerprinzip, a cult of political violence, racism, and an aggressive anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of Ukrainian statehood at any price, and utilized assassination as legitimate means to this end. A typical fascist movement, the OUN cultivated close relations with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Falange, and the Croatian Ustaše. A footnote adds that Melnyk assured, in a May 2, 1939 letter to Joachim von Ribbentrop that his organization shared the Weltanschaaung [sic] of the National Socialists and Fascists, and offered to help in the ‘reorganization’ of Eastern Europe. In other words, not only did this organisation exist before 1941, but so did its racism and its ties (political and/or ideological) to Nazism, which are the core issue. With this in mind, the proposed cut-off year sounds both artificial and inadequate. Furthermore, from a more practical standpoint, this excessive tailoring of the TBAN could easily lead to future arguments over what exactly falls into the ban or how broad "broadly construed" really is, leading to more heat when what is intended is to lower the temperature, if only slightly, of a perennially hot topic. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know if it is appropriate for me to weigh in on potential sanctions, if it's not I'll strike this. But, I agree with this. I don't think the cut off year is clarifying, and I am not sure if OUN would qualify under the TBAN proposed. isa.p (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this is more to do with Ukrainian history and I am not sure the proposed scope is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that works, although there is a far amount of redundancy among those topics. "Jewish history and Nazism" nominally covers all of it, although I know that sometimes we include extra prescriptions in order to preempt lawyering over gray areas. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's a workable solution, though it is worth noting that Nazi ideology was influencing central and eastern European groups (in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, for example) well before 1941. Still, those topics are probably covered by the rest of the wording? SnowRise let's rap 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Eastern European political organizations post-1941
      That means TB on Russia, Ukraine and related political parties and so on. A state is a political organization as well, right? Would editors please be so kind and post some disruptive diffs in the area so we can see the specifics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan with Bushranger's edits. I agree there's some redundancy in the proposed TBan range, but, other than for esthetics, I don't see any reason to fix that, and fixing while preventing loopholes may make the definition of the ban even longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN Reading this whole thread it seems clear that MAE's perspective on Ukrainian nationalism and the Nazis is, at best, heavily skewed, and that they are unable or unwilling to change that. Therefore a ban from editing on the topic seems necessary.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR issue with Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira

    [edit]
    PBLOCK FROM ARTICLES
    Appears to have competence issues compounded by difficulty understanding English, even though some edits were useful. Too much disruption to allow editing to continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is creating categories and redirects en masse with poor copy-paste edit summaries, such as "I decided to redirect this to the appropriate page..." despite warnings and messages on their talk page asking them to stop. A glance at their contribution history shows the dozens of new redirects for every individual Peppa Pig episode, creating within 2 hours. They have a tenuous grasp of the English language; they often respond to talk page messages with incoherent nonsense that doesn't address the original concern and change the subject. Their talk page is littered with editors asking them to stop their behavior and getting responses that play victim or don't acknowledge the actual issue (e.g. "please don't be rude," "don't make me cry", 1, 2). They don't understand that their behavior is disruptive (they keep insisting they're trying to help) and won't address anything. It's a very strong case for WP:CIR. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, s---! Are you talking about me because of my so-called exaggerations on this site?! So... Are you guys going to sue me?! Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is going to sue you. However, several people have been spending a lot of time trying to communicate with you, and have been understandably getting very frustrated. Communicating with others is a crucial part of Wikipedia, and it does not appear that you have sufficient fluency in the English language to meaningfully contribute here. There are many other Wikipedia editions, including Portuguese. You would also have a more satisfying experience editing a Wikipedia edition in a language you understand.
    (Machine translation): Ninguém vai processar você. No entanto, várias pessoas têm dedicado bastante tempo tentando se comunicar com você e, compreensivelmente, têm ficado muito frustradas. Comunicar-se com os outros é uma parte crucial da Wikipédia, e não parece que você tenha fluência suficiente na língua inglesa para contribuir de forma significativa aqui. Existem muitas outras edições da Wikipédia, incluindo a em português. Você provavelmente teria uma experiência mais satisfatória editando uma edição da Wikipédia em um idioma que você compreende. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried extensively to get through to them, without any success. I hate to block anyone who wants to edit in good faith, but at the same time, I agree there's a serious CIR issue, and I don't know what else to do. There's just too much of a language barrier. You can see it up and down their talk page. You try to tell them something, and they respond with something like "I'm having a nervous" and then continue on some random tangent. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have p-blocked them from mainspace as an interim step to encourage communication and limit disruption to the project. Star Mississippi 01:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at her Portuguese Wikipedia contributions, she has good command of the language. She is not proficient at editing, but knows wiki markup and can add a couple of bare references. She caused a lot of disturbance there too, when created many articles about children's cartoon episodes back in 2016–2017. Most were deleted and redirected. (Could it maybe be that she thinks the English Wikipedia needs such redirects?)
    She should just be very politely told to go back there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I see the problem here. Redirects from episode names to the list of episodes are...kind of what redirects are for? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{R from television episode}}, which may need to be DEFAULTSORTed, e.g. if there's a leading "A", "An" or "The". Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger issue has been that they've been quite prolific in creating redirects for things that weren't mentioned in the target at all, and its been difficult to tell if they were understanding of the problem. It's only recently that they've sort of "upgraded" to mass creating redirects that are more debatable in their usefulness - like creating The Lunch (Peppa Pig) that redirects to an episode list that says something like "The Lunch" - Peppa Pig packs a lunch and eats it." Is that a likely search term? And if it is, was that info actually helpful to the reader? Do these need to be mass created for every episode? I don't know. The problem is that its impossible to even discuss it with them.
    Anyways, a quick skim of their talk page should help you understand the variety of issues with the editor, and the constant struggle in trying to communicate anything with them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the main pain points is their edit summaries. Just scroll down this user's logs and you can see a copy-paste of "I wanted to create this category page... And so, what do you think about that?" hundreds of times, which are completely inappropriate as edit summaries. This was called out multiple times on their talk page: 1, 2, 3. Their response always something like "Oh s---! How nervous... thanks I guess" and then they go right back to doing that exact behavior. ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote a note to her explaining what she did wrong. (What I wrote may not be 100 % correct. I should have added: "The above comment may not reflect the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative corps." But anyway, I tried.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, their behavior with the edit summaries and elsewise does seem to be an issue. But the creation of the redirects themselves, at least at present, seems to me to be perfectly cromulent. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see... But I already wrote to her that the redirects and her "acting like an elephant in a china shop" were the reason she was blocked. (And her poor English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I showed her how to request an unblock. If she figures out how to use the unblock template, then you can maybe try unblocking her and see what happens. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were still right to say what you did. Even Bushranger conceded that there were other issues at play here, and I still stand by my statement that even if the recent redirects aren't seen as outright disruptive, it still isn't working out that it's impossible to hold much of discussion on them with Sarah. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Popward123 - no edit summaries

    [edit]

    Despite multiple requests on their talk pages from several editors - this editor continues not use edit summaries for their edits. (Diffs of requests / reversions 1 2 3 4) It is tiresome to have to manually check diffs of their edits to see what changes they have done. I am under the impression that edit summarises are not optional (WP:FIES), and therefore query what the next step for an editor (one with over 4,000+ edits) who continues not to use edit summarises is. I hope this will strongly encourage them to consistently use edit summarises going forward. Turini2 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summaries are strongly encouraged but not required. FIES is a help page and specifically says it is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. Unless you have something else to complain about, there's nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the lack of communication? Umpteen messages on the talk page, not one reaction… Danners430 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user doesn't talk. That is always a problem because this is a collaborative project, but to sanction them, someone has to provide diffs of disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - if we set aside the edit summaries for a minute, and give an example of some of the other problematic behaviour we've seen:
    Edit warring at Central Line (London Underground):
    • Made several edits
    • Was reverted by @Murgatroyd49
    • Popward then restores his version with the summary I put that the Central line runs from West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway in West London.
    • They are once again reverted.
    • Popward then proceeds to make a very similar edit with the summary I just added that that line runs through Central London.
    • Once again, they are reverted
    • Popward yet again attempts to make exceedingly similar edits with the summary I just added that the line runs from West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway in West London.
    • They are finally, and yet again, reverted and the edit warring stops.
    This all played out over 4 days... and the reason I bring it up is it's a recent example of this editor ignoring other editors, and just carrying on pushing their own edits.
    A quick glance at a filtered Contributions page (has mw-reverted applied) shows just how many of this user's edits have been reverted in a very short period of time. Various editors have tried to engage them on their talk page, but nothing has happened... are we to keep following them around in the knowledge that we're likely going to have to inspect each and every one of their diffs because a) it could be unhelpful, and b) is not explained? Is that not the definition of a net negative editor?
    If the user engaged with the concerns raised on their talk page instead of refusing to engage, this could change - I don't like editors being blocked any more than the next person... but if things don't change, why are we wasting our time following them around inspecting diffs? Danners430 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "strongly encouraged but not required" ≠ "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page" ? Turini2 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the Wikipedia:Consensus page ("This page documents an English Wikipedia policy") states "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page."
    In my opinion, explaining your edits is part of a core Wikipedia policy – not just guidance or a help page. Turini2 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your opinion were correct, we'd be blocking a helluva lot of editors. Consensus is in keeping with the Help page, the key word being "should" not "shall" or "must", i.e., it's a good idea. Another thing: how would you handle users who use edit summaries that don't really explain their edit? Would that satisfy policy (if there were one)?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure - there's one thing of occasionally forgetting an ES (I'm certainty guilty of that) or writing a poor quality ES – but consistently providing none at all? There's zero consequences for that? Turini2 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23, every single one of their last 50 edits was reverted, and they've only ever made 1 edit to a talk page in their entire edit history. That's more than enough for me to pblock from main, so I'll do that. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @asilvering: To be clear, the link that Danners430 provided above leads to a filtered Contributions page that has the mw-reverted tag filter applied; while 50 reverted edits in the span of less than a month is a lot, it's not as bad as every single one of their last 50 edits. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I did try to make that clear when I wrote my message - I was using the filter to show the extent of their disruptive editing. Obviously not all of it is… but when someone has that level of reversions, surely patience runs out when they’re refusing to engage? Danners430 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, thanks for pointing that out, @DrOrinScrivello. I must have forgotten I had opened that link (their contributions page is also the visited-link colour for me). I'd lift the block, but... unfortunately, in the meantime they've edited their own talk page in a way that suggests to me we're headed for an indef anyway, so I'll leave it for now and see how this plays out. @Danners430, it was probably an oversight on my part for having too many browser tabs open and clicking back to the wrong one, but if you wanted to make your original link more clear, putting "a filtered" and "page" into the hyperlink rather than just "Contributions" would have helped. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As with any such issue, it’s no one person’s fault - I’ve made the suggested adjustments above… and I’ll try and remember to do them if there’s a next time :) Danners430 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll use edit summaries from now on. Popward123 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popward123, that's good to hear, but can you also address some of the editing issues? You've gotten into edit wars with other editors over your changes. What will you do instead to avoid that happening again? -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of getting into edit wars, I will prioritize discussion and consensus-building before editing. I will also avoid reverting an edit more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. I'll engage in respectful communication on the talk page and will present my arguments clearly with citations. I'll be willing to compromise. Popward123 (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Danners430. Have you read my reply to your question. If not, please read. Popward123 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popward123, you say I will also avoid reverting an edit more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. This is a bright-line rule, meaning that if you fail to observe it, you'll be blocked, end of discussion. But it's still edit-warring if you keep reverting other people's edits and just manage to stay under the 4-reverts-in-24-hours line. If you aim to prioritize consensus-building and discussion, that means not coming even close to 3RR. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I will follow the bright-line rule and won’t revert other people’s edits. I will also continue using edit summaries for the edits I make. Popward123 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I've unblocked, and sorry about my earlier error misreading your contributions history (I've noted that in the unblock log). By the way, it looks like you were trying to ping earlier, but you didn't actually send a ping - just checking that you know you can do this easily when using the "reply" button, by typing @ and then selecting the name of the editor you wish to ping? -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I meant Asilvering. Not Danners430. Popward123 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding by Leechjoel9 in a contentious topic

    [edit]

    User:Leechjoel9 has been consistently monitoring my edits and reverting whatever edits I've made on the Eritrea article [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] since September 2024, a brief look at his edit history all but confirms it. Now that he noticed I planned to retire he seems to have decided to strike, and deleted a large chunk of my work from various Eritrean related pages. Most notably, he consistently accuses me of being a sockpuppet, I believe this is out of revenge for a previous dispute we had in September 2023 which led to both of us getting blocked (me for 42 hours and him for around a month if I recall), during this period he has opened several SP investigations to get me banned [93] [94]. I think that he is too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think his history of blocks and behavior above show that he is not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, he needs to be prevented from constantly deleting large sections of my work for no apparent reason. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting edits on the grounds that you're a sockpuppet is obviously out of line. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Socialwave597, has Leechjoel9 gone on a similar reverting spree of your edits before? I didn't notice it in a quick skim. I don't mean edit wars in general, but the kind of thing that appears to be happening now, where after a time a bunch of your edits are all reverted at once. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering He went on a similar revert rampage as early as May 2024[95][96]. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leechjoel9 please explain your conduct. Gommeh (T/C) 19:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Socialwave597, while @Leechjoel9 has much to answer to, why are you calling their edits "vandalism"? Special:Diff/1287044596 Vandalism is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Content disputes are definitely not vandalism. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsjaffe Apologies for that, and you are correct. Definitely should not have added that to my edit summary. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering @Rsjaffe @GommehGaming101, LeechJoel9 has once again reverted all of my edits! [97] [98] [99] Socialwave597 (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked @Leechjoel9 from articles for personal attacks (calling you a sockpuppet) and invited them to participate here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socialwave597 have been involved in editing the same articles and been reported as a SP which was filed by me. Similar editing styles by several accounts and content removal/edits have been made to several of the articles, in particular Medri Bahri article. However the investigation didn’t resulted in ban. I will proceed with filing a new detailed claim. Untilit have been concluded I’ll refrain from allegation this user, I also meant that is user is a potential SP not a confirmed one, that was a typo. I’ll stick to directing the user to the talk page of the articles to gain consensus for their edit and a block is unnecessary for now. Leechjoel9 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and your investigation was dismissed over a year and a half ago. But feel free to open up a new CU then. Socialwave597 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have altered the block to be 36 hours now that you are participating in this discussion. You know that personal attacks are not allowed and you know that your sockpuppetry allegations were twice dismissed yet you continue them. Further attacks may result in longer blocks.
    Any reversals of @Socialwave597's edits must be based on policy, not on your sockpuppetry suspicions. Non-policy-based reversions may also result in consequences for your editing privileges. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leechjoel9, I'm not the slightest bit convinced by I also meant that is user is a potential SP not a confirmed one, that was a typo. You wrote "SP edit" in your edit summaries three times in your past 50 edits. These three edits were on three different days. You have twice used the word "sock" in your last 50 edit summaries, also on two separate days. At no point - not even once in those last 50 edits - have you said "potential SP". That's not to mention that reverting edits simply because you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet is not acceptable. -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been banned from reverting a Wikipedia page back to its original status before it started being brigaded.

    [edit]
    INDEFFED
    Off-wiki canvassing, edit warring, etc. Turns out that movies on twitter/X are not necessarily reliable. Who'd thought? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi! I'm a wiki noob. I'm a concerned individual regarding the late Harald Malmgren whose page is being brigade by individuals trying to turn his reputation as a long standing advisor and public servant into a Japanese whale lobbyist. Quite unfair! I've had my IP blocked from editing the page further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodenamePingu123 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 April 2025

    @CodenamePingu123: I blocked you for 24 hours from editing Harald Malmgren because you went over the three revert limit and made more than three reverts on an article in 24 hours, which generally leads to a block to force editors to stop reverting and start discussing. I don't have any interest in the content of the article, I'm just trying to stop editors being disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: a minor point since I think an edit warring partial block was justified regardless but CodenamePingu123 did not break the 3RR bright line rule. They've only made what can be counted as 3 qualifying reverts in the time period. While their edit history may make it look like they made 4 reverts, in fact 2 of them were made with no intervening edits [100] so count as a single revert per WP:3RR. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Please stop assuming bad faith on other editors. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Ritchie - appreciate the answer - there is a large discussion online regarding the content of Harald Malmgren's page being brigaded by unknown persons. Even the Wiki founder stepped in. If you will see, what I'm trying to do is maintain the edits on his page - which delete most of the verified content - until the brigading can stop and then the normal editing process resumes. Is that fair enough? CodenamePingu123 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know anything about Harald Malmgren aside from what I've just read in his Wikipedia article just now. There is a discussion at Talk:Harald Malmgren, and my initial thoughts are, for whatever reason, there are people with strong views on Malmgren for whatever reason. I will say this - if you have strong views on anything, you need to leave those views at the door when you edit Wikipedia, as we require articles to be fair and representative. Given that, the most recent talk page, where an IP accused Chetsford of "vandalism" (scare quotes intended) it looks like we need to get some experienced editors onboard to resolve this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) @CodenamePingu123, as you say there are large [off site] discussion[s] (i.e. [101], [102], [103], [104], etc), agitating for a poorly sourced previous version to be kept, in opposition to multiple long standing editors advocating for the article follow or Policies and guidelines. I therefore agree with you that there is brigading (or as we say here WP:CANVASSING) occurring, but we likely disagree which side is doing it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    " individuals trying to turn his reputation as a long standing advisor and public servant into a Japanese whale lobbyist" He was a Japanese whaling lobbyist (according to WP:RS). I mean what do you expect the article to say? Chetsford (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As somebody who hasn't the faintest idea what this dispute is about, can somebody explain how Jimbo Wales comes into it? [105] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict), @Ritchie333, Jimbo made a keep comment at the AFD ([106]) and now the various reddit fora ([107], [108], [109]) are convinced that he's on there side in a war against gurrila skeptics (which they blame for the article being nominated) instead of him just expressing an opinion at an AFD. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That, plus per the article, Malmgren is a Wales Lobbyist..[Joke] EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    KarsVegas36 edit warring + POV pushing

    [edit]

    This user has been edit warring on Turkish people article, previously on Turkey. See another ANI the user opened, but others suggested a boomerang.

    I tried to explain the user on Talk:Turkish_people, but user insists that Turkish people is not an ethnicity / genetics based, while the article uses the worth ethnic like 100 times, and there is a whole genetic section. This is blatant edit warring POV pushing. Not to mention that the article mentions literally 0 thing about Christian or Jewish "Turkish people". Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you put an edit warring template on their talk page when they had reverted 2 times and you had reverted three times? And then you complain that they blank their talk page (which is perfectly allowed) and put an edit warring template on your talk page?
    As for your "explanation": "No, it is important to note which sect of Islam. Secondly Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish. " Er, what? Fram (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First, Jews in Turkey numbers around 20 thousand, Christians maybe 100 thousand. Jews are Sephardic, while Christians (there may be some Turks) but are generally of non-Turkish origin. The article is about ethnic Turks, it's an ethnicity article, not nationality. This user doesn't understand and is deliberately POV pushing. Replaced "RS" has not even pages, plus the user removes other sources in a sneaky way as if no one is going to notice. Beshogur (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to Article 66 of the constitution for 'Turkishness', which is also clarified in the article. I did not remove the references 'in a sneaky way', I've replaced them with Oxford, which complies with WP:RS. The content stays the same. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about article 66. Turkish people article is about Turkish ethnicity, not nationality. Wikipedia isn't based on constitutions or laws. Yes it is mentioned here once, which is normal. You claim that Turkish ethnicity doesn't even exist, which is a nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding sects, according to OP, putting the information of 100 thousand Christians and 20 thousand Jews, who aren't even of Turkish ethnicity rather Turkish citizens, are more important than denothing Sunni Islam or Alevism (which has millions of followers). Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't say that. I didn't denote them there because they have no Turkey spesific articles such as Jafari Islam in Turkey, they're already covered by the main article of Islam in Turkey. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, this is getting crazy. There are no Jafari Turks either. Jafaris are of Azerbaijani origin. (Azerbaijanis in Turkey). Turkish Muslims are either Sunni Muslim or Alevi. (exception for Iraqi Turkmen that are considered in Azerbaijani group sometimes). Beshogur (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any proof that there isn't a single Jafari of Turkish origin? Any proof that there isn't a single Christian of Turkish origin? Any proof that there isn't a single Jew of Turkish origin? (don't tell it to Tuncay Güney though) KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof of what? Also first time hearing that person, but clicking his article says he's a Dönmeh. Is this your best example? This is getting nowhere btw. Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't my best example, rather a pun. Well said, let's wait for admin input. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is the one who actually contested with the 3RR to begin with. I've explained everything on the article's talkpage. Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews are very influential on the country's history and therefore, they do deserve to be mentioned in the infobox. "The article mentions literally 0 thing about Christian or Jewish" - until - we put some information about them, which we clearly can. They are probably motivated by nationalist ideas, given their attitude and contribs backlog. KarsVegas36 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    until - we put some information about them no one thought to put information here in 20 years? Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews are they Turkish or Turkish citizens? Stop confusing both. They are probably motivated by nationalist ideas, given their attitude and contribs backlog Great personal attacks, while you're the one POV pushing here. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a time-out limit to put information in the articles? Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews articles are there anyways, right?
    And no, there isn't any personal attacks whatsoever. No need for agitation, it's just that I am struggling to understand your actions and that's why I used 'probably'. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Turkish Christians article doesn't exist, and talks about Christians in Turkey, not Turkish Christians. Same of History of the Jews in Turkey not Turkish Jews. Turkish citizen Jews are of Sephardic origin, not Turkic. This is straight up creating imaginary stuff. Beshogur (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what you can't do is put that information in without a reliable source, which you don't have at the moment. This source is utterly unverifiable without references or page numbers, which you say it "doesn't have yet". Surely there must be an alternative source for what is a quite basic piece of demographic data? Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is, even if we can verify, verifiability doesn't mean inclusion. Undue. Yet we don't even know what the source says. It's so shady. Not to mention removing other sources. No one thought of mentioning ethnic Turks who are either Christian or Jewish in the article, but OP did in 20 years of wikiepdia history. It's also a fact that Turkish people are either Sunni Muslim or Alevi traditions (not mentioning irreligion, etc. of course). OP claims there is no Turkish ethnicity, there are Jewish/Christian Turks, there are Jafari Turks. So I don't even stand this. Beshogur (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I did not 'remove' soruces. I replaced them with Oxford, which is much more reliable. The content is still the same.
    Also, exactly. Turkishness isn't ethnoreligious. There are even Pagan Turks. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon? I'm beginning to worry that there is a language or CIR issue here. The Oxford source, as I've said above, is not verifiable because it is a work in progress and doesn't have page numbers. It perhaps would be useful for KarsVegas36 to quote the section that source the claims they've been adding. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're adding pagan too? The article is about Turkish ethnicity, Turkish is an ethnicity. Who talks about "ethnoreligious". And ethnic groups have a certain religious tradition. So Muslim Tatars are also Russians (who are only Orthodox)? Where is the quote and page btw? Beshogur (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not adding Pagans. I am just contesting your view of Muslim-only Turkishness for the sake of this argument. Just stating the fact that Turks can be of any religion. KarsVegas36 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any people can of any religion. But you still don't get the point here. Beshogur (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beshogur, can you point to any RFC which stipulates that Turkish people is about ethnically Turkic people and not the people of Turkey? Excluding people who aren't ethnically Turkic (however that's defined) puts this article in contrast with some others such as British people, French people, or Americans (the redirect target of American people), while other articles embrace both ethnicity and nationality. NebY (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • the whole lede
    • the infobox (numbers of Turks, not Kurds etc.)
    • history
    • traditional minority abroad
    • genetics (Central Asia is taken as a reference always, and only ethnic Turks)
    I know that Brits, French, Americans are not ethnic groups. But this article is generally focused on ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten years ago, the article was broader and included a section on the genetic diversity of the people of Turkey. Was the switch to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? NebY (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Cinnioğlu's work isn't seen as reliable anymore. It is obsolete and solely based on haplogroups and it wasn't even based on ethnic Turks. Recent genetic section is more reliable and based on recent studies. Beshogur (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili: can tell more maybe he's more busy with that. Beshogur (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we used to include material that "wasn't even based on ethnic Turks" because our Turkish people article wasn't only about "ethnic Turks". You're accusing an editor of POV pushing. Denying that Turkish citizens are Turkish people if they're not ethnic Turks is a prima facie breach of WP:NPOV. It's a particularly sensitive matter in the context of Turkey's history (e.g. Armenian genocide, Greek genocide) and present-day Turkey (e.g. Kurds in Turkey, Circassians in Turkey), as well as reminding us of nationalist efforts elsewhere to deny that people of the Turkish diaspora can be German or French people (e.g. Turks in Germany#Attacks against the Turkish community in Germany). Was switching the article to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? NebY (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How did we come to genocides from this? So we should return to poorly sourced revision of 10 years ago which mentions antropology! Beshogur (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beshogur:, answer the question: Was switching the article to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Talk page consensus of what? There was nothing like Turkish people article based on nationality. this is the revision he provided. Also 99% of the article aren't even my additions. Beshogur (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not all consistent: British people is unsurprising in that format, English people and Welsh people appears to be ethnicity-focused. There's probably a lot of discussion that could be had about how titular nation-state ethnicities should be covered, and how particular articles should be titled, and to what extent this should/could be standardised, but AN/I is a poor forum for this. The whole topic intersects with multiple WP:CTOPs, so the discussion should be moved somewhere where it might hopefully get a wide participation, and perhaps more admin eyes are needed on related articles. CMD (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an answer to you but no one considers Kurds, Circiassians, and other minorities as Turkish here. It would be absurd put them here in the same article (which was never the case) I don't know where did the Example text come from suddenly. Turkish people isn't supposed to mean a nationality here, but ethnicity. The OP who added Judaism and Christianity to the infobox can't still prove that traditionally Turkish Jews or Turkish Christians exists. If we look at Religion in Turkey, you see that Jews are generally Sephardic, Christians are Greek, Assyrian, etc. Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't. The number would total like 100 and something thousands, not more. Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "here", but whatever it's supposed to mean people use "Turkish" to denote nationality all the time. It's a very common usage, and also one that will likely be a common intuition for many English speakers. Neither is the tension between ethnic and national identity unique to Turkey, I might add. CMD (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not talking about ethnic tension, but rather ethnicities itself. I know that in biographies Kurd from Turkey is called Turkish, a Turk in Greece is called Greek, but this doesn't make both of them ethnic Turkish and Greek. OP claims there is no Turkish ethnicity that's based on common origin or genetics, everyone living in Turkey holding Turkish passport are Turks. Beshogur (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked if the OP is claiming that (aren't you the OP here?), but it's really unrelated to what I said. I'm surprised to get this sort of response to what I thought was a somewhat obvious linguistic point. CMD (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, in fact, the OP here... - The Bushranger One ping only 19:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the article Turkish people is about ethnicity or nationality—and I think it should be the latter, per COMMONNAME and the article's having apparently formerly had that focus—Wikipedians cannot simply decide to ignore the existence of non-Muslim Turks; Beshogur not only suggests their numbers are too small to merit mention in the article but states they are not Turks by the ethnic definition that Beshogur wants the article to use: putting the information of 100 thousand Christians and 20 thousand Jews, who aren't even of Turkish ethnicity rather Turkish citizens; The fact that Turkish Christians article doesn't exist, and talks about Christians in Turkey, not Turkish Christians. Same of History of the Jews in Turkey not Turkish Jews. Turkish citizen Jews are of Sephardic origin, not Turkic. This is straight up creating imaginary stuff. Both Beshogur and KarsVegas36 have been edit warring, but KarsVegas36 is on the side of the angels in pushing back against this exclusionary bias. However, KarsVegas36 should have edited the Religion section of the article, not just the infobox (and moved the existing sources from the infobox into the new paragraph(s) in that section; I'd also place the Oxford citations there, that is one ridiculously over-ref'd infobox). The infobox is supposed to be a quick tabular overview of the actual article. Black Kite, I disagree that that source is inadmissable. We reference ebooks all the time now, most of which don't have page numbers, and the individual chapters are being published online in advance of print publication; however, I do think references should be to specific chapters (and/or specifically to the online summary or the introduction). The POV-pushing is Beshogur's, from where I sit, but that section of article text, and possibly others, need urgent work even if the article remains about Turkish ethnicity. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Yngvadottir: Wikipedians cannot simply decide to ignore the existence of non-Muslim Turks I don't say non-Muslim Turks don't exist, I say, Turks are traditionally either Sunni or Alevi Muslims, like Greeks are being Orthodox Christian (there are also hundreds of thousand Greek Muslims of literal Hellenic origin). However, this user's claim is that Jewish and Christian citizens of Turkey are also Turks, but they are not. They are minority. "Minority". The user even confuses ethnic Azerbaijanis in Turkey (saying that Jafari Muslim Turks exist too), but that's not true again. Of course there may be convert to Christianity, etc. but the numbers might be counted with hand. There may be more English converts to Islam in England than there are minorities of Christian and Jewish origins in Turkey. So it is undue weight, and POV pushing. The Oxford citation has not even a page, and the user didn't reply regarding this. So that's shady as well. FYI the biggest numbers for Christians in Turkey is around 300,000 while ethnic Turks are around 60,000,000. Adding Kurdish to languages section makes more sense than adding Christianity or Judaism. Because Kurds are Turks too right and having at least 15 million population? Both doesn't makes sense. Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "this user's claim is that Jewish and Christian citizens of Turkey are also Turks, but they are not. They are minority. "Minority"." Shouldn't we topic ban Beshogur from anything to do with race, ethnicity, and religion by now? The constant repetition of the only true Turks are Muslims, if you aren't a Muslim you aren't a Turk ("Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't.") is not the kind of editor we need on such topics. Fram (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What do you mean? Do you get this from what I say? I mean ethnic Turks. See Religion in Turkey. It is clear that Jewish citizens of Turkey are of Sephardic and Ashkenazi origins, Christians are of mainly Greek, Assyrian, Armenian origins. Am I too hard to understand? I get slammed not calling non-Turkish minority of Turkey as Turks. Of course they are citizens of Turkey. What? Beshogur (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the scope of Turkish people article should include both ethnic background and citizenship aspects, which needs to covered in the lead, body and the infobox. It should not be restricted to solely an ethnic background or solely a citizenship aspect. I am not sure ANI is the place for article content debate though. I also need to consult more sources how it is covered when I have time.
    • I believe it is incorrect to say the article had a wider scope that was shifted. Looking at the ten years ago link provided above, the article also had a narrow scope. The easiest way to tell this is the numbers in the infobox. Under "Regions with significant populations" for Turkey, the number given for Turks probably corresponds to about 70 to 75% of the population of Turkey at the time. It's not an amount that is more than 95% of the population of Turkey, which would cover all Turkish citizens. For Turkish people article, under Turkey, I think the infobox should cover both "by ethnic background" and "by citizenship" numbers. But this is a debate that should be done at the talk page of the article. For example, when I tried to do a similar change in Turkey [113], this was reverted. This needs to be talked in the talk page.
    • I also believe some people do not fully understand the debate here. For example, some Christians in Turkey are defined as "minority" under Treaty of Lausanne. The World Factbook and other sources also use wording such as "other minorities" [114]. In some cases, it might be problematic to deny how certain people identify themselves. For example, European Court of Human Rights ruled against Greece for not recognizing names such as "House of Turkish Youth in Xanthi" [115]. I believe there seems to be a language confusion above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fram: wants to topic ban me because I don't deny their existence lol. It is supposed to be otherwise, right? The issue here is, I am trying to tell people that Jewish/Christian minority of Turkey are not of Turkish ethnicity. At least vast majority. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand there may be a language issue here. I am very surprised how quickly a topic ban proposal was suggested. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Open discrimination often rapidly leads to topic bans. Fram (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry but you still don't get it. I recognize them not discriminate. I didn't say anything about Turkish citizenship. Saying that they're Turkish is supposed to be assimilationist. And trust me I don't care about anyone's religion. Just trying to give people here correct information. Beshogur (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Saying that they're Turkish is supposed to be assimilationist. "??? They were Turkish before their conversion. Denying them that ethnicity now because they e.g. converted to Christianity is forcibly removing them from a group they already belonged to. I don't make them assimilate in any way, they were already Turkish before. Fram (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Look, I mean the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek minorities, not converts. Why do you take everything wrong? Every nation has converts. Should we starting to put "minority: Muslim" straight to every ethnic group's infobox we find because it's probably the most growing religion right now? Beshogur (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is evidence for it? Sure, why not? Fram (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty sure there are hundreds of thousands Greek Muslims. And it is well documented. You can start with Greeks article. Good luck. Beshogur (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At least for the 10,000+ Protestant Christians this is clearly not true[116]: "nearly 10,000 Protestants, almost all of whom have a Turkish Muslim background." This despite the severe discrimination Christians face in the country in general[117][118]. The number of Christians in Turkey has dwindled from 20% of the population to 0.2% of the population, but that doesn't mean that the remaining ones (or the new converts) aren't Turkish or that we should erase them completely here. Fram (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a misunderstanding. You say it youself. Muslim background, which means conversion. The numbers are nothing compared to if we say there are 60 million Turks (I don't say they're all Muslim, non religious ones were traditionally Muslims, not Christian or Jewish, which is basically non existent). Adding "minority: Christianity/Judaism" is redunant. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I understand you perfectly. That's why I want you topic banned. Fram (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Explain? Beshogur (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are constantly shifting the goalposts and dismissing any Indications about Christian ethnic Turkish people (I know less about the Jews, so I don't comment one way or the other). Above, you claimed e.g. "Of course there may be convert to Christianity, etc. but the numbers might be counted with hand." Here as well, you somehow dismiss my statement with "You say it youself. Muslim background, which means conversion. " So if you're a convert, you're no longer Turkish? Should we no longer consider Remco Evenepoel as a Fleming because he converted to Islam? Fram (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Look at my comment above. Jews in Turkey are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, not Turkic origin. That's what I mean. As I said, every ethnic groups has converts. Yet I don't see "minority: Islam" on Flemish people's infobox. That's the whole issue. Beshogur (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Like I said, shifting goalposts and giving evasive answers. I post about Protestant Christians, you dismiss them. I reply, stating explicitly that I'm not talking about the Jewish people in Turkey because I don't know enough to comment, and your reply is about the Jewish people. That's no way to have a serious discussion. Do you agree that e.g. the 10,000 or so Protestants who are converted Turkish Muslims are still ethnically Turkish, or not? Fram (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Evasive answer? Is this supposed to be a court? Yes they are and 10,000 isn't enough to put to the infobox. That's it. I don't get your goal here. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Evasiveness has nothing to do with being a court or not, no idea why you bring this up. I'm glad you are now finally moving away from your discriminatory comments like "Christian or Jewish "Turkish people"." (with the scare quotes), "Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish.", "This is straight up creating imaginary stuff.", "Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't." Fram (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I always use quoations. No particular reason. Again, I am talking about minorities inhabiting Turkey, not converts. Regarding This is straight up creating imaginary stuff it was about Jews being Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sadly there is no difference in English or Turkish about Turkish ethnicity and citizenship like "русский" and "российский". I don't know why you have such hard understanding on this topic. It is clear what I mean. And this is my last answer to you. Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised that multiple long-standing editors have not pointed this out, but this is a content dispute, and ANI is not the place to discuss changes in articles or what editors think an article represents. Both sides have reverted 3 times, which should have been the focus here, but relevant discussions have already started, so I think there's no need to build up tension. Aintabli (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this edit linked above, I see multiple issues:
    • No page numbers, chapters, or quotes provided.
    • The infobox says: Turkey 60,000,000 to 65,000,000. This can be considered ethnic background number. The citizenship number should be close to 85 million.
    • If the Oxford source talks about Christian and Jewish citizens in Turkey without mentioning their Turkish ethnic background, it is a WP:SYNTH (WP:NOR is a core policy) to use this source in the current format of infoxbox in Turkish people. As I mentioned above, we should discuss updating the infobox with both citizenship and ethnic background numbers first, before doing edits such as the one done by KarsVegas36. I can only speculate here since no quotes from The Oxford Handbook of Religion in Turkey were provided. Bogazicili (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to Aintabli, this is not a content dispute. Being a minority, even a small minority, does not mean non-existence. Having converted from Islam does not mean non-existence. Beshogur is not merely making an UNDUE argument, they are going beyond it to argue the article should not mention Christian or Jewish Turkish people at all because they are either not Turkic (in Beshogur's view) or converts: Jews in Turkey are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, not Turkic origin.; [...] Muslim background, which means conversion. The numbers are nothing compared to if we say there are 60 million Turks. (I don't say they're all Muslim, non religious ones were traditionally Muslims, not Christian or Jewish, which is basically non existent). Wikipedians don't get to decide whose religion is legitimate; and Wikipedia should follow sources in weighting its coverage of minorities. KarsVegas36 erred in not being BOLDer and writing the missing chunk of the Religion section; and yes, it would be advisable to put quotes from the Oxford source in the citations on minority religions, since getting access to the chapters requires some hoop-jumping. But the primary locus of the dispute is between following reliable scholarly sources and relying on an editor's own definition of membership in the Turkish people (and an apparent refusal to acknowledge the validity of conversion). That's behavioural. (And demanding discussion before the article may be changed smacks of OWN.) Beshogur has made some unacceptably biased assertions here. This needs to be a boomerang. (As a point of information, Beshogur, you're the O.P. It means "original poster" and you started the section.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I get the blame because other user can't prove its thing? How did you come to conclusion that I don't recognize conversions? I say there are converts of every nation of every religion. It's pretty much redundant on the infobox. That's it all about. Just googled According to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR), Turkey is home to around 14,300 Jews. Majority of the Jewish population is of Sephardic origin. I am getting bashed because not calling them Turks. I don't talk about Turkish citizenship here. The Turkish people article is about ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having converted from Islam does not mean non-existence. I don’t think Beshogur denied conversions. The initial locus of the dispute was whether to include non-converts who are not of Turkish origin such as Armenians, Greeks, etc., at least that’s what I understood. Aintabli (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually meant there that the Turks today who turned non-religious didn't come from Judaism or Christianity, I mean they were traditionally either Sunni or Alevi Muslims, not Christian or Jewish. I didn't talk there about converts to Christianity from Islam. Except for Gagauz (since they're a different people), there were no Turkophone Christian group in Anatolia except Karamanlides, though Greeks dispute their origins. I am really getting bashed because I'm literally opposite of racist and against assimilation. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adding his 'expert opinion' to articles.

    [edit]
    BLOCKED AND BLOCKED AGAIN
    The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Oversight and /64 block applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:1000:B186:D71B:651D:B9BC:C0D3:3552 (talk · contribs) IP keeps adding his 'expert opinion' to boxing articles. Tried taking to AIV, but as it's already partially blocked, the clean-up bot auto-deletes the request as closed. The whole range is full of vandalism (2600:1000:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs)). They've been warned, but short of calling him (yes he keeps posting his phone number, in articles), I can't see him replying. Nswix (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran into this exact issue the other day as well. Reported an IP that already had an unrelated partial block, which made the bot revert my report over and over. 1st attempt to report 2nd attempt to report On the third attempt I had to deliberately make it improperly formatted so the bot wouldn't catch it. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 15:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported it to the bot's talk page, but I imagine it would be a complex thing to try to program it to differentiate. Nswix (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I oversighted the phone number, and blocked the /64 for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    @PhilKnight: He IP hopped to 2600:1000:B19C:A409:664C:8725:1B26:2F41 (talk · contribs) to continue vandalizing. Nswix (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for a month by Ad Orientem. PhilKnight (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]

    Myself and several other users have seen that over the last day or so a group of IPs has been spamming edits to pages (most of which are in Category:Soviet cosmonauts or otherwise related to Russia or the former USSR) with random text. Once an IP gets blocked for this, the user shifts to a different IP and continues their behavior. This has been going on for at least a day, and blocking the IPs is clearly not doing anything. I'm honestly at a loss for words as to what we can do to stop this person.

    Here are some diffs of the edits this person has made: [119] [120] [121] [122]

    Tagging some of the other people who were also involved in this as I want to hear their thoughts in particular: @Nahida @Serols @Pickersgill-Cunliffe @Randomdude121 and many more... Gommeh (T/C) 17:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur. I've had to warn 27 different IPs multiple days in a row. Seems to be a repeating pattern at the same time of the day and the edits are arguably too fast for a human. Nahida 🌷 18:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your description, seems like requesting page protection for the affected pages would be the best course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We discussed that on WP:RPP — unfortunately protecting this many pages would take too much time as there are over a hundred of them in Category:Soviet cosmonauts alone. Gommeh (T/C) 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s honestly not that much in the grand scheme of things. I can understand an admin declining the blanket request the way it was written, but if you identify the individual pages that have seen consistent disruption they should be protected. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to pre-emptively protect pages in that category so only confirmed users could edit them. I was told over Discord that this was not possible. Gommeh (T/C) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that won't be done. However, any page that has already seen persistent vandalism can be protected. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection requests have been made and acted upon. But I'm starting to get annoyed at the sheer amount of edits this person has made that were absolutely reek of being WP:NOTHERE. Is there anything else we can do? I'd rather not have to wait this out, since this person is easily able to evade blocks. Gommeh (t/c) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently longer protection is needed from the get go since they return to the same pages as soon as the protection expires. See for example Yuri Gagarin and Talk:Yuri Gagarin. Mellk (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is not limited to cosmonaut articles, but also mass disruption on other pages e.g. Saratov Oblast. I would suggest as soon as they start vandalizing a page, it should be protected for at least a month (few days is clearly not enough since they just return to the same pages). Mellk (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Overly aggressive conduct in Canadian political topics

    [edit]

    This evening I was reading the talk page threads of the 2025 Canadian federal election, one thread in particular caught my eye due to the overly aggressive language used-[123]. I did some digging into the user-[124] who made the comment and discovered that he has a history of making overly aggressive and personal comments in this topic area.

    For example,

    [125] Called a politician a "cretin" in an edit summary

    [126] "There is a near-zero chance that it gets any lasting coverage to justify an article, and B) because it would be giving those clowns at the Rebel exactly what they want, which is attention." Self explanatory-unaccpetable comment regardless of what your beliefs are surrounding Rebel News.

    [127] "I'm not sure if I have a firm opinion as to how much weight we should be giving this donation grift farce overall." Self explanatory again.


    [128] "They should be listed similarly to how Arya and the anti-Abortion "human" are." While I am pro-choice through and through, it is unacceptable to insinuate that someone is not human or worthy of being considered a human because of their views on abortion on a public platform like Wikipedia.

    [129] Another example is this deletion nomination he made on the Diana Fox Carney article, which was promptly closed as WP:SNOW. While the discussion was ongoing, there was some back and forth between a user called Moxy and GhostOfDanGurney where Moxy stated that the article's deletion would leave readers in the dark; while I didn't think Moxy's comments were offensive or out of line, GhostOfDanGurney responded in a very rude, overly dramatic fashion- [130], [131] accusing Moxy of stating that he was trying to keep readers in the dark. This was evidently not the case, Moxy was accurately saying how an unwarranted AfD would keep readers in the dark, he did not directly or explicitly attribute the consequences of the deletion to GhostOfDanGurney personally. I thought this was a particularly rude way to handle a disagreement.

    I see that this user has been blocked before for personal attacks, I personally think that someone of this temperament and conduct should not be allowed to edit this topic area. Hiya2025 (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This account with 11 edits, created on 2025 April 20, seems to be upset that I made two comments about Rebel News (which is described by numerous RSs in the linked article as "far-right") coincidentally on April 20. Rebel "news" operates via asking readers for donations after pulling off publicity stunts such as the incident that was being discussed on the talk page. To call such actions a "donation grift farce" is not aggressive, it is accurate.
    Regardless, none of my bolded comments are directed towards any users (I very clearly am referring to employees at the Rebel as "clowns"), and the disagreement with Moxy is 6 weeks old now and seems to be a reach in order to paint my perceived aggressive language as being towards other users in general.
    My time on-wiki lately (which is limited due to my job) has been split between doing work reverting undiscussed moves at WikiProject:NASCAR and monitoring the Canadian election article for additions of unreliable sources (such as Rebel). Hopefully my response is adequate and this can be closed quickly. Seriously, the most recent complaint is 5 days old now. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to concur with Ghost of Dan Gurney that it does seem quite odd that an editor would create an account just to bring another editor to AN/I for some mildly spicy remarks about a known unreliable news source. I would note that this election has been a particularly well-attended one according to the news surrounding early-voting as Canadians have really seen it as a referendum on handling the United States but this increased democratic fervor at large has translated into a lot of new editors joining the discussion at article talk. While this has largely been a positive thing it has meant that veteran editors have had to spend a fair bit of time explaining things like source reliability, sometimes repeatedly, at article talk. This can lead to patience fraying slightly. This is to say that I don't think GoDG has been disruptive in any way despite operating in a more challenging than average environment for Canadian politics and I would encourage Hiya2025 to edit constructively and not worry about whether someone called a well-known disinformation vector "clowns". Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that as the election is underway there may be more spats and disagreements on Wikipedia, but calling people "cretins", "clowns", and insinuating that someone is not a human because of their political beliefs still seems way out of line. Hiya2025 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What previous accounts have you edited under/what other accounts do you have? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None- see my user page. Hiya2025 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most cretins that I know would take great exception at being compared to a politician. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Claiming consensus when there are only two involved and personal attacks

    [edit]
    DOUBLE BLOCK
    Newsjunkie and NacreousPima855 pblocked from List of programs broadcast by CBS for 31 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User User:NacreousPuma855 has been claiming consensus on List of programs broadcast by CBS even though though the conversation on the talk page has only involved two people so far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS. (There has been also no broad discussion or agreement (yet?) on the issue on the TV project related talk pages where I brought it up yesterday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#c-Newsjunkie-20250423183500-Displaying_year_information_for_Television_shows_in_development/references. They have also made personal attacks on my user talk page like " 80% of your ideas ruin the pages. " " You coming up with ideas that just make the article even messier." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#c-NacreousPuma855-20250410020900-Newsjunkie-20250410014700 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsjunkie (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Newsjunkie has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies. Examples include WP:REFCLUTTER, WP:WAR, WP:OWN, WP:OVERCITE, WP:NOTLISTENING, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Also, Newsjunkie was reported here before [132], for violating 3RR and edit warring policies. Newsjunkie has edited against consensus before, causing the Harry Potter page to be fully protected. I'm just trying to be the good guy and trying not to make a mess. What I was saying are not attacks, they are facts based on their previous editing history. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On this particular issue so far the only people involved in the discussion on the talk page were the two of us, there had been no consensus either way on the talk page. I also tried to address some previous concerns about visual appearance/"mess" by adopting the list format that the other user had added for the other section. (rather than just restoring the original version) newsjunkie (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is evidence of Newsjunkie editing against consensus. [133] [134]. WP:POINT Also, there is a third person who disagrees with Newsjunkie's edits. [135] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the CBS page there was one recent BOLD edit (of a previous version) by another user which I undid. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&oldid=1284131139 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&oldid=1284132515 There was no further reversion/discussion involving any other users on that issue since then until yesterday/today, and my most recent edit took into consideration and adopted the new List redesign. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&oldid=1287135635 (And when I raised it on the TV Project Manual of Style talk page, so far the only comment has been whether including the entire list/section is appropriate at all) newsjunkie (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There needs to be a few points clarified here.
    1. re: the suggestion that Newsjunkie has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies followed by a list of shortlinks. Not all of those are policies. WP:WAR and WP:OWN are the only things in that list that are "policy". WP:NOTLISTENING is part of a behavioral guideline. The rest is explanatory essay. The weight those things carry is based on what they actually are (policy first, then guidelines, and then, essays are explanatory, but are not universal nor inviolate, so keep that in mind).
    2. There does appear to be a significant amount of bludgeoning of the discussion, from both sides of this. If you find yourself saying something you've already stated, there is no reason to state it again. There is no requirement that either party answer every comment. Often, it's better to not say anything at all - especially if you feel you have a strong case.
    3. @Newsjunkie: if you're going to bring a case to AN/I, make sure you have a case. "Claiming consensus" isn't a policy violation (although edit warring is). You've claimed a violation of the civility policy, although I think you'd be hard pressed to support the two statements you've quoted as personal attacks. See WP:NPA#WHATIS for examples of how we as a community define "personal attacks". "Personal" attacks are attacks against you as a person. I don't see that here - his comments, jagged as they may be, appear to be specific to editing and content. If we didn't allow editors to address what they deem to be unhelpful edits and content, there would be no way to address what is deemed to be non-improving editing (I'm not saying your edits are or are not helpful or unhelpful - merely pointing out that addressing editing and content - even gruffly - is allowed).
    ButlerBlog (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. To me the comment especially " 80% of your ideas ruin the pages." seemed to me like the example of "belittling" under the direct rudeness example of Civility, so maybe I should have said Civility instead. Wikipedia:Civility newsjunkie (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocked from List of programs broadcast by CBS for 31 hours for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    More of a non-responsive LTA (Apr 2025)

    [edit]

    45.49.236.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the LTA previously described in these reports:

    Their behavior is identical to that briefly summarized in the Feb 2025 report. The last several blocks have been performed by User:Star Mississippi, who I hope doesn't mind that I ping them immediately on each sighting now. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They don't seem to stay away for long: 76.33.223.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also them from the beginning of this month. They exhibit a very frustrating insistence on wasting others' time. Remsense ‥ 论 05:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked 45 for a week, 76 is stale as there haven't been any edits for two weeks. For everyone else, having looked at this history, this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU rather than a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I initially thought so too, but see: [136][137] Remsense ‥ 论 08:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That just still screams WP:COMPETENCE more than anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuinely appreciate the pushback regarding the dynamic, which my perspective had hardened on. In any case, they are not available for me to communicate with unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This sequence of edits[138][139][140][141] shortly preceding this brow-raising "Fixed." edit[142] leads me to personally believe there may be something slightly more than cir. (Just want this on the record if this discussion is referred back to again in the future, no further action needed or requested at this time.) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't mentioned it in a report yet—I don't want the perception that I see their disruption as deliberate or bad-faith specifically because the bias expressed is transparently a rightist one. (I have diffs aplenty if others are skeptical.) That's not the case obviously, but I try to avoid arguing in those terms if I don't have to. Remsense ‥ 论 08:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there's much to go on there. By contrast, I am the fifth highest contributor to our article on Jacob Rees-Mogg, despite personally thinking the man is an odious reptile. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've also not taken the time to superfluously capitalize the word "white" in "white supremacist" after having made such contributions. Not much to go on sure, but worth keeping an eye on. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is merely that, having looked at thousands of their edits, the ones that remove maintenance tags or material all seem totally arbitrary—it's not really my place to judge the character of what motivates those edits, all I care to see are that there are fairly rigid patterns concerning what is removed or retained. I couldn't care less, I just wish I had miraculous insight on how to even start getting mutual understanding established between myself and editors such as these. I often feel like I'm the problem (and sometimes I am, naturally). Remsense ‥ 论 10:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mind being pinged @Remsense, and thanks @Ritchie333 for handling while I was offline. Star Mississippi 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism / Spam

    [edit]
    Final warning given. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    [143] by @Saritvik45. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saritvik45 has been given a final warning by User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi, and hasn't added any further spam links since then. By the way, the best way to deal with spammers is to use the uw-spam1/2/3/4 series of templates and then report them to WP:AIV if they continue after several warnings or a final one. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    91.122.22.140

    [edit]
    IP BLOCKED 72 HOURS
    WP:RUSUKR CTOPS violations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Same editor as 78.37.216.35. Both have walls of warnings due to disruptive edits. Here and here they acknowledged the editing restriction due to WP:RUSUKR. I told them again that they cannot make any edits about the Russo-Ukraine war but they decided to feign ignorance and continue to make edits about the war immediately after this. See also edit warring. Mellk (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that "this page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Please elaborate, how my editing falls into that. I insist, that the IP, you are referring to, has nothing to do with me:it is not a due process to suggest it. If you find my editing inappropriate, just revert it. Thank you 91.122.22.140 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you were told you were no longer allowed to edit about any articles related in any way to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, per the guidelines stated at WP:RUSUKR. You acknowledged this restriction twice but continued to edit articles directly related to the topic anyway. You have been provided more than enough chances to read up on the policies in my opinion. I would support a block. Gommeh (t/c) 19:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you cannot suggest blocking before ensuring the mentioned IP has anything to do with me. Is there a due process? Please, provide an avenue to appeal. Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Gommeh here. It doesn't really matter whether you're the same as the other IP. You were told about the GS restriction under this IP so should have been abiding by them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just posted the same edit to two articles about bilateral relations between countries, as suggested, by the way, by @Altenmann. It is too broad to consider it RuUkr topic. In my humble opinion. Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You modified a section titled "Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine". And you must know this since you modified the header. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs to the RUSUKR violations? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on mobile but at a minimum [144] Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 72 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Renewed edit war

    [edit]
    P-BLOCKED FOR ONE YEAR.
    "Consistent pattern of disruptive editing" per Cullen328 (talk · contribs). Blocked from editing Harry Potter or its talk page for a year. wound theology◈ 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I hate to make another thread about Newsjunkie (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on a separate page per above, but I just noticed that immediately after the Harry Potter page had its protection removed, they again reverted it to their preferred version of the page despite consensus against it and many walls of text about this on Talk:Harry Potter. See also the previous ANI report from Butlerblog (talk · contribs).

    Personally I would suggest a TBAN but given their edit warring on other pages, something else might be more appropriate. wound theology◈ 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This version was not the same as before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=1287356754 with other changes to language and other sources to make it clearer and significantly tried to address the concerns and I was simply trying to get constructive feedback on the specific issues. I have not reverted again on that page today and would just like specific feedback on the talk page on the actual arguments being made or how anything I'm adding goes against any policies when everything is verified, there should be no Synth concern or and there is no full ban on primary sources. newsjunkie (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newsjunkie The edit is on the same content as the previous edit war. That it is not exactly the same doesn't matter. The repeated editing on the same material to one's "preferred version" is the issue. please self revert EvergreenFir (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been reverted, and I haven't reverted it again today. I was making a new revised attempt in the spirit of making a BOLD edit. I am now again trying to get substantive feedback on the actual issues on the talk page: Talk:Harry Potter#Renewed attempt at revising Back to Hogwarts paragraph newsjunkie (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "I haven't reverted it again today". Don't revert it again tomorrow or any other day unless and until a consensus is established for your edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that. I just would really like substantive, specific feedback on how anything in the latest proposed version is actually objectionable or goes against any of the policies previously cited(Synth/Primary Source policy) , when I have tried to address them in various ways and there is no verification concern. I am asking for the specific feedback so I can learn from it, and get an explanation for how exactly the content goes against any of the cited policies, if it does. newsjunkie (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been given the feedback you seek numerous times on the talk page. At this point, you are just WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. wound theology◈ 20:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved as the reverting editor. I don't think Newsjunkie understands WP:SATISFY, as they have had it explained to them multiple times on the talk page. The biggest policy being violated was WP:CON. They made a proposal here for a change included in their most recent edit, for which the only two !votes were oppose. I understanding wanting to know how to improve, but between the extensive WP:BLUDGEONing and WP:WALLOFTEXT, I have exhausted my patience with them, and expect others feel similarly. They were told to drop the stick, but as soon as the page protection expired, immediately went right back to it. I don't know if they're deliberately wearing others down or just don't get it, but it's become disruptive. Given the edit warring in the above ANI thread, I'm not sure a topic ban would be sufficient, but it'd certainly be a start. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to address all the concerns cited, and would just like feedback on how specifically the most recent suggestion goes against any of the cited policies, rather than just the citing the policy in question. newsjunkie (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would understand the reversions better if I could understand what the specific thing is that is actually objectionable in what I have proposed in the most recent version in terms of policy and why. newsjunkie (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made several edits on that Harry Potter page and related Harry Potter pages that have had no objection whatsover, the issue has only been this one specific paragraph, the concerns of which were originally Overcite, which I think has been address, and Synth, which I think has also been fully addressed and primary sources, which have been reduced to two, compared to several before. Originally when this started only all the primary source references were removed, not the content itself. That only was removed once the issue of Synth came up, which I think has been fully addressed. (And if not, I would like to understand how it's still an issue.) I would just like to understand in what way specifically my most recent suggestion goes against what the original issues were, and if so how it could be fixed to address those issues. If the issue is primary sources, is the content acceptable without them or in what way are these two primary sources not appropriate in terms of policy? If the issue is still synth, what specific statement is synth and why? newsjunkie (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes. It's been discussed already on the talk page ad nauseum anyway. In particular, these sections: 1, 2, 3, 4. I checked the page stats, and this shows that Newsjunkie has very much bludgeoned, as they do here: they have 118 edits (~70 kb) to the talk page. Of anyone who edited this year, I have the next highest at 21 (~ 14 kb). They have been advised of both WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT. They do not appear to be willing to change their behavior, and even in this thread continue to WP:BADGER. I'll bow out now to avoid bludgeoning this discussion, but will happily answer any questions from uninvolved parties. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I edited that much because felt as if nobody was actually explicitly explaining what the actual issue is versus or how to improve it specifically, rather than just citing policy. It's hard to learn or improve if after several attempts to address the original concerns if I can't even understand what is specifically still the issue or how it can be improved based on what the original concerns were. newsjunkie (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be helpful for you to review the WP:BLUDGEON and WP: BADGER links that were provided to you, as that will explain why you've been reported. We don't try to exhaust other editors into letting us have our way, we work on consensus. Repeatedly demanding to have the same explanations given over and over is not an example of working toward consensus. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am honestly just really confused as to how the specific original policy as I have read/understood them are being applied and it felt to me that after making different good-faith attempts to address the concerns, policies like Synth were being cited without explaining what the actual Synth statement was, for example. newsjunkie (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend highly that you stop trying to reply to every comment - you are not helping your situation at all. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears clear that you have not reviewed those two links and intend to continue this behavior.
    Now, I'm not an admin, but they will be reviewing your posts and the fact that you can't restrain yourself even while being investigated is not going to help with the outcome. Good luck. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion and its WP:WALLOFTEXT by @Newsjunkie is unfortunately, an example of a consisten pattern with them. I've gone back and forth in my opinion, but I do believe they are "HERE", but with difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms.
    There are some significant problematic edits across multiple articles with patterns of overciting refbombs, and some other content issues, including consistent edit warring. When those are objected to, newsjunkie has a tendency to BLUDGEON the discussion. Whether that's intentional or unintentional does not matter (and in good faith, I believe it is unintentional). What matters is that it is exhausting other editors to the point where they simply tune out any further discussion from newsjunkie and their edits, wholesale. I can't blame them for that - some of these TP discussions are such a mess that it's impossible to glean the actual point. And therein lies the problem. At present, newsjunkie is disruptive and until they pull back and deal with the core issues of what other editors are objecting to, the problem is only going to get worse. Harry Potter is (at present) still at GA assessment. Causing editing instability to that page is inexcusable - regardless of faith assumptions. @EducatedRedneck suggested a TBAN. I don't know if I'd support that or not - I'd listen to discussion before committing. If that's the direction, it would need to be broadly construed as the editing history shows that the problematic edits are not tightly focused. Regardless, something has to change.
    @Newsjunkie: You could do yourself a world of good by pulling back from specific articles AND making a concerted effort to understand that we do not need a dozen references to every article under the sun to verify a single sentence. And when someone disagrees with you, take heed of their reasons. For now, it would be highly beneficial for you to self-enforce a WP:1RR as well as commit to limiting the scope of your TP discussions (you should be open to discussion, but make a very real effort to not restate and restate what you've already said - and don't insist on having the last word - it's not working for you). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would love to be open to discussion and take heed of their reason, and I feel I did that in many respects, that is why I was trying ask questions specifically about how the policy applies in this particular case, that is all. The edit in this question no longer has any dozens of references, for example. newsjunkie (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what is bolded above. Further to that point, ANI is about editor behavior, not content discussions. The reason you are here right now is about how you've approached things (article content, talk page discussion), not the actual content or validity of edits that were objected to. Right now, every time you respond here as you have above, you reinforce the evidence against you. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to Newsjunkie's consistent pattern of disruptive editing as discussed above, I have pageblocked the editor from Harry Potter and Talk: Harry Potter for a period of one year. The editor has been advised to be aware that if this behavior pattern occurs on other articles or pages, they may be subject to a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mma1902

    [edit]
    INDEFFED
    Spam. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mma1902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Spam account, please block. Thanks. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]

    At Talk:Vanniyar#Legal proceedings and official notices will be initiated shortly against all responsible individuals., new user MIB-India (talk · contribs) has left a legal threat. Knitsey (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that wasn't subtle. Blocked. However, please, whoever knows the topic, please review the article for the issues raised. See WP:DOLT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is caste-related, for anyone who's brave enough to wade in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have protected MIB-India's talk page as several other users have taunted them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    81.18.239.108

    [edit]

    Hi, Please note user 81.18.239.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a death treat on my talkpage, I don't know why. Lobo151 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve blocked them. You should report this threat to Trust and Safety https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability/Trust_and_Safety . — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the IP is located in the Faroe Islands, so pretty remote to you unless you also live there. But it’s still best to report and see what T&S has to say. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Rsjaffe: is a month long block appropriate here? Their only purpose seems to be vandalism; their editors are entirely nonsense. Seems like cause for INDEF to me (but I'm not an admin nor particularly knowledgeable about blocking procedures.) wound theology◈ 07:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IP addresses are all but never indef'd, because they vary. A month is actually a pretty long block for an IP. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Makes sense. wound theology◈ 19:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User repeatedly uploading copyrighted images.

    [edit]

    User:ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & has been repeatedly re-adding copyrighted images to the article Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri, despite being warned and the images being deleted at commons. The images are from a book; a scan of the book on the internet archive shows that it is "All rights reserved" but they seem convinced that as they own a copy of the book it's okay.

    Diff of images being added CoconutOctopus talk 11:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User is continuing to upload copyrighted images see diff, even after being notified about this ANI thread. CoconutOctopus talk CoconutOctopus talk 12:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Might need a report on commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Nakonana (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyright violations are occurring on Commons so administrative action needs to take place there. I am aware of their activity on Commons and have been reporting the copyright violations there. -' Whpq (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked for 31 hours for copyvio/WP:3RR. Note that CoconutOctopus' removal of the images is covered under WP:3RRNO #5. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive wave of LLM spam by Yasin1747

    [edit]
    SPAM CANNED
    Blocked as sock, new pages deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Accidentally published this into the 'void' tag. Oops. Basically, Yasin1747 is pumping out what appears to be several articles per minute. Obviously generated by LLMs due to their poor sourcing, lack of appropriate context for the reader, and rigid, repetitive prose despite how they're technically sound. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: It should be obvious that these articles were created by an LLM, but here's irrefutable proof: Battle of Herat (1720) has sources which have malformatted links to Wikipedia that end with the URL parameter ?utm_source=chatgpt.com. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He also seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Jaspreetsingh6, see the archived discussions and the current discussion about Yasin1747. ProtobowlAddict talk! 15:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of Jaspreet’s previous socks used AI to create the same Persian history articles. ProtobowlAddict talk! 15:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LLM-generated hoax by M Waleed

    [edit]

    The user M Waleed recently added an unconfirmed claim with an inaccessible source to the 2025 India–Pakistan diplomatic crisis article. The extra sentence at the bottom "This version directly attributes the cause of the flooding to India's actions. Let me know if you need further assistance!" does not indicate good faith or any compliance with WP:NPOV. The user has had a track record of warnings over hoaxes and vandalism, though they removed it from their talk page. Juxlos (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed all language and I'm sorry if I did anything, I copied the source from Portal: Current events and it described the event as being attributed to India, I would try my absolute best to ensure nothing like this happens 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Portal: Current events where "Severe flooding is reported along the Jhelum River in Azad Kashmir after Indian authorities release a large amount of water without prior warning. The incident comes following the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by the Indian government. (24 News HD)" is given, I took it from there and wrote in my edit summary, again I assure that nothing like this would happen and as for the removal, it was a regular cleanup 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @M Waleed, why did you add "This version directly attributes the cause of the flooding to India's actions. Let me know if you need further assistance!" to the article? Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes because I used AI and it originally created a paragraph showcasing that floods happened, when the article attributed it to India, I vow never to use AI again 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also additional sources from both India and Pakistan to back my claims [146][147] [148] [149] 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would request all of you to look at my previous contributions and that I haven't used AI in the past contribs, this was my 4th or 5th time using AI, I was unaware and just accidentally added that bit, I assure you and even swear nothing like this will ever ever happen and if anything like this happens, I'll be totally liable and would accept any punishment, also see the revision before the removal of alleged "vandalism" and tell me that was I involved in any vandalism before this𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues

    [edit]

    I found this comment by Schazjmd to be conclusive evidence of LLM use in editing. This user was already warned against creating WP:HOAX by Kusma on 17 January 2025.[150] His creations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KHAD-KGB campaign in Pakistan, Vijayanagara-Prussian conflict (1552), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Kahuta among others were all deleted for either being WP:OR conspiracy theories or pure hoaxes. His other creations like Draft:Timeline of Republican Insurgency in Afghanistan were recently deleted for copyright violations.[151] This is after he had already recognised his violation of WP: COPYVIO,[152] and also had Draft:Independent deployments in red sea crisis for copyright violations.[153] I believe a block is the only way to go. Koshuri (グ) 05:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not in support of a block anymore since M Waleed has voluntarily accepted a topic ban from South Asia. Koshuri (グ)
    I beg that I won't even edit anything even related to Pakistan from now on, pleased I swear, if I do anything against the policy, I'll happily accept a ban and whatever punishment I may be awarded, please just let me off the hook this one time, of my 200+ articles only a few have been deleted and those two are the ones I created a loooong looong time ago, most of my recent articles are about Ukrainian military units so that there's no POV in my creations, I assure nothing like this ever ever happens 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 06:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @M Waleed: Are you willing to accept a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA? That will still allow you to edit about Ukraine. Koshuri (グ) 07:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will accept a Tban for south Asia if I can still edit other issues such as middle east and Europe where the bulk of my contributions are 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes a topic ban concerning South Asia will not stop you from editing about Europe and the Middle East. I support closing this thread with your voluntary restriction logged at WP:EDR#Voluntary. Koshuri (グ) 07:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, surely 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 08:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not confident that the user will not use LLMs to generate hoaxes related to Ukraine or other topics. What we know is that the user:
    • Has no qualms of deliberately telling LLMs to generate biased content;
    • Has no qualms publishing outright hoaxes on Wikipedia;
    • Has removed prior warnings on their talk page.
    A topic ban would simply divert the problem to the Ukranian WP. Juxlos (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you that I've created several maybe above a hundred articles on Ukrainian units, none of which have been flagged and would accept any punishment if I'm found guilty of violating any rules, moreover I'll never use AI, of my 15,000+ edits an overwhelming majority have been constructive, if there's any any violation I myself would be completely liable and would accept a total ban, also see the revision before the removal of alleged "vandalism" and tell me whether I removed anything related to vandalism or was it just a regular cleanup𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To improve confidence, this is the List of the articles that I've created, I've created around 200 articles on Ukrainian units none of which have been flagged, moreover of the total 248 articles I've created, a mere 5 (2%) have been deleted whereas 243 (98%) are live, I assure you that no policy will be violated 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and close: Since M Waleed has assured that they will avoid using LLM, I don't think any action should be in proceedings. The proposal is disingenuous. We are not discussing their deleted articles, and most of the issues brought up happened months ago; the 'recent' copyvio occurred a quarter ago, and some even go back years. I would suggest Koshuri seek WP:AE for any deeper behavioral issues. Dympies (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should I file a report when M Waleed has already agreed to a topic ban from South Asia? He agreed because we take copyright violations, hoaxes and LLM very seriously. Just because you don't take those issues any seriously it doesn't mean you should be making unhelpful comments here by passing useless suggestions. Koshuri (グ) 12:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how it works, clerks here don't self impose bans without any basis, even if the user in question wants it. Again Copyright violations and some of the deleted articles are the issues of past. Take other issues at AE. Dympies (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Asilvering, a close might be in order? Dympies (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already asked for the closure of this thread hours ago here. Koshuri (グ) 13:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dympies sorry, not sure why I've been tagged into this - can you refresh my memory? -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I pity your poor Wikipedia policy knowledge. When an editor voluntarily agrees to a necessary sanction addressing the problem, then there is no need to report the editor on AE. Koshuri (グ) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might need to read this AE report. Dympies (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not relevant here. It is clear you don't understand what is a voluntary restriction or the thread you have linked. Koshuri (グ) 13:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dympies, there are no clerks here, so I have to agree that it seems you don't fully understand how ANI works and are confusing it perhaps with AE? Fram (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose and close - per above. What kind of block even is this? — EF5 (questions?) 13:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Check again, there is no block proposal anymore because I have struck after M Waleed agreed to a voluntary restriction and already posted a request on WP:CR about it hours ago. Koshuri (グ) 13:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one part, a single short sentence, was struck. Please strike the entire statement so people know the proposal is off. — EF5 (questions?) 14:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can do nothing if somebody is not going to read the thread carefully. You can strike your vote though because there was no block proposal at the time when you voted. Koshuri (グ) 14:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, cool down. If you want others to fall into the “oppose and close” trap, then don’t strike it. — EF5 (questions?) 14:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koshuri Sultan, It's not that hard to strike your proposal or make another section for withdrawal right here in this report. Dympies (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the heading, now there is no indication if there is a block proposal. Koshuri (グ) 14:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was waiting for the response from M Waleed since Abecedare asked questions above. Now that he has made the response, I believe I don't have enough confidence, like Juxlos, if this editor will not use LLM on Ukraine topics given their use of machine translation (because of their limited understanding of the language) to rapidly create articles pertaining to Ukraine (they have created around 247 articles so far) , but since they have agreed to a topic ban from South Asia, I think they can also agree to a restriction from articles related to Ukraine for now. CharlesWain (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What? Waleed knows the intermediary level of the language. Is that not enough? You're asking for a topic ban based on a few LLM supported contents? For which they have made it clear to avoid this from happening again. Ridiculous that is, the thread should have been closed. Dympies (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't used LLMs other than just 3 or 4 instances, I have already explained that I understand Ukrainian and am somewhat fluent in it. I will avoid any further use of LLMs and I don't fully machine-translate content from other wikis, instead I translate the material in a manual manner rather than using machine-translation and copy pasting, although I use Google translate in order to cross check my translation. I was startled at first and considered self-imposing a ban, but I assure everyone now that there is no need for that ban too even. I understand what the issues were and am fully ready to address them. 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So, they have created rdiculous hoax articles in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayanagara-Prussian conflict (1552)), which they then added to other articles[155]; they use LLMs to add content; they were off-wiki coordinating with an editor blocked for copyvio and sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InfoHistoric23/Archive), and they also still produce very poor articles like Abul Rauf Seemab (who in all sources is named Abdur Rauf Seemab...). Now, this article is from last month, but we have Draft:Abul Rauf Seemab, declined in January 2025, and created by a different editor: M Waleed created a copy-paste move, taking credits for someone else's work (and putting a rejected draft in mainspace, with lots of problems in it).

    They seem to lack the competence to edit without significant problems, and a topic ban from South Asia may not be sufficient but is the very least that is necessary here. A namespace ban from the mainspace might be a good idea as well. Fram (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just look at their latest edit from today, [156]. "Saba News Agency reported two US strikes in Harf Sufyan district and two US strikes in Harf Sufyan district." And then the next paragraph:

    • "US said that it struck 800 targets in Yemen since 15 March. United States Central Command claimed that the strikes killed hundreds of Houthi militants, and several Houthi leaders, including senior Houthi missile and UAV officials. United States Central Command also claimed that US strikes depleted Houthi capabilities to attack, saying that ballistic missile firing decreased by 69 percent, while drone attacks reduced by 55 percent. United States Central Command added that attacking Ras Isa stopped the Houthis from importing fuel via the port"

    Source[157]:

    • "US claims to have hit 800 targets in Yemen since March 15. US Central Command (CENTCOM) says the strikes have “killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders, including senior Houthi missile and UAV [unarmed aerial vehicle] officials”. CENTCOM also claimed that US attacks have depleted Houthi attacking capabilities, saying that ballistic missile launches had dropped by 69 percent, while attacks from drones had decreased by 55 percent. The post added that the targeting of Ras Isa had stopped the Houthis from importing fuel through the Red Sea port"

    So let's add close paraphrasing to the pile of problems. For an editor with 15,000 edits, I think we can safely conclude "enough is enough" and keep them out of the mainspace or out of Wikipedia altogether. Fram (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fram: That is concerning and nullifies the commitments M Waleed has made here. Although, Waleed initially suggested a voluntary topic ban for themselves from South Asia, now they are backtracking and saying it is not necessary despite the aforementioned issues. They have said that they have been translating articles from Ukrainian Wikipedia using machine translation, but even the fact that they have been translating them was always not clear, for example, many of the articles they created about Ukraine aren't tagged as being translated from their corresponding cross wiki page. Take for example some of their recent creations:
    There will be more examples if one reviews their article creations more extensively. Given how this editor has been using machine translation, LLM to mass translate unattributed articles and combined with copyright issues, I think an indef block is warranted. CharlesWain (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles you have mentioned are not translated and are entirely my creation with no input from any other wiki 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Group 13 (Ukraine) has access dates that predate the article by over a year, so it is still unattributed and likely copied from somewhere else. CharlesWain (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken from articles about the ships attacked by the unit such as Ivanovets, the article isn't translated from any other wiki 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You accept that you provided no attribution however as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia you had to. CharlesWain (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have heeded Abecedare and their advice. The issue of AI usage has been addressed by me. Charleswain raised the issue of machine translation, and I explained that I understand Ukrainian at an intermediate level and only use Google Translate to cross-verify my own translations. As for the attribution part, I have taken that into account. I will give attribution accordingly after copying from any article, as: Copied content from X article; see that page's history for attribution. Fram raised some serious concerns, although I have explained thoroughly in the linked SPI report why I am distinct, and thus I was given a clean chit. With all that being said, I'm taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia to rehearse my knowledge of WP:P&G before coming back to routinely edit again. 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adamhock making repeated COI edits

    [edit]

    Adamhock (talk · contribs) has been making multiple edits in violation of WP:COI to Adam Hock, even after I warned them several times on their talk page not to do so. They have not made a COI edit request on Talk:Adam Hock. Diffs: [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164]

    Evidence of me warning them on their talk page: [165]

    Not sure how else to proceed here. Gommeh (t/c) 17:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adamhock is currently softblocked because of the account name, so they won't be able to reply here until they deal with that. Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah- wasn't sure if I should post the ANI template because of that. Figured if they are already blocked it wasn't going to make much of a difference Gommeh (t/c) 18:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They might still read it. I'll post it shortly. Adam, on the assumption that you are Adam Hock, please edit this article in the future by posting edit requests at Talk:Adam Hock rather than directly and, most importantly, please talk to the people who can help you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lowendwarrior showing signs of WP:OWN

    [edit]
    Lowendwarrior has been told where things stand. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lowendwarrior has been adding a cover version to Silent Running (On Dangerous Ground) (hist). I have twice pointed out to them that they have not established the cover's notability, and according to the page history, it appears that Doctorhawkes has also warned them about WP:COVERSONG, to no avail. On their last reversion, Lowendwarrior left this edit summary: Any changes to this will be reported to admins as malicious and inappropriate changes to factual information. This comes off as a bit OWN-y to me. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This message is in regards to the fact that you have removed factual information acting as an OWNer, yourself. This information I am adding is factual and backed up with citations. Lowendwarrior (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual or not, you're missing the point: it fails WP:COVERSONG and WP:NSONGS, because this cover did not appear on any music charts or win any awards, nor has it been the subject of multiple non-trivia sources. For a cover released in 2024, you should be able to come up with more sources that just Sleaze Rock. Also, I removed the information once and reverted you once, and I also didn't threaten to report you for changing an article's content. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lowendwarrior: Not all factual information should be in a Wikipedia article. There is no indication that the band you are advertising is well-known enough to be featured on Wikipedia. If you are a member of the band or work for them, you must disclose that information and review our conflict of interest guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ...its gone now. I'm done trying to deal with gatekeepers and pettiness. Lowendwarrior (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lowendwarrior: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for people to find useful information about various topics. Random song covers that have only been noted on a random sleaze rock website shouldn't be included on Wikpedia. If you want to advertise your band, hire a publicist and try to get some press coverage. If enough music journalists cover your band, it might have its own Wikipedia article one day. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    k Lowendwarrior (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harmful accusations

    [edit]

    There's some harmful accusations going around and they need to be discussed before this gets out of hand.

    I think claims like this can be very offensive so they should not be tolerated without good reason. Therefore I am bringing this issue here as an uninvolved person (I had never even heard of the subject of this article before; I just noticed this from the filter log). 11USA11 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I also noticed:

    I have reverted the article to a version before the recent back-and-forth editing. I have given all three editors a BLP contentious topics alert. I have given Suphanb a warning about personal attacks. Suphanb and SapphoAdhyayana and AteneaPegaso, if any of you make any edits to Ramón Flecha that violate the Neutral point of view, you will be pageblocked from that article. Edit with great caution. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UrLocalGarvin reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    [edit]

    This user has been uploading fake Estrella TV logos onto Commons and then putting them on Wikipedia using weird formatting. I have marked their uploads for speedy deletion. This is clearly a WP:NOTHERE situation. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems more like an assume good faith situation. Have you tried discussing this with them? 108.147.32.103 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron geo

    [edit]

    Aaron geo (talk · contribs · count · logs)
    They've been editing Indian film related articles and very persistent in addition of uncited/unreliable box office figures into articles for a while. They were blocked last week for 31 hours by Ad Orientem but resumed disruptive editing right after end of block. Their talk page is littered with warnings and notices, and seems like a WP:ROPE to me. I suggest a topic ban from film articles or a longer block. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks too. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you translate that, Benison? Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, it goes like "hey you Beni, you've been saying you will block me for a while now. If you block me, can't I survive on my own, you sneaky pig?"(roughly from Malayalam)
    Not the first guy to call me that and I don't care, but NPA is applicable. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Benison, that was an unacceptable insult, but it was just before their 31 hour block. Their only substantive post-block edit was to cite the Times of India, which is admittedly a poor source for show business content, but not really a blockable offense, I don't think. Other administrators may have a different view. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr I have been doing my job efficiently and correctly,editing many articles from past two years. I was editing the collection of the movie after carefully observing many trackers figures, who are closely working in the movie industry. Many of my edits were reverted by Beni because of unnecessary reasons. Aaron geo (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    hey beni stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself Aaron geo (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron geo, are you aware that the Times of India is a dubious source, especially for show business topics? Have you read WP:TIMESOFINDIA? Are you aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are required to assume good faith regarding your fellow editors? Are you aware that it is unacceptable to call another editor a "sneaky pig" in any language, and that you should communicate in English on the English Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I am aware of all of this and also I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia. Aaron geo (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron geo, that remark is a non sequitur which is not responsive to the substance of this discussion. Please try again. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia. Aaron geo (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ICTFSOURCES is pretty straightforward and crystal clear in terms of the sources to be used in Indian film articles. The table there has been rewamped (by me last year), even color coded, so that even newbies can understand and use those wisely. Additionally, notices and hidden text also has been places in the articles to guide the editors on using reliable sources. But Aaron geo conveniently ignores it all, as clearly evident from their edits. They have been notified of it earlier too. I'm almost assuming a WP:CIR here. — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy Aaron geo (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 178.65.150.59

    [edit]
    LTA stuff disposed — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    178.65.150.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is used profanity, death threats, etc. in their unblock request. Jlktutu (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That’s typical for MidAtlanticBaby. Usually that stuff gets deleted quickly, but that one slipped by. I took care of it.
    Material like that can be blanked by non-administrators if they so desire. See Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages. “If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, your edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally and leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed. If the entire page is inappropriate, consider blanking it, or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page.” — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Will keep that in mind in the future. Just wanted to know if privilege to edit own Talk page was also revoked. Jlktutu (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an important reason to post to the noticeboard and I thank you. Took care of that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And thanks for all that you do. Jlktutu (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Green Rug colorful, Blue Glasses bright

    [edit]
    DENIED
    by Bushranger. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:NPA violations on User talk:Mtattrain: Green Rug colorful, Blue Glasses bright. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy indef. Green Rug colorful claims to be , but this isn't one of the LTA pools with which I'm familiar. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DMacks: Claims to be who? You left an empty noping. This appears to be Rgalo10? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops...Rgalo10. Note you'll need special goggles on meta to see it. DMacks (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to supress the edits of this User? Jlktutu (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still able to look at the edit history, and see bad thing they did. I thought supress meant it completely disapears. Jlktutu (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I was just looking at the edit summaries. Y'know, let's apply a liberal dose of WP:DENY to this page.  In progress... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was important. Thanks for that. Jlktutu (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Took a little longer than I expected because for some reason shift-clicking isn't working for me now, but  Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. Jlktutu (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Lucas J. Goodwin

    [edit]

    Lucas J. Goodwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User persists in adding unsourced content, ignoring any warnings and continuing with what on his userpage he considers "upgrades". See for example this addition of unsourced hieroglyphic names, and this and this apparent fixation in adding unsourced birth and death dates. Every attempt at communication on his talk page has been ignored, as users Ifly6 and Ermenrich can also confirm. Lone-078 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Lucas J. Goodwin (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucas, could you speak more on the underlying issues? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to raise the possibility that this is a sockpuppet of Edgenut who similarly engaged in fictitious birth and death date (and location) insertions mostly in infoboxes on ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, and artefacts therefrom. The behaviours are consistent. Ifly6 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent series of mass edits to Egyptian and Kushite monarchs also inserts a pile of hieroglyphs which are also unsourced. I don't know anything on the topic so can't comment on their veracity but sources need to be provided for obscure facts of this type. If they are wrong or made up (see eg similar instances on low-viewership Wikipedias and pages: most of the articles in the Scots Wikipedia aren't in Scots; over 200 hoaxes on the Chinese Wikipedia) this would be indistinguishable from mass vandalism. Ifly6 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Ifly6 is right. Compare this edit of Rantieres (a confirmed sock of Edgenut): it is hardly distinguishable from Lucas' edits. Lone-078 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah McBride deadnaming from 2021

    [edit]
    The Streisand effect strikes again. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Nothing more to do here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am aware this was from 4 (Still 3, will be 4 in a few months) years ago, but I have 3 revisions of Sarah McBride that have gone unnoticed that appear to be an MOS:Deadname violation: [166] [167] [168]. The user Koridas appears to not be doing bad things anymore but you can check for your self. I would most certainly recommend hiding the revisions, I think a block is too late plus I don't think they are doing bad stuff anymore. They might not have known about MOS:Deadname at the time to get it right. Please check their history, I would strongly be against blocking a reformed editor. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    i didnt know at the time and im sorry, please dont block me. Koridas (Heyyyyyyy) 08:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Koridas 4 years is a long time. I am confident that you have reformed since then. Thanks for your acknowledgement. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the revision still should be hidden. Even if you were acting in good faith Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Servite et contribuere: Why are you drawing extra attention to this? If you think this is an important privacy matter, do not EVER post to WP:ANI, one of the most viewed and most public pages on Wikipedia. Contact the WP:OVERSIGHT team next time and do not discuss the matter publicly. As it is currently easier to find the deadname using the sources in the article than by searching old revisions, I don't really see much point in hiding four-year-old revisions here. —Kusma (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma I do see point. Also, sorry for drawing attention! My bad! I just am strongly against deadnaming. That's all. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I am not sure if a revdel would achieve anything here? It's widely public information. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to note that the deadname being live, in the article is the MOS:Deadname violation, not the deadname existing somewhere long ago revision history. Under WP:RVDEADNAME, whether revision deletion is used for a deadname is a matter of administrative discretion, not a requirement. Probably few, if any, would have ever seen that revision again if not for this ANI filing, so the effect was to WP:STREISAND the deadname and cause Koridas needless stress over an ancient edit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. This was a very poorly considered course of action altogether. There are compelling reasons why we don't play the shame game regarding historical policy violations where disruption is not ongoing. While I can't say with certainty that this was the main motive animating this report, most of the information flagged and the commentary in said report is concerned with the behavioural aspect. Meanwhile, that non-practical discussion itself created an actual new deadname issue.
    SeC, please don't open behavioural reports in this space unless it is to prevent or ameliorate ongoing disruption or harm, especially where (as your own opening prompt makes clear) your own review/analysis of the user's contemporary contributions have not brought to light any current issues. Inviting all of ANI to a fishing expedition is not justifiable cause for filing a complaint against another community member where you yourself have no evidence of an actual issue presently needing addressing. Especially where it is actually going to enhance the visibility of problematic content.
    With respect to "I just am strongly against deadnaming. That's all.", you will find that to be a common outlook here. But for all functional purposes, the present increase in visibility of the deadname in this instance actually emanates more directly from your actions than anybody else's. More important than lodging your own objection to deadnaming or calling out the past actions of others in this respect is the actual practical implications for the subject's privacy and dignity that WP:DEADNAME is meant to address. SnowRise let's rap 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise If you are using "a very poorly considered course of action altogether." To refer to me opening the discussion, I will admit it. It was very poor thinking on my behalf. I should have probably tried to email an admin Privately. We make mistakes. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    27.114.82.198

    [edit]
    IP blocked 31 hours — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    27.114.82.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalism past 4th warning: Can't report to AIV since the IP is already partially blocked and as such any report there will get instantly removed by the bot. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of their editing also includes gibberish. Wbm4567 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Randykitty

    [edit]

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

    Randykitty has been using non-existent guidelines as a rationale for tagging and removing academic journals from lists. I noticed the problem here and after reviewing their edit history it seems that is a wider problem.

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

    • |reason=journals without an article should be removed per WP:WTAF [169]
    • edit summary: nothing to do wih redlinking, journal lists are for *notable* journals only (i.e., having an article) [170]

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

    They have chosen not to respond to two editors that have brought these guidelines to their attention [171]. So here we are.

    If Randykitty wants his opinion to be a guideline, they need to start RFCs and modify the two guidelines above. I agree with eliminating predatory journals (and there are none on the list), but using WP:WTAF as an excuse to remove any journal without an article and without discussion, especially when editors have objected is disruptive; adding fuel to the fire they engaged with a mini-edit war with another editor over these tags [172], [173], [174], [175], [176]. I can find no attempt at WP:BRD in the above exchange.

    I have attempted to solve this on my talk page and got a non-answer that addressed none of the points I made.[177]. They did agree to leave the article I am concerned with alone List of Slavic studies journals [178].

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

    As a disclaimer, I don't know much about the ANI process or what it is supposed to accomplish, but for the sake of comprehensiveness, the editor has employed WP:WTAF as a justification for de-redlinking rather extensively. Without going into more complex cases such as this, where the "redlinks" are actually interlanguage links, he has cited "WP:WTAF" in the edit summary on: 2025-04-18, 2025-03-15, 2025-03-13, 2025-03-12, 2025-03-09a, 2025-03-09b, 2025-02-16, 2025-02-15, 2025-02-07, 2025-02-02a, 2025-02-02b, 2025-02-02c, 2025-02-02d, 2025-01-31, 2025-01-29, 2025-01-25, 2025-01-23, 2025-01-29, 2025-01-09, 2024-12-28, 2024-12-19, 2024-12-14, 2024-11-27, 2024-11-15, 2024-11-10, 2024-11-08, 2024-11-05, 2024-11-02, 2024-10-31a, 2024-10-31b, 2024-10-31c, 2024-10-30, 2024-10-23, 2024-10-21, 2024-10-20, 2024-09-06, 2024-09-04, 2024-09-03, 2024-08-29, 2024-08-27, 2024-08-26, 2024-08-25, 2024-08-20, 2024-07-31, 2024-07-06, 2024-06-28, 2024-06-27, 2024-06-20, 2024-06-17, 2024-06-13a, 2024-06-13b, 2024-06-07, 2024-06-05, 2024-06-03, 2024-05-28, 2024-05-17, 2024-05-13, 2024-04-23, 2024-04-07, 2024-03-26, 2024-03-15a, 2024-03-15b, 2024-03-14, 2024-03-12, 2024-03-09, 2024-03-07, 2024-03-06, 2024-03-04a, 2024-03-04b, 2024-02-17, 2024-02-05, 2024-01-30, 2024-01-25, 2024-01-21 ... (a-i), 2024-01-17, 2024-01-16, 2024-01-10, 2023-01-12 ... (e-f), 2023-12-04 ... (a-c), 2023-11-10, 2023-11-05 ... (a-c), 2023-10-31, 2023-10-22, [179], 2023-10-06, 2023-10-05, 2023-10-02, 2023-09-29a, 2023-09-29b, 2023-09-28, 2023-09-26a, 2023-09-26b, 2023-09-23 ... (a-c), 2023-09-19a, 2023-09-19b, 2023-09-16a, 2023-09-16b, 2023-09-16c, 2023-09-05a, 2023-09-05b, 2023-09-05c,2023-08-21, 2023-08-07, 2023-07-22, 2023-07-17a, 2023-07-17b, 2023-07-07, 2023-06-27, 2023-06-22, 2023-06-18, 2023-06-03, 2023-05-22a, 2023-05-22b, 2023-05-17, 2023-05-13, 2023-05-12, 2023-05-10, 2023-05-08, 2023-05-05, 2023-05-04, 2023-05-01, 2023-04-20, 2023-04-18, 2023-04-14, 2023-04-06, 2023-04-03, 2023-04-02, 2023-03-31, 2023-03-26, 2023-03-25, 2023-03-18, 2023-03-13a, 2023-03-13b, 2023-03-11, 2023-03-09 ... (a-c), 2023-03-08, 2023-02-26, 2023-02-09, 2023-02-07, 2023-02-01a, 2023-02-01b, 2023-01-17, 2023-01-11, 2023-01-10a, 2023-01-10b, 2023-01-01a, 2023-01-01b, 2022-12-27a, 2022-12-27b, 2022-12-21, 2022-12-06, 2022-12-04, 2022-11-22, 2022-11-10, 2022-10-26, 2022-10-08, 2022-10-06, 2022-10-03, 2022-10-01 ...... this goes back to this 2013 dispute with Jerome Kohl (deceased). Ivan (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A note, because I happened to just remove three redlinks from List of physics journals. There are a number of journals lists (mostly those organized by top level of discipline, such as that one) that specifically state that the list only contains those jounals with existing articles. That scope should be heeded. But as per existing guidelines that does not seem to automatically apply to all journal lists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Novice user with AfD mass opening

    [edit]

    Iban14mxl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    At the recommendation of user Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I am bringing this matter to this noticeboard. The user Iban14mxl is a very new account (created on April 10 of this year, no more than 17 days prior to the filing of this report), and since their account was registered, their only contributions on enwiki have been to open a large number of "Articles for Deletion" reports (log), most of them—if not nearly all—without solid grounds to support the requests. The user was warned on their talk page on April 18 about this behavior, but they have continued regardless.

    Moreover, this behavior has not been limited to enwiki; it has also spread to other wikis such as eswiki, where not only have they initiated a "deletion discussion," but they have also started making arbitrary edits and reverts despite having been warned (I mention the eswiki actions only as relevant information for this case).

    Additionally, in some of their deletion nominations, the user references certain policies that would be quite difficult for a genuinely new user to be familiar with (unless they are not, which would imply LTA and/or block evasion by another user; however, since I am not certain of this, I am not asserting it at all — it is merely a supposition on my part to try to understand what might be happening. Even so, I will continue to assume good faith.).

    Therefore, I respectfully request that the enwiki administrators review this case and take whatever actions they deem appropriate. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to have become a pattern as of late. There's been several ANI reports over the past month or two about new (or dormant) accounts suddenly making a bunch of inappropriate AfDs. Is there some sort of organized action going on? SilverserenC 17:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is on the brink of being blocked, at least temporarily, for unexplained removal of content. Joyous! Noise! 18:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Non Admin Comment: This user voted "Keep" on one of my AFDs, provided sources, and made edits to the article to save it from deletion. Given that the AFD participation was disruptive, could I open another AFD given there was tampering with it? Also, I would open an SPI into this user given new users going into the administrative space is extremely rare and usually a great indication of a sockpuppet. DotesConks (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you cannot file another AfD, and don't file a report at SPI unless you have evidence of another account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment/Notice: The user has been banned from eswiki after repeatedly engaging in vandalism and ignoring warnings. On enwiki, even after being blocked, they cleared their user talk page to hide warnings and the block notice (I understood that clearing the user talk page was not allowed, so initially I reverted the blanking. However, as Bbb23 indicated, the user is allowed to do so, and they restored the talk page to its blanked state). CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A new user editing Wikipedia space is not evidence of sockpuppetry or anything else. My first edits were to an AfD where I had been canvassed (and I did not do as the canvasser asked). Much more concerning is this user's failure to communicate. Iban14mxl, please explain what you are doing. or you may end up being blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I believe this latest edit on their talk page clearly shows their intent to vandalize. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who this is directed at, and I almost wish that they'd said that to me, rather than direct their ire to nobody in particular. They seem to want to be blocked, so an admin should give them that wish. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor User:46.97.170.73 violating BLP, bludgeoning, deleting other peoples comments, POV-warring, violating NPA/being extremely hostile and may be a sockpuppet

    [edit]

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

    The IP editor has been editing for 2 months now in the Donald Trump space, and given that IP addresses (dynamic ones, at least) change every few days or sometimes up to 2 weeks, I believe he is operating on a static IP which means it won't change and so blocking him will put an end to this disruptive behavior for good. DotesConks (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DotesConks, you have failed to provide any diffs here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering I have to do something really urgent and important personally, can I provide them here later? It will only be 2 to 3 hours. DotesConks (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DotesConks, sockpuppetry is a serious allegation. Do you have evidence of this? — EF5 (questions?) 19:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EF5 @Asilvering Their behavior:
    Note: I've highlighted the important parts and WP policy violations.
    - As soon as they start to edit Wikipedia, they go onto the TALK page and almost never is WP:BOLD
    - Knows a lot of Wiki "slang"/insider words
    - Knows a lot of essays

    His first edit was to Talk:Invincible ignorance fallacy and it was a comment bashing Christians and said quote "describe atheists poking holes in their faulty theological reasoning.". Extremely hostile to Christians, unrelated comment, and Talk pages are for improvements of the article, not a discussion (Which is ironic given what he would do later). Then in the last part of the comment they say "POV pushing", such a phrase is almost never used outside of Wikipedia. A new IP editor would not just immediately know where the talk page is, and much less Wiki slang. The diff is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invincible_ignorance_fallacy&diff=prev&oldid=1275709545
    This diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1279246913 further proves that he is not a new user. "Coatrack" is exclusively used on Wikipedia.

    Then in multiple diffs they censored comments that did not align with their personal views, which is a blatant outing of their plan to POV war over articles. They also claimed it was inappropriate/violation of WP policies when the comments are clearly not a violation and are simply good faith comments about improving the Snow White (2025 film) article.
    In total:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283293340
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283293786
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283307218
    They also edit-warred on the talk page over censoring comments and accused them of being trolls, and cited WP:DENY as an essay as to why he was "permitted" to remove these comments.

    Heres more examples of POV pushing:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283571069
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283476697
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283416479

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


    Now onto my initial report, here are the diffs that prove my report:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287217422
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287213487 (This could violate No personal attacks as they accuses without proof that User:Simonm223 non-neutral)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287158284 (Blatant disregard, if you search you can find multiple scholarly/experts claiming Trump is not a fascist, and many news sources from Vox to NYT has published articles - though later deleted them that said very blatantly that Trump is not Hitler or Mussolini).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1286895569


    And finally... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&diff=prev&oldid=1287652014, another comment that they removed while accusing the editor of being a troll and again citing WP:DENY. Remember that they were warned for this already and became extremely hostile to the editor who warned them. If you look at the comment, its pretty clear that the editor was NOT a troll and were simply sharing their thoughts. Its safe to say that an indef block is needed before they get their way. DotesConks (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting rather fed up with allegations that a new user must be a sockpuppet because they know what they are doing. I read about things and knew what I was doing before I dared edit Wikipedia, and I'm sure the same goes for lots of other people. And, of course, the user may have edited without logging in, like the OP. As regards this particular case, Doanald Trump may or may not be a fascist; whether we say he is should depend in what reliable sources say, not Wikipedia editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've seldom understood why a new editor needs to be chopped down because they have a handle on Wikipedia rules; I wish they all did that kind of homework. Nor, from their vast experience of less than two months on Wikipedia, am I quite willing to grant DotesConks an unearned status as a sage, canny veteran who knows all the ropes. (Nor, with DotesCokes sporting a "Greater Israel" map on their homepage, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, do I think they have much business worrying about the political extremism of other editors.) Ravenswing 01:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, I agree. Regardless of this new editor's less-than-ideal behavior, failure to enforce WP:BITE is an existential threat in the long-term. It's too easy to get away with and I believe we need stricter anti-WP:BITE measures across the board. I'd be interested if someone wanted to hash something out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP has passionately presented little evidence this IP is coordinating with other IPs or accounts. In reading the post, I see a lot of undue bolding (which doesn't inform accusations of sockpuppetry) and a clear disapproval of the ip's positions on talk pages. I do see a heap of unproven assertions. I'd be unwilling to block (or even further warn) based merely on the evidence presented. ANI is not generally the place for registered accounts to complain about differences with ip editors' opinions in talk. (The proper venue is the article talk page where the ip is doing precisely that.) BusterD (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BusterD Its behavior alone that makes me believe this IP editor is not a newbie. Also my main report is not about sockpuppetry, its about his behavior which is pretty severe. Edit warring over removing comments and personally attacking multiple editors while bludgeoning talk pages is something blockable. DotesConks (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, you're just not qualified to make that assessment. Typically a new user should focus on content, not user behavior because they don't have the requisite experience to keep them separate. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. DotesConks's report (and talk page edits) demonstrate a frequent tendency to personalize disagreement as opposed to freely discussing issues head on. It's always apparently somebody's fault, and that's not how we work here. This is getting to be a real WP:CIR issue. BusterD (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DotesConks, this is an IP editor. I'm not sure why you are so focused on trying to show that they "aren't a new user". That's not how IPs work. You've been asked by a few different editors now to focus more on content and less on the administrative side of this site; please take their advice. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - I'd suggest they go and do that before a WP:BOOMERANG comes around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger I'm just upset that this user gets away with acting like he owns the Donald Trump article and tries to make the article force the viewpoint that Trump is a neo-nazi and far right even for fascists. DotesConks (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call me "acting like I own the Donald trump article" consists of mostly 6 edits, most of which is me talking to User:Simonm223. I deleted exactly one comment from Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism. A comment that said, and I quote: "Shut up troll. And drop that thesaurus to come off like an intellectual. You're embarrassing yourself.". I am quite honestly baffled that your most damning evidence, is me deleting a bad faith comment that is deliberately inflammatory. I have been called before admins for less combative language. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BusterD, I agree that the socking accusation was inappropriate, but it's a red herring. The provided diffs still demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND violations that shouldn't be ignored because of how the report was framed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien, I checked a handful of them and the only thing that seemed particularly inappropriate was the removal of talk page comments for WP:NOTFORUM reasons. Is there something else I missed? -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The inappropriate removals for sure, but I also believe that the "Now onto my initial report" diffs demonstrate attempts to carry on ideological battles per WP:BATTLEGROUND and is becoming a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I don't know - their comment, Your list here shows 1 ambiguous and 1 NO article post-insurrection versus 11 YES articles. That is a blatant consensus appears to be accurate. Advocating that we take the position held by 11/13 of the best sources sampled is what I'd expect any editor to do. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the actual thread instead of just my comments, you will realize that I was not having an ideological battle. User:Simonm223 and I were on the same opinion. I don't think deleting a personal attack from another IP user count as an "ideological battle" either. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding my removal of the comments for WP:NOTAFORUM reasons, that very same comment is now collapsed for both WP:NOTAFORUM AND WP:PERSONALATTACK, by someone other than me. The editor that initially restored my deletion of the comment claimed that even though other editors agreed with me that the comment in question was inapropriate, the fact that I gave WP:NOTAFORUM as a reason somehow puts me in the wrong. At least two people tried went out of the way to start a fight with me over it. It was weird. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor actually persuaded me that the page had some NPOV issues I had not previously noticed. They're staying on topic and being reasonable about things like the limits of scope for article talk. On the other hand, Dotes Conks regularly makes forumy posts encouraging WP:OR such as arguing for comparing the records of Trump and Obama. [180]. The IP's argument, while not politically expedient and while it may be a hard pill for some to swallow, is grounded in WP:NPOV and WP:V. This is more than can be said for Dotes Conks who has taken the IP's statements very personally. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, no I am not a new user. I have been on talk pages under various IPs for over 4 years. You can check the edits done on the entire IP range to verify, most of them are likely to belong to me, including my long history of insistence against creating an account, as well as two previous ANIs from 2020 and 2021, that I've been a subject to, which have concluded with the decision that no action was necessary. I am pointing this out right now for the sake of transparency. I'm not using sockpuppets or any other forms of ban evasion. If I get banned that's the end of it, and a case could've been made back then.
    The same thing cannot be said about this instance.
    I have refrained from the sort of behavior that has led to those incidents ever since, in fact I tried to minimize my involvement in topics related to contemporary american politics, which is why on Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism I eventually stepped back from pushing the site-wide changes I requested, as I'm not the right person to request something of this scope.
    As anyone can clearly verify, my insistence on wikipedia referring to Trump as a fascist is in line with how reliable sources talk about him, which is in line with site policy.
    Furthermore, You can read the comments I deleted with the WP:DENY justification, and judge for yourself if they sound like they're made in good faith. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep talking about "reliable sources" calling Trump a fascist. What are these "reliable sources" you speak of?
    In any case, I personally think you should be banned anyways for aggressively pushing your political agenda everywhere, regardless of your sockpuppetry. It's strange that some random Romanian person is so personally invested in US politics, though... DeadKom (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed all the peer-reviewed WP:BESTSOURCES presently being used at Donald Trump and Fascism and the overwhelming majority of them either called Trump fascist or demonstrated that Trump's government demonstrated characteristics of fascism. Most of the ambiguity on that page comes from over-reliance on journalistic accounts and statements from prior to January 6, 2021. Simonm223 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Simonm223 The debate is whether his political philosophy/activity should be considered fascistic or right-wing populist. The Donald Trump article currently describes him as a right-wing populist but having been described as fascist. Distinctions include asserting legitimacy with reference to democratic principles vs disregarding democracy as a form. If you are looking at WP:BESTSOURCES, these are what needs to be engaged with. It is already a form of POV for Wikipedia to have an article on Donald Trump and fascism and not Donald Trump and right-wing populism. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not something that's better discussed on the relevant talk pages? 46.97.170.73 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be, although questions of POVWARRING relevant here can hinge on content questions (e.g. are you going against a scholarly consensus). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is no legitimate evidence of the IP POVWARRING here. As I have said, they have been reasonable, and frankly, persuasive. On the other hand Dotes Conks should likely face some sort of boomerang here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on my end, especially about a boomerang. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's strange that some random Romanian person is so personally invested in US politics, though...
    I might recommend you reconsider pursuing this thought. I don't know where you think that rabbit hole goes but I don't think you're going to get any kudos for bringing up editors' possible nationalities (unless they've openly stated such somewhere) as if it changes what they're allowed to edit. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but what is this? Special:Contributions/DeadKom This account was created today and all contributions consist of responses made specifically to me, including two posts that just say "Source" and this one here accusing me of sockpuppetry and calling me to be banned. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone up for an SPI? Obviously not for you, 46.97, but DeadKom and Dotes maybe, just maybe, are the same person. — EF5 (questions?) 13:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not a checkuser.) DeadKom was active during a time-of-day that Dotes has never been active. I would be surprised if he was a sock of Dotes. I wouldn't be surprised if they were a sock of some user/IP out there though. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Reubengoldstein on Abraham Golan

    [edit]
    NO ACTION
    No ongoing disruption involved. asilvering (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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



    User:Reubengoldstein made a disruptive edit on 19 December 2024 to the article Abraham Golan (diff). The edit introduced multiple unsourced claims Wikipedia:Verifiability.

    Reubengoldstein severely degraded the quality of a previously acceptable section by inserting the phrase "According to Buzzfeed" redundantly after nearly every sentence, making the text incoherent and difficult to take seriously. This behavior constitutes disruptive editing by adding poor-quality, unsourced material and damaging the readability and neutrality of the article.

    It seems that ReubenGoldstein has a dubious and continued interest in editing the article, as proven by subsequent edits, and previous attempts to create this very article which were denied. Upon reviewing users talk page, it is clear that they have been involved in edit wars in the past and have a history of disruptive edits.

    Requesting administrative action: either a formal warning or a short-term block to prevent further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epifanove (talk • contribs) 12:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm ... this is pretty stale; the edits you're complaining about took place in January. He is demonstrably not disrupting the article now, you haven't indicated any reason to believe he plans on making any to it, and you've proffered no diffs suggesting he is continuing to make problematic edits elsewhere. Ravenswing 21:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GreatLeader1945, repeated claims of vandalism reverts, and edit-warring

    [edit]
    After repeated warnings and blocks, GreatLeader1945 is blocked indef by Black Kite. Schazjmd (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user has been previously warned (by me, User talk:GreatLeader1945#February 2025a) and blocked (not by me) for two weeks for reverting good-faith edits with the summary "rvv". This is the last so far out of five blocks, and it occurred two months ago. Today, the user made at least one more such revert [181]. Note that in addition, they are also edit-warring in articles on PIA topics, for example, in Benjamin Netanyahu they removed tags [182], were reverted, got a PIA warning, and in 29h removed the tags again [183]. They are probably well beyond the point when they can be considered net positive, and I blocked them indef, however, since the previous warning and block occurred in the situation when I had an article on my watchlist and I reverted them, I decided that I can be consider involved with this user. I unblocked them and brought the case here. Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This one, yesterday, as well. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Involved or not, that was the right decision. That many recent blocks and a talk page that is a litany of warnings, not to mention the edit-warring on contentious topics, is quite enough. They can explain how they're going to improve their editing from an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Through the winding roads

    [edit]

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

    Long-term WP:BLP vandal

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) Reported IP now already blocked for 1 month by User:Izno. Additionally the latest article that they targeted has been indef ECP'd as a CTOPS action. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    49.3.209.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Serious and repeated WP:BLP violations, inserting claims a person has died or disappeared. Block evasion. Previous IPs:

    — Chrisahn (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    rapid vandalism

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) User:Favonian has already blocked the IP for 1 year as a proxy, and User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe has semi-protected the targeted pages for 1 week. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    175.192.111.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Augmented Seventh🎱 07:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing from User:TL9027

    [edit]

    Several editors have reverted TL9027 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits, mainly to British train/train station articles, due to their insistence that their own images be included, regardless of their quality. They are also adding information without providing sources, despite requests against doing so. They blank their talk page with every warning given, WP:OSTRICH-style. Seasider53 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They have had some discussion Talk:Timing point, Talk:Guide Bridge railway station#Images so it's not a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem specifically, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto with adding images and content Manchester bus articles, i.e. Metroline Manchester, Stagecoach Manchester, Go North West and wherever else this user goes (i.e. revision histories for National Express West Midlands and Go-Ahead London); on a similar note, I remember a spam of new Greater Manchester bus route articles created by the user a couple of months ago that were quickly deleted for being non-notable. I'm suspecting some weird form of self-promotion as opposed to uploading and using images for descriptive purposes.
    Out of risk of getting involved in an edit war, I've mainly stepped away from addressing image quality concerns and the user's reverts to add back their previously deleted/swapped images (except in fairly egregious cases), but @S5A-0043 has some experience on the same front and can probably vouch better than I can. Hullian111 (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can share that I left the user a message in January, advising them to avoid images which include too much light rays (such as this one which was initially added in Metroline) on grounds of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and also giving them advice on how to prevent light rays from appearing by wiping the camera. A month later Hullian also left them a message on the relevant guidelines. Judging from the fact that the user gave a reply I'm inclined to think the message was received. However, they continued to add images with a lot of light rays after that (listing some of the more obvious cases, one, two, three). They also swapped a bunch of existing and satisfactory images to their own ones of more inferior quality (for example on Volvo Buses, including one where they added an image of the Volvo BZL by someone else before deciding in the next edit that they want their own image inside instead even though the previous image was of good (arguably better) quality with no dirt stuff visible).
    In another case (which happened only yesterday) the user added another of their own image of a double decker bus to Public transport bus service, and I reverted saying that having one image of each type of bus (SD, DD and articulated) as a balance is sufficient. The user then reverted my edit saying "Change for better angle", which was weird (to say the least) because that did not address my concern at all; they could've searched "articulated bus" on Commons and there would've been decent replacements with "better angle", but they chose to instead reinstate their own image within one minute and ignore my reasoning entirely (which I don't appreciate). But I didn't want to go through a 3RR scenario so I got an entirely different image on the page instead.
    Those are my experiences with the user. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 13:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have partially b locked them from article space. Communication is not optional. Star Mississippi 13:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding SPA accounts on Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack

    [edit]

    I previously reported NOTFORUM violations on Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack, but the situation seems to be getting worse day by day.

    I have seen an influx of what appears to be SPAs (not trying to be racist, but the vast majority, if not all, Indian affiliated and are likely sockpuppet accounts) trying to flip the community consensus on the move request (which should be speedy closed, as it is almost community consensus against the move outside of the suspected SPAs, and I'm losing my sanity if I have to continue dealing with spammers) by spamming the same arguments, examples, and sources over and over again and claiming "It's common name" when most sources, even indian ones, call it an attack. Can some admins do some cleaning up with the SPAs?

    Additionally, on the talk page tonnes of unreliable sources are spammed along with tonnes of defamatory and POV discussion; this applies to the full talk page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On a similar note, Talk:2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, which was created in part due to this incident, is seeing egregious WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX violations and battleground and POV editing involving Hypothetical Painter (talk · contribs) and XXSniperXX12 (talk · contribs). See this WP:NOTHERE edit [184] for example. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed i recently warned the first guy on User talk:Caesarian Cobol. In all of my time on wikipedia, never have i seen violations to this scale.
    Both pages are a absolute war zone between the indian and pakistani communities on wikipedia. It's honestly pretty amazing how people can find time to write such long rants.
    On a more serious note, many editors(not one, but multiple) have been pretty belligerent and uncivil on this topic. Due to the severity(and the fact that I along with many other editors are tired with dealing with disruptive users) of this case, i would suggest to start giving people topic bans. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never did anything wrong. He started it, I tried to tell him to stop slanderous edits but unfortunately he would not until he eventually gave up. XXSniperXX12 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thehistorianisaac@Borgenland Respected administrators, with due respect, I have followed WP:whatver_Rules_are_there_in_wikipedia since I have joined Wikipedia as a casual editor........ but that XXXsniper whatever the guy name has, writes against my country India in the 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes page. And as a proud citizen, I just did whatever I could and don't and will not have a single piece of regret and even why do even I care. And also this wiki platform, honestly things are really biased & that's why I have stopped editing in February 2025 but have to come just to protect my country's interest. So yeah this is my last message and please don't tag me, I don't have much time to reply every messages or notices and also whatever the admins give the judgement for me whether it goes in favor of me or against me, I do not care because I do not have much time. I have real works to do in my life and writing this reply it actually feels like I am wasting my time. Have a nice day. Jai Hind India. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "And as a proud citizen, I just did whatever I could and don't and will not have a single piece of regret and even why do even I care" "And also this wiki platform, honestly things are really biased & that's why I have stopped editing in February 2025 but have to come just to protect my country's interest."
    I am also a proud chinese and there is tonnes of anti-chinese content on wikipedia. Do I violate guidelines? No.(or at least I try not to) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having converged on the article in question without having read this thread, I issued a 1-week NPA block to Hypothetical Painter. Had I seen the totality of their comments prior, I probably would have gone straight for indef and don’t object to anyone else taking further action, although I am reluctant to do so myself directly while the original block is still in force, as I try to avoid upgrading my own blocks as a general practice. If the block is allowed to expire and disruption continues I will however be willing to reimpose an adequate sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for any sources, but if you read my comments you would understand I did not intend them to be part of the Wikipedia article. They were purely part of my own research and so once again I apologise. I will delete that reply so as to avoid any further confusion. XXSniperXX12 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, your companion appears to have gravely compromised themselves with WP:NPA and unacceptable POV editing along ultranationalist/racist lines and WP:ASPERSIONS. See [185], [186] [187] and [188]. However, you should not have stooped to their level and engaged in WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you see such violations it is better to either WP:DENY or take them to the appropriate noticeboard if it warrants so. Borgenland (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, @Hypothetical Painter has openly bragged about being a WP:NOTHERE editor. In this case some kind of ban may be necessary. Borgenland (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, my bad and I’ll look to avoid this in future. XXSniperXX12 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Funtiberry using LLMs to add content to pages and possibly for edit summaries

    [edit]

    Funtiberry has previously been warned for related issues (notably going against MOS) on several occasions and their behavior does not seem to be changing as seen with this edit three days ago. The reason I am involved is because yesterday, I noticed that Bahamas Electricity Corporation had large amounts of AI suspect text added by the user. Also, their edit summaries seem to be rather unwieldy and don't accurately describe what had changed, which may also be a symptom of LLM usage. ✶Quxyz✶ 10:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blocking (and possible banning of User 82.203.88.2

    [edit]
    There's nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to request the blocking of the above mentioned IP and, if the Administrators deem it prudent, their potential banning. I note the user has a proclivity for vandalising articles, an example being the article on the 'Wolf's Lair' where they repeatedly vandalised the article (with the same content) and undid other users' reversions of their vandalism.

    Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanKB (talk • contribs) 13:07 28 April 2025 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) DylanKB - have you read the big red notice at the top of the page when you create reports that tells you you must notify users with the ANI notice? I notice you haven't done so. It would also be helpful to have diffs/links. Danners430 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Danners430 Thanks for the correction. And with regard to the notification, I was concerned that the mentioned User could potentially attempt to also vandalise this discussion hence not informing them, if I've understood your question correctly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanKB (talk • contribs) 13:15 28 April 2025 (UTC)

    This IP has not edited in almost a full year. They were warned for the edits they made at the time and there is nothing to do here. Next time, please consider whether your report is actually urgent or regarding an intractable issue. This was not, and if the vandalism was live the report should have gone to WP:AIV. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter - if you read that banner, it says you must notify them... there are no exceptions. I've taken the liberty of doing it for you in this instance. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. Danners430 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I was not aware that they had already been warned. ~~~~ DK 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Vandalism and likely Block Evasion by 220.92.209.30

    [edit]

    First, as IP 58.235.154.8, they made a long series of edits delaying Starship flights by one month.

    [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], and [205] at Starship flight test 5

    [206] instead of delaying a launch, they added a blank section to List of Starship launches

    [207] at Starship flight test 6

    [208], [209], [210], [211] their usual vandalism at List of Starship launches

    [212] adding blank sections to Starship flight test 7. After deleting one of those sections,[213] they wrote "Flight timeline soon".[214][215] They then readded the deleted blank section,[216] with the note "coming soon".[217][218]

    [219] they added a launch to a chart in List of Starship launches

    [220] at Starship flight test 8

    For this, they were blocked twice, first for two months,[221], and then for six.[222]

    Then, as IP 211.184.93.253, they continued their vandalism.

    [223], [224], and [225]at Starship flight test 8

    [226] at List of Starship launches

    For this, they were blocked (duration six months. This has not yet expired)

    And now, they are repeating their vandalism, as IP 220.92.209.30.

    [227], [228], and [229] at Starship flight test 9

    [230], [231], [232] at List of Starship launches

    Warning 1: [233]

    Warning 2: [234]

    Warning 3 (happened while typing this out): [235]

    ANI Notice: [236]

    Geolocate of IP 58.235.154.8

    Geolocate of IP 211.184.93.253.

    Gelocate of IP 220.92.209.30 Redacted II (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1287799686"