Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

Persistent bad faith assumption and personal attacks by User:Aciram

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

Aciram has been casting aspersions and assuming bad faith for a while, to the point where ignoring them is no longer an option.

• This last comment of theirs consists of a list of aspersions that they won't able to substantiate. The claim that An PI-adress is not normally given as much weight as a registered user is not even worth answering.
• Talk:Barbary_slave_trade#Use_of_slaves: an uncalled for personal attack.
• Talk:Slavery_in_al-Andalus#Some_sources_need_improvement: a series of aspersions.
• Assuming bad faith with an IP: falsely claiming that the IP has vandalised the article and accusing them of having an agenda.

Basically, in their view, if you don't agree with them, then you must be a vandal (or at the very least, have an agenda that they will repeat everywhere to discredit you). M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you provide some more examples that are recent? The middle two are from January 2025 and April 2024 respectively. And the latter is a whopping 1,083 words...

Anyway, from my view, if I have to go PURELY based on my opinion on the whole sex slavery thing - I agree with Aciram. However, this isn't supposed to be a collection of opinions. It has to be neutral and reliably sourced, and I feel like Aciram is letting her personal views shield her judgement. I will not engage in communication with this User Aciram, I'm really sorry, but unless there is an IBAN imposed, if you have a content dispute that M.Bitton is on the other side of - you've got to communicate. I do empathise with your struggles with anxiety as I can relate but I don't exactly see it as M.Bitton's fault for trying to contact you. This is purely from what I've read though, if there's more context being left out I'm likely to develop my opinions. jolielover♥talk 16:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I listed the others to show how long the assumption of bad faith has been going on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton; could you please explain why when Aciram asked you to avoid communicating with them [1] you decided to double down and post on their talk page anyway while calling their mental health into doubt? [2] Wow. Just...wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That was in April of last year (when I was the subject of a personal attack by them). I avoided their talk page ever since. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your actions. If you believe you've been the target of a personal attack, it does not excuse your behavior and allow you to make a personal attack against them. Please explain your actions, since this is wholly inadequate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That was in the past and it hasn't been repeated since, unlike their aspersions casting and persistent bad faith assumption. 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That's still not an explanation. Please explain why you decided to double down and attack them with this? You're willing to dismiss the past because it came from 2024 but not dismiss comments from Aciram in the past. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I believed what I said back then (having mental health issues doesn't justify casting aspersions) and in any case, I haven't repeated it since, unlike their aspersions casting and bad faith assumption that show no sign of abating. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Believing that doesn't justify you calling their mental health concerns into question. This posting of yours was an absolutely egregious personal attack. Had I seen it in the moment, I would have immediately blocked you. You were grossly out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hammersoft Jolielover I should perhaps have reported it, but I was not feeling well enough to do anything about it, as is perhaps evident from how I wrote. This is not the only occasion. Further back, this user had a discussion with two other users on my own talk page; I told them that they could do as they wished, and asked them to leave my talk page since their constant aggressive posting was triggering an attack. They, M.Bitton being the dominant party, continued despite me informing them that that had indeed caused a panic attack. I can see from my posting, that my writing becomes incoherent, since I was in the middle of an attack. This was traumatic for me, and I have not wished to speak to him ever since. I would not object to him being reported or banned, though I am not informed about what the possibilities are, and I doubted they can be many, since I have little energy to do much myself. --Aciram (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What's your excuse for continuing to cast aspersions and assuming bad faith (including with passing IPs)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I never called their their mental health concerns into question. All I said is that it's not an excuse to keep casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Eurgh, I agree. People behind screens go through a lot of things and just one person not being kind could trigger something. It's rude to insinuate someone is lying. Let's AGF. jolielover♥talk 17:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

(M.Bitton) Your snide sarcasm in the post belies that. Again, it was an egregious personal attack. Trying to dismiss it as in the past, trying to dismiss it that it wasn't repeated, ...trying to dismiss it in ANY way doesn't take away the reality that you were mocking someone's mental health issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I most certainly didn't mock someone's mental health, nor can I ever do such a thing. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The comment speaks for itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That obviously applies to everyone, including those who don't complain. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover; there is a long history. I do not have an active conflict with this user. A couple of years ago, I believe, I had a dispute with this user. The user removed well referenced and contextually relevant information from an article regarding slavery in Islam. After this incident, the very same thing occurred on several different occasions.

Now: when a person removes contextually relevant and well referenced information from several different articles regarding a specific subject, giving "cherry picking" and "out of context" and similar reasons for these removals, it is natural that you are given the impression that this user has an agenda.

In this specific case, the only occasions in which I had anything to do with M.Bitton, is in articles dealing with the subject of slavery in Islam. What can I say? It is difficult to keep a belief in good faith and NPOV, when this hapen again and again. When you notice such a pattern, logic will give you the impression of a bias agenda.

Generally, to have a discussion with a person who may have an agenda, is deeply exhausting. It will eventually lead nowhere. It is not constructive. Nevertheless, a wikipedia editor should participate in such discussions for the good of wikipedia. Otherwise the content of wikipedia will be affected by people with an agenda; I am aware of this. But I can not do this. Why?

I suffer from anxiety disorders and I can not participate in long, outdrawn and agressive discussions, which will often contain attacks, insults and hostility for weeks on end. I admire those who do. But such discussions will give me anxiety attacks, and such can result in self harm. I will strongly add, that the only reason I describe this here; is to explain myself. That is the reason, and the only reason, I write this.

Because of this reason, I have the policy, that when I disagree with another user about a content issue, I will simply let my oponent do as they wish. This is done to avoid a triggering aggressive discussion, particular when I can see what appear to be an agenda in a user. There are not rules in Wikipedia regarding simply letting your oponent having their way in a content dispute, I assume? If not, we have no problem in that regard. On previous occasions, I have always allowed M.Bitton to have his way. In this occasion, I did as well.

In a previous discussion, I openly told M.Bitton, that he triggered an anxiety attack, bowed down to his opinion, and asked him to stop participating in a discussion which him and two other users had on my own talk page, and where I did not participate. I asked them to stop. They chose to continue, showing deep contemt and disregard for my health. I am sure you can understand that I do not see that M.Bitton will have a constructive discussion with me.

This particular issue, is yet again about slavery in Islam. An IP-adress removed the wording "chattel slavery" from an article in which slaves could be sold, bought and owned. I have not reinstated it, and I will not do so either. I accepted the change as soon as I saw that M.Bitton was involved, because experience have shown me, that such a discussion will not be constructive. I do not belive that I have an obligation to speak to M.Bitton, if I simply bow down and accept any edit he wish to do? Well, I accept any edit he wish to do. I consider it necessary for my health. I am willing do to this to avoid speaking to this user. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

when this hapen again and again care to explain why you accused the IP of vandalism and having an agenda? M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Half of these diffs are quite old, and nothing in them is sanctionable, either individually or as a whole. Aciram, I would advise you to avoid using the term apologists, as it could be considered a personal attack, but these diffs don't rise to the level of a formal warning, let alone a block. M.Bitton, even if unintentional, that talk page comment came off as belittling someone's mental health issues, which is highly unacceptable. In the future, don't bring up people's struggles in such a manner. Other than that, I don't see any sanctions coming out of this thread, except maybe an IBAN. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned the old comments because of the recent one (i.e., to show continuation of something that isn't likely to stop). Short of responding in kind (my mental health is important to me too) or reporting it here, what else am I supposed to do? M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend the two of you do a self imposed WP:IBAN, so this doesn't come up again. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The IBAN doesn't address the fact that they keep casting aspersions on me (you'll notice that they have a history of talking about me, rather than to me). M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are annoyed by their comments, and as I said above, calling you a slavery apologist was a personal attack. However, I don't think it reaches the level of instituting a block. I'd recommend an IBAN to prevent further issues, since the incivility seems to only occur when they are in content disputes with you, and your hands aren't exactly clean here either. The IBAN also would address the issue of aspersions, as they would no longer be permitted to mention you anywhere on the site, nor would you be permitted to mention them. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

My hands are clean. There is no justification for their uncalled for attacks in the middle of unrelated discussions. I also never mentioned them as I have no interest in them. The last time that I pinged them about their unjustified revert of a well explained edit (December 2024), they ignored my question. Also, their bad faith assumption is not limited to me. (M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR. Thank you, I will try to avoid using "apologist". For me personally an IBAN would be a relief. I already avoid speaking to him. This user once triggered a panic attack with his agressive posting on my page, and refused to stop even when I informed him that I was indeed having a panic attack. However, it is concerning that in that case, I would not be able to alert anyone if I observe things such as for example bias editing (?). I can not hide, that there is a reason for what is called "aspersions": it is difficult for me to see NPOV for a user who has again and again removed well referenced and contextually relevant information from articles concerning slavery in Islam, in combiation with having described sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent [3]. I have described such incidents here: [4] This genuinly concerns me. I would have reported potential bias long ago, and the only reason I have not, is because I know I am not fit for the long discussion that would take. But someone should, some day; and I have hoped that eventually, I would have what it takes to participate in such a discussion. I am being frank here because I am concerned for these articles. --Aciram (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you.

having descrbed sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent I challenge you to substantiate this nonsense that you're attributing to me. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Good grief. Saying "Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you" is a personal attack itself. You are commenting on the editor, not on their edits. If you are incapable of making that distinction, you shouldn't be editing here. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and take it to heart. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This report about casting aspersions is about an editor and them doubling down on it here of all places is something that needs to be highlighted for what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

So your method of highlighting it is to insult them? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not an insult, it's a fact. Attributing utter nonsense to me in an effort to discredit me is literally a joke. The fact that nobody seems to be bothered by it is frankly shocking. M.Bitton (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What is shocking is that you don't think belittling someone's mental health is a personal attack. What is shocking is you don't think telling someone that being insulting comes naturally to them is a personal attack. WP:NPA is blatantly clear on this; "Comment on content, not the contributors". Talking about things coming naturally to them is talking about them, not about their contributions. If you persist in insulting people on this project, I will recommend you blocked not so much for the personal insults but for the inability to recognize that you are insulting people and violating WP:NPA. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The first part has already been addressed. The second is rather strange as it tells me that the rules that apply to me don't apply to the others (they can insult me and claim all kind of nonsense about me all day long, and that's fine). M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Insufficiently addressed, yes. As to the second, I am talking about your behavior. You are out of line for saying "Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you". If you are not capable of seeing that is a personal attack, you probably shouldn't be editing here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I see everything (that's the problem). Anyway, I said what I needed to say, so time for me to move on. M.Bitton (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody is saying that there has been zero misconduct from Aciram. It isn't enough to warrant blocking, but it is there. The difference between their conduct and yours is that Aciram has shown a willingness to change. You, on the other hand, have only doubled down on comments that you have been told were problematic. There's a reason this IBAN is two-way. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What willingness to change? They are literally doubling down on the aspersions and bad faith assumption on this very board (in fact, they have done nothing else but that). M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment where they agreed to avoid calling people apologists. As for the aspersions, that's why this is a two-way ban. The fact that both of you seemingly want to report the other for NPOV violations further underscores the fact that you two will likely never be able to get along in any productive way, and a ban from interacting is necessary. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That's just a single comment out many that they made and keep making (see below). There is no question that they have been assuming bad faith and casting aspersions for a long time. The fact that they are incapable of substantiating their nonsense (even when challenged) is telling. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I thank those who has shown support. But before this is made, and I can't mention him again, I must once and for all issue a warning.

I believe the editing of User:M.Bitton show a bias agenda to use the rules to remove information about slavery in Islam, and to portray the instition as benevolent. This agenda is indicated by his editing several years back. I notice this, because I have written about the subject for several years, and this is the only occasion when I have encountered him. I have described such incidents here: [5]

To me, this conflict have always been about this agenda. I have genuine concern for it. And I am very sad, and feel guilty, that this discussion may know have rendedered these concerns invalid. I have a genuine belief that these concerns are valid.

If I had reported this when I first noticed it, it may have been taken seriously, and adressed. Now, it will not. And I am very, very sorry, that my behaviour may have made it possible for them to continue for a long time. I should have reported them a long time ago. I am very sorry for wikipedia and for this subject issue, that I did not. --Aciram (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The two of you seem incapable of not responding to the other's actions. That's why this interaction ban is needed. To both you and M.Bitton, my advice is to DROP IT and stop commenting about each other now rather than after the IBAN goes into effect. Neither of you is convincing the other, and both of you are making it worse. Drop it and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I appologize, and I will now leave the discussion. I will make no further posts. I understand, that because of this discussion, nothing of what I say about M.Bitton, will be taken seriously. We are in conflict; and therefore, what I say will be viewed as bias. I understand this, and I accept this. Before I go, I humbly and respectfully ask you to consider, that the only thing I have ever been concerned about, is the NPOV of the subject. That was the reason I wrote the text above. I understand it can no longer be taken seriously because of the nature if this discussion. I therefore leave now. I will respect any decission you chose to make. I have nothing further to say, and can only be sorry for the effect this has. --Aciram (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Please indicate support or opposition for a two-way (i.e. both parties subject to) interaction ban between User:Aciram and User:M.Bitton.

Support Given ongoing comments here, I think this is the best option moving forward. I had hoped for a voluntary IBAN that they both kept to, but that's obviously not going to be accepted. Time to put this into place. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Both of them are productive users, but neither of them can get along civilly. To answer your question, Aciram, neither of you would be allowed to mention each other in any capacity on Wikipedia unless you are reporting a violation of the interaction ban, and you would also not be allowed to revert each other's edits. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support I have worked with both editors, directly and indirectly, and both in my opinion are quality editors. I see comments by both that are not content-focused. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose due to M.Bitton's precipitation of this incident. A one-way ban on M.Bitton might be appropriate especially given how this started: (1) an IP removes "chattel" from articles, not just wrongly but even citing a source in their edit summaries[6][7] which directly contradicts them; (2) Aciram reverts, with some asperity; (3) M.Bitton intervenes to reinstate the IP's edits rather than BRD-style leave the status quo in place pending discussion, and demands sources of Aciram not the IP editor (4) on being criticised by Aciram, M.Bitton launches this ANI thread, bringing up Aciram's comments in January 2025 and April 2024, but not describing how M.Bitton provoked Aciram. NebY (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Having read all these replies and diffs this seems the best way forward to stop the personal attacks and aspersions and both can continue to edit constructively away from each other. GothicGolem29 03:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation to the topic ban proposal. Discussion about content can be held at the article's talk page.

• I started the ANI because of what they wrote today (after making similar personal remarks previously). The IP's source doesn't contradict what they said, and even if it did, it still wouldn't be reason enough to accuse them of vandalism and having an agenda. I demanded sources for what is unsourced and challenged. I didn't provoke them, it's actually the opposite since my reply to them in April 2024 was in response to their aspersions (unlike them, I moved on, and even ignored the other personal attacks that I only listed above to show that they have been at it for a while, even in discussions in which I'm not involved). M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  You claim The IP's source doesn't contradict what they said. The IP wrote There is no academic source given for claiming it was Chattel slavery ... citing a source which instead says "the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being" (my emphasis) and "In what might be called civil matters, the slave was a chattel with no legal powers or rights whatsoever", describes purchase as "by far the most important means for the legal acquisition of new slaves" and discusses the trade in slaves at length. You have edited enough content about slave trading to know that "chattel slavery" is a correct term here – the IP had even presented an immediate source for it – and it is baffling that you preferred to remove it and preciptate this incident. NebY (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for observing this. The definition of Chattel slavery is a type of slavery when a human can be sold, bought and owned. There have been more incidents of this sort. The incident in the same article of december 2024, with a talk page post just above the last, was very similar. There, an IP removed referenced information wrongly claiming that it was not to be found in the source. I was too tired to engage with it. Incidents such as this have formed my opinion in the issue.--Aciram (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Just like I was too tired to respond to your personal attacks (even in discussions in which I'm not even involved). Why stop there? Go all the way back to 2022 (where everyone was tired, just like you were). M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you've chosen to ignore Hammersoft's advice above consider this an official, final warning to stop replying to Aciram in this thread. You're digging yourself deeper and if you keep this up you're going to wind up blocked. At this point, you're both much better off dropping the stick and letting the community sort this out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

"no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being" doesn't mean "chattel" (which dehumanises the slave). So no, it's not the correct term, and even if it was, it would still need a source whenever it's mentioned, especially, when challenged. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It means the slave was a chattel – legally bought, owned and sold – but also recognised as a human being. Whether or to what extent Muslim slavery was dehumanising is an evaluation which has no bearing on the matter. NebY (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a difference between "chattel slavery" (which dehumanises the slaves) and Islamic slavery (where the slave is considered human). M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this sub discussion as inappropriate to the topic ban discussion. Take disputes about content to the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This appears to be necessary to deal with the issues here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment May I comment? I am full willing to adjust to such a ban. I already avoid speaking to him as much as possible, and I will accept and follow any rule given here. I have only one question: would it still be possible for me to report him if I should see bias editing? I ask this because I have genuin concern for NPOV. I think lack of NPOV is legitimate to report? I would have done so long ago if I thought I had the strenght to handle the discussion. I did not, and therefore, my observation and assesment of the bias editing has perhaps come out the wrong way, and for that I am sorry. But I do have genuine concern for NPOV. --Aciram (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Likewise (including for violation of NPOV, misrepresenting the sources to push a POV and assuming bad faith with other editors). M.Bitton (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This concerns me. In my opinion, his editing shows an agenda to remove as much as possible about slavery in Islam and portray the insitition us benevolent. I have described such incidents here: [8] I should have reported him for breaking NPOV long ago. I did not because I lacked trust in my ability to handle a heated discussion. It will therefore be my fault if he indeed has bias and contiue with bias editing, unless someone else report him. I feel as if I have lacked in my duty to wikipedia and the articles I am concerned for, by not reporting him before. I am myself guilty if this POV-concern is not taken seriously. And for that I am sorry and feel helpless. --Aciram (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not too late to report whatever you're claiming. You can start by addressing this. M.Bitton (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I will leave this discussion now. It is sad to think, how different the NPOV issue ([9]) may have been recieved, if it had been put forward in a different discussion than this. --Aciram (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• An interaction ban is an interaction ban, full stop. It is not an interaction ban except for report[ing] him if I should see bias editing. Ibanned editors are not allowed to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• What Bushranger said. We have a lot of editors here, if there are problems with M.Bitton's editing I'm sure someone else will notice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have already been given a reply above, and I understand. I accept that any accusation or observation regarding POV from me about this user can not be taken seriously because of the topic of this ANI-discussion. If I had reported POV before this discussion, it would have been taken seriously and adressed, which would have been good for wikipedia. Now, it will not be taken seriously. I accept this, but I can still feel sorry for these circumstances, because they are caused by me, and is my fault. If I had not been a covard because of my anxity problems, I would have reported POV. I did not. I blame myself for this. Hence my comments. I have the respond I need. Thank you.

I am not sure how this will go practially since were both interested in articles of slavery in Islam, but I suppose we will figure it out. I have never "cast aspersions"/expressed concerns on POV, on other occasions than when there have been content disputes on talk pages - and here. And I would not have begun doing so in other occasions either. --Aciram (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Question: what was the purpose of these[10][11] (look at the timestamps) if not to taunt me? Is this comment about me (again) canvassing or am I mistaken? M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I appear to have thanked M.Bitton by mistake. My thank you was directed toward his oponent in the discussion, who shares my opinion that M.Bitton have removed the term "chattel slavery" from an Islamic slavery article unjustly. This is the very same issue that caused M.Bitton to report me to ANI and start this discussion. My concern is now raised by another user on the talk page of the article, who agrees with me. I gave that person a thank you because they are adressing an issue of bias that I will soon no longer be able to adress. I appologize for thanking M.Bitton by mistake: I have no interest in taunting people. I have always only been interested in the NPOV issue, and I was relieved to see that others may adress it as well now. It was incidents like these that gave me the impression of biases and disregard for NPOV regarding slavery in Islam, and of POV pushing to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent. This was always of concern for me.--Aciram (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment I'm not too worried about the content (the utter disregard for the NPOV policy will be dealt with once the relevant projects are notified of the issue). All I want is a reassurance that the taunting (including talking about me in a disparaging way) will cease. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Per what others have said a two way IBAN will prevent them mentioning you at all(as it will with you as well) so if that proposal passes them mentioning you will cease or they will be breaching it. GothicGolem29 15:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment M.Bitton appears to belive that my mission in life is to have an evil agenda to taunt him. No, my mission in Wikipedia is to write about history from a NPOV. M.Bitton had consistently done everything he can to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent and remove any information contrary to it by calling it "cherry picking". This have always concerned me greatly.

He has already descrived sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent, because the sex slaves of Muslim rulers lived in luxury. Now, he wishes to remove that fact that slavery in Islamic countries was chattel slavery. Chattel slavery was a type of slavery in which humans can be sold, bought and owned. It is for example acknowledged that Roman slavery was chattel slavery. It is deeply painful to see such an POV agenda be pushed, and know that I will be unable to adress this.

The only reason I have not reported this is because I am too mentally ill to handle such a hostile discussion. To see such a POV be pushed on wiki, and be unable to do anything about it is painful, when one has worked on wikipedia so long as I have, and I am genuinly saddened when I see it.

I should stop reading this discussion now. I don't understand why there should be such hostility. I have never been interested in M.Bitton as a person. I am deeply concerned about M.Bitton's agenda to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent. This concern is genuine. To potentially see it happening, is heart breaking. And I see know, that the best I can do for my health is to no longer observe this discussion and take all articles concerning slavery in Islam of my watch list.

Other users may not have the interest to adress the issue, because people in general are mainly focused on the Atlantic slave trade and slavery in the US, and rarely show interest in Islamic slavery. Therefore, I believe that there will be a suscesful POV-push by M.Bitton in the subject due to a lack of interest in the issue from other users. There will be nothing I can do, and that is deeply concerning. This is sad for the Wikipedia project, and it it hapens I will have no will to work on it anymore. As you can see from my writing, I am not mentally well, and I aknowledge I am not, and I may not always phrase myself well, but my concern is genuine and my concern is of NPOV. I don't now how M.Bitton justifies this to himself, but I can only say this makes me so deeply saddened and worried. --Aciram (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aciram: If you two are banned from interacting, other users (such as the people who agreed with you in that talk page thread) would still be able to enforce NPOV. I would recommend that you and M.Bitton both stop making new comments in this thread unless specifically asked a question, since both of you are entering into bludgeoning territory. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

They've already both been advised above. They can't seem to stop doing it. This is why the IBAN is necessary. I've seen this pattern before from others; the belief that if they make one more post, one more plea, one more diff, that it will somehow sway the day and everything will come out roses and butterflies for them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes. It is natural human behaviour to defend oneself when you see accusations. It is not easy not to post, when you read that. I am not fit for Wikipedia to begin with, and I should not have been involved in editing. I am too fragile for it, and I can not behave as a mature adult. All this is very depressing. I hope I have the character to stay away now. And I dont think that if I "make one more post, one more plea, one more diff, that it will somehow sway the day and everything will come out roses and butterflies for them". As you can see above, I take for granted, that there will be an IBAN, and I am worried and sad what that will lead to. I do not think I can say anything to prevent it. I posted above because I am ill and lack self control. I should discontinue my account. I do not belive, that I am suited to be a wikipedia contributor. Please to whatever you wish. If you wish to block my account, then perhaps that would be best. I do not consider myself suitable to work here. That should be evident from everything above. --Aciram (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting you are not suitable for editing here. It is evident that you and M.Bitton interacting is not good for the project. You are most welcome to continue to edit the project, but commenting in response to or about M.Bitton is not a good idea. The best strength someone can have in this situation is something you've already said you wanted to do; turn away from them. It's not hard. Just don't respond to them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this thread. I involved myself in the content dispute (the article is on my watchlist) roughly around or after the thread, precipitated by the same edits, which I attempted to salvage and revert to preserve some of the descriptions that were removed, which I believe to be on the whole fairly and reliably supported by good academic sources, or at least could be and should be going forward. I now believe that there is an NPOV issue and an omission in the article (perhaps per NebY) so I started a thread on the NPOV noticeboard. The whole thread including the hatted portion might be worth looking at, and I know it takes two to argue, but in terms of the M.Bitton ANI. I wonder if the admins on this thread might review this latest diff alone[12] from M.Bitton. We have been for the last few days discussing at length the content dispute. It is my humble opinion that M.Bitton has been frankly uncollaborative and uncollegial throughout the discussion. I do think this latest message isn't the preferred way to interact. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I do believe M.Bitton has received warnings for that in the past, but I wonder whether another might be in order. I find his comment to be at least rude and hyperbolic, inaccuracies aside or unwillingness to compromise or misread of the sources, which could be innocent or accidental aside, I don't think that level of rude frustration is merited and I find he has been altogether uncollaborative. Andre🚐 22:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I also do believe that your sudden interest in my edits in an article that you have never edited before this report didn't just happen by coincidence. We've had our differences in the past, and I don't recall a single instance where we actually agreed on something, but I always treated you with respect.

With regard to the diff that you're citing: I suggest they read the whole discussion (especially, the collapsed part). M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually I have edited it before[13]. Andre🚐 23:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that part. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

So perhaps withdraw or strike your implied aspersion that I was following or hounding you? And on always treating me with respect, I couldn't remember other disputes we had, but then I remembered one from Talk:Jesus/Archive 138 [14] in November 24 in which you stated, You will join your friend in the ignored list... forever!. I guess I made it off the list, so I can thank you for that I suppose. Andre🚐 23:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done to be fair, it was due to the canvassing that I mentioned above (I just didn't check the timestamp). You're welcome. You actually made it off the list 24 hours later (I tend to forgive and forget). M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the message on my talk page was left by Aciram after I edited the article talk thread that he had created[15]. That's why he was thanking me. So it was not canvassing as I had already responded to that thread. But your message there and here both assume bad faith and are incorrect about the timeline. Andre🚐 23:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

When someone who is about to be the subject of an IBAN contacts someone else to complain about the person that they will no longer be able to interact with or talk about, it's plain WP:CANVASSING. This is my last comment here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It can't be canvassing because I already had participated, which is the only reason the message was left to begin with. Canvassing would be notifying a selective list about a discussion with an eye toward or a goal of, or what could reasonably construed as a goal of, influencing it. There is absolutely no way that Aciram's message thanking me for my already stated position in the discussion could be considered canvassing. Andre🚐 00:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ban-evading proxy IP causing disruptions across typhoon articles

I’m bringing this here to hopefully solve this issue once and for all.

Since August, there’s been a proxy-blocked IP at 218.250.114.83 (u t c m l) (more information on their behavior can be found there at that discussion) causing numerous disruptions on many typhoon-related articles, specifically 2024 Pacific typhoon season and 2025 Pacific typhoon season-related, changing date formats against consensus from MDY to DMY and inserting British English language despite repeatedly being reverted. They also seem to attempt to blend in using bureaucratic language and fake edit summaries as well. Since then after being blocked by Materialscientist, the IP in question has began docking through numerous proxies in an attempt to continue their disruptions, most notably at Typhoon Ragasa recently where I had to repeatedly revert them until they were blocked and I had to explain on the talk page and the page itself had to be protected due to the disruptive editing (only for the IPs to immediately begin again once it expired). Now, they’re causing disruption again with the same stuff for Typhoon Matmo (2025) (including repeatedly re-creating a now-useless draft at Draft:Tropical Storm Matmo 2025 which is outdated by several factors) and Draft:Tropical Storm Halong (2025). Some users (most notably have attempted to negotiate with these IPs, which, in my opinion, just feeds the ego of the IPs, and these edits to the pages fall under WP:BMB.

I am hoping administration can take of this and the IPs so that this disruption can finally end because I am tired of reverting them. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: I've been trying to make heads or tails of this Matmo mess for almost a day now, and I'll say, the IP is the only person involved whose behavior has seemed to mostly comply with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. And to reiterate, no policy prevents an editor from continuing to edit after their proxy is blocked, and WP:NOP actually calls this out as explicitly allowed. I'm open to being convinced they're part of the problem here, but so far you haven't presented any evidence. Could you please show diffs of what the IP's been doing that is disruptive? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: See here when the new IP in question tried to restore the DMY format despite twice reverted by @EmperorChesser: to the regular MDY format. The IP’s edit summaries are the same as previous IP’s that were blocked due to disruption at Ragasa. Other users have been made aware of the sock nature which include @Borgenland: and @Sam Sailor: (who I probably should’ve pinged first as they appear to have more knowledge of this specific socking/proxy-IP case. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I have quickly visited the edit history of Ragasa.[16] It was exactly MarioProtIV, Sam Sailor, Borgenland (along with e.g. CleveAuxil) who disrupted the page after it attained article status following a proper draft review, by (a) enforcing US spellings and MDY date formats and (b) ignoring (i) the fact that just the opposite of these were followed in the draft before they stepped in and (ii) Retain and Dateret. MarioProtIV in particular forced his/her way by ignoring intermediate edits multiple times. (As for the Halong draft[17] it is more than clear which variety of English and date format were first established but again there are editors who ignored this.) 203.145.95.215 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is quite the false allegation. The page was created by Vida0007 which used MDY format, which actually goes against what you are claiming. This was exactly what led to the block because of the multiple attempts at forcing a DMY conversion despite being told over and over again that was against consensus. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the IP appears to be likewise correct that the first non-stub version of Typhoon Ragasa was their DMY version. What I'm starting to get the impression of here is that there is a systemic issue in the typhoon topic area with editors not understanding how ENGVAR and DATEVAR work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned here, the moment IP was confirmed to have been a sock reverting them was necessary per WP:BANREVERT. And since they appeared to be IP hopping I assumed there was a plot on their part to rig consensus against the regular editors. Borgenland (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No one has shown any evidence that the IP is a sock. The only blocks against their past IPs have been for the IPs being proxies, which explicitly as a matter of policy does not prevent a user from editing under other IPs. Similarly no one has shown any evidence that they've ever pretended multiple of their IPs are different people. These are the sorts of details that editors are expected to sort out before they go reverting people under BANREVERT, not after. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think those are the diffs you meant to link, but, looking at all of Special:PageHistory/Draft:Tropical Storm Halong (2025), I see that EmperorChesser created a draft with no prose, the IP added prose using DMY dates and British English, and EmperorChesser than added MDY and AmEng tags in violation of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR—which say the first non-stub version (i.e. the IP's) is controlling—with the hostile edit summary Are you kidding me? Stop deleting or modifying this. The IP then made a reasonable revert, correctly citing the applicable policies, which you incorrectly reverted as ban evasion even though they are not subject to any active blocks for misconduct. You and EmperorChesser than both made further reverts in violation of ENGVAR and DATEVAR, and falsely alleging ban evasion. The IP does get some blame for edit-warring, but you two were also both edit-warring, and unlike the IP you were doing so to remove constructive, policy-compliant edits. If this is the extent of your evidence, I do see a potential need for sanctions here, but it's not against the IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Since all this edit warring, and persistent vandalizing has been going on in the articles I requested semi-protection for them. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The entire Pacific typhoon season group uses MDY format. The IP was told multiple times that wa against the consensus, and the discussion at Materialscientist’s talk showcases the exact patterns that started in August. Once the master IP was blocked, they began socking, and it is extremely WP:DUCK that it has continued so. The IP also seems to be engaging in some sort of WP:BOOMERANG/WP:DEFLECT in attempt to make the other editors in the WPTC WikiProject look bad who are just trying to keep the MDY consensus for the PTY range stable. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, you and the IP need to sort things out on the page's talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring for more information. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The entire Pacific typhoon season group uses MDY format. Which may be a reason that an article would form consensus to use MDY, but is not an exception to DATEVAR, and certainly not an exception to WP:EW. And if you refer to this behavior as socking again, after having it repeatedly explained to you that it is not sockpuppetry to edit after having a previous IP proxy-blocked, I am going to block you for personal attacks. "Sockpuppet" isn't a word you can just throw around to discredit an opponent. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright so maybe I went overboard with that phrasing so I’ll cool it with that, I’m just a bit frustrated this is an issue we’re having with at all because it’s very similar behavior and am just trying to keep the consensus already built in. But, my main point to that was this is an issue that, even if it’s multiple different users from around the HK area or so, have been pushing this kind of formatting change against consensus for a while since the issues began on Typhoon Co-may in August. A change in date format would require a long discussion from the WikiProject on changing consensus considering that would impact hundreds if not thousands of Pacific typhoon pages as those all use MDY, just so you’re aware of the scope this entails. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Beyond the general applicability of MOS:DATETIES (which in the context of typhoons will usually either be irrelevant or cut in favor of DMY, except for typhoons primarily affecting Hawaii), date format is decided at the article level, not at the topic or wikiproject level. WPTC is subject to the same rules as the rest of Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that earlier part of edit history of Typhoon Ragasa when it was still in the draft space and before it entered the mainspace I would seriously doubt if there existed any broad and general consensus of mdy over dmy. Quite some editors might perhaps be indifferent though. The storm was anticipated to hit Hong Kong and the periphery badly and dmy is followed there. As for the Philippines dmy is used by the Pagasa and most part of the (national) government there, and, generally, in Tagalog. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: As an aside, by definition, a typhoon can never affect Hawaii, as typhoons only occur west of the International Date Line. In the Central Pacific Basin, they're called hurricanes. Which only reinforces your point! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Interesting. There don't seem to be many storms which impact Guam and/or the CNMI (and/or any of the CFA countries) and not elsewhere. (By the way does the boundary follow the IDL or the 180° meridian?) 203.145.95.215 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@203.145.95.215: Pretty sure it's 180°, since that's the boundary between the areas of responsibility of the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and the Central Pacific Hurricane Center. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahh. I'd always thought it's the IDL. Having it at 180° would be like putting the westernmost (or easternmost, by definition?) Aleutian islands and probably some other island groups in another basin with the main part of those islands, and vice versa. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you missed my note below. The WikiProject cannot mandate a particular style. It can encourage a style. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this, and I am trying to encourage that MDY format (even though I was pushing it a little too much) The project, as much as I can remember, has used MDY because of the affiliation with the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, an American-run office in Guam, which is a U.S. territory (hence the MDY), and up until 1993 was the primary office responsible for the storms over there. Afterwards, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) in Tokyo(?) became the RSMC and isn’t a U.S. territory. The JTWC and Guam is likely why MDY has been adopted for the West Pacific, while in other basins besides Atlantic/Epac (which use MDY bc of NHC being U.S.), DMY is used because of no U.S. territories being involved there. As I’ve said, this would require a project-wide discussion on changing this. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If you’d like to me to open a discussion with the WikiProject on changing the Pacific typhoon date format, then I can do that if it brings this mess to an end. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Let me be clear: the mess was caused by Wikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors. You cannot do that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

However, aligning the Wikiproject recommendations with the office changes you described would reduce future friction with non-project contributors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve opened the discussion and we’ll hash it out there. I’m not sure if this ANI report could tentatively be called “resolved” for now but at least we’re going in the right direction I think. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope so! I've gone ahead and unprotected Typhoon Matmo (2025), since it seems the basis for the protection (supposed disruptive editing or socking by the IP) was incorrect and the protecting admin has (understandably) washed their hands of this mess. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Editing an article to change DMY to MDY and changing the English variety cannot be justified by what a Wikiproject wants. Yes, you can, within the project, discuss and develop recommendations, but you cannot change what is written by the original author just because the project doesn't like it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note this about Wikipedia projects: WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. There is no special WP:MOS exception for these articles, unless you promulgate a broadly-based consensus effort that is not limited to participation by project members. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If I were cynical I would say a weather event-focused HK IP jumping ranges sounds a lot like IPhonehurricane95, but it could be a coincidence. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute that is turning into a 'conduct' dispute just because a WikiProject is so zealous to enforce their WP:LOCALCON of mdy over WP:MOS which advises dmy 37.186.32.138 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

WT:WEATHER WP:BADRFC?

MarioProtIV has started a RfC. However, I'm concerned that it's a WP:BADRFC. Again, we have the Wikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors problem that rsjaffe said we can't have. The new WikiProject-level RfC is going against Tamzin's finding that date format is decided at the article level, not at the topic or wikiproject level. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. @MarioProtIV: If my and Rsjaffe's comments above were unclear on this, to be clear: WP:WEATHER cannot change the Pacific typhoon date format from MDY to DMY, because WP:WEATHER does not control the Pacific typhoon date format in the first place. Y'all are welcome to change your recommended format, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient to stop the kind of edit-warring that y'all were engaging in here. For that, we simply need awareness: Project members need to understand that date format is decided at an article-by-article level, where the first consideration is MOS:DATETIES and the second is whatever format was used in the first non-stub version, and that WikiProject guidance does not let them violate sitewide rules on changing date formats. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for applying Datevar

219.79.142.128 has been blocked for applying Datevar to Typhoon Hato. They're charged for not explaining in the edit summary even after they left a talk page message almost a day before their edits and referred to that talk page message and Datevar explicitly in the edit summary. How could something like this happen? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, when is someone going to make a template that dynamically formats dates and English variants based on user preferences so that everyone can see their preferred variant? 216.126.35.228 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I actually attempted to create a user script to solve that problem, but it's difficult and I can't rely just on myself. EmperorChesser 13:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This was a thing once upon a time, and in the end it triggered an Arbcom case. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

We actually used to link dates in articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait till you see where we used to put nav templates...--tony 18:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

To address the limitation of only applying to logged in users, code could be added at reverse proxy/caching sever level to take geolocation into account and use the most common date/eng var for that location by default when user preferences aren't available. That's still not perfect, but close and way better than all of the edit warring and blocks that otherwise occur. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

What about something like an add-on or an extension at the browser level? [18] Or the browser's own settings? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That would require the reader to take action to install the extension, so people inclined to edit war about variants would still feel compelled to do so on behalf of those without the extension installed. Instead, the community and/or WMF can easily solve this problem for all readers and editors and put and end to the endless arguments. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid date-format edit wars is to not participate in them. Only you can prevent bikeshedding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Tell that the massive number of people who participate in them and the administrators occasionally misunderstand/misapply WP:MOS. Seems to me fixing the route cause of those disputes and associated confusion would be net positive for the project and give the WMF developers something more productive to do compared to some of the more things they have recently worked on (Visual Editor, Vector22, and Temporary Accounts) 216.126.35.228 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Can't agree more. 203.145.95.205 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

... is to not participate in them. Those who ignore the rule would in such case dominate. This is in fact happening: Hato, Ragasa, Matmo, Halong. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@216.126.35.228 - 13:23, 8 October 2025: So the script gotta be rewritten so that the dates would be shown not only in the display mode but also in the raw mode in the date format of the user's own preferences setting. 203.145.95.205 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Also, it shouldn't requiring linking. A template should be sufficient without linking or even a regex replacement that doesn't require the use of a template, although I expect we'll still need to use the formats used in sources when quoting them, so a template would be required to differentiate when the user's preferred format replacement is desirable. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What about something which works with the use dmy/​mdy tags like the date parameters in the citation templates? 219.79.142.128 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

In such case the editwarrings will just be boiled down and condensed to that tag. They'll still continue. 203.145.95.205 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This could be at Wikipedia:Administrative action review? 37.186.32.138 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I've notified the blocking admin, discospinster, of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be too far a long shot? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Discospinster: please take note of WP:ADMINACCT. A block you placed has been questioned on very reasonable grounds, you have been explicitly notified about this ANI discussion, but you have edited elsewhere without responding here. Fram (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I stand by the block, the IP was edit warring and removing content without a proper edit summary (I acknowledge using the wrong template on the talk page). ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I was trying in the second and the third edits to remove an extraneous semicolon in a date under the Vietnam section which appeared after my first edit at 00:08 UTC 7 October 2025 (which was properly marked in the edit summary in the first place) and there happened to be edit conflicts crossing in between. Edit warring? Removing content? Without proper edit summary? Are you genuinely a block admin? You're making it a stronger case should I decide to bring it to AARV per ADMINACCT (and any other relevant policies or guidelines) - which I probably won't as long as it's settled here. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

if you do bring it to aarv, i hope it doesnt go to admin recall because it's proved to be quite controversial due to the snowball tendencies and execution-like nature of said process 38.172.49.90 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Discospinster: If you don't answer it wouldn't be settled here. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. ... discospinster _talk 17:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about this, Firefangledfeathers and Fram? 219.79.142.128 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Fram (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it should work now. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fram: Maybe it's wiser to put this on hold given the discussions below (§ Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones) and at VPR. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones

The ongoing disruption around Typhoon Matmo makes me think administrators should have extra tools in the topic area. Previously, in 2022, the topic area was the subject of an arbcom case due to off-wiki coordination around these sorts of topics. Therefore, I propose that administrators are given the ability to use the standard set of community topic restrictions tools on articles related to tropical cyclones, broadly construed. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggested the same thing a few months ago (albeit applying for all of weather) and was shot down. ^EF⁵ 16:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

My hope is that the community would be willing to do it for the smaller topic area of tropical cyclones -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That's "contentious topics", and only Arbcom can designate those. Now if you want to try for something under the WP:General sanctions regime, that could work. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

My wording matches the wording of the most recent GS that the community approved (WP:GS/ACAS) -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, a GS proposal needs to be at WP:VPR, not here, per the GS authorization instructions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Cool. See WP:VPR#Community CT for Tropical Cyclones --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Whereas the recent events were all around tropical cyclones and DATERET (and are in fact still ongoing) I would rather say the actual problem in question was essentially (i) a general bias among some aggressive users against unregistered editors, (ii) the tendency among some admins to grant page protections and blocks too easily, again, against unregistered editors, and, most importantly, (iii) the non-compliance attitude among some editors towards established policies and guidelines, and the atmosphere that such policies and guidelines can be ignored or looked down upon and the reasonable expectation among them that they would face no sanctions for doing so. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

What to do now with what's going on around the articles on Matmo, Halong, Ragasa, Hato, etc.

While the efforts above (§ Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones) and at VPR are ongoing and very much indeed appreciated, we also have to decide what to do now with (i) actions like this with Matmo, which is IMO in practice ignoring AN/I and WP consensus outright, (ii) the frozen nature over Ragasa (a three-month page protection is still in place against Dateret and Retain), (iii) the self-imposed hiatus with Halong (also in effect against Dateret and Retain), (iv) opposing views towards what constitute "evolved ... predominantly" over Hato, etc. For the first case in particular should early signs to (re)ignite editwarrings be tolerated..., or... in some way..., appeased? 219.79.142.128 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion, which will moot MOS:DATERET and solve this once and for all. 173.206.111.163 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

So you think this hasn't been done? And that it's going to work? 219.79.142.128 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggested that because {{rfc}} might be eligible for a formal discussion closure. 66.49.187.185 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

They ignored and disregarded AN/I's decision (IDHT). Even if we AGF it may not be realistic to assume RfC(s) would be abode and enforceable. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed general warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones

Moved from WP:VPR § Supplementary proposal: General warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

We've done this a few times at AE when a whole talkpage is full of editors misbehaving. I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to do something similar here with these wikiprojects.

Resolved, that the following be posted to WT:WEATHER and WT:WPTC:

The members of WikiProject Weather and WikiProject Tropical Cyclones are collectively reminded:

• That wikiprojects are not able to override global consensus, nor to set binding guidelines, except by having their internal guidelines promoted to community guidelines through a well-advertised RfC (see e.g. MOS:LDS).
  • That wikiproject guidelines may contribute to an article's editors' decision to change date or English-variety styles, but that a wikiproject's guidance may not override MOS:DATERET or MOS:STYLERET.
  • That highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues, even where one is right about policy, hurt the Wikipedia project.
• That edit-warring is a disruptive behavior, with only a few general exceptions, which do not include merely being right.
  • That the exception for reverting sockpuppetry only applies if the editor is in fact in violation of WP:SOCK, that someone making such an edit should clearly state what the sockmaster account/IP is, and that editors make such reverts at their own peril in cases where the new account/IP has not yet been blocked; editors who incorrectly invoke this exception may be blocked for edit-warring or personal attacks if an administrator does not judge the misidentification to be reasonable.
  • That WP:BLAR generally prohibits blanking and redirecting a page once this action has been reverted once, and that BLAR-warring is a particularly disruptive form of edit-warring.
• That WP:AIV and WP:RFPP should not be used to request vandal-blocks against constructive editors (even misguided ones) or to privilege registered editors over IPs, and that abuse of these or other administrative processes may lead to blocks.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to in any statement or message to recognize and acknowledge the work that these groups do particularly WP:TROP. For example as part of my research I enjoyed this paper about their work.

Jemielniak, Dariusz; Rychwalska, Agnieszka; Talaga, Szymon; Ziembowicz, Karolina (2021). "Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones: The most successful crowd-sourced knowledge project with near real-time coverage of extreme weather phenomena". Weather and Climate Extremes. 33 100354. Bibcode:2021WCE....3300354J. doi:10.1016/j.wace.2021.100354.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think proposing a warning strays into WP:ANI territory and away from the reasoning for why community general sanctions are hosted at VPPRO these days, and would suggest it be moved there. The mandatory notification requirement is relevant here. Izno (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I would support this, but Izno is correct that this should be at the ANI thread. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Formalized support post-move - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support, and I think adding the bit @Dr vulpes brought up would be good. No objection to moving this portion of the discussion to ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Thread moved. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: This may have to be extended to the individuals involved. For a few of these individuals enforcement action may also be needed (just look at what's reported above). 219.79.142.128 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  And further above. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  This discussion appears to have been going on for a week, we might need to do something to resolve this persistent issue once and for all. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  For so long as there are still people who disagree and ignore this. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Are there some editors who aren't part of either wikiproject who you feel needed to be told? If not, I'm not sure there's a clear advantage to naming specific editors even more when there has been limited commentary on even the general proposal. As for enforcement action likewise considering how old this entire thread is with by now few seeming willing to participate, I'm not sure it would be productive to start discussing that especially if the community CT passes so it'll be easier for admins to take action for future misbehaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I personally agree with what was said here, maybe the pages being affected by vandalism may need to be indefinitely admin only protected to prevent future issues. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  ... protected to prevent future issues Ragasa already illustrates why this doesn't work. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Quite many of those involved, and especially those who've rejected AN/I decisions and consensus outright haven't signed up as members of either of the projects. And, no, the warning has to be extended to such individuals even if they have signed up on those WP pages as participants. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I just finished reading through this entire thread. I'd suggest changing "over IPs" to "over unregistered editors" as insurance for when TAs inevitably arrive. Other than that, support as necessary to make it clear to these WikiProjects that they are being disruptive and that the disruption needs to stop. These editors do good work, as pointed out by Dr vulpes above, but some might need topic bans from changing the ENGVAR and DATEVAR of articles of this keeps up. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

These editors do good work, as pointed out by Dr vulpes above, ... There are unfortunately bad ones who refuse outright to observe MOSs, or AN/I consensus and decisions. 219.79.142.128 (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyedit points, with no opinion about whether this would be a useful message to post:

The first bullet point would ideally link to the WP:PROPOSAL process. "Edit-warring" in the second main bullet point should not be hyphenated. Editors who "clearly state what the sockmaster account/IP" may be in violation of the principle that we avoid tying IP addresses (or temp account names) to registered accounts. And it sounds like it might be worth reminding editors that Wikipedia:Vandalism does not involve someone who actually hurts Wikipedia (in the opinion of the speaker), but instead is a claim about someone who is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

the principle that we avoid tying IP addresses (or temp account names) to registered accounts ← There is no such principle, except regarding what functionaries (or soon TAIVs) can say based on private data. To the contrary, an editor accusing an IP (or soon TA) of being a sock of a registered user must name the account, or else it is an aspersion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Separate claim

In another, not-quite-related, thread below User:SigillumVert, themself reported for other disruptions, had charged and related edits to Typhoon Ragasa to HKGW, which appears to be an imaginary sockmaster that may or may not actually exist. Not sure if this would be the same as naming an account in sock allegations. (@Tamzin?) 219.79.142.128 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Dimadick, Categories, and Wikiprojects

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

First of all: Categories & Wikiprojects are a very silly and avoidable reason to go to ANI. I've avoided doing so for years because such minor matters are Not Worth It. Unfortunately it seems there is no other choice.

Short version: There was some edit warring back and forth on categories & Wikiprojects (ex: diff, diff, or the full history of the recently created redirect talk page, all long after Dimadick knew this was contested from old edits ). I sought to defuse with a talk page query about a way to decide the matter. I offered to hold a consensus discussion on Dimadick's edits (diff), and have offered in the past as well (diff), and I'm even flexible on where. He's refused both times; see this diff reply. The second time, I directly said that if he's not willing to comply with community consensus and isn't interested in what guidelines say, the only other option is ANI. He directly said "Absolutely not." (diff) So... I guess the only option is ANI to convince Dimadick that there might be a problem with his edits, since there's no point in holding a discussion if he isn't interested in the result.

Longer version: Dimadick has an extremely expansive view of what counts as a good idea for a category and what counts as category inclusion. (See also the giant list of CFD notifications on his talk page). Essentially, he sees Categories as something like the "What Links Here" tool. If it's linked to in the article, it's going in the category on the article's topic. Not trying to canvass, but see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_7#Category:Apocalypse_of_Peter for a recently-created category where he just added in things that are related topics in the sense of Wikilinks, but absolutely not subtopics. This isn't unique though, this is common to other questionable categories Dimadick has made (e.g. see two separate talk page discussions (CTRL-F for the other one) on the various eponymous categories he's created and added everything vaguely related to. diff - here he says that for categories on military personnel like generals, every single battle they were in should be in them, and (diff) the opinion of the MILHIST project doesn't matter as "There is no such thing as overcategorization. It always reminds me of Don Quixote attacking imaginary giants."

Similarly, he also has an extremely expansive idea of what counts for Wikiproject scope. If there's anything even vaguely kinda sorta related, it should have that Wikiproject attached - he's added WikiProject Sociology to articles on nearly any topic, for one simple example. Unfortunately, many Wikiprojects are abandoned and thus don't have people who are part of them to point out that the scope is not that broad, but sometimes it is not really that puzzling. Furthermore, he's completely unable to take hints when people revert him that he should either slow down or discuss; instead he just either edit wars or tries again later, often successfully.

Some examples in the past:

• diff Adding WikiProject Crime, Disaster management, Law Enforcement, and Sociology to a massacre. This is beyond insulting. This wasn't done by bandits, this was done by the government itself, and it wasn't a "disaster" to be managed like an earthquake. And Law Enforcement? The cops aren't going to arrest their own government's people. Utter lack of understanding of what these terms mean. He of course waited a long time then… added all these back in ( diff, which I briefly reverted again after noticing while researching this ANI report, but then I self-reverted so as not to fan the flames).
• diff Arguing a character should be part of WikiProject Korea simply because she's Korean in-setting, adding it in twice until finally backing down after having had to explain the matter in-depth on the talk page, and failing to engage on the merits in said discussion. (Categorization of fictional character by that fictional character's origin is very unusual, especially when the author is from elsewhere - it's a Japanese game produced for a worldwide market.)
• diff, diff]. An extremely instructive diff. He took a war that happened in Judea and added WikiProjects Iran, Greece, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, as well as Sociology and Politics. Why? Because per edit summary "Added the WikiProjects which cover the Seleucid Empire", which was a participant in the revolt, and these are some modern countries that had territory in the old Seleucid Empire. Do I need to explain how crazy this is? It'd be like adding Wikiprojects for all 50 US States to the "Iraq War" article, because the US was a participant in the Iraq War, and these were subdivisions of the US. But even worse, because at least Maine / California / etc. are contemporary with the US - Iraq did not exist yet in the era of the Seleucid Empire!
• history Just look at all the WikiProjects here at Category:Paintings of the Ascension of Christ. See, Jesus was in the Ancient Near East (well not really according to our own Ancient Near East article which usually closes the period with the Persians and considers the Roman period out of scope, but eh, close enough) so obviously all paintings should also be in that category as well even if they were made in 1700s Holland. And let's add every single taskforce of Christianity (Despite this not being restricted to, say, Anglicanism) and stuff like Wikiproject Death (despite this being paintings of the Ascension, which is very much not a death, and not what Wikiproject Death is about anyway). This is far too over-inclusive.

These are just four instructive examples. In practice, I don't agree with Dimadick on most of his Wikiproject edits, but at least some are more contestable.

Now, if editors don't agree with my personal categorization preferences or standards, that's fine. I'm happy to adjust based on consensus and I suspect I'm stricter than most on what really qualifies for category / WikiProject inclusion - I want a strong link. But I'm also happy to live & let live for borderline inclusions, so I've never had a problem with any other editor with broader inclusion criteria. The problem is Dimadick is extremely far from the borderline cases and off in extremely tenuous connections, and has openly said in the diff above there's no way to convince him otherwise, he's gonna do his thing. This is the silliest possible reason to get sanctioned, but if he isn't going to take the hint that he doesn't dictate how categorization works on Wikipedia, then something needs to be done. SnowFire (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I have never agreed with SnowFire on anything, and I don't expect I will ever agree with him/her. Lets see about some of his laundy list of complains:

• • They argue that biographic categories about generals must not include their battles and the campaigns which they led. Long after we have had a category tree about Category:Battles by individual person involved and a scope for its expansion.
  • "This is beyond insulting. This wasn't done by bandits" Massacres are never performed by bandits to begin with. Per the main article on the topic, they involve "mass killing of civilians" by "political actors". The article helpfully offers synonymous terms, such as war crime, pogrom, and extrajudicial killing.
  • "Categorization of fictional character by that fictional character's origin" Because the depiction of a nationality, an ethnic group or representation of any kind do not matter ... according to SnowFire's peculiar reasoning. And I suppose we can forget about inconvenient topics such Whitewashing in film or race in horror films which cover such representations.
  • "Iraq did not exist yet in the era of the Seleucid Empire" Your point being? We have categories on Category:Ancient history of Iraq, Category:Medieval history of Iraq, Category:Iraq under the Abbasid Caliphate, etc. Nearly every modern country covers historical regions with lengthy histories and the category system reflects that.
  • "not what Wikiproject Death is about anyway" Again, you have no idea what Wikipedia:WikiProject Death is about. Per its scope, it covers Death-related "Customs: Funerals, burials, green burials, cremations, pan-death movement, home funerals" and Death-related "Religious: Afterlife, reincarnation, resurrection".
  • "our own Ancient Near East article which usually closes the period with the Persians" Which Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East never did. Its main page currently covers topics on the First Jewish–Roman War and the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). Our Timeline of Middle Eastern history points out that nothing really ended or changed with the Persians, and the List of kings of Babylon ends with the Parthians in the early 3rd century CE.
  • And as for quote mining my reply, the full text was: "Absolutely not. I have seen so-called "consensus discussions" being decided by two or three persons playing tag-teams, and never bothering to inform anyone else." Dimadick (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Since you accused me of quote mining despite me linking to the full diff of your comments: Okay, so are you willing to go with what a consensus discussion comes up with (despite saying "absolutely not", which I thought was the relevant part of the reply)? Or if one is held and you dislike the result, will you just say that it didn't count? And where do you come up with "never bothering to inform anyone else" as relevant - you were being informed right there? It's not like I was proposing a secret discussion... this fundamentally misunderstands what a consensus discussion even is.
    • As for your other comments: To be clear, these are all arguments you could have made elsewhere, but the issue is currently your behavior more so than the finer points of Wikiproject scopes. The problem is that you've said you can't be convinced otherwise because you're somehow "right". That isn't how this works. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which means working with what the consensus says, and if the consensus says not to tag Wikiproject Death onto everything that is vaguely afterlife related, then you need to abide by that no matter how convincing you think your arguments are. And it shouldn't require others to plead and coax for you to explain your edits on talk pages - you need to explain your edits as you make them, and take notice when they get pushback rather than just wait awhile then re-do your edits (aka a slow-motion edit war). I'm not sure why you're so certain about WP:DEATH's scope - you've never ever edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. You're not a participant at all in it, just throwing tons of stuff under the classification whether it's merited or not, burying the actually relevant articles.
    • As far as massacres, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. First of all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management probably shouldn't even exist (it's an inactive project with few left to define its scope), but it's clearly about stuff like responding to hurricanes. It's not about wars and oppression and the like. If you don't believe me, ask a friend, or just read the page. If you can't figure out such a basic scope check, I don't have confidence for you to puzzle out the scope of any Wikiproject. SnowFire (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
      • "I'm not sure why you're so certain about WP:DEATH's scope" Because I'm not blind. It has a very detailed description of its scope (with examples) in its primary page. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

      (admits to being confused himself at the premise that one has to be an active participant in a WikiProject in order to understand what the WikiProject is about. Do we require that a reader edit Wikipedia as a prerequisite to understanding article content?) Ravenswing 08:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

      • Not the intent of what I wrote. No, of course not, but Dimadick's grandiose statement made it sound like he was some sort of unique expert on the scope of Wikiproject Death; I solely pointed this out to note he was not. So no, the argument is not that he isn't a member, but rather that he has an extraordinarily wide interpretation of its scope and has said that there's no way to convince him otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I have had several run-ins with Dimadick on the subject of their individualistic approach to categorisation. User has a radically inclusive approach to categorisation and seems to treat categories as if they were "tags" (they explicitly stated on their talk page during one of our discussions "Categorization is not hierarchical", in direct contravention of WP:CATSPECIFIC: "Since all categories form part of a tree-like hierarchy, do not add categories to pages as if they are tags."). As an extreme example I offer this edit, in which the user added Cleavage (breasts) to Category:Çatalhöyük, on the grounds that breast fetishism apparently formed part of the rites of the people who lived in the archaeological site of Çatalhöyük (the reference to this practice in the article has since been deleted). My personal beef has mainly been the editor's insistence on adding geographical and historical sites in the UK to eponymous categories for historic figures who have peripheral, non-hierarchical connections to the site (e.g. adding Godstow Lock to Category:Lewis Carroll and Category:Alice Liddell on the grounds that they sometimes visited, Crook o'Lune to Category:Mary, Queen of Scots and Category:Eleanor of Castile because a well called Queen's Well nearby may have legendary associations with one or other of the queens). Usually, the article for the person in question makes no mention of the site that User:Dimadick has added to their eponymous category. Attempts to reach an understanding have not been successful and Dimadick seems insistent that their approach to categorisation is entirely uncontroversial in the face of evidence to the contrary. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"the article for the person in question makes no mention" Naturally. Part of the the need for a categorization in the first place is that the main articles for nearly every person and location do not mention large parts of their history. For an example, the main article on Marana, Arizona fails to mention any of the several articles we have on crimes in the town, aviation accidents in the town, sports events in the town, or even buildings and organizations in the town. I grouped these articles together in Category:Marana, Arizona without making changes to the main article. Several of the main articles on British prime ministers fail to mention legislation which they created (both before and during their terms), historic houses which they owned, lived in or outright built, the books that they wrote and published, their wives and mistresses, etc. But we do have articles on these topics that can be covered in their eponymous categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

So if you think that the article about Marana should mention these incidents, add some referenced text to the article that makes the connection, or edit the See also section or something; messing about with categories is not the right way to achieve what you're trying to do. Categorisation is simply not a sensible way to make context-free, non-hierarchical, bidirectional connections between two topics where each is a minor aspect of the other. There are lots of things about Godstow Lock that are nothing to do with Lewis Carroll, and there are lots of things about Lewis Carroll that are nothing to do with Godstow Lock: ergo, categorisation in either direction is inappropriate. Alternatively, create Category:Places visited by Lewis Carroll and add Godstow Lock or Category:People who visited Godstow Lock and add Lewis Carroll. Both will probably (and rightly IMO) be reverted as WP:NONDEFINING though. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at the articles you'd added to Category:Marana, Arizona and picked out Tropical Storm Claudia (1962) at random. A textbook case of your unconventional (and I would say inappropriate) approach to categorisation. Storm Claudia affected several places, one of them Marana, though the storm article suggests that the main impact was felt elsewhere and that the storm had dissipated by the time it reached Marana, so the connection is already loose: "The storm had dissipated, and the remnants of Claudia had caused much rain over Mexico (Baja California), California (mainly Santa Rosa), and Arizona (mainly Marana and Sells)." Storm Claudia is not mentioned once in the Marana, Arizona article, so its impact on and relevance to the town is clearly fairly minor. And again, there is no hierarchical relationship: Storm Claudia impacted several places, and Marana has experienced several wider events (including other tropical storms) over the years. This is classic "tagging through categorisation", which is explicitly deprecated at WP:CATSPECIFIC. If you can't see the problem, I don't know where we go from here. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any problem beyond your own reading comprehension. The main article for a location, person, book, etc. is not a guideline for a category or its contents. Many of these articles are extremely lacking in detail or focus on irrelevant topics. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

And that kind of response is precisely why SnowFire has had to resort to ANI. If an article is lacking detail or focus, edit the article – don't try to use categorisation to fix it. If you think Storm Claudia should be mentioned in the Marana article, then mention Storm Claudia in the Marana article (with an appropriate citation). Why are you so determined to die on this particular hill??? Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Because changes in the main article have no reflection in a category. Though to be honest, I had not thought that If I see problems in an article I should fix them myself. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEFINING. To use the example above, Tropical Storm Claudia (1962) is not defined by its association with Marana, Arizona, and Marana, Arizona is not defined by its assocaition with TropicaL Storm Claudia. This is entirely inappropriate categorization, and you need not to make such categorization. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Marana, Arizona is not defined by its assocaition with TropicaL Storm Claudia" Come again? I am talking about the near destruction of the town (twice) not mentioned in the town's history, while we have unsourced information on Cold War-related military facilities in Marana. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Please, please read (and understand) WP:DEFINING, specifically the following sentence: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Godstow Lock is categorised by being a lock on a particular river in a particular place; it is not defined as being "a place that Lewis Carroll once visited", which is a peripheral detail. Marana, Arizona, is defined as a place in Arizona; it not defined as "the place where the tail-end of a tropical storm occurred in 1962", which is (again) a peripheral detail. I think that this gets to the heart of the problems multiple users have with your approach to categorisation. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Those kind of so-called "peripheral details" are the ones bringing actual notability to an article. The ones that a reader or editor would be likely to search for. If Godstow is yet another lock in a random river, with no connection to historical figures or events, why does it have an article in the first place? Because the river is never defining. If Marana just exists, without any connection to any of the historic events connected to it, why is it notable? I don't typically go searching for "a place in Arizona" or any other location in a map. I go searching for the locations of notable murders, battles, accidents, etc. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Godstow Lock has an article because somebody thought it merited one (as with most, if not all, the other locks and bridges on the Thames). Marana has an article because it's a notable settlement by the notability norms of Wikipedia. But none of this case-by-case quibbling has anything to do with the point in hand: the articles and the categories you are putting them into fail the hierarchical, defining requirement of Wikipedia's long-established categorisation norms, as numerous people have pointed out to you here and on your talk page. In short: categories are not tags. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are singularly failing to collaborate. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a collaborative project" Were you are supposed to do your best to improve it, which is what I am trying to do, year in and year out. All I see is more deletions of useful categories, and more underpopulated categories. Those "long-established categorisation norms" are based on a vary basic principle explained right at the top of Wikipedia:Categorization: "the system allows readers to browse and efficiently locate related topics." Something which any main article can't and won't do, and something which requires actual effort to create and populate new categories. And as always a defining characteristic for an article is not location x, or town x. The "defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to". In other words, what the sourced content is about, and not trivial characteristics as Category:Locks on the River Thames. That is the job of a list, not a category. Dimadick (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Insisting on doing your own thing, regardless of how many people are politely suggesting you're doing it wrong and asking you to stop is not "collaboration". The location of an entity is probably its most defining feature, yet you are claiming the opposite: "a defining characteristic for an article is not location x, or town x". "Locks on the River Thames" is not a "trivial characteristic" of Godstow Lock: it's literally the most important thing there is to say about it. If someone asks "what is Godstow Lock?" a sensible answer would be "it's a lock on the River Thames near Oxford". Nobody in thei right mind would say "it's a place that Lewis Carroll visited" and claim to have defined the place. If someone says "tell me about Marana" a sensible person would say "it's a place in Arizona"; they wouldn't say "well, it's a place that was affected by Tropical Storm Claudia in 1962". I don't know how many different ways I can make the same point. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

"it's literally the most important thing there is to say about it" As a reader, when one tells you "a lock on the River Thames", does this sound like something you want to read or to search about? There many other items of its kind, and it would never stand out. Even our Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section explicitly states that we must "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". What is this location's history, its impact? Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yet again, you're nitpicking and arguing case by case, when the issue is one of broad principle. Categories are for organisation; they're not a tool for "engagement", or about making articles "stand out". And - yet again - you're ignoring the point about the defining and hierarchical aspects of categories (as specified in all the relevant guidelines and understood by the rest of us). Why are you so determined to make yourself unpopular by insisting that you are right and everybody else is wrong? I really don't want to come over as a bully or tell you what you should be doing, but your behaviour is frankly disruptive. There's plenty of useful work to do here, so why waste your time swimming against the tide and fighting this losing battle. Why not just spend your time improving articles, instead of this weird crusade to misapply categories and Wikiprojects? Your life would be so much easier if you just followed the guidelines. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Another thought. Putting an article in a category should imply that the subject of an article is part of or is a member of or is an example of the category. Thus:

• Godstow Lock is a member of Locks on the River Thames
• Marana, Arizona, is an example of Towns in Pima County, Arizona
• Twelfth Night is a member of Shakespearean comedies

These relationships are hierarchical and by definition one-directional. They cannot be reversed. An entity is part of a category, but the category is not part of the entity. The type of connections you are making are bi-directional, non-hierarchical and reversible. You could just as logically have put Lewis Carroll in a hypothetical Category:Godstow Lock (if it existed) as you can put Godstow Lock in Category:Lewis Carroll. In short, categories imply inclusion, not just association. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• I don't want to wall of text too much as I think the above examples should be sufficient to show Dimadick's poor judgment (randomly adding Category:Revenge to his created cat on a book?!), but as an update, this is a continuing problem. And it's a matter of specifically user behavior (and thus appropriate for ANI rather than a vanilla content dispute). See these diffs from after the ANI report at Ancient Roman: Power of Dark Side (category addition, my revert with explanation, revert by Dimadick (side note: this was 100% Dimadick checking my contribution history, which is fine, but this is a very obscure article I can't imagine finding any other way). I've left it as is to avoid an edit war, but Dimadick does not take hints from explanations in edit summaries, requiring spending way way more time writing out why a category is a bad addition than Dimadick spends in sprinkling unneeded categories everywhere.
• But let's write out exactly why this addition of Category:Video games about slavery is incorrect anyway, for fun. Back in the day, there used to be categories with "Media featuring XYZ", and these were generally deleted or redefined at CFD as WP:CATDEFINING grounds - they weren't defining characteristics. Their replacement was generally "Media about XYZ". So Category:Video games about pirates is fine (where this is a major focus), but simply Category:Video games with pirates for any video game with a pirate somewhere in it would fail CATDEFINING. (Or Category:Television about alien abduction / Category:Television series about alien visitations, but not something like Category:Television series with aliens.) This is an acceptable compromise. There will always be some borderline cases, but if the dispute was over borderline cases, I'd have let sleeping dogs lie. The dispute is over overturning the above system I just described by making "Category about XYZ" into "Category with XYZ" due to Dimadick's belief that categories / Wikiprojects are just "anything vaguely related or wikilinkable." This isn't an issue fixable at WP:CFD, because the category itself is fine - it's the incorrect additions that are problematic. So... user behavior. Anyway I guarantee that Dimadick is not an expert on this game, because practically nobody is (it's very obscure and I'm the editor who wrote the mini-plot summary Dimadick is using). And this game is just a game involving slavery as one tiny plot point. Not the focus at all. But it doesn't matter for Dimadick, because he turns all categories into their broadest possible form, against the category inclusion guidelines I just described above, changing this valid category implicitly into the invalid Category:Video games with slavery somewhere.
• I've written this out as a demonstration of one specific case during which there's no question Dimadick knew his additions were under scrutiny, but understand that a huge amount of Dimadick's edits are similarly problematic, and there isn't time or need to write a tome explaining why every time. But trying to revert him doesn't work either, because he just edit wars his versions back in, as demonstrated in the diffs above. SnowFire (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think your contact is problematic. "any video game with a pirate" In other words, you think that games with pirate protagonists are irrelevant to Category:Video games about pirates, just as you think that video games with slave protagonists are irrelevant to Category:Video games about slavery. You don't seem to be even reading the plot sections. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Dimadick, as I already stated above, I wrote that article. Check the history. I'm the one who wrote that plot section, let alone read it. We both agree that slavery is an element in the game, but I'm arguing we need something a little more than that to qualify as a category inclusion. And yes, it's actually possible to have a pirate protagonist and still have the game not qualify as being "about piracy", if they stop being a pirate in the first 15 minutes and isn't a major theme afterward. SnowFire (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have had my own issues with Dimadick's views on Wikiprojects and categorization schemes but as one of the active members of WP Crime, he was correct in adding WP Crime to that article (though not law or law enforcement which are common disputes). We have had many discussions on scope, and the consensus was massacres are in scope no matter who commits them. I don't see how that would possibly be offensive. Murder is a crime. Some of his other inclusions, like on Ecofascism, confuse me, (fascism is not itself a crime, even if it inspired crimes - so has communism) so I removed that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"fascism is not itself a crime" Per the main article, a key element of fascism is "fascist violence" by paramilitaries. Even before the March on Rome, Italian fascists had "attacked the headquarters of socialist and Catholic labour unions", they had used violence "to take control of public buildings and trains" and to seize control over a number of cities in Northern Italy. Also as part of the lead on Fascism, Fascist ideology considers political violence to be both necessary and desirable, "as means to national rejuvenation". Dimadick (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Violence is also not itself a crime and WP Crime is not WP Violence. All war is violence, but after discussions on this the wikiproject consensus is that war is not in scope for WP Crime. That people commit crimes for an ideology does not make the ideology in scope. Unless it involves a criminal investigation or terminology (like, say, massacre, or terrorism) as its main aspect it should not generally be tagged with the project, without a more compelling reason. More tangential aspects are also not included. And even then, if it was, it is still a problematic approach to tag, then, every subtopc of that main topic with the project even when it had no relevance. That is not what Wikiprojects are for. I consider this approach to WikiProject tagging to be somewhat questionable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

These continued arguments are making me wonder if it is, speaking frankly, a WP:CIR issue. Dimadick, when you hold one position, and virtually everyone else is telling you otherwise, it might behoove you to consider that it might be you who are wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

A somewhat strange reply, PARAKANYAA. Political violence within a state does not equate to war. The helpful examples of such violence in the lead of the main article include kidnappings, assassinations, terrorist attacks, and torture. The article on political violence is currently covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography but is unsurprisingly excluded by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Going beyond the interwar period, have you noticed that modern neo-Nazi organizations such as Golden Dawn have created their own death squads? The ideology itself tends to include justifications for violence, including vigilante violence.Dimadick (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The article on political violence heavily involves and revolves around crimes and crime prevention. It does not then follow that every topic onwiki that involves political violence is in the scope of the project; there are legal instances of political violence. You seem to believe that if one article is tagged with a wikiproject, then every article that involves that topic is then in scope for that wikiproject. This is not how this works for any project. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to have died down, but Dimadick hasn't shown any sign of backing down. The whole point of bringing this here was to avoid an edit war, but I'm going to tentatively do some reverts as Dimadick's categorization not being in line with categorization guidelines. I'd really rather not have this dispute settled by who is the most diligent in reverting everything, though. SnowFire (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Someone123454321 not getting the point

• Someone123454321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single-purpose account who only edits articles related to feminism. By their own admission, they had a bad experience with radical feminism and they are "biased" toward "feminism in Korea in general".[19] This person has disrupted the process so many time it is frustrating. Note that I already tried RfC once, but nobody came down to resolve it.

• They have racked up warnings on their usertalk page for contentious editing. Some of those are from me, but others are from multiple editors.
• They constantly have poor understanding of Wikipedia, trying to rewrite an article because of "POV" even though others told them they're adding their own POV,[20] trying to erase a word referring to genitals even though Wikipedia is not censored,[21] adding things from other language Wikipedia without considering the contents,[22] and so on. I can't list them all if I want to keep this concise.
• They ignored an ongoing discussion and created multiple sections at once to illustrate their point.[23][24]
• I have instructed them twice to visit Teahouse to learn about Wikipedia guidelines.[25][26] They never go there, except for one time they tried to take the dispute there. Someone123454321 was also offered by Grapesurgeon to work on non-contentious topics.[27][28][29][30] They don't do that either.
• They had to be constantly told to stop what they're doing and join discussion over last 4 months.[31][32][33][34][35][36] In spite of this, they still demand they should be explained about "what part of [their] edits fit into the disruptive editing."[37]
• They've posted a link to personal attacks against me from other Wikiproject, [38] claiming I had "something going on in the past."[39] It has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion and Someone123454321 only posted this to cast aspersions. Administrator came in and revdel'd their comment.
• While Someone123454321 has apologized for their behaviors, they later made a statement that retracted these apologies. I'm not ashamed of what I did here. I am trying to make points on what I think could be improved on, and there is nothing wrong with that.[40]

The last two made me decide to file a report because there is no way to explain those as good faith.

Some of these might not inherently be a problem individually, but when you see their overall behavior, they refuse to learn anything, refuse to collaborate with other users, and most egregiously, refuse to stop when the communitiy disagree with them. I did not behave the best due to my inexperience with newcomers, but I don't think anyone could have changed their mind, given their refusal to move on. I hate coming to ANI, but none of the other dispute resolution options worked, so I'm requesting administrative action.

Paging @Grapesurgeon, who had engaged with this person before me. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

- The warnings from the user talk page was mostly about another article unless it was this user, whom took up about half the warnings on my user talk page. The other warnings were regarding an article called Megalia in which I edited before I got to know Wikipedia policies. In the later edits made in Finger Pinching Conspiracy Theory, I tried to be NPOV as possible and have talks with the user. Because I could be biased in Megalia, I even said that I was not going to edit on that page.

- I admit that I had a poor understanding of Wikipedia when I was editing Megalia page, which the user had brought up in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Megalia#POV). However, that was not the topic that I was engaged with this user, and to borrow the words from this user, "It has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion and Someone123454321 only posted this to cast aspersions." What this user has described to be personal attacks was to try to tell the user that everyone will have a talk going on about their behaviors or edits. I also apologized if the user had found that aggressive.Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#c-Someone123454321-20251004054300-Emiya Mulzomdao-20251003123700.

- "trying to erase a word referring to genitals even though Wikipedia is not censored." This edit could be counted as wording improvements.

- For "adding things from other language Wikipedia without considering the contents"[41], I did not realize that a source was agreed to be unreliable in WP:KO/RS. I had edited that because the same thing existed on the Korean article of that topic. It was during a time when I was still new to Wikipedia, and I did not know which sources were considered to be reliable or not. Again, this is also not related to Emiya Mulzondao or the ongoing discussions with the user.

- For "They ignored an ongoing discussion and created multiple sections at once to illustrate their point."https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFinger_pinching_conspiracy_theory&diff=1298005737&oldid=1295639241, I added those new discussions because I thought they were not directly relevant to the discussion that was going on. I did not ignore the discussion that was already going on either, and was engaging in the talk.

- On the teahouse one, I had literally said "I have made some mistakes when I was new to Wikipedia, but during the time of discussion, I didn't realize any violation of Wikipedia's policies to the point where it could be seen as disruptive. Could you help me with what I might have done wrong and what I could improve on? ", which, from my point of view, is just asking for an advice. I have visited teahouse, as well as other sources every time I was asked to do so. I don't have to reply or report everytime that I did in the comments. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1257#c-Someone123454321-20250614074700-Can you give me feedbacks on discussion?

- Again, some of these https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someone123454321&diff=prev&oldid=1294043725[42][43] were discussions made in the time when I was new to the Wikipedia, and it was about a different topic from what this user and I was having a dispute on. I had also brought the edit into the discussion when I was asked to do so.[44]

- There was a recent edit made by me that was reverted by this user. It was claimed to be a disruptive editing. I had asked several times what the user had found to be disruptive, but the user never gave an explanation on neither my talk page, the article's talk page, nor the edit notes. [45][46]Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#c-Someone123454321-20251004054300-Emiya Mulzomdao-20251003123700[47][48]

- The apology that this user had mentioned was on a different topic, and as I had said, I was trying to make a point on what I thought could be improved on in the talk page, and I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. Someone123454321 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved users would be appreciated. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I second this. I would like to know how others would think of this situation. Someone123454321 (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this user has engaged in clearly blockable behavior, but it's definitely annoying and disruptive. They bludgeon discussions with text walls and if no opposition they attempt to steamroll changes through. It feels like they try to exhaust others by dragging things on for so long instead of just resolving things up front.

I'm on mobile for a while so linking difficult. Recently they devoted like 8 paragraphs on the inclusion of like a word in the lead, imo it's an incredibly minor change. They've been acting like this for over the course of like half a year now.

Is this blockable? No. But it's incredibly annoying and uncollegial. It also feels like they're trying to game the system a bit. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see how debating for a few sentences in the article can be seen as disruptive. Is it unproductive? Maybe. But I don't see how it fits into the definition of being disruptive. At first, it wasn't the text walls.Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#c-Someone123454321-20250706033900-Regarding the statement "been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the Emiya argued against my claims saying that there are sources that did not mention Megalia.Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#c-Emiya Mulzomdao-20250910124300-Regarding the statement "been analyzed as a symptom of gender inequality in the I then argued that the source did indeed mention Megalia.Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#c-Someone123454321-20250911010700-Emiya Mulzomdao-20250910124300 The talk went on and on, and with more topics being involved, it seemed like it was impossible to end the argument. That's why I gave the summary of the whole discussion so that we could settle things, in which this user likely mentioned as " they devoted like 8 paragraphs on the inclusion of like a word in the lead." Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory#c-Someone123454321-20251003080800-Grapesurgeon-20251003062200 This user said that we'll talk about it, so we will be having more discussions there. Someone123454321 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Bildete with WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and general WP:UNCIVIL behavior

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

Bildete (talk · contribs) has recently been treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND due to a disupte at Talk:Lithuanians#Revert war about hatnotes, which right now is at 1–4 against editor's favor. Bildete seeing that this is not going to end favorably, started WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion and has also started targeting me and Pofka. Bildete calls edits by Pofka as WP:VANDALISM, which it reverts, and has accused me of being a sockpuppet of Pofka in this edit. In addition, WP:UNCIVIL messages were left on my talk page, which I removed, but Bildete wrote once again after that. This editor's behavior has WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and is leaning towards WP:NOTHERE problems. – sbaio 14:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Was thinking about reporting @Sbaio behavior myself. I was trying to talk, but he is removing it's from his talk and insulting me. Non of my edits and discussion was uncivil, none of personal attack.

Pofka was committing multilanguage wikis and wikidata vandalism deleting sourced article calling them fringe (redirect to barely related topic) and also with other step he was the one bringing whitewashing of existence of Lithuanian SSR (I also not happy with USSR, but it's not a place for whitewashing history). And all those edits been reverted by @Sbaio

Both of them have history of whitewashing, which is nothing else like nationalism, accusing everyone else of antilithuanianism, very emotional, taking disambiguation personal Bildete (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I will be good to bring here if he wants to @Altenmann who started this hat tread to stop from @Sbaio and Pofka distractive behavior Bildete (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This last post can very well fall under WP:CANVASS as this discussion is about your behavior. In addition, Bildete is running around and reverting edits to basketball players that were done by Pofka so it is clearly to get revenge. – sbaio 03:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

No revange at all. Pofka edits were deliberately breaking consensus: "The arguments & sources have easily established that Soviet Union/USSR is the preferred usage" by removing LtSSR and putting multiple "<---" ridiculous comment based on source that Sabonis on NBA site he is called Lithuanian (of course he was Lithuanian all the time and in 1995 when he start playing in the NBA, but it didn't change when he was born, he was born in LtSSR) and this was aggressive reverted by @Sbaio. All try of contact was removed with rude comments by him from his talk.

It's all looks like revange for Disambiguation talk is full of marginal topics Bildete (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not true; there was no consensus established, see the latest RFC from 2021 here. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop with baseless accusations Bildete. I have not made any rude comments unlike you. It seems that you have problems understanding English so perhaps you should edit Wikipedia in your native language. Because you have shown problematic behavior more than once. – sbaio 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What is this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modestas_Paulauskas&diff=prev&oldid=1315945720 just now on false claims (that was Pofka that change long lasting status quo) any other than problematic behavior. Still. And in the same time you are offending just in this post when in all discussion and your talk I always keep it only on the topic, never personal Bildete (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I already wrote what I wanted and I am not going to repeat it again. Meanwhile, you are creating problems all over the place so that is the reason you were reported here. So WP:GETOVERIT and stop wasting everyone's time. – sbaio 16:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add a few comments on @Bildete:

• The editor baselessly accused two editors of "nationalism". This includes me, for merely pointing out the policy: [49].
• The editor doesn't appear to understand the WP:DUE and WP:NOR policies, instead resorting to argumentation based on the personal views (often involving off-topic or not directly related aspects).
• The editor is attempting to change the long-lasting status quo and is engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Repeatedly – see the user's talk page/history, including the block in May 2025.

Such behaviour is a rather concerning pattern, raising the question of WP:NOTHERE.

-- Mindaur (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Personal animosity aside, the only actual changes to the articles' text are the hatnotes? Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, whole ridiculous drama and accusations of antilithuanianism come from hat with few adjectives Bildete (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Dispute was about the hatnote. Multiple editors wrote that the {{Other}} hatnote is used for other purposes, but Bildete refuses to acknowledge that and keeps repeating the same thing in most posts. So this report is about behavior problems related to this particular editor. – sbaio 03:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The "multiple editors" is only one Pofka, who is removing article from multiple languages wikis and wikidata (by putting redirect to unrelated article) and putting long elaborates on why it is antilithuanian. And also break consensus and status quo on other topic (removing LtSSR).

The rest write that is valid ambiguous. Bildete (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You once again fail to uderstand it and just make things up (4 other editors oppose your addition). And there is no consensus as you claim regarding Baltic states in the USSR. If you do not read those discussions or have trouble understanding them then you should seriously consider editing your native Wikipedia. In addition, making edits like this once again show a clear WP:NOTHERE atittude. – sbaio 09:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Its clarifying based on content from an article that Zydrunas Ilgauskas held exact passport: "Soviet (till 1990), Lithuanian (1990-2013), American (since 2013)". Before it was ambiguous "Lithuanian/American" which is even not true, because as it arise from article dual citizenship is not possible.

This not a consensus you mean.

Your revert and aggression shows are here clearly for edition war and disturbed editions and except your revert and attacks you still didn't took on topic part in that hat discussion, which is:

• pro hat
• two pro in "see also" (that you lying and classified as oppose)
• You and Pofka for burning it to the ground, calling antilithuanian and attacking everywhere everyone and revert

Bildete (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

And:

• Most who don't care and are laughing

Bildete (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This not a consensus you mean. — this single sentence does not mean anything as it was written by an editor who was blocked more than once for disruption. There are more discussions about it in that same page (and there are even more discussions about it in other places of Wikipedia). In addition, the |nationality= parameter at {{Infobox basketball biography}} is meant for different things than you tend to think. I advise to WP:GETOVERIT and find other topics to edit instead of wasting other editors' time. – sbaio 09:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I confirm as multiple other editors that indeed Bildete is WP:NOTHERE. This user already had a 48h edit ban in May 2025 for WP:EDITWAR - full report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive495#User:Bildete reported by User:XYZ1233212 (Result: Blocked 48 hours). There are also multiple cases of other users pointing out his problematic editing at his talk page (User talk:Bildete).

Already in July 2025, after his ban, one user pointed out to Bildete about his User talk:Bildete#Problem editing on articles related to Poland and Ukraine: namely, inappropriate changes, slow moving edit war, and personal attacks on other editors. This behaviour is evidenced once more on this very noticeboard, so this ongoing problematic behaviour should not go unpunished. +JMJ+ (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Attack, personal attacks again. Stop spamming with ridiculous CSD (Plechowicz is Polish name, not Polonized version of Plechavičius, Plechavičius is Lithuanization of Plechowicz. Plechavičius brother father was Polish) it is a and it definitely revange for your unsuccessful Talk:Lithuania proper#Merge proposal where you are desperately trying to convince, where everyone is against you Bildete (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Can we get some actual diffs here, folks? Almost all of this thread appears to be a rehashing of the arguments you're already having on talk pages. This diff was presented, but that doesn't give me a lot to go on. @Bildete, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, as you suggest in this diff, take it to SPI. If you don't, can it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering this is an example from yesterday. I made a single edit removing airports outside of modern-day Polish borders from a template about airports in current-day Poland. What was Bildete's response? Stop multiple reverts and trying to start a fight in the section of the talk page that he called "Poland didn't started in 1990" [50]. This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. +JMJ+ (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You are for here just for battle, just put another fake CSD report of Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region even it's a direct translation of term on Polish wiki pl:Litwska okupacja Wileńszczyzny with "No such occupation - Lithuania cannot occupy its capital Vilnius anymore than Poland can occupy its capital Warsaw or Great Britain occupy London." diff

It's absolutely showing you have no historical knowledge. Lithuanian capital then was Kaunas, Vilnius was capital yeah but of Central Lithuania and later in Second Poland Republic. Then normalizing 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania so then come occupation and you have no historical knowledge and obsessively revert and whitewash, I hope that close case and stop you ever from editing Bildete (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This is really obvious Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND and also a Wikipedia:Personal attack against JMJ. Also that redirect isn't really neutral… 212.70.110.25 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering As you can see, simply because I disagreed, @Bildete accuses me directly of You are here just for battle and I hope that close case and stop you ever from editing. This is obviously WP:NOTHERE, because Bildete is obviously Treating editing as a battleground and Little or no interest in working collaboratively. +JMJ+ (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This reply is a personal attack GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I will temp-block for personal attacks, and additionally sanction via WP:CT/EE. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion that +JMJ+ recently nominated the Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region, a redirect Bildete created, for G3 speedy deletion (see here). I initially deleted the page based on +JMJ+'s explanation, after which Bildete contested the deletion on talk page . Bildete explained that this is the title of the article on the Polish Wikipedia, which sounded like a good rationale to me, so I reverted the deletion, hoping for a second opinion from another administrator. To this, Bildete responded, Thanks, it's another fake CSD and part of obsessive revert and whitewash by @+JMJ+ (here ). This is not civil behaviour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll repeat my reply from Talk:Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region:

This is a clearly WP:FRINGE WP:POVPUSH. The term "Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region" returns ZERO results on Google Books and Google Scholar. This is clear vandalism, because Lithuania cannot occupy its own capital anymore than Poland can occupy Warsaw or France occupy Paris. +JMJ+ (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Bildete should distance themselves a bit from their editing on Wikipedia and consider whether every editorial dispute is really worth igniting a conflict, and whether their edits on Wikipedia actually serve to expand the body of knowledge collected here. In general, I’ve noticed a troubling increase in tension lately in Polish–Lithuanian topics, quite a few edit wars and unwise actions from all sides. One only has to look at the edit history of the article Plechowicz to see that ([51]).Marcelus (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marcelus, and everyone else in this thread, please remember that WP:CT/EE is a thing. Editors are expected to be on their best behaviour in contentious topics. If complicated disputes arise or if there is evidence of long-term disruption by a single editor, please report to WP:AE. It is much easier for administrators to handle complicated disputes in that format than at WP:ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• User Bildete is clearly WP:NOTHERE per arguments provided by other users. Moreover, some of his previous statements at Talk:Lithuanians are very illustrative about his editing style: "Someone else will call your opinion pseudohistory. Every country have it's own so called "political history" which is just a propaganda. ... Someone could also be saying modern Lithuanians are fake" (his edit). Such statements are baseless accusations that Lithuania's political history is "just a propaganda" and he even claim that there is a probability that "modern Lithuanians are fake". User Bildete has clearly demonstrated hatred towards Lithuanians and Lithuania, so I think WP:TOPICBAN for him in Lithuanian topics is necessary to prevent further disruption in Lithuanian topics. Scientific point of view do not call Lithuanians or Lithuania as "fake" and instead recognize its long history since at least 1009. By the way, reverting my edits in basketball players articles by searching for them in my edit history is a clear manifestation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- Pofka 10:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's way too much, I protest about this @Pofka comment. The linked statement by @Bildete is a general remark about nationalist historical narratives, not an expression of a personal opinion that "modern Lithuanians are fake." Certainly not a "clear demonstration of hatred towards Lithuanians and Lithuania". What @Pofka is doing here is very close to WP:CASTING, especially since it has been repeated in at least one other place ([52]) and combined with calls for a WP:TOPICBAN. Marcelus (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pofka was completely reasonable in his comments, @Bildete is igniting tensions left and right with his obviously tendentious WP:POVPUSH. Bildete's obviously anti-Lithuanian stance is visible in his unverifiable assumption that the Plechavičius family, which was from deeply rural region of Samogitia (within Lithuania), were actually Plechowicz - without EVER providing a single WP:RS: no need to remove original Polish surname that was lithuanize to Plechavičius, like Ławrynowicz to Lavrinovič or Mickiewicz to Mickevičius [53] as well as Bildete saying Plechavičius is Lithuanization of Plechowicz, not Plechowicz Polonization on the Talk:Plechowicz. Despite sources proving otherwise - that Plechavičius is a Lithuanian surname. Bildete also replaced the term Lithuania with the Soviet Union on multiple occasions: [54], [55], [56], despite explicit comments within the text that stated Do not change to Soviet Union. Considering his edits overall, that user clearly has something against Lithuania and Pofka was right to point that out. Pofka is not casting aspersions, he is correctly pointing out another user's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE.--+JMJ+ (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

From the bottom of my heart I want to said sorry to anyone who fell bad, that was not my intention. I'm here just for substantive factual discussion, not to attack anyone.

I think I'm on topicban (have to appeal this one), but I will respond here because I'm still called up.

Y'all (before plural you, get twisted to singular) getting ridiculous from throwing "antilithuanian" at everyone and "antilithuanianism" to everything. Please stop insulting people you don't agree with. (And I was the one blocked, when I'm always only meritorious). As Marcelus noticed that was only "general remark about nationalist historical narratives" no antilithuanianism from me

1. it's WP:BLUE! True, all of Plechavičius, Lavrinovičius and Mickevičius are Lithuanian surnames, but also are also Lithuanized from Polish: Plechowicz, Ławrynowicz or Mickiewicz. There is no source in that article, other than Lithuanian surnames dictionary and Kovalskis, Novakienė and Levandovskaitė are there too, does it prove that Kowalski, Nowak and Lewandowski (the "Polishest" surnames) are Lithuanian too... Here you have actual source from quick Google "Dictionary of the oldest Polish surnames": "PLECHOWSKI <n.m. Plechów, pow. Pińczów, Młp (KS) 1470-1480" https://rcin.org.pl/Content/38217/WA243_18877_2631016_SLO-NAJ-NAZW_0000.pdf similar roots, but coming from 1470 so loooong time before...
2. Another cheerypicking: Not Soviet Union, but Lithuanian SSR. This negationism have to stop. Those people been born in Lithuanian SSR, have Soviet passports, represent USSR and nothing wrong with this. It doesn't mean someone (me) is antilithuanian, because he notice existence of USSR and that some people been born at terrain of LtSSR (and parents or grandparents working in LtSSR are getting their retirement pension from Lithuania or Russia?)
3. Pofka is multiwiki wikidata vandal, removing Great Lithuanians, putting revert to unrelated article, just stealhty deletion.
4. to finish discussion from Talk:Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius Region you clearly missed the true with: "The International Court of Justice in The Hague arbitrated in 1931 that Poland broke international law by occupying Vilnius" you mean the railway sector one, that had nothing to do with borders https://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1931.10.15_railway_traffic.htm and thing that I forget to mention on March 15, 1923, the Conference of Ambassadors confirmed the eastern borders of Poland as drawn by the Treaty of Riga, effectively recognizing Polish sovereignty over Eastern Galicia and the Vilnius region https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch29 And bottom line to that discussion: international law is just mostly adjusted post factum, confirming status quo. Good discussion we had there, but it was brutally stopped with my block and I couldn't reply
5. Guys really please stop with antipseudoantilithuanian crusade everywhere, there are topic started in like 5 places or more

Bildete (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bildete, this does fall under your tban, so please don't make posts like this any more. Everyone else, please stop needling someone who cannot respond. That's unkind and I'm inclined to call it WP:GRAVEDANCING. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

When the dispute has become "Many editors vs one editor"? It's highly likely, the "one editor" is the problem. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Persistent POV and OR editing by Hogshine regarding Assyrian/Syriac terminology

I am reporting Hogshine for a pattern of disruptive editing, specifically POV pushing and OR, across several articles related to Syriac Christianity. Attempts to discuss these issues have failed not been met and he has since engaged in accusatory reversions. His pattern is evident across three articles and involve POV-driven content removal at Jacob of Edessa, WP:OR and violation of WP:V at Bar Bahlul, systematic replacement of sourced terminology at Jabril ibn Bukhtishu.

At the Jacob of Edessa article, Hogshine's initial edits involved the removal of large amounts of stable, well-sourced content, specifically targeting all mentions and sources using the term 'Aramean'. This unilateral deletion of verified information to align the article with a single perspective is a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and directly sparked an edit war. This behavior continued at the Bar Bahlul article, where I corrected the text from "Assyrian writer" to "Syrian writer" to match the cited source. Hogshine reverted this change, justifying it with the original research claim that "The terms are equivalent." This constitutes a clear violation of the policies on verifiability and original research, as it substitutes the source's own language with the editor's personal synthesis. Similarly, at the Jabril ibn Bukhtishu article, the source identifies the subject as a "member of the Church of the East." After I corrected the article's unsupported "Assyrian Christians" label to match the source, Hogshine reverted the edit. This is another instance of systematically preferring a POV-driven term over the specific terminology found in the reliable sources, violating content policies. In the edit summary he writes COE member from Iraq, what else would he be and thus makes an unhistorical account that the history of the COE is nothing but Assyrian even though Jabril ibn Bukhtishu background is believed to be Persian.

There are other articles that Hogshine have editing where huge bits of information have been deleted while breaching the wikipedia rules mentioned above. They include either removing any mentioning of 'Arameans' or replace 'Syriac' with ’Assyrian’. Hogshine has a pattern of presenting his own conclusions as facts stated by the source when the source doesn't make that claim. See e.g:

Chronicle of Zuqnin where entire sections mentioning Arameans are removed and adds Assyrian instead.

Harpoot Changes Syriac to Assyrian when the source cites Süryani (Turkish term for Syriac, also visit Turkish Oxford Dictionary) and claims Syriac is not mentioned. Source mentions Syriacs on page 89.

Cave of Treasures Makes an entire makeover where the biggest focus is on adding the term Assyrian (the article didn’t mention Assyrians before.) The two sources added by Hogshine does not support the terminology of the term Assyrians. Terms such as Assyrian author, Assyrian descendants etc were not supported in the source. See source: 1 & 2

Yohanna Ibrahim Adds a whole section of information in the sub-category Life. Again he inserts the term Assyrian when the source neither mentions 'Assyrians' or even ’Syriacs’. Add to that the whole section was not even supported by the source.

Moses of Mardin Same pattern here, removes information under the category ’’Early life’’ which states that Moses comes from a Syriac family and adds Moses was born to an Assyrian family in Qaluq. Hogshine adds two sources for that claim. The first source has been added wrongly, only a quote is visible not where the source is form; the second one only mentions Moses being the son of a priest called Isaac and was from the village of Sawro, near Mardin, it does not mention him being from an Assyrian family. Hogshine simultaneously adds Assyrian as his nationality in the infobox.

Hogshine should only report what the source explicitly says or what it explicitly argues and avoid POV. He has in a short amount of time already created POV edit war with other editors, manipulated dozens of sources and broken several wikipedia rules. Hopefully this ANI will put an end to that. Historynerd361 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit: In the Bar Bahlul article where the source says Syrian writer and not Assyrian writer, the same source writes Syrian-Arameans Historynerd361 (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, @Historynerd361.

• For Jacob of Edessa, I did not actually remove any content. This was consistently communicated to the banned meat/sockpuppets that further disrupted that article. It is actually you who has removed 11,000 well-sourced bits with virtually no reason besides "the article was stable beforehand", which is not a valid reason.

• For Bar Bahlul, you actually didn't "correct" anything. The first time, you removed the citation and copyvio'd directly from the source. The second time, you appealed to Wiktionary, to which I linked you the corresponding page. You clearly haven't read it or you wouldn't have mentioned it; I only used what you wanted to use as authoritative.

• For Jabril ibn Bukhtishu, you again removed well-cited content for practically no reason.

• For Chronicle of Zuqnin, it was an altogother inferior article. The removed content quotes content directly from primary sources. The rest of the article is well-cited per modern scholarship on the matter.‌ Again and again, these can be checked.

• For Moses of Mardin, please actually see the very first citation in the‌ "Early life" section; I even left a quote. For someone so uptight about "sources", you sure love ignoring the ones that don't fit your POV.

• For Harput, you were told this was discussed on the talk page yet you chose not to engage. An ANI‌ is not the time & place for this (you're still wrong by the way; none of my points have been addressed).

• For Yohanna Ibrahim, this was an attempt at synthesizing material without copying directly from the source, something you should familiarize yourself with having copyvio'd multiple times already.

• For Cave of Treasures, again, adding cited material is not "wrong" just because you disagree with it, regardless of whether it "didn't mention Assyrian before". Take it up with Dr. Amir Harrak maybe?

Some of these articles that you're contesting has, as you pointed out, sat around for months and months with uncited, incorrect information in a terrible state, yet you have not made any effort to correct any of that. It only became only issue for you when I added the "Assyrian" as the citations do.

Should you have had any issue with these articles, you should have followed protocol and actually discussed it on their respective talk pages instead of jumping to ANIs, per Wikipedia rules which, despite appealing to so much, you have broken many yourself.

Each and every single one of my edits have been well-cited and that can be checked. HN is upset, not because it is I who is pushing my POV, but that sources disagree with their POV. What can I really do about that?

But this history of disruptive edits is just the tip of the iceberg. Let's take a look at the rest of your edits, HN. You talk about "pushing POV" yet consistently throughout this entire ANI, it is nothing but the fact that the word "Assyrian" happens to be added to articles. That's it. You'd rather articles remain uncited, untouched, so long as the A-word is not in there, citations be damned.

As a refresher to a deep rabbithole: previously, a certain "Wlaak" was topic banned from WP:GS/ACAS topics for a few months. This same user canvassed HN twice here and here, in addition to substantial contributions to Wlaak's Draft:Aramean people. A few months go by and a new user, @DavidKaf, shows up. He makes a few disruptive edits similar to Wlaak and eventually, it gets banned as sockpuppet.

Enter User:Devi van velden. He follows me personally to multiple articles and makes various disruptive edits; long story short, I submit an ANI myself (here) but it gets shortcircuited by getting banned in another venue for similar reasons (here). AnotherUser:Aramaic777 also catches a ban for SP.

Historynerd361 was invovled in both previous CUs that returned confirmed. They addressed none of it and kept on editing as usual (Wlaak and DavidKaf exhibit similar behavior before their ban). HN has only returned to editing once the SPI was concluded, not before. They have the same type of edits as the now-banned accounts, in relation to changing/removing any mention of "Assyrians", including wikilinks to Assyrian people. More than that, they have edited a number of similar pages that involve ACAS topics, especially relevant villages in Turkey, and more than that, the same pages at times.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]

I might have missed a few. Note that almost all of these were reverted for breaking rules of WP:GS/KURD, yet HN continued to break it after their warning. [104]

HN voted in accordance with other now-banned puppets in this Redirect discussion by DavidKaf. [105]

The reasons given are similar to banned meats, with comments of articles being stable for a long time and requiring prior permission before editing.

HN has been warned a total of 4 times by different editors for disruptive behavior [106][107][108][109], but not only did they continue editing unbothered, they submitted this ANI; it feels like a case of WP:SHOT.

Finally, I'd like to bring attention to other accounts: @AramaicFuse and @Osroene25.

A quick look at AF's contribution history will say a lot, but pay special attention to this one. Who's "we", AF?

Osroene25 has awfully similar contribs, but the icing on the cake is this lovely message they left on my page. Who's "we", Osroene?

The previous 2 accounts also share similar - occasionally identical - edits to HN. In fact, immediately upon HN's edits getting reverted, one of the two jump in to push their similar edits [110][111][112][113][114][[115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129]. For AF: [130][131][132]. It's the same exact pattern as last time - one pushes in POV edit, when contested another user jumps in almost immediately and on the same page to push the same edit.

Honestly, one only has to compare my contributions versus theirs to this project. You brought up a bunch of previously inferior articles I've substantially contributed to - thanks for that! I'd like to add Michael the Syrian. HN has been itching to have either me other relevant users banned (per this) because their other meats were banned. This feels like some sort of revenge and/or a last attempt by that meatpuppet to have their way.

Historynerd361 is another meat in this seemingly long-running network of meatpuppets that suddenly appeared this year alone. Clearly, HN is a loose end that, frankly, should have been dealt with at the time like the rest.

I agree that this ANI "should put an end to this", that being the meatpuppet that has caused numerous users and admins headaches for the past 6 months. Hogshine (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. There are many allegations here, but I will focus on the core issue that prompted this ANI: a consistent pattern of replacing the specific terminology of reliable sources, which constitutes Original Research and a violation of Verifiability.

The dispute is not about whether the term "Assyrian" can ever be used. It is about whether an editor can systematically replace what a source actually says with their own preferred term. My original report highlighted clear cases where your edits preferred the term "Assyrian" over the specific language of the source. Your response does not refute this central point. At Bar Bahlul, the source says "Syrian writer." You changed it to "Assyrian writer" based on your own synthesis that "the terms are equivalent." This is the definition of WP:OR. Wikipedia must reflect the source, not your personal equivalence. At Jabril ibn Bukhtishu, the source says "member of the Church of the East." You insist on "Assyrian Christians." This is, again, substituting the source's language.This pattern of prioritizing a specific ethnonym over the source's own description is the disruptive behavior I am reporting.

As for the meat puppet allegations, I am not a meatpuppet of any banned user. I am an individual editor. These are serious, false accusations that are being used to divert attention from the content policy violations I have documented. I have no control over the actions of other users.

You claim I only edit to remove the "A-word." This is a misrepresentation. I edit to correct articles based on sources. If a source uses "Assyrian," the article should too. If it uses "Syriac," "Aramean," or "Church of the East," the article must reflect that. My goal is accuracy and fidelity to sources, not the suppression of a specific term. The fact that you frame this as a personal battle over a single word proves my point about POV.

You are correct that I received warnings related to GS/KURD. I have acknowledged those warnings and have ceased editing in that topic area. This is a separate issue from the OR/POV pushes I am reporting here. Mixing them is a distraction.The fundamental question for the administrators here is simple: Does Wikipedia policy allow an editor to consistently replace the terminology found in reliable sources with their own preferred terms based on personal synthesis? My position is that it does not, and that this behavior by Hogshine is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:V. The personal allegations are an attempt to avoid answering this core policy question. I ask the community to please review the specific diffs I provided and rule on the content policy issue at the heart of this dispute. Historynerd361 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Do check out WP:BUNGEE. Just because this ANI is from you contra me, doesn't mean we can't discuss your (highly relevant!) behavior just as well.

Besides, the first half of my response has tackled all of your allegations one by one, while you ignored all of mine against you. The deflection is on your end.

If this is really just about the two articles Bar Bahlul and Jabril ibn Bukhtishu, I have effectively communicated why your edits were inapplicable, Should you still have issues with them, the WP:ONUS is on you to discuss this on the respective talk pages. Should there still be issues, you bring this to WP:DRN. Should that fail and you think I broke rules, only then should this ANI have been submitted. You have in fact never approached me before on this, not on this discussion, not anywhere else. Hogshine (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You are correct about one thing: this ANI is about your violations of WP:OR and WP:V at Bar Bahlul and Jibril ibn Buhtishu, to name a few, where you replaced the specific terminology of reliable sources with your own.

You state that the WP:ONUS was on me to discuss this with you first. Let's be clear about why that would have been futile:Your edit summaries made your position unambiguous. At Bar Bahlul you explicitly justified your OR by stating "The terms are equivalent." This is a clear declaration that you believe your synthesis overrides the source's language.You pre-emptively came to my talk page to warn me about "disruptive editing" without any prior discussion. This is not the behavior of an editor open to good-faith dialogue; it's an attempt to intimidate and silence dissent.

In this context, a content discussion would not have been a good-faith effort to find consensus; it would have been a debate where one party has already shown they reject core policies. The purpose of ANI is to address exactly this kind of pattern of disruptive editing, which bypasses the need for a futile "discussion" that would only lead to more edit-warring.You have spent this entire ANI making personal allegations and talking about procedure. But you have not addressed the central, unanswered policy question:

Does Wikipedia policy permit an editor to change "Syrian writer" to "Assyrian writer" or "member of the Church of the East" to "Assyrian Christian" because they personally believe the terms are equivalent? I believe the answer is a clear no, as it violates WP:OR and WP:V. I ask the administrators to please provide a ruling on this fundamental policy issue. Have in mind that the POV edit-war was started because of your edits. Acknowledging WP:BLUDGEON, I’ll wait for admins to join. Historynerd361 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have refrained from discussing the specific content dispute since, as I said, this is not the place. It should have been done on the talk pages initiated by you, the one disputing the content. Instead - besides everything else outlined above - you immediately resorted to this ANI. Given the mountain of evidence in support of you being another WP:MEAT of the banned network, it cannot be ignored that this is one last attempt by you (plural) to have your way.

Again, if you want to discuss the specific content dispute à la "Assyrian" vs "Syrian", etc., these should be done on the talk pages. I'd have been happy to engage, just as I did here (which you have ignored).

You pre-emptively came to my talk page to warn me about "disruptive editing" without any prior discussion It was warranted given the 4-time baseless reverts, and the fact that 3 others thought you were disrupting.

In this context, a content discussion would not have been a good-faith effort to find consensus; it would have been a debate where one party has already shown they reject core policies How would you know that? I have had discussions in the past [133][134]. Even when I‌ didn't have my way, I left it alone [135].

Please don't make me repeat this. It can be considered further disruptive to consistently repeating the same question with no regard to answers given.

Now that the subject of alleged POV-pushing by me has been thoroughly discussed, it is crucial that your past disruptive behavior - and more importantly, your involvement in this Sockpuppet, is addressed. The evidence outlined in my reply heavily implicate you the same way it did User:Devi van velden. Hogshine (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe I‌ have made my case and thus will leave it to admins to decide based on it. Mainly, the second half of my first reply regarding meatpuppetry. Hogshine (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"Church of the East" Which per the main article on the Church of the East is also known as the East Syriac Church, the Persian Church, the Assyrian Church, the Babylonian Church, the Chaldean Church, and a couple of other descriptive terms. Per the main article on the Assyrian people, "Modern Assyrians may culturally self-identify as Syriacs, Chaldeans, or Arameans for religious, geographic, and tribal identification." The terms which you two are arguing about are often synonymous, and there is little obvious reason to have passionate arguments about them. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. My main concern here is with Historynerd361's past behavior esp. their association with a now-banned meatpuppet network. I give diffs in my reply above, beginning with "But this history of disruptive edits is just the tip of the iceberg". Hogshine (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

However, most of the articles are not about contemporary figures and it is anachronistic to add labels that weren't in use historically or in sources about the time period

As I recall it was only around 1900 that various syriac speaking groups resurrected the theory about descending from ancient Assyrians and re-naming themselves accordingly. Before and even after that, confessional identities were more salient. The Ottoman Empire did not really have our modern conception of ethnicity. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not really true and frankly quite offensive; see Assyrian continuity. Besides, everything I have included was appropriately cited and that can be checked, eg in Chronicle of Zuqnin or Cave of Treasures. For some of the mentioned pages, I'm genuinely unsure what HN is talking about like Yohanna Ibrahim's the whole section was not even supported by the source or Moses of Mardin's source has been added wrongly, only a quote is visible not where the source is form. Should there be contention on the specific word used. HN should have discussed this on the talk page. They never did and even ignored it when I did [136], skipping 2 steps and submitting this ANI.

I really want to emphasize HN's disruptive history and obvious ties to a banned meatpuppet network. The content dispute is really besides the point and can be hashed out for each page if necessary. I understand that admins are sick & tired of this discussion - trust me, I'm more. But it's critical that we get to the bottom of this. Hogshine (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Some evidence of historical continuity did not mean that people were calling themselves Assyrians or that their distant pagan ancestry mattered to them throughout the period. You can't substitute your own opinion for what RS say. (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not substituting my opinion. Have you read anything in this thread? You only addressed the very first sentence of one reply with an even more offensive comment. Hogshine (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Historynerd361, @Hogshine, final warning to both of you: if either of you replace one identity word (eg Syriac, Assyrian) with another one, for any reason other than correcting a source-text integrity issue (eg, that the source said "Assyrian", but our article had "Syriac", and you are correcting our article to match with "Assyrian"), I will tban you from WP:GS/ACAS. I will log this warning formally in my next edit. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not something I've been doing for the most part, so a warning won't change much; I'll only be more vigilant in the future. All of HN's accusations, as I've addressed them, have been wholly unfounded.

Can we please move on from the content dispute that's been thoroughly discussed and address HN's past behavior, especially their ties to the meatpuppet network? This ANI has been sitting for 4 days now. I'll summarize the main points in a reply. Hogshine (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

HN has been involved in Wlaak's SPI. Only when they were in the clear after its conclusion, other editors now banned, did they start making regular edits. These edits were identical in form & function to the meatpuppets' i.e. swapping 'Assyrian' for another word ± removing wikilinks.

The same type of articles have been targeted (towns in Turkey, language, and church): [137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183]

Like User:Devi van velden and User:DavidKaf, they wholly reverted Jacob of Edessa, with the same "article has been stable" reason.

Similar complaints in this ANI were made for other articles, where they should not have been edited at all despite getting monumental well-cited improvements.

Most were reverted for breaking WP:GS/KURDS, to which HN broke it again despite warning [184]

They have significant contributions to Wlaak's Draft:Aramean people - second only to Wlaak.

They voted in accordance with other now-banned puppets in this Redirect discussion by DavidKaf. [185]

Two other accounts worth mentioning: @AramaicFuse and @Osroene25.

• AF's contribution history will say a lot, but pay special attention to this one. Who's "we", AF?

• Osroene25 has awfully similar contribs, but the icing on the cake is this lovely message they left on my page. Who's "we", Osroene?

• The previous 2 accounts also share similar - occasionally identical - edits to HN. In fact, immediately upon HN's edits getting reverted, one of the two jumps in to push their similar edits [186][187][188][189][190][[191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205]. For AF: [206][207][208]. It's the same exact pattern as last time - one pushes in POV edit, when contested another user jumps in almost immediately and on the same page to push the same edit. There is little difference between this and DVV's.

That was for WP:MEAT. Other disruptive behavior includes:

Challenging me on none of the disputes and jumping straight to this ANI, including when I initiated it.

4 different users warned HN about behvaior on talk page.

Removing sourced material [209] (so much for "let's stay true to the source")

Casting aspersions for Moses of Mardin, Cave of Treasures, and Yohanna Ibrahim, saying they weren't sourced (they are). Same on Jacob of Edessa, where claims of content removal were made despite, as I have told DVV and David before, nothing was. I remind you that HN themself removed the 11k bits. Also in this thread "POV edit-war was started because of your edits".

Making some kind of personal attack about how discussions with me "would have been futile"; in a reply, I gave past examples in contrast.

Throughout this thread, they've refused to address any of this, instead demanding we focus on accusations against me (which have been already addressed) despite being told of WP:BUNGEE.

Historynerd361 is obviously part of the same meatpuppet network that was banned, scraping by because their edits started a while after the SPI's conclusion. I know we're all sick and tired of all this, which is why I hope to conclude this soon. Hogshine (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, saying things like obviously part of the same meatpuppet network that was banned is an aspersion, please don't do that. For the rest, if someone doesn't handle this in the next 24 hours, feel free to ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. I was trying to state what I wanted to prove. I'll let you know if no one takes it within 24hr. Hogshine (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@AramaicFuse clearly means "we" as "Arameans". I have blocked them for two weeks for this obviously inappropriate edit after this warning. Please just report these things as they come up rather than dumping them into a much longer ANI thread. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Osroene25 has been warned. Please remember to notify editors about contentious topics by using the templates at WP:GS. -- asilvering (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

As for the rest against @Historynerd361, I think the warning about changing the identity terms is enough for now. As I've now said several times in the context of ACAS disputes, it's not meatpuppetry to agree with someone. It is not an aspersion to say something is unsourced, whether it's a correct statement or not. Nor are we obligated to keep content in an article simply because it is sourced. ACAS is a contentious topic. That means we expect people in this topic area to disagree with each other, often quite strongly. If you want to edit in the topic area, you need to be able to discuss your edits with other editors and attempt to come to consensus that way. Administrators are not going to sort this out for you - you have to do that, collectively. If something is going wrong (edit-warring, aspersions, etc), please ask for administrator help sooner rather than later. I'm not going to block someone for something they did a month ago. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all the info I presented was (for the 4th time now) ignored; what is fundamentally different about HN's edits from Devi van velden that got the latter banned (by you then affirmed by 2 more admins)? The 2 other accounts were brought up now for this reason: to demonstrate off-wiki collusion. They also collabed with the banned accounts before.

It is not an aspersion to say something is unsourced Well, it is if you're using that as a main point in an ANI with 0 proof presented.

Since it won't be said, @Historynerd361 there's protocol for dispute resolution. It goes talk page → WP:DRN → ANI. Don't immediately jump to a full report with hardly any evidence, false claims like content not being cited/starting POV edit wars, and personal attacks about my ability to communicate. Hogshine (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Also @Buidhe What you said was highly offensive and unconstructive to this discussion. Denying people's heritage - one that is extensively documented on this site alone - is disrespectful, not to mention plain wrong. Twice you've butted in with the sole purpose of insulting a persecuted, stateless minority subjected to genocide, with no actual contribution to the ANI itself; please refrain from doing that. Hogshine (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine, buidhe wrote the article on that genocide, and has a lot of experience working in highly contentious topics. I strongly suggest that you try to learn from them. Devi van velden was blocked for meatpuppetry because as soon as the sockpuppets in that group were blocked and their edits reverted, Devi went and reinstated their edits. If you have evidence of Historynerd doing that, I'd be happy to have a look. What I've seen so far is that Historynerd's point of view aligns with that of some other blocked editors. I'm not going to block every self-identified Aramean from this site just because some of them have broken the rules. -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for the clarification and warning. I will strictly comply with this directive and will not make any edits that replace identity terms unless to correct mismatches with sources.

I appreciate the administrative time spent on this matter. Historynerd361 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2A04:4A43:930F:FF69:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2A04:4A43:930F:FF69:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, and hasn't responded to warnings. In particular, they have edit warred to add the same unsourced claim to Reminders of Him about an upcoming trailer reveal 7 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Other recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Rohith Kishan P

Rohith Kishan P (talk · contribs · count · logs)
This is a clear NOTHERE. Their used page is littered with multiple warnings and 4im warnings, but they keep adding unsourced edits and removing content without proper explanation including one (Peter Hein (Diff ~1315960585)) clear vandalism. — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think they are here to create an encyclopedia, but there are definitely issues with their edits. I just went to their user talk page to ask them to stop adding large amounts of information without any source (their initial edits from yesterday, my removal with an ES pointing out that it was unsourced, their restoration of the exact same unsourced stuff earlier today.) It is concerning that they do this right after a final warning for adding unsourced material, as well as a personalised and clear explanation of what is required. It really doesn't look like they understand, or is even taking the time to try to understand. --bonadea contributions talk 09:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yea. I think they are failing to understand it now. Looks like CIR territory to me currently. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've tried once more, I've also directed them to https://ml.wikipedia.org/ - they might have an easier time editing there. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped for now. Give a shout if they go back to doing what they were up to before. -- asilvering (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Looks like they are back at it again. Allfather (Benison) (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The recent edits seem fine? Either the films contain archive footage or they don't, that's something anyone can easily verify by watching the film. -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Policy dispute regarding talk page comments from 46.97.170.26

Involved parties:

• Dandykong1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Myself)
• 46.97.170.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Dynamic mobile IP, see Special:Contribs/46.97.170.0/24 for full history)
• Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Involved third party)

Previous ANI cases:

• Politically-charged aspersions (3 June 2020, user apologized)
• General incivility, POV warring, comment and source blanking (13 May 2021, WP:ROPE given)
• Incivility/POV/BLP violations and comment blanking (27 April 2025, boomerang CBAN for reporter conduct)
• Hate crime denial and section blanking (31 August 2025, case went stale)

I first came across this user when I was reading the talk page for the VTuber article, where they posted a section^[210] calling for the inclusion of actively contested material targeting Kirsche Verstahl and her sponsor whose only source has been retracted following a cease-and-desist letter, in clear violation of WP:BLPTALK and bordering on libel. The IP user claimed to be unaware of the C&D, and then later claimed it occurred after the talk page section was already written. The same topic was posted to Talk:JSchlatt^[211] a month prior.

This IP user has clear battleground editing tendencies with a history of incendiary comments that just barely fall within talk page guidelines. I recently collapsed this comment and warned the user as it was clearly an attack on the sources (BLPTALK at the very least as source creators are people too) and possibly the involved editors (NPA, AGF), but was quickly reverted by a third party:

WP:NOTNEWS. Every week there's a new smear campaign orchestrated by right wing drama-tubers, and just because one or two go viral to the point of it being covered by a few reliable sources. There are a lot of people obsessed with Hasan, but their many attempts to take him down never even scratch the surface of mainstream notability. Like all other such stories about him, this will be forgotten by Monday, as the usual suspects move on to the next viral story. Not to mention the animal abuse claims were already debunked. Wikipedia should not be promoting this slanderous nonsense.
— User:46.97.170.26 08:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

After attempting to discuss this below the warning template on the IP's talk page, the third party believed that the comment was perfectly acceptable and the IP user continued to deny wrongdoing, even doubling down with "I do not believe that any rational person can assume that the term would be referring to editors."^[212], even going so far as to goad me into reporting them to ANI.^[213] The suggestion looked like obvious bait, but the policy dispute was getting nowhere and I need a third opinion. Dandykong1 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That user has a possible conflict of interest honestly, member of the Palatine wikiproject defending a left wing streamer? To coordinated to not be political bias. Worldhisotrylover20 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of That guy who plays games, see investigation) Dandykong1 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. My one comment in which I call gossip unencyclopedic is "too coordinated to not be political bias". 46.97.170.26 (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• That's not how conflicts of interest work (see WP:COINOTBIAS.) Most editors have opinions about the things they edit, and often it's necessary because some sort of personal understanding of the topic is needed to quickly evaluate possible areas where there's problems or aspects that need improvement; when there's more than one way to understand a topic, you have biases. A COI is about having an actual external relationship, not just a strong opinion (having strong opinions can lead to WP:TEND editing, but only if the editor isn't following policy.) Otherwise flat-earthers could go "everyone editing this article believes in Roundworldism! They're all biased and can't be allowed to edit it!" Neither can we forbid someone from editing articles just because their understanding of it is unusual or marginal - editors with marginal viewpoints need to be slightly more cautious to avoid WP:PROFRINGE editing, but we need editors who will spot eg. weak citations or undue weight, and skeptical editors are more likely to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a nothing case.

regarding previous ani cases:

• ips regularly rotate. Its unlikely 2023 is the same editor.
• the other cases either found nothing wrong with ip or ended in boomerang for reporter.

this ani case, if anything, could easily end in boomerang for reporter if they dont drop it. IP talk page comments seem fine enough, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record I am the same editor, and this incident is a continuation of an ongoing problem that started in the past few months, where some user sees a comment I made on a talk page, begins responding to multiple comments I made on other talk pages, goes to a senior editor asking them to ban me, and when they're told that I don't seem to have done anything wrong, they bring up past ANIs from five years ago. Incidentally, both recent ANIs involved a recently created sockpuppet account that existed solely to demand that I get blocked. This is not a one-off case, and I doubt it will be the last.

I should also point out that the first two ANIs are dated incorrectly to make them appear more recent than they actually are. The first one is from 2020, not 2023, and the second is from 2021, and not 2025. I had no incidents between 2021 and the more recent april icident that resulted in a boomerang. The september incident relied entirely on the 2021 and 2020 incidents to even have a case, and to be blunt, even during the 2021 incident the most damning things I have done were carried over from the 2020 incident (which I'm pretty sure is against ANI rules, but I didn't know that at the time, and it turned out not mattering in the end anyway). 46.97.170.26 (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Those dates came from an archive search, I'll fix them if necessary. Dandykong1 (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I personally think that the quote that User:Dandykong1 is not sanctionable at all, it's aimed at outside personalities that aren't named. The much more convincing case was brought by user:DannyC55 at the end of August and went stale. To avoid recycling that thread, here are some things that haven't been mentioned:

• On Talk:Cultural appropriation, the IP wrote "As much as I would love to see Christopher Hitchens cited on every single article that has to do with Christianity saying "this is all bullshit", I understand that doing so would be entirely undue." [214] "As much as I would like to" is not a get out of jail card, I could not go down the pub and say to someone "As much as I would like to sleep with your wife". To bring up Christianity being bullshit on a discussion about cultural appropriation is unusual, and we would not give this much rope to someone who would bring up Islam and Judaism in such a discussion. and it was concurrent with the user's posts on Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment and the remarkably tone-deaf posts on Talk:Annunciation Catholic School shooting, from DannyC55's post so I won't recycle them. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS doesn't usually include thinking that children can't be the victim of a religious hate crime because "christians are an overwhelming and dominant majority, numerous enough to affect public policies, sometimes in direct violation of the non-establishment clause".

• On 29 September, using ANOTHER church shooting to go onto the WP:SOAPBOX and say "anti-christian hate-crime (which is still not a thing, regardless of how hard some wikipedians want it to be)." [215] What would we think of a user who jumps on any other kind of religious shooting to say this?

• While he dedicated four years to trying to remove the criticism section on Cultural appropriation, the user wants to expand criticism section for things he doesn't like, such as on Talk:The Dukes of Hazzard [216] and Talk:Natalism [217], again, never contributing any references or sources.

• Using a talk page for a cartoon episode to say that Charlie Kirk couldn't really have liked it, he was either too dumb to understand it, or trying to save face. Pointless, Twitter or Reddit-tier polemic about the other political side being dumb. [218]

• On Talk:Tyler James Robinson, bringing up a hypothesis that is classed under "Speculation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories" on the main Murder of Charlie Kirk article. [219] Says that the hypothesis is valid because it is circulated by unnamed "cultural commentators and video essayists" (aka Twitter and YouTube users) [220]. The post was closed for WP:BLP issues by User:Guninvalid

• Using Twitter personality Ed Krassenstein for the strong claim that a shooting was a false flag [221] [222]

We have issues of WP:SOAPBOX WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS WP:FORUM (Church shootings, Got a Nut, Dukes of Hazzard) as well as WP:RS (using social media to claim that attacks were false flags, but apparently being aware of reliable source policy when Hasan Piker is attacked). This suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:TENDENTIOUS approach, to win at all costs. There is absolutely no way that any named account would have been given this much rope on WP:AMPOL. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Now that I've been pinged and brought into this mess, I may as well throw in my two-cents and say that nothing I've seen in this discussion at ANI really seems bad enough to warrant action. This IP editor does seem to be problematic in some respect and they don't necessarily seem to have a capacity to learn. Perhaps a 31-hour touch-grass break could help them get the memo, but I'm unconvinced that it would be necessary to do anything more. guninvalid (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Considering that I have refrained from the sort of name/calling and flagrant BLP violations that got me into trouble back in 2020, I'd like to think that I do have at least some capacity to learn. I can go on a break on my own, right now the main thing preventing that is this ongoing thread. I'm also concerned about the specific things that led Dandykong1 to start building his case against me. Of all the things he took issue with he accused me of libel and of personal attacks for some of the most unassuming posts I made, and when I called him out on it, he just chalked it up as yet another wrongdoing. I told him to open an ANI because it was becoming clear that he will just keep doing this. Once this discussion is closed I'll take a long break. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't followed this situation enough to confirm or deny your statement, but I'll take your word for it that you've learnt. In my book, as long as you're willing to learn from your mistakes and try not to commit them in the future, I have no problem with you, and I don't think further action is warranted beyond a touch-grass break. guninvalid (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

1) On cultural appropriation. It's called an analogy. I was making an argument against citing non subject matter experts, especially biased ones. I was trying to explain why a conservative pundit with no expertise on the subject of cultural appropriation should not be cited as a serious critic of the concept. User:Aquillion summarized my point at the end of the thread. You already reported my comment on the Annunciation school shooting. You were told that my comment is not unreasonable given how the term "hate crime" is typically used.

2) I did not go on a soapbox. I dropped a side comment on something that was tangentially related, which I tend to do sometimes. User:Harryhenry1, who I previously argued with on Anti/Christian sentiment made a similar comment in his response, disagreeing with me, and that was the end of it. What would you think? You already got your answer: that I'm using a definition of hate crime that presupposes minority status on the victim's part, since the power imbalance is what makes hate crimes more serious than regular crimes. I understand that this is a contentious definition, but it exists, and it is what most people think of when they hear hate crime.

3) I did NOT dedicate four years "trying to remove criticism from Talk:Cultural appropriation. I took issue with specific critiques, coming from people who are not subject/matter experts. I forgot about it, stumbled upon the article years later, realized that nothing was done about it, so I did it myself. I was consistent on which critiques I wanted removed, even conceded on some of them. Even when several more critiques were added to the section, making the entries I wanted removed even more irrelevant, I did not have any problem with those - only the few that were low quality. I was never opposed to a criticism section. Meanwhile, the lack of criticism for Dukes of Hazard of all things is tonedeaf, especially in the post George Floyd era. You are seriously grasping at straws here.

4) South Park episode: Okay, on re/reading that was actually inappropriate. I removed it. You know you could've just left a message on my talk page, right?

5) I did not say the claim about Tyler Robinson being a groyper is valid. I said the arguments used to dismiss the possibility that he's not (which other users were bringing up, but you don't seem to have a problem with them) are not convincing, and that it's too early to write the claim off as misinformation.

6) I don't see Krassenstein's name in the edit you provided. I do remember referencing him once. I was told he's not reliable and that was the end of that. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Dukes of Hazard already has a Confederate criticism section, mentioning both Charleston and Floyd. Another user asked you to expand it yourself, which you didn't.
• Your definition of a hate crime, or any other user's, is irrelevant. None of our personal opinions matter. Arguing your personal opinion is WP:NOTHERE WP:FORUM. We can't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Follow what reliable sources say about local laws. If you think the law is an ass, go on social media about it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • "Another user asked you to expand it yourself, which you didn't." If the editor performed no actual changes in the article, how is this an example of POV editing? Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• I'm gonna give my two cents here as well since I was tagged. The main drive behind opening that ANI was that IP's unnacceptable comments (both in terms of policy and ethics) in the talk page for the Annunciation School shooting article. But ever since the case went stale and I did occasional checks on their editing history, my feelings toward them have mellowed out. The fact that they are an IP editor makes temporary bans and topic bans (which would be ideal on this case), respectively, very hard to enforce and impossible to enforce. A perma ban would be too harsh and runs the risk of affecting unrelated users in that same range. If they were a registered user, I agree as said above that they would never be given as much rope as they were given so far, but the fact they are not a registered user makes this a special case. They really tiptoe the line between a mere nuisance and disruptive, with their talk page arguments, as bad as they can be, being of inconsistent frequency and not always as egregious as the one in the Annunciation School shooting, for instance. I think the main thing that saves them here is the fact they don't edit the articles themselves to hammer their viewpoints, which would constitute a much more serious form of disruption (even though I still do believe the fact they only ever "contribute" with inflamatory, opionated comments in talk pages make this a clearcut case of NOTHERE). I've witnessed countless times that it's near impossible to get to this user, as they've dug their heels not only in their opinions but their behavior, so I don't know how what good letting them go with just a warning would make. From what I've gathered they used to be worse in 2020-21, so I guess improvement is still a possibility. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 22:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  A question: you said very hard to enforce and impossible to enforce I am assuming one of those was a typo so what did you mean in place of one of those? GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  /24 anonblock would fix many of these problems, having to register would prevent WP:IPHOP and make it easier to TBAN if the disruptive behavior continues on a named account. If a tendentious IP gets five ANI cases worth of rope because they're too difficult to deal with, subtle vandals and slow-burn trolls could just as easily cause far worse disruption by simply logging out. Dandykong1 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting that you say it's near impossible to get to me, because that has been my experience with other users. Part of the reason why some of my recent arguments have gone off the rails is because I try to argue what I think is a simple point, people immediately assume my intention is to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND and treat it as such, without giving much thought about the actual content of my arguments. I keep insisting, and the assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  I try to avoid editing articles for two reasons. One, because I'm just not good at doing research, but I am familiar with what's going on on social media, and I know that topics going viral on social media and things that are said about them sometimes grow big enough to be covered by reliable sources. Whenever I bring up something like that, there's always an implied inquiry as to whether such claims have been covered or made by reliable sources. Sometimes I make that clear, but sometimes I forget, because I assume it's obvious to anyone who assumes good faith.

  The other reason is that any edit I make (I sometimes do, from minor cleanups to removing obviously WP:UNDUE information) just gets reverted anyway, and I know better than to get into an edit war. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think your reply here really underlines one of the fundamental issues. You frequently jump into whatever is the active main storyline on social media, and largely treat the talk pages as an extension of social media. While no individual edit has been that bad, the sum of it is that you're getting into a ton of forum-like political arguments, on current hot topics, and improving articles almost seems like a tangential issue. Generally speaking, when this collaborative project starts feeling like an adversarial one, that's a really good time to draw back a bit and take a break. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, I try not to do that. I mainly try to focus on whether some aspects of a subject are overlooked or given too much significance. 9 out of 10 times somebody says there's no source on the thing I want included or that the thing I want deleted is actually important and has good sourcing, and that's the end of it. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is a worrying process. Both here and above, you make it sound like you believe that something is overlooked or given too much significance and then try and find the sources to support those contentions. That's a precisely backwards process that practically guarantees WP:NPOV issues, and possibly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You should be starting with good sources first, not finding them after you have an edit you wish to make. Sources drive edits, not the other way around. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, I'm not good at finding sources, but there are plenty of editors who are. Every once in a while a good source turns up. But even so, putting it like that... Yeah. I'll keep this in mind going forward. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat from Idansh378

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

---

Idansh378 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On @User:45dogs's talk page, Idansh378 posted this, with legal threat against WP in the last paragraph. Nil🥝 14:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Handled. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Got an EC as I tried to post the ANI notice, quick work! Nil🥝 14:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for handling, I had given an only warning just in case it would have them retract. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Sarsenet - I try my best to give users a chance to retract any threats, but since this was their first and only edit using their account, I didn't think it was necessary. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, definitely understandable. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

UtherSRG

In August, we had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Disruptive editing/ vandalism, discussing the problematic reverts and rollbacks by admin User:UtherSRG. In checking whether things really had improved as promised (not always[223][224][225][226]), I noticed a bad deletion, got accused by UtherSRG of stalking, and listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 25 where it was unanimously seen as a bad G4 deletion, and some others expressed concern about their tool use and gaslighting.

Since then, they have pageblocked User:MrOllie for 24h for reverting twice (User_talk:MrOllie#October_2025).

But what makes me thing that they should either give up the tools under a cloud, or be recalled, is the latest:

• User:Koo-1876 created Category:Humpback whale on 3 September
• UtherSRG nominated it for merging the same day, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 3#Category:Humpback whale, relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 11#Category:Humpback whale: "Propose merging Category:Humpback whale to Category:Rorquals"
• "The result of the discussion was: Keep" (26 September)
• Yesterday, UtherSRG changed Category:Humpback whale to Category:Rorquals on three pages[227][228][229], thereby implementing his proposed merge which was rejected just two weeks earlier: he then nominated the now empty cat for speedy deletion.
• The same day, they indef blocked Koo-1876 (who hadn't edited for 6 days).

I don't think UtherSRG can be trusted with advanced permissions any longer. Fram (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I looked over part of this, and I am especially struck by the uncalled-for block on MrOllie. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

True, the block of MrOllie certainly stands out, but to me the block on Koo-1876 is verging on the corrupt. To block an editor whose category they unsuccessfully proposed to merge, to rename the cat thereby endrunning community consensus, then to nominate that category for speedy deletion, and then blocking the original cat's creator drives a truck through WP:INVOLVED. And there's no way it could all have been done in good faith. Even if Ko-1876o does have a history of disruptive editing, this is not the way to address it. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

What the actual fuck.. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Koo-1876/whales: I blocked them based on an AN discussion that was archived. The user had a reasonably lengthy history of disruptive editing. The discussion, though brief, showed only agreements that Koo-1876 was in the wrong and something should be done, but no one had done it. So I did it. I then reverted some of their disruptive edits, the whale category. Most, if not all, of their previous disruptions were either already undone or otherwise made better.
• MrOllie: Blocked them and the IP they were warring with. It takes two to war. I note also that this user's talk archive indicates they are well aware of edit war issues.

Those are my perspectives on my actions. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The "disruptive edits" you reverted were edits you had already suggested for reversion, and a community discussion had disagreed with you. Other disruption by the same editor doesn't magically invalidate that consensus. Fram (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

And the recent disruption by Koo-1876, which warrants the indef, are these three edits: [230][231][232]??? Fram (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

See also their talk page where LittleJerry (the OP of the AN discussion linked above) multiple times asked them to desist, with no response (recently) and little response (historically). This was after a history of disruptive edits, for which I'd blocked them twice before, where LJ and Elmidae had attempted to bring them in alignment, unsuccessfully. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You emptied a category for the purpose of deleting it, bypassing recent community consensus. You then proceeded to indef the creator of the category you emptied, which was kept by consensus after you nominated it, who hadn't even edited in six days. This is pretty clearly an INVOLVED block, and it brings your judgement into question. I don't question that the ANI might have ended with a block, but you should not have been the one to do it, and you definitely shouldn't have emptied and speedied the category after already failing to get it merged at CFD. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, as a little bonus issue, this diff definitely looks like canvassing. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has often asked to be pinged on footy-related matters. They often work to try to save articles that can be saved, and helps to update notification lists. I did not intend this to be a canvass. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the context, and with that added information, that talk page post isn't an issue. I still have concerns about the other issues raised in this section, though. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I try not to repeat myself, as I find it of little help. But to clarify: I felt that the Koo-1876 ANI was enough to satisfy the WP:INVOLVED on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion clause. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I 100% did not feel like it was canvassing of me! GiantSnowman 07:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You said "MrOllie: Blocked them and the IP they were warring with. It takes two to war." So after this (13.20, 2 February 2025) and this (13.38 same day), you blocked Koo-1876 and yourself for edit warring, right? Oh no, you only blocked the other party, not yourself. For crying out loud, the new editor had never received a talk page warning, your second revert said "please take this to the talk page" but instead you just straight away blocked them. The "disruptive editing" that lead to your second block of them is this, and them adding a category to multiple pages (like this) which you then reverted. Sounds familiar. Fram (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

How are the multiple requests to cease the disruption from LJ and Elmidae, which point to WP:3RR and call out possibilities of being blocked, not warnings? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Where are these? I don't think they even interacted with Elmidae before that block, and Lj gave a single mention of edit warring, without any indication of the risk of a block. Fram (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fram: In fairness, LJ gave a second warning in the same section, which he referred to as a "final warning" and which included the possibility of being reported and blocked. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

UtherSRG, what's going on? The AARV thread about INVOLVED admin actions/blocking people you're involved in content disputes with [233] was not that long ago. Yes, you think that they have a special interest and can't restrain themselves[234] after somebody emailed you (for advice?). Still, they hadn't edited since the AN/I report[235], and even if they had, the examples given[236] of their incredibly poor edits like..adding a mention of the tallest ever giraffe to the article on giraffes back in August[237], merit conversation, not involved blocks. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they merited conversation, to which the user was unresponsive, which led to the ANI, which led.... etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That still doesn't cover you emptying and speedying a category that was kept by community consensus at CFD. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Should we ping the participants of the CfD for their thoughts or is that canvassing? 212.70.111.8 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The category should probably be restored and the articles put back that were in place when the consensus was reached to retain it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

something should be done, but no one had done it. So I did it. That is, frankly, a bullshit answer. How many editors accused of editwarring at ANI pull out just that excuse, and how much shrift do we give to them? What do we tell them? "You should have waited for consensus all the same," or "You should have reached out to an uninvolved editor to do it," or etc. There is no way in hell an admin should be unaware of the iron necessity to NOT bring the hammer down in cases where they're involved, or incapable of reaching out to a neutral admin to do what "needed to be done." How does an admin and an editor with your longevity and your contribution history not get that? Ravenswing 17:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

In a nutshell, LJ reached out to me, I said file a report, he did, the discussion there was "yup, should be handled". That was me ensuring neutral admins were reached. Then the discussion was just archived when no action had been taken? So I took the action that neutral admins had already accepted. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

neutral admins had already accepted -- um, no. Not seeing and/or responding to a thread is not "accepting" it. This is a very bad look. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Beyond that, where was the urgency? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Someone who hasn't edited in a week is not presenting an urgent danger to the project. You didn't have to act, and if action needed to be taken, it didn't have to be you to do it. Ravenswing 18:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the MrOllie block when it happened and really wasn't sure what to make of it. Reverting the addition of poorly-sourced not-uncontroversial material two times within one hour (alongside other users) meets neither the bright-line definition nor the in-spirit idea of edit warring. --tony 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing was originally poor, but was properly improved in later edits by the IP. The well-sourced material was still then reverted, apparently blindly. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing was not properly improved and that was not well-sourced material. The IP editor inserted[238] a new section Liqorice#Pregnancy, beginning in wikivoice Women should avoid consuming large amounts of liquorice during pregnancy, because it may cause miscarriage and may harm the developing offspring., citing https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/keeping-well/foods-to-avoid/ which says "Liquorice is safe to eat. But you should avoid liquorice root." MrOllie was entirely right to fully revert that and there is no apparent foundation for your claim that they did so apparently blindly. NebY (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The NHS source they used falls within the MEDRS acceptability, and I read the source material. I say apparently blindly as they didn't indicate that they were now removing based on tone or accurate reflection of the source, or any other such nothing that this wasn't just a "I see you've edited again, so I'm going to revert this" action. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You assumed the worst because you didn't see the evidence to the contrary (despite yourself reading the source material "Liquorice is safe to eat" which contradicted the IP's text). You thought that assumption was good reason to block MrOllie for their second revert, without warning. Your userpage has the userbox "This user believes that process is important on Wikipedia and is opposed to its circumvention." NebY (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought it appropriate to let User:MrOllie know about this discussion as they have been mentioned a few times. I guess the pings might have already sent a notification. Knitsey (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think blocking any one user more than once is bad practice for administrators. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that is excellent advice that should be codified in some manner in WP:Block. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Today, I had to deal with an edit warring IP hopper who kept up a months long attempt to disrupt the Patrick Beverley article. I don't need to rehash it all here, but I do want to bring up a strongly relevant point. The IP was blatantly evading a block. As an admin, I could have easily blocked the IP under the "any reasonable administrator..." clause and protected the article to prevent further disruption...but didn't. Nobody would have questioned my doing that. But WP:INVOLVED ALSO says "it is still the best practice in cases ... to pass the matter to another administrator". A factor that needs to be taken into account is what damage is going to happen to the project by a potentially involved admin vs. not taking action and finding another admin to do it? @UtherSRG: it's impossible to imagine a scenario where blocking User:Koo-1876 was averting damage to the project so imminent that waiting for another admin was not acceptable, given Koo-1876 hadn't edited for six days. That's not written into the policy, but that is part of the reasoned approach an administrator needs to take to the position. When you violate the trust inherent in the WP:INVOLVED policy, you violate it for all administrators and cast doubt on our work. From my chair, you were wildly out of line. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, and if any other administrator would have done the same action, then finding another administrator to do it should have been trivial. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the nuanced response and advice. I can see now how my understanding was incorrect. I had been tripped up by the "letter of the law" and its carve outs. Despite multiple attempts to grasp it, thinking I had it, then failing again. This policy is all about the heart and soul of the project, not about strict adherence to the letter. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As WP:ADMINCOND notes, "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with the use of the administrator toolset". I appreciate your response, since to me it seems clear that you get it. I'd recommend you revisit your recent decisions on the use of the tools and perhaps revert your actions, applying apologies as necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Gimme a bit.... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted the category edits, unblocked Koo-1876, and apologized to both them and MrOllie. I think someone should look into the ANI discussion on Koo-1876 and restore the discussion from the archive, and indicated to them this might happen, but I won't be the one to touch it. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I reached out to UtherSRG because the ANI was archived without explanation. I had atleast two people who agree with me, but I didn't even get a final statement saying "not enough consensus". LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I see nothing here requiring administrative action beyond a trouting of User:UtherSRG for their aggressiveness with respect to the category and failure to try talking before blocking. As a category, it's not great, and the quality of discussion supporting it was equally not great, but there was a consensus. I agree that User:Koo-1876 has overall created more work for other editors than benefit to the encyclopedia, which the previously referenced ANI indicates an unwillingness to improve. BD2412 T 22:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• It's nice that UtherSRG has finally recognized the several serious errors here, but I don't agree that we're in "occasional mistakes" territory: just in the last three months we've had Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 3#UtherSRG and INVOLVED edit warring block, User talk:UtherSRG/Archive 11#Block questions, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Disruptive editing/ vandalism, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 25#Androphobia, and now this. INVOLVED is Adminning 101, and none of these have been especially close calls. Promising to do better was fine the first time and maybe the second time too, but now that we're on take three (at least), I really find it hard to believe that UtherSRG's understanding of policy is at all in line with current expectations. I don't doubt his sincerity, but (to borrow Floquenbeam's phrase from several noticeboard threads ago) how many more "shitty block[s]" are we going to put up with? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Once is an accident, twice coincidence; but three times is a pattern, and this looks like at least four cases of clear misconduct, and at least the third breach of INVOLVED, over the last three months - and an extremly egrerious one. At a certain point assuming good faith becomes problematic, and for all my concerns about how administrator recall has been used, this is starting to look like a clear case for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If an admin wouldn't pass an RfA today then they shouldn't have the tools tomorrow. I don't believe this admin would pass an RfA in this day and age, thus it does sound like recall territory to me. CNC (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

That creates a very dangerous standard. Admins, by the nature of the role, close contentious discussions and intervene in heated disputes, the kinds for which even an objectively correct close can lead to recriminations against that admin. An admin doing enough of that sort of work can put a target on their own back, and place them exactly in the position of having enough bad faith opposition to a hypothetical new RfA to relieve this project of all admins willing to close contentious discussions. BD2412 T 22:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I simply have more faith in the editing community that there wouldn't be the quantity of bad faith you're assuming is possible here. Enough for a recall, maybe, but not to overturn an RfA, unless this community has already become completely dysfunctional. If closes were reviewed, overturned, and brought to ANI as repeated mistakes which continued to occur, then that'd be a different matter. I'm much more convinced editors would stand by such an admin making good closes, regardless of their contentious nature. Not sure what this point really has to do with the topic but it sounds like saying "where there is smoke there is always smoke, never fire, so not worth checking if there's a fire" in the spirit of burying one's in the sand. CNC (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I see where you're going, but the consideration needs to be why an admin wouldn't pass a fresh RfA. An admin making good admin calls that may be unpopular to a subset of editors? Sure, you've got a point; I sympathise with the bullshit admins have to deal with sometimes, yet I don't see that as the concern here.

An admin making questionably WP:INVOLVED blocks (after promising not to), and exhibiting what appears to be WP:BITEy and WP:OWNy behaviour towards newcomers trying to contribute in good faith? Absolutely this question is relevant.

It saddens me greatly that we had newcomers like SilverzCreations & Temporatemporus making good-faith, well-written contributions no longer editing, and seeing their treatment in the links provided by Extraordinary Writ, I really don't blame them for running from this place. A little communication and guidance from experienced editors goes a long way when you're starting out, and is a minimum I'd expect of any RFA candidate. Nil🥝 23:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Kantakuziv promoting a website

Kantakuziv (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since 2010, but has very few edits since then, mainly to Drabiv and talk pages. Today they began promoting a website they created that seems like a Wikipedia alternative or something [239], [240], [241]. I'm not sure if this is acceptable or not, so I'm bringing it here. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please let me know if I have broken any rules — I’ll be glad to comply. As I understand it, creating a subpage to my user page with an RfC about a project that is relevant to and, in my opinion, complementary to Wikipedia should be acceptable. My reply to Larry Sanger’s “Nine Theses” essay, where I asked him to review Hubbry as a possible resolution to some of his theses, should also be within acceptable limits. Similarly, my response to Lymenghong69khgaming regarding his post on Hubbry was a reply on his user page addressing his concern and question left on Hubbry. Regarding my inactivity over the years, I don’t believe it should affect the issue at hand. I’m here and open to answering any questions or clarifications. Kantakuziv (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The main take-away concerning Hubbry is that it does not comply with Wikipedia's license by failing to identify contributors. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C. We’ll fix it first thing on Monday (or by Tuesday at the latest) by adding a link to the article’s history on Wikipedia in Wikipedian hubs. We’ll also add a license for community and Wikipedian hubs — the same one used on Wikipedia. Kantakuziv (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Quoting from WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, Any user account should represent an individual and not a group. Narky Blert (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I meant that I will fix it with the technical help of another person — that’s why I couldn’t do it earlier. Behind “Kantakuziv” there is only one person — me. 🙂 Kantakuziv (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have added a link to the contributors of Wikipedia articles from Hubrry's hubs. You can find it at the bottom of the Root Wikipedia Article on the main page of each hub, under the anchor text - “Revisions and Contributors”. I also added the links “Edit on Wikipedia” and “Read on Wikipedia” (the latter in addition to the one already at the top of the Root Wikipedia Article). Additionally, in the footer of every page, I added links to the license for Hubbry’s Community Hubs — the same as on Wikipedia: CC BY-SA 4.0. Kantakuziv (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

So, is it correct that this is not spam and editors may promote their own websites on Wikipedia? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not think my actions can be classified as promotion. I wrote about Hubbry to Lymenghong69khgaming, replying to the question they made on Hubbry about the article they wrote on Wikipedia, and to Larry Sanger, replying to his essay and pointing out that Hubbry can address a couple of his theses. I also wrote an RfC about Hubbry as a subpage of my user page so that I could link to it from my reply to Larry’s Theses. In my opinion, this should be fine, as it is related to Wikipedia and was intended to be used in reply to the discussion on Wikipedia. Although I admit it talks more about Hubbry itself rather than about the idea of extending Wikipedia and adding a social layer on top of it, and I should have ordered the RfC and my reply to Larry better — putting first and writing mostly about this idea, and then mentioning Hubbry at the end, as a possible implementation.

In short, mentioning a website in talks — whether you created it or not — when it is relevant and done in an appropriate manner with due weight, should not be classified as promotion. I will be more careful and objective by not putting Hubbry first in discussions about related topics — in other words, by not giving it more weight than the conversation merits, so that it will not be, and will not appear to be, a promotion. I plan to write a short reply to Larry’s Theses tomorrow and hope it will be fine. Kantakuziv (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think if you want to discuss your website with Sanger it may be better to contact him directly off of Wikipedia. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think my reply will be interesting for the Wikipedian community too — it’s going to be more about extending Wikipedia than about Hubbry itself. BTW, it’s taking me a bit more time to write, but I hope to share my analysis of his proposal tomorrow. Kantakuziv (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by User:10gokk10 on Göktürks article

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

---

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

---

User User:10gokk10 continues to remove verified sourced content from the article Göktürks, despite multiple discussions and a prior report at AN3 (edit warring board).

The removed section includes the Genetics table citing *Jeong et al. (2020, Cell)*, Supplementary Table S6 (mmc1.xlsx), which lists Türkic-period Y-DNA samples: - ZAA002 → C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) - ZAA004 → C-F1756

Despite clear peer-reviewed sourcing, the user repeatedly deletes this content and argues against the data without providing any scholarly references. This behavior disrupts consensus-building and violates Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliable sources policy.

• • Diffs showing the removals:**

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göktürks&diff=prev&oldid=1316170581 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göktürks&diff=prev&oldid=1316167397 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göktürks&diff=prev&oldid=1316162572 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göktürks&diff=prev&oldid=1316158722

• • Request:**

Administrative attention for disruptive editing, and possible sanctions or page protection to prevent further damage to a sourced, verified section. Gocturk (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You've reported this twice on AN3 under two separate headings (as its own heading after 10's response, which I merged in); not only do we not allow forum shopping, we don't allow obvious WP:LLM usage as seen here. Please let the AN3 report be acted on first. Nathannah • 📮 22:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, ok Gocturk (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing by User:Gocturk on Göktürks article

User User:Gocturk repeatedly reverts sourced and verified content in the article Göktürks, specifically in the Genetics section, despite citations to the peer-reviewed study Jeong et al. He write wrong information base on source please look at talk page of Gokturks. I write source and information there please look who is correct me or Gocturk. I just want to tell please just go in Gokturks:talk page and see my logics and his and compare it to source. I stop do revert (Must say that huge part of information add by myself. User:Gocturk also remove mtdna that I add) because know he's going to keep push his views and make edit war but change it to the last stable version before his. And to avoid edit warring I stop. But I must ask you do look at source cause there is huge misinformation, Wikipedia is one of first place people come to learn something. Regards 10gokk10 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Same to you...it's already being discussed on AN3. Please comment there. Nathannah • 📮 23:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

im not good at know Wikipedia. But I have good knowledge in history and DNA. Sorry 10gokk10 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It is worth reviewing this user’s edits, as through their previous account (Гектюрк) they promoted their own point of view, demonstrated a strong bias against Kyrgyz people, and frequently insulted other participants. At the moment, they are blocked on the Russian Wikipedia, and as I can see, they are doing the same thing here. Incall ^talk 03:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague, please avoid personal attacks and assumptions about editors’ motives, as per WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Discussions should remain focused on the content, not contributors’ personal histories or alleged behavior elsewhere. Gocturk (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If the checkusers confirm a connection between your accounts, that is not a violation of the rules by itself, but in your case, they have already conducted a check and confirmed the connection. Incall ^talk 04:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal remarks or assumptions about other editors, as per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

If you have concerns about a user, the proper venue is WP:SPI or WP:ANI, not user talk pages.

I have also noticed a pattern of coordinated behavior targeting my edits, which has compelled me to request a CheckUser review to ensure transparency and fairness.

Let’s keep discussions focused on improving articles and verifiable sources. Thank you. Gocturk (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, dear colleague @CoffeeCrumbs,

I wanted to let you know that I’m not able to reply directly on the CheckUser request page, as it is currently protected.

Please advise if I may provide my clarification here instead or on another appropriate page.

Thank you! Gocturk (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have closed the SPI. @Incall, if you have evidence to support your statements in that comment, please provide it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Would the diffs from the Russian Wikipedia and the evidence there work for you? Also, I’ll check the user’s contributions here and leave a note. Incall ^talk 04:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No. I only care if they are being disruptive here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You didn’t give me a chance to show my evidence and closed the CheckUser request.

Since the page was locked, I couldn’t present anything to defend myself.

You also accused me of being inaccurate and using AI, but never pointed out what exactly I did wrong. Gocturk (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gocturk, you had many chances to show your evidence. So many chances that I ended up having to protect the page so you would stop editing it. But you really should only need one chance: the filing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I filed the request at 04:06 on 11 October and, to my understanding, I did include evidence at that time. If it was considered insufficient, I was waiting for a reply before adding more. Later, CoffeeCrumbs asked me here to provide additional evidence. I started preparing it, but when I tried to post, the page had already been protected, so I couldn’t add anything further.

45dogs pointed this out here, noting that I was unable to supply extra information due to page protection.

Also, ChildrenWillListen mentioned here that the users themselves admitted to the connection.

I was waiting for the outcome and was ready to cooperate if more information was needed.

However, the request was closed before I had the opportunity to complete that process. I would respectfully ask for the decision to be reconsidered or for permission to refile the request with all supporting evidence.

— Gocturk (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The comments made by 10gokk10 right here show the same pattern of interaction as seen on the page (Yenisei Kyrgyz). This further supports the view that my request to investigate Incall was justified and based on consistent behavioral evidence. Gocturk (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It very much was AI; it was in language far more advanced than you had ever used otherwise and you asserted evidence that you didn't present at filing or here. ChildrenWillListen didn't point out anything about Incall, only 10gokk10 and 10gok10. The admitted sockpuppets have already been blocked. What's the "pattern of interaction" that the Yenisei Kyrgyz edits show? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

They back each other up and always focus on the same topics. When one stops coming after me, the other immediately takes over.

You asked me to provide more evidence, but when I explained that I couldn’t add it because the page was protected, I didn’t get reply. if one of the editors defending him is also active on the Russian Wikipedia, just like Incall, that only makes me more certain that I did the right thing by requesting a CheckUser review.

May I open a new CheckUser request for Incall?

If not, I’ll bring this to the administrators’ noticeboard, since I believe the closure may not have followed standard procedure under WP:SPI and WP:CHECKUSER. Thank you Gocturk (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gocturk, you appear to be experiencing the phenomenon known as "multiple people disagreeing with you". If you are determined to open another SPI request, I will not stop you, but I think it would be tremendously unwise and expect that it would lead to you being blocked. As for the rest: you're already at the admin noticeboard. This case has already been attended to by two checkusers, and neither of us have seen fit to check Incall, let alone block them. -- asilvering (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m amazed that the user literally hates me and wants to get me blocked everywhere. He also kept submitting me to the checkusers on the ruwiki, which eventually caused him to lose access to that, and he always accused me of sockpuppetry, which ultimately led to his block on the ruwiki. Incall ^talk 07:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I never said that you personally should be blocked. I only filed a request for a CheckUser review.

Alright, I understand that further discussion is pointless.

The main thing is that I’ve figured out who was involved. Gocturk (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I understand what happened and why the SPI was closed the way it was.

What happened

• I opened the request on 11 October at 04:06 and added the evidence I had then.
• later CoffeeCrumbs asked me to post more diffs (here). I started collecting them, but by the time I tried to add them, the page had already been protected, so I couldn’t update anything. 45dogs also mentioned that I couldn’t add more info because of the protection (here).
• ChildrenWillListen pointed out admissions related to the same users (here).

Why I think that it was wrong

1. WP:SPI says editors should have a fair chance to add evidence before a case is closed. I was asked to provide more but couldn’t, since the page was protected.
2. Closures are supposed to give a short reason. Just saying closed without action doesn’t explain what standard was used or why the case couldn’t stay open a little longer.
3. The closure mentioned my writing “looked AI-generated,” but that’s not what SPI is about. It’s supposed to focus on behavioural or technical connections between accounts, not how someone’s English reads.

What I’d like to know

Was there any actual CheckUser data review, or was it closed purely on behaviour?

If it was only a behavioural assessment, I’d appreciate guidance on whether I can properly refile the request with all the diffs included this time.

I’m not looking to argue — I just want to understand what rule or policy this was based on

(Ps: I know that on the Russian Wikipedia there’s a closed Telegram group where some editors coordinate their actions to promote a certain ideology through Wikipedia. They also organize to attack or defend each other in discussions so it looks more convincing. I’m familiar with how this kind of coordination works — it’s related to my background — but I honestly didn’t expect them to have such deep reach into the English Wikipedia. Gocturk (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You could have used the half-dozen posts you've made about not being able to provide evidence to instead, well, provide evidence. As asilvering has noted, you haven't presented anything beyond "multiple people disagreeing with you."

And yes, LLMs cloud things up as they give you vague text and have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia policies. Especially so when you're accusing someone and the LLM is representing evidence you do not appear to have; that crosses into disruptive editing.

And opening up another discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard even when you already have an active one here is unhelpful, as is saying things like didn’t expect them to have such deep reach into the English Wikipedia. This is English Wikipedia, and there's no interest here in being a battleground for your disputes in another project. And again, your link to ChildrenWillListen's comment had nothing to do with Incall.

I strongly urge you to move on from this unless you have evidence far stronger than anything you've presented. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record: I did not use CU, as there was no grounds to use it. I closed the SPI because there was no credible evidence whatsoever to suggest that Incall was any of the listed people. I could have requested more evidence, but did not, because simply their participation in this thread has made it clear that they are not the same person as 10gok. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit war involving three reverts by the users 10gokk10 and Gocturk. However, since user 10gokk10 is currently blocked, I will provide diffs for Gocturk:
([242], [243], [244], [245]). Second instance of violating the three-revert rule: ([246], [247], [248]). There are also violations of WP:OR and promotion of personal views in these comments: [249], [250]. Here I should note that there is a scholarly consensus that the Khaganate was founded in 693, but he ignores this: [251], and also in several replies on Talk:Göktürks. I’m not very familiar with the topic, but this behavior seems more like disruptive editing. Incall ^talk 08:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, the user doesn’t want to stop [252]. Incall ^talk 08:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just for your information, 10gokk10 turned out to be a sockpuppet(eer) and is currently blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, any chance you want to handle Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Incall while you're at it? -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm 10gokk10 I have only two accounts 10gok10 and 10gokk10. I made 10gokk10 because I can't log into 10gok10 and Wikipedia say we send you verification email but don't send me email. Id you want block my all my accounts block 10gok10 not other poor people that has nothing to this 2A01:5EC0:1801:AA4F:1:0:7D8C:BAC2 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm thanks for the notification, but I'd prefer to let someone else have a look at that (and at the already-placed blocks). Two more eyes won't hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I said it directly to you. You unfairly block accounts that have nothing to do with this.

10gok10 and 10gokk10 are my account ask me in person don't block others account.and for not bothering other users I can give password of accounts. I'm tired of this stupid site with its stupid rules. I answer your question and latter do what you want delete it or block it 2A01:5EC0:1002:13E1:1:0:7F2C:FCC0 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

And remind that you don't even know about 10gok10. I'm person tell that 10gok10 is mine 2A01:5EC0:1002:13E1:1:0:7F2C:FCC0 (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm 10gokk10 I have only two accounts 10gok10 and 10gokk10. I made 10gokk10 because I can't log into 10gok10 and Wikipedia say we send you verification email but don't send me email. Id you want block my all my accounts block 10gok10 not other poor people that has nothing to this 5.112.185.87 (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If you want more explanation, you can ask me here and I answer it. 2A01:5EC0:1000:617D:1:0:7DF2:86D4 (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

When you are blocked, you must not edit with any account or logged out. The block applies to you as a person. If you can't log in because you forgot the password, reset the password and follow this guide. If you cannot log in because your account was globally locked, you can only appeal by emailing the stewards. See this page for more information. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am not calling for any users to be blocked. I simply submitted a request for a review of the involved accounts, and if the checkUser doesn’t confirm any connection, no one be blocked. Gocturk (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate talk page comments left by Worldhisotrylover20

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

---

• What you actually wanted to say: "Hasan Piker is left-wing, and I am left-wing, and so I like him, and so I don't want bad stuff to be written about him" (Wikipedia:ASPERSION)
• "Can you guys stop replying too or to this fool, he’s a HAMAS sympathizer" (Wikipedia:No personal attacks)
• "Leftists be leftists" (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing)
• "I was supporting your statement and support this one, the editors opposing this seem to want to put their agenda over the shock collar abuse and it’s as ridiculous as it is evil." (Wikipedia:ASPERSION)
• "Not a victim just a fat idiot" (referring to an unnamed BLP mentioned in the article)

Keep in mind the user have received a warning against making unconstructive edits by Hipal and both 1316176612 and 1316181380 was made after said warning was received

Could someone please block him from Talk:Hasan Piker since he doesnt seem to understand what kind of comments are considered appropriate in CT talk page discussions.

Regarding his edits to WW2 and historic topics i have no opinion about that--Trade (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know how to respond to this Worldhisotrylover20 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If you wanted to admit the comments were wrong and apologize this would be the appropriate time for it Trade (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m very sorry for being a ass hat, I will stop editing then Worldhisotrylover20 (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't said you shouldnt be allowed to make any edits at all. Just take a step back from the Talk:Hasan Piker page Trade (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• "The blue whatever editor is a member of Wiki project Palestine, definitely not aspersions" (in response when i asked him not to Wikipedia:ASPERSION after his "I was supporting your statement and support this one, the editors opposing this seem to want to put their agenda over the shock collar abuse and it’s as ridiculous as it is evil." comment--Trade (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  As I said before, if I stop editing, can you drop this? Please. Worldhisotrylover20 (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, there is already an ANI case pertaining to another user's battleground edits (who was also involved in the same debate) which Worldhistorylover20 commented on. (edit conflict) Dandykong1 (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't just a "whoopsie, I did a dumb" moment. Those a pretty serious personal attacks - and a pattern of them, to boot. This used to warrant a block or indef. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

 Confirmed to That guy who plays games, a prolific abusive sockpuppeteer. There's also been plenty of WP:LOUTSOCKing going on. Tagged and blocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think this is That guy who plays games? Trade (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Considering Yamla is a CheckUser and is privy to some information we aren't even allowed to guess at, I would take him at his word. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I just presumed there were some behavioral evidence i failed to notice Trade (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Technical data rather than behavioural evidence. I would suggest the behaviour is at least somewhat similar to that of Icaneditalot42, though. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't say what Yamla saw, but on just a cursory glance, I see awkward edits to bridges and early 20th century Germany, and the propensity to quickly apologize in semi-fractured English as soon as they get pushbabck. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Whyiseverythingalreadyused's massive reverts with no explanation or reason stated

This is to report Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his/her massive reverts of my recent edits with no reasonable explanation in the edit summaries or talk pages or anywhere.[253] 203.145.94.15 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 203.145.94.15, you have to alert any editor that you bring a case against on a noticeboard that you have done so. Let them know and provide a link to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Y...ep.[254] 203.145.94.15 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Liz; I already saw it in the list of alerts involving me (the bell thing) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Anyways, this IP is a block evasion tool and has been massively reverting @SigillumVert (I'll call them SV for simplicity's sake for the rest of the message) with an especial interest on declaring Hong Kong and Macau countries without proof other than airline itenaries conveniently considering them countries for simplicity

I'll also hereafter refer to the operator of the IP as the "evader"

So, according to what I've seen, the evader had previously been edit-warring against SV on a different IP: 203.145.94.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

When I first got involved, they were warring on 203.145.94.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which had already been reported to AIV, with the especial interest mentioned in the first para

So I did what was right to me and decided to revert their edits

They subsequently accused SV and me of vandalism to make a point, counter-reporting us both to AIV and taking me to ANI before I could write anything

The evader has used at least two other IPs in their establishment of a point: 58.153.244.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 116.48.206.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You might find this of interest: WP:HKGW. There are almost a hundred IP addresses this guy uses. SigillumVert (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks lol

If you don't mind, what are your pronouns? Mine are he/him Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you can use the {{They}} template to fetch or substitute an editor's pronoun. Northern Moonlight 02:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks lemme test

they Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

To copy-and-paste my own message to Deryck Chan: SigillumVert got a tendency to refer everything to Citobun's HKGW. I don't know why he/she does so and I don't understand how that works but it often ends up in his/her favour. 203.145.94.15 (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

// test test

SV's pronouns: they

//

So, not only are you IP-hopping across HK with the exact same pattern of editing, you haven't mastered the art of respecting pronouns

No one needs a range to be identified with your modus operandi Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use the ANI page for testing. The preview works just fine. Northern Moonlight 02:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

... haven't mastered the art of respecting pronouns That was a copy-and-paste from an older message. 203.145.94.245 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Three quick points to note: First, what was submitted was not just some ... airline itenaries [sic] conveniently considering them countries for simplicity but a whole page of sources other editors had submitted to an old RfC. Second as [255] reflects the edits which Whyiseverythingalreadyused reverted had not been just about what he/she called declaring Hong Kong and Macau countries (e.g., but not limited, the reverts to Judith Mackay,[256] Carrie Lam,[257] and Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict[258] (which SigillumVert reverted[259]), Central and Western District [260]). In the last two cases such reverts involved re-inserting wrong materials (a wrong year, and an extraneous plural "s", respectively). Third I don't know where that sock allegation came from. Whyiseverythingalreadyused never substantiated the claim nor identified any so-called "sockmaster". 203.145.94.15 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Refer to WP:HKGW Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

See above. 203.145.94.15 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

If it is anything of relief, I only said that you had an especial interest in geography-warring

I never said that you were exclusively geography-warring

Any constructive edits you have can be safely disregarded in comparison to your persistent establishment of a nonsensical "point" Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Any constructive edits you have can be safely disregarded ... Thank you. 203.145.94.245 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m afraid the evidence is weak if the only thing in common is describing Hong Kong and Macau as countries, which is a surprisingly popular opinion. It can be WP:HKGW, but you are going to need way more evidence than that. Northern Moonlight 02:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

There is more evidence which I will bring up later, this is not my first time dealing with this. And even it is a popular opinion it is not any less incorrect. SigillumVert (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Per majority

Edit: it may not exactly apply, but the spirit is there; "the majority says so" is not a valid argument on Wikipedia talk pages Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI is not the page for you to debate whether it is incorrect (this is a content dispute), and I don't recall stating otherwise either, so I'm not sure why you tried to convince me. It is popular in the sense that statistically speaking, there's a decent chance it's not HKGW and can be many other people. Northern Moonlight 02:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I know, I know what I am trying to say is that even if he was correct it is still disruptive and IP was banned for a year but there are still multiple IPs editing in the exact same manner the exact same topics. SigillumVert (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI is not the page for you to debate whether it is incorrect (this is a content dispute) ... On whether that'd been (in)correct: To copy-and-paste what was said at AIV ... this is not just another content dispute. What SigillumVert argues, as reflected in his/her edits and edit summaries (he/she rarely if ever brings anything to talk pages on his/her own initiative) is like saying Ceres, Ganymede, Titan, Pluto, Eris, Halley's, etc. aren't solar system objects and don't go round the sun because dwarf planets, satellites and comets aren't planets, and going on to remove them from lists and categories of solar system objects by foo and lists and categories of foo by solar system object. Yes it may be a content dispute but we don't entertain fringe believes this way in article contents or any editorial decisions. Such acts may be characterised as content dispute but we still call them vandalism. 203.145.94.245 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Projection much? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/123.1.232.138

Special:Contributions/124.217.188.211

Special:Contributions/1.36.107.226

Special:Contributions/1.36.107.24

Special:Contributions/223.197.172.246

Special:Contributions/210.3.102.18

Special:Contributions/58.152.55.226

One was blocked then 6 or 7 other sprang up. Exact same topics, exact same reverts and editing style. SigillumVert (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mind giving us diffs instead of a list of IPs? Northern Moonlight 02:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean I would it's just that there are so many. I am not talking about 4–5 diffs, there is somewhere in the range of 50 over a period of several months. Even these are not all of the IPs, look I found another one Special:Contributions/124.217.189.5 SigillumVert (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You don’t need to list all of them. You just need a few (or even one), and preferably from OP since they are the one in dispute, that can correlate to HKGW's behavior beyond the country part. I asked because this IP is unusually active on talk pages unlike the other IPs. (Edit: also doesn't fit into refusal to engage in dispute resolution with WP:IDHT-type behaviour pattern).

Here I did it for you: [261] corresponds to #7 of the habitual behavior section. Northern Moonlight 02:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if here's where we are to start with..., the whole HKGW page is like piecing arbitrarily together whole bunches of Hong Kong IP addresses without much in common. It lays no foundation for Whyiseverythingalreadyused to revert recent edits indiscriminately to the extent that wrong things were reinserted to articles (as pointed out above). 203.145.94.245 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just IP-block the entirety of HK already Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. 203.145.94.245 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@203.145.94.245: Okay, hold on—are you maintaining that those other IPs are not you and that you are not the LTA you are accused of being? What do you mean by "Even if here's where we are to start with"? Everyone in this discussion needs to remember that bans apply to all editing, good or bad.

Whyiseverythingalreadyused is not reverting your edits indiscriminately for no reason; he's reverting your edits because he believes you're an LTA. If you are the LTA, then it doesn't matter if your edits are well-intentioned or productive—you're site banned and your edits are supposed to be reverted indiscriminately. For that reason, I assume your defence is still that you're not the LTA. Yue🌙 20:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse. The charge aren't laid with evidence before I was asked to defend myself. Whatever the case I am not an LTA; and people who go on BMB are the one who got the responsibility to put forward evidence to justify their actions. 203.145.94.185 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no more Wikipedia:AGF to assume of this evader after all this denial of identity Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting here for other admins reading that a ton of IPs are hitting the filter with attempted edits see WP:AIV/TB2 to this noticeboard, WP:AIV itself, and the articles. Mfield (Oi!) 03:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

See Daniel Quinlan's remarks at /TB2. 203.145.94.245 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

[262] (a run of the evader's latest revived IP)

[263] (a run of 203.145.94.15)

[264] (a run of 203.145.94.43) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is one [265] that corresponds to edit warring with @Citobun. With Citobun being less active in recent times, it appears I have become the new target of IP's disruption. Just look at the page editing history. [266]

One IP after another. Blocked, then changes IP and blocked again.

[267]

Special:Contributions/119.237.212.104

whom first started disrupting a whole year ago [268] changed to

Special:Contributions/116.92.226.237 blocked

changed to

Special:Contributions/123.1.232.138 blocked

changed to

Special:Contributions/58.153.244.214 who is now harassing me and other editors and generally engaged in disruptive behaviour.

Special:Contributions/124.217.189.5 exact same reverts to exact same articles.

Special:Contributions/116.48.206.164 also editing [269] corresponding to WP:HKGW

Persistently adding long-abolished, obscure administrative units [270] corresponding to WP:HKGW

Special:Contributions/218.188.76.14

Special:Contributions/124.217.188.211 Persistently adding obscure and abolished administrative units and edit warring over it. [271]

You have to understand it is hard to find all examples but if you just sort through my contributions just by looking at IP reverts I guarantee you will find the same exact combative editing style and general disruption. This is textbook WP:HOUNDING! Not to mention the information added or reverted is more often than not either uncited or just flat out wrong.

The only permanent solution for this would be to set up a task force that will page protect HK and Macau articles in case his or hers IPs start disrupting articles or hounding users. SigillumVert (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The diffs only serve to unveil that Citobun and SigillumVert have been similarly disruptive by reinserting errors or outdated information into articles (like calling an abolished constituency, i.e. Lok Tsui, an existing one,[272] and so on and so forth), and that there are surprisingly many anonymous editors from the territory who are working hard to defy them. A closer look at HKGW would reveal the list has been their vehicle to justify their disruptions to Wikipedia by falsely portraying people editing from the territory without registered accounts in defiance of them as unconstructive. The edits involved have never been just about the territory's geography but much much wider (the last few diffs SigillumVert submitted even included an Olympic medallist,[273] Vietnam[274] and Macau[275][276]), and the IP addresses reported are so extensive that they include almost all major ISPs from the territory. All these factors combined would make it questionable if they claim all these edits are made by only one or a few users. I am not sure whether the two of them are working together or what, but some of SigillumVert's edits are strikingly similar to what Instantnood (who's mentioned in HKGW) was charged in the ArbCom for pushing: the differentiation of China and Mainland China, and that the SARs are part of the PRC.[277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287] 203.145.95.230 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to accuse me of being Instantnood's sockpuppet? And hence imply that I'm HKGW? I don't know if I should laugh or cry. This is beyond absurdity.

This qualifies as Habitual behaviour #8: Adopts multiple personalities in discussions through IP-hopping. SigillumVert (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It's also casting completely unfounded and frankly ridiculous WP:ASPERSIONS. SigillumVert (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@SigillumVert: ... again. ... whom first started ... Thank you for bringing up revision 1061715602 (I am referencing a wider diff, across a week, than just 1061715602, in the wikilink, for a fuller picture) in your submission. Land lot numbers are something the average Joe here may come across on and off occasionally and I didn't know before you brought up this old message and I finally got time to go through it (from among the large number of diffs you submitted) that they are still frequently mentioned in the press. Every piece of land got a lot number or several lot numbers. They are important in land management and the study of the developmental history in this territory. As for the old toponyms they are something you may still hear from older people. These old places names are still useful when you have to, say, get off a red minibus or to know the destinations or the routeings of red minibuses from the signs on or above their windscreens, for instance, Daimaru or Ngo Keng. Some, like New Kowloon, are still relevant if one owns real estate properties and gotta pay rates and government rent, or got to look up statistics from census data perhaps way into the 1980s. They are akin to post towns or ceremonial counties in England, or post office delivery areas in Ontario Canada, which are (still) featured in Wikipedia infoboxes. And they are certainly within the memories of the living native inhabitants. They aren't something from centuries ago (that no one alive got any direct memory). They're certainly not, as what you may call, "obscure", or "trivial" – they certainly got a place on Wikipedia. After all Wikipedia isn't just for younger people who have yet to have got the experience of dealing with matters like, for instance, paying government rates. (@LuciferianThomas, HenryLi, WhisperToMe, and Underwaterbuffalo; randomly pinging some Wikipedians from the territory who are known to be relatively active, like what you did at the talk page of the list of supermarket chains.) 203.145.94.24 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

[288] Needlessly snide remarks over a typo that I eventually corrected. Habitual behaviour #7

[289] Edit warring and including territories that not countries as countries along with obscure, long unused names. Habitual behaviours #1 and #5

This article's edit history is particularly illustrative because of how well it showcases the IP hopping and WP:IDHT.

[290] Here we have 5 IP's trying to brute force their contentious (and in my view blatantly false) categorisation of law enforcement as non-civilians while eschewing any kind of dispute resolution, consensus building and generally totally disregarding WP:BRD. The only use of the talk page is not to try and resolve this through level-headed argumentation or basic civility, but to accuse me of vandalism. This sockmaster, even if we disregard his past as HKGW, is displaying classic projection of his own disruptive behaviour onto others just as he is doing here now. He is the one who started mass reverting edits to make his own WP:POINT, he is the one with a history of LTA, not @Whyiseverythingalreadyused, not @Citobun or anyone else. SigillumVert (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

[291] this RfC is also of interest due to what appears to be WP:GAMING. A slew of HKGWs IPs was attempting to manipulate an RfC discussion through IP-hopping (habitual behaviour #8 per WP:HKGW). The IPs

Special:Contributions/116.48.236.111 1

Special:Contributions/219.77.112.204 2

Special:Contributions/219.76.15.10 3 not to mention using a 40 year old source to claim Hong Kong is not part of China which is like claiming Gdansk is not part of Poland based on a 1930s atlas.

Special:Contributions/1.64.47.48 4

Special:Contributions/219.76.18.78 5

exhibit the same trademark topics and similar editing style. At the present moment, IP brought this RfC up themselves to back up his/hers argument diff.

TL;DR HKGW creates a RfC, attempts to manipulate it through IP-hopping sockpuppetry, and then references it to back up further disruptive editing. SigillumVert (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

... which is a surprisingly popular opinion ... May I know what's so surprising? 203.145.94.245 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer)

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

---

• Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Sun is reporting that Watkins, who was serving a 29-year sentence for multiple severe sexual offences, has been killed by another inmate in Wakefield Prison. [292]

I'm currently waiting for second-source confirmation before updating the article, though I doubt the Sun has this wrong. Meanwhile, given the sensitive subject matter, more eyes on the article, and on the talk page, which is liable to attract forum-type comments, would be appreciated. Some form of protection for either, or both, may prove necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

BBC confirmed [293] -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian also confirmed (link). Narky Blert (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Standoff 2

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

---

Could an admin intervene please at Standoff 2, where there's coordinated vandalism from many IPs and throwaway sock accounts, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive reverting

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

---

Erixcson8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This is a user who has been around for about a month and has gotten told multiple different times to stop no-summary reverting users for non-vandal edits (e.g. [294], [295], [296], [297]). Whenever questioned, they've been evasive or even tried to ask another user's age. Something needs to be done about this. Lynch44 15:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support was in the middle of providing a report against this user too. Here's what I wrote:

Extremely aggressive edit reverts and has been warned in the past. When confronted (both times warned), the user acted extremely strange, giving vague responses and asking weird age-based questions. The user could not provide information or back-up why they performed their specific reverts. I asked User:Lynch44 for a second opinion, and after Lynch44 left a comment mentioning the strange age related questions, User:Erixcson8 immediately removed said questions from their talk page.

LuniZunie 15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 I also just warned them; they seem to be just reverting edits made by IP users without evaluating those edits (hard to tell why they're doing so as they don't use edit summaries). Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologize to all of you and let's stop this questioning, I'll make edits with conclusions! (Erixcson8 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC))

I'd still like administrative intervention on this. At like a quick look over. LuniZunie 17:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting edits made by IP editors simply because these editors do not have accounts. As I just said on your talk page, you are not reverting obvious vandalism or fixing typos. For example, in the time since this was flagged, you reverted an IP edit which correctly fixed a date's format as the article was tagged as "use DMY" in 2020. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok (Erixcson8 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC))

I've blocked Erixcson8 for 31 hours. What really put it over the top was knowing there was a problem, communicating here, yet keeping right at it with the same problematic edits like there wasn't an issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Esolo5002 is acting in bad faith

Esolo5002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly acting in bad faith, I tried communicate with the user using edit notes in two different articles, instead of try to get into a consensus, he straight ignored the edit notes and doubled down while tried to send me a warning

While i admit that, initially, i tried to initially anwsered him back with a bit of stress due his sacastic and arrogant manners, laler, i had decided, for sake of being civil, to explain for him my points and keep debate in a good faith, instead of give in a little and act in a good faith, he instead has decided to use ad hominen with the fact i am ESL. Trying to use it to dismiss everything i had explained in good faith, I tried to explain with more and more details when he asked for more info, but, even witth that, he tried to dismiss it, eventually, he ignored me totally to the point he removed the discussion from his talk page with a edit note saying "enough"

its clear as day that the edittor is not acting fully in good faith and is not intrested on fair debate about the article contencts, even if i ried to seek a third party opinion, he would not accept the debate, no matter how much i explaned and linked sources, he is fixed only in wha he assumes as his own truth

i would be open to debate a way to improve the articles all day nobody is perfect and my objective is make the articles as bettter as i can make them to be, but clearly he is not intrested at all in anything that doesntt mean his sense of truth or how he thinks things should be Meganinja202 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This certainly does not make me look good. As I am sure is obvious, I was unnecessarily sarcastic to this user. This at its core, is a content dispute that was worsened by my own comments. I will happily accept whatever sanctions this board feels is neccessary. I have also reverted the discussion on my talk page so interested users can see the full discussion. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not a admin, so this is just my suggestion: since user adimits he made mistakes, i feel that just warning and some time under probation would suffice enough

i had pinged a mod to seek to resolve this more quickly @Bagumba: Meganinja202 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has admins but no mods. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the above is in the form of a link to a specific revision instead of a diff it's difficult to work what comment is being complained about but I guess it's this [298]. I don't know if that comment is the most constructive but I'm not convinced it was "ad hominen with the fact i am ESL". As for the "enough" thing Esolo5002 is perfectly entitled to do that per WP:OWNTALK. I really have no idea why this discussion which seems to mostly concern article content was taking place on Esolo5002's talk page anyway but if Esolo5002 doesn't want it to continue that's up to them. It doesn't indicate bad faith or an unwillingness to discuss but simply an unwillingness to discuss on their talk page. The obvious solution is simply to not hold discussions like this on an editor talk page but instead to keep content discussions where they belong on article talk pages. That way Esolo5002 doesn't get to decide if they want it to continue, they can either choose to participate or not. If they don't want to participate then they don't get to decide consensus for what the article should say. Simple and doesn't waste the time of ANI for what is at its heart a content dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your response, @Nil Einne

here are the the diffs for first page, clearly you can notice he ignored the edit notes: 1, 2 , 3 , 4 and 5

diffs for second page, this one was the one he complains about sourcing, i was planning update with the sourcing as i had mentioned in his talk page: 1, 2, 3 and 4

you had got the correct diff for the talking page

abou the your feedback, if problems arises again, i will take to the article talk page instead of the editor page, maybe to ping the user as a way to invite user to the ddebate Meganinja202 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Ninsh keeps making inappropriate pages

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

---

Ninsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making pages that are speedy deleted, such as Kubakurungyi Julius, about what seems to be family members, even after multiple warnings. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 20:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. They are either NOTHERE or do not understand how Wikipedia works well enough to edit it. Giraffer (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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

186.124.9.74

186.124.9.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Some edits are OK, some are complete nonsense, e.g. this one, where the IP replaced lots of different links that merely had the same link text by a single link. In many other cases, the IP adds rowspan to non-year columns in filmographies, in violation of WP:FILMOGRAPHY, despite several warnings. The IP never communicates, neither on its own talk page nor any other talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the MOS sets the rules and Wikiprojects, under those rules, may set recommendations. There is no "violation" since WP:FILMOGRAPHY has no authority. MOS:FILMOGRAPHY does have authority, and rowspan is not mentioned there. See WP:ADVICEPAGE: An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

If they're adding rowspan to a preexisting page for no reason other than to change the formatting, then that could be seen as unnecessary and potentially problematic, but not because a wikiproject likes it a certain way. Those link changes are definitely a problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

168.92.254.163

168.92.254.163 (talk · contribs) insists on posting their opinion about the quality of the article without any suggestions, ignoring my warning about WP:TALKNO. Please comment. --Altenmann >talk 01:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Altenmann, you're not a newcomer to ANI, you know you have to provide diffs so that other editors can see what you are complaining about. They can't comment unless you provide some examples. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This accusation was reinserted 3 times. --Altenmann >talk 01:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

What was the point of taking to this ANI? The IP editor made a critique of the article, that is the purpose of a talk page, sure the comment could be more constructive and useful but it doesn't fall under WP:TALKNO. Even if it were a WP:NOTFORUM post why bother to edit-war over it? The comment is harmless and you've caused more disruption to the project by edit-warring over it than simply ignoring it and moving on. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This should result in a {{trout}}y boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Disagreed. In my opinion the comment was harmful garbage. And it is presizely under WP:TALKNO: The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it.. We routinely delete rants of this type from drive-by IPs. Over the history one could have put the "critique" of this type on half of wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 15:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

"Garbage" maybe but what's the harm? It'll save all of us time and effort to just ignore it; if the IP elaborates the comment will either have more substance to respond to or be more clearly an attack to be worth actually reporting. Rusalkii (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a thoughtful suggestion. That's why I came here in the first place: to get an opinion of others, not to be trout-slapped. So from now on my actions will be as follows: (a) revert; (b) if it is a real drive-by rant, then the talk page stays clean (c) if the IP insists, then try to engage in a discussion and see is anything useful emerges. --Altenmann >talk 17:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't come here to be trout-slapped. But when you edit-war over something like this, you get trout-slapped. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Long term, persistent disruption by IP hopper

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

---

There have been frequent attempts over a year to disruptively change "Florentine" to "Italian" on the Niccolo Machiavelli page by an IP hopping user on similar ranges, despite being reverted by countless users including me. This has gone on for well over a year, with absolutely no discussion on the talk page, despite pleas from multiple editors to do so.

Here are some examples:

diff 1 which was reverted-May 2024

diff 2- June 2024

diff 3- july 2024 (no discussion on talk either)

diff 4

diff 5

diff 6 (the user was blocked too for this)

7- Advised to go to talk page, request ignored

8- no talk page discussion

9- couple of minutes ago

All edits from the same ip range.

Is there any way you could prevent this user from editing the page? Thanks. Plasticwonder (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for the page, so this issue should be resolved. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! Plasticwonder (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and possible sockpuppetry by User:RedactedSagan

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

Report: RedactedSagan (talk · contribs) has been engaging in repeated edit warring despite multiple warnings to stop and to discuss the issue on the article’s talk page to reach consensus. The user initially removed an entire section of reliably sourced content without providing an edit summary - simply blanking the material without explanation or providing additional citations or relevant information to balance the section. I reverted the change to restore the article to its last stable version.

After being warned twice, a newly created account, User:Wannabeemoonbee, made a single edit that mirrored the same disputed changes made by User:RedactedSagan. The account was created that same day, raising reasonable suspicion that it may be a sockpuppet used to evade prior warnings.

Despite the warnings and reversion to the article’s last stable version, User:RedactedSagan has continued to engage in an edit war.

Evidence:

• The disputed removals by User:RedactedSagan. [299][300][301]
• The warnings on their talk page - (link).
• The single edit by User:Wannabeemoonbee [302]

Steps taken:

• Warned User:RedactedSagan on their talk page twice
• Invited discussion on the article’s talk page
• Reverted to the last stable version
• Observed continued edit warring and creation of a new account repeating the same edit

Request: Administrative review for edit warring (possible violation of WP:3RR) and potential sockpuppetry (possible violation of WP:SOCK). TimeToFixThis | 🕒 08:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@TimeToFixThis, RedactedSagan has posted twice on the article's talk page about the disputed content, you haven't posted there at all. Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The section in question has repeatedly been blankly deleted by IP editors and new users without edit summaries simply because they don’t like the sourced content it contains. The material is well sourced and provides important context to the article. Although there hasn’t been a formal consensus discussion, the matter has effectively been settled through consistent editorial action - other editors have previously reverted these blank removals and improved the section by adding sources and context. The section has remained stable in this form for some time.

If this user believes it should be removed, the proper way to do that is through an RFC or by gaining consensus on the talk page - not by repeatedly blanking reliably sourced content. It becomes tiring to re-argue the same issue every time a new user removes well-sourced information without providing context, additional citations, or constructive discussion. I have requested an increase protection to this page a time or two for other vandalism to the page but it doesn't ever get implemented.

The current talk page discussion only began after I restored the page to its stable version following what was, in my view, a disruptive and unexplained deletion of sourced material. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 00:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You should stop using LLMs to generate comments (the initial report, this one). That will help avoid absurdities like It becomes tiring to re-argue the same issue for an issue that has never been discussed on the talk-page before (and for an article whose talk-page you have never edited before). Also, aside from the fact that RedactedSagan is obviously correct on the substantive issue as expressed in their edit summary here, per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content so you never should have restored it after the clear objection. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If you suspect socking, WP:SPI is over there. The edit warring isn't great, but you have also engaged in edit warring, and unlike RedactedSagan, you haven't attempted to discuss this on the talk page, nor does it seem like you have actually attempted to discuss with the user at all; posting warning templates is not discussion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 19:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have tried multiple times to engage you in a discussion about this edit. I think there's a compromise position to be had about our disagreement but you have not engaged in the substance at all. I can't compromise with someone who won't talk to me. I also did not create Wannabeemoonbee as a sockpuppet. Looking at their page, this would be a terrible attempt at sockpuppetry. How do we know that you didn't create them as sock to implicate me? So far, all you have done is try to rules lawyer me rather than engage with the substance of what I am saying.

I will admit that my first edit should have had a comment in the edit and not just a talk page note. That was a miss on my part. By I am offended that you continue to call what I am doing vandalism, when I am clearly trying to engage in a good faith discussion. It does appear to me like you are acting in bad faith about this edit. I am willing to talk, I am willing to compromise, I am willing to accept a consensus that my POV is wrong. But please just talk to me about the substance of the disagreement. RedactedSagan (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have opened an RFC to solve the problem of the disputed topic. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 01:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can finally talk this over. I remain disappointed that this was not your first approach to dealing with this disagreement. RedactedSagan (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ZamboniZoomer

ZamboniZoomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in numerous instances of disruptive editing in a short space of time. I did start a discussion on an administrator talk page regarding this, but on further examination, I have been left with no other choice but to make a post here. This is my first AN/I post so please forgive me if I have made any mistakes in how this process works.

ZamboniZoomer has about 400 edits. My brief search from the last 50 or so, exhibited reverts from other editors on their edits, and the one which I performed on the fabricated book reference. They've been warned for:

• adding fabricated references to Pièce montée on Oct 4
• canvassing editors to Divata AfD on Oct 9-10 (also here)
• warned for adding copyrighted material to Datura stramonium on Oct 10
• not adding reliable sources when adding information to Macaron on Oct 11

They have also performed multiple clean-ups on their talk page, meaning I did not see older warnings that had been posted mostly relating to editing, including adding in non-existent sources to articles and adding in copyrighted content. Please see this for evidence of that. They have acknowledged these warnings and notices, but despite this the same problematic edits continue to occur.

Assuming good faith only extends so far, and perhaps they aren't aware that their edits are problematic, however I believe now that this has been ongoing for a bit of time, it is time for these edits to stop.

I will alert ZamboniZoomer on their talk page about this AN/I once I have published this post. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It does seem like they are using AI for some edits. In addition to the hallucinations you mentioned:

• This edit has highly AI-esque prose like These parallels highlight the shared Austronesian and Indic cosmological roots of Philippine divata, while also emphasizing their unique development within local mythologies., and also includes raw markdown.
• In this talk page discussion they dodge the question of whether they used AI. Their comments there seem part AI part not, should be pretty clear which is which.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this. I just want to add for anyone reading that I have no personal positive/negative feelings towards this editor, nor am I trying to advocate for any particular sanction. I just feel that this needs to be addressed. The fabricated reference ("Food and Cultural Studies" by Lars Christensen, ISBN 9788793102507) that was added to Pièce montée, was present for 9 days until I reverted it today. This is very damaging to Wikipedia and undermines the sites credibility. 11WB (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This user was also the creator and primary contributor to Divata which was nominated for AfD but was subsequently tagged for SD under G15, which it definitely qualifies for. Given that article is going to be deleted I'm documenting the reference issues here. Of course, if we were blocking people based on a single (even egregious) G15'd article, this noticeboard would be overwhelmed with cases. But this is relevant when taken together with the evidence above

• Two ISBNs with invalid checksums: ISBN 978-0824820341, ISBN 978-0822310264
• Two references with broken links: [303], [304]
• At the Divata AfD two editors together document one additional non-existant journal reference and three additional non-sensical citations: Special:Diff/1316171929, Special:Diff/1316583823

NicheSports (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This article has just been speedily deleted. As such, I have procedurally closed the AfD. 11WB (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I nominated the Divata article for speedy deletion under {{db-g15}} and it has now gone. Unfortunately that means the talk page has gone too, which is why Gnomingstuff's link is now red. I did read that particular discussion, and, when challenged on another implausible source (as I recall, it was a scholarly article related to zoology, mammals maybe) their reply was along the lines of Well, I've added some other sources now and removed that one. That is not a response that suggests competent, sources-led article creation, but rather a hurried attempt to bolster up an untrustworthy LLM generation. It is particularly pernicious because on the face of it the article did contain some probably decent sources, and the topic may well be notable, but the content as a whole just could not be trusted. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I can concur I did see that discussion also. It did consist of many, many replies from ZZ not dissimilar to bludgeoning. 11WB (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I assume admins are able to view deleted pages such as that one? Not that it matters too much in this case. 11WB (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

For purposes of this discussion, I have temporarily undeleted the article, moved it to draft, and fully protected it and the talk page to preserve its current state. See Draft:Divata. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, "it should be clear" refers to the comment that suddenly busts out the However, it’s important to recognize that there is no single “truth” when it comes to our myths and traditions, as the Philippines is made up of many diverse cultures and histories when the rest of their comments sound very different. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Now that the Divata article is temporarily available in draft space, here are some illustrative diffs to expand on my previous comment:

• 12:20 [305] - four references are removed, three of them implausible (People: January/February 2025 published by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; a scathing book review of Historical Dictionary of the Philippines; a scholarly article The Philippines in 1970: A Difficult Decade Begins). Some new references to dictionaries are added.
• 12:34 [306] - throwaway reply on talk page There i fixed the references. OMG =) sorry for the hassle
• 13:03 [307] - implausible reference to Mammal field catalog removed
• 13:12 [308] - implausible references to Indigenous Natural Enemies of the Malayan Black Bug and Reply on RC2 added

At no point does ZamboniZoomer acknowledge the use of LLMs or explain why they added these implausible references. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for the extra context. I've personally provided all the evidence I think is relevant for this AN/I. Whilst this editor may be editing in good faith, their actual edits have proven to be detrimental to the project. Many warnings and notices have been acknowledged and then blanked from their talk page [309]. It isn't for me to say what action should be taken here, however I would stress that prior warnings (including from admins), have not assisted in changing their editing behaviour. 11WB (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to hear from @ZamboniZoomer, and we may have to wait until tomorrow, as they are most active 09:00-14:00 UTC. Many of the good references in the article were corrections by ZZ once the reference problems were noticed. I didn't see any work correcting text, though, just references, so while the unambiguous evidence of LLM reliance without review was being removed, the actual text needing review was not reviewed, leaving us with the same concerns we would have with a fully unreviewed LLM-produced document. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, just adding a reply here as it's been about 24 hours with no response from the editor. There isn't a consensus for any particular action here and I'm not personally looking for one. Perhaps this can be viewed as a case of keeping a closer eye on their edits? (I don't actually know how AN/I works usually, this part of Wikipedia is completely different to where I usually contribute. Any information is welcomed!) 11WB (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's the situation as I see it:

1. There is some unacceptable use of LLM output that needs to be dealt with, and user hasn't replied yet.
2. Preemptive full block may be excessive, as the user has other good edits and may just need guidance.
3. Some users, faced with an ANI complaint, "play possum" and hope that things will blow over if they just don't do anything while the ANI posting is active.
4. ZZ is intermittently active, so we don't know whether this is playing possum or not, but ZZ is definitely aware of this report and hasn't replied yet.

I'd like to hang in there to see if ZZ replies. If nothing happens, this problem is serious enough and clear enough that we need a reply before ZZ continues editing. Therefore, I'm going to put in place a block on article editing until we receive a satisfactory response. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. Although I would say that they may truly not be aware of this AN/I yet. I personally can't say for sure. 11WB (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they're aware. If they're using AI to generate either talk-page comments or article content, they need to be infeffed immediately for CIR until they clearly articulate (in their own words!) that doing so is completely unacceptable. No competent editor can imagine that AI-generated content has any place on Wikipedia, whether in articles or behind the scenes. EEng 23:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

They've been indeffed from editing articles until they respond here. If they don't, the indef will remain in place. I hope they do respond here, as like rsjaffe said above, some of their edits are not just AI. 11WB (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Haven't been as active on Wikipedia today, however I checked to see if we've heard from ZZ and it doesn't look like we have. I've attempted one more time to convince them to respond here and it'll be the last time I do so. Any more attempts would likely be futile. 11WB (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:VaclavHumanAI

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

---

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

User:VaclavHumanAI, who signed up in September and currently has only made 389 edits, seems to combine a complete inability to grasp the requirement that Wikipedia articles be based around secondary sources, after multiple attempts to explain this (see e.g. [310]) rather than being a platform for the publication of their own (often semi-literate) personal analysis, accompanied by random unexplained digressions (see e.g. the bizarre sentence on Tolkien here: Draft: Ronald Mann and this, um, thing: [311]) with an increasing tendency to accuse anyone who attempts to explain how Wikipedia works of being a part of some bizarre intelligence-agency-led conspiracy against them. (e.g. [312][313][[314]] More of the same available if required, many attempts to discuss anything with this contributor seem to end this way) Given the potential for yet more pointless time-sink not-listening paranoid nonsense, and the self-evident inability to gain a clue about what Wikipedia is for, I would have to suggest that an indefinite WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR block is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Also [315]: are you not scammer at all ? to someone adding a speedy deletion tag to their article. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I got the same 'scammer' comment after draftifying the Ronald Mann article.[316] Just look at my talk page for more fulminations. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Complete timesink. Bye, Felicia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Some actions of some users against myself seems like provocation. My page Ronald Mann - legal scholar, with approx 1 visitor daily was twice moved back to draft. One of approval users - nickname Anachronist is profiled like "engineer in the military field of stealth technology". So group of 5-10 users is regularly making huge critique about such page. However similar benchmark page = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froomkin

is 18 months without any comment

Conclusion - There could be involved some Wiki users with the approval authority connected to the EU intelligence forces (France, Italy, Germany, Sweden and Netherlands) trying to find any proof my contributions are suspicious. If they are not able to find proof, they start to perform bullying actions.

I think at least whole story is some suspicious activity.

The quality of page itself is no more topic and no one of critique alliance is trying to provide any improvements ideas for the page.

Kind Regards

(Redacted), Czech Republic

nickname - VaclavHumanAI VaclavHumanAI (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

In light of the evidence supplied and the above response, indef block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

URGENT REPORT re Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#User_talk:173.242.191.98

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

---

Sorry to be forum-shopping but this is real urgent. Needs page protected or something NOW. Severe ongoing vandalism and likely rev-deletable personal attacks, playing whack-a-mole isn't accomplishing anything. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it was targeted at me, i have revoked TP access and deleted the talk page as it had no other content. Mfield (Oi!) 21:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Theofunny

I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this request but we need a copyright investigation into edits by User:Theofunny, who as far as I can tell, has been adding WP:CLOP to hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles since late 2024, and does not appear to understand how to contribute to Wikipedia. Towards this end, I would ask that a moratorium or block be imposed on the user until they acknowledge that they can't make edits like this: [317][318] User was previously warned about copyright and close paraphrasing multiple times by admins and users alike in August and September.[319][320] There has been no change in behavior. It is now the middle of October. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Original text: Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, warned that Democrats may already be nearing the limits of how far left they can lean without alienating the broader electorate. “They reached it during Biden,” Sabato says. “And they certainly reach it if they try and parallel what Bernie or AOC are doing—or now Mamdani. That doesn’t fit most districts. It doesn’t fit most states.”

My addition: Sabato has expressed concern regarding the Democratic Party's ideological trajectory. According to him, the party may be approaching the limits of how far left it can shift without alienating a significant portion of the broader electorate. He argues that this threshold was already reached during the Biden administration and warned that efforts to further align with progressive figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or New York State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani may be politically untenable in many districts and states across the country.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I would like to sincerely apologize for the issues related to close paraphrasing and copyright violations in some of my contributions, including the example cited above regarding Larry Sabato.

I now recognize that lines such as:

“According to him, the party may be approaching the limits of how far left it can shift without alienating a significant portion of the broader electorate.”

are too close to the original source in both structure and wording and constitute a violation of Wikipedia's policies on copyright and close paraphrasing (WP:CLOP). I also closely paraphrased a line for her defense of accusation in the Esther Panitch article.

While I have tried to contribute in good faith and strongly believe that I have not violated copyright in most of my edits, I recognize that I have done so more than I should have, and I take full responsibility for that. I understand now that close paraphrasing, even if unintentionally done or done with the goal of maintaining factual accuracy, is still not acceptable under Wikipedia’s policies.

To remedy this, I will take the following steps:

1. Stop editing articles until I've completed a thorough review of WP:CLOP, WP:PARAPHRASE, and WP:PLAGIARISM.
2. Self-review my past edits for potential copyright violations and revise or remove problematic content.
3. Seek feedback from my assigned mentor before making major additions or content expansions in articles related to living persons or political topics.

If a temporary editing restriction or moratorium is deemed necessary, I will accept it as a consequence of these missteps. Again, I regret the disruption this may have caused and apologize to the community and also seek to improve as an editor. Theofunny (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The first link was even worse. The Forward wrote "She also defended the bill against accusations that it could be used to stifle criticism of Israel".[321] On Wikipedia, you added She defended the bill against accusations that it could be used to stifle criticism of Israel.[322] I don't understand why you are still doing this after the problem was explained to you in August and September. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I missed that and edited my reply to acknowledge it just before you responded. I'm really sorry, and I will accept the consequences. I was very careless and edited those pages in a hurry. I want to repeat that I don't do this purposely. Theofunny (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I will stop adding new content for a certain period of time and will use this account to review my previous edits for any copyright violations and to revert vandalism as well to figure out paraphrasing better on my sandbox with input from other editors. Theofunny (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be helpful. There's an anonymous teacher on Reddit who gave this great advice: Look at the sentence you want to paraphrase. Read it. Close your eyes and think about what it means - what is the author trying to convey? Read it again if you need to. Then, close the text and put it somewhere where you can't look at it. Wait for a couple of minutes. Write down what you think the author intended to say. The couple of minutes is the key here - it's long enough for you to forget the original wording, and need to rely on your own words to express the ideas of the original. Once you've done that, double check to make sure it isn't too similar to the original. This is basically the approach I use. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I feel that this is genuinely helpful advice and may be the panacea to my repeated shortcomings in this area. I can imagine how that extra pause could make a big difference in avoiding close paraphrasing. I've clearly fallen short in not violating copyright repeatedly, and I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused.

I just want to say that I like Wikipedia and want to help make it better. I'm here to contribute in a meaningful way but I know good intentions aren't enough. I'm taking this seriously and I have also worked to improve my behavior in other areas since I first joined but it's evident that I've not improved in avoiding copyviolations. Theofunny (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Theofunny, you seem contrite here, but you were just warned about similar behavior by @GorillaWarfare: at Talk:Graham Platner#LLM and then evidently went right back to doing the same thing. How can the community trust your word on this? Marquardtika (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Large language models#Usage, and in particular WP:LLMDISCLOSE, which you did not do.

As GorillaWarfare said that I need to disclose usage, I disclosed it but I copyviolated. Theofunny (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That discussion was about LLM usage and 2 BLP violations not copyright claims. Theofunny (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That leaves me more concerned rather than less concerned. So you have used LLM without disclosure, committed copyright violations, and made BLP violations. These are all problems. Your edits at Josh Gottheimer had to be revision deleted due to copyvio, as did your edits at Angie Craig (both by @Diannaa:). After multiple issues with copyright violations, it looks like you took to using LLMs in an attempt to avoid copyright issues, but that has caused new issues, such as fabricated quotes at Graham Platner. Marquardtika (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Viridtas already noted those warnings and I already replied in detail. As you can see in my editing history after Viridtas' warning, I have not added any new content, have stopped using LLMs and am checking my old edits. Theofunny (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

These socks have been harassing me all over Wikimedia

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

---

DiscoveryTeenHD and all of his/her socks are at it again. This time he/she thought it would be funny to harass me at commons, I recently removed his/her message, and want the talk page deleted because I didn't want it there to begin with, can someone please protect User talk:98.235.155.81 all over Wikimedia because of this. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I also reported this at meta.wikimedia.org with a temporary account, shame the request won't be accepted as this is urgent :O. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:An undesired fidelity, creating articles with undeclared LLM usage, likely suspected sockpuppet

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

---

An undesired fidelity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User appears to be a sockpuppet of Socrynpinfeb, a person who was operating a sockfarm recently to promote the works of the artist Rhonda Roland Shearer and associated groups (a relatively niche subject area).[323] I have reported them and IPs making similar edits at SPI initially which came back as possible after CU check with the IPs already blocked.[324]

In the last few days they have created several articles of moderate length with absurd speed (sometimes within minutes of each other[325][326][327]) and multiple ones of them show obvious signs of LLM usage such as dead links aplenty in the awards section of this article[328] and that weird formatting tendency that just scattershots cites around punctuation with no consistency as well as duplicating them.[329]

Bringing it here without previous discussion with the user given the suspected block evasion and LLM-usage, and the likelihood for continued disruption due to the backlog at SPI. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

hi, I don't know how wikipedia would be able to reference any of this content without somehow "promoting" shearer because if you go through the references used in the pages I've edited, Shearer was already listed in the references, but the object data relative to the subjects at hand is inconsistent. Sorry about the LLM usage, I thought I was doing a better job checking after using to organize refs, but I don't think I've been blocked before. An undesired fidelity (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@An undesired fidelity can I ask, did you use an LLM to create the article on IMediaEthics? Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the sources from the table were pulled from the imediaethics.org website. The only thing I've used LLMs for is to format markdown and to format citations to make automatic citing easier. An undesired fidelity (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.imediaethics.org/about-us

^ they are from here An undesired fidelity (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so you are admitting to some LLM usage but are claiming that you have come up with the article yourself and are not the same user very recently blocked in relation to sockpuppet usage to do with editing or creating articles related to Shearer.

So what I find very odd to make sense of is why this new LLM "article" you've created on IMediaEthics[330] so closely matches an LLM article created two months ago by the blocked user Socrynpinfeb[331] and in fact your editing history is very similar to theirs across the board.[332]

It's a hell of a coincidence. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I sent IMediaEthics to AFD as blatant LLM hoohah. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

imedia.com content came from its website. Relevant to benazir bhutto page which is also being brought up to good article standards. It's easy to see why using an LLM to author or generate content would be in bad faith, but I didn't think using an LLM to do things on wikipedia that bots already do (like clean up references or fix formatting) was bad faith editing. My imedia.com was not heavily LLM formatted other than to figure out how to list awards in markdown. I imagine multiple new editors will be stepping in to work on this content from institutions across the board over the coming months as part of a series of events/exhibitions around duchamp, man ray, also from auction houses and collectors trying to reinforce the expensive aura around the objects. Shearer's page was brought to current version by pulling in article content from revisions that were more recent than the 2017 version that the infobox dated back from. i am not contributing as part of a commercial effort nor have i been asked to do so by any of the subjects I've been editing, from brooke shields to geert lovink, but I am a student so it would suck if I couldn't turn these edits in for course credit because you guys deleted them. The bright side of that would be that I'm glad wikipedia isn't overrun by slop because of strong oversight. An undesired fidelity (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist for you to introduce sloppy LLM text so you can earn course credit(WP:NOTHERE). And you are clearly using LLMs far beyond what you're admitting to here. Just look at this edit here where you've clearly used an LLM to try and write about Stephen Jay Gould and his relationship to Shearer where the LLM broke and just kept trying to generate the same sentence over and over:

In his later years, Gould developed an interest in the work of French artist Marcel Duchamp, particularly Duchamp’s use of optics and perception in his readymades. With artist and journalist Rhonda Roland Shearer, Gould examined the idea that Duchamp’s artistic experiments related to scientific approaches to vision and representation. Their collaboration contributed to scholarship that questioned whether Duchamp’s readymades were entirely “found objects” or intentionally crafted visual experiments.In his later years, Gould developed an interest in the work of French artist Marcel Duchamp, particularly Duchamp’s use of optics and perception in his readymades. Gould and Shearer examined the idea that Duchamp’s artistic experiments related to scientific approaches to vision and representation. Accounts of his late career note Gould’s continued interest in connections between science and broader cultural domains. In his later years, Gould developed an interest in the work of French artist Marcel Duchamp, particularly Duchamp’s use of optics and perception in his readymades. Gould and Shearer examined the idea that Duchamp’s artistic experiments related to scientific approaches to vision and representation. Contemporary accounts of Gould’s career described him as a scientist whose work often extended into broader cultural and intellectual domains.[333] Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

My edit 00:25, 30 September 2025 reads " →Later career and collaborations: Cleaned up crazy repeated text in this segment, shortened segment title" are you telling me I added that text or failed to delete it or that I did not flag it as soon as I noticed it weeks ago? An undesired fidelity (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

it looks more like a human copypaste error / failed attempt to merge content from diff pages or sources into this article An undesired fidelity (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:BULLSHIT. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph has obviously been copypasted 3 times by accident whereas an LLM would return much more text if it were in loop. The error was also fixed immediately. This is the blunder of the person who reverted the edit, not me. An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's a single edit you posted, you can't blame it on anyone else.

If you want another example this is part of the text as it currently stands at the article Spiritual America, which is already just one big "LLM" red flag, that goes like this:

Schulman notes the legal risk climate and the project’s intentionally private staging in the catalogue that situates Spiritual America within the heyday of the Lower East Side art scene, and an oral history provided by Fine in 2022 revisited a crowded opening, a price of US$150 for the print, and no sales at the time.

Now either you're re-running the text over and over through an LLM and it's breaking more and more with each repetition hence the disaster of a cite list, or you're genuinely trying to manually copy-edit it later to hide the LLM nature of the core text and making it worse. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think if you look at the sources on that article that you'll find the difficulty is that it's mostly an oral history with "official" accounts having been provided mainly by auction houses trying to maintain a high price value for the eponymous photograph. I wrote that sentence to try and neutralize what risked reading as two competing accounts. An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

and you're free to change it to make it sound more human An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not buying it. That article is filled with cite odd cite repetitions throughout and this sentence where it duplicates the same three cites like that is odd.

You've also still failed to answer other issues such as how you wrote and submitted this article at 19:41UTC on October 11[334] and then six minutes later wrote this article[335] which you've partially admitted was LLM but I believe you're still failing to disclose your actual reliance on it.

I believe all of your "contributions" here are overwhelmingly done via LLMs and then at best you're undertaking slight manual copy-edits to try and make them appear written by a human when they're clearly not. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I write the articles in a code editor and pushed them at a time other than when they were drafted An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_(Trébuchet) compiles official references for an artifact that you won't find a consistent description of. It was an experiment as to how representing metadata about a sculpture about metadata could be better than repeating why this art is good because Duchamp went shopping. You don't need an LLM for that and this page needs work because in order to write it as something other than institutional hearsay you have to comb through those websites and sources and find out which one references a photograph vs a coatrack duchamp nailed to the floor in which the hooks seem to be much larger than the hooks of the coatrack you can search for on ebay as the one supposedly available in 1916. An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I can tell you in detail what's going on in all of these pages, the rationale that would lead to any errors and the basis for the facts included. which doesn't speak to someone who is lazy about llm uses: none of the reference errors you've pointed to came from an LLM, because I linked you to their exact source on the website I got them from, in the order listed. I've also linked you to where I fixed the typos you're accusing me of not having seen due to LLM use and given you insight as to what I was thinking when I made the contributions I made. If I was using an LLM to create pages, it doesn't make sense I'd be so thorough about knowing what *exactly* is in my contribution record and where it came from. An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There is not a rule against using LLMs to organize data given how much automatic citation on wikipedia sucks. There is a rule about using LLMs to generate content which I have NOT done. An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle_Rack why does this page look like it was written by a human? An undesired fidelity (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

please review https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Jay_Gould&oldid=1314152020. The crazy text was removed 3 weeks ago with a comment that I was doing that immediately after the addition, which took place in the context of restructuring, not editing. An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

unrelated to the discussion part of this discussion, what happened for all three citations to be repeated here? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@An undesired fidelity: Wikipedia is not a place to earn course credit. Still, if someone's forcing you to edit Wikipedia for credit and you're using LLMs to do that, you're committing academic dishonesty. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why would I be in a program that would force me to do anything? These are fairly common mistakes made by humans who write with 16 tabs open An undesired fidelity (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen: How do you know you're committing academic dishonesty? An assignment could either allow or require the use of an LLM. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

then it would be deemed unfit for wikipedia consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Really? Is there a policy that explicitly forbids LLM use? I thought they were allowed as long as the user corrects any mistakes the LLM may make before submitting the output to Wikipedia. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's that kind of program An undesired fidelity (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Jay_Gould&oldid=1314152020 removes the repeated text. This was not the work of an LLM. An undesired fidelity (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

OK hold the damn phone. LLMs do not "break and just keep trying to generate the same sentence over and over," outside of weird and obvious bugs that do not usually look like this. They also aren't likely to generate the exact same text three times -- that's the kind of consistency LLMs are bad at, notoriously. This is very obviously a copy-paste error. For fuck's sake.

As for the articles themselves, they do read like text that has been cleaned up or possibly generated by modern LLMs (maybe GPT-5 or Claude?). But it doesn't include any of the common signs of unreviewed AI slop, so either the editor is doing cleanup or newer chatbots are getting better at not generating that. More importantly, I don't know why we're trying to litigate whether they used AI when they already disclosed it.

I don't have any comment on the sockpuppet stuff. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I've gotten sockpuppet notices before editing from campuses or some locations in manhattan but I have never been blocked. I have participated in wikipedia edit-a-thons on and off since 2014, mostly around women on wikipedia, but I don't maintain a significant presence here. My last word on this is that I did not use an LLM to generate content. My use of LLMs is strictly to edit markdown and to normalize citations for Wikipedia due to wikipedias automated citations returning a lot of errors. These articles have been written over a longer period of time than it took to publish them and I work on many pages at a time because they incorporate the same sources, people or appropriation art practices. If you point to any edit I've made I can recall it and give you the reason behind my thinking. An undesired fidelity (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I believe you. The "LLM red flags" above are either bullshit or things related to the refs which you have already disclosed. For instance if you indeed took some of the awards source URLs from imediaethics.org that checks out because their links are broken too.

(There are some phrasings that do sort of seem like AI stuff but they're not any of the ones mentioned above, and I don't really think there's much point going into them.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. An undesired fidelity (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff the thing is it's not exactly the same sentence three times. It's very similar but slightly different sentences each time.

For instance one version ends with "Accounts of his late career note Gould’s continued interest in connections between science and broader cultural domains" but then the second instead reads "Contemporary accounts of Gould’s career described him as a scientist whose work often extended into broader cultural and intellectual domains."

As a result it feels like they asked an LLM to generate a concluding sentence/paragraph about Stephen Gould, the LLM wrote either multiple answers or errored and it generated a blob of text which is just almost exact repetition of itself, and then they inserted it without reading it.

As you say it does certainly read like an LLM is being used to generate or clean up text, which does go beyond what they've partially disclosed that they only used LLMs to do reference markdown. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There are also examples of flowery language (not repeated in the source) elsewhere such as:

The work is frequently cited as a paradigmatic Dada intervention using appropriation and linguistic play, and it has circulated widely through authorized replicas and printed multiples since the 1960s. at L.H.O.O.Q. which isn't reflected in the source.

Prince claims he decided to open his own gallery and that he "hired a woman to beard the place" after Metro Pictures dropped Prince from its rosters over the eponymous photograph. at Spiritual America which also doesn't appear reflected in the source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When I told them my idea… one photo… (I don’t think I showed them the photo)… they passed and it was time for me to leave. An undesired fidelity (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Again: you are poisoning the well because the language on these pages is flowery to begin with. An undesired fidelity (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

References

It's not a matter for en, but in case someone on commons who can do something about this is reading: Commons:Special:Contributions/An_undesired_fidelity has a large number of uploaded images of artworks in the collection of the Art Science Research Laboratory in New York, labeled dubiously as having An undesired fidelity as their copyright holder. Presumably permission of the actual artists would be needed for these to be validly licensed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

A creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License applies uniformly to all contributions by all authors and can cover more than one copyright. Where authors quote other sources they do so within the terms of fair use or other compatible terms, but I'm confused as to how the readymades of Marcel Duchamp can be considered copyrightable in the first place seeing as how a condition for copyright is that original works are a) in a fixed form and b) original works An undesired fidelity (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that if there are multiple copyright holders of a work, it's highly problematic to simply present it as your own work, as these copyright holders will need to listed as well. More significantly, more evidence is required that these copyright holders have agreed to licence their copyright under the appropriate licence than an editor's say so. I haven't uploaded anything to Commons for ages, but I'm fairly sure if you use a proper licence rather than falsely claiming something is only your own work you'd be better informed of the requirement for permission from these other copyright holders. Also while I won't say much since it gets too much into an area I'm unfamiliar with & is ultimately something for commons, to my mind some of these works seem sufficiently "in fixed form" and "original works" to potentially qualify for copyright. (Freedom of panorama and other issues could come into play then.) Perhaps more significantly, it seems to me there is an inherent contradiction between saying something akin to 'other copyright holders agreed to licence their copyright under CC BY-SA 4.0' and 'they have no copyright'. At a minimum if others have agreed to licence their copyright they must think they have or might have something to licence otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to something which makes no sense. Nor does it seem likely someone would have sought and received permission if there was no other copyright. (In fact, I also find it a little weird someone would go through the effort to ensure other copyright holders agreed to CC BY-SA 4.0 but then not actually present any signs of it when uploading.) Now these creators could be wrong on having any copyright, and it's largely moot if they did indeed agree and sufficient evidence of this is presented, but I think it's reasonable for people at commons to ask why there seems to be this contradiction in defences. I'd note that pages like Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright exist to help those who want to contribute productively but are uncertain about copyright issues e.g. if there isn't sufficient evidence of permission but it's believed there is no other copyright. I'm fairly sure they'd much prefer contributors ask so they can ensure there are no problems even if it's simply a matter of applying the correct tags or adding other info to note copyright & licence, or the absence of copyright, rather than for someone else needing to find issues and ask for corrections. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right, but first I need you to click on all squares with Hat Racks. An undesired fidelity (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the existing queries and the now brought up errors around copyright, the user has started adding rather odd maintenance tags to articles about art works, in particular tagging several of them with tags about them being fictional[336][337][338] as well as posting a long list of external references at an AFD discussion to I guess list every example of a publication being linked to at Wikipedia.[339]

To me this just further cements my suspicion they're creating articles almost entirely via LLMs which they're still claiming isn't the case, because it's hard to reconcile the apparent "competence" in the construction of article main text which is cited and uses a high-level of English (though reads like an LLM and due to the speed of creation is hard to ascribe to a human) yet their attempts to undertake associated actions that can't be done for you by an LLM are so error-prone and obviously wrong. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you're hallucinating and the article quality of many of these pages has been brought up. Most had bulky paragraphs of unsourced content and were swamped in conceptual analysis or original research.

I've yet to see anyone hear deal with what is actually going on with this content. As to how to handle the problem of artifacts museums claim are industrial prototypes despite my not being able to find any example of them on, say, ebay, to me sounds like a fictional universe at play. There are contradictions in the articles, that I've tagged here, that confuse fiction and non-fiction. Since when is the "surrealist dictionary" an authority on terminology?

I don't need to remind you that the typos had been reversed immediately by me prior to having been reverted back into the article by someone else. Please point to a motive. If you look at pages that link to Shearer, I've edited less than 4% of them, so clearly the canvassing has already occurred; moreover, seeing as how this new sourced content doesn't refer back to an institution with a commercial motive, I'm confused as to who you think this is benefiting other than the people who use these pages as a resource. An undesired fidelity (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I've also crawled through the edit history on Shearer's page and have yet to find evidence of bad faith edits, just inexperience and a lot of gaslighting and stonewalling An undesired fidelity (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As to how to handle the problem of artifacts museums claim are industrial prototypes despite my not being able to find any example of them on, say, ebay, to me sounds like a fictional universe at play.

I'm sorry, you're justifying tagging these articles as containing fictional elements/are written as though fictional because... you couldn't find something about them on eBay...

That in absolutely zero way justifies the tags. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/73661/hat-rack does this look like something you can buy at a store? An undesired fidelity (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If this object is so non-fictional, then why would the museum have to say "object information is a work in progress and may be updated as new research findings emerge. To help improve this record, please email collections@artic.edu. Information about image downloads and licensing is available here." An undesired fidelity (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That's just a standard disclaimer... this is into the realms of the absurd now. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

as in dada?? An undesired fidelity (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop poisoning the well An undesired fidelity (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You should not leave fake barnstars to criticise someone that is not Wikipedia:Civility. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

By the by, leaving fake barnstars on my talkpage with edit summaries taking a pop at me are not a good idea.[340] Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you know it's a fake barnstar? I value the realms of the absurd. You earned it. An undesired fidelity (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Instead of this snarky attitude of "oh, I don't know what you mean by that" in relation to fake barnstars you've sent me, I suggest it would be more useful for you to come up with some explanation of why you appear to be uploading images that violate copyright without an acceptable rationale. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of counterfeiting barnstars?? An undesired fidelity (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You can drop the wounded indignation act right now, along with your "poisoning the well" mantra; no one here is amused. This is not a good look. Dropping spurious barnstars and then falling back on variations of "Canchu take a joke?" is poisoning your own damn well. Ravenswing 19:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

"And watch that lip, young man!" An undesired fidelity (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@An undesired fidelity: The sarcasm and snark are not helping your case a whit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I, for one, am amused. 216.126.35.228 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Break to discuss further issues around probable Copyright violations

Moving beyond the previously discussed LLM usage for now, after concerns raised above I've looked into some of the images they've uploaded and they look to be copying them from results online and declaring them to be copyright free without evidence (and likely against evidence). Examples include this image[341] which is clearly a screenshot from this video (as you can still see the watermark)[342] and not "fed.wiki" as they claim, or this photo of Rhonda Roland Shearer[343] which they just source to "Wikipedia mirror" and claim is a free image but looks to be from other websites entirely with no clear copyright controls (example[344]). Given how many images they're uploading and using in their articles, this could be a more serious issues than the others thus far. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Where I've quote other sources I've done so within the terms of fair use, as doubtless the image used, here, in Bottle Rack - please explain to me how this work could possibly have a copyright applied to it. but you're free to remove any of them to replace them. You can hardly accuse me of being covert.

I will try to get some form of arbitration involved should you not be able to come up with a motive to satisfy your concerns. My edits have been messy but they're not disruptive or aggressive and I have made improvements that are significant with room for further improvements to come later. An undesired fidelity (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There's no rule to what pages I can edit or how many I can edit at a time. Maybe you should ask chatGPT what a Hat Rack looks like and see which one of you is human ;) An undesired fidelity (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Photographed in 1915, replicated in 1964 (Schwarz edition), 1997 (ASRL edition)

Given that patents have to be original and copyright applies to IP in fixed form, it makes sense a photo of Fountain taken by Alfred Stieglitz would be copyrighted by Succession Duchamp or Artist's Rights Society. It does not make sense that "an ordinary piece of plumbing" could exist under a copyright-- if Fountain is, indeed, an "ordinary piece of plumbing"-- and especially if this is a work of appropriation art attributed to Duchamp as theft. Your vendetta against Shearer's scholarship would suggest that it is indeed an everyday toilet (that is what our consensus maintains) -- so, would the copyright belong to the plumbing manufacturer? Either way, the object on view in multiple museum collections is a replica produced under Duchamp's supervision by Arturo Schwarz. There is no violation of copyright in my taking a cell phone photo of a toilet on view in the public domain, a toilet that was obviously not manufactured by an individual, and elevating it to an artist's act of choice. Its comparison with the actually copyrighted Stieglitz image currently used in the eponymous article would not meet standards for neutrality if the article did not actually depict an ordinary piece of plumbing -- either for comparison, or by definition. An undesired fidelity (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Where I've quote other sources I've done so within the terms of fair use - You can hardly accuse me of being covert.

The example you've chosen to be judged against was uploaded by someone in 2018 who has correctly sourced and explained why the sculpture itself is not subject to copyright and have granted their photograph of it an appropriate licence to allow it to be used.

What you appear to have done is gone on someone's social media, taken a screenshot of their video, and uploaded it claiming to have sourced it elsewhere and declared it to have a copyright licence that you don't actually control. This is a copyright violation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm honored you think it's Richard Prince behind this account but I'm not that creative An undesired fidelity (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so safe to say you're just not going to explain why you're committing copyright violations and just do this instead. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The explanation is that patents have to be original and copyright applies to IP in fixed form, it makes sense a photo of Fountain taken by Alfred Stieglitz would be copyrighted by Succession Duchamp or Artist's Rights Society. It does not make sense that "an ordinary piece of plumbing" could exist under a copyright-- if Fountain is, indeed, an "ordinary piece of plumbing"-- and especially if this is a work of appropriation art attributed to Duchamp as theft. Your vendetta against Shearer's scholarship would suggest that it is indeed an everyday toilet (that is what our consensus maintains) -- so, would the copyright belong to the plumbing manufacturer? Either way, the object on view in multiple museum collections is a replica produced under Duchamp's supervision by Arturo Schwarz. There is no violation of copyright in my taking a cell phone photo of a toilet on view in the public domain, a toilet that was obviously not manufactured by an individual, and elevating it to an artist's act of choice. Its comparison with the actually copyrighted Stieglitz image currently used in the eponymous article would not meet standards for neutrality if the article did not actually depict an ordinary piece of plumbing -- either for comparison, or by definition. An undesired fidelity (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If you're uploading images you did not take, that you found on the Internet, unless those images are, on their source, explicitly noted as being public domain or under a free license, you are committing a copyright violation no matter what the content of the photograph is. The copyright, even of a photograph of an ordinary piece of plumbing, belongs to the photographer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger they appear to be deliberately "misunderstanding" what everyone is saying to them at this point. I've been specifically asking them to explain this photo in particular that they've uploaded[345], which appears to be a screenshot of someone else's social media video that they're presenting as something else entirely[346], and instead they just keep "misunderstanding" and posting about something else entirely while responding snarkily in the previous section of the discussion to anyone telling them to drop the attitude.

Getting beyond the pale now. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not here to help me with my attitude, you're here to contribute to open creative community. You've spent more time finding me wrong than finding evidence of bad faith -- minimizing, denying, gaslighting, etc -- and I'm just not taking it very seriously. An undesired fidelity (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

infantilization An undesired fidelity (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

those responses are starting to go from avoiding the actual point of the discussion by commenting on unrelated stuff to active trolling. if you want to say you took one specific picture, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you verifiably did not have the right to use others consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm beginning to learn that provocation, with some of you, is a technicque of administration. "IPs making similar edits at SPI initially which came back as possible after CU check with the IPs already blocked.[348]"

^ this isn't English, it's hearsay

^ Addressing someone directly while referring to them in the third person is insinuation

^ I don't like to argue when I'm right so there must be some provocation going on

^ You have failed to explain your fake concerns - because you've made the requisite corrective edits and this is NOT an edit war- or your fake barnstar.

My ability to appreciate absurdity is real. Make a point, and tell me here what I need to remove or adjust in order to edit less poorly, and I will make a real effort to judge you, again, in barnstar or representation in available quantity.

Trolling doesn't have a target. Are you telling me I do? An undesired fidelity (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Persistent bad faith assumption is a form of provocation An undesired fidelity (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I am the photographer. An undesired fidelity (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You were also told to lay off the LLM thing way up this thread. The version history on all of the pages you think I've infected with machine learning exposes a ton of hostility too. An undesired fidelity (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I am the photographer. Did you photograph this and this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• For God's sake, the posting of AI slop merits an indef just on its own. EEng 00:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'd argue that it, the flaming in these threads, and the demonstrable copyright issues all should warrant an indef in aggregate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to that. I will never understand why some people are so hellbent on digging their graves with their mouths. Ravenswing 09:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  so you wouldn't still love me if i was a worm? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed all those combined absolutely warrant one.GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is getting absurd; between copyright issues, disruptive editing, and trolling this discussion repeatedly, this editor has shown little inclination to take the concerns of the community seriously. An indefinite block at this point would be more merciful given the editor seems to be doing their best to speedrun a community ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, indef please. Yesterday they turned this into this word salad. No idea if it is LLM or not, but "In a 1953 account widely repeated in later scholarship, the medieval siege engine, and, in chess, a mutual trap situation in pawn endgames, gave conceptual art its bleeding edge" is the kind of waffle we can do without. Coupled with all the other issues and the attitude shown in this very discussion, I don't think keeping them around is good for enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh, barring an indef or someone beating me to it, I'll propose a cban this time tomorrow. This has sucked up enough editors' time as it stands. Ravenswing 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Paid editing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Udeigwe (2nd nomination) is an AfD for a promotional article about a non-notable mathematician; the article was deleted after and AfD in May, then recreated within a month by a brand-new account PKsmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that created the article on its first day of activity, and which ceased editing in July. At the AfD, the only keep !votes before today were from Eberechigab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now blocked as a sock, and an IP 182.2.164.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with no editing history and the same mannerisms. Today, the AfD received another keep !vote from Isaajibola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has only 67 edits, mainly in two batches to two articles that appear to me to be obviously the result of paid promotion, Zubaida Umar from last November and David Jeng from recently. (At a glance, the first is more likely to meet GNG than the second.) Note especially the deeply implausible claim that the two photos on these biographies are "own work". WP:REPORTPAID gives the not-very-detailed advice that "If you believe an editor is conducting undisclosed paid editing as defined by this policy, please report it to [ANI]", so here I am. Maybe @CountryANDWestern: will have something to add. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any admin involvement is called for here until it is time to close the AFD discussion. However, if there are editors who are experienced in investigating UPE, maybe they can take a look. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Isaajibola's edits thus far are a dead ringer for UPE. This probably should have been raised at their talk page first, but now that we're here I think that unless they come clean and explain their edits, they're heading for a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally the AfD has closed so we can feel more free to discuss this without it being canvassing. If an SPA had made the same contribution to the AfD that Isaajibola had, repeating the same debunked points from earlier in the SPI, I would have added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alhamdullilah2024, but they have contributions going back to 2023. Maybe still should be added? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

39.194.5.247

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

---

This IP has been doing nothing but making disruptive edits, mostly concerning keyboard spamming. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, etc. Is a block in order? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have now been resolved by @Lofty abyss, so thank you. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Khanate of Kokland

Ever thus to block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

---

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

I restored the original text on the page of Khanate of Kokand and sources that the user named -- @HistoryofIran had removed. This user replaced the original content with unsourced information. From August 20th to September 3rd, he has been repeatedly engaging in edit wars on this page. I also want to involve (WP:ANI) [WP:ANI] in this matter. HistoryofIran has been edit-warring and is attempting to 'Tajikify' or 'Persianize' everything related to Uzbek or Turkic topics.

• 23:33, 20 August 2025 HistoryofIran +869; [347]
• 23:44, 20 August 2025 HistoryofIran +169; [348]
• 23:44, 20 August 2025 HistoryofIran +20; [349]
• 23:47, 20 August 2025 HistoryofIran +100; [350]
• 00:01, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +626; [351]
• 00:06, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran −49; [352]
• 00:06, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +17; [353]
• 00:13, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +2; [354]
• 00:33, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +282; [355]

Since 00;51 21 of August he tried to persianite or tajikify the page claiming "per the newly added info. some adjustments, including removal of badly cited and/or misused, overcited citations", while all sources where from Oxford University, Cambridge and Unesco, instead he replaced those sources with a source that dosent even exist and in some texts he didnt even ad some source, he was removing info thats claiming that the state was uzbek, instead he replaced the info with the text that the state was "Persianite" and removed the text that actually proved with 5 different sources that the state was an Uzbek monarchy ruled by the Uzbek tribe known as "ming", the user claimed the state as "Persianite" without any sources claiming that.;

• 00:51 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran −899; [356]
• 00:51 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran -4; [357]
• 01:42 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +443; [358]
• 01:44 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +441; [359]
• 01:45, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran; −18; [360]
• 01:46, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +4; [361]
• 02:17, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran -5: [362]
• 02:45, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +9: [363]
• 12:58, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran -23: [364]
• 16:33, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +982; [365]
• 16:44, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +483; [366]
• 16:45, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran −4; [367]
• 17:30, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +1,094: [368]
• 19:12, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +582; [369]
• 19:13, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +4; [370]
• 19:13, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran +1; [371]

Also he was trying to claim that Uzbek nation didnt exist on that time claiming "The Khanate of Kokand was ruled by the Shahrukhid dynasty, who belonged to the Ming tribe of Uzbeks. During this period, the term "Uzbek" did not have the same meaning as today. It specifically referred to the descendants of the several hundred thousand Turkic people led by Muhammad Shaybani at the start of the 16th century, who moved from the Qipchaq steppe to Central Asia.[3] During the early 18th-century, the authority of the Khanate of Bukhara over the Fergana Valley was weakening. Meanwhile, the authority of the Sufi order Khoja was increasing, and invasions were carried out by nomadic Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, and Oirats (including their Kalmyk subgroup).";

• 19:32, 21 August 2025 HistoryofIran -1; [372]

I will put rest of the links of the users edits on the page of "Khante of Kokand" here;

[373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387] [388] [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396] [397] [398] [399] [400] [401] [402] [403] [404] [405] [406] [407] [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] [413] [414] [415] [416] [417] [418] [419] [420] [421] [422]

He edited more than you can see here, i just showed half of what he did:

this is how the page looked looked after all his edits; [423]

And this is how the page looked like before his edits; [424]

He removed all sources, academic sources and so on, for no reason. I will restore the page to its original now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1406:112:E64B:EC5F:3110:3BA1:C05F (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Holy misformed report, Batman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I cleaned up all 76 (!!!) links. Now there's a slight chance of being able to read it all. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This is just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Densmartasvensken attempting their second (first one is here [425]), disingenuous (here's a example of some of their previous dishonesty [426]), poorly made ANI report of me. The IP has even resumed their edit warring [427]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the reporting IPv6 for 3 days for block evasion by Densmartasvensken. No comment on the content issue; that's not our problem to figure out here on WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears we blocked almost at the same time, as I just blocked them for a week for the same reason. Feel free to change the expiration date if you'd like, Hammersoft! Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Boomerang all the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mikef3131 evidently WP:NOTHERE

Mikef3131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mikef3131 has engaged in a healthy mix of CTOP and BLP vios, POV-pushing, edit warring, and making personal attacks.

At Saleh al-Jafarawi, they had edit-warred to have labels like "conman", "fraudster" and other terms included, only stopping after the article was AE:XC-protected. I also posted an intro to ctop notice on their talk page, advising them of WP:PIA topic restrictions.

Despite that, they have continued with their CTOP/BLP vios, by including al-Jafarawi's name to List of con artists three times, calling one editor who reverted him a cry baby editor (Special:Diff/1316629310/1316698686), making aspersions (Special:Diff/1316698560) and also showing their intention to continue edit warring with What is biased about it? its a fact. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean its true. I can go on forever (Special:Diff/1316698271). This is after they were told their sources were unreliable (JPost, Times of India, NYPOST). He then went on to add al-Jafarawi to List of fraudsters (Special:Diff/1316698995).

They've continued to double down on their POV pushing, such as this edit today. Nil🥝 02:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Pepsi697 personal attacks and talk page blanking

PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my deletion of ambigous quote and when asked to explain his reversion he accused me of "trolling and personal attacks" in edit summary and keeps deleting my talk page and accusing me of "harassment", getting "angry" and issuing "warnings". I believe that he is acting in bad faith, especially the personal attacks in summaries. Note that he accuses people of "deleting content" even when it's deletion of red link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.20.193.193 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Generally, we don't want to delete a red link, as it lets others know a potential article exists and should be created, that is why we have them. "Your" talk page isn't yours, it is a talk page on an IP address. That is not the same as a user talk page and generally isn't afforded the same protection, and any number of people can share the same IP address, particularly over time. See WP:IP addresses are not people. You deleted sourced content that was the status quo out of two articles, you were reverted, that means you need to go to the article talk page and discuss it, and quit bickering, both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry Dennis, but I have to disagree with you here - I think PEPSI697 is clearly in the wrong. 5.20.193.193 deleted a quote from the article, but they laid out their reasons for doing so in the edit summary - it was clearly an edit made in good faith. PEPSI697 reverted them using ultraviolet with the rationale "Unexplained content removal" - this clearly is untrue as 5.20.193.193 provided their reasoning for removing the quote in the edit summary.

  5.20.193.193 asked PEPSI697 to revert their reversion and explain themselves, which resulted in PEPSI697 repeatedly deleting 5.20.193.193's attempts to communicate with them, claiming they were being harassed, personally attacked and that the discussion was making them angry. I would expect someone doing antivandalism patrolling to take a lot more care when reverting edits and to behave in a much more mature manner when another editor suggests they might have made a mistake. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Those are clearly not personal attacks, PEPSI697 needs to explain themselves and not get upset, especially on articles relating to Christianity and Judaism, which is almost guaranteed to make tempers flare. Note, I have previously blocked them for edit warring so another admin should suggest any further action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I stumbled these articles upon Special:RecentChanges. I have no interest whatsoever in Christianity and Judaism articles. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The Disputation of Paris is a historic dispute between Jews and Christians, which you edited. We are an encyclopedia, and the anti-vandalism tools do not operate in a vacuum, if you edit a (potentially) controversial article, expect people to take exception and disagree with you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Note, I have previously blocked them for edit warring so another admin should suggest any further action. Yes, I understand the reasons for being blocked. But I was clearly trying to get rid of an LTA. Also stop acting uncivil towards me. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What in Ritchie's comments above do you find "uncivil"? Because I see absolutely nothing that even comes close. Your bar for "trolling", "personal attacks" and "uncivil" comments seems to be be absurdly low, with a definition that basically amounts to "expressed a position finding fault with PEPSI697's actions". I think you need to read the actual policies on these terms as they apply to this project before you invoke them again. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop getting me more upset. I have ASD. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIR. If you are saying your diagnosis prevents you from contributing here, I'm sorry to say that may mean we need to block you. Note that I am absolutely not claiming you are incompetent, only that you seem to be stating you are unable to handle disagreements and constructive criticism. --Yamla (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree. Back in January Pepsi did a similar thing, responding with this when I explained my rationale for using the rollback feature. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I appreciate the challenges that you are working within there, and we will do our best to be considerate of them. But if you are going to continue to contribute to this project, especially in a capacity where you are actively choosing to police the contributions of other users, you are going to have to learn to distinguish between comments which actually violate our policies on WP:TROLLING, WP:PERSONALATTACKS, and WP:CIVILITY, and those which fall within the scope of legitimate criticism and open discussion. Competency is required, and so is having skin thick enough that you don't reflexively mislabel the comments of anyone who disagrees with you as personal attacks. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Yamla and SnowRise. For that matter, I'm both on the spectrum and have significant health problems myself, but that's never been a free pass against suggestions that I ought to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As Yamla states, if you have a medical condition that renders you incapable of taking constructive criticism (?), you are a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 13:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You've removed sourced content, we don't do that unless the source is unreliable. If you disagree, talk on the article's talk page rather than harassing me with more and more replies and edit warring. As Dennis said, this talk page is not "yours", it's an IP address, not a general Wikipedia account. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Sourced content gets removed from articles for multiple reasons. You were given what appears to be a legitimate one, which you ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I am going to have to side with our IP reporter here for once. Pepsi, to begin with, you reverted the OP with an edit summary stating that "Unexplained content removal", but that is plainly inaccurate as the IP provided a very cogent explanation for the edit in their own edit summary. Now if you wanted to make an objection to their reasoning, that is one thing, and you could invoke the revert on a WP:BRD basis and have a discussion. But instead you reverted with an inaccurate edit summary. Second, blanking another user's talk pgae, even an IP's, is a blatant violation of WP:TPG and a behaviour that needs to stop immediately. And doing so with an edit summary that says "Stop getting angry" is the behavioural/community equivalent of an older brother holding his younger siblings hand to strike them with while saying "why are you hitting yourself?" It's childish, provocative, and borders on WP:HARASSMENT; it is certainly a violation of WP:EW to have done it four times in a row.

Finally, you are an editor with just over a year's worth of experience going around placing warnings with edit summaries about how these the "ONLY warnings" the other editors will receive in response to at least one garden variety edit that was clearly made in good faith and debatably improved the article. WP:IPs are people too, and the way you have approached this situation is not constructive and in facts appears to be more than a little WP:BATTLEGROUND; I don't know if this obviously religiously charged topic is a particular bugbear for you, or if you typically take such an acerbic tact when reverting others, but it's not a good look either way. There may be additional context for this article that to some extent explains your approach, but on it's face, none of this is an ok way to be conducting yourself as a page patroller. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note that I will be inactive for a few days except issuing an apology tomorrow. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

And please note that going inactive will not prevent any decision regarding how best to deal with your inappropriate behaviour from being made. Personally, I'd say there are sufficient grounds here to exclude you from WP:NPP, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I know I've been as vocal a critic as anyone in this flash-in-the-pan report, but I also want to urge that we not rush to action here. I for one would like to give PEPSI an opportunity to regroup and to see what they have to say about their reflections thereafter. Giving them part of or even a full day to do that does not seem unreasonable to me, given the circumstances. Afterall, this is not a case of WP:ANIFLU, but rather someone who seems to legitimately have perceived that they crossed lines in this situation without realizing it, but whose condition requires them to take a beat to calm down and collect their thoughts before figuring out how to resolve the resulting concerns. Further, I want to note that when I was looking in to the relevant edits here, I also did a census of about 20 of this editor's last 200 edits to make sure this kind of behaviour was not a pattern. All of the edits that I saw outside of this brief dispute were constructive and showed good sense with regard to relevant policies. I do not believe we are looking at an editor here who is anything but a net positive, albeit one who clearly needs to better come to grips with some behavioural expectations.

There are times when it is the right thing for the community to exercise exceptional effort to keep someone in the fold. I believe this is probably one of those occasions. I think we have an editor here with certain needs, but not one who has as yet proven themselves incompetent or unable to adapt. I think we should allow this situation to slow down and for Pepsi to be permitted to catch their breath. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Very well written, Snow Rise. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I just want to note that any malicious behaviour on Pepsi's behalf isn't new; they previously WP:HOUNDED me by going through my edits reverting vandalism, reverting them, and reverting them back. Also replacing my warnings with warnings by them. They also had an alarming mistake rate, quite often not checking edits they rollbacked, just immediately doing so, and often assuming bad faith and biting newcomers. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1177#User:PEPSI697_bad_faith_towards_editors,_misuse_of_tools. jolielover♥talk 13:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

(also they refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK and continued to revert stuff/replace templates all the way into May, and then reverted it all, my comment too on my talk page which violates WP:TPG) jolielover♥talk 13:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems like CIR on the part of Pepsi697 and they should probably take a voluntary wikibreak until they are less suspectible to this 212.70.110.25 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth (having seen similar actions half a hundred times over), Pepsi697 put a retirement notice on their user page and blanked their talk page. Ravenswing 15:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I note that Pepsi697 has unretired and stated their intent to give an apology here "soon". I expect noone would object to waiting a few days for that apology before deciding if anything needs to be done. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Failing to recognize that both parties share some of the blame, then dogpiling, is exactly what runs long time editors off the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  How much blame do I share exactly? The content was added two weeks ago (in a page thats sees edit once a month) and made no sense where it was placed, especially ellipsis in quote. Again, is it "status quo" just because it's there and has a source?

  And the quote was used badly out of context.

  My question as to revert rationale was met with disproportionate response accusing me of trolling and personal attacks, and edit warring on talk page. Others have shown that this is a pattern of behaviour for Pepsi and that Pepsi believes no content can be removed if this cited, no matter the meaning or relevance. 5.20.193.193 (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm with 5.20.193.193 here - I don't think they did anything wrong, they explained why they thought the quote was undue weight or irrelevant to the article (even if you don't agree with it, it was still made in good faith). The worst charge you can make is writing "stop vandalising my user page", which I think is fair comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@5.20.193.193 @Ritchie333 do you accept my apology? I did the apology down below specifically for both of you. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 08:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

IP:s can't be pinged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

PEPSI697's apology

I apologise for my actions yesterday when I falsely claimed personal attacks, trolling and being uncivil to I had a tough day IRL yesterday and I was already feeling upset and stressed when I edit warred at the IP's talk page. I also apologise to admin Ritchie333 for falsely claiming that his comment was uncivil. I unfortunately have anger issues and had it even before joining Wikipedia, I'm working really hard to resolve my anger issues and when to walk away or ignore if something is making me angry. As I said this morning (21:00 UTC is 8:00am Melbourne time), I will be taking a wikibreak and be less active on Wikipedia, as to say that I would be taking a long break from patrolling RC. I hope we can resolve this incident. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fine, and I'd reiterate the advice I gave on the Teahouse which is to, during whatever break you decide to take, to read some of our encyclopedia articles (ideally featured articles or good articles) in depth and see how we can communicate knowledge to the world. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:CoconutOctopus

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

---

Please explain why did you declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Muslim_Vanishes&diff=prev&oldid=1316763554#/search please explain per WP:ADMINACCT why you declined this request for quick deletion; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashi_Prasad_Jayaswal_Research_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=1316763630; and several other Qd requests to delete the article created by block evading sockpuppet User:Taabii? He is a confirmed sockpuppet of Germankitty who is oldest sock puppet. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page; I can't find an account for Germankitty and my reading of the SPI is that Taabii is the original sockmaster and that the pages were created before the first block and thus ineligible for G5. If I'm mistaken please let me know and link me to the correct SPI thread? CoconutOctopus talk 11:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Link1 :: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GermanKity

Link 2:: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taabii&diff=prev&oldid=1312451930

For the arbitrators reading this thread. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, was able to find it and from my reading of the SPI case Taabii was never confirmed to GermanKitty but was instead found by happenstance and seperately blocked. If any more experienced SPI admins or a CU can tell me otherwise I'll happily delete the contribs under G5, but I'll wait till then as I'm not sure just now. Fwiw, this could have been discussed on my talkpage first. CoconutOctopus talk 11:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have provided the link above where the CheckUser Confirmed Taabi as the sockpuppet of Germankitty. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

So G5 applies; if you don't understand this simple thing than you should not be on Admin here on English Wikipedia. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus Why you removed my comments from WP:3o? It could have been amended instead of being removed. Actually I want to complaint this to Arbitration Committee as it involves abuse of admin tool. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I moved the comment as it was in the wrong venue and incorrectly formatted; I will also say at no point in this dispute have I used any admin tools. I'm not going to comment further unless requested by another admin as I see this going nowhere and I have clearly stated my point. CoconutOctopus talk 11:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any CUs confirming that; I do see a CU specifically say "not sure if this is GermanKitty" (courtesy ping for @Mz7 who is the CU in question) about the Taabii group. Again, like I say, if a CU or other SPI admin wants to let me know otherwise I'll happily admit I made a mistake and G5 the pages. There's absolutely no need to be rude. CoconutOctopus talk 11:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus You are lying on the face, in front of the entire community? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taabii&diff=prev&oldid=1312451930 What is this then? 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That's confirming that some other accounts are socks of Taabi, not Germankitty. Please swiftly retract your accusation of lying; it is false and unacceptable. NebY (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you are claiming this confirms Taabii to GermanKity. That's not how I read it. I read it as confirming the above socklist to Taabii, not to GermanKity, with a note that the SPI was filed due to actions at an SPI related to GermanKity. --Yamla (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Take a step back and have a breather IP, she's only asked for a second opinion from another admin – it's not urgent, there's no harm in waiting. Nil🥝 11:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It may be time for a WP:BOOMERANG block on 121.46.87.141 for WP:NPA, etc. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla Explain; How this a Personal attack? 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Calling her a liar and questioning her competence for seeking a second opinion are absolutely personal attacks. Nil🥝 11:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Also WP:CIR inability to read an SPI and WP:IDHT when corrected, NebY (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If you're that desperate to delete The Muslim Vanishes, then WP:AFD is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 I am not at all desperate to delete the article in question, but this newbie admin declined all of my request to QDs as invalid especially when Mz7 confirms Taabii as the sockpuppet of Germankitty as said by Mz7 I have linked above; especially when Germankitty is the oldest account and Sockmaster in this case. Per the link I have posted above. I think I am allowed to cross answer an administrator per WP:ADMINACCT. DEFINITELY, I am willing to accept my mistake if MZ7 or other non-fan admins will point out me to correct policy. This may be a learning situation for me. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@NebY Canvassed? 121.46.87.141 (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@NebY; @Nil NZ From the CheckUser findings it is confirmed that Taabi is sockpuppet of Germankitty. Any Uninvolved checkuser wants to run the checks again? 121.46.87.141 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Yamla is a Check User, and has already disagreed with your reading of the SPI.

Apologise and strike your earlier comments. Nil🥝 12:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yamla is an involved admin here; who wants me to block me. I need Uninvolved non-fan checkuser here to confirm this finding. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@NebY@Nil NZ go and read WP:UNINVOLVED. SEE YAMLA'S FIRST COMMENT IN THIS THREAD. RUDE ENOUGH TO EXCLUDE HER(Yamla) FROM MAKING ANY JUDGEMENT HERE ATLEAST. 121.46.87.141 (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked 121.46.87.141 for 24 hours as they clearly more interested in wasting everyone's time than writing an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by IP user

142.181.176.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This IP user sent me a legal threat on my user talk page. Could an admin be kind enough to step in with a block accordingly? JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. A checkuser might want to look at this, since they appear to be trying to invoke some kind of grudge from 2024 that probably got them sanctioned somewhere else. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the history of my user talk page shows many of the various IPs this same user has been using to attack me, including with legal threats, for almost two years now. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, and who it might be. Acroterion (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I believe it is not acceptable that user JeffSpaceman edited the talk page of that I.P. address, removing facts stated by the ip address and lying about the issue when the user of that IP address is ineligible to respond. That must be grounds for sanctioning. 142.115.27.135 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you list the attacks and prove that something happened earlier that your March 2024 conspiracy theory attack to show it's even close to 2 years, and often enough to justify your exaggeration, all things said were legal propositions and that's a shame if it doesn't suit your ways, it's legal measures. 142.115.27.135 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

you can't prove because it didn't happen 142.115.27.135 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Newest entrant to the arena blocked 2 years for legal threats. Special:Diff/1316867225 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpoin117/Archive. The IP I blocked tried to edit that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

user:SchroCat and user:Tim riley tag-teaming Senghenydd colliery disaster

• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim riley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dronebogus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senghenydd colliery disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Let me begin by stating I encountered the article in question on the main page, where it was featured in the “on this day” section. I say this up front because SchroCat keeps insisting my editing of this page constitutes stalking, which it does not. Let me also state that starting this thread brings me absolutely no pleasure and is an act of desperation. I am not trying to start drama, I am trying to stop drama that’s already going on.
The actual event was a good faith, arguably minor edit (1) which SchroCat reverted (2) with a non-explanation. I took it to the talk page (Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster#Edit reversion) and User:Andy Dingley also reverted SchroCat’s edit. I rarely interact with Andy and wouldn’t even consider him a friend (our last memorable interaction was on Commons and negative, though I still respect him as an editor); this was in no way coordinated on my or his part. SchroCat reverted Andy and made a small adjustment to their original prose, I reverted them and wrote in another version and then Tim Riley reverted back to SchroCat’s latest version, justifying his revert by saying he was merely Reverting to agreed FA text (which is untrue given the revert was to a version that had just been written and not the version that is linked on the talk page’s “featured article” milestone). This does not look good in a vacuum (two independent editors trying to improve the article, with another edit warring back to their preferred version and a fourth defending them) but in the context of the talk page argument it is worse: me and Andy separately tried to reason with SchroCat that his version was inferior (admittedly mixed with a lot of irrelevant ad hominem attacks on all sides), which it clearly is IMO if you look at the diffs, but they refused to listen. Tim riley, who worked on the article with SchroCat, jumped in mid-discussion to provide backup for SchroCat, which mostly consisted of helping Schro sling Shakespearean insults at me (and to a lesser extent Andy). I started a request for comment as an alternative to outright reporting them then and there, to which I courtesy pinged them; however they just used this to insult me and try and get me blocked for the “stalking” I did not commit. This is what finally prompted me to make this thread. There’s a lot of background to this dispute I didn’t cover (mostly the extremely long-running dispute I’ve had with these two users, mostly over unrelated topics) but no amount of background could justify this level of tag-teamed edit warring, ownership, and general incivility over something so minor. Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Two people disagreeing with a poor edit isn't tag-teaming. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There is not a bullet point in WP:OWN that stipulates "any time Dronebogus is reverted".

Per the authorship statistics, SchroCat is by far the most prolific author of the article, which is a Featured Article. While I wouldn't call this "ownership" in the first place, why in the world are you arguing with a FA's author on the FA itself? You really need to become better at picking which hills to die on. jp×g🗯️ 05:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be saying “the most frequent contributor to the page is the sole author, who is always right, but this is not WP:OWNership”. Dronebogus (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

They were the editor who nominated it at FAC and worked it through the process; while they don't own the article, I think it is reasonable that when "I like it" buts against "I don't like it" -- edits that are all issues of taste -- it makes sense to give them the benefit of the doubt... jp×g🗯️ 09:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You’re free to think that, but to me deferring to whatever the top editor wants when there isn’t a hard-and-fast policy sounds eerily like ownership. Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to stop drama that’s already going on. .... starting a lengthy post on ANI against two highly established FA writers is a strange way to do that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Highly established FA writers? Coming out of the gate with a glowing introduction for their irrelevant accomplishments is exactly the kind of attitude that allows them and people like them to get away with things that would get other editors blocked 50 times over. Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I read through the discussion on the talk page and I felt like banging my head against a wall. All I can see is 3-4 people who, for whatever reason, just cannot get on with one another and have clearly clashed before in other articles. We could deal with this in a very heavy handed way, dishing out interaction bans to everyone, but I don't think that would be a productive way of improving the encyclopedia. Instead, I would argue the locus of this whole dispute, arguing over a minor piece of wording in a well-written and researched article, is kind of failing to see the wood for the trees, and I would just urge everyone to walk away and work on some over the part of the project, separate from each other. I do admit, that my respect for those capable of writing FAs is because I have tried to do it myself a few times and just haven't got the skill to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I read all that, then I got to There’s a lot of background to this dispute I didn’t cover (mostly the extremely long-running dispute I’ve had with these two users...) and sighed... but I looked anyway. I see SchroCat reverting your edit here with the comment "not an improvement"; I would probably agree with them there; the 440 is unnecessary verbiage. And then I see you revert SchroCat a couple of hours later here with "not an improvement" as the (presumably snarky) edit-summary, and yet I think that is an improvement - "coal miners" adds context because the victims hadn't been described yet, and you can't assume that everyone knows what a colliery is (it's not a universal term). But guess what? I could be wrong as well, it's just my opinion. So I don't see a behavioural issue (yet), but I do see a content dispute based on differing opinions. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not commenting on your opinion regarding the content; I made an RFC for that which you are free to participate in. But I fail to see how you fail to see a behavioral issue. At the very least SchroCat and Tim are exceedingly uncivil and displaying a “we’re just right because it’s ours” attitude instead of trying to explain why they’re right. Dronebogus (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with Black Kite's broader observations, I will add this caveat: explaining a reversion with an edit summary of "Not an improvement" is beyond a shadow of a doubt actually worse than no edit summary at all. That "explanation" of a revert provides absolutely no information which the reverted editor (nor any other party) can use to contemplate the position of the reverting editor or the broader editorial dispute and context. In fact, all it does is add a vague sense of judgment and emotional subtext to an editorial disagreement, significantly increasing the likelihood that the the dispute will escalate. It absolutely does not comport with community expectations of a substantive explanation for edits which are likely to be controversial--even just at the local consensus level--and I think it's fair to say that if an editor habitually indulges in this kind of method for justifying reverts, it's a red flag for problem editing. That said...the reverted party then taking that same edit summary and using it to justify reverting the original reverter's edit on a completely separate article? That's clearly an even worse abrogation of behavioural expectations, absolutely reeking of a tit-for-tat WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, WP:POINTiness, and a loss of perspective.

Bluntly, both of these editors are far too experienced to be making these kinds of basic failures of effort to work collaboratively, nor are either of them exactly suffering from a lack of extensive history being subject to ANI discussions or administrative sanctions. I would advise both that I am certain I cannot be the only one who, upon seeing either of their names at the head of a thread here has a reflexive sentiment of "Ok, is this the time we are going to have to finally pull the trigger on a CBAN?". The fact that we are having to have this conversation now, over the question of whether to add one clarifying internal link, a minute difference that either side could have easily given way on at any point with functionally zero consequence for the article's overall utility to the reader, speaks volumes as to the cost-benefit value the project is getting from these two due to their tenacious bellicosity and obduracy in response to the least conflict.

No comment as to the other parties involved here, except to say that 1) this comment by Tim shows way too high a level of preciousness about their pet theory that FA status is a supposed justification against continuing to alter articles (or the presumption of a higher standard of proof for edits after an article is featured), a position which is not supported (and in fact, clearly contradicted) by relevant policies, and 2) there was way too much exchange of broadsides from the parties on the article talk pages about the behavioural issues, which were not helpful to resolving the underlying editorial dispute and are meant to be reserved for fora like this. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat has been here far longer and has a much longer, more serious block log. They consistently act this way with anyone who disagrees with them. If anyone should get banned it’s them. Dronebogus (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's pretend for the moment that 100% agree with you as to that assessment of relative levels of contribution of disruption. Mind you, I am not actually going to share my perspectives as to that, as I don't think that kind comparative thinking would be helpful to either of you. There's an aphorism of moral philosophy that was once shared with me by a much a older woman. Of course, the reason she was so much older than me was that I was seven and the principle was "two wrongs do not make a right." Nor would 56 wrongs and 22 wrongs make any kind of good between them, here. But again, let's pretend for the sake of argument I was completely on board for endorsing your general perspective.

Well, even under those circumstances, I would still have to tell you that you are not coming off as the one comparatively smelling of roses in this exchange. SchroCat's edit summary was, at best, a piss-poor effort at complying with the expectation of a transparent justification for a reversion, which choice probably had no chance of accomplishing anything but touching off further argument. And that's the good interpretation, that AGFs that it wasn't an at least partially intentional slight based on your shared history. But you taking that same edit summary to a second name space to throw back in their face? That's much more nakedly tendentious and disruptive. The others who have commented here are correct: you two are in a footrace to the bottom, and even if we all agreed with you that you've been losing the marathon, you certainly sprinted past your competition there. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Your clear desire to issue the most and harshest sanctions possible makes me glad you’re not an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Where have I proposed or endorsed any sanction anywhere in this discussion, let alone "the harshest sanctions possible"? There's a big difference between my pointing out that both of you have demonstrated patterns of behaviour severe enough that I can see the community finally opting for a longterm solution, and actually proposing or supporting a sanction myself. I've made no such proposal and my comments have instead been directed at trying to get you both to understand the fact that I suspect community patience for all of this pettiness is at low ebb, specifically so you can avoid that outcome.

Now if you don't want to hear that kind of criticism, then I suggest to you that it was a bad idea to open up an ANI thread based on a dispute over very possibly the slightest amount of difference in content that I have ever seen result in an ANI complaint--wherein said dispute, your own conduct (which you knew would be reviewed as part of the discussion) was itself highly provocative. Candidly, the person in this discussion whose words are most likely to move things in the direction of a harsh sanction for you...is you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I cannot be the only one who, upon seeing either of their names at the head of a thread here has a reflexive sentiment of "Ok, is this the time we are going to have to finally pull the trigger on a CBAN?" + harshly negative comments about me and Schro = implicit desire for a CBAN against me and Schro. CBANs are the harshest possible sanctions that can be given on Wikipedia (which excludes meta-sanctions like cross-wiki/global bans and foundation interventions). If that wasn’t your intent I’m sorry for misreading you, but it doesn’t sound like a benevolent warning— it sounds like you’re annoyed we’re both not permabanned and trying to nudge that into fruition. Dronebogus (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue with you about what I meant: I am the final authority on that subject and I just got done very expressly and minutely pointing out to you the difference between what I specifically said, and the extra meaning you unnecessarily chose to read into it. Did you somehow miss the words "have to" in that quoted statement? How much more clear could I be that I view a sanction as an undesirable outcome to be avoided if possible, particularly in light of the rest of what I had to say?

"If that wasn’t your intent I’m sorry for misreading you, but it doesn’t sound like a benevolent warning— it sounds like you’re annoyed we’re both not permabanned and trying to nudge that into fruition." Well I would suggest your reading, especially taking the entire context of my comments and the community's larger response you here into consideration, is reflective of a significant part of your problem here: the WP:IDHT concerning the observations that you don't come into this report with clean hands and that the dispute here is extremely petty and trying on community patience. Which response you have, in some form or another, received from...oh, every single uninvolved community member who has responded to this thread thus far. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Your tone has been far too hostile and vaguely threatening to read as “advice”. Even if it wasn’t I’m not going to take an inane truism like “two wrongs don’t make a right” seriously, especially if told through a long-winded Grandpa Simpson-esque anecdote. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, your propensity for seeing "threats" and "hostility" in the comments of others, including those with no stake in the dispute trying to spare you from WP:BOOMERANGing yourself square in the face, is very much at the core of your problems here. I can tell you this much: however much I and others may or may not have been predisposed to finding you more responsible for this conflict and needing to be sanctioned, you've certainly only worsened your position with virtually every singly comment you've made in response to others here. Which has been, not coincidentally, literally every single post where anyone criticized you, or responded to your accusations of unfair treatment or persecution.

This has become the latest in a series of recent ANI threads where longterm disputants have brought their grudge match to the forum, and the party who possibly was the less egregious participant in the disruption still managed to get themselves on the losing side of the discussion because they simply could. not. control. their impulse to go to the mat over and over with everyone who has the least bit of criticism of their conduct or outlook. Look at the volume of your comments in this thread and then look at SchoCat's and then observe the difference it has made in how you are each fairing here. And then take a moment to consider where your current rhetorical strategy is getting you. Schro and Tim don't even have to engage with you here. Why would they?; you are self-torpedoing your own credibility by refusing to accept any responsibility for your own conduct, and framing anyone who is unwilling to endorse your prospective 1,000% as either clueless or out to get you... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I hate how ANI is treated as this metagame based on “winning” through a clever mixture of allies and rhetorical tactics that have nothing to do with policy or the merits of the case. This is why everyone rightfully hates it. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not a particular feature of ANI, DB, but of human nature. When it comes to making the case that you are not the ultimate cause of the conflict, less is often more. Nor is it a failure of the community if you adopt a "everyone who isn't unreservedly with me is against me" mindset and that somehow doesn't work out for you. This is absolutely the last I am going to engage with you about this: you can either reconsider the possibility that I am telling you what I am telling you (and others are telling you what they are telling you) for reasons quite separate from our trying to 'gotcha' you, or else continue to argue we are all some combination of willing or hapless "allies" to your opposition here, and see where that gets you. The choice is yours. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's so obvious that an FA should link in this particular way, then that should be very easy to explain for the sake of the illiterati here. But no-one (of all three of you) has done that, just SchroCat complaining about Dronebogus 'hounding' him. Which is the regular WP wounded innocence and "Oh, take this to ANI, they're bullying me" behaviour that makes this place such a backstabbing swamp. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

? To have two editors very prominently already engaged with the article accused of "tag-teaming" because they disagree with the same edit is an odd premise for an ANI thread. The edit that sparked all of this is so trivial it's disappointing to see either side arguing so forcefully about it. More likely is that, while I believe DB that it was not stalking, the heat comes from the fact that Dronebogus then saw it was SchroCat and SchroCat saw it was Dronebogus. A glance through the noticeboard archives shows several threads with the two in conflict over the last couple years, though usually over infoboxes. At this point, I wonder if you'd both jump at the chance for a mutual, voluntary-at-this-point IBAN? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would support a two-way IBAN with SchroCat, at the very least. I’d also support a two-way IBAN between me and Tim riley. Dronebogus (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Since a lot of people here are either failing to see or refusing to acknowledge any ownership behavior going on, allow me to cite the following “examples of ownership behavior” from WP:OWN:
  An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. SchroCat obviously did this by disputing the initial edit.
  An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. While Schro and Tim both made vague assertions the edit was bad, they never went into any kind of detail as to why. Additionally Tim explicitly assigned priority to Schro’s latest version over my or Andy’s versions, incorrectly claiming it was a longstanding version approved by other uninvolved editors.
  An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior. SchroCat and Tim once again never provided a clear or legitimate reason why Andy and I were wrong and they were right, unless you consider It's a logical link from SchroCat somehow an adequate explanation. Dronebogus (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Also, do I need to enumerate the examples of incivility demonstrated by Tim and Schro?
  It was disappointing to see your name pop up on my watchlist once again (Schro) Thank you. That's very kind of you. Unnecessarily abrasive and a little pot-stirring, but very kind none the less. (Schro) You can pop the ownership incivility elsewhere: it's tedious and second rate. (schro) If you're going to move past the fact that you've been called out for making false accusations, that's fine. (schro) Sadly wrong, but I doubt anything I say would puncture your armour of bad faith. (schro) Your version wasn't an improvement and your ongoing stalking is deplorable and despicable. (schro) […]I sympathise with SchroCat and admire his restraint in dealing with not one but two hostile editors […] Batting off alterations we judge to be deleterious is not claiming "ownership" but is simply good housekeeping […] Contributions from an editor so deplorably prone to stalking other editors as Dronebogus need not detain us. (tim) Rest assured, if you presume to disagree with Dronebogus (i) you are ipso facto guilty of WP:OWN (tim) I do not think this editor's asseverations worthy of more than a second's consideration. (tim) The answer is in the plural and they bounce. (tim, calling something bullshit in a roundabout way while sounding like he’s inexplicably talking about breasts all of a sudden) You have delighted us long enough. I am not obliged, and have no desire, to debate with someone so opposed to Wikipedian integrity (tim) Oh for fuck's sake... what a tendentious and petty waste of time. Just because you can't get your own way you're going to waste the time of multiple editors? (schro) More lies. Don't try and tell me what I can and cannot tolerate: you're wrong on all counts, as per usual. (schro) you just keep magically appearing and being a disruptive editor every time you do, which is completely intolerable. (schro) Yup! Anyone who dares to disagree with Drone bogus is ipso facto wrong, a perpetrator of WP:OWN and probably burns down orphanages for a hobby. (Tim) Here's an idea: why doesn't Bogus write and submit an FAC instead of distracting those who do from their avocations? (tim) Smack handies to everyone else on Wikipedia for daring to follow the rules when Andy Dingley decrees otherwise! (tim) Jesus, Eric was blocked six years ago and last took an article through FAC ten years ago - and here he is, living rent free in your mind all that time. That really is quite funny... (schro) Dronebogus (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• A laundry list of quotes without links is utterly useless as it gives no-one the chance to evaluate the context that they were said in. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  No matter the context, some of these are just toxic for which I would I would not see any reason. Anyways, they are obviously from the thread linked in the intro. Uncalled for. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Certainly there seems to be a serious dearth of consideration for WP:FOC. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, I wouldn't normally ask but I am aware that the OP was previously blocked a few months ago for their behaviour towards the two editors they are now complaining about. I have now read the thread and note that it does indeed contain stuff from the OP like You quasi-justifying it ... is poor editorship, Changing it ... is just looking for a reason to keep your weird “person to their occupation” format in the lead instead of just accepting my or Andy’s version is better and accusations against SchroCat and Tim Riley of tag-teaming, article ownership and proxy edit-warring. So, yes, this is a case of two pairs of editors who really can't seem to get along. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  1) you are drawing an extremely weak false equivalence between what I said, which isn’t even insulting or offensive, and everything SchroCat and Tim said. 2) I accused them of those things because they are in my opinion true. I provided evidence for all of them. You are seem looking for any way to justify, excuse, or look the other way on Schro/Tim’s misconduct, starting with “SchroCat’s edit was an improvement” and “It’s just a content dispute” and moving down to “that was taken out of context” and “the OP said/did some bad things therefore everyone is equally at fault here”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Incivility doesn't have to be "offensive"; it doesn't matter whether I call you a fool or a c***, both are equally incivil. If you're talking about the editor rather than the edit, that's enough. And also, I'm not drawing a false equivalence, I'm pointing out that the issue isn't only one-way which is what you appear to be trying to make out. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oh, I had seen that as well .. and just because of that, this doesn't look good. I stand with my 'uncalled for' ... Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)-

Anyone consider taking the dispute-in-question to an RFC? With two options provided, it should resolve the situation. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Already did, it’s on the talk page. This thread is about SchroCat and Tim riley’s lack of civility and ownership behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Until the RFC has concluded, the satus-quo should remain in place. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Something really needs to be done about this ongoing incivility issue. If it were an isolated incident, that would be one thing, but when the same editor(s) are brought up repeatedly and no meaningful action is taken, it sends the wrong message to the community. What kind of example does that set for others? It's discouraging to see patterns of behavior go unchecked. Nemov (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

IP hopper

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

---

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

Can someone block this sock of 3 Löwi? There are too many articles and talk pages where they are restoring sock edits and personal attacks. They will of course return with a different IP but it seems they are using this IP for now. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

See also the personal attacks restored at Talk:Estonia.[428][429] Mellk (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Really wierd edit

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

---

Can I get an admin to look at this [diff] ASAP. If you remove the last three numbers it looks like this could be true. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That big honking "READ THIS FIRST BEFORE PROCEEDING!" in the edit notice is there for a reason. Sheesh. —Cryptic 16:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that part, I saw the top part and missed the bottom. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Editing unprotected articles

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

---

An editor is stalking me and reverting my edits claiming that articles that deal with Indian military history should not be edited by editors who are not extended confirmed protected. Please see this and this - however, the articles I edited are not extended confirmed protected. Where should I report this?-Baangla (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. On your talk page you already confirmed that you are aware of the restriction and have stopped editing in that topic: Special:Diff/1316712360. The articles don't have to be protected. You are still not allowed yet to edit in that topic area. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

So, am I allowed to ask that some articles be extended confirmed protected at the Arbitration Enforcement enhance protection webpage, so that others don't waste time editing such wikipedia articles?-Baangla (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not allowed to discuss articles in that topic area full stop, end of story. This includes RFPP threads. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When an article is extended confirmed protected, those who don't have extended confirmed protected editor rights can request someone to add or edit an article if it is good enough to be added (on the Talk page of the respective article/s). I requested Anachronist to add/restore some sourced content which he did, please see this - so if he or anyone else with extended confirmed protected editor rights adds, edits or restores content requested by others, it should not be reverted right?-Baangla (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone please also tell me how to place extended confirmed protected edit requests for unprotected articles if they are related to Indian military history.-Baangla (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

At the associated article talk page, use Template:Edit extended-protected and describe the uncontroversial change you're proposing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You are allowed to make wholly uncontroversial edit requests, edit requests that do not require discussion to achieve a consensus. Things like spelling or grammar corrections, or anything else that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. Anything more you are not permitted to do, this includes discussing edits with others directly. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When an article is either extended-confirmed protected or covered by the extended-confirmed restriction, your only permissible input (for now) is constructive edit requests at the talk page. If one of your suggestions is accepted and implemented by an EC editor, any other EC editor is free to revert those changes if they disagree. At that point, you should stop discussing the matter, since edit requests are meant for uncontroversial changes, and changes that have been reverted are definitely controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The restoration of content with reliable sources by Anachronist should not have been re-reverted as it was restored by an admin with extended confirmed protected editor rights (please see this to understand what I mean - specifically, the first response to the first comment by Anachronist in that section). I believe that a person with extended confirmed protected rights can restore content if the only reason given for removing such content is that it was added originally by an editor with no extended confirmed protected rights.-Baangla (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Everyone who successfully edits there has extended confirmed rights, and administrators simply have access to tools because of the community trust; they don't have priority when it comes to discussing content. Whether content is removed or not is a question of consensus, and since you don't yet have extended confirmed rights, you cannot be involved in a dicussion of the status of that content in this topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Abusive language and WP:CT/A-I violation

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

---

The user 2001:1998:3500:F3:0:0:0:5E4 posted on numerous WP:CT/A-I-related matters. I posted in their talk page with an introduction to contentious topics template, but the user responded with abusive messages and continues to edit relevant topics. אקעגן (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for the personal attacks and ECR violations. The IP has a very short history (I'm uncertain as to whether the August edit is the same person) so the block is only for 31 hours for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As this is an IPv6 address, I've expanded the block to the /64. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

189.149.195.43

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

---

This user appears to be gaming the system (1) and removing native names from various Southeast Asian biographies (1, 2). They've also done a lot of other damage and vandalism. Pretty much any edit randomly selected from their contributions will show this. They've caused a lot of damage and it's tedious to revert. If blocked, is there a tool to quickly revert all of this IP's edits? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire or User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback are both options; I believe there are a couple more mass rollback scripts though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 18:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I know the latter is rollback/admin only but is the former available to all? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like ScottishFinnishRadish did a mass rollback, so its relatively moot. No clue if Kill It With Fire is only for editors with rollback though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 18:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs: KIWF uses undo not rollback, so the perm is not required, since its main feature is to revert edits which are not the current revision, which rollback cannot do. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 06:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked by @EvergreenFir. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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

TruthSeeker0101

For the last several days, TruthSeeker0101 has been adding the same content to Lindsey Halligan:

The link in this makes the page display weird. Collapsing to avoid that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After working at Cole, Scott and Kissane, Halligan worked as In-House Counsel for [[People's Trust Insurance Company]], a Florida homeowners insurance company specializing in residential properties. <ref>{{Cite web |date=March 18, 2021 |title=Charlotte County Docket, Case No. 20001164CA, Notice of Attorney of Record |url=https://courts.charlotteclerk.com/Benchmark/Image.aspx/PDFViewer2?cid=32368362&digest=NnpR%2BwWVNo%2F9FPkTEcHcZw |access-date=October 9, 2025 |website=Charlotte County Clerk of Court}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 7, 2021 |title=Broward County Docket, Case No. CONO21019130, Waiver of Appearance at Pre-Trial |url=https://www.browardclerk.org/Web2/WebForms/Document.aspx?Viewer=YVp5SGliZHowekI1UmtrdEtvSXZPbUIySUZGVjlYc09ZUXJ5VGtNSWdrWkJwdUZIRWFPNThLZkFhbjRiZWNyWmdhODIxZE9vLzlDV0VQcTZPcVJBd2h5QkxGREwyQU1WSDlzN09wdjIzcFhhcXlLTkU3ZkJacForMkNCTW5ZYk1TNWMwTDZJc2NPZ3pLNThtVVZJclp1K29yVWs2UUJIVFJBMDVDWm90RkJQNDBIKzNOZ1BPSVNVQmJEbzRZd0dDNDVqb01WRm1OUVBBaldJZFN2Z094dHZOZXFDU1hTQm5xTnIyLy9wNmlMUXF2T0ZGSEtzc2EyeEVURC83RWRTcEx3di9YZkpKYTVHM3JLSmdWZlJQWnB0L3daMkFjbFBPcGxLaGJHQzFFZjl6aXd6aFlkK3czNFV4TTNyaTg2MThLdFRON1FqUFhSQzdxWGx6VnpnR0o5M0N0Y1JsREF0QmhYSWdzdTM1a1pNPQ%3d%3d-JX2zmIhKsiU%3d |access-date=October 9, 2025 |website=Broward County Clerk of Court}}</ref>

The edits run afoul of WP:NOR. User has refused to engage in their talk page and the article's talk page (relevant discussion here) in which other users also agreed that this is original research. I am requesting this user's complete ban from editing this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I've given them an edit warring notice and also a final warning regarding restoration of contested material per WP:BLPSOURCES. Hopefully they heed the warning. If not, a block will be placed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

We ran into eachother, I pblocked for a week from Lindsey Halligan. Going to undo my block. Rusalkii (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I considered that, but felt that if I pblocked, it would be indefinite. So, I wanted to give them a final warning before doing that. As is the case with many things like that, there's not one answer that is 100% right and everything else is wrong in terms of how to administrate such things. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Raskuly

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

---

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

This user recently removed the mention of "mass shooting" from an article without any discussion. I reverted the change, and asked them to discuss or gain consensus for such a change. They immediately restored their version, claiming there was already a consensus on the subject. I reverted again, pointing out that their ES was inaccurate, and that they please discuss. They again restored their revision, simply saying "Less than 4 gunshot victims." I tried to discuss it, and have now asked them to link the consensus or criteria that they are citing, multiple times (6 times now?), on both their talk page as well as the article's talk page, and only received vague responses, or that List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 says "for the purpose of THIS ARTICLE" it's 4. I am trying not to 3RR the original article, since they have shown so quickly that they are willing to, but I don't know what else to do about someone claiming there is both a consensus and a criteria, but refusing to link to either, and declaring that what one article says it is using as a definition is the general criteria (and "the consensus") for all of Wikipedia. Does someone else know of any generally accepted consensus or criteria for what Wikipedia considers a "mass shooting"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not violate WP:3RR, so I'm not sure why you had to escalate this. Raskuly (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say you violated 3RR? If you had, this report would be at WP:AN/3, not here. I said you were willing to, which is my opinion based on the fact that you reverted to your version twice immediately without any of the requested discussion and lying about consensus. Maybe you wouldn't have reverted a 3rd time if I had restored the original revision again, if so, I stand corrected. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I admitted my error and I'm sorry about that. I understand that I made an improper synthesis, but claiming I was willing to engage in edit warring when I have never done so nor threatened to do so seems inappropriate. Raskuly (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This report is regarding your lying about consensus just to push your opinion, not whether or not you violated 3RR. I have already struck out that part of my original comment and apologized for it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have admitted I made an improper synthesis, and subsequently, lied without meaning to. Raskuly (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Point of order - you did edit-war. 3RR is a maximum, but you can absolutely edit-war without breaching it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right since I reverted after I began the discussion at Talk:2023 Jacksonville shooting#Not a mass shooting, which I shouldn't have done. I crossed the line when I reverted here. Raskuly (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

From mass murder: "In the United States, Congress defined mass murders as the killing of three or more persons during an event with no 'cooling-off period' between the homicides." Obviously Wikipedia isn't beholden to this but it's pretty good reason to conclude the minimum-of-4 requirement is arbitrary. There very well might be something stopping Adolphus79 from changing "four" to "three" at every one of those yearly mass shooting lists but Raskuly has to show it and they haven't. 2600:382:1B03:2838:CFDD:3C07:DEEF:C552 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not remove mention of it being a mass murder for this very reason, but not all mass murders involving firearms appear to be mass shootings. A valid reason why they haven't done it is because that would mean a whole bunch of incidents with 3 total casualties would have to be added to those articles, and well, that's a lot of work and there isn't a good enough consensus that we're aware of to do such a thing in the first place. Raskuly (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

So, again, I ask, where is this consensus of 4 that you keep mentioning or alluding to if Congress says it's 3? Is this just your arbitrary "it's too much work if we do 3" that you are enforcing and claiming is consensus/criteria? Have there ever even been any extended discussions in WP/WTspace about this at all? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I wrote that I don't know of a consensus and I have admitted now repeatedly that there is not a proper consensus that I am aware of. I was using the lack of consensus to suggest why you haven't done what the IP editor mentioned. Mass murders ≠ mass shootings, to be clear. I am not enforcing anything and have restored any mention of the Jacksonville shooting being a mass shooting. Raskuly (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do mass shootings ≠ mass murders? Isn't it just mass murder via shooting? I mean... all mass shootings are mass murders, but not all mass murders are mass shootings. You know, like boats... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm being careful to not be too assertive now, but I do not believe mass shootings require a certain number of fatalities. Raskuly (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As for the IP's comment, that just sounds like a petty thing to do before I've read the consensus that was being enforced upon me. What if Raskuly had been right? That would've wound up being purely disruptive on my part. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Are there still matters relevant to ANI, Adolphus79, or can this complaint be closed? This is not an appropriate forum to handle content disagreements which can be done on an article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess anything here is settled... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Potential legal threat by User:Fagbemibose

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

---

Hi! I was browsing the recent edits of Tola Wewe, and I found this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tola_Wewe&diff=prev&oldid=1316855637 I've asked about it on IRC and they told me to bring that there.

Also, apologies and such, my IP changed twice today due to networking problems, my previous IPs were 173.206.54.55 and 69.171.157.109 23.91.230.182 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There's also this edit 23.91.230.182 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat meriting a indef block *yet*, but their removal of content and edit warring has to stop and they need to address COI. User has been partially blocked from editing Tola Wewe for 31 hours, with a message to engage in discussion on talk page only, and to post the required disclosure if they indeed do have the link and COI they claim to have with the subject of the article. Mfield (Oi!) 00:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I have to note that there is a valuable conversation here about crediting, erasure, and so on. I would've felt disappointed about an indef, and I'm glad it hasn't happened 23.91.230.182 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

GXFR

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

---

User @GXFR inserted false information into the article about The Revenge of La Llorona and The Conjuring Universe. The Hollywood Reporter's source never states that the film is part of The Conjuring Universe. I'm bringing this to the administration because he defeated the edit. I've included the source here at the end. And I think this fits: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Edit warring https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/revenge-of-la-llorona-to-star-1236396918/ MatheusLimaLisboa (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it is worth, this is a content dispute, but MatheusLimaLisboa's reading of the source is correct and so I've reverted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@MatheusLimaLisboa: In the future, your first reaction to this should not be to bring it to this noticeboard. Try talking to the editor first on their user talk page, or on the article's talk page. This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Also, you failed to follow the instructions to notify the person whom you are report. This is a requirement. See the edit notice the next time you post here. Don't take these comments harshly. You're new. It's not a crime to be new. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent bad faith assumption, accusatory language and edit-warring by User:Woovee

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

Woovee has been making misleading edit summaries and accusing me of bad-faith edits. I opened up several talk page discussions in efforts to reach conclusions [430], only for this user to divert and continue to engage in edit-warring. Edit summaries such as this: [431] where he accuses me of original research and adding a piece of information that was originally added by User:Lofi Gurl. Later engaging another edit-war [432], without opening a talk page discussion. He has constantly cited that his sources of "experts" are the ones valuable to be added to articles [433], [434]. The former edit summary was that a source couldn't be used because the writer was 19 when she witnessed the event yet, Simon Reynolds who Woovee pushes should be the main "expert" sourced was also the same age at the time.

A big issue has been at gothic rock, where users such as User:Issan Sumisu and User:3family6 agreed that the user was engaging in WP:OWN by choosing to prioritize a small set of sources and reverting additional information. [435]. Though we reached a conclusion to incorporate some of the user's edits and some of mine, which we did. Woovee continued to edit war. He used misleading language to assert that editor User:Bruce1ee was in accordance with his edits and stating that I was pushing for "control of the article" [436] and made it look like I was making disruptive edits and the one engaging the edit war.

He later tried to accuse me of bad faith edits at [437] when I reverted what looked like a massive chunk of information by User:Valboo at The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, this user was marked as being blocked on his talk page [438]. And his edit at gothic rock was just "nope." without any clarification on why my edit was to be reverted: [439]

Woovee's edit summary stated that I tracked another user on "multiple articles" harassed and made an "inappropriate comment" towards them also [440]. I opened a talk page entry on that page to resolve the issue only for Woovee to revert the edit immediately after even though we hadn't gotten any input from a WP:Third Opinion yet.

I've been trying to be amicable with the user, but it seems they have a kind of friction with my editing and not really looking to reach any sort of middle ground, with their increasingly hostile edit summaries and bad faith accusations. Constantly stating that my editing is "disruptive", starting edit wars when I have contributed a lot of information to these pages and opened talk pages whenever friction occurred. He is persistently trying to paint me as a disruptive editor when I've been co-operating with integrating his contributions to pages. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

First comment

A longer reply with details will be probably necessary in the next days. Until then, let's just look at Aradicus77 way of interacting when they receive a 3RR warning on their talk page and they ditched it in the bin.

See this diff : [441].

Another interesting diff [442] by @3family6: addressed to Aradicus77: « I've encountered a lot more hostility and aggressiveness from you.»

One has to mention that Aradicus77 regularly wrote in italics when interacting with other users like @3family6: and myself [443] [444]. And writing in Italics is unacceptable and agressive as it is like screaming at somebody in real life.

A second 3RR has been added on Aradicus77's talk page for another article [445].

Result: they sent my second 3RR warning in the dustbin, erasing it from their talk page. The diff is [446]. Woovee (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This response just proves all my points... Comparing writing in italics to screaming. When I haven't even written in italics. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

These diffs [447] and [448] prove the contrary.Woovee (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

...are you talking about the edit summaries being in italics? tony 03:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And this [449]. Woovee (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You've been around for over a decade. You should know that all edit summaries are italicised. To wit, here are three of your own edit summaries that, by your argument, are you shouting. I suggest you strike your assertion that Aradicus77 is WP:SHOUTING at you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: Previous ANI discussion a couple months back at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1194#Edit warring at post-punk by User:Woovee, might provide further context. No comment on anything in this dispute. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Note previous ANI discussion about Section at ANI: Aradicus77 edit warring to puff up the importance of Red Krayola might also provide further context. @45dogs:, context for both sides is helpful too. Woovee (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment to administrators I will be adding a longer reply in 48 hours with other diffs. Thanks for waiting for my reply before commenting. Woovee (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Woovee just keeps proving my points, first he says typing in italics is screaming and then brings up a situation from 2023 that I've already appealed as an argument against his behaviour in 2025... I won't say any further Aradicus77 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

no, that's not how it works. If you have time to go through the archives looking for dirt on your opponent you have time to address your own conduct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Please elaborate how something that happened in 2023 and which I appealed here in 2024 is relevant: [450]. None of the pages I mentioned such as post-punk, gothic rock and The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars have any mention on that topic. I have no idea how that applies to the current discussion. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, "dirt on your opponent" what dirt? I compiled all the situations in which he engaged in edit-wars and bad-faith accusations and summaries against me. I'm not going through his history to bring up outdated situations or arguments, like he is doing here. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Point of order: Spartaz was replying to Woovee which you can see because Woovee's comment had no indent and then both yours and Spartaz's replies had one indent. More than one person can reply; these will stack up with the same indentation. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

My bad, thank you for the clarification. Sorry about that User:Spartaz Aradicus77 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

In looking for context, I specifically figured that an incident between you two would be best to note here, especially one from not too long ago. I will note I didn't look too hard at either parties history; I saw an ANI notice on your talk page Woovee that involved Aradicus77, and decided to note it here. I will reiterate that I have no comment on this dispute as of this moment. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Woovee and Aradicus77, Wikipedia and ANI is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and treating other editors as "opponents" to be vanquished will lead to backlash fairly swiftly. We are looking for ways to reconcile editors, not remove them from the platform. I say this neutrally, as a warning about future additions to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  My intention with bringing this situation to this board isn't to get Woovee blocked or topic banned, but to get help from administrators on the situation. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• I have had strong disagreements with both of these editors on music topics. Two years ago, I accused Aradicus77 of having a conflict of interest, but since June 2025 Aradicus77 has buckled down and worked hard to flesh out a wide variety of music topics, especially genres and music scenes, successfully staying away from the old COI territory. On the other hand, Woovee has continued for years to be intractable, displaying battleground and ownership behavior on their favourite topics, and employing wikilawyer tricks to turn what should be normal Wikipedia discussions into cage fights. Despite the constructive areas of contribution, which definitely exist, Woovee is unable to collaborate with anyone holding a different opinion. Woovee's chosen role over the years has been to establish the One True Narrative in goth and post-punk, barring the door to vandals, certainly, but also to other published viewpoints in reliable sources. I would rather see Aradicus77 widening the topics than Woovee keeping them on the straight and narrow. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  If Binkersternet demands a topic ban, I am sorry to tell them they won't get satisfaction.

  The countless historical mistakes present in Aradicus77 edits have to be corrected by someone. An instance ? Aradicus77's last huge historical mistake is to keep on adding that "post-punk is a sub-genre of punk" [451].

  Does wp:Original research matter for them ? One can ponder about this big issue. Woovee (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is another misleading comment. My edit summary states I added "post-punk is a subgenre of rock music". Not subgenre of post-punk... Aradicus77 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Aradicus77 keeps on revisting their edits. Yet they had written in this diff [452] that "post-.punk is a subgenre of punk".

  Post-punk is not a subgenre. Full stop. Woovee (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Post-punk IS a subgenre of rock music. You now link an old revision of the page where I made a mistake linking rock music to punk rock. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Woovee, anyone examining your diff can see that your accusation against Aradicus77 was false. Why are you making false accusations at ANI? Would you like to withdraw what you wrote? Your personal attacks against Binksternet ring hollow without evidence. Do you have evidence? Are you really trying to be dogmatic about musical genres at ANI? Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is inaccurate. Aradicus77 kept on editing post-punk these last days adding either that "post-punk is a subgenre of punk" or "post-punk is a subgenre of rock music". Both claims are inaccurate and original research.

  There isn't any dogmatism in my edits. All my edits are based on reliable sources. I defy anyone to prove the contrary. There wasn't any attack directed to Binkersternet but if I am asked to correct it, I'll do. Woovee (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Like I mentioned before on that page, you tried to remove User:Lofi Gurl's addition [453], [454], [455] multiple times with the reason that only Reynolds and Heylin are reliable sources to be used on the article... You have decided your sources are the end all be all on these topics, as someone stated before WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, some of your other arguments involve WP:STABLE ([456]) and WP:CONTENTAGE [457] ("The article has been stable for nearly ten years. Users agreed with the version online.")

  Binksternet has already stated how you tend to police the post-punk and gothic rock articles, the entire Post-punk#Influences section on that article was a hassle to add because of you. With endless reverts, edit-warring and random arguments being made to challenge the information being added ([458]), when other perspectives are valid on Wikipedia. You initially even removed everything I had contributed to the page ([459]).

  New information / good-faith edits should be integrated into an article not be deleted to maintain your own "stable" version of what it should be. You bully other editors into having to accept your revision of an article. The friction at gothic rock has been ongoing from September till October. And our initial friction at post-punk was in July and still occurring at the moment because of your reverting of my CE edits ([460])

  I don't know why you keep stating that I'm using WP:originalresearch when I edit articles. Your edit summaries read WP:Own and 2 other editors have made mention of this, now 3 given what Binksternet has said. Aradicus77 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Woovee, that addition to post-punk was not "an opinion", it was a summarization of a published source. Loudersound is established as a reliable source. Are you serious? Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Does @Lofi Gurl: grasp the notion of wp:undue ?

  When an unorthodox view is advanced from a source and goes against what all has been analyzed by all the post-punk music experts cited in bibliographies of major publications / books / music magazines about the subject, it is called UNDUE. A undue / marginal thesis can not be added in the lead for those grounds.

  Should that Louderthansound article/author/website/ thesis that has never been cited as a source so far in any music expert book about post-punk, be suddenly more important than all has been written in publications before ?.

  Really "are you serious".

  Whatever Lofi Gurl is invited to add that source/link at post-punk talk page with the name of the author and shows the community where had they added that source in the body. That would be useful. Woovee (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Note: Removed content was this. Woovee, in the future, please cross out statements you retract instead of deleting them. You can retract by typing <s> </s> around the content you wish to retract. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• I only know about each of these editors from the gothic rock article dispute. My only comments are: 1) though I tended to side with Woovee's arguments in terms of the quality of sources and what is due weight, Woovee engaged in edit warring and has repeatedly shown an WP:OWN attitude, the latter even after myself and another editor both independently warned them of this in the discussion. In my opinion, Woovee did seem more willing to accept correction than Aradicus77 about edit warring, and did try to work with me in my attempt at dispute resolution, but still was resistant to accepting other perspectives on the topic at hand. As I started formalizing my thoughts here for this discussion, I then discovered that yesterday Woovee tagged me in this, which is combative and accusatory and also undid my talk page warning about edit warring (it also was regarding an edit unrelated to the gothic rock page, specifically, which was what I had been trying to mediate). So my earlier assessment that Aradicus77 was the more hostile individual is now amended: both are antagonistic regarding at least this subject. 2) In the particular dispute I tried to mediate, Aradicus77 seemed more hostile and combative. When I warned them of edit warring, they bit back with "why didn't you tell the other editor the same?", even though I did precisely that. Later, I rolled the gothic rock article back to a previous, uncontested state. I understood that I probably removed some content that both editors wanted or otherwise broke some things, and said as much on the talk and asked for input on what needed fixing after my edit. Aradicus77 then challenged me with basically "why did you remove X things?", when I had said that I probably remove some things that should be included and asked for feedback. I feel, though, that Aradicus77 had been more open to compromise than Woovee, in my opinion, they just were abrasive in discussion.

These two comments of mine is my only say on the matter here. I don't know if this is to the level of ANI or not (and I try to avoid this place). But, if it is, Aradicus77 deserves to be brought here, too, in my opinion. If I were asked as to what I'd recommend, I'd say that both editors should take a break from each other and from any post-punk related topics.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know you had told the other editor the same thing at the time. The hostile reply was because I assumed that you had singled me out, at the time I was already increasingly frustrated with Woovee's WP:OWN of the gothic rock page, and how he had done something similar at post-punk and was now assuming that you were now warning me from touching those pages... Sorry for that bad faith assumption. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The why did you remove this and that was because since it was an edit-war there was no way for me to re-add the stuff you removed without it being assumed to be me continuing said edit-war, so I had to let you know of the information you omitted. Though albeit it was somewhat in an aggressive manner, given the aforementioned reasons. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed 1RR restriction on Woovee

As a temporary remedy, I propose placing a restriction on Woovee such that they cannot revert more than one time in 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would propose that for Aradicus77, too, given that they continue to edit war.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Would this just be for the post-punk and gothic rock articles? Aradicus77 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

John Rey Malto-related spam articles on Wikipedia

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

---

• Jhoma22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Rey Malto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jhoma22 has persisted in editing pages for which they have a conflict of interest:

• Joice Espinoza
• John Rey Malto
• Pangako Mo
• Global Music Awards
  • Draft:Global Music Awards
• Hasna Cabral
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rey Malto (2nd nomination)

This is in spite of multiple requests and warnings on their talk page.^{[461][462][463][464][465][466]}

They disingenuously removed article tags -- {{More citations needed}}, {{notability}}, {{ai-generated}} and {{coi}}) -- with the edit summary "typo"

The John Rey Malto article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rey Malto. I can't see the deleted version but the AfD comments allude to promotional wording and edit warring.

It's been pointed out that Jhoma22 may have an immediate connection to John Rey Malto and has used that article to promote Malto's show business clients -- see this chunk of text that was removed and Aesurias's accompanying edit summary.

A possibly related Filipino IP removed COI tags: 58.69.4.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have notified Jhoma22 of this discussion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Summation: if you look at these articles' histories, especially the history of John Rey Malto, you'll see Jhoma22 has tied up too much of various editors' time. This needs to stop and multiple comments to the person have had no effect to date. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I second all of this.

The user has repeatedly attempted to remove COI tags (clearly not in good faith either, they tried to mask it with incorrect edit summaries), and an IP user based in Manila did the same. Aesurias (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm just going to mention that I had to apply full move protection to John Rey Malto as the editor kept moving the article to different locations during the AFD discussion. I am a big believer in ROPE but this editor doesn't seem to be able to pick up on the very blunt hints being provided by other editors to change their editing behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have blocked Jhoma22 for two weeks for disruptive editing. They can spend that time learning about our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Uncivil provocative and edit-warring behaviour by User:Freedoxm

• Freedoxm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chek Chue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Chek Chue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

tl;dr I believe Freedoxm is acting provocatively (and even borderline attacking) toward editors with different opinions, regarding their failure to produce references and citations for a page move. Freedoxm also engaged in edit-warring behaviour when challenged/doubted.

Details of the incident

User:Freedoxm has been consistently acting aggressively against users of different opinions on the topic of their renaming of the Stanley, Hong Kong article to Chek Chue. The user has made the page move on 24 May 2025 (move log) citing WP:COMMONNAME, but has failed to produce any form of references to support such page move. As per WP:COMMONNAME, the common name of an article subject is determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources, which such page move action failed to meet. Their edits immediately after the move again cites no source for such name but just to justify their move.

This baseless page move has been left unnoticed for months. Less than 48 hours ago (13 Oct 16:40 UTC) when an anonymous (IP) editor noticed the issue, undid Freedoxm's changes to the article, and immediately started a discussion on the talk page, pinging Freedoxm. The anon editor pointed out that Freedoxm failed to produce evidence to support the move and edits in the talk page and edit summaries. Before even responding to the discussion, Freedoxm first undid the anon edit at 17:01 UTC, and only the responded to the anon editor on the talk page, asking the anon editor to produce sources for their edit despite Freedoxm themself failing to do so first. Freedoxm then called the anon editor ridiculous in a following response to the anon editor asking them to go check out by themself. Freedoxm and the anon editor (along with some patrolling editors who likely didn't know what the anon editor was actually doing) changed the contents of the article back and forth.

The anon editor proceeded to produce evidence to counter Freedoxm's page move in response to Freedoxm's request to do so, yet Freedoxm only picked on the anon editor's use of {{vandal}}, calling it a PA, and failed to focus on the issue. Freedoxm also accused the anon user of another count of PA for asking them to revert their page move (here I do think the anon user used slightly heavy language but clearly does not meet the threshold of PA).

As I entered the issue and posted a RM, I pointed out Freedoxm's provocative behaviour alongside. I also made an edit with the correct place name properly cited, yet again Freedoxm decides to undo my edit (06:52 UTC today) first before responding to discussions (07:02 UTC today), also saying that my pointing out of their provocative behaviour as, again, ridiculous. In total, Freedoxm has made two reverts against anon edits and one revert against my edits within 48 hours, plus their refusing to listen to the opposing arguments, is still clearly edit-warring behaviour while not a bright-line violation of 3RR. Also their attempt in transferring the burden of proof on their own improper page move to those who doubt them, is clearly also not constructive collaboration either. And since they are now refusing to get involved in relevant discussions (which of course I can't force coz they can choose not to) yet again left off with an aggressive comment, I could only report the incident here at ANI.

--LuciferianThomas 07:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe my actions were WP:UNCIVIL, probably a little bit harsh, but I don't understand or get what this ANI incident is trying to obtain, reach, or achieve. I'm not trying to attack or offend anyone. I sincerely apologize on the page move I conducted on July. I admit, I did not check the sources. On an aggressive comment, it was meant to be fair until the page move ends. Three reverts in a 48-hour period also isn't considered WP:EDITWARRING. I wish to not be involved, but it seems like if I don't, I'll be put at risk of being blocked. I defended my actions because no one objected to my page move-all the way until now, when I was pinged. Though I express regret on actions done months ago, I still believe, that in my defense, that this ANI report might've been exagerrated in a narrative. I don't see why or how I failed to focus on the issue- I was only asking the IP to remove it. The IP refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK, ignored my recommendations (see talk page of Chek Chue/Stanley) twice. All I wish is for the ANI discussion to quickly end inconclusively with no result, and no consequences. With the conclusion of this paragraph, I will be WP:DROPPINGTHESTICK as well to prevent further dispute, as it is against my sole will to repeatedly get involved in such discussion. I encourage the user who started this request to also WP:DROPTHESTICK Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Repeatedly rudeness by calling others "ridiculous", when people are just trying to point out what you did wrong, is clearly uncivil.
2. You do not appear to be any apologetic up until I reported you here. Whatever points I wrote here regarding your inappropriate page move have also been made by the anon editor and I on the talk page, yet you consistently refused to acknowledge your mistake until you are reported to here.
3. If you at all initially actually focused on the issue, you would have realised your previous page move was a mistake (like you just did here), and you could have reverted your own page move and edits without even the need of bureaucratic processes to move the page back.
4. As previously said, three reverts in 48 hours isn't a violation of the bright-line 3RR, but as WP:EW clearly states, [t]he three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Since your reverts are not on vandalism or content breaking overriding rules ("exemptions") and that you refused to discuss or acknowledge sources at all and still reverted, your edits clearly constitute edit warring.
5. And you definitely did fail to focus on the issue there, you asked the IP to give you 20 examples of you being wrong, the IP provided it, and then you only focused on the vandal template and never responded to the 20 examples of you being wrong again.
6. You personally do know what a move request is, yet you cannot guarantee that an anon editor knows what exactly a move request is, nor that they know how to start one. Assuming that the IP is "ignoring your recommendations" is also basically just assuming bad faith.

LuciferianThomas 08:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the note on dropping the stick edited in while I was typing, I do not intend to keep bringing up any dead debates. You still fail to acknowledge that you made mistakes in various aspects. The first time you say you are dropping the stick at 20:53 UTC (14 Oct), you came back to revert my edit without provocation (I didn't ping you in the talk page as you stated you are removing yourself from the discussion), and proceeded in calling me ridiculous in the talk page. What you are doing is beating a live horse, dropping the stick running, and telling the horse not to chase at you. You also do not get to be aggressive at someone, tell them you are reporting them to ANI, then complain when someone else reports you to ANI for your behaviour. LuciferianThomas 08:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Rather than an exaggeration as Freedoxm had claimed, what LuciferianThomas submitted was an understatement. E.g. Freedoxm had reverted, just for the sake of blocking other people's edits, the correction of the wrong Yale romanisation, which was not itself in anyway related to the page move. The situation could have best handled with himself undoing the move since no further page move discussion has ever been necessary in such an obvious case. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That I must say, you never actually mentioned the incorrectness of the romanisation adopted in either edit summaries or talk page discussions. I do not agree that this would be a good claim of wrong-doing on their end. LuciferianThomas 09:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

And that your edits directly reverting their reverts were also clear edit warring behaviour. LuciferianThomas 09:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought that would be too minor to be spelt out and no one would have expected an edit warrior would be acting like that.

And if I counted correctly I only reverted him once on the mass replacement of Stanley to Chek Chue in the article content. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't assume the other user knows Cantonese romanisation, even I don't know Yale either. It read out fine (even that it is clearly not the correct place name in English context), and it didn't appear to be an issue. LuciferianThomas 09:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will.

Btw, a correction: I reverted twice. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you think you’re correcting? The definition of edit-warring is “repeatedly reverting”, and twice is certainly repeatedly. (Actually read WP:3RR if you don’t believe me.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. And yes I agree not even once should be done if the situation allows. It's a correction because I thought that was done only once. It turns out that was actually done twice. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Another example would be that he went to request for page protection of the talk page. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Brandon. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Freedoxm You need to be more careful with your language. It takes two to edit-war, but in this case you made a bold move and an IP editor objected. The onus is then on you to revert the move and, if you disagree with the IP editor's reasoning, open an RM. (Now that an RM is open, though, you should leave the article where it is.)

You have apologized for the bold move (which is not something you need to apologize for even if the rationale was incorrect), but not for your poor language. I am not surprised that the IP "ignored [your] recommendations" when your first "recommendation" was "Mind citing at least 20 sources that prove Chek Chue isn't the commonname?". Toadspike [Talk] 08:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently he doesn't get it. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That edit was made two hours before my comment. You are not doing yourself any good by being snarky here. Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't actually referring to your message above. He's been reminded of Wp:Statusquo much much earlier. 203.145.95.161 (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Canvsssing in the PIA topic area

It concerns the article Pallywood and the word "falsely". There are two recent reddit threads about it: [1], [2]. And at least one editor, BaconAnim4te (talk · contribs), with a total of 5 edits, last one in August, made this thread, which seems to coincide with the timing of the reddit posts.

I am uninvolved in the discussion/dispute, just wanted to bring it to Administrator attention. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

user:36.37.168.207 needs talk page edit access removed

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

---

36.37.168.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Also some edits and edit summaries hidden. Adakiko (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User:AlsoWukai

AlsoWukai has a long-standing pattern of combative copyediting and disruptive editing, which I have observed for some time. The most recent example, detailed below, occurred on the article XIX International Chopin Piano Competition, which I have been actively expanding over the course of the competition. AlsoWukai has made no substantive contributions, instead repeatedly inserting disputed "copyedits" while ignoring all requests to discuss these changes on the talk page. This report concerns the user's behavior; specifically their refusal to engage in discussion and their violation of WP:BRD, not the content of the edits themselves.

The user has repeatedly forced their preferred version of the text into the article, ignoring the WP:BRD cycle. I have attempted to de-escalate at each step, from providing edit summary explanations to issuing formal warnings, all of which have been ignored.

The sequence of events is as follows: AlsoWukai made their first copyedit. I reverted, explained the grammatical reasoning in my edit summary, and asked them to use the talk page if they disagreed. Ignoring this, they reinstated the edit a second time. I reverted again, this time explicitly asking them to observe WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page. They made the same edit a third time. I reverted and issued a {{uw-3rr}} warning on their talk page. They then edit warred a fourth time. I reverted and left a final warning on their talk page that further incidents would be reported here. They have now ignored all warnings and made the fifth revert.

I acknowledge that I also made multiple reverts in response. However, at each stage I attempted to communicate through edit summaries and user talk page warnings, requesting discussion. AlsoWukai has not responded to any of these requests, neither in edit summaries nor on any talk page, making collaborative resolution impossible.

This is not an isolated incident and fits a long-standing pattern of behavior.

• In a 2020 ANI report, the closing summary noted that "AlsoWukai has effectively received a final edit warring warning from multiple administrators, meaning any future instances of edit warring may be met with sanctions without further warnings."
• In a subsequent 2022 ANI report, editors TrottieTrue, Denham331, and Futurix described a nearly identical pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring over minor stylistic preferences while refusing to engage in discussion: "AlsoWukai's general attitude is that they are right, to the exclusion of others, which is not constructive for building an encyclopaedia."

AlsoWukai continues to engage in combative, tendentious editing. This makes collaborative editing impossible. intforce (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, your attempts to communicate do not immunize you against your own edit warring. You've made four reverts? Ravenswing 12:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The attempts at communication are terrible anyway. Talk:XIX International Chopin Piano Competition hasn't had a new comment for 5 months. (Ironically AlsoWukai did edit it, to correct another editor's comments which isn't exactly a good thing, but does reflect how silly this whole thing is when the editor being complained about is the only who did touch the talk page recently albeit not to discuss the dispute.) So much for BRD. BRD isn't "bold, revert, request discussion" it's "bold, revert, discuss". It's always silly to make increasingly insistent demands that some other party initiate discussion failing to do so yourself, when you could just be the better editor and be the one to do it. What purpose does it serve templating another editor telling them they need to discuss something on the talk page when you yourself are guilty of the same misbehaviour? Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You are both correct that my own handling of the situation, specifically the multiple reverts, was not ideal, and I take your points about my failure to initiate a talk page discussion myself. My actions were based on two factors: the rapid, ongoing development of the article which made leaving disputed edits in place problematic, and the user's documented, long-term history of ignoring all attempts at communication. While my response was based on BRD, which explicitly instructs the bold editor to "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you", I concede your point that when the other editor refused to follow that process, I could have been the one to start a talk page thread myself to de-escalate the situation. However, this report was brought to ANI precisely because this is not a standard content dispute that can be resolved through discussion, but a behavioral issue involving a user who has a final warning for this exact pattern of combative editing and refusal to engage. intforce (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. In so much as there was an explanation in edit summaries for why editor feels their version is better, intforce said [467] 'I'm really not sure why you are on a personal crusade against passive voice. It is used for a reason – the performer is the important detail and should be mentioned first, not the reviewer.' and [468] 'This so-called "copyediting" has actually made the article worse.' and AlsoWukai said 'Yamagata is a person, not a performance' [469]. Neither of these are that great & reflect why edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. It does seem AlsoWukai has a history of almost never discussing their changes. But the fact remains, it's always far more productive to come to ANI and say 'I tried to discuss with this editor but they never joined the discussion' rather than 'I would have discussed with this editor and kept asking them to initiate discussion but since they never started one and I'm sure they would not have joined one, I never did initiate discussion so pretty much all I can say about how they didn't discuss this dispute also applies to me & I have no proof other than history that this editor wouldn't have joined a discussion'. Such ANIs are so incredibly frustrating when one editor could have spent 5-10 minutes to start a discussion and proven that the other editor didn't join the discussion. Especially given AlsoWukai's history I expect few of us would care there were no templates on their talk page but instead simply a comment on the article talk page explaining why intforce felt their version was better with perhaps a link in the edit summary imploring AlsoWukai to join it after a few days if they didn't. So maybe 3-8 minutes extra would have been required assuming the template probably took 1-2 minutes. That would have shown one editor was mostly following BRD but getting no where unlike now where what we have is neither editor is following BRD but instead potentially both editors are just waiting for the other side to initiate discussion and in the mean time continuing with the reverts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You write I reverted, explained the grammatical reasoning in my edit summary. Your edit summary was rv some "copyediting". I'm really not sure why you are on a personal crusade against passive voice. It is used for a reason – the performer is the important detail and should be mentioned first, not the reviewer. Please refrain from such "copyediting" and discuss on the talk page if you disagree. That was scornful, about style not grammar, and hardly collaborative. Just now, you wrote I could have been the one to start a talk page thread myself to de-escalate the situation; such escalation as there was began with that edit summary. It is entirely normal and constructive for copy-edits to be made by one editor while another is expanding it; no-one owns any article at any stage. NebY (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Refusing to communicate & continuing to ignore BRD, is indeed problematic behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Skobuck

Skobuck has edited solely at Todd Graves (entrepreneur), and now is being joined by various brand new accounts in an ongoing edit war over unsourced/iffy source bloated promotional content. Apparent unpaid editing, undeclared, has been present at this article for years. I think the article needs to be semi'd and Skobuck p-blocked from the article to force them into the talk page where they can maybe get some familiarity with COI, sockpuppetry and edit-warring policies. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Edwardx, who's been dealing with this there too. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have pblocked Skobuck from that article indefinitely. I am writing up an SPI. Toadspike [Talk] 12:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The (lout)socking seems to go back a while. Skobuck may not even be the master. I have semiprotected while I try to sort this out. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a lot. For a long time it was sporadic, but this most recent stuff is pretty persistent. Thanks, Toadspike! Valereee (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skobuck. Bare-bones for now, will fill in evidence in a sec. I went through the history to mid-2024. There might be some earlier stuff, but IPs like the one that edit-warred in July 2024 are gonna be stale. Toadspike [Talk] 12:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: The socking was sufficiently obvious that I have blocked four accounts and an IP. A CheckUser will deal with the rest. Please report any further accounts at the SPI. Toadspike [Talk] 14:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The material they are attempting to add is obviously COI. Also, the lead image in the infobox (File:BREC Dog Park Groundbreaking City Park Scaled-10.jpg) is a copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:杜の街, possible AI edits, and almost definitely AI stonewalling when pointed out

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

This user has made many edits that show signs of possibly being AI-generated. This is only a suspicion and not proof, and the text was added in late 2025, so the AI tells aren't as obvious as the ones in earlier chatbots. But they are still there. (Note: Before anyone complains, this is not about the actual claims but the specific verbiage and cadence -- something that occurs over and over in AI-generated text, does not occur nearly as often in pre-2023 text, and that has several studies of actual research corroborating its overrepresentation. Please trust that I have looked at thousands of these AI edits as well as thousands of non-AI edits. The patterns are very distinct.)

There are many edits here and a lot of them seem to be copy-pasted across articles (resulting in such fun stuff as ref numbers copied over in plaintext), but here's one representative diff: their story underscores the difficulties of aligning humanitarian ideals with the constraints of power and local custom in the early modern world, reveal the challenges of effecting change in a complex environment, highlighting the moral complexities of the Jesuits’ position, widely circulated texts fostered a national identity rooted in the belief... (The title-cased headlines and "Overview" etc type structure are also characteristic of AI but the text itself is a stronger indicator.)

Most of the sources cited here are physical books, so I cannot easily check them for hallucinations. Which is why I added the tag, this is exactly what its purpose is. I did not add talk page comments in this page because the issues seemed self-evident to me, there were so many edits to slog through, and it is very exhausting saying the same things thousands of times. The point is to flag that AI may have been used so that the editor can disclose whether it was, and that people know a full audit of every claim and every source needs to be done.

In response, I get hit (and, annoyingly, tagged) with several near-identical instances (Example) of what appear to be LLM-generated walls of text complaining about how the tag "violates the article's integrity," asking for "concrete evidence" when the AI-generated template does not require that (that's what the certain=y parameter is for), citing irrelevant policies like speedy criterion G15, and otherwise dodging the question. For example: I am unaware of any issues that suggest the article is either partly or entirely LLM-generated in violation of the three criteria of WP:G15 -- if you wrote the thing, why are you talking about "issues that suggest" the article text is AI when you can definitively state whether it was?

I tried collapsing the latest one per WP:HATGPT, it was reverted, and so here we are. Ironically it would have been plausible the article edits just happened to overlap with AI verbiage until that talkpage spam. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

All the talkpage requests to remove the AI-generated tag absolutely read to me as typical LLM rebuttals, down to the excessive referencing of WP:XYZ pages. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 14:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've had a look. My feeling is that the original article text (at least in Slavery in Portugal) was written by a human, but then it was "polished" by a LLM. This is because the source-text integrity is closer than what you would expect from something wholly LLM-generated, and it relies, unusually for pure-LLM text, on fewer sources with supporting quotes. However, there are still numerous infelicities, all of which occur in text that strongly resembles AI-generation. For example, under #Portuguese just war doctrine, we have the phrase "ensuring such practices aligned with ethical standards", which cannot be verified by the provided quote but which is exactly the sort of vaguely positive jargon LLMs love to churn out. The talkpage responses are very likely similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my sense as well -- either that or an LLM-based translation, since the editor seems to be active on the Japanese wiki. One of the reasons I added the tag was so people who actually have access to those sources could check them out.

(I reverted one edit, probably hasty on my part -- I've been criticized by different people for tagging instead of reverting as well as for reverting instead of tagging, so I don't even know at this point.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, even more likely, the LLM was given the lengthy quotes and asked to summarise them. There is a fair bit of plagiarism in the article, and its far easier to plagiarise when you only have one layer of content production, not two. Violations such as:

Africans in Europe readily adopted European languages, Christian names, and religious practices, with some enthusiastically engaging in Iberian Catholicism through lay brotherhoods or religious vocations. However, slave marriages were rare, and most slave children were born out of wedlock. After Council of Trent, there was a striking increase in the number of marriages between slaves.

Africans readily learned European languages and adopted Christian names and religious practices. Indeed, the enthusiasm African showed for Iberian Catholicism -- joining lay brotherhoods and, in some cases, following religious vocations ... the overwhelming majority of slave children were born out of wedlock. (After Trent ... there was a striking increase in the number of marriages between slaves.)

are almost certainly the result of an LLM being asked to summarise text, unknowing to WP:CLOP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I can support Gnomingstuff's assessment that 杜の街 has used an LLM to generate prose. Here’s another example that reflects the struggle of using a Large language model to generate text, illustrating and revealing that despite recent advances humans are best suited for the challenge of creating prose, and underscoring the importance of carefully reviewing and correcting output to better align with Wikipedia’s ideals.

Collapsed quote from Slavery in Portugal (1301835010)

The Jesuits’ efforts to combat the Japanese slave trade reflect a struggle between moral conviction and practical limitations. Despite securing royal decrees and attempting reforms, they faced resistance from Portuguese elites and the realities of Japan’s socio-political context. Their compromises, such as signing schedulae and tolerating certain forms of servitude, reveal the challenges of effecting change in a complex environment. While historian Ryōji Okamoto argues that the Jesuits should be absolved of blame due to their exhaustive efforts, their story underscores the difficulties of aligning humanitarian ideals with the constraints of power and local custom in the early modern world.

When asked directly, yes or no, if an LLM was used, the direct response was: Your "yes or no" request shifts the burden of proof inappropriately. Per WP:V, content is evaluated based on reliable sources, not assumptions about the editing process. Demanding such an answer risks bad-faith assumptions (WP:AGF) and bypasses the evidence requirement of Template:AI-generated and WP:G15, potentially constituting WP:GAME by avoiding substantive discussion. I have stated that my contributions are based on reliable sources, and I am unaware of any issues meeting WP:G15 criteria, along with a lot of other text that appears to be more LLM-assisted wikilawyering [470][471]. This is not constructive behavior. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

With that unarguably AI-generated quote and equally unarguably AI-generated dissembling, I'd suggest that 杜の街 be blocked from article space until they commit to correcting their flawed text. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to hear 杜の街's response here before asking for any sanctions, but I can already say this:

When considering the fact that an LLM was used, that the use is highly evident in the form of unencyclopedic prose, that 杜の街 is combative when said use is tagged [472][473][474][475], and evasive when questioned [476][477]. I have very little confidence in the encyclopedic integrity of their recent edits, and would likely support a mass rollback of effected edits. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I would prefer holding off on anything until they respond -- this editor seems to be on Asia time so they're probably not around right now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves

Sand box editor 786 786 (talk · contribs) appears to be attempting to force at least one, possibly more than one, declined AFC draft into mainspace by unilaterally moving a page on a related or similar-named topic to a new title, and then replacing the redirect with completely different content. In addition to being a clear case of WP:GAMING, as a principle you simply cannot just shove something else out of the way in order to make room for your own work if their isn't any policy-based reason to move the page. I'm going to revert what I can, but at least some of them are going to require deletion of conflicting titles, and some additional admin eyes would be appreciated. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide examples of what you're referring to. Editors can't be expected to go search out these moves. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The one that got my attention was the attempt to force declined Draft:Muhammad Yaseen into mainspace by hijacking the page about a different person at Muhammad Yaseen, inappropriately moving it to Muhammad Yasein, and then pasting in the contents of the declined draft over the resulting redirect (thus making it impossible to undo). I then noticed that there are several other moves of questionable appropriateness in their contributions, many of which I cannot revert due to technical issues with pages having been edited, often by the same user. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

For now, I’ve blocked them from page moves, as they’re very active even now and causing lots of disruption. I am interested in hearing from them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Upon further digging it looks like there are at least a few cases where we've ended up with duplicate articles on the exact same (non-notable?) subject at two different titles. I'm trying to clean this up as best as I can but it's confusing as hell. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've cleaned up everything as best as I can (just waiting for admin action to delete a couple implausible/orphaned redirects). The duplicate article now lives at Rehan Akram Mirza, which appears to be the proper name, although I have flagged it for notability concerns. This appears to be a different person than the subject for which an unrelated mainspace page was hijacked, which has now been corrected. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Those moves were definitely disruptive! Thank you for addressing them. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Arlandria_Ff disrupting consensus

Arlandria Ff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting consensus on Lady Gaga-related topics and mass reverting the verdict of an RfC. An RfC was started here and was discussed for around two months before support from other editors was reached and the change was implemented. More information about the RfC's timeline can be found here.

Upon the implementation of the RfC, Arlandria Ff (who did not comment or contribute to the RfC while it was active) immediately mass-reverted the change [478] [479] [480] with the same edit summary; "There was no consensus reached you're just making your own" when the talk page suggests otherwise. They are not afraid to use personal attacks as well, as seen here. [481]

After reminding them of WP:CCC to change recently established consensus can be disruptive and reverting their reverts, they returned a week or so later and reverted the changes again with the same edit summary. [482] [483] [484] They seem to be a WP:SPA fan account who is only interested in non neutral fan edits about Lady Gaga. I am not sure if this is edit warring as it is technically outside of the 24 hour rule. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

LLM misuse by MD Tanvir H

MD Tanvir H (talk · contribs) is a user with a self-professed intermediate level of English who is misusing LLMs in both article and talk spaces. They have had two articles G15'd: I nominated Julián Calderón after noticing that 17 of the 18 (!!) references had broken URLs. Another article they created, Enayat al-Sahn, is a mess (check the Bibliography section) with extensive WP:V failures documented in my source assessment table and noted by other editors at the AfD discussion. Their conduct at the AfD page is peak CIR/NOTHERE: spamming the conversation with this bizarre message [485][486][487], probably using an LLM to create this non-template source assessment table [488] which also included this statement This article is not LLM-generated. I have personally researched and verified all sources, then claiming again [489] they had verified content in sources. I left them a final-ish warning on their talk page a few days ago, asking for an explanation; they ignored it and today created Terri Marie Kozlowski, which in addition to being obviously LLM-generated gives me UPE vibes. NicheSports (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition, this sandbox version of that article includes what appears to be a chatbot response at the end. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

DinninghtW reverting constructive edits.

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

---

User DinnightW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ahs been reverting (wuthout a edit summary) many constructive/good-faith edits and marking them as vandalism. When told to stop, they have continued. Seems like they have either not read the policies regarding anti-vandalism, or are trying to increase their edit count.

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You're going to have to supply some diffs there, LuniZunie. Ravenswing 17:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Whoops completely forgot, will add now. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

See also filter log, as this user has a Bot report at AIV also. Mfield (Oi!) 17:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Suggest Admin Eyes at Talk:Hasan Piker

This page has come up tangentially in a couple of recent ANI cases but it looks to be attracting WP:NOTHERE behaviour and generally accusatory language around intentions of editors now over recent Social Media Controversy involving this person (relevant subsections: [490],[491]).

Might need to consider talk page protection for a limited period. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Babysharkboss2 - RC patroller whose edit summaries are questionable

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

---

Babysharkboss2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello admins. I've been observing the behavior of this user, @Babysharkboss2, particularly in edit summaries, and I'm surprised they're not permanently blocked yet. There is a wide range of disrespectful summaries this user just continues to do despite them having been blocked TWICE already. I will not be surprised if they get indef'd, considering this behavior is STILL ongoing despite so many editors, both newcomers AND experienced editors, advising them of their rude behavior. Even after they turned off their Twinkle, they still have this pattern of trolling in edit summaries and lying about not making attacks. Please intervene against BSB2's disruptive behavior. Thank you.
EDIT: I was convinced by a few other editors that while BSB2's edits per se might be helpful, it's rather the over-swearing in the summaries. I also striked out the evidence I provided from before their last block. Indeffing them is too much, I go back on that. It's more a formal warning to refrain from putting swear words too much in edit summaries, while their good-faith edits are perfectly valid. A warning to cut down on questionable edit summaries (edits themselves are ok) and over-cussing might be warranted. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 18:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

"Lying" - you haven't linked to any evidence of me lying. I have been blocked twice, yes, neither for lying or personal attacks, though. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did. Just because neither of your past blocks' reasons explicitly mention personal attacks does not mean you didn't make any. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You're linking to my statement, not to where I've been warned for making personal attacks, which is what you're saying I have a 'pattern' of.

I have been blocked twice a in a month. I only ever made one unblock request because I didn't think the blocks were necessarily unwarranted. This thread, however, is surprising. I haven't gotten a single warning since my last block expired. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It IS indeed surprising, BSB2, because this summary (October 8th) made after your unblock (October 7th) is unacceptable, and yet nobody called you out for it until I did. This summary (also October 8th) is unacceptable too. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not fandom. We aren't supposed to entertain in-universe fan snuff. I see nothing wrong with being annoyed at a user adding multiple references and sections to two pages without actually having added any true value. They haven't made ANY contributions since then, let alone good edits. Trench is a disambiguation page anyway, so the connection didn't line up properly anyway. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

OH! Thank you for reminding me of that thread. Fuck, in that summery, was directed to myself. See, context is king. If you look at my prior edit summery, I suggest the classic anime film Paprika, as the thread was me trying to explain WP:SPOILER to another editor. But I goofed the link to Paprika (2006 film). So I had to make a dummy edit to properly link the movie. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Umm, what's this? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

BSB2, sorry that I put too much weight on your summaries without looking at the edits themselves, which were good-faith. I'm with @LaffyTaffer and @EvergreenFir that your only true issue is swearing, but aside from that your constructive edits should keep going. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace: I do not see any particularly galling edit summaries since the user's last block expired. What exactly has prompted this new report? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: This one is new, made after September 29th. Also, while not downright attacking, this one made today "This fire is out of control." is questionable, to say the least. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The first one was made in exasperation. Not meant to taunt or attack. The content was clearly vandalism.

Today was also not meant as an attack or taunt, rather as a general statement, as the content removed was previously reverted by another user. The removal of sourced content was also clear vandalism. As for the fire; it is a lyric. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

One edit removing troll content relating to 21 Pilots and another one quoting Franz Ferdinand? I'm failing to see any urgent need to intervene. Maybe Babyshark should avoid the f-bomb, but other than that I see no personal attacks and no major disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that was a lyric until BSB2's explanation above. Even without that context though, the comment is hardly trolling. Agree on not loving the profanity in edit summaries, but that's more preference. Those two examples are still sharp improvements compared to what was in edit summaries in the past. ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 19:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly? @EvergreenFir I think you're right. The main problem with BSB2 is dropping cusswords a bit too often. When I made this thread first, my frustration was fresh, but I've cooled down by now. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything actionable in what has been presented here. "Ligma balls" is obviously not an acceptable edit summary, but considering it was in response to "I mean this in the most meanest way possible, choke yourself twice while jumping off a bridge sucking a dozen dicks.", I think we can we forgive one of those. But, Babysharkboss2, we can definitely do without the colour commentary in the edit summaries in general: you are actively responding to accusations of bias, unreasonable as they mostly are, while at the same time making comments which give fuel to those claims in the minds of those impressionable enough to believe them in the first place. Yes, we cannot be held responsible for the preconceived notions of WP:NOTHERE SPAs arriving at CTOP articles with an agenda to "fight the leftist bias of Wikipedia", but you don't help our efforts to control that situation by taunting and editorializing in your talk page commentary or edit summaries. The need for our editors to be dry, clinical, and not get into the mud with the disruptive element is at its highest in these articles, so if you are going to contribute in such areas, please bring your all-business face and WP:DENY them the opportunity to leverage your comments for further disruption or to reinforce their conspiracy theory beliefs regarding this project. All that said, this report is otherwise a tempest in a teapot. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Snow Rise Summed it up perfectly. Summaries are the only issue with BSB, but the rest of their contributions themselves are fine. I would also like to apologize for using old evidence. If BSB starts being more polite & neutral in summaries without "throwing fuel into the fire" (as people like to metaphor), all will end well. Should we close this? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

In this instance, since you are the OP and believe the issues have been addressed, and there is general agreement that action is not called for, I do not think anyone would object to a self-close, provided your summary leans neutral-to-charitable towards BSBs overall conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

2601:188:c405:f440:950:80b2:657c:5a3f

This New Hampshire-based IP user is making a very unnecessary edit on the Southern Railway 1401 page. He kept changing the thumb images' position from left to right, which awkwardly position the two thumb images down. I kept telling him to stop doing that, but he refused to listen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Railway_1401&action=history Trainsfan13 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Trainsfan13: You should read MOS:IMAGELOC. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I was going to say the same thing but then I looked at the page in question. The thumbs belong on the left because of the infobox.

I have blocked the IP editor EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You should know better after being blocked for 2 weeks for editing warring before than to engage in another one with zero warnings issued to the other party, and no attempt to move the discussion to talk. In addition this is a clear personal attack[492]]. I have blocked your account for both. So this has boomeranged on you somewhat here. Mfield (Oi!) 19:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

user:Trainsfan13

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

---

Trainsfan13 has a history of threatening and harassing users over edits he doesn’t like. The user need a to be blocked longer instead of two weeks like in August, don’t know why you guys accept his behavior because he refuses to take criticism and whenever someone make an edit be doesn’t like, he has a hissy fit and yells at them on their talk pages. He blames users over situations that he causes like he’s doing right now. All I made was a simple harmless edit a r yet he think a it’s a threat to him. Again, he’s been harassing me for a while already. 2601:188:C405:F440:144F:F3A1:1863:2165 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

HELP with my IP address

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

---

Hello, I wanted to oversight Special:Diff/1317006679/cur because it contains my IP address and I am posting here because I can't email the oversight team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black0hole (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This has now been oversighted, @Black0hole. But - this is a really high traffic board so you made your IP address much more visible by posting here! There are other ways to contact the Oversight team other than email. qcne (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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

User_talk:Quebecguy

Probably need an edit history removal of User_talk:Quebecguy. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's taken care of already, if I'm reading correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)