Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197

User:Pflipshow

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

---

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

Pretty much this entire users contribution history consists of vandalizing articles related to Taylor Swift (or adding content related to her in non-related articles). They primarily do this through inserting defamatory material or rants that are clearly trolling. And this is assuming that the material isn't fully incomprehensible. Basically every edit they have ever made will suggest this, but to highlight a few specific examples: a rant about Swift allegedly wanting to make boo-ing her at the Super Bowl a crime (here); a defamatory controversy section that suggests that Taylor Swift has a personal vendetta against the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and ordered all of her fans residing within Cleveland, Ohio to leave the city (here); an unsourced and obviously defamatory remark claiming that Swift scammed her fans during her masters dispute and was being sued by several state attorneys (here); and finally, this one, which as far as I can tell claims that Swift is trying to boycott "communist record stores"...? Oh, and their most recent edit from earlier today suggests that Swift's newly announced album, The Life of a Showgirl, is being used as an example of anti-American feelings...? (here)

I feel like this is an extremely obvious block, per WP:NOTHERE, and one that I almost took directly to WP:AIV. But given that the user technically hasn't received many warnings (let alone max warnings) and actual proof may have been needed, combined with the fact they don't edit frequently, this was probably the safer venue. λ NegativeMP1 00:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Somehow I forgot what might possibly be the worst one. It might even flat out warrant removal. λ NegativeMP1 00:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indef for BLP violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:217.8.0.213

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

Should be blocked based on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1995hoo&oldid=1305543488#NFL_Clubs_thread. Assadzadeh (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh: "dickish" isn't that bad of an insult in UK English from my knowledge of being here. Also one insult doesn't really warrant an immediate block, maybe a {{uw-npa2}} or {{uw-npa3}} —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: The user whose talk page this IP left the comment on found it offensive. Also, if you look at the "contributions" made by this IP, you will note that they seem to be disruptive in nature. Assadzadeh (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll also point out that this [1] doesn't exude the most WP:CIVIL behavior. They only have five edits, none in main-space. So, I doubt they're here to build an encyclopedia. Conyo14 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Why bother? I just put {{uw-npa1}} on their talk page. Maybe emotions were running high? We should AGF —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

As the person at whom the insult was directed, I suppose I should weigh in. I deleted the comment from my talk page because I don't see any reason to engage with someone who posts that sort of thing, but I simply didn't care to bother anyone with reporting it here. One major factor in that was because the IP user had only four edits at the time and three of them were in a long-dormant discussion, so who knows whether the user will continue. Some people show up briefly and then vanish. If the user were to come back and do it again or to post something nastier, that might have changed things, but I figured the comment in question merited the sort of advice my mother used to give me when I was a kid and that, like most kids, I routinely ignored (i.e., "just ignore it"). Long way of saying, I have no strong feeling on what any administrators should or should not do here. 1995hoo (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Do you think this edit qualifies under that guideline? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Liz: where should this incident have been reported then? Assadzadeh (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  No-where, really. If the person it was directed at didn't feel it was worth reporting, it probably isn't worth reporting and drawing attention to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What The Bushranger said. If they wanted to take the time, most long-time editors and admins could probably fill at least a page of the uncivil remarks directed their way. Most of the time, you delete the content and move on to the next editing project. If it is vandalism, you can report it to WP:AIV but, honestly, being an editor on Wikipedia means you sometimes receive unpleasant remarks. The problem is not when they come from new editors or vandals but from other longtime editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves by 毕明明

毕明明 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user regularly moves pages with no discussion or justification. A level-4 warning was given in May after their second move war on GAC Trumpchi. They have made two more page moves since, [2], and [3], in the latter case despite there having been a discussion on the talk page.

The user's only edits to article talk pages have been page moves and adding project banners, and they have never responded to any concerns with their editing. I'm not familiar enough with Chinese automakers to be entirely sure what's going on, but several of their page moves have been reverted, and the refusal to communicate - especially with something as major as a page move - is decidedly disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This user has just made two more disruptive page moves, in one case moving it twice ([4], [5]) to make it more difficult to revert. This user needs, at minimum, an indefinite p-block from page moves - that would appear to be the only thing left that will get them to stop. --Sable232 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

See User talk:毕明明#Warning. Please let me know (ping me from here or on my talk if no response) if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I noticed that they moved the page Changan Oushang without discussion or rationale yesterday as well (Diff), after your warning was posted. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 09:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the user from further edits or moves to articles and have updated my message at their talk. 毕明明 will be unblocked as soon as they commit to discussing proposed page moves before making such changes, and provided they commit to discussing challenged edits to gain consensus before repeating them. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikiravidas

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

---

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

A disruptive user who is unable to follow Wikipedia guidelines or policy. This user added caste-related claims to the biographical article of a historical ruler named Ranjit Singh, and also on the articles of his ancestor, asserting that these individual belonged to the Sansi tribe, despite reliable sources, from established scholars in the field, such as W. H. McLeod, stating otherwise.

See their following additions copying and pasting the same caste-cruft: [6]; [7]; [8]

The caste identity of Ranjit Singh has been discussed in the past on the talk-page, with the scholarly consensus clearly being he was a Jat rather than a Sansi: [9]

Unreliability of the 1965 book by Sher Singh "Sher": [10]

I posted on their talk-page and on the talk-page of the article explaining why these edits are unreliable (misrepresenting sources by claiming they support their point when they actually do not, using British Raj-era sources for caste claims by pretending it was a modern source by a scholar, which it was not, it was actually a reprint of a British Raj source from 1899 (originally written by AH Bingley in 1899), using a 1965 source by a seemingly non-scholar/non-historian that was written to promote/aggrandize the Sansi caste, etc.) yet the user continues to argue with me and is not getting the point. I explained in detail how each of the four sources he used for his claims were unreliable yet he/she ignored any of my points and attempted to citation farm in an attempt to find a source that supports their claim. They told me that my sources are unreliable but are unable to explain how. They then say I cannot call the author of the 1965 book unreliable despite them appearing to not even be a scholar or historian.

They then cite a newspaper article (see: [11]) which states that a member of a "criminal tribes/caste"-affiliated organization claimed Ranjit Singh was a Sansi (whom were deemed as a "criminal tribe/caste" by the British), not realizing the obvious conflict of interest. They again cite a 1965 book that I already explained was unreliable (even two of the sources they used in their caste-cruft edits actually discussed how this book was written by an author that aggrandized this particular caste, the two sources do not make the claim this user misrepresents them as making of this historical figure belonging to that caste).

Again referencing the same 1965 book that I already explained is unreliable: [12]

Using a random website to support their claims: [13]

Using a British Raj-era source from 1896 to support their claims: [14], violates WP:RAJ

Their 1996 source is authored by a couple of sociologists, rather than historians, see: [15]

This user is just not getting the point. They have chosen to argue and farm for sources that they believe promote their view rather than accepting the scholarly consensus on this matter. I believe Wikipedia should not be a place for disruptive caste-warriors who misrepresent sources to promote particular POVs.

User has already been notified that India-related articles are contentious topics: [16]

I am not the only user who has raised potential casteist POV issues by this particular user: [17]

MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I already provided the evidence from books, to which @MaplesyrupSushi does not agree—I already provided a few references for my claim on page as well.

• Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab belonged to the Sansi caste. The Sansi caste, a low caste, was later on designated as a criminal tribe by the British . (After independence the Punjab Government in one decision changed the caste structure… …… Book name—Strategies of Social Change in India,page - 163, published in 1996

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Strategies_of_Social_Change_in_India/7lKM4aWhIH0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ranjit+singh+sansi&pg=PA163&printsec=frontcover Wikiravidas (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiravidas: There appears to be a typo in that book's contents page. Could you possibly provide a link to its publisher's website so we can get a better idea of the kind of books they publish? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shirt58 - There is nothing like a typo or any mistake. The book is published on Google Books, so you should raise questions to them about the publisher's website. If you read the whole page, you will find there is no mistake, and it's peer research.( Four references are provided on the page and many more on the talk page in favor of the fact that Ranjit Singh was a Sansi.)

Please follow all the references provided on the page. I am taking this matter to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the coming days so that it's resolved permanently. If Wikipedia users have any problem with university scholars' books and papers (which are not published online but are still with universities and claim that Ranjit Singh was Sansi), they can put a claim in court. Wikiravidas (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I am taking this matter to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the coming days is a WP:Legal threat which should be immediately withdrawn or attract a WP:INDEF. Narky Blert (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiravidas: needs to either strike that legal threat or be Ideffed immediately. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

142.112.234.124

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

---

Since coming off a 31 hour block, 142.112.234.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to slowly add unsourced content and making unexplained changes to various band and music related articles, all being reverted by other editors [18], [19], [20], [21]. They have not responded to any talk page notices. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Reblocked, this time for 2 weeks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Attempted outing by Fezmar9

Fezmar9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has tried to out me in an attempt to harrass me, by posting a link to what they claim is my X account here, following a content dispute in which they have shown an unwillingness to entertain the opposing views of the other editors or reach a compromise with them. This has led me to feeling intimidated to continue to edit or engage, knowing my personal information may be revealed by this editor. According to WP:OUTING, sharing another editor's profile on an external site "is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy" and "is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". To note that I had previously warned this editor both on the article talk page and their user talk page after they had repeatedly been uncivil towards me. They accused me of having "have some sort of extreme bias or personal grudge", described my edits as "insane", and posted a series of snarky/patronising edit summaries targeted at me - all before I even had the chance to engage in discussion with them. I would appreciate assistance in this matter so I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia free of intimidation. Thank you Bgkc4444 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

"I am extremely proud that in my nearly 20 years of editing wikipedia I have never once been accused of being uncivil" Having read the diffs, I'm left to wonder whether what Fezmar9 should be proud of instead is either their luck or the collective apathy of other editors, if this is their accustomed style of discourse. Be interested in hearing what they have to say in their defense. Ravenswing 13:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm genuinely asking, it still considered "outing" if they're literally the first Google result? In United States privacy law there's something called a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that states if someone takes a picture of you through your window from the street, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy because you left your window open and are thus not protected by privacy laws. Does that apply to Wikipedia as well? Should there be a reasonable expectation of privacy if they're the first Google result and made no attempt to actually hide their identity? My editing days aren't what they used to be and I don't remember WP:OUT being a thing back in my heyday so this is new to me. In fact, I don't think I've ever had a need to even read the broader Harassment page in all my time here. I would have followed this policy yesterday if I knew it existed.

I did not add this link in an attempt to harass, only establish a pattern of behavior that this user maintains a strong pro-Beyonce bias, which was relevant to our dispute. All of the accusations by Bgkc4444 are true as outlined, though lacking context. This user has been pushing the same exact sneaky pro-Beyonce edits for five years against established consensus (Talk:Surprise album#Beyonce & Definition of "Surprise" and Talk:Surprise album#Removal of sourced material) and reliable sources. Their edits back then were established to hold a bias (one editor in one discussion claimed, "I read this entire discussion, and I agree with @Fezmar9:. I think sources are being misinterpreted [by Bgkc4444] to make it look like other surprise releases aren't 'legit', when none of those sources imply so. This is a weird form of editorial gatekeeping.") and it was frustrating to see this user continue to make the same edits against consensus and sneakily mask their edits that they knew would be controversial as just some copy editing. They removed information that was sourced to four references AS WELL AS the four references themselves knowing full well this was going against the two previous conversations about this exact material, and just generally removing sourced material they personally didn't like because it wasn't pro-Beyonce. I restored the information to the page, added a handful of additional sources to the page, and a large handful of additional sources to the talk page thinking this was case closed, how could anyone dispute 20+ sources saying the exact same thing? I was wrong, and an argument ensued. Engaging in conversation and debate with Bgkc4444 is extremely difficult and taxing. Their endless barrage of provocative arguments that circle around the main topic of conversation but never amount to a point are tiresome, and they don't seem willing to accept mainstream views from reliable sources — instead they cherry pick the sources that conform to their bias, and disregard all the other sources. Their heavy insistence that Beyonce invented the surprise album is blinding their ability to look at the conversation and abundance of sources objectively and neutrally, making gaining a new consensus (or maintaining the old one) very difficult. I am not the only one to lose their cool around this editor's behavior. In a previous talk page discussion on the same topic, another editor described talking with Bgkc4444 as: "repetitive gobbledygook and toxic, condescending suggestions [that] are of no consequence to this article. Let them get it out of their system and we can return to actually improving this article." This long-winded paragraph is just meant to establish that this user's editing behavior can be stressful to manage, and I should have been the one to bring this situation to a noticeboard long, long ago before I lost my cool.

To your question of is this my accustomed style of discourse, no it is not. I meant what I said when I said I was proud of my ability to stay cool and civil across 20 years. But this ongoing and endless debate over something so trivial pushed me too far. As you can see on a previous talk page discussion at User talk:Fezmar9#A thanks I was even thanked for remaining civil in a heated conversation. At the time of that discussion, I was "outed" publicly in the media for a page I created at the time that was controversial to some, which drew a lot of harassment both on and off Wikipedia (ironically from people who supported the page's existence). Death threats I can handle and maintain a level head, but I am psychologically triggered by repetition — the ticking of a clock, hearing the same song twice in one day, or more relevant to this discussion, if I am put into a situation where I feel like I am beating a dead horse — having the same conversations with the same editors, making the same edits, retracing the same arguments, and going in circles, etc. Bgkc4444's editing behavior wore me down not just because of yesterday's events, but due to a pattern of repetition of editing against consensus and making long, tiresome arguments on talk pages that go nowhere spanning 5 years. I apologize that I have this psychological aversion to repetition, I apologize for outing this user, and I understand that my editing behavior (as a result of feeling exhausted, frustrated, and stressed out) was not helpful to the conversation. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Per WP:OUTING, Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes an editor's real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, personal profiles on external sites, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. (bold in quote is mine) If an editor uses the same account name on other platforms but does not connect them on Wikipedia, it's outing to associate (on wikipedia) the editor with those other platform accounts. Schazjmd (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't matter if the information is easily found. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is outing to post private information about me. Do you think I feel comfortable continuing to engage in a discussion with you if you will try find personal information about me to publicise online and leverage in a dispute? As per WP:OUTING, this clearly warrants a block, or at least a ban of interacting with myself and on the article in question.

I don't have the willpower to respond to that piece of text, but to note that your repeated claims that I have "a strong pro-Beyonce bias" that is making me ruin the article is patently false, given that a) I am the one whose edits are giving due weight to sources' opposing views, b) I am the one repeatedly trying to reach consensus on the talk page, and c) the two other (uninvolved) editors in the discussion both agree with me 1 2, saying that it's very clear that it is the neutral way to write the article, with one saying that you have a "degree of bias" with your edits, not me. Lastly, referring to a forgotten edit I made five years ago as the source of this complete loss of civility and urge to google me and harass me is really not a valid excuse for your behavior. Bgkc4444 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

As stated, I was never trying to broadly publicize your personal information and it was never intended to be harassment or intimidation. It was mentioned in a discussion only between you and me, and only to support an argument. There are two camps when it comes to surprise albums — those who feel it's only a surprise when there is zero notice, and those who feel it's a surprise where there's just minimal. Editing in a way that favors one side over the other introduces a bias into the article, and it's exceedingly difficult to reach consensus when one editor is insisting on taking a side. And I've already responded to that user's claim about my edits not being neutral, stating he was correct when he assumed I was being hasty in my reverts. I do not wish to comment further on my psychological aversion to repetition. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you literally Googled my name to find out personal information about me after voicing negative sentiments towards me, and then shared a link to what you said was my X account on an open platform for anyone to read. This is a textbook example of outing.

Regarding the content dispute, I agree that there's two camps, which is why I tried to include both in the article, but I was faced with blanket reverts with snarky edit summaries, repeated incivility, false accusations and harassment from yourself. Here's six different times I explained why both viewpoints need to be reflected in the article. Why does this have to be taken for ANI for you to be willing to start listening to all the other editors in the discussion?

• "I tried to find a middle ground to incorporate the different descriptions of the surprise album's origin and whether 'surprise albums' and 'surprise releases' are synonymous" [22]
• "Based on the sources we've both included above, how about we write for In Rainbows: "The English rock band Radiohead announced their 2007 studio album In Rainbows ten days prior to its release. Some music journalists have characterized this as the originator of the surprise album, while others describe it as a novel release strategy that preceded the surprise format." Then for Beyoncé, rather than say that she invented the surprise album per se, we can say she invented the album release with no prior announcement (which does not contradict anything about Radiohead)" [23]
• "I agree with you that more content should be added to the In Rainbows part of the article, given the album's importance to the history of the surprise album. I am not denying that or trying to erase that from this article - please don't get that mistaken - but I'm trying to ensure the article fully reflects all sources." [24]
• "I agree that the definition is vague, which is why the different interpretations need to be reflected in the article. One cannot deny that there are music publications that describe either In Rainbows or Beyoncé as the first surprise album. As highlighted by Popcornfud, this must be reflected in the article in order for it to be encyclopaedic. Indicating that your idea of what the article should say should be enforced “no matter what the sources state” is a clear violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and your claim about the purported ”60+ articles” that have apparently reached a ”consensus” that is aligned with your personal belief, and only ”a few minority opinion pieces” say otherwise, is evidently incorrect and an example of original research." [25]
• "The article does not need to make a judgement of what is a surprise album, but should reflect reliable sources. The article in its current state is written from a non-neutral POV, given it pushes the idea that In Rainbows is the first surprise album, whilst many reliable sources say otherwise. That’s what I’m trying to reflect in the article." [26]
• "I agree that it is neutral to state that a surprise album is an album that received little or no promotion. However, because journalists vary in the interpretation of the standing of In Rainbows and Beyoncé in the history of the surprise album, the varied opinions need to be reflected in the article. It’s really not that complicated and I’m not sure why it needs such heated debate." [27]

Please highlight where this shows me trying to force a biased, non-neutral, non-source-based view based on my purported pro-Beyonce and anti-Radiohead agenda (as you have repeatedly asserted)? And given that Popcornfud (who wrote most of the Radiohead album article [28]) and jolielover (who is fully uninvolved) agree with me, are they somehow also harboring a secret pro-Beyonce and anti-Radiohead agenda?

Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to go line-by-line and respond to each claim individually. Broadly, your desire to add statements that seem to demote or cast Radiohead's album's status as a surprise album in a different light (from they are credited with being the first, to it was only an album announced 10 days prior) and enhance the statements around Beyonce's album's status (from she popularized it, to she invented it) adhere to the views of the camp that believe a surprise album is only a surprise album if it receives zero promotion. That's a bias. And here we are again going in the same circles we've been running in for five years. I think it would be wise for me to make this my last response to one of your comments and allow admins to weigh in. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree if that's what my suggestions were, but that is a false claim. As said in the talk page and copied above, my suggestion was to incorporate both viewpoints, writing for In Rainbows: "The English rock band Radiohead announced their 2007 studio album In Rainbows ten days prior to its release. Some music journalists have characterized this as the originator of the surprise album, while others describe it as a novel release strategy that preceded the surprise format." Then for Beyoncé, we would write that she invented the album release with no prior announcement, which does not contradict any reliable source or any claim about Radiohead, e.g., "Beyoncé is credited with the invention of the surprise album with no prior announcement, leading to widespread popularization of the strategy." Both I and jolielover agree that this is the neutral way of writing it. But you have refused to listen, instead repeating that the page can only be written to say that "The English rock band Radiohead's 2007 studio album In Rainbows is often credited as the first surprise album" without including the opposing viewpoints, and minimising the significance of the Beyoncé album by saying that it "is also credited with the further popularization of the surprise release strategy" in addition to David Bowie, which does not reflect the many reliable sources brought in the article and discussion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Anyways, this is all beside the point. Even if all your claims were true - that I was editing from a biased point of view, ignoring reliable sources and forcing personal views against all others' perspectives (which is very evidently false and applies to yourself instead) - that would never warrant your highly inappropriate outing and repeated incivility, and this behavior should not be allowed to continue. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have responded to these claims many, many, many times on the Surprise album talk page. You are not understanding what I am saying and you are not characterizing your edits accurately. With these edits[29] you re-wrote the lede to say Radiohead's album was not a surprise release and Beyonce invented the surprise album, you deleted the claim that Radiohead's album was the first surprise release as well as the supporting references, and changed Beyonce's paragraph from she popularized it to she invented it. These edits adhere to the camp that a surprise album is only a surprise album when it has zero promotion. That's a bias. Your recommended alternatives (posted in your comment above) take this stance first, and then introduce the opposing idea that an album with minimal promotion is a surprise album second. This is a problem because I have provided 25 sources that state Radiohead's album was first, and I've only seen maybe 5 articles that explicitly state Radiohead's album is not a surprise. The preponderance of evidence is in favor of these sentences being written the opposite way that you have proposed. But you are proposing them this way because it fits your bias. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

We have debated this to death in many places, can we please stop arguing the same points here and let the admins render their verdict? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct, I made an edit, you reverted it, and I then sought to establish a neutral version of the content on the talk page as you had shared new sources that supported one of the two perspectives, but for some reason you've been relentless in your refusal to engage with other editors and instead attack and harass them, despite all other editors in the discussion disagreeing with you (including the top author of the Radiohead album article! Will you also accuse them of having the same anti-Radiohead bias as I apparently do?). And your repeated claim that reliable sources unanimously say that In Rainbows was the first surprise album and Beyonce was not is very very veryvery very very very very very very very very very very very very very untrue. Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I am relentless because you are not even remotely understanding my point and I am extremely frustrated. Beyond extremely frustrated. I am borderline in despair and am wondering at what point YOUR comments will be considered harassment. Can you point to a diff where you demonstrate that you understand what I am saying and constructively add to it? Every time I make a point you bring up 5 more, it's like battling a hydra. I could point out that Popcornfud didn't in any stretch of the imagination agree with you, he made a non committal and standard Wikipedia response of "all views matter" and left the conversation. But if I make that point, you'll just come up with five more arguments. I am tired. I am exhausted. Please. I am begging you. Stop. Just let the admin render their verdict. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Fezmar9, if you want to stop having this argument you could just not respond next time and let Bgkc have the last word. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's not wander into a content dispute, I'm just wondering Fezmar9 why are Googling the names of editors and posting this information on a talk page? You have a clean block record over many years. It seems like this was one colossal error on your part but I'd like assurances that you are aware of stepping over the line here and you will never repeat this action.

And if exhaustion after long-winded arguments with fellow editors makes you take risks and make mistakes, I hope you know now that this is a sign that you need to log off and do something else with your time, not do sneaky actions to "one up" your coversational opponent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, for starters, as I said above, I wasn't even aware this was a policy. In fact, when I saw the notice, my first thought was that it was in reference to the other kind of outing and was extremely confused. While I've been editing for two decades (18 with this account, 2+ years as an unregistered IP account) it's been a long time since I've engaged in policy discussions and kept up to date with new guidelines -- mostly editing small indie bands no one has heard of and not running into any conflict. I also mentioned that I had been outed in a very public way in 2019 and would have loved to have known this policy existed back then when an entire corner of the internet was chasing after me with pitchforks. The possible X account wasn't being used to harass or intimidate, only to suggest their editing behavior may be biased. I was not aware just sharing a link could constitute such a serious infraction. And maybe this is just my Wiki-age showing, but I remember a long, long time ago it was acceptable to find and use a Myspace blog where a user was bragging about vandalizing Wikipedia as evidence against them in a block discussion. I guess that behavior has long since been deemed unacceptable and I missed the memo a very long time ago. And yes, to your point, I think I'll log off for a long, long time after this, that is, if I am not permanently banned as a result of my actions here. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Fezmar, is there any possibility of addressing an apology to Bgkc for the outing, and explicitly saying you'll abide by the policy, now that you know about it? (That makes a difference to many people, and it doesn't look like you've done either above.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It's buried somewhere in all that extensive text, but I can absolutely say it again and be more specific. Bgkc4444, I am sorry for outing you. I can see that this behavior has made you feel unsafe and that was not at all my intention. If you would have pointed this out to me directly, I would have deleted the link myself without hesitation. A heated debate is one thing, but risking your privacy and safety is a whole other level I did not intentionally enter. I will be taking the page off my watchlist and I will cease to edit this page going forward so you can freely edit without feelings of intimidation. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz, 173.79.19.248 - thank you both for your helpful responses. Fezmar9 - I appreciate that you have apologised here. To note that I didn't point this out to you directly because I needed it removed from the page history and did not feel comfortable to continue engaging when I felt that you were trying to expose private information about me. I hope that you can understand that and don't let this ruin your whole view of editing on this site as you indicated on the article talk page. All the best. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

222.155.189.2

Ip address 222.155.189.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a legal threat in an edit comment here "You have been reported to the Electoral Commission." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll note they have made a similar threat on their talk page TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

wait nm that's a seperate (unless sockpuppet?) user that has also made a legal threat TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

222.155.189.2 blocked 60h for legal threats by Rsjaffe. Gated444 given a warning for considering legal threats by me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that these accounts are run by the same person. Compare this IP edit and this Gated444 edit. Both of these have added the same text. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to take a page out of The Bushranger's book and say:

WP:SPI is thataway →. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't, the IP is already blocked and you're already talking about them here. Just drop a WP:LOUTSOCK warning on their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done I put {{uw-login}} on their talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Gated444 has just told me on their user page that they have reported me to the Electoral Commission. This is no longer "considering a legal threat". ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm really quite morbidly curious about what happens now. You're certainly fine. But will they be? I wonder how much electoral commission business is public. -- asilvering (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

For that reason I don't think I've actually been reported, but who knows. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission doesn't even run (or take complaints about) Local Body Elections, so I think it's pretty safe to say their threat was all bluster... Nil🥝 10:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you have about as much to fear from the Electoral Commission as Eddie Cochran's parents have to fear from the United Nations. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Zhang Ziyi

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

---

I would like a page protection on Zhang Ziyi as a user called Enrico Chou keeps deleting a reliable source that states the film Memoirs of a Geisha earned her further critical acclaim. Instead, he is interjecting his own personal opinions. He has already broken the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. Please protect the page and/or have him blocked. He has been disruptive on other pages too. Cyrine5327 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is thataway -> 37.186.45.17 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Or WP:ANEW 37.186.45.17 (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANEW is the proper one; a request for protection would almost certainly be declined, as this is between 2 users. Try to talk to each other on article talk; communication solely via edit summaries is rarely effective. Lectonar (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Italian Somaliland articles

What is going on in articles related to Italian Somalia (Italian Somaliland, Italian Somali Wars, Campaign of the Sultanates, Banadir resistance etc.) A chronological mess has been introduced in the last 10 days or so, and all sort of NPOV language. I tried to adjust the chronology on Italian somaliland, with precise and detailed sources, and to expand the article...but this user reverted me multiple times without any given reason and then, even if he is not an administrator, protected the page? What's going on?

A few examples. The infobox on the campaign of the Sultanates said "Italian victory". Now it says "Initial victories for Hobyo in late 1925; Initial victories for Majeerteenia from 1925-1927; Eventual Italian victory after numerous setbacks". That's such a weird selective language. Apart from the fact that no sources have been provided, this is not how infobox results are written. 10 days ago the article on Italian Somaliland correctly stated Italian Somaliland started in 1ate 19th century. Now, without any source being provided, it says 1925? Why? I understand the last anti-Italian revolt occurred in 1925, but that's not when the colony was established, clearly. Another thing is the very creation of the page Italian Somali Wars, this seems to be purely OR, there is no period called in historiography "Italian-Somali war". It's an invention. Other stuff introduced in other pages are from psycology books and seem to be added randomly?

78.212.35.52 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Have you been discussing problems in respective talk pages? You should seek dispute resolution there. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the protection template from Italian Somaliland and notified the user to this discussion. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 07:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I wont discuss with ip adress Sha19999 (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You cannot ignore editors or accuse them of vandalism simply because they are editing as an IP. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 08:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

the page has been edited by two or three users as for hes conccerns in italo somali wars let him vent hes frustration on the talk page not edit over other editors this idea a protectorate and colony is the same should be addresssed its not

full scale colonization started with the facists in the 1920s untill then only protectorate treaties and coastal settlement of italians did not equal colonization thier was majeerteen hobyo and geledi sultanates all self ruling. Sha19999 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

But you and the other user who edited it made a chronological mess and introduced OR concept and NPOV language. I opened a discussion. You don't understand that, while Italian Somaliland did not directly include Hobyo and Majerteen, it included other areas since 1891. Mogadishu was an Italian colonial possession since 1893, for example. I had adjusted the mess, making everything crystal clear and providing the events in a cheonological sequence; right now everything it's confusing and randomly selective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.35.52 (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Mogadishu was even then doesn't explain geledi hobyo and mjaeerteen or even the Dervish Sha19999 (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Mogadishu was part of an Italian colony officialy called "Benadir" (since 1905) or "Italian Somalia" (since 1908). It was leased from Zanzibar in 1892, occupied by Italians in 1893, officialy purchased in 1905. Hobyo and Majerteen were protectorates from 1889, and annexed into the already existing Italian Somalia in 1925. So 1925 is not the creation of a colony, but a further consolidation/expansion of the colony. 78.212.35.52 (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

thier was no zanzibar rule that's Kenya or whatever Mogadishu was ruled by hiraab and geledi also northern sultanates like Hobyo and Majerteen continued to exist as self ruling sultanates under protective treaties not until facist italy did this change only Mogadishu was a colony and settlement not the rest of somalia Sha19999 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The sultan of Zanzibar (even if it's not in Somalia) had sovereign rights over ports in the Banaadir and other Somali ports, including Mogadishu. This is why Italy leased that area and then bought it from Zanzibar. And it's not true that the colony only included Mogadishu, Mogadishu was the capital of Italian Somalia but there were several other territories. Look at the things you deleted and you will see how Italian Somalia was established and gradually expanded. To sum it up: Italian colonial rule over Adale in 1892, Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa and Warsheekh in 1893, Giumbo and Luuq in 1895, Jazeera in 1897, Afgooye, Maregh, Barire, Mellèt, Danane and Balàd in 1907-1908, and the territories between the Shabelle and Jubba rivers in the following years. Italian annexation of Oltre-Giuba in 1925. Italian annexation of the Hobyo and Majerteen (protectorates since 1889) in 1925-6. You seem to refuse the notion that Italian Somaliland existed before it reached it biggest extent to include all of modern Somalia, but that's not its establishment. The colony called Italian Somalia aready existed.78.212.35.52 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

i didnt say i refuse it but a protectorate geledi and hiraab is not a colony i wont entertain zanzibar oman kenya whatever nonesence Sha19999 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

those were all protectorate treaties in the north yes in the south maybe but italian somaliland was small and not as huge as it became in 1925 after de vecci and the facists invaded the territories of the hobyo and majeerteen and got rid of the protective treaties this happend in 1925 to 1927 as illustrated in the map and sources Sha19999 (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

also zanzibar had no sovereign rights in somalia its fake history I will contact every somali historian on wiki and debunk your fake theories Sha19999 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Protectorate you can write but according to the map and sources colonisation happend in the late 20s under facist italy through force of arms Sha19999 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The map shows the colony as it was in 1925, it does not mean it was created in 1925.78.212.35.52 (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks like it should be handled by the dispute resolutions board. jolielover♥talk 09:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The page has been edited by two editors who are obviously collaborating. The 1889 date appears to have been stable for years, without good reason to change it should be reverted to that version. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 08:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thier is no collaboration between anybody you may think so but thats an accustion am pretty sure its not allowed Sha19999 (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a CIR issue here. Sha19999's edits are either in broken English [30] or copied from elsewhere, either copyrighted sources or other Wikipedia pages without attribution [31] [32], and they add nonsensical sources to articles [33]. Their behaviour is well below standard for a CTOP. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I wont respond to you anymore Sha19999 (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sha19999 Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you cannot decide to just ignore other editors who are trying to help you. qcne (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sha19999, read WP:COMMUNICATE. You should ever continue discussing and resolve the situation. That's how consensus decision-making works. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue between me and the starter of this ani is resolved in the talk page Sha19999 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

understood am sorry Sha19999 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ahri Boy, REAL_MOUSE_IRL, jolielover♥, Maybe I am not good at explaining myself to this user. We agreed in the talk page I would have rearranged the article chronologically and add stuff to cover the missing regions/periods without removing anything. I did that (though I removed 3 random sources about neurology and law that had nothing to do with the topic). And he said it was ok. But he made a number of changes and created another chronological mess: what happened in 1908 (section "New Organization") has been moved between the 1920s and the 1930s. What happened in 1896-7 (section "Lafoole incident an Sorrentino expediton") has been moved after what happend in 1904-1907, and what happened in 1901-1905 as well. What happened in 1895-6 has been removed altogether. So now the article goes like this: 1880s>1891-1895> 1904-1907>1896-7>1901-1905>1920s>1908>1930s. Duplicated material and broken English is another issue. Please restore the non-messy version, the last non-disruptive change was here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Somaliland&diff=prev&oldid=1305685243. 78.212.35.52 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

thier are no disruptive changes i simply reorganized them as they should the page is still messy new organization and italo turkish war shouldnt be in this page at all maybe italo turkish war page also your version is still messy

lets resolve this in the talkpage please like we did Sha19999 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I went back to ANI because I am not able to communicate well with you. I did a major effort to do what you asked me and you said it was ok, but then you went back at creating a complete chronological mess. Why would move the stuff that happened in 1896-7 after what happend in 1905 and what happened in 1908 after what happened in 1920. I don't understand why would you do that.78.212.35.52 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

i put lafoole near the top and removed new organisation try and write it in the appropriate section please and the appropriate date also italo turkish war about somali units should be in the italo turkish war page Sha19999 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns its been taken care of lets work together and improve the article Sha19999 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

My friend, the article is a mess now. Even the intro now has duplicated sentences ("wherein Mohammed Abdullah Hassan' was emir"). Lack of capital letters, confusing chronology, content removed, content duplicated...We need to restore the last non-messy version we agreed upon so that we have a decent article to read and work on. The current one is unreadable.78.212.35.52 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

we havent agreeed upon anything you added strange zanzibar paragraph, i didnt write anything you did write all those and other editors have contributed Sha19999 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

we agreed upon keeping our edits in the article i kept yours and

you kept mines but what other editors contribute is none of my buisnesss Sha19999 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

we can work on what we both contributed it seems you just want your version thats not how wiki works we work together not against each other your contributions have not been edited out i can asssure you Sha19999 (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I want a readable article that makes sense. I kept "your version" as agreed, "mine" was not kept. I listed above the chronological order you changed and the things you removed. The broken english and the duplications are being introduced by both you and the other user you called in. If you wanted to make further changes like removing the mention of Somali units in the Italo-Turkish war (btw, this was also part of something that was already on the article and I kept as we agreed) you could have proposed such changes in the talk page or made them without altering the chronological order, but this is just messy.78.212.35.52 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Read through the article, confirmed 78.212.35.52's points. If you actually read through the the Italian Somaliland article regardless of the chronology issues it indeed contains bad grammar. At the very least fix the damn grammar! 2A04:7F80:57:9EC6:147E:EC27:29A:8D3 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

why dont you do it wikipedia is a callobratoration project not a one man show Sha19999 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Because that's your job. "Collaborative" doesn't mean "I make a mess and you clean it up". Narky Blert (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

its done Sha19999 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That's true, but it's somewhat rude to be creating work for other people to clean up after your issues. You probably wouldn't like it if someone expected you to clean up their edits, especially if it's something that happens over and over. While perfect english and grammar is not expected, when issues get called out over and over, at some point a different process needs to be considered. An option could be to use the article talk page to suggest edits and get some help wordsmithing. Ravensfire (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

seems like a great option to use the talkpage to suggest edits but i think another user cleaned it up so its good for now but yes i like your suggestions it sounds great Sha19999 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I fixed that duplicate 'wherein' yesterday, was there another, or did he add the error back in? ETA - and that's a strange way of phrasing it, does anyone have the ability/know-how to check whether the text of the article is being machine-translated from Italian (or Somali/Arabic)? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It does seem this ought to go to DRN, but REAL_MOUSE_IRL has a definite point: if Sha19999 can't respond with anything better than broken English here, then we have no assurances they're capable of doing better in articlespace in a CTOP area, without ganking from other wiki pages or copyrighted material. Some of their other statements -- like demanding that others clean up their messes or that they refuse to talk to IPs -- don't cover themselves with glory either. Ravenswing 16:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I tried cleaning up some of the article, but there are parts where I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say, like with people who apparently unhooked anchors after being killed or had a fort named after them without the person being introduced. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I just pieced together the ips work in headlines I haven't written them the ip did after we came to an agreement in the talkpage. I haven't read it but I did ignore the ip from the beginning ive now come to an agreement with him in the talkpage. Sha19999 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• A curtesy reminder that the Horn of Africa is designated a contentious topic by arbcom, so if need be don’t be afraid to break out the artillery allotted for the topic to the page(s) in question. 2600:1011:B133:ABBA:C53A:782:EB03:2FA7 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  understood the new additions and grammar came from the ip who started this ani, they have now been removed by several editors. Sha19999 (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary by User:Remsense

In this edit summary: In this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&diff=1305704680&oldid=1305192247 User:Remsense wrote: “…kvetching about how material that makes the kingdom look bad must therefore be undue… tendentious.”

This is a personal remark about me as an editor rather than a statement about article content, which violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Discussions and edit summaries must focus on content and policy, not on contributors.

I respectfully request administrator assistance to address this conduct and remind the user to keep future comments in line with Wikipedia’s civility standards.

Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loix33 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

When making a report on ANI you're supposed to notify the editors that are involved. Userlinks, pings and mentions are not enough. I have done that for you now. Also remember to sign your comments. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Policy doesn't sanction "personal remarks" but "personal attacks" and it's hard to see this as a personal attack. Editors make personal remarks about each other all of the time, unfortunately. But it is very common, especially in areas like ANI. AE and AFDs. What did you come here expecting to happen, Loix33? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You might need to go back and read through WP:NPA more carefully. It's fairly common to use the edit summary as communication with another editor if it's short and to the point rather than using the TP, as long as it's within the bounds of civility (which this certainly is). WP:ESDOS does say not to use "personal remarks", but that points to the NPA policy so it's clearly suggestive of something that violates NPA (i.e. something derogatory). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• I would have a lot easier of a time tut-tutting at Remsense if the OP's contribution history didn't look like this [34]... Best I can do under the circumstances is remark that Remsense might have bitten a bit too hard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• It's a personal comment but not a personal attack. Remsense is not out of bounds here. Giraffer (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that is not a personal attack, sorry. Remsense could have worded it a bit better but it’s not against any policy. Northern Moonlight 06:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Not a personal attack, and I'll note that the OP has perhaps unintentionally distorted the summary quote. The "tendentious" was not Remsense, but why other users are undoing the OP's edits. Meters (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked. Having taken a look at Loix33's editing, specifically their editing of Saudi Arabia, I have to agree with Remsense that they're a highly tendentious editor. Example: removing the entire "Human rights abuses" section here. That's just one example; the overall impression is that defence and promotion of Saudi Arabia is their main purpose on Wikipedia. This change of "widespread" to "alleged" in front of the phrase "human rights abuses" is almost humorous. I have blocked Loix33 indefinitely for persistent tendentious editing. As for their complaint of a personal attack, I have difficulty even understanding it. Is it the word kvetching that's objected to? Bishonen | tålk 15:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC).

I think it's the accusation of tendentious editing. The elided quote above is hard to understand - a fuller version is ...given the majority of your edits have been kvetching about how material that makes the kingdom look bad must therefore be undue, which are then usually rightfully reverted as tendentious. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing, I assume a mix of that and 'rightly' 'being removed as tendentious'? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

112.207.178.96

• 112.207.178.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user has been repeatedly warned to stop adding film entries to biographical articles without sources, as their entries do not exist and are merely false information. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a Ces.althea162003 (talk · contribs) sock. Borgenland (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Now, she has created another account — Cesalthea2003 (talk · contribs). - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

An admin really needs to come by and block these socks 37.186.45.17 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: sock blocked 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:E944:4018:B211:30E6 (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits Ohio roads

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

---

2603:6010:5c21:d78b:1589:e83d:8cbe:cb64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Need a range block for 2603:6010:5c21:d78b:1589:e83d:8cbe:cb64 et al, repeat disruptive edits to road articles such as here. Cards84664 18:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

IP Block from Wikipedia indef Just as I was about to warn him, this AN discussion opened. I support a block for his entire IP (if he has a main block that too). shane (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses, especially IPv6, are almost never indefinitely blocked. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Right to ANI without a warning nor a welcome; this was a very improper escalation. Please appropriately warn and then it should be reported to WP:AIV, not here. This is very generic disruption that should not have been brought up here and simply rolled back with warnings, and no, we're not indeffing an IPv6 range for this very manageable vandalism. Nathannah • 📮 20:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Selling contraband on Userpage

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

---

User:Tomroyson needs attention. Augmented Seventh🎱 16:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a NOTHERE user. I think you can just wait and they'll be indeffed 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:849:6C52:50FF:14FD (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Love.cinema.art

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

---

• Love.cinema.art

User is adding very clearly machine-generated text to articles ([35], [36], [37] e.g.). I reverted the first two of these; the last is semi-protected and I left an edit request to do so. I left them a {{uw-ai1}} warning on their talk page, and their followup was to deny it with another very very obviously machine-generated response. As I'm writing this, one of my reversions was reinstated. This seems to be pretty willful disregard of common practice here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Phat212 - persistent addition of unsourced material, ignoring talk page warnings and messages.

Phat212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently adding routes to airport and airline articles without any sources. They have warnings on their talk page that date back to 2018, and most recently have been editing even after receiving level 4 warnings about unsourced content. A search of their contributions reveals they have zero edits to talk or user talk namespaces... is there any chance we can block this editor from article space until such time as they look at their talk page and address their refusal to source their edits?

Just a quick list of example unsourced edits... [38][39][40][41]. In fact on one occasion, they even attempted to add fake citations by simply adding [1][2] to their edit...

This editor is a net positive to the community, as they are adding good content to articles - and often they do add sources after being reverted initially. However, they should be adding the sources when they initially make the edit - not after being reverted, and the fact they have not once responded on any talk page is somewhat concerning. I don't want them to be blocked... I simply want them to start talking, so that the community can help them realise their errors and improve. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support article space block until they engage on talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Indef'd from mainspace until they respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

1.141.36.112 Disruptive editing

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

---

After two blocks [42], 1.141.36.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make unsourced and otherwise disruptive changes (unexplained deletions and additions) to various TV articles [43], [44], [45] that have all been reverted by other editors. As before, they are not engaging on their talk page. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Reblocked, this time for 3 months.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Bago, Myanmar

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

---

The IPs 103.116.56.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 103.116.56.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 103.116.56.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 103.116.58.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 103.116.58.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep adding false info in the article Bago, Myanmar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) even after being given the final warning. Their edits have been reverted multiple times. The abuse has been ongoing since July. Diffs for reference: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bago,_Myanmar&oldid=1303805584, [53], [54], [55], [56] [57]. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for 72 hours by Yamaguchi先生. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 03:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Graylonelywolf

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

Editor Graylonelywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in POV-pushing on a contentious topic (Maraş massacre) despite opposition. I forgot to alert them about contentious topics early on but they have received warnings on their talkpage[58] They have moreover encouraged me to limit myself to topics based on my ethnic background[59]. Semsûrî (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Is their name and Grey Wolves (organization) (the perpetrators of the massacre) a coincidence? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

One would surely have to stretch credulity beyond any reasonable bounds to think so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The more so in that this is a newly-created SPA. Next stop, NOTHERE indef, make sure to collect all your belongings before leaving the wiki. Ravenswing 22:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Their replies also suggest some sort of WP:CIR. I am also suspecting a sock but cannot pinpoint which given the tons of WP:NOTHERE editors who had previously infested the topic. Borgenland (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism with misleading edit summary [60]. Borgenland (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Went with DE, but either way, blocked INDEF

If someone feels like finding the master, a CU is welcome to take it over. Star Mississippi 13:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Blackeyed horse - personal attacks

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

---

Blackeyed horse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been using personal attacks in edit summaries, including calling someone a nonce and a scunner. I'll acknowledge I am WP:INVOLVED hence why I came here and not AIV. They initially reverted my recent edits (which I found constructive) and called me a troll and a sock. jolielover♥talk 09:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually they just made a blatantly obvious vandal edit summary (not targeted to me) so I'm also reporting there jolielover♥talk 09:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Revoke TPA too maybe. They just left this message. jolielover♥talk 09:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Euryalus (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• If someone could revdel the edit summaries they left, that would be appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Zzuuzz: much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Arman Shaquille Qio

• Arman Shaquille Qio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has appeared out of nowhere and has done nothing but add comments to AfD discussions, most of which (e.g. [61], [62], [63]) show signs of LLM generation. The text of teh contributions mostly ignore any previous contrary responses. I'm not sure what's going on here but also have to suspect a returning user or sockpuppet. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mangoe: Going to ANI seems premature. WP:AGF - have you tried communicating with the user on their talk page first i.e. warning them? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I share similar concerns regarding the actions of the user creating implicit bias on AfD discussions. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 01:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Gymrat16 uncivil behavior and personal attacks

Debated bringing this to An/I since these attacks weren't directed at me, but I feel it necessary to escalate as @Gymrat16: doesn't seem to get that referring to fellow editors as "incompetents" and "thin-skinned" is not appropriate behavior. His behavior is fairly clearly in violation of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:NPA, and he does not seem to acknowledge WP:V as a policy. The issue seems to have started when Gymrat16 removed a number of Citation needed tags (including here, here, here, and here, among others), justifying this removal with statements like, "[T]hese destinations have beens served for decades they don't need citations like the others (sic)[.]"

He brought it up at the O'Hare International Airport talk page, where @VenFlyer98: informed him of the content guidelines. Gymrat16 then took it to VenFlyer98's talk page, where other editors informed him of the verifiability requirements. When he didn't get the answers he was looking for there, he took it to the WikiProject Airports talk page, where I and others tried to inform him of the policies pertaining to verifiability and civil behavior.

The biggest concern, beyond his seeming unwillingness to accept these policies, is his behavior. He has been engaging in personal attacks, saying a user is "too soft" and stating they "can't handle discussions", as well as "it doesn't seem like you have thick skin". To make matters worse, he didn't seem to understand how these statements were personal attacks when called out by another user here.

It's worth noting that the user has a history of receiving warnings for verifiability and adding unsourced materials going back two years. nf utvol (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s worth noting this user also doesn’t recognise his remarks as uncivil either, as shown by his reply when I left a notice on their talk page - [64] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention elsewhere and gave a NPA warning here before knowing this was at ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I too have been on the receiving end of Gymrat16's invective on my talk page with gems like maybe grow a pair and well, it has been nearly a week do you have anymore comments, questions or flawed observations?. If he does not stop with his insults immediately, I think we're in block territory. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for bringing this here especially with the discussion on my talk page. Fully agree the user doesn’t seem to fully understand what a personal attack is even after @Danners430: explained it. I fully explained why I didn’t like what he was saying here [65] only to be told he wasn’t commenting on me, but my edits (seen here: [66]) despite his comments clearly showing he’s talking about me and my behavior (he even outright says in that diff that he’s talking about my attitude). It’s just a bit agitating being told I’m dodging conversation by telling him to read pages like WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (seen here [67]) or that I shouldn’t be on Wikipedia since I “can’t handle discussions.” [68]. Also, going to guess he forgot to sign in at one point because this is pretty clearly him by the wording calling me overzealous, ridiculous, and saying that I don’t engage in good faith ([69]). Seems like he has a history of this sort of thing. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC))

• Wow, these discussions and responses by Gymrat16 got out-of-hand quickly. Stand by; I'm going to message this user and try to talk to them peacefully. If any of this behavior continues after I've discussed it with them, any admin is welcome to temporarily block the user. If anything, doing so will send a stronger message and state that this behavior is unacceptable and won't be tolerated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Update: I just left this message on Gymrat16's user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  • I understand that my tone may have come across as too direct and I’m willing to scale that back. However, the concern I raised are real and it affects multiple editors not just myself. The issue isn't personal nor should it be. It's about patterns of editing behavior and lack of meaningful engagement when policy is applied selectively. If the standard here is that only one side gets to be forceful or deflective while the other is silenced for expressing justified criticism, then that’s not a collaborative space. It’s a protected echo chamber. I want to address the content issue and not just shut down those who raise it. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Gymrat16 - I'm happy that you decided to respond to the discussion and that you agreed to be mindful and (hopefully) cease the personal attacks and civility violations that were reported and documented here. I understand that "patterns of editing behavior and lack of meaningful engagement" are a concern to you, and that recent events have likely left you feeling confused, frustrated, disheartened, or even perhaps infuriated. If you see edits that you disagree with, I can say that you started things off in the right direction by discussing them on the article's talk page and with the user involved; however, what you did wrong in those discussions is what this discussion is about. Collaboration is totally fine; we encourage this (of course). Minus the incivility, your messages and your concerns in themselves were understandable and gave others a chance to respond to you and point you toward their reason for making such edits or modifying relevant content. However, like I mentioned in the message I left on your user talk page, you need to be willing to navigate to the links that others provide to you and review them. Reviewing what you said here, it's not up to other users to summarize each and every relevant discussion for you in place of providing you a link to the pages that contain the information. It's up to you to navigate to the links provided, review the relevant pages and content, and then respond with any questions or concerns, or with further discussion. If you have questions about the links they provided or if you need help finding exactly what they're pointing you to, you're of course free to ask them for help and I'm quite sure that they'll be happy to assist you. One thing that you must understand is that our primary method of communication between one another is text-based, which can often allow for other users to misinterpret what you're trying to convey when they can only read the text of what you're trying to say. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    • The root of the issue here is two-fold. First off, you somehow do not understand that your behavior is totally inappropriate and you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, so to speak (you say you are willing to scale back your aggressive comments but at the same time you say you're, quote, "not here to placate fragile egos"). Secondly, it is clear that you either do not understand or accept the core concept of verifiability, and feel like some things are by their nature just exempt from it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're increasingly proving that you're not willing or capable of abiding by even the most basic standards of conduct. nf utvol (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      Their entire reply in the section you have linked appears AI-generated. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      Small side comment: I know that the use of AI or large language models to generate text on Wikipedia for communications and discussions (such as on talk pages, user talk pages, noticeboards, etc) is widely frowned upon, but hear me out: I personally don't mind AI-generated discussions, messages, replies, or communications - so long as they reflect exactly what the user wants and means to say (and that the user is a human and not a bot). On top of this, it should be understood by all that the use of AI or other large language models to communicate on Wikipedia discussion pages, talk pages, noticeboards, or other pages that the community will hold the user accountable and responsible for them, and as if no AI or large language models were used at all. This is just my opinion until someone provides me a good reason to make me believe otherwise. Anyways, carry on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      Most people who use LLMs to communicate in projectspace just want to get out of trouble and get what they want done (which might not necessarily align with building an encyclopedia) without realizing why they're being criticized or how to actually fix their conduct/content issues. If they really cared, they would type it out using their own words. This excludes English learners and people who depend on assistive technologies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      Moved to this page

      I want to make something clear: what started this was NOT tone. This was a pattern of behavior where editors, particularly VenFlyer98, apply citation policies inconsistently, dodge direct questions when I tried to ask him why other airports don't get the same treatment and deflect with vague policies. That’s what led to the frustration at least on my part.

      I wasn’t “attacking” anyone. I as NOT describing VenFlyer98 individually, I was describing specific edits they had made NOT Venflyer98 himself. I was calling out editing conduct that has gone unchecked and yes I did so directly mainly because polite wording hasn’t gotten any useful results and sometimes assertiveness can actually send messages.

      Instead of addressing why multiple editors have raised similar concerns, I’ve watched this get spun into a civility issue while the actual problem is the selective enforcement and refusal to collaborate gets ignored.

      I am NOT saying that saying things like some of the things I said like "grow a pair" are right but I am saying the frustration was somewhat warranted because I feel like I am talking to brick walls here. I want EVERYONE to be happy and satisfied not just one specific group.

      If Wikipedia now punishes editors more for calling out these things rather actually engaging, that’s a failure on the platform not on me. If saying “grow a pair” is worth a block, but applying CN tags unevenly across articles isn’t even questioned, that says everything. You say “we’re all on the same team.” Then how about holding everyone to the same standard instead of burying real disputes under "civility warnings"?

      This all started with me asking why does ORD, DEN, EWR, PHL, BOS, IAD, etc get this repeated "CN" treatment but not other major airports like DFW, DTW, LAX, MIA, MCO, etc which is where the inconsistency I mentioned above came into play. So really the main disappointment I had is why when I ask about them they go unanswered. Honestly idc about the CN thing in general, I just want to know why is it so inconsistent?

      And lastly, I found it very insulting that my words got dismissed as "AI" generated when in reality, I strategically wrote with the utmost honesty and transparency from my point of view.

      Trust me, I am a very easy guy to get along with and NEVER would I mean harm upon anything or anyone but the culture where everything gets labeled as a "personal attack" and that everyone should "go with the flow" is baffling to me and I will stand my ground no matter how unpopular those methods might be. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      Then you are not compatible with a collaborative project. You were, in fact, describing VenFlyer98 individually, on their talk page. (And in reality, I strategically wrote with the utmost honesty and transparency from my point of view? If you're trying to convince us you're not using AI to write, don't write as if you're using an AI.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      NO I WAS NOT! I was describing Venflyer98 and specifically some of their methods of editing. I am sorry if you interpreted it that way but I am telling you right now that is NOT what it was or at least the intent of it. I don't know what else to say otherwise. Strategic means considering what to say or do that can be understood by all and what might come with them as a result whether it is good or bad.

      And for the last time, NO AI was being used. It is very disappointing that it has come to this point where these accusations are being thrown because everything I say is in my own words and always will be. I have always been the type of guy who chooses his words VERY carefully before I respond to people as any person should. How about we focus on working together in all aspects of life instead of throwing around accusations only based off what you see and jumping to conclusions before knowing the full details or intentions behind them. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      First you say “no I was not,” immediately followed by “I was describing VenFlyer98 and specifically some of their methods of editing.” Other editors have mentioned it a bunch, comment on the edits, not the editor. That includes my methods of editing, and if there’s an issue with how I edit, there’s way kinder ways to word things. After I reverted your initial edits, if you went to the talk page and simply asked “hey I saw you reverted my edits, can you explain why?” I would’ve happily done so. If you didn’t understand where in places like WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT or WP:RS something was and asked, I would’ve explained it. It’s not dodging the question if someone else points you to a page with the answer. Yes the pages have inconsistent tags, but that doesn’t mean you remove the ones that are there, again explained by WP:RS and WP:V. I love having good conversations in good faith with fellow editors, but immediately saying the things you said like that I’m “overzealous” and “ridiculous” and getting defensive isn’t the answer. Just my 2 cents.

      Additionally, for other editors here, an IP user just left this edit on my talk page: [70]. Find it a bit suspicious that the IP’s only single edit as of writing this is agreeing with Gymrat (with a similar writing style). Not sure if this is WP:SOCK yet but it may be something to look out for. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC))

      "Yes the pages have inconsistent tags, but that doesn’t mean you remove the ones that are there, again explained by WP:RS and WP:V. I love having good conversations in good faith with fellow editors." Your quote

      Why didn't you just say this the first time then? This likely wouldn't have escalated as much as it did if this had been said the first time because I am not doubting you on this at all I just wish this had been said days ago because that was the main thing I was trying to get answered this whole time. And also I kept wanting to ask what can we do about those that aren't meeting the same requirements so that way things can look more consistent and proportionate to those that are already being held by those aforementioned standards?

      Nothing about me was defensive or at least not intending to be. All I wanted to do was try to express something I happened to observe that seemed a little unusual to me and my point of view around it. There is NOTHING I want more than for all discussions to be in good faith and to be transparent which is a major reason why I even brought this concern in the first place. I believe communication and transparency is key for everything no matter how big or small.

      And also, I looked at your talk page and I have no idea who that IP number is so it can't be related to WP:SOCK. I didn't even realize that IP number even commented until just now. This is the only account I have ever used and nothing else. Gymrat16 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      Why didn’t I say it the first time? You gave me no chance to. You never asked for a reason for the reverts. You went straight to the talk page and started this string of behavior that created this topic. I’m not sure how this still cannot be understood. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC))

      I was not. I was describing Venflyer98. So, no, but actually yes. Thank you for confirming you are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      Seems like a misinterpretation of what I said but stick to what you believe in since only I can speak for myself just like how only you can speak for you. I am here to collaborate and nothing more. Gymrat16 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      And it is odd that you've been saying terms like "personal attacks" when you just used one right there by saying I am "not compatible with a collaborative project" just because I didn't say it how you wanted it. Seems a little hypocritical to me. Gymrat16 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      Saying someone isn’t compatible with a project is not attacking someone. I think most editors here have provided pretty valid reasons for why you might not be compatible. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC))

      It actually kind of is because it is a judgement that is more on me as an editor and a person than it is about contributions. Gymrat16 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      Attacking the editor is not okay. I also don't believe you're sorry for it either. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      I said I was sorry that my words were misinterpreted not for anything else. I stand by my beliefs. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

      I've found that speaking in a tone, exhibiting non-human traits, which goes from emotional to something dry is not assisting in the pleasantry of your time on Wikipedia. Considering that anyone can add citation needed tags at any time anywhere, should really not be as harmful as you're making it out to be. And by telling them off, it hurts others from continuing their editing journey. A short block for PA might be in order if you cannot be civil. Conyo14 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

      Never did I say that citation tags can be added any time any where. My comments and questions were mostly based on how they were being applied rather than the action itself and the last thing we want is for anyone editing journeys to be hampered in any way no matter who, what, when, where and why. If it came across anymore than that, that wasn't the intent. Gymrat16 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gymrat16: This was incredibly unwise. — Czello ^(music) 13:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

explain how? Gymrat16 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You can't blank an ANI section. Only an admin can do that. It's unwise for you to do it just because you don't like it. It shows incredibly poor behavior and does not help you with your case. Conyo14 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

well i genuinely had no idea so i apologize if that is the case Gymrat16 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

This, lest we forget, coming from the editor who twelve hours previously accused other editors of "being evasive", "dodging proper discussion instead of actually dealing with anything for the better", and "refusing to engage my points and lack of cooperation". How the turns have tabled. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Snarky one-line remarks don’t change facts. The dodging happened and while i am not saying it was right, the frustration was warranted. If you're not going to engage on the substance and instead take snarky cheap shots at me rather than actually help solve the problem for all parties then go for it if you're that eager for attention. Gymrat16 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You registered on Wikipedia two years ago. If in that time, you still haven't troubled yourself to learn that the ONLY acceptable response to "frustration" is to swallow it and follow the rules anyway, then I'd agree with some of the other editors above that the best way to "solve the problem for all parties" is a block. Ravenswing 22:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve read the rules MANY times and I’ve done the best I possibly can to follow them where it counts the most by contributing, asking valid questions and pointing out inconsistencies that others would rather dodge. What that tells me is that unless frustration is bottled up, it isn't allowed, especially if it challenges the way certain things are done. That tells me that a culture of silence is what the answer is to everything which is what society should be trying to eliminate.

Also, if the only acceptable “solution” is to "block" anyone who voices concern directly, that says more about the culture than it does about me as an individual. While no one would actually admit it out loud, it seems like this is more about the discomfort of editors wanting to collaborate with them than it is about certain rules. Collaboration shouldn't be about submission or control nor should it be no matter who, what, when ,where and why. It’s about working toward solutions that follow policies and also respectful the fact that different editors bring different perspectives even when they don’t quite say it as conveniently as some would like.

I certainly could’ve handled parts of this debate better. My tone at times sure maybe was a little too sharp or specific and I understand how that can derail debates (to a degree depending on what it is about and when) and while I think it was warranted and didn't just come out of nowhere, I am NOT saying it is right in any way.

What really pushed me over the edge is the culture of silence this website seems to have. The unspoken expectation that editors, should stay quiet, not question things and just go along with whatever is being done no matter how questionable it may seem. That seems like a very toxic culture to have and it doesn’t protect Wikipedia and it instead drives away people who want to contribute and rewards performative civility while ignoring genuine attempts to improve processes.

I’m NOT here to attack anyone nor is that the intent because everyone deserves peace and respect of all kinds no matter who you are and no matter how long you've been an editor. I’m here to challenge the behaviors that make things harder for people who care enough to speak up and stand up for themselves while also making very clear that policies are to be followed. If civility means ignoring problems and never criticizing, then it’s not considered civility, it’s control.

I want to move forward but I also don't want to pretend this is just about "tone". It should be about fairness, consistency and building a better Wikipedia for everyone while also making sure these policies are being met to the best way all of us can meet so wikipedia can keep thriving. If we want a stronger Wikipedia, we all need to do better and I’m committed to that. I truly want to be a part of these solutions in any way I can whether it is that or making sure requirements no matter how big or small are being met in the best way they can because at the end of the day that's what all of us are trying to do. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

What is unfair or inconsistent? The fact that not every single fact lacking citations hasn't yet been tagged? Just because an editor has placed tags on articles they monitor, or where they noted it, doesn't mean that there is a selective application of policy. Just because something is messed up on one page and hasn't yet been tagged, doesn't mean that another page shouldn't be tagged. I don't understand why this is so difficult. As noted above, you'd do well to read WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE and really reflect on what it has to say, because you're checking a lot of boxes right now. You're making yourself out to be the victim of some non-existent conspiracy, and it's quite clear you aren't grasping why your attitude is extremely problematic. nf utvol (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

(shakes his head) If you still can't grasp that it is possible to criticize without invective or insults, or that following our civility policies neither equates to "ignoring problems" nor to "submission," then there's little more to say to you ... and at this rate little time left to say it. Ravenswing 02:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Listen, I am NOT making myself out to be a victim at all and I understand that not every statement without a citation can be tagged all at once. That’s NOT the only issue I’ve been trying to raise. The concern is about selective tagging followed by the tone used to shut down discussion around it. My frustration isn’t coming from a belief in any “conspiracy,” and is more from how quickly criticism gets dismissed or labeled as incompatible with collaboration. I NEVER said my attitude wasn't problematic at all and I even said that while I do think my frustrations were warranted, I maybe didn't express them as well as I should've and maybe I did take it one step overboard and I want to make up for it. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is a volunteer project without performance metrics? Volunteers do what they have the wherewithal to do at any given point in time. Sometimes we are inconsistent. Do you know what's going on in the lives of anyone who contributes a few minutes or hours to this project? Maybe they're doing some proofreading and basic copyediting because they can't get to sleep and already did the New York Times crossword. Maybe they're a student, or a medical intern, or a parent or other caregiver, who has a demanding real-life role and only has a few minutes here and there, at inconsistent hours and for different amounts of time, that they nonetheless donate to this entirely unpaid project. Maybe they're a senior attorney eating pad thai for lunch while they're stuck on an irrelevant Zoom call that's far less interesting than learning more about Thai cuisine and proofreading capitalization errors in the article. Maybe they don't have reliable internet connections because they live in Benghazi and they contribute to the site when they can. Maybe they're terminally ill but still devote some of their last time in this world to this astonishing worldwide project. Are we all supposed to keep notes of what we've done on various articles and go back through them every time we visit the site (for what may only be five minutes) before we touch anything? Policing "consistency" of editing here isn't okay. Be grateful there are volunteer editors all over the world, from innumerable walks of life, and varying fluency, education, and experience levels, who are taking their time to do this at all. You get what you get and you don't pitch a fit. Julietdeltalima (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely respect the hard work that volunteers contribute here, regardless of their background or time constraints because we all have lives outside this website as we all should. I 100% agree that not everything can be perfect or consistent all the time and that’s fine. My point isn’t to criticize individual editors for how much they can or can’t do.

The frustration was more about how selectively some policies get applied and how quickly genuine concerns can be dismissed or met with hostility or questionable accusations. I’m not expecting anyone to keep perfect track of everything. That is a very unrealistic expectation to have. I’m just hoping for a bit more understanding and open dialogue when issues like over-tagging or cluttered pages are brought up.

At the end of the day, we’re all here simply trying to improve articles and I think we get further when people can raise concerns without it being treated like a problem simply because of how it is expressed. I’m hoping for a little more understanding when someone raises a concern of any kind not pushback just for having a different view because you never know how others might view them. Some views could be similar while others can be vastly different. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The only push-back you received was because you, A) removed CN tags without fixing the errors, then B) claimed that you didn't need to provide citations. These are very much reasonable criticisms, to which you responded with juvenile aggression, resorting to claiming those who reminded you of the policies were somehow thin skinned and incompetent. To put the cherry on top, you decided to try to blank the AN/I discussion about your behavior, and still son't seem to understand how your statements and actions are problematic. Indeed, you have spent most of the time trying to play the role of a victim who is being censored. nf utvol (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed that citations weren’t needed. I questioned whether they were necessary in those specific cases — which, again, is a judgment call open to editorial consensus. It's unfair to misrepresent that as me rejecting the importance of sources outright. I NEVER made myself out to be a victim at all and making those types of accusations seems to shut down any useful dialogue. Blanking the AN/I thread was clearly a misstep in hindsight, and I accept that. It simply came from frustration, not from trying to "hide" anything. I honestly didn't even know that it was against the rules for non-administrators to remove conversations like that from AN/I boards but now I do. That incident aside, I’ve tried to engage constructively. I'm here to contribute, like everyone else and I’d appreciate being treated as such. Gymrat16 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm always a fan of taking a step back and emerging from the weeds, especially when ANI threads get nice, big and convoluted.

@Gymrat16, editors here have raised a concern that you didn't make civil comments. You yourself have acknowledged this in this thread, stating I am NOT saying that saying things like some of the things I said like "grow a pair" are right but I am saying the frustration was somewhat warranted because I feel like I am talking to brick walls here. Making comments like you did could very well lead to a block, so your first priority here should be to address these concerns. What ANI is looking for is for you to acknowledge that the things you said were inappropriate, to apologise, and commit to learning from this experience and not to do it again.

What ANI is less interested in is the dispute about the use of Citation Needed tags, which was what initiated this discussion in the first place. I would strongly suggest you drop the stick on that matter for the time being, resolve the issue of your comments, then the discussion about the use of the CN tags can take place at a more leisurely pace at a less drama-fuelled venue like the relevant WikiProject. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I DID own up to it. I have tried too all morning. Have you not been paying attention all this time and only focusing on the beginning of this? Yes, I acknowledged that some of my comments particularly "grow a pair" was poorly worded and not the most ideal for a collaborative environment or at all. I don’t deny that. But it’s also important to recognize that frustration does NOT come out of nowhere. When it feels like you're being repeatedly dismissed or spoken down to and attempts at reasoned discussion are met with hostility or mockery, it becomes extremely difficult not to react. That does NOT make it right but it does make it human because we are ALL human with feelings, emotions, lives and contributions.

I’m not here to cause drama, and I certainly didn’t join Wikipedia to argue. I apologize things were taken so hard by some but I don’t apologize for speaking up for myself or for challenging what I saw as dismissive or unreasonable. My intention was never to attack anyone but to push back when I felt like my contributions and viewpoints weren’t being fairly considered. I want to make sure I contribute meaningfully and also commit to being more measured in how I respond when under pressure. At the same time though, I also believe contributors deserve the space to defend themselves or others and push back when they feel disregarded.

Expressing frustration, isn’t the same as acting in bad faith. There is a MAJOR difference between the two and I don't wish to sound snarky and instead strongly suggest to maybe learn the differences between those two things. I don't know what else you want me to say.Gymrat16 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

What we want you to say is acknowledge that expressing frustration should be avoided where possible, and if you cannot help yourself (I'm guilty of it myself) then you must still ensure you stay within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. It's worth noting that statements like Have you not been paying attention all this time and only focusing on the beginning of this? and I don't wish to sound snarky and instead strongly suggest to maybe learn the differences between those two things. don't help your cause here. You are the one that have messed up - stop trying to push the blame onto others.

Take a step back, realise you did wrong, make a commitment to do better next time, and leave it at that. Don't keep digging by trying to justify yourself - just accept you made a mistake, and move on. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize things were taken so hard by some - This is a classic example of a Non-apology apology. When you say things like this, it makes others think that you believe you haven't done anything wrong and it undercuts everything else you're saying. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I usually don't let my frustrations get the better of me too much and I certainly did here. And I admitted where I may have went overboard and I am NOT pushing blame on to others. I admitted my flaws and it seemed like to me that you were only focusing on the beginning of all this not the entire thing altogether because all morning I have tried to admit where I didn't handle things properly. I DID ADMIT I made a mistake in how I worded some of the things I said but you still want to go on and tell me I am "not actually sorry" and I am continuing to "deflect" which is DEEPLY upsetting to me. You even said you're guilty of it yourself and I mean as I said above we are ALL HUMAN and all have said things based on them before and it doesn't have to be a terrible thing. I’m open to improving how I express myself and how I engage going forward but at the same time I also stand by my original point that while I certainly could've used my words differently, the misinterpretation was not entirely on me. As I said though, I’m open to improving how I express myself and how I engage going forward so maybe leave it at that rather than keep going on. Gymrat16 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize things were taken so hard by some This is an perfect example of toxic behavior. You are not sorry for it, you are sorry that you got called out. If it were me in this situation, I would say "Frustration got the best of me in that moment and I apologize to everyone I offended. I will do better to cur my words before responding in a negative fashion and assume good faith. I also apologize to Venflyer98 for directing a personal attack against him. My words and actions were not inducive of a civil editor." Conyo14 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, after all of this, especially this? We have a solid case of being WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, and I've blocked indef. If they honestly apologise and pledge to do better, with a solid understanding of what they did wrong and that it's on them, not "misinterpreting" or WP:NOTTHEM, unblocking can be done by anyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like if they hadn't doubled down on not directly apologizing, things would have been better for them. Conyo14 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  That had been my hope, which is why I tried spelling it out... oh well, we tried... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  (sighs) It's a shame. Ravenswing 03:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Good block. Necessary block. The incivility was reason enough for a block even before the vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Black hole cosmology

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Abusing "Black Hole Cosmology" page

 – Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Black hole cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Citanotable (talk · contribs)
• Simple non combat (talk · contribs)

User "Simple non combat" is abusing Black Hole Cosmology page, self-promoting there his own, irrelevant work. This is against the Wikipedia policy. Please intervene. Citanotable (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Citanotable,

I don't think any action will be taken here until you have provided "diffs" demonstrating the edits you are find inappropriate. You need to present an argument and that includes evidence. That's your responsibility as the filer. And I hope you notified User:Simple non combat that you opened this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Dilidor- Abuse based on nationality and violations of MOS that likely add up to NOTHERE

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

I left a message on Dilidor's talkpage notifying them that they were editing against WP:MOS in January 2024 [71], then, after coming across several more examples of them doing so, I left another message a couple of days ago[72].

This led to a discussion where they made the following post What is it with you Brits and your asphyxiating arrogance and condescension? By what authority do you sit in judgment on my "behaviour"?...And please understand clearly that I have not given you any "assurances" whatsoever on my future edits, as you actually do not possess the Glorious Burden of Wiki Aristocracy with which you flatter yourself...We lowly colonists gave your forebears a good schooling on this topic back in 1776. Oh, and again in 1812. But I'm guessing that schools in the UK don't teach much concerning those years.[73]

Obviously this is nationality based abuse. I mean, it's not my actual nationality, but it's definitely abuse. In addition to this the bolded section is referring to a commitment I assumed Dilidor had made to following the MOS with regards to the passive voice, which they weren't doing before.

Dilidor has been here before on several occasions, most notably last month, where they were warned that they were obliged to follow WP:MOS, and forget what WP:MISSSNODGRASS might have told them. I strongly feel a block is warranted here. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Given a 4-im for NPA for that spectacular...whatever it is. That's just a start; I'll note that this appears to be considered aggressive, threatening, and self-righteous, which indicates that there may be more intristic issues here [74]. Also note this edit which...yeaaaaah... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

(sighs heavily) Eeeesh: when will it sink through the heads of some people that WP:CIVIL applies to them too? However much triumphalist obnoxiousness is the political flavor of the month on this side of the pond, the less we see of it here the better. Ravenswing 22:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think both editors come across as agressive and uncooperative. Boynamedsue did come across as a schoolteacher correcting a student and alluding the existence of other serous problems with their editing. It wasn't the tone of collegiality as much as authority and correction. I think the warning that Dilidor received is sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I can work on avoiding a tone that comes over as superior. It is worth noting that, objectively speaking, they were again editing against the MOS. I'm not sure how to advise them of that without correcting them. I'm a little surprised that tone is considered to be a a mitigating factor for nationality-based abuse though.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

That's all I'm asking, Boynamedsue. I think that Dilidor overreacted to your comments but they did come across as condescending. I can see what pushed his buttons and set him off even if I disagree with the way he responded to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I raise a quizzical eyebrow at the scare quotes around the standard British spelling of "behaviour". Why? Narky Blert (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Dilidor doesn't like British people. Another choice quote of theirs here would demonstrate this: But your spelling reveals the core of the entire problem--you're a Brit! That goes a long way in explaining both your condescension and your ignorance. Your belligerence, condescension, rudeness, and arrogance make it not worthwhile to attempt an intelligent, adult-level conversation. So "we're" done here. They avoided a block there as well, though they did get a 1RR sanction. This is an editor who doesn't like British English, British people or the MOS.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

They may need to be reminded that Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

If there's going to be such a reminder, it would have to be at their talkpage as they have worked out it is easier to avoid ANI, making no comment here or at the last one of the 5 or so times they've been reported.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:JoseyWales019 creating AI-generated mainspace articles

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

---

I first came across @JoseyWales019 by reviewing their draft at Draft:Danubian Wars. Further investigation into their contribs and page creation shows that they have used AI to generate a number of articles, some of which have fictitious references and promotional content. User is now replying with an AI chatbot on their Talk Page where they admitted using AI, after I alerted them to the issue with the draft.

I am going to only do a sprinkling selection of problems:

Draft:Danubian Wars

Although it looks like every source is a real source, every ISBN number is fake: either not a real ISBN or leading to a totally different book on a totally different subject. This draft is also full of promotional language and several other AI-tells (Legacy section, rule of three etc).

College basketball player articles

The user has written a large number of college basketball player articles that all have similar formats with some AI tells, including Legacy sections, content that isn't verified by a source, promo AI-phrasing

• Billy Bryant (basketball) "The Washington Post highlighted Billy Bryant in a February 2, 1977 ... The article noted his emerging role in the backcourt" < the source does no such thing. Previous sandbox versions have obvious AI signs: "Public records and media coverage do not provide details on Bryant’s life after basketball."

• Harry Nickens "highlighting his sustained excellence" "underscoring his early-season dominance" "reflecting his early impact"

• Arron Bain "Bain earned numerous honors for his high school play, distinguishing himself among the most highly regarded prospects of his era. His reputation as a versatile and high-scoring forward remains part of the D.C. area's rich basketball legacy"

Fictious DOIs

Another AI tell is fake DOIs being generated.

• Yolandra Hancock 10.1093/intqhc/mzt103 under source #27 does not exist.

More fictious ISBNs

• Claude H. Organ 9780930405656 and 9780930405809 go to a completely different books.

Fake sources

• Willie F. Wilson Source #26 Lee, Shannon (2013). Faith-Based Organizing, Catholic Women, and the Affordable Care Act. doesn't exist - the link and ISBN are to a different book.

• A prior version to Niambi Carter included fake Archive.org links all to fake sources under the Media appearances and commentary section. This doesn't appear on the current version, but has a fake DOI at source #13 doi:10.1017/nrb.2021.26

• User:JoseyWales019/sandbox/Lamont_Morgan contains several fake sources that 404.

Promotional AI-tone

All their articles exhibit promotional AI phrases:

• Edwin C. Chapman "deeply rooted"

• Willie F. Wilson "rooted in" "pivotal role"

• D. Richard Kuhn "cornerstone"

• Stacey Robinson "In a region rich with talent, his name stood out for both his ability and the mystique that surrounded him"

Fictious quotes

• Stacey Robinson Includes an apparently quote by the Washington Post. The quote does not exist in the article - I even signed up for a subscription and paid £2 to check.

• Kevin Sinnett Likewise a quote in a Washington Post source. The quote does not appear.

Admin action

I think that's enough to be going on with. Usage of AI is clear and obvious. I recommend an indef mainspace block and that all their articles are draftied deleted. qcne (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can cleanup the inconsistencies but drafting my articles is strong punishment. There will be many articles in the future and it currently in the main space using AI that have this problem if we investigate. If you punish me then - you should do an audit of all articles in mainspace to be fair. JoseyWales019 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Which of these articles above were written using AI software? Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe your defence amounts to "everyone else is polluting the project with AI generated slop so why can't I". An hour's worth of research found fake sources, fake quotes, promotional language throughout. It breaks our core policies. How can anyone trust anything in your articles.

Draftification was a courtesy. I'd support they all be deleted. qcne (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

G15. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I tried sending several of them to G15, all of which were declined. I suppose the next course of action is AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Or PROD. But I don't think PROD applies to drafts, so you might need to go to MfD for the stuff not in article space. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Just mass draft them all to begin with? At least clears them out of mainspace given the complete lack of trust there is in any of them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I sent them all to AFD with this boilerplate rationale: Procedural nomination per this conversation at ANI where evidence has been presented that this article was created (at least in part) using AI software. Even if this subject is notable, the use of AI demands that the article be deleted. The problem is that these subjects may in fact be notable, but we cannot tolerate articles being written using AI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you've just sent the ones mentioned above to AfD, right? There are more than 40 total. Jahaza (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I only sent the ones that were cited above with evidence. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged two of these articles to be cleanup and rewriten since these are clearly written using AI. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not just "inconsistencies". Fiction can be internally consistent, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to describe reality. Inserting falsehoods into Wikipedia is highly disruptive, and the purpose of a block would be to prevent that disruption rather than to punish you. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just clicked on the "article" for D. Richard Kuhn linked above and the entire main section "career" describes various claimed interviews that are completely unsourced and instead link repeatedly back to their NIST page.

I'd also support block for the user and a G15 CSD on all their articles under WP:CIR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

They should have really known better as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If you do a GPTZero of all of my articles you will not see any detection of AI. You want to delete my articles and block me. Okay. Give me chance to gather evidence on all of my articles using GPSTZero so I can use as evidence. Btw, some mistakes were made that can be corrected but to say I used AI when 100 percent of my results state below it is human is a bridge too far and I will not let this ride. If you read my bio on my user page I am no rookie to the technical or fed arena, and also I am African American trying to make a difference when I see a lot of bias on Wikipedia.

Basic scan

GPTZero AI Detection

Model 3.7b

We are highly confident this text is entirelyhuman

Probability breakdown

3% AI generated

0% Mixed

97% Human JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

GPTzero is known for being unreliable.

And your race has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

That is not a good argument. What else will you use to validate. In cyber we use tools to validate and not make assumptions. Race is a factor. JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedians have collected a set of AI tells through experience. One cannot rely entirely on AI to tell whether something is AI. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

In a court of law fact is fact not assumptions. JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You guys have been pounding on me like a feeding frenzy. In a court of law we present facts - not assumptions. I have been a cyber expert for 20 years and a tech for 30. You will lose in a court of law. I know Wikipedia is not a court of law - but come on. You guys are out of bounds. JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not make any comments even remotely suggesting that you will take legal action. You may get blocked as a result.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This is quite clearly not a legal threat. Giraffer (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just making sure that they know in case they accidentally make one. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Giraffer, thank you for pointing out that I overreacted. I struck the comment as a result. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. I posted my comment to try to avoid people getting sidetracked on a discussion about legal threats. You're all good. Giraffer (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I almost wrote the same thing. Jahaza (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were a court of law, you would have been monetarily sanctioned for your AI use/fake citations, rather than blocked from editing. See, for example, Mata v. Avianca, Inc. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero is not always correct. Also, for the record, running text through GPTZero until it no longer calls it "AI-generated" does not constitute human review. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow! That doesn’t give a lot of people confidence in Wikipedia tools. JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero is not a Wikipedia tool. Wikipedia is not affiliated with GPTZero and does not endorse it. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. So no tools are good to validate. GPTZero is suppose to be the flagship. JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

A good tool to validate is to (manually) check the references. If they have recent dates but are still 404s, that's a pretty good sign of LLM-generated content. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

There is apparently false info in the citations. If you didn't use AI, what that leaves us is that you falsified the citations yourself. If I were you I'd blame the AI. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Be careful with accusations JoseyWales019 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

When you add references, please make sure to check that the links work and that the references actually exist, regardless of whether you are using AI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Great info and very diplomatic. You get a Barnstar! JoseyWales019 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Btw, I do check my links. As you know DNS entries and IPs can be changed. I have returned to links and found some didn’t work. I tried the archive parameter- but sometimes that caused issues. Your point about checking URLs is a must for all editors.✍️ JoseyWales019 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Just remember that any info you add to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and that includes checking the source. Fictitious references have always been a problem, but AI has compounded it; most of the time when I see nonexistent references, it's because an AI-using editor has forgotten to account for hallucinations. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that you didn't use AI to create these articles with shoddy sources, fictitous sources, etc. Well, then all the bad edits you've made, rather than being the fault of the LLM, rest solely on you, and the question becomes a far more negative one: are you unable to verify information or unwilling to? Would you prefer this to be the debate? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct. There is no automated tool that can, on its own, adequately review edits and determine whether they contain AI-generated problems. That is precisely why human review is required. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Point well taken! JoseyWales019 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Coming to Wikipedia to right wrongs (deficiencies, bias, etc.) in coverage is commendable, but we remedy that by doing the work, not by using cheats. If you can't look up sources and write content in your own words, this isn't the hobby for you. Oddly enough, AI can be useful sometimes for discovering sources, but asking AI to belch out your text and cites to plug in here is not welcome. And you can see some are already ready to site-ban you. If you really want to stay and help with Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you ponder this for a while and decide that if you're staying, you will do the work. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked @JoseyWales019 from mainspace until the issues here are addressed. Fictious references are a serious problem, and the fact they deny using any AI when it is so blatant does not make me confident that they understand the issues here, hence the block.

This is very much the kind of "indefinite pending a comment/appeal demonstrating what to do differently" block, as a preventative measure against further disruption. Note that JoseyWales019 is still able to comment here, and I would encourage them to do so. Any administrator is welcome to unblock if/when they feel the issues have been addressed. Giraffer (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, clearly the point is not getting across, so I am going to be more direct: @JoseyWales019. you have, knowingly or unknowingly inserted false references into articles. Given the significant stylistic differences between your comments (e.g. everything here vs the talk page comment linked in the original report) it is pretty obvious that you have used AI of some sort on Wikipedia. You are welcome to claim that the references were not accidental, but that can only mean that you deliberately inserted false references, which is significantly worse than doing it accidentally. Giraffer (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've bitten the bullet and draftified everything that didn't already have an AfD active on it. Frankly there doesn't look to be any disagreement on at least that course of action given the plain as day AI usage. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Also while doing it I checked the odd reference here and there and once again it was obvious AI inventions, such as this sentence on Draft:Joe_Holston Holston is remembered for his reliability and consistency over four years in Tulane’s backcourt. His high assist total and top-10 ranking in games played reflect his long-term impact on the program. Former teammates and coaches have cited him as a key contributor to Tulane’s competitive resurgence in the early years of the Metro Conference being cited to a website that just displays player statistics... Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. qcne (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify all created articles at a minimum. The articles are so long and complex that they can't be edited or reviewed in situ in any responsible timeframe. Jahaza (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• I'd argue that we carefully go through all articles, just as we do when there are suspicions about copyright violations. Are you sure there are no tools that can be used to verify AI usage? Otherwise, we don't have a standard by which to make judgments and what one editor thinks might be LLM-generated might be different than another editor's assessment. Is there any way to be sure and not have this process be so subjective? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  just as we do when there are suspicions about copyright violations We don't do that when an editor creates a brand new article that's entirely copyvio; we delete the article instead. The community shouldn't be obligated to sift through potentially hundreds of sources to verify the integrity of what this editor has written. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Regardless of the best way of cleaning up the issue after the fact, I think this does really highlight that New Page Patrol itself needs a review on how to deal with LLM usage in new articles. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  The G15 speedy deletion criteria list a few definitive identifiers of unreviewed LLM use. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  If someone figured out a way to be definitively sure whether a piece of text was AI-generated, then they wouldn't be on Wikipedia, they'd be out in Silicon Valley becoming a billionaire off their breakthrough. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Josey's replies here show zero remorse so far. I think this will end in an indef. This editor clearly loves AI and is not willing to give it up, even though it is creating hoaxes (fictitious citations) and cleanup work for other editors. It's disrespectful to mash the ChatGPT button and then make other editors clean it up. Being a good encyclopedist means reading sources and summarizing them, not typing a prompt into experimental new technology and letting it make up whatever it wants. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• The phrase that comes to mind with regards to these articles is "fruit of the poisonous tree" (thank you, Law and Order). Arguments are being made at AFD that these articles should be kept because the subjects are notable, but even my nomination rationale clarifies that notability may exist, but we should have zero tolerance for AI-generated articles. If the subject merits an article, nuke it and start over from scratch. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  It might've been better to wait for a resolution here instead of taking all of their articles/drafts to XfD. A consensus here could have developed to nuke them all at once, but now we'll be stuck with whatever AfD consensuses develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  I guess we'll find out what level of tolerance the community has for AI-generated slop. 🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Site-Ban

There may be some sanction that is less severe than a site-ban, but it is not obvious to me what it is. This editor has been showing a complete disregard of community standards, where one of the standards of the community is that both articles and talk page discussion should be by humans and not by artificial intelligence. So, sadly, I propose that JoseyWales019 be community banned from the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Community ban seems a bit severe at this stage, to me. From personal experience, those are usually enacted when an indef isn't enough, and reverting without question is required. For example, people who have LTA pages dedicated to the abuse. A community ban for misguided use of AI doesn't fit that bill to me, and makes it rather difficult to appeal by admitting to one's faults with an unblock request. From what I've seen of this particular case, they haven't even responded to the block yet. Why is a ban needed here? — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 05:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Daedalus969 in that a community ban seems like a bit too much on someone who's only been here for three months and not had major run-ins or community disruption up until now. I would support an indef though. Conyo14 (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support - LLM use is an existential threat to a human-created encyclopedia. That they're willfully using these tools to create garbage content, justifying it because there's unremoved content elsewhere, and show zero remorse while betlittling concerns about the encyclopedia's quality makes this very different to me from someone simply misguided in their use of LLMs. These actions are an attack on the community at-large more than an attack on individual editors, and I think the community having a say on if they get a second chance is a good idea. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The major issue for me in not the use of LLMs, no matter how much I detest that. It is the unrepentent insertion of fake references. Narky Blert (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The editor in question has barely had any time to reflect on the gravity of this matter. I'd rather see if they can see the light and work through the unblock process. But certainly, I'm open-minded to support if they continue cheat-writing with AI if and after they are unblocked. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC).
• Support. The blind usage of AI is an existential threat to our encyclopedia. We need to take a firm stance on this, otherwise this site will turn into AI-generated unverifiable slop before we know it. If someone doesn't understand why using AI is an issue and continues to defend it, that warrants a CIR ban in my opinion. Also, as others have pointed out, the community should figure out some way to deal with AI-generated slop, maybe similarly to WP:CCI. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Kovcszaln6 check out Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup. qcne (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support There is no place on Wikipedia for purveyors of AI generated slop content. Jtrainor (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support Adding bogus citations is a gross betrayal of readers trust, whether LLM-generated or not. If JoseyWales019 had shown the slightest signs of understanding this, there might be room for a lesser sanction, but instead we get nothing but facile argumentation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support Making LLM generated AI articles with fake citations with fake ISBN numbers deserves a permanent ban from Wikipedia Isla🏳️‍⚧ 11:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support A community ban wouldn't have been necessary if JoseyWales019 had acknowledged the problem and committed themselves to fixing the problem. Instead, JoseyWales019 worked hard to show they have no intention of doing so. Either they are wildly abusing LLMs or they are making up false sources themselves. Either way, this is actively harming the project and we need it to stop. A community ban is the best option I see at this point. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Editors may be interested in the discussion at WP:Village_pump_(policy)#LLM/AI_generated_proposals?. EEng 12:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Support - Re-affirming. The creation of ~40 articles filled with basic errors from LLM use was bad enough, but their attitude of asserting they've done nothing wrong, snarky come-backs, and instead seeming to imply that those questioning their conduct are doing it on the basis of their race (despite the fact this wouldn't have been known until they disclosed it here) highlights further problems outside of simply content issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose on principle. There are many users who come to EngWiki because the Wiki in their own language isn't anywhere nearly as comprehensive. Many of those come from South Asia, Africa, Latin America or West Asia. Bringing out the torches every time someone uses an LLM is going to disproportionately impact would-be helpful editors. Josey hasn't done anything truly warranting a CBAN. Bans for AI should be reserved for those who are actively trying to deceive WP. A common block would be enough here. King Lobclaw (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This user states they are from the USA on their, now blanked, User Page...? qcne (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This user IS actively trying to deceive WP. They're refusing to correct their nonexistent sources and lying to our faces about obvious LLM use. A user whose first language isn't English making good-faith edits would not make sarcastic comebacks and accuse other editors of racism when their race is completely unknowable. Support ban. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There are many users who come to EngWiki because the Wiki in their own language isn't anywhere nearly as comprehensive. Many of those come from South Asia, Africa, Latin America or West Asia. Bringing out the torches every time someone uses an LLM is going to disproportionately impact would-be helpful editors.

This is precisely why I prefer a hard-line on the issue because it lowers the barriers of entry to the point I'd argue it's actually leading to damage, not improvement. A non-native English user simply slapping inputs into LLMs and pasting the English results here when they don't understand the meaning of said outputs and therefore can't actually assess them is a recipe for disaster. It'd be like letting a child run around with a nailgun. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Putting fake sources in articles is an active deception of WP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Suppor atleast a ban from article-space (and or a siteban) I think what strikes me as particularly egregious, is not that they used AI in the first place, is that they followed the policy in letter but not is spirit. They made sure to change the text just enough for it to be undetectable in GPTZero but did not do due diligence to check for source-to-integrity or that the citations pointed to the correct things. This isnt just accidentally forgetting to check ISBNs as they claim, on Draft:Ron Ross the cite a ArXiv study to complement some numbers on NIST SP500-83's effectiveness, however, those numbers are wrong and the author of the study, "Ankita Gupta" does not exist (the study was conducted by my colleagues at NCState and to my knowledge, "Ankita Gupta" was never a member or a collaborator to them). A check to make sure that the authors were correct, (or auto-generate the citation using Zotero) would have taken literal seconds. Additionally, even when they are literally told about the problem (in this ANI thread), they are recalcitrant, accussing us of picking on them for their race, something that could not have been inferred before he brought it up (since it is not mentioned on their userpage) and (until now) refusing to change their ways of creating articles to be more in line with comunity policies. -- Sohom (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose they are already indeff'd, and all this proposal does is convert the indef to a c-ban. They are not going to get unblocked unless they can overwhelmingly convince an admin with a human-written unblock request that they understand and acknowledge what they did was not acceptable, so I don't think this is necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think they're indeffed yet. I think they're partially blocked from mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is correct. They can edit anything provided it is not in mainspace (e.g. drafts, this ANI thread, their userpage). Giraffer (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, they are indefinitely blocked from mainspace, which prevents them from creating new LLM articles, and also prevents the associated problems that go along with that. I just don't see a need for a c-ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is pretty much my position. It will be very difficult for this editor to convince an admin to unblock them, and they would have to demonstrate they have learned what they did was harmful and won't do it again. A permanent ban for an editor who has had under two days to consider the gravity of their harm seems like a death penalty for a first non-violent offense. I'm afraid other editors and potential ones will see this action as extremely harsh and develop negative views of the wiki movement. Using AI to belch crap content is disgusting, for sure, but maybe this c-ban talk is an overreaction? Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Support with a condition that the ban will only be lifted if they disclose exactly how they used AI, the specific tool they used, and the prompts they used. In other words, the disclosure section of WP:CHATGPT (which honestly should be upgraded to policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban. As the competence is required guideline says: a mess made in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that someone needs to clean up. It doesn't matter what tools they used, what matters is that they dumped a bunch of nonsense on Wikipedia without bothering to verify it, much of it about living persons, and they do not understand why that's a problem. They claim to have relevant technical expertise to use LLM content generation tools responsibly and verify their output, but their pattern of contributions here suggests they have too much faith in their own expertise and/or in the tools they're using to write for them. Dumping this crap on Wikipedia and expecting someone else to find and correct it is an unwelcome and unreasonable demand on other volunteers' precious time. I also propose reimbursing Qcne their £2, though I have no means to facilitate this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant to the pblock. I believe it's a feature that they can still request edits to articles, as well as edit other pages, as the edit request reviewer would be diligent enough to check the sources. If they start creating AI slop in draftspace, extend the block to draftspace. (Perhaps a topic ban from editing articlespace instead?) OutsideNormality (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears to me that they have not be indefinitely blocked, only indefinitely blocked from article space. I am proposing to block them from project space as well (and from other spaces), because editors who have been using AI and are blocked from article space sometimes use their LLMs to rant at noticeboards or in article talk space. It is also my understanding that there is no material difference between a community indefinite block and a site ban, so I didn't waste steps in proposing a community indefinite block, that is a ban without being called a ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessarily; a ban is a bit different, for example, the requirement of 'banned by the community, can be unbanned by the community'. Which is to say that the user can be unbanned by community discussion, whereas for a normal indef block, they can just request an appeal from any uninvolved admin. I'm sure there's other major differences, but I can't presently get too in-depth on this. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 22:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  An indefinite block imposed by the community is the same thing as a community ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  They are the same for the editor in question as to what they cannot do here while the block/ban is in place, but also not the same because the processes to undo them are different. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN says, "Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"." So, an indefinite block imposed by the community is a community ban. --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  I thought the processes to undo them were different. I thought that undoing a block requires making an unblock request on their user talk page. That is different for this case? Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  No. It's literally the same thing. If the community imposes an indefinite block, it's a WP:CBAN and only the community may lift it. --Yamla (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Undoing a sanction imposed by the community requires community consensus, so an indefinite block imposed by community consensus can only be undone by community consensus. This is functionally indistinguishable from a community ban, and so we treat it as one. Giraffer (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks to both of you for your informative responses. I guess this underscores my 'Oppose' then. I think they should just have to convince an admin at this juncture. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I see lots of indications in the links provided, the articles created, and the conversation above. Based on what I've read, I have no reason to believe they are here to create the best online encyclopedia possible. They appear here to try out their toys and then fully expect the rest of us to sort it out later. No remorse, no comprehension of the position in which they put the community, no reasonable explanation for their many, many brightline violations of policy. No thanks; we don't need their help. BusterD (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support excommunicado Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, a first block as a result of llm use should be handled as an individual admin action. Having the community having to weigh in on instances of llm misuse is not practical. Admins should feel empowered to take action to stop llm misuse on an individual basis, and by extension should be able to handle any unblock requests with an appropriate mix of discretion, caution, and good faith. No objection to an admin altering the pblock to a full block on an individual basis as a result of this discussion. CMD (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, not an admin but going to vote anyway. This doesn't appear to be malicious vandalism, but rather a person attempting to help build an encyclopedia without fully understanding the limitations of generative AI. Young people and new users will need to learn when and how AI can be effectively used to assist them with their writing, and when it is inappropriate. They can not do this if we block them on a first offense. I'd recommend setting this user up with a mentor who can help them learn policy and review their work. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  However, they are denying their use of AI 37.186.45.17 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Their user page, before they blanked it, claimed this is someone with 20+ yhears in federal cybersecurity with a specialty in cyber policy. Assuming that wasn't false information, this is not a young person and not someone who misunderstands AI. --Yamla (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I mean someone in the tech industry misunderstanding AI is the most believable thing in the world. Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Final comment: I have been following the conversation and will not be participating anymore more on Wikipedia. Seeing the immature responses in these comments will be the “bellwether” for most people to avoid this site. Kudos to the editors who “Opposed” and GeogSage for the best and most wisest comment so far. Read GeogSage comment and let this be the paradigm how future discussions should be conducted regarding this issue. I did not build these articles to be malicious- but to do some good. 🙏

  “This doesn't appear to be malicious vandalism, but rather a person attempting to help build an encyclopedia without fully understanding the limitations of generative AI.” GeogSage JoseyWales019 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Seeing the immature responses in these comments will be the “bellwether” for most people to avoid this site.

  This attitude problem right here is the reason why, regardless of intent, many don't think you're likely to be a conductive member of this project.

  Your "final comment" could've been an apology, an admittance of fault, a declaration to do better.

  Instead it's more akin to the energy of "well I didn't want to be part of your stupid club anyway". Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think 'immature' is a poorly chosen word. I see a number of the Support responses as reminding me of the Red Scare where there is rampant fear of something massive encroaching upon us and we don't know what quite to do, so we overreact, and change punishments for violations from what would normally be slaps on the wrist with some form of a second chance into capital punishments. That said, I agree with Rambling Rambler that you would be in far greater stead today if you would have admitted the damage you caused and showed us how you would do better. Sloughing it off like it isn't a thing actually makes your position appear to be immature. If you have all the tech background you say you have, you would be open-minded to growth and learning these aspects of tech, instead of acting like you know it all when you clearly do not. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is less for Josey since they are unlikely to respond to this, but for everyone else.

  Unless it turns out that this person is a remarkably dedicated Internet troll hiding their intent, I think we have to take them at their word that their edits were not malicious, as defined in WP:AGF: "not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." (Bolding mine.)

  Like, let's step back and look at what this person actually did. They created a lot of articles, primarily about possibly-notable Black people without Wikipedia articles. Because they don't appear to be a student, an editathon participant, a paid editor, or otherwise doing it for some other reason than their own volition, there are basically only two remaining reasons someone would do that:

  1) They are deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia by creating fictitious hoaxes about minorities, out of some combination of trolling, anti-Wikipedia stunts, and/or racism.

  2) They sincerely believe they are trying to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of whether they succeeded at this fact.

  This does not mean their edits were constructive, that the ban here is wrong, or that AI is good. But if we don't address the actual reasons why people use AI, then instead of solutions we will just get more shitshows like this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support Also not an admin, and while I agree with CMD's point that this should be a routine admin action in future, this is potentially a bellwether case that would set the precedent that would give admins the confidence they would be acting with community consent. Creating articles with fake citations is, to me, one of the worst things you could do in WP - whether intentionally or using AI. I can't agree with the automatic 'All AI is slop', sorry, we're already using automation routinely and it's just another level of automation. BUT when LLM tools are used to misinform and mislead - knowingly or unknowingly (remember, Bot users are reminded they bear responsibility for their use of the tools), you're breaking WP:5 right there. Let alone basic standards of moral human conduct. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of stuff. If not for the AI-generated crap, certainly for the fake refs, at least. Lynch44 11:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support as others have noted, the fake references either come from inappropriate LLM usage or JoseyWales019 themselves faking references. So this is one instance where using an LLM is IMO far less worrying than than the alternative and where if JoseyWales019 had just said something like 'okay I used an LLM, without knowing how bad LLMs are. I'm going to stop using LLM because clearly they're creating terrible work that is harming Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know & sorry for the harm I did', I'd be perfectly fine with not only opposing this but in fact arguing for unblock them from main space albeit with a short leash if there were any further signs of LLM usage. Yet JoseyWales019 has been persistently evasive to the point IMO of being misleading when people have questioned them over their LLM usage. For example above they said [75] "Btw, I do check my links. As you know DNS entries and IPs can be changed. I have returned to links and found some didn’t work. I tried the archive parameter- but sometimes that caused issues." the implication of this comment is all those invalid URLs they've submitted are simply ordinary linkrot deadlinks i.e. links which were once valid but changed in the website made them invalid. I find this very hard to believe. Likewise when questioned about their ISBNs being invalid [76] "Verifying using the URLs was straightforward, but relying on AI to check ISBNs was a big FUBAR on my part—and a valuable learning experience. I only included the ISBNs because I assumed that was the reason my first submission was denied." But as my followup question implied this is a very confusing statement. [77] The key issue here is whether they ever actually read the books their were citing. The ISBNs being correct is frankly a minor thing if they provided enough info that the books they were citing could be identified. But they still needed to have read these books or at least the parts which verify what they were citing. If they read some book sources and based on them added some details which they cited to these books source and they cited them only with title and author and then used a LLM to fill in the other details like ISBN, that's a minor mistake. But if they never read these books but instead relied on an LLM to provide citations or worse generate the content out of whole cloth with alleged citations, and never bothered to check that these books supporting anything being cited then that's a far more serious issue. And frankly I'm fairly sure that it is some variety of the latter. (I might have been willing to AGF on the former if they'd at least said it, but they never did.) I wouldn't say it's unforgivable but dealing with it does require JoseyWales019's part which we never got. Instead they are blaming people for overreacting when they were evasive & refuse to answer or even worse mislead about important questions about what they actually did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Comment. Why on Earth would anyone use AI to check an ISBN? It's trivially easy, and almost certainly quicker, to do so manually. I can't be the only editor who routinely does so because they sometimes mistype digits. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  As can authors of secondary sources. I recently corrected the enwp article date of a scientific discovery from 1905 to 1906, because I happened to have read the original paper 40 years ago; and when I checked it I was right, and all the secondary sources were wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support: while I disagree with the (apparently) widespread belief that any use of LLMs is inherently wrong or against WP policy, I do agree with other editors that using fake references in an article is one of the highest offenses. Not to mention, cross-checking the references of LLM output is as easy as clicking on a link and doing some light reading. What makes this banworthy, however, is the denial of usage of AI. I mean, why? Elspamo4 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Hoax article creations by User:TheLocomotiveEngineer1878

• TheLocomotiveEngineer1878 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently, User:TheLocomotiveEngineer1878 seems to have created several hoax articles. The involved articles are Draft:Calhoun Group, Draft:Ballard Railroad Car Works, and Dalton Healey Hotel. The latter two were created in article-space first, with Ballard Railroad Car Works having later been moved to draftspace. I am unable to find the subjects these articles are about, and they seem to reference a non-existent town of Briarsville, New Jersey. (Edited this to rearrange the drafts, and to correct which one was later moved to draftspace} 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@TheLocomotiveEngineer1878 might need another chance, as they have not made much edits. I sent them a message saying they should read WP:YFA. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, but they did just copy Draft:Calhoun Group into their sandbox not too long ago. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs ok got it, sorry. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They have also created Draft:Calhoun Group/sandbox, which I've tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G15. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Them using LLMs for the articles does make sense, since there is some strange markup in their other articles. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They are also attempting to game the system by making and reverting multiple small edits across different articles, which I’ve warned them for. [78], [79]], [80] Celjski Grad (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern about possible scam post

Please would another admin take a look at [81] and see if they agree with me that this is potentially a scam or phishing exercise. I've blocked the editor for advertising but I wonder if it may be something we should report. Deb (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the page and blocking the user because that is definitely either a scam or an imitation of a scam. I don't know about reporting it. I wouldn't bother because the internet is full of them. Special:LinkSearch shows there are no similar links at enwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Deb and Johnuniq: For what, if anything, it may be worth to you, purely for curiosity, not with an expectation of doing anything, I searched for information about this business, and I can say with total confidence that it is a scam. JBW (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. Deb (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Harold9595959

My concerns largely fell on deaf ears here, but this editor still adds unsourced content to BLPs, and still doesn't respond to talk page comments. GiantSnowman 18:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Support indef article namespace block: clear that they are refusing to get the point —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• For what's worth, Harold9595959 has responded on their talk page here, apologizing and stating this won't repeat. I'm not sure an indef block from mainspace is warranted at this point, but since they've been blocked before for this behavior and it appears that it has not stopped, maybe a final warning would suffice at this point? Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just noticed that - I don't think we can trust them, there has been zero response to previous warnings/block and zero response to the last ANI. Edits since look sourced, however. GiantSnowman 14:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support There is 11 red icon warnings indicating extreme disruption and others going back to January 2024 plus a block for adding unsourced content and block for vandalism. I'm not confident that the editor is capable of following the rules. scope_creep^Talk 17:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User Lkcl: disruptive subject matter expert

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

---

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

User Lkcl is a self-disclosed expert in some highly technical computing topics. Several days ago they decided that our article General-purpose computing on graphics processing units should be split into separate articles for hardware and software applications, moved the existing page to General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (software), created a new article General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (hardware), and replaced the original article with a disambiguation page. I summarized what happened next in a post here, but to summarize even further: Lkcl's move of the original article was not done properly and it was reverted, and when user Tiggerjay tried to help them make the move correctly, Lkcl made a post here accusing Tiggerjay of harassing and stalking them over a health issue that Lkcl self-disclosed (the post was oversighted), posted a similar complaint to Arbcom, and left a series of posts elsewhere about Tiggerjay's "harassment" (which was nothing of the sort) such as [82] and [83].

Other relevant discussions (permalinks):

• User talk:Tenshi Hinanawi#GPGPU hardware page
• User talk:Lkcl#Physical Health

Since that incident Tiggerjay was advised to avoid Lkcl and has, but several other editors have objected to Lkcl's split of the article, and there are a few parallel discussions about moving the original article back to its non-disambiguated title and merging the new "hardware" stub back into the main topic:

• Talk:General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (software)#Requested move 14 August 2025
• Talk:General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (hardware)#Proposed merge of General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (software) with General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (hardware)

Lkcl has mostly ignored these discussions and ploughed ahead with their mass changes anyway, and when other editors have challenged their edits or tried to offer a contrary opinion in those discussions, Lkcl has responded with personal attacks such as [84] [85] [86], and has gone so far as to describe the entire merge discussion as "wiki-bullying" [87]. This morning they described basic corrective edits on the dab page they created as "sabotage" and have now attempted to report everyone who has edited that page to ANEW ([88]). I have also received complaints from several other editors about their disruptive edits (User talk:Ivanvector#WP:NOTHERE user that we've discussed, [89]). This morning they have even described an edit by AnomieBOT ([90]) as sabotage ([91]).

Apart from their health and conduct issues, they're also just making a mess everywhere they go. They've been repeatedly told not to use HTML comments to make directorial notes like this and this. Reviewing their contribs this morning led me to Template:Multimedia extensions, which they decided should be called "instruction set extensions" instead and then moved the template to that title, but then also inappropriately copied some of the template back to the original title ([92]), and did so in a way that now all transclusions of the original template show the original and Lkcl's new version. There are numerous "experimental" edits of this sort in mainspace that will need to be unwound, and they are still going. As well, there is an undercurrent to all of this that they are making these decisions on the basis of their own personal research, or even using Wikipedia to conduct that research as they edit.

All of this would likely be correctable behaviour, but Lkcl has a pattern of responding to any criticism whatsoever with a warning to the other user that we must "assume good faith", or it will exacerbate their serious health condition whereby any form of stress triggers ischemic events and anaphylactic shock. Examples: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. They seem to have misinterpreted "assume good faith" as meaning we are required to assume that they are correct and not question them at all, but even if they have correctly interpreted "assume good faith", they are repeatedly and egregiously failing to extend the courtesy to other editors.

Ultimately, between their rapid and inadvertently disruptive actions, personal attacks and aspersions, and being completely unable to participate in discussions without making serious personal attacks against everyone who challenges them, this is a person who should not be editing Wikipedia, more or less per WP:CIR. I propose that they be banned from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI: see Libre-SOC, created by Lkcl. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me that an indefinite block would be an act of kindness. If LKCL's health is actually threatened to the extent described, the Wikipedia community clearly cannot be expected to prevent the sort of run-of-the-mill interactions that LKCL is finding so stressful - I see nothing that appears out of the ordinary in a collaborative project where dealing with disagreements is a normal part of the process. And nor is it reasonable to expect the community to bear such a responsibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Support indef: for the editor's safety. If his health is so precarious that a simple disagreement can kill him (where AGF does apply, obviously, is in not questioning the credibility of the claim), he is obviously wildly unsuited for editing Wikipedia. Beyond that, however, his apparent notion that he is himself free to pick fights with impunity is not remotely a good look. Seemingly he must be protected from himself here. Ravenswing 15:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Support as nominator, in case that wasn't clear. As an update, Lkcl is now calling me disruptive ([98]), although they tried to do so "quietly". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Their behavior is beyond the pale, and playing the victim is not an excuse. The anew disengagement at Special:Diff/1306212632 is typical of what I’ve reviewed. Indeffed until they explain how they’ll work productively with others in the event of a dispute. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That ANEW "comment" of his was especially egregious. Ravenswing 16:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Lkcl has responded on their talk page; as they obviously cannot edit here I'll post the diff here without comment. CoconutOctopus talk 16:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They now seem to be alleging that I and other editors I've mentioned here are part of a sophisticated conspiracy against them. But their typical discussion style is to rapidly add many short replies to a comment, not typically in order, and copyedit in subsequent revisions, so it may be best to wait a while for them to finish before trying to respond. I started to write a reply myself about their ongoing aspersions post-block, but I don't think my presence on their talk page (the editor they seem to perceive as the puppetmaster in the conspiracy against them) will do much to defuse the situation, so I will bow out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure this is defusible by anyone other than Lkcl. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm interested in any "defusing" he attempts. A climb down now would be to admit that he's been BSing us all along, and I'm militantly disinterested in someone who falsely claims bad health to avoid scrutiny, and who cries "Conspiracy!" any time he attracts it. Ravenswing 19:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They say they have collaboratively edited with other domain-experts here (also at ANEW), and perhaps the key here is not to make that distinction. Judgement of people as non-knowledgeable [99] [100] seems to a factor in the ABF/aspersions. Expertise can be demonstrated with good sources, since that's all we care about at the end of the day. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Support indef - If a routine disagreement on Wikipedia is enough to put his life in jeopardy, one has to ask what the actual fuck is he doing editing Wikipedia in the first place, unless he's deliberately trying to commit suicide-by-cop? AGF only gets you so far. And for the record, other than this opinion I have no dog in this fight and was not canvassed to this discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Indef supported If they have had multiple (as they allege, 100+) seizures during the process of editing a page and getting angered by talk page notices or revisions, this is sadly the simplest solution. I don't know if it's directly caused by screen flicker or the emotions of writing, but if you cannot edit with your health being threatened due to normal interactions, then it's equivalent to giving a lighter and a carton of Kools to a Stage IV lung cancer patient already in hospice. We simply must do the right thing here. Nathannah • 📮 18:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Minamoto no Yoshitomo

• Minamoto no Yoshitomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 31.205.18.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Reporting this user who is claiming that he supposedly provided a reliable source in the article Minamoto no Yoshitomo, but it is purely Japanese characters that cannot be understood because we are in English Wikipedia, with no link, no URL, and no proof of a reliable source. - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The "characters" are 2 13th century primary source titles plus a modern study. Also do you mind providing where exactly does it say that you can only cite English on English Wikipedia? 31.205.18.96 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NONENG says "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". That includes sources in other than Latin script. Narky Blert (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Offline sources are perfectly acceptable on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Okay. - Arcrev1 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Note, however, it goes on to say that However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. But sometimes no such sources exist. I've written or translated several articles where there were no sources in English, or where the English sources that did exist were beyond worthless. Narky Blert (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see making references with citation templates, if you are unsure on how to format a reference. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

You can cite non-English sources, but you should use the correct citation template and provide the transliteration and/or English translation with trans- fields to help out people who can’t read Japanese. The editor comes with a widget that helps you to generate references. You can paste the ISBN number and press the button below and it will fill out most fields for you. Northern Moonlight 00:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable on English Wikipedia. It’s an article about a Japanese general from the 12th century so I don’t think you can find English sources of equal quality and relevance here. Note that many English Wikipedians (myself included) can read Japanese and you can head to WP:Trans and WP:Language if you need help. Northern Moonlight 00:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Topic-ban violation by Vofa (article: Barlas)

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

---

Background.

• Vofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barlas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per community consensus, Vofa is under a topic ban from ethnic, national, and/or linguistic history topics, broadly construed.

Violation.

After this TBAN was imposed, Vofa edited Barlas article, which is plainly within the ethnic/national/linguistic/history area (WP:BROADLY). In these post-ban edit, he effectively restored their prior changes, including: removing/altering the statement that the Barlas originally spoke a Mongolic language; removing the mention of Tengrism as their early religion; removing “Mongolic” from the descriptor “Turco-Mongolic tribal confederation”; removing the statement that the Barlas were a branch/lineage of the Borjigin clan.

Post-ban diff: [diff] This edit fall squarely under the prohibited topic area.

Request. I ask administrators to: confirm the TBAN violation; revert the post-ban edits to Barlas; impose appropriate enforcement (warning/block per WP:TBAN) to prevent further violations.

Liz and The Bushranger, could you please take a look at my report regarding a violation of Vofa’s topic ban? Liz previously participated in the related discussion, and The Bushranger closed the prior thread.

Thanks. — KoizumiBS (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm headed to bed right now but the process would go more smoothly if you provided diffs for the edits you believe were violating a topic ban.Was there only this one diff? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz I believe this revert [101] is the specific violation that KoizumiBS is complaining about.

Just looking through their contribution history this edit [102] to Burtas also appears to be a violation.

I've also never seen anyone attempt to rewrite their editing restrictions before [103] 86.23.87.130 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs - that’s exactly the one I had in mind. Regarding the edit in the Burtasy article: yes, the modern form should be Burtashi, which Vofa changed it to Burtasy. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

That is not good at all, seems like a indeffable behavior, especially the attenpt to modify the topic ban to different things 212.70.117.12 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Their edits to conservation genetics are also testing the limits, if not blatantly over the line. Considering their block log but also noting that this is the first enforcement action regarding their topic ban specifically, I have blocked them for one month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Constant edit reverts without explanation

I have removed some content from 2025 Czech parliamentary election because the content voided WP:NEUTRAL, especially for lead content and didn't adhere to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as well as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in so far as claims that are made which are not explicitly stated by given sources. However, another editor is constantly reverting these edits, despite my explanation that the onus is on the person who added the content to achieve a consensus ("The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."). The editor in question has provided zero explanation or edit summaries and is simply reverting without reason. Helper201 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

another editor doesn't tell us who that other editor is. You need to tell us who, exactly, you're reporting, and don't forget to notify them of this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, the editor in question is Itsyoungrapper. I have notified them on their talk page. Helper201 (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the edits in question, I am inclined to agree with Helper201 on the merit of their removal of the content in question, and at the very least they are attempting to explain their removal while Itsyoungrapper has reverted without any reason or engagement. Something else I noticed though, is that Itsyoungrapper has been using Rollback in this instance not in line with the guidelines set out in WP:ROLLBACKUSE.

I will also note that the content Helper201 removed was originally added by Itsyoungrapper, so perhaps some WP:OWN issues may be at play. As above _{so below} 00:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

As above Thank you for your reply. As a third-party, would you be able to revert the disputed content until the matter is resolved please? Helper201 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Joeyburner4

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

---

Joeyburner4 (talk · contribs)

New account is a very WP:SPA; their sole efforts have been to get a questionably sourced birth name onto a BLP. They have not only been editing warring (inserting the same name into the article four times in two days with varying questionable sources, or in the last two cases, no source.) However, this goes beyond edit warring (on which they have now been warned, although to poor effect.) The talk page discussion, which they did start after the third insertion (although lack of consensus did not stop them from trying the fourth) includes material that appears to be LLM generated, with the hallucinations that attach to that (and if it ain't LLM, it's problematic in its accuracy.) The very first message began with a link to Talk:Kay Adams (sportscaster)#Real name omission request (April 2023) -- a supposed conversation on that very page which never existed (there was a discussion on the topic on another page under a different title.) Their talk page arguments have gone beyond merely misinterpreting policy, which might go to competency in understanding, but to inventing quotes supposedly from policy. These efforts have wasted the time of a number of experienced editors. Whether one views this as a WP:CIR matter or a WP:NOTHERE matter, this is a problematic editor in the way he is choosing to interact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to acknowledge upfront that I made mistakes as a new editor. Specifically, I re-added contested content (Kay Adams’ birth name) multiple times before understanding how consensus works and provided an incorrect link. That was an error on my part, and I’ve since learned to stop and focus on talk page discussion instead.

That said, Nat has escalated this issue far beyond content dispute. Instead of keeping the discussion on sources and policy, he has:

• Accused me of being an AI/LLM with zero proof (a personal attack, not policy-based).
• Misstated policy multiple times (e.g., attributing language to WP:RS that isn’t there).
• Repeatedly turned content discussion into accusations about my intentions and competence.
• Followed me onto my talk page with warnings phrased more like attacks than collaborative guidance.

I’ve made an effort to keep my comments policy-focused and to acknowledge where I’ve gone wrong. What I’m asking is simple: that discussions remain centered on sources and content, not personal accusations.

This project works best when experienced editors help new contributors learn, not when they escalate disagreements into ANI filings and accusations of bad faith. I’m committed to editing constructively and moving forward with a better understanding of the process. I would ask that the same expectation of civility and policy focus be applied to Nat as well.

Joeyburner4 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to make claims about me, I suggest you include diffs so that people can check those claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing. Here are diffs for the points I raised:

• Accusing me of 'edit warring' after a single sourced addition – diff
• Repeatedly dismissing my sources as 'unsourced' when they were not – diff diff diff
• Following me onto my talk page with adversarial warnings instead of keeping the discussion content-focused – diff
• Escalating to ANI instead of engaging in normal consensus-building – diff

I’ve backed up each point with diffs as you asked. The substance of my concern is that this has shifted from policy-based discussion into repeated personal accusations, which is what I’m asking to stop." Joeyburner4 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

the LLM accusations are included in those diffs as well Joeyburner4 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

it also appears that instead of continuing content-based discussion on the article talk page, Nat escalated this to ANI. To me, that suggests his underlying policy arguments weren’t strong enough to stand on their own, so the dispute is being reframed as a conduct issue. Joeyburner4 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Joeyburner4, those diffs all include additions from multiple editors, often spanning hours. We're looking for diffs of single edits by one editor. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The diffs you are posting are showing not only multiple edits, but edits by multiple editors. I suggest you switch to diffs of single edits by me for clarity. Help:Diff may be of some help in this matter.

• The edit warring concern was not raised after a "single sourced addition", it was after the fourth addition of the same content, which, like the third time, added it without any source being presented to support it.
• Posting warnings on talk pages is standard procedure for various sorts of problematic behavior. Indeed, my posts to your talk page commenced with a standard canned warning designed for such uses. In this case, it was Template:uw-biog2. (I hand-fashioned the edit-warring warning so as not to double-template in this instance.)
• This might make for a tough place to argue that ANI is not a place to bring problematic behavior. In fact, if I might quote someone relevant, "If you genuinely believe there’s misconduct, the proper venue is WP:ANI". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Joeyburner4: if you continue being disruptive on that article, you'll be blocked. This includes any further unsourced additions, such as Special:Diff/1306168602, or disregard for WP:BLP, such as Special:Diff/1305947739. I'm quite tired of people posting chatbot hallucinations and denying that they're doing so. Your next posts should be to explain why you're making unsourced changes to the article and, in the same breath, denying that you've made unsourced changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Come to that, I'd like Joeyburner4 to explain how he was exhorting Nat Gertler to take it to ANI in one breath, and then complain about his advice being followed in the next. (Or, for that matter, how he became so familiar with our dispute resolution processes the day after registration?) Ravenswing 23:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t “exhort” anyone to go to ANI. What I said was that if someone honestly believes there’s misconduct, that’s the proper venue. That’s not the same as asking for it.

As for knowing about dispute resolution the day after I registered… yeah, I read the help pages. That’s called trying to learn how things work. It’s pretty strange to attack someone for actually reading the rules. Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I know I made some mistakes as a new editor, but I’ve owned that and I’ve been working to do things the right way. What doesn’t sit right with me is how this has turned into people piling on instead of helping. Being accused of being a bot, called “hallucinating,” and threatened with blocks feels more like ganging up on a new user than trying to teach me how things work.

I came here in good faith and I want to learn how to contribute properly. But it’s hard to do that when experienced editors focus more on personal attacks than on policy or sources. That’s not how this project is supposed to work. Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

When experienced editors have tried to explain things such as "editing warring" to you, you have treated it both as an attack and as a matter that you are far more knowledgable than them on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t treat anyone’s explanation as an attack. What I pushed back on were repeated personal accusations instead of focusing on policy. I’m new here, so of course I’ve got things to learn, but disagreeing with someone isn’t the same as thinking I “know better.” Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wow, I read through the entire discussion at Talk:Kay Adams (sportscaster) and feel like I deserve an award for the effort. Reading Joeyburner4's repetitive and condescending comments to other editors is exhausting. It's remarkable how a two day old account asserts that all of their arguments are supported by policy but editors who've been active here for years or even a decade are just arguing based on "opinion". I just can't understand why they care so much that this birth name is included in this article (they are a total SPA) but when that question is raised, they call it a personal attack and deflect. Yet over the past two days, they have added thousands and thousands of words on this one subject. I guess it's a demonstration on how competent AI is for generating supposedly policy-based arguments. As for their own behavior, it's obviously disruptive but I don't know if it warrants sanctions yet. But interacting with them on this question is maddening. Kudos to the other editors for keeping their cool. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  That’s an unfair characterization. I’ve been citing policy because that’s what editors are told to do. Calling it “exhausting” or dismissing it as AI doesn’t change the fact that I’ve been sticking to policy-based points. Labeling a new editor as an SPA or bot without evidence is not constructive and doesn’t move the discussion forward. Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

And this response is completely predictable. You've complained about every editor who has disagreed with you which, so far, is every other editor in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m responding to arguments being made, which is the whole point of a discussion. Labeling every defense of my position as a “complaint” isn’t a fair way to frame it. Try again Liz Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• I just wanted to post the previous discussion regarding Kay Adams' name in 2023, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive348#Kay Adams (sportscaster), which might fill in the gaps on why this little biographical fact seems so important to some people. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Heck, if I'd known about that, I'd have indeffed straightaway. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  And on the talk page, seen here - Addressing the 2023 safety argument - a day after account creation, they are referencing WP:COI or VRTS/OTRS, as if they just happen to find that, and all the other policies and guidelines they were allegedly so familiar with, and a one day old account just happened to stumble upon an archive discussion at BLPN. Wow. Not very likely in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from Kay Adams

Given Joeyburner4's repeated disruptive behaviour regarding the issue including repeated LLM talkpage spam, I propose that he be topic banned from Kay Adams (sportscaster) broadly construed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

There’s no actual evidence that I’ve used an LLM or posted “spam.” That accusation keeps getting repeated without proof. Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

People have read enough AI-generated comments to know that your claim to have not used LLMs is an obvious and transparent lie. This is obviously AI generated. You're not fooling anyone. It's like a sockmaster whose been checkuser confirmed to have operated multiple accounts desperately going "nuh-uh" despite all evidence to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

So the new standard is “if I don’t like what someone writes, just call it AI and pretend that’s proof”? That’s not how evidence works. You can repeat “AI” a hundred times, but it still won’t make it true Joeyburner4 (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Another deflection. Just stop, this is wasting your time and that of volunteer editors. If you are simply here to argue with everyone who crosses your path over a minor edit in which your editing has been rightly criticized, I see no future for you on this project. A topic ban is the least onerous sanction available. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Calling my defense “deflection” is just a way to avoid addressing the lack of evidence behind the accusations. I’ve been criticized without proof, and when I ask for fairness, it gets spun as disruption. That isn’t constructive. I joined here to contribute, not to be ganged up on for disagreeing. Joeyburner4 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You are a two day old account. So far, no editor you have come in contact with has agreed with the way you are handling this simple request to include this one fact in an article. Everyone has disagreed with your aggressive approach. Are you telling me that they are all wrong and you, with two days' worth of editing experience, are correct about interpreting policy? This is not being "ganged up" on, this is experienced editors trying to tell you why you are wrong and you fighting them every inch. This doesn't reflect well on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, so the story is that every single editor here is correct and I’m automatically wrong because I’ve only been here two days? That’s a convenient way to dismiss anything I say without addressing the actual issue. I’m not going to sit quietly while accusations with no evidence keep getting repeated. If the only defense against new editors contributing is to label them as disruptive. This doesn’t reflect well on you. Joeyburner4 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support as the least we can do, based on the response above, which is more of the same - going to the mattresses isn't an appropriate way to respond to extensive policy-based criticism, leaving aside the verbosity of your responses on that poor talkpage. If you're not using an LLM, you sure have assimilated the style (and GPTZero agrees for a number of your responses there). That won't work on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  show me a shred of proof and I’ll delete my account. you keep going back to the same false LLM argument because all your other arguments fall flat Joeyburner4 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  A substantial number of your lengthier edits score between 88 and 100% in GPTZero checks. But that's not the basis of my concern, it's your adamant refusal to understand that you are entitled to edit as you please, and that all criticism or guidance must be rejected. This is a very strange battle to choose, and is completely at odds with the Wikipedia editing ethos. You're wasting your time and ours, and treating this encyclopedia project as a battlefield where you must prevail at all costs. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  And based on your remarkably hostile response to A. B., I'm inclined to indefinitely block you from the project. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Joeyburner4, there may have been a time when people here had patience for folks contributing with LLMs. That time is past. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  If show can show me an ounce of proof for your claim, I’ll delete my account right now Joeyburner4 (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Note that deleting an account isn't possible; see Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum, but frankly, the seeming obsession with pushing the alleged name into the article at all costs is disturbing. If this keeps up I would indef. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Pointing out sources isn’t an obsession, it’s called editing. Maybe try it sometime Joeyburner4 (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - several editors are in agreement that they are using LLM on the talk page, and in the diff above by Hemiauchenia, the pseudo headings and bullet points are consistent with LLM. They have also been slinging around policies and guidelines like a veteran editor, when their account is only 2 days old, so I find it incredulous they've had time to read all those pages, so those arguments are coming from AI. And yes, they are a SPA whose first edit was to insert her birth name in the infobox, and have been fighting tooth and nail, bludgeoning the talk page discussion to include it. Why is that? What is the obsession with this sportscaster? If they continue with their bull in a china closet attitude, and WP:IDHT, I'd also support a pblock from the article and talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Again there is no proof of LLM use. You are jsut using this ANI to bully new users trying to make edits because you have nothing better to do. I found an article with missing biographical information, sourced it, and tried to add it. That’s how new editors usually start Joeyburner4 (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  How exactly did you find this article? And if your defense here is to just stick your fingers in your ears and act like you're not hearing what you have been told multiple times, I'm afraid your time here on WP is short-lived. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Consider a CBAN. I'm going offline for awhile; if that comes up for consideration, count me in favor. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

neither are you. you're here to bully others and gatekeep wikipedia considering this is the only ounce of authority you have in life Joeyburner4 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: community ban

Given Joeyburner4's continued hostile and recalcitrant comments in this discussion, I think it's safe to say they are WP:NOTHERE and that an indef/cban is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  If “hostile” just means not rolling over while a pack of editors piles on with baseless LLM smears, then sure, call me hostile. What it really shows is that some of you can’t handle being challenged, so the play is to slap WP:NOTHERE on me and hope I disappear. That’s not policy, that’s gatekeeping. An indef over this isn’t protecting the project, it’s protecting egos. Joeyburner4 (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  A rather strong comment from someone who has arguably contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hostile means being hostile, in this case; neither are you. you're here to bully others and gatekeep wikipedia considering this is the only ounce of authority you have in life and Pointing out sources isn’t an obsession, it’s called editing. Maybe try it sometime are both clear examples of you being hostile, to the point of probably violating WP:NPA. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Indef'd for making multiple personal attacks on ANI and being blatantly Not here to improve the encyclopedia. Even if they are, as they claim, an entirely new editor who read up on policy (which would, in other circumstances, be ideal), their belligerent attitude on display with every edit here is making a mockery of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• I support the indef, but a community-ban discussion in the case of a two-day-old account is unnecessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that a community imposed indef and a community ban were essentially equivalent, I meant indef essentially and I'll choose my words more carefully with subsequent proposals. This specific proposal is redundant now thanks to Bushranger and can be closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

LibertarianLibrarian85

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

---

LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their 3rd time here for personal attacks (accusing people of being pro-Bashar al-Assad) and WP:BATTLEGROUND (just look at their talk page). They've been given too much WP:ROPE 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It would help to review their disruptive edits or "look at their talk page" if you provided diffs and/or wikilinks to them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User talk:LibertarianLibrarian85#c-LibertarianLibrarian85-20250816125600-Abo_Yemen-20250816122900 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. LibertarianLibrarian85 is blocked indefinitely, both on the basis of this report and for repeatedly uploading images without valid copyright info. They had already threatened to come back with sockpuppets so I left them an additional warning against doing so, but I have a feeling we should expect to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibertarianLibrarian85 turn blue before too long. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Strange Discussion and Behavior at MFD

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Distance effects in Survivalcraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikiuser333333323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know if this is urgent, but this would probably get moved to WP:ANI if I filed it at Wp:AN. I am asking for admin eyes at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Distance effects in Survivalcraft. I usually vote to Weak Keep useless drafts, as per my essay, Leave Useless Drafts Alone, and this page was nominated for deletion as having no chance of becoming an article, which is not a reason to delete a draft, but it "smells bad". The originator is asking us please not to delete the draft, and won't say why, but it appears that their draft was kicked off of the Minecraft wiki and they were kicked off the Minecraft wiki. They have vandalized one vote [104] and insulted one editor in an edit summary, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306241173 ]

The draft is the work of two editors, Soledad Mamani 2 and Wikiuser333333323, who are not sockpuppets but seem to be meatpuppets. Are they trying to abuse draft space because web hosting in user space is subject to speedy deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, if this were in userspace we'd delete it under U5. I'd say that given it's a newish situation, MfD is the way to go. If it becomes a recurring problem we revisit the speedy deletion criteria. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiuser333333323 is relevant to this thread, as is the rather odd thread posted in my talk page. CoconutOctopus talk 21:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not a meatpuppet please do not block. I am making constructive edits on my draft page. I am not abusing draft space. My draft is not a web host. Wikiuser333333323 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

After reading the post to CoconutOctopus, I don't know what these editors want to do with their draft, and I don't know how they think they are contributing to Wikipedia, but I think that they are not here to maintain an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree - they're not here to maintain an encyclopedia and they don't take feedback. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

There were some related mainspace edits at Survivalcraft - and they posted instructions for others to make reverts at Talk:Survivalcraft#Do_not_remove_"Distance_effects"_section. Comments at the SPI sound like we're dealing with a group of young editors, and the geolocation of involved IP editors suggests a possible language barrier. I expect they are answering questions as clearly as they can, but understanding of what we expect from a potential Wikipedia article isn't there. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikiuser333333323 - You say that you are making constructive edits to the draft page. But I asked you, at the MFD, what you were planning to do with it, and whether you were planning to source it and submit for review. You replied by asking us please not to delete it, but you didn't answer why not to delete it. So what are you planning to do with the draft page? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Their last edit was the last thread of their user talk page; the message suggests they left Wikipedia. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, editors who say they are leaving often come back. On the other hand, we can assume that they have gone away unless and until they come back. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

136.26.96.233

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

---

The IP 136.26.96.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has only ever made distasteful comments in violation of WP:ARBECR and more generally WP:CT/ARBPIA, most recently this morning. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure an admin will apply correct consequences, but WP:AIV probably would have been better for this. Conyo14 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 month for POV pushing and talk page disruption. Logged at WP:AEL. FTR, this was the right venue for the report. The editing was disruptive, but not vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Please revoke TPA from Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:7125:8D44:58A6:A15B:8775:D3EB|2605:8D80:7125:8D44:58A6:A15B:8775:D3EB

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

---

• 2605:8D80:7125:8D44:58A6:A15B:8775:D3EB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Talk page abuse after being blocked, please consider to revoke TPA -Lemonaka 03:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

And expanded the block to the /64 as this is a IPv6. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I made the mistake of looking through the filter log for this editor. They are making a case for an indefinite IP account block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Eww... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Suspected coordinated editing/BLP violations on Julie Meyer article

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

---

• Julie Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am requesting Page Protection and Investigation of Suspected Coordinated Editing while the VIVA Investment Partners AG (VIP) Claim against Rene Eichenberger in the state of Florida, United States is underway as I believe that Editors are being paid. In addition there is an Application at the European Court of Human Rights which explains the editing which is going on.

While the Application in the ECHR and the Claim in the US court system are underway, I would request Page Protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.52.216 (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protection request is here, sockpuppet investigations is here.

Specific examples of editing and a less cryptic description would be more helpful than ”there is an Application at the European Court of Human Rights which explains the editing which is going on”. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems to be written such that Meyer would not appreciate it (and she's hired mercs in 2016, as cited in the article); that said it seems like this seems like the right course to take with the page. Almost all of what I'm finding in a Google search (string: ["julie meyer" entrepreneur]) is about the controversies she's involved in and the consequences thereof. With that said, I'm not seeing much of anything as of late that would warrant either an elevated responce or page protection. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

DZMM vs. DWPM callsign

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

---

Certain A IP editors have been reverting edits since July 2025 that DZMM's callsign is DZMM. There's a source mentioning that DZMM Radyo Patrol 630's callsign is still DWPM, the stations predecessor, according to the recent NTC listing June 2025 [105] (NCR - Philippine Collective Media Corp. - DWPM - 630). Even though DWPM rebranded to the revival DZMM on May 2025 [106], DWPM is still the callsign of DZMM according to NTC, base on legality. I would like to request to double check on DZMM. Same IP editor base on edit, is reverting the edit: 143.44.165.22 and 143.44.165.236. 120.29.89.116 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, so not supposed to be here, unless there are actual policy violations 212.70.115.8 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know. 120.29.89.116 (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I see this content as disruptive thats why I reported it here to require admin action. Also that user who does not follow the NTC listing does not follow the legality. 120.29.89.116 (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:JDDJS repeated incivility

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

---

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

This user and I were involved in a dispute over a matter on Talk:The Mousetrap but their behaviour turned outright uncivil. After just not bothering to explain something, they told me that I am "beyond help" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mousetrap&diff=prev&oldid=1305922441) implying I am worthless and hopeless and also not capable of understanding explanation when in fact they never even wanted to give me one. Furthermore, once I toom it to user talk page as per dispute resolution over in User Talk: JDDJS they have chosen to further be hostile, most recently threatening me over "spamming" their talk page with "BS" when in fact I was simply engaging with someone else (User: Khajidha) who had restarted a conversation on JDDJS's talk page, not me. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JDDJS&diff=prev&oldid=1306246534) Panda815 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Panda815 is leaving out a lot of important context to the issue. First of all, the dispute in question was whether or not to include the identity the murder in The Mousetrap, something that has already been debated so many times and has always ended with a clear consensus to include. They brought up no new arguments and had no support from anyone outside an IP with zero other edits. User:Khajidha and User:Cyclopia and myself all tried to explain to them that they were just wasting everyone's time, but we could not get through to them.

Second of all the thing I didn't try "bothering to explain" to them was why non encyclopaedic reasons are irrelevant here, on an encyclopaedia. They fully admitted that they didn't have an actual encyclopaedic argument to not include the murder, but demanded an explanation why that mattered. That's like asking me to explain why water is wet. It's clear that there is either a lack of competence or they're just trolling.

They are also leaving out the part that I explicitly said that I was done interacting with them on the The Mousetrap's talk page before they came to my talk page. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any sanctionable conduct by JDDJS on Talk:The Mousetrap or User talk:JDDJS.

Panda815, please take a few minutes to read WP:SEALION. Throughout both discussions, you ask for more explanations, and when the editors tried to explain by wording it a different way (since the first way didn't work), you say they're saying something new and want them to explain that new wording. Just accept that you were not able to convince anyone that your approach to The Mousetrap ending should prevail and move on. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

So can I ask why you don't see any of their conduct as sanctionable then? Why the "beyond help" comment and them blaming me for a thread Khajidha started isn't sanctionable behaviour?

As for WP:SEALION, I have read it in full and it defines sealioning as making time wasting requests for comments, feigning a desire to simply understand the issue, ignoring the substance of previous replies and preventing the discussion from reaching a reasonable conclusion. Are you accusing me of all of these things? I am not sure why you would do that. Yes I ask for explanations a lot on the discussions in question but that doesn't mean that I was feigning my desire to understand or only asking for explanations to waste time. I genuinely wanted to understand and that's why I asked for explanations. I don't think there was a lot of explaining things a different way to me, there was a lot of repetition and then some outright changing of meanings, i.e. when JDDJS went from telling me I don't understand that we don't accept non encyclopaedic reasons to saying that I don't understand the main aim is to build the best encyclopaedia. Those are two completely different things not one being an explanation of the other. So of course I was going to ask why that was coming into it. Anyway, I hope you can see that your accusation of sealioning is not the case at all. If you stand by what you said about editors wording things a different way and then me calling that something new when it isn't, please show me how this is the case because I don't see it. Again this is not a time wasting request for explanation, this is me genuinely trying to understand. Panda815 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Panda815, I didn't accuse you of sealioning. I hoped that you would read that essay and perhaps recognize a few of your discussion behaviors in its descriptions, maybe even consider that your current approach has been unproductive and consider new ways that you could achieve your goals. Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying @Schazjmd. As I have said I do recognise that I ask for lots of explanations but I don’t think that qualifies me as being a sea lion as it’s not for the malicious purposes that sea lions do it for. I just genuinely do need these explanations. I’m not sure what new way to achieve my goal you’re getting at is. I can’t find some alternative to asking for an explanation because at the end of the day if I don’t understand something then what else can I do but ask for explanation?

Also can I ask did you miss my request for your reasoning behind saying there’s no sanction able behaviour from JDDJS or was it deliberately ignoring it because of something to do with this changing my behaviour thing? Panda815 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I felt the misunderstanding that I accused you of sealioning was more important to address and so I overlooked your first question. I said that I didn't see any sanctionable conduct by JDDJS on Talk:The Mousetrap or User talk:JDDJS because I didn't see any sanctionable conduct by JDDJS on Talk:The Mousetrap or User talk:JDDJS. I am not going to annotate every comment by JDDJS with an explanation of why I don't agree that the comment violated any policies or guidelines.

For an administrator to take your complaint here seriously, you need to provide diffs of the violations; see the instructions at the top of the page. Perhaps an administrator will agree with you that those comments by JDDJS are actionable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What is with the sudden hostility all of a sudden? The “I said I didn’t see any because I didn’t see any” hostile tone and the ridiculous hyperbole of “I’m not going to annotate all the comments”. I don’t know what I’ve done to upset you that much and I didn’t think asking for explanation was such an evil thing to do. You have now by the way overlooked the thing I said in reply about the sealioning stuff. Why does one thing have to be overlooked to address the other? This process would be much more fluid if both were addressed at the same time. Thanks for the reminder about diffs though I will be adding them now. Panda815 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You're reading more into my comments than are there. There is no hostility. I don't consider what I wrote as hyperbole. I am not upset. Schazjmd (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Panda815. You were asking about the two specific comments. The one you linked from the article talk page is not polite, but it also doesn't rise to the level of santions. The comment on their talk page is just them telling you they don't want you having an argument with someone else on their talk page, which is totally understandable. I know you're upset, but there's nothing here that warrants an administrator's attention. tony 16:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining this. I want to be absolutely clear that I accept your judgment and I’m not disputing it, I appreciate you taking the time to look into the situation and set things out. You are the only one that bothered to reply in this manner as you’ll see and it means an awful lot to me that you did.

I know it’s dangerous for me to ask questions but iff I may just ask for my own understanding: you noted that the comment on the article talk page wasn’t polite but still not sanctionable. Could you clarify how that distinction is usually drawn? I’d like to better understand where the line typically is.

And on the second point, I completely understand being asked not to argue on someone else’s talk page. My only uncertainty was that the request was directed at me but not at the other user who had actually started the argument, is that generally how these things are handled? I just want to make sure I’ve understood correctly.

Thanks again for being the only one to put in time and show patience in clarifying this. I really do appreciate it. Panda815 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Sanctions for incivility are usually employed in response to an established pattern of incivility. In other words, if it were demonstrated that they were repeatedly rude to you over a long period of time and the activity would be unlikely to stop unless a sanction was applied. For your second question, people are typically given a lot of freedom with how they manage their own talk page -- I got the interpretation from reading the discussion that JDDJS may have thought you were trying to continue the conversation more than the other editor was, but that's my own speculation. Also, I appreciate you considering my feedback, but in light of your comment about accepting my judgement in particular, I feel the need to note that I, like other people in this discussion, am not an administrator. --tony 16:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I want it to be clear, that I fully stand by my statement that I will consider any future comments on my talk page from Panda815 to be harassment. If we happen to be editing the same articles, I cannot or will not stop them from interacting with me. But there should be no reason for them to directly contact me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I think JDDJS, along with everyone else on that talk page, has been more than patient in their interactions with Panda815. Panda815, the question of including the ending of The Mousetrap has been discussed to death, to the point that there's an edit notice on the talk page discouraging users from raising the question anew. You've been given good advice and you should take it. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I know there seems to be a problem with me asking for explanations around here but would you be okay with me asking how you came to the conclusion that JDDJS has been more than patient, given my two specific examples of what I believe to be absolute incivility? Panda815 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't accept the explanations that you're given. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That would be because I don’t understand the explanation I’ve been given. How can I accept an explanation if I don’t understand it? Also I haven’t actually been given any explanation for what I just asked you about, the two specific examples of JDDJS’s behaviour. All I got was Shazjmd saying “ I said that I didn't see any sanctionable conduct by JDDJS on Talk:The Mousetrap or User talk:JDDJSbecause I didn't see any sanctionable conduct by JDDJS on Talk:The Mousetrap or User talk:JDDJS. I am not going to annotate every comment by JDDJS with an explanation of why I don't agree that the comment violated any policies or guidelines.” Which is not an explanation just restating the original statement. Panda815 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

People don't agree with you. That's the explanation. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What is that an explanation of then? Because the question I asked is why don’t people agree with me. So by default “because people don’t agree with me” cannot be the explanation that I asked for because it just restates the thing I asked about. So I’m not sure what you’re meaning here. Panda815 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Your interaction here is, literally, textbook WP:SEALIONing. Every single one of your responses asks “but why” to the explanation preceding it. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven’t been given any explanations here. Like I just said Shazjmd restated the statement I was asking for an explanation about so that’s not an explanation. Also WP:Sealion clearly states that it’s asking for explanations to time waste and feign ignorance. I’m asking why because I genuinely don’t know not for those malicious reasons Panda815 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Panda, consider two things. First, WP:SATISFY. You are not owed answers. Once a good faith attempt has been made to explain something, nobody is obligated to keep trying. This is why Sealioning has been mentioned here; demanding answers is a characteristic of that approach. The second is that there is no Final Arbiter of Truth on Wikipedia. There is only what most editors think. How many editors have looked at the situation and found no fault with JDDJS? Past a certain point, you have to realize that WP:Wikipedia is a social club, and if enough other members are annoyed by your behavior, whether justified or not, you'll be shown the door. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing across a whole bunch of pages on this single dispute, never mind any previous ones. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Please revoke TPA for User:微波炉整烂，电视打烂

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

---

• 微波炉整烂，电视打烂 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At User talk:微波炉整烂，电视打烂 there is some thoroughly unpleasant vandalism going on, even after the block. Please also consider WP:REVDEL as it concerns a recently deceased person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for reporting. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Love letters to Per Gessle

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

---

• 2A00:23C5:C790:9D01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For two years now[107] someone named Victoria has been trying to contact Per Gessle (Roxette singer and guitarist) to tell him how much she admires him. She has been using Scotland IPs on talk pages.[108]

Perhaps we can block the most recent IP range: Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C790:9D01:0:0:0:0/64. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for now. We'll see if that helps any. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Limtsui Vandalizing/Lies on Battle of Yultong

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

User "Limtsui" has repeatedly put false and biased information into articles about the Battle of Yultong, claiming that China won the battle. This goes against widely accepted historical accounts that recognize the Philippine 10th Battalion Combat Team (10th BCT) for their successful defensive efforts during the Korean War. Even though reliable sources are available, the user keeps promoting a misleading narrative, breaking Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy and causing disruption in editing. I ask for an administrator to review this situation and take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitetriciaHD (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@NitetriciaHD, when starting a discussion about a user at ANI, you must notify them. Also, it would be greatly helpful if you provided diffs for what you are saying; instructions can be found at Help:Diff, if needed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Understandable! Okay! NitetriciaHD (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked filer for 31 hours for making personal attacks after a warning. No opinion yet on the rest of it. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Earlier discussion at help desk, if relevant. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing this article's page history, especially after scanning all of the irate edit summaries, I don't see how these two editors can coexist on this article after this short block is over. I see the potential for at least one long-term block happening in the future. I also see that I have protected this article in the past so it seems like it is a bit of a nationalistic lightning rod. I've posted a message on the Military History WikiProject talk page to see if we can get some neutral editors to weigh in on the disputed infobox "results" section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Dewrite, CIR and legal threat

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

---

Dewrite (talk · contribs)

Dewrite has been edit warring a bit over at Kanem–Bornu Empire. I put a standard 3RR warning on their talk page, and their response was to make legal threats: in reply on their talk page, and also on my talk page. They doubled down after being informed of WP:NLT: [109]. It is also worth mentioning that they are contributing via google translate [110] and I'm not completely sure we are fully understanding one another.

Is a block for WP:NLT or WP:CIR warranted here? - MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

(The empire was probably established by the Zaghawa people, pastoralists from the Ennedi Plateau, but grew to encompass several other ethnic groups, such as the Toubou people in the north. The empire consisted of various groups, including nomadic pastoralists, agriculturalists, and people accustomed to iron-working and horsemanship. The different groups eventually gave rise to the Kanembu people, who speak the Nilo-Saharan Kanembu language. The early empire grew wealthy and powerful through the export of slaves in exchange for horses, and the raiding of its neighbors.) here fake not true Dewrite (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

You need to answer the comments above by MrOllie, not simply paste in that chunk of text yet again. This is not a forum to settle your content dispute. You're making what look to be unambiguous threats to take legal action, and while any legal case looks absolutely frivolous, regardless of that, you cannot continue editing on Wikipedia while you are threatening legal action. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone.

I think the people who censor me aren't real volunteers.

People infiltrate Wikipedia in the service of the Chadian regime, glorifying the Zaghawa's historical past.

I'm a historian, also a Toubou. Wikipedia contains many lies about the Toubou and Kanebou Bornu.

The Kanebou and Toubou people don't read on Wikipedia.

I'll help you correct your mistakes.

i kwon my history Dewrite (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll also note that they have continued to edit war ([111], [112]) since commenting at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone just remember grandsons of the emperors of Kanem and Bornu live today in Niger, Chad, Nigeria, and Libya, as documented in the Kirgam book.

The Kanem-Bornu Empire was never located in eastern Chad or Sudan, and its rulers were not from Yemen. They were Black Muslims. The emperors were mostly Toumaghra Toubou who spoke Kanembu. The ruling dynasty, Al Kinimi, often had maternal lineage tracing to Arabs from Murzuq.

In the Toubou language, “Kinimi” means “the small.” All emperors carried Toubou and Kanembu names, often followed by Arabic names after converting to Islam. For example: Dunama Dabbalemi — in Teda, Duna means “the strength but the one who holds,” Dubla means “foundation,” and Mi means “the son.” These are entirely Toubou (Teda) words.

Many rulers bore both Toubou and Arabic names, with the Arabic names reflecting their Islamic faith. Words like Daguwa or Ducu/Docuwa mean “descendant” in Toubou.

Importantly, they were not Zaghawa.

Since 1990, when the Zaghawa took political power in Chad, there has been an effort to create a new historical narrative portraying them as central to the Kanem-Bornu Empire. This modern “legend” conflicts with documented history. Historical sources — including the Kirgam chronicles, show that the emperors of Kanem and Bornu were predominantly Toumaghra Toubou who spoke Kanembu, with the Al Kinimi dynasty firmly rooted in Toubou culture and language. The Zaghawa, whose historical homeland lies in Sudan, had no ruling role in Kanem-Bornu Dewrite (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

"i will take legal action" IS threatening people. Why would you say that if you didn't intend to threaten people to do things your way? Ravenswing 02:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve filed a lock request in that article just now. Accusing editors who disagree with them of being hacks of some dictator ought to be enough for some block to be taken against them for WP:NPA, not to mention blatant display of WP:RGW. Borgenland (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Note their repetitive copypaste WP:ASPERSIONS below. Borgenland (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They’ve also reached 7RR on Kanem-Bornu Empire today, 10+ if you include their edits since starting here. Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, they’re currently blocked on the French Wikipedia:

• fr: Discussion utilisateur:Dewrite

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the people who censor me aren't real volunteers. French version block me because.

People infiltrate Wikipedia in the service of the Chadian regime, glorifying the Zaghawa's historical past.

many French people support Tchadien regime

I'm a historian, also a Toubou. Wikipedia contains many lies about the Toubou and Kanebou Bornu.

The Kanebou and Toubou people don't read on Wikipedia.

I'll help you correct your mistakes. Dewrite (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm trying to help you.

I'm a historian and economist, I'm Toubou.

My people were never dominated by the Zaghawa in the past. It was the Toubou who founded Kenem Bornu, as evidenced by their names, Toubou and Kanebu. Dewrite (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you acted there like you have acted here, it's your editing that has lead to your block on French Wikipedia, not some conspiracy theory. We don't edit war, even if we are right. We don't make legal threats to try and get by intimidation what we can't get by convincing arguments. We don't source things from ourselves, no matter how much we personally know; everything written on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, independent sources elsewhere, nto the personal knowledge of you or any editor. You need to drastically change your approach to editing on Wikipedia in order to continue on this project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, you truly do think that the Chadian regime is hiring people to infiltrate Wikipedia? (Never mind that in one sentence you claim the Toubou don't use Wikipedia, and in the next you're Toubou?) Yeah, that was a good CIR block. Ravenswing 16:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for making legal threats and then half doubling down, half denying threats were made when informed they needed to retract them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  They’ve been blatantly doubling down and abusing their TP to mindlessly issue legal threats and even LOUTSOCK to spam the noticeboard with more legal threats [113]. Borgenland (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the project could benefit from his perspective but he didn't seem like an new editor who is willing to edit according to policies and guidelines. Doing so takes a modicum of discipline that I think this editor doesn't demonstrate they are willing to abide by. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Fabvill (talk · contribs) This should not have been closed yet. They’ve been abusing TP multiple times with more legal threats [114] and WP:LOUTSOCKING [115] as I mentioned above earlier. Borgenland (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. It seems like they're doubling down their legal threats. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland @MrOllie, do you think this user is helping Wikipedia? See 1, 2, 3, and more on their talk page history. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Given their behavior and an irrational bias for horrendously outdated sources coupled with baseless accusations of opposing sources being Idriss Deby hacks, I am convinced that the offending user is a WP:SPA if not hiding some COI. They have been blocked for the same issues in French wiki albeit for a temporary period which has also not prevented them from perpetuating the same behavior here. Borgenland (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For reference, and since TPA is still open:

[116] [117] [118] [119]

[120]

Borgenland (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland, I think this may be a content dispute but these should be discussed further on the article's talk page for clarification. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, issuing multiple legal threats and falsely accusing the majority of French people as Deby lovers, and falsely accusing multiple editors of membership in a Chadian cabal should have qualified them for WP:NOTHERE with appropriate removal of talk page access as diffed above. Borgenland (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The same thing is true on fr: Discussion utilisateur:Dewrite, possibly making legal threats horrendously, see [121], [122], [123] and more on their talk page history. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie's Chadian colleagues! Run! –EEng

• At least I've learnt now that MrOllie is a Chadian agent. I'll be sure to remember that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Revoked TPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks and POV Push by IP on First conflict of the Goguryeo–Tang War

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

---

User: 31.205.18.113 (talk · contribs)

This IP has been persistently involved in bludgeoning the process, POV pushing and disrupting WP:NPOV by manipulating well-cited sources on First conflict of the Goguryeo-Tang War. They were recently warned by me to stop, but rather they have instead ignored my warnings and have now engaged in personal attacks against me.

They started around a year ago making unsourced or poorly sourced edits from citing a Wiki source rather than using academic sources to do their POV push. Previously on the page were four English sources by various historians who specialized in East Asian history/warfare, such as Historian Turnbull, Graff, etc. All sources say this campaign was a Goguryeo victory, yet the editor made attempts in December 2023, June 2024, and now August 2025 to claim that it was a "Tang withdrawal." In each of the resulting edits, they manipulated the four sources by changing it to "Goguryeo claimed victory" which is not what the four reputable sources say which was just that the campaign was a Goguryeo victory.

I had warned them on the Wiki page as I was exasperated with them having ignored my requests three times (the first two times they flat out kept using Wiki source, the third time they used a non-English source and kept manipulating the wording of the pre-established sources). They responded to their newest round of claims on their talk page, and they have been using unacceptable behavior towards me.

In the past few hours they have made multiple personal attacks against me.

Here they said after reverting my edit on an unrelated page "What the hell? Please stop taking your ego elsewhere."

Then they went on my talk page, where I had been investigated on false allegations that I was a sock puppet (which I was cleared of all charges as the accusation was built on flimsy grounds). Then they said that "This section really says something about you..." for their first edit. Then in their section edit they deleted what they said, then in their third edit they doubled down and further insulted me by adding the edit back in and adding the words "innit".

--Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

"Insult" as in my presumption that you don't understand how primary sources work? In that case you should be justifying how you do understand that, instead of preemptively reporting me here.

>what the four reputable sources say which was just that the campaign was a Goguryeo victory

Alright, what did the four reputable sources say in their own words?

>"init" being an insult

My bad. Should've used "snowflake".

And whoever's reviewing this, please don't indulge Wikipedians gatekeeping single articles as their own fief. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

See this is exactly the type of rude behavior I was referencing. You spent both our times since December 2023, trying to push your POV onto this page by claiming it was a Tang Withdrawal. Here let me point out all the issues with your point here before addressing the insults.

1) Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia says "Most often, primary sources used in Wikipedia are a form of illustration. They illustrate what reliable secondary and tertiary sources learn about the discussed topic. Illustrations are a valid part of any encyclopedia, but should not outdo the content based on secondary or tertiary sources." Secondary sources are clearly meant to be the priority

2) For reference I didn't add those sources, someone else did years ago. But here's what the sources say. Turnbull writes about Korean influence on Japanese castles, that's the whole background on why the campaign is referenced. Turnbull is a historian on Korean and Japanese history so he is a subject matter expert. It says on Turnbull's book on page 8 "By the 640s AD the Tang felt secure enough to threaten Goguryeo by themselves. Their initial attempt ended in failure, and Goguryeo's success in defeating a Chinese army encouraged the northern Korean kingdom to become more belligerent towards its neighbors." I'm not going to go on every single source to block quote as requested but that's just one example.

3) You continue to insult me rather than try to address the issues I've been raising for years. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

1) doesn't sound like "clearly". And I'm not even discrediting the secondary/tertiary sources, just adding (closer to) contemporary POV.

2) see? You can make more sense. We'd have less arguments if you had been doing this since 2023.

3) you didn't raise any issue except for discreting primary sources.

>claiming it was a Tang Withdrawal

113,000 troops with only thousands of casualty from harsh weather, I'd say it's much more of a withdrawal than a defeat. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I am going to reply just this once just to disagree with all your points and then ask the admins to handle this. I am getting tired of your name calling and personal attacks, whether it be going on my talk page and accusing me of bad character or you calling me a "snowflake" on this ANI board.

1) You manipulated the sources multiple times, this is a fact not an opinion. The Turnbull source says "Their initial attempt ended in failure, and Goguryeo's success in defeating a Chinese army..." yet you made edits multiple times saying "Goguryeo claimed victory. Had you made it once or twice I could have understood it as an error but you kept repeating this.

2) Everytime I reverted your edits with explanations saying you didn't provide good sourcing you disappeared for 3-4 months and then returned and made the exact same edits. You edited in December 2023, then June 2024, etc, you could have asked me at any point about sourcing but it wasn't until I finally had to warn you after more than a year (we are approaching two years).

3) Your primary sources have so many problems, what is "《資治通鑒》卷第一百九十八" or "《三國史記》高句麗本紀 第九：寶藏王 上" to the average English speaker? How can someone who has no background in the Chinese language, which is the average English Wikipedian user from say America or Britain or Australia suppose to know if this is reliable? And English Wikipedia's policy is preference for English sources first and foremost.

4) See this is the POV pushing I am talking about. It is suppose to be based on academic sourcing, such as what say Turnbull says. Not what you or I think is the "correct" interpretation.

And this is all on top of your personal attacks... Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

1) My bad. I've removed tha "claims" part. Compromise?

2) How's Korean primary source (삼국사기, Goryep dynasty's own narrative) not "good sourcing"?

3) Nowhere do Wikipedia regulations say you can't cite primary sources, especially when it includes Korean perspective in 삼국사기.

4) I didn't consider anything as "correct", just adding additional POV, including the ones that medieval Koreans themselves perceived.

Snowflake is a bit too much. My apologies. Though your earlier mention that "init" hurts your feeling doesn make it seem as if that was a thing. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

>Here they said after reverting my edit on an unrelated page "What the hell? Please stop taking your ego elsewhere."

Sir, you seemed to be sabotaging my unrelated edits out of spite for your conviction that my well cited sources are sabotage of your own territory. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Admin, they broke the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement and are now engaging in Wikipedia:Edit warring despite multiple editors asking them not to and trying to de-escalate.

In their second revert they accused an editor of being my sockpuppet (even though their account is four years older than mine). They doubled down on the accusations that Qiushufang was my sockpuppet third revert when I explained I had been tolerating their edits due to the ANI notice + a desire to avoid an edit war but had to revert their edit because they were just accusing other editors of being my sock puppets.

Another editor warned them to stop edit warring and to discuss on the talk page, but they ignored that and made another revert which is now revert #4. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Please, you don't "tolerate" anyone's edits since you don't own an article. You are the one edit-warring, not me. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• The IP has continued edit warring while this report is open. At minimum someone should semi-protect the article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

They aren't the only editor edit warring here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Only the IP is up to 6 reverts in a day: 1 2 3 4 5 6. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm not terminally on Wikipedia to create 3+ sockpuppets, 31.205.18.113 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Sir, YOU started the edit warring. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Take your time making more sockpuppets. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If you have sockpuppet concerns, go to WP:SPI with evidence. If not, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Doing so falsely is considered a personal attack. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP seems to think I am the sockpuppeter for Qiushufang and now MrOllie, both of whom have older accounts than me and generally edit entirely different topics.

I appreciate both your inputs MrOllie and 45dogs, though they keep reverting MrOllie's reversions too so I don't think they're interested in our comments. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP 31 hours for edit-warring past 3RR and repeated unfounded accusations of sockpuppetery. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ref and EL spam from multiple ip6

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

---

Ref and EL spam over a period of some time, maybe a year? Apparently all from the same user.

• 2003:E7:B702:FB36:417:10FE:8E7:87C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B703:B0F3:C9A1:CF44:60A3:66ED (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B703:C0E2:A485:B315:A5A8:FB26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B70A:240:CC9E:5FA5:819E:FDEC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B70D:5D65:E893:FA86:6B02:4523 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B711:B513:CC50:1E00:2448:52B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B711:D0BD:9C6E:B023:620:7E67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B713:378C:5107:201B:CA52:8DE5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B717:7A51:DDBD:E62C:3F49:C2C9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B71E:5688:C58C:ACB3:B2E:52B7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B732:ECC2:5546:C354:631D:F423 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B736:9F8F:A039:51E3:205:8983 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B736:9FF6:B012:594A:77:12D5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B736:A2E0:5CE9:1941:A897:C3B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B738:1B0:845B:1E5E:1758:6F6C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B74D:56E4:5939:8ABC:8AA0:FEB2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are mostly inserting links to cruiseindustrynews.com, sometimes other web sites. Sometimes there is actual useful info added, but usually it's just an additional citation to something that's already well sourced, sometimes it's ELs in the EL section, sometimes it's just a bare url inserted in the text of an article. I have not included a list of incidents as it would be pretty long and you can get a list just by clicking on all the contrib links above.

There are a couple of warnings, I don't know if this is sufficient, and since the IP hops around so much I'm not sure how effective they are. Warnings:

• [124]
• [125]

I don't come to ANI much so I don't know what to do about this. Maybe a range block? Is there a way to get more warnings to this editor or engage him in discussion? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Good grief, this isn't the usual /64 here. We have multiple ranges in the /40s. As far as I can tell these are the ranges involved:
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B730:0:0:0:0:0/44Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B720:0:0:0:0:0/43
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B74C:0:0:0:0:0/46Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B740:0:0:0:0:0/42
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B700:0:0:0:0:0/44
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B710:0:0:0:0:0/46
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B716:0:0:0:0:0/47
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B718:0:0:0:0:0/45
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B700:0:0:0:0:0/45 (same as /44 range above)
• They may be even broader in some cases, but these appear to be making cruise-ship-related edits only with little to no collateral. I haven't blocked yet because I'm not entirely sure if this is spam/SEO or somebody trying to good-faith update information without considering if the sources being used are RSes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t know if they are good faith or not, but they are extremely disruptive. Mostly inserting grammatically incorrect phrases that are nonsensical accompanied with references to sources in different languages that only loosely couple to the insertion. The user is probably using mobile internet connection, hence constantly varying range block. We probably should block at /42 or so level (WHOIS points to range allocation 2003:: - 2003:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff) as Deutsche Telekom has a really wide range allocated. Blocking this wide range probably not harming other users, as mostly the articles are edited by logged in users. IlkkaP (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

To show how disruptive this has been, here are just a few of the many reverts of this user's edits, by multiple editors: [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking back, apparently some of these edits go back to 2022. It's pretty clearly WP:REFSPAM at this point. I'll block the ranges listed above (note some of them, if you go one notch wider on the range, start having unrelated good edits in them from just yesterday, so not going to /42 on them all). All blocked for six months as these are apparently very stable ranges but haven't been blocked before. Will allow account creation from them, so keep an eye for new users who might continue this (but who might be able to be communicated with) - communication would help, and I've seen a few cases where account-creation blocks on IPv6 ranges somehow stopped account creation from IPv6 addresses outside the actual rangeblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If the person creates an account it is very much easier to track him/her. Let’s see what happens next IlkkaP (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Love letters to Per Gessle

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

---

• 2A00:23C5:C790:9D01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For two years now[137] someone named Victoria has been trying to contact Per Gessle (Roxette singer and guitarist) to tell him how much she admires him. She has been using Scotland IPs on talk pages.[138]

Perhaps we can block the most recent IP range: Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C790:9D01:0:0:0:0/64. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for now. We'll see if that helps any. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Limtsui Vandalizing/Lies on Battle of Yultong

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

User "Limtsui" has repeatedly put false and biased information into articles about the Battle of Yultong, claiming that China won the battle. This goes against widely accepted historical accounts that recognize the Philippine 10th Battalion Combat Team (10th BCT) for their successful defensive efforts during the Korean War. Even though reliable sources are available, the user keeps promoting a misleading narrative, breaking Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy and causing disruption in editing. I ask for an administrator to review this situation and take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitetriciaHD (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@NitetriciaHD, when starting a discussion about a user at ANI, you must notify them. Also, it would be greatly helpful if you provided diffs for what you are saying; instructions can be found at Help:Diff, if needed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Understandable! Okay! NitetriciaHD (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked filer for 31 hours for making personal attacks after a warning. No opinion yet on the rest of it. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Earlier discussion at help desk, if relevant. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing this article's page history, especially after scanning all of the irate edit summaries, I don't see how these two editors can coexist on this article after this short block is over. I see the potential for at least one long-term block happening in the future. I also see that I have protected this article in the past so it seems like it is a bit of a nationalistic lightning rod. I've posted a message on the Military History WikiProject talk page to see if we can get some neutral editors to weigh in on the disputed infobox "results" section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Dewrite, CIR and legal threat

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

---

Dewrite (talk · contribs)

Dewrite has been edit warring a bit over at Kanem–Bornu Empire. I put a standard 3RR warning on their talk page, and their response was to make legal threats: in reply on their talk page, and also on my talk page. They doubled down after being informed of WP:NLT: [139]. It is also worth mentioning that they are contributing via google translate [140] and I'm not completely sure we are fully understanding one another.

Is a block for WP:NLT or WP:CIR warranted here? - MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

(The empire was probably established by the Zaghawa people, pastoralists from the Ennedi Plateau, but grew to encompass several other ethnic groups, such as the Toubou people in the north. The empire consisted of various groups, including nomadic pastoralists, agriculturalists, and people accustomed to iron-working and horsemanship. The different groups eventually gave rise to the Kanembu people, who speak the Nilo-Saharan Kanembu language. The early empire grew wealthy and powerful through the export of slaves in exchange for horses, and the raiding of its neighbors.) here fake not true Dewrite (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

You need to answer the comments above by MrOllie, not simply paste in that chunk of text yet again. This is not a forum to settle your content dispute. You're making what look to be unambiguous threats to take legal action, and while any legal case looks absolutely frivolous, regardless of that, you cannot continue editing on Wikipedia while you are threatening legal action. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone.

I think the people who censor me aren't real volunteers.

People infiltrate Wikipedia in the service of the Chadian regime, glorifying the Zaghawa's historical past.

I'm a historian, also a Toubou. Wikipedia contains many lies about the Toubou and Kanebou Bornu.

The Kanebou and Toubou people don't read on Wikipedia.

I'll help you correct your mistakes.

i kwon my history Dewrite (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll also note that they have continued to edit war ([141], [142]) since commenting at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone just remember grandsons of the emperors of Kanem and Bornu live today in Niger, Chad, Nigeria, and Libya, as documented in the Kirgam book.

The Kanem-Bornu Empire was never located in eastern Chad or Sudan, and its rulers were not from Yemen. They were Black Muslims. The emperors were mostly Toumaghra Toubou who spoke Kanembu. The ruling dynasty, Al Kinimi, often had maternal lineage tracing to Arabs from Murzuq.

In the Toubou language, “Kinimi” means “the small.” All emperors carried Toubou and Kanembu names, often followed by Arabic names after converting to Islam. For example: Dunama Dabbalemi — in Teda, Duna means “the strength but the one who holds,” Dubla means “foundation,” and Mi means “the son.” These are entirely Toubou (Teda) words.

Many rulers bore both Toubou and Arabic names, with the Arabic names reflecting their Islamic faith. Words like Daguwa or Ducu/Docuwa mean “descendant” in Toubou.

Importantly, they were not Zaghawa.

Since 1990, when the Zaghawa took political power in Chad, there has been an effort to create a new historical narrative portraying them as central to the Kanem-Bornu Empire. This modern “legend” conflicts with documented history. Historical sources — including the Kirgam chronicles, show that the emperors of Kanem and Bornu were predominantly Toumaghra Toubou who spoke Kanembu, with the Al Kinimi dynasty firmly rooted in Toubou culture and language. The Zaghawa, whose historical homeland lies in Sudan, had no ruling role in Kanem-Bornu Dewrite (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

"i will take legal action" IS threatening people. Why would you say that if you didn't intend to threaten people to do things your way? Ravenswing 02:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve filed a lock request in that article just now. Accusing editors who disagree with them of being hacks of some dictator ought to be enough for some block to be taken against them for WP:NPA, not to mention blatant display of WP:RGW. Borgenland (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Note their repetitive copypaste WP:ASPERSIONS below. Borgenland (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They’ve also reached 7RR on Kanem-Bornu Empire today, 10+ if you include their edits since starting here. Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, they’re currently blocked on the French Wikipedia:

• fr: Discussion utilisateur:Dewrite

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the people who censor me aren't real volunteers. French version block me because.

People infiltrate Wikipedia in the service of the Chadian regime, glorifying the Zaghawa's historical past.

many French people support Tchadien regime

I'm a historian, also a Toubou. Wikipedia contains many lies about the Toubou and Kanebou Bornu.

The Kanebou and Toubou people don't read on Wikipedia.

I'll help you correct your mistakes. Dewrite (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm trying to help you.

I'm a historian and economist, I'm Toubou.

My people were never dominated by the Zaghawa in the past. It was the Toubou who founded Kenem Bornu, as evidenced by their names, Toubou and Kanebu. Dewrite (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you acted there like you have acted here, it's your editing that has lead to your block on French Wikipedia, not some conspiracy theory. We don't edit war, even if we are right. We don't make legal threats to try and get by intimidation what we can't get by convincing arguments. We don't source things from ourselves, no matter how much we personally know; everything written on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, independent sources elsewhere, nto the personal knowledge of you or any editor. You need to drastically change your approach to editing on Wikipedia in order to continue on this project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, you truly do think that the Chadian regime is hiring people to infiltrate Wikipedia? (Never mind that in one sentence you claim the Toubou don't use Wikipedia, and in the next you're Toubou?) Yeah, that was a good CIR block. Ravenswing 16:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for making legal threats and then half doubling down, half denying threats were made when informed they needed to retract them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  They’ve been blatantly doubling down and abusing their TP to mindlessly issue legal threats and even LOUTSOCK to spam the noticeboard with more legal threats [143]. Borgenland (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the project could benefit from his perspective but he didn't seem like an new editor who is willing to edit according to policies and guidelines. Doing so takes a modicum of discipline that I think this editor doesn't demonstrate they are willing to abide by. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Fabvill (talk · contribs) This should not have been closed yet. They’ve been abusing TP multiple times with more legal threats [144] and WP:LOUTSOCKING [145] as I mentioned above earlier. Borgenland (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. It seems like they're doubling down their legal threats. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland @MrOllie, do you think this user is helping Wikipedia? See 1, 2, 3, and more on their talk page history. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Given their behavior and an irrational bias for horrendously outdated sources coupled with baseless accusations of opposing sources being Idriss Deby hacks, I am convinced that the offending user is a WP:SPA if not hiding some COI. They have been blocked for the same issues in French wiki albeit for a temporary period which has also not prevented them from perpetuating the same behavior here. Borgenland (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For reference, and since TPA is still open:

[146] [147] [148] [149]

[150]

Borgenland (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland, I think this may be a content dispute but these should be discussed further on the article's talk page for clarification. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, issuing multiple legal threats and falsely accusing the majority of French people as Deby lovers, and falsely accusing multiple editors of membership in a Chadian cabal should have qualified them for WP:NOTHERE with appropriate removal of talk page access as diffed above. Borgenland (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The same thing is true on fr: Discussion utilisateur:Dewrite, possibly making legal threats horrendously, see [151], [152], [153] and more on their talk page history. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 04:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie's Chadian colleagues! Run! –EEng

• At least I've learnt now that MrOllie is a Chadian agent. I'll be sure to remember that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Revoked TPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks and POV Push by IP on First conflict of the Goguryeo–Tang War

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

---

User: 31.205.18.113 (talk · contribs)

This IP has been persistently involved in bludgeoning the process, POV pushing and disrupting WP:NPOV by manipulating well-cited sources on First conflict of the Goguryeo-Tang War. They were recently warned by me to stop, but rather they have instead ignored my warnings and have now engaged in personal attacks against me.

They started around a year ago making unsourced or poorly sourced edits from citing a Wiki source rather than using academic sources to do their POV push. Previously on the page were four English sources by various historians who specialized in East Asian history/warfare, such as Historian Turnbull, Graff, etc. All sources say this campaign was a Goguryeo victory, yet the editor made attempts in December 2023, June 2024, and now August 2025 to claim that it was a "Tang withdrawal." In each of the resulting edits, they manipulated the four sources by changing it to "Goguryeo claimed victory" which is not what the four reputable sources say which was just that the campaign was a Goguryeo victory.

I had warned them on the Wiki page as I was exasperated with them having ignored my requests three times (the first two times they flat out kept using Wiki source, the third time they used a non-English source and kept manipulating the wording of the pre-established sources). They responded to their newest round of claims on their talk page, and they have been using unacceptable behavior towards me.

In the past few hours they have made multiple personal attacks against me.

Here they said after reverting my edit on an unrelated page "What the hell? Please stop taking your ego elsewhere."

Then they went on my talk page, where I had been investigated on false allegations that I was a sock puppet (which I was cleared of all charges as the accusation was built on flimsy grounds). Then they said that "This section really says something about you..." for their first edit. Then in their section edit they deleted what they said, then in their third edit they doubled down and further insulted me by adding the edit back in and adding the words "innit".

--Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

"Insult" as in my presumption that you don't understand how primary sources work? In that case you should be justifying how you do understand that, instead of preemptively reporting me here.

>what the four reputable sources say which was just that the campaign was a Goguryeo victory

Alright, what did the four reputable sources say in their own words?

>"init" being an insult

My bad. Should've used "snowflake".

And whoever's reviewing this, please don't indulge Wikipedians gatekeeping single articles as their own fief. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

See this is exactly the type of rude behavior I was referencing. You spent both our times since December 2023, trying to push your POV onto this page by claiming it was a Tang Withdrawal. Here let me point out all the issues with your point here before addressing the insults.

1) Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia says "Most often, primary sources used in Wikipedia are a form of illustration. They illustrate what reliable secondary and tertiary sources learn about the discussed topic. Illustrations are a valid part of any encyclopedia, but should not outdo the content based on secondary or tertiary sources." Secondary sources are clearly meant to be the priority

2) For reference I didn't add those sources, someone else did years ago. But here's what the sources say. Turnbull writes about Korean influence on Japanese castles, that's the whole background on why the campaign is referenced. Turnbull is a historian on Korean and Japanese history so he is a subject matter expert. It says on Turnbull's book on page 8 "By the 640s AD the Tang felt secure enough to threaten Goguryeo by themselves. Their initial attempt ended in failure, and Goguryeo's success in defeating a Chinese army encouraged the northern Korean kingdom to become more belligerent towards its neighbors." I'm not going to go on every single source to block quote as requested but that's just one example.

3) You continue to insult me rather than try to address the issues I've been raising for years. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

1) doesn't sound like "clearly". And I'm not even discrediting the secondary/tertiary sources, just adding (closer to) contemporary POV.

2) see? You can make more sense. We'd have less arguments if you had been doing this since 2023.

3) you didn't raise any issue except for discreting primary sources.

>claiming it was a Tang Withdrawal

113,000 troops with only thousands of casualty from harsh weather, I'd say it's much more of a withdrawal than a defeat. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I am going to reply just this once just to disagree with all your points and then ask the admins to handle this. I am getting tired of your name calling and personal attacks, whether it be going on my talk page and accusing me of bad character or you calling me a "snowflake" on this ANI board.

1) You manipulated the sources multiple times, this is a fact not an opinion. The Turnbull source says "Their initial attempt ended in failure, and Goguryeo's success in defeating a Chinese army..." yet you made edits multiple times saying "Goguryeo claimed victory. Had you made it once or twice I could have understood it as an error but you kept repeating this.

2) Everytime I reverted your edits with explanations saying you didn't provide good sourcing you disappeared for 3-4 months and then returned and made the exact same edits. You edited in December 2023, then June 2024, etc, you could have asked me at any point about sourcing but it wasn't until I finally had to warn you after more than a year (we are approaching two years).

3) Your primary sources have so many problems, what is "《資治通鑒》卷第一百九十八" or "《三國史記》高句麗本紀 第九：寶藏王 上" to the average English speaker? How can someone who has no background in the Chinese language, which is the average English Wikipedian user from say America or Britain or Australia suppose to know if this is reliable? And English Wikipedia's policy is preference for English sources first and foremost.

4) See this is the POV pushing I am talking about. It is suppose to be based on academic sourcing, such as what say Turnbull says. Not what you or I think is the "correct" interpretation.

And this is all on top of your personal attacks... Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

1) My bad. I've removed tha "claims" part. Compromise?

2) How's Korean primary source (삼국사기, Goryep dynasty's own narrative) not "good sourcing"?

3) Nowhere do Wikipedia regulations say you can't cite primary sources, especially when it includes Korean perspective in 삼국사기.

4) I didn't consider anything as "correct", just adding additional POV, including the ones that medieval Koreans themselves perceived.

Snowflake is a bit too much. My apologies. Though your earlier mention that "init" hurts your feeling doesn make it seem as if that was a thing. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

>Here they said after reverting my edit on an unrelated page "What the hell? Please stop taking your ego elsewhere."

Sir, you seemed to be sabotaging my unrelated edits out of spite for your conviction that my well cited sources are sabotage of your own territory. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Admin, they broke the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement and are now engaging in Wikipedia:Edit warring despite multiple editors asking them not to and trying to de-escalate.

In their second revert they accused an editor of being my sockpuppet (even though their account is four years older than mine). They doubled down on the accusations that Qiushufang was my sockpuppet third revert when I explained I had been tolerating their edits due to the ANI notice + a desire to avoid an edit war but had to revert their edit because they were just accusing other editors of being my sock puppets.

Another editor warned them to stop edit warring and to discuss on the talk page, but they ignored that and made another revert which is now revert #4. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Please, you don't "tolerate" anyone's edits since you don't own an article. You are the one edit-warring, not me. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• The IP has continued edit warring while this report is open. At minimum someone should semi-protect the article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

They aren't the only editor edit warring here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Only the IP is up to 6 reverts in a day: 1 2 3 4 5 6. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm not terminally on Wikipedia to create 3+ sockpuppets, 31.205.18.113 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Sir, YOU started the edit warring. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Take your time making more sockpuppets. 31.205.18.113 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If you have sockpuppet concerns, go to WP:SPI with evidence. If not, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Doing so falsely is considered a personal attack. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP seems to think I am the sockpuppeter for Qiushufang and now MrOllie, both of whom have older accounts than me and generally edit entirely different topics.

I appreciate both your inputs MrOllie and 45dogs, though they keep reverting MrOllie's reversions too so I don't think they're interested in our comments. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP 31 hours for edit-warring past 3RR and repeated unfounded accusations of sockpuppetery. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ref and EL spam from multiple ip6

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

---

Ref and EL spam over a period of some time, maybe a year? Apparently all from the same user.

• 2003:E7:B702:FB36:417:10FE:8E7:87C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B703:B0F3:C9A1:CF44:60A3:66ED (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B703:C0E2:A485:B315:A5A8:FB26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B70A:240:CC9E:5FA5:819E:FDEC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B70D:5D65:E893:FA86:6B02:4523 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B711:B513:CC50:1E00:2448:52B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B711:D0BD:9C6E:B023:620:7E67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B713:378C:5107:201B:CA52:8DE5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B717:7A51:DDBD:E62C:3F49:C2C9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B71E:5688:C58C:ACB3:B2E:52B7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B732:ECC2:5546:C354:631D:F423 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B736:9F8F:A039:51E3:205:8983 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B736:9FF6:B012:594A:77:12D5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B736:A2E0:5CE9:1941:A897:C3B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B738:1B0:845B:1E5E:1758:6F6C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2003:E7:B74D:56E4:5939:8ABC:8AA0:FEB2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are mostly inserting links to cruiseindustrynews.com, sometimes other web sites. Sometimes there is actual useful info added, but usually it's just an additional citation to something that's already well sourced, sometimes it's ELs in the EL section, sometimes it's just a bare url inserted in the text of an article. I have not included a list of incidents as it would be pretty long and you can get a list just by clicking on all the contrib links above.

There are a couple of warnings, I don't know if this is sufficient, and since the IP hops around so much I'm not sure how effective they are. Warnings:

• [154]
• [155]

I don't come to ANI much so I don't know what to do about this. Maybe a range block? Is there a way to get more warnings to this editor or engage him in discussion? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Good grief, this isn't the usual /64 here. We have multiple ranges in the /40s. As far as I can tell these are the ranges involved:
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B730:0:0:0:0:0/44Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B720:0:0:0:0:0/43
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B74C:0:0:0:0:0/46Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B740:0:0:0:0:0/42
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B700:0:0:0:0:0/44
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B710:0:0:0:0:0/46
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B716:0:0:0:0:0/47
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B718:0:0:0:0:0/45
  • Special:Contributions/2003:E7:B700:0:0:0:0:0/45 (same as /44 range above)
• They may be even broader in some cases, but these appear to be making cruise-ship-related edits only with little to no collateral. I haven't blocked yet because I'm not entirely sure if this is spam/SEO or somebody trying to good-faith update information without considering if the sources being used are RSes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t know if they are good faith or not, but they are extremely disruptive. Mostly inserting grammatically incorrect phrases that are nonsensical accompanied with references to sources in different languages that only loosely couple to the insertion. The user is probably using mobile internet connection, hence constantly varying range block. We probably should block at /42 or so level (WHOIS points to range allocation 2003:: - 2003:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff) as Deutsche Telekom has a really wide range allocated. Blocking this wide range probably not harming other users, as mostly the articles are edited by logged in users. IlkkaP (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

To show how disruptive this has been, here are just a few of the many reverts of this user's edits, by multiple editors: [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking back, apparently some of these edits go back to 2022. It's pretty clearly WP:REFSPAM at this point. I'll block the ranges listed above (note some of them, if you go one notch wider on the range, start having unrelated good edits in them from just yesterday, so not going to /42 on them all). All blocked for six months as these are apparently very stable ranges but haven't been blocked before. Will allow account creation from them, so keep an eye for new users who might continue this (but who might be able to be communicated with) - communication would help, and I've seen a few cases where account-creation blocks on IPv6 ranges somehow stopped account creation from IPv6 addresses outside the actual rangeblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If the person creates an account it is very much easier to track him/her. Let’s see what happens next IlkkaP (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Lkcl, again

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

---

For background, see WP:ANI#User Lkcl: disruptive subject matter expert (a few sections up). User has blanked their page and replaced it with a clear legal threat; please revoke access. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This was already dealt with. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Template:Russia–United States relations, Template:Soviet Union–United States relations, and Template:Vladimir Putin

The user User:WikiCleanerMan has made multiple full reversions since July of Template:Russia–United States relations and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations, and now a few minutes ago they just did it for Template:Vladimir Putin.

I have attempted dialogue with the person and I attempted a dispute resolution with the user but the user never took part in the resolution and ignored my resolution request.

This is a hot topic in the news right now with the 2025 Russia–United States Summit and I am requesting what the user just did be noted as vandalism.

I would also appreciate if the user was blocked from anymore edits of Template:Russia–United States relations and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations if this is even possible, since they ignored my dispute resolution request - and be given a warning the same thing will happen with Template:Vladimir Putin.-4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 14:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Russia-U.S. navbox, I pointed out a lot of the issues with their edits and they continued to drag on and were not listening. The evidence is on the talk page. The user's adding of multiple sections tripled the size of the navbox and requires scrolling just to find articles related to the topic. The user kept saying his version was better because it just looks better. And that it was not readable. Never provided any evidence of that. The navbox has four subsections for diplomatic posts when one is sufficient. The user also said "I myself was curious about Russia-USA relations/history given what is going on the in the USA with the news constantly discussing the Russian and Ukraine war and I noticed the articles I was reading were poorly written, lacking references, and could use some updating - so I don't see how this is an issue" and I explained "because navboxes are just for linking articles about the subject at hand. What is relevant to the information on the articles is irrelevant to templates."

The user is the only claiming this style is better. I didn't respond to the dispute resolution noticeboard because the user was making the same nonsensical arguments like " Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its a middle school student writing a paper for class but the student has no knowledge base on the subject or what links/articles/words to look for. In the old version how do they know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in few sections and its unclear which links are "policy" related - do you just click all the links and hope for the best? This can take a long time given all the links and this is not efficient. But with the current version it can now be easily found which you can check are: Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option." That again bears no relevance to what navboxes are for.

Navboxes are to navigate on articles of relevance to the subject of the navbox. And all these articles of relevance were there before this user started expanding the navbox beyond a simple format. This user was the only having an issue and now wants to claim as if its better because he somehow discovered the cure for a problem that really never existed. The user doesn't understand the purpose of navboxes. Their request to have blocked and calling my edits vandalism is really just complete nonsense. What they are trying to do is claim ownership because they like their style better. Not how Wikipedia works. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is going to go in circles again, would you like to go thru a dispute resolution as I tried to start before? It might be able to help resolve this situation, no need for us to keep undoing each others edits. -4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 00:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It is because you refuse to understand the basic concept of a navbox and its structure. We are going in circles because of you. You fail to provide evidence of what makes your edits better. Dispute resolution noticeboard is not necessary. Your actions speak for themselves after numerous attempts. This is a case of an editor deliberately not listening. And another editor undid his style only to be reverted. The editor going to RFPP and wanting me blocked from these templates and to accuse me of vandalism shows the bad faith and unwillingness to just acknowledge the basics. Only this person has done is expanding the navbox twice the size based on hypotheticals and for their personal preferences. Their statement, "because they have reverted back to an older version that creates more effort to finding information and is far less organized. The old version is so packed in a word-after-word state similar to reading a book that you really need to look hard and read deeply to find what you are looking for, while the current version is very organized and makes it very quick and easy to find relevant information". It is not easy to find anything because you have to look at 40 different subsections and no evidence the previous format was hard to read. If it was for you, that was only your problem not a widespread problem for the encyclopedia or for other users. I would like to refer the discussion on the talk page which shows the users lack of understanding.

"There is no reason to revert to the old version." There clearly was and he accused me of complaining after stating "The only person who has brought this up". I didn't bring up anything. It was 4vryng who brought this up and wants his way of editing to remain and is claiming ownership as if they have domain over these subjects and relevant spaces. They don't. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

WikiCleaner would you like to continue onto the dispute resolution option to bring in a third party that is neutral so we can help resolve this situation?

I am sure your intention is good, you have been using Wikipedia for a long time and have been an active editor, and I myself do my best to help out.

So I ask again would you like to move to a dispute resolution option or can we let this go then? With no more further reverts -4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 03:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

No I will not. Here is where we will have third party views. Your intention was good but your execution was not. Your statements about not adding the article on the 2025 summit not being there is plain false. If you checked you would have seen that it was there. And "situation simply reverting and not even disputing and not updating the links can be added as a new example (to me at least)", its becoming clear you are making this about yourself and not some actual violation of editing policy and making yourself the victim of some great offense. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe the best way is the continue on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, since this will provide organisation and structure and will be in the appropriate place for record keeping after its resolved however the results turn out.

I viewed your reverts as inappropriate (I know we are in disagreement here) without following thru with the last dispute resolution I initially requested that is why I felt it was best to bring the revert actions up here to admins so it could pause until I opened a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.

To follow thru with the dispute resolution allow me to start it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard so we can move on 🫡 -4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 03:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You continue to not address the argument at hand and explain why your edits are better in the current format in the first place.. You really are digging a hole here for yourself. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained my side on the talk page of the template, and I attempted to further to explain it in greater detail on the initial dispute resolution I had created. I would love to continue our discussion there since I would need to create a new dispute resolution request.

If Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard is not going to work, then in this case then I ask Administrators @The Bushranger: @Isabelle Belato: please join to act as a third part and intervene here and lock the template (even a temporary lock would work?) until a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard is proceeded with. This is a hot topic now and I dont believe full reverts on one another will be productive here as I am sure all four of us would agree -4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 03:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Just noting that I came here from WP:RFPP/I after declining some requests to full protect the related templates. This seems like a normal dispute between two editors and I don't see the need to come to ANI at this moment. If the two can't come to a consensus, they can request a third opinion or open an RFC. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes I have requested this previously, and above also under WikiCLeanerMan's response. -4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 02:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• I am requesting what the user just did be noted as vandalism Please read WP:NOTVAND; "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is edits whose sole purpose is the disruption or damage of the encyclopedia. Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism; note that unfounded accusations of vandalism can be considered to be a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I dont believe making a full revert is good faith, the user did not include 2025 Russia–United States Summit in his revert - I did not check whatever else was not added in if any other links were missing. This was a full revert to a much older version without following thru with the dispute.

  In no way do I want my comments to appear as negative or offensive, I just want to indicate I do believe this was a form of "Reverting to vandalism" without following thru with a dispute as a last resort - I understand the definition says "Reverting edits to the latest revisions that are nonsense, promotional, personal attacks, and/or harassment (except for when done by mistake)," but in this situation simply reverting and not even disputing and not updating the links can be added as a new example (to me at least). -4vryng ^{talk · cont · email} 02:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  That may not be ideal, and in some circumstances it can be considered disruptive, but it isn't vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Support WP:Boomerang for OP due to forum shopping (RFPP, AIV, and ANI), edit-warring and false aspersions of vandalism. We do not need to waste time on this meritless report. 206.83.102.7 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

OP did not have any motive other than personal feelings to make a ridiculously expansive template. Nor did they achieve consensus after objections were raised and did not provide evidence for the need for the changes after numerous requests to do so. And OP wants to block users from editing these navboxes. OP is not here to engage in a reasonable manner other than wanting his own way. OP has also reverted another editor undoing their edits. For massive changes like this they did more than just it looks better to do so. And OP does not have a clear understanding of the purpose of navboxes and editing policy. If this continues, we could see OP back here. I request a consensus is reached here for the OP's edits to be reversed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit War and excessive deletions from user

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

---

I believe user HHH Pedigree is engaging in excessive deletion and also attempting to start an edit war with me. Due to a disagreement about excessive deletions on Hulk Hogan’s Wikipedia talk page where it’s currently being discussed. After I voiced disagreement, user HHH Pedigree retaliated by excessively deleting content I’ve added by thousands of words on the List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions Mist and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions list pages. Would you please intervene and look into this matter. I have chosen not to revert any of HHH Pedigree’s edits of content I have added because I am suspicious of his motives. I would like to see the result of an investigation on Wikipedias part. I will do revert or add content; and fall for HHH Pedigrees attempt to start an edit war with me. However I’m very insulted user HHH Pedigrees attempt would engage in such immature behavior and not even politely leave any detailed editors notes of comments for why he is excessively deleting and attempting to begin a edit war with me on several pages I’ve added content to recently. I have tried to discuss this on HHH Pedigrees talk page and on Hulk Hogans Talk Page; and it only resulted in his passive aggressive excessive deletion of my content from NWA List of Champions, WCW list of Champions, and Hulk Hoagns Wikipedia. Particularly since he has targeted hogan content on all three pages (claiming to delete repetitive information but also striking unrecognized hulk hogan reigns I added to the lists. For example ric flair and others have unrecognized title wins acknowledged on the list of champions grid but suspiciously User HHH Pedigree only deletes entries I have added. thanks for your time and attention to this matter. Edit4Peace (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

How about some links to differences showing the problem? Have you notified the other editor about this? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cambridge,

here is a link to HHH’s retaliatory excessive deletions of all my edits on the NWA page and attempt to start a edit war, as you can see they where done shorter after I began raising issues I saw on the hulk hogan page in retaliation for my disagreement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions&action=history

here is a link to HHH pedigree also excessively deleting all content I added to the WCW page: Edit4Peace (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Edit4Peace, when starting a discussion about a user at ANI, you must notify them on their talk page. In this case, I have done it for you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, HHH Pedigree was less involved on Hulk Hogan; RandomEditsForWhenIRemember and myself were responsible for most of the "deletions" there. Edit4Peace (formerly Bighulkamania) believes that "statistics" (i.e. in-universe professional wrestling trivia) must be included in our articles; they go into detail about their editing philosophy and why everybody else they've encountered is biased and/or does not understand the topic well enough at Talk:Hulk Hogan#Length of Article and Talk:Hulk Hogan#LETS TALK ABOUT DELETIONS. For those that do not remember, the topic of pro wrestling was placed under general sanctions in 2018 because the articles are filled with such "statistics," see: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the page history of this article, you'll find several editors removing content and Edit4Peace seems to be challenging all of them. The article is considered "too long" and editors are addressing this problem. Unfortunately, the OP's sole interest on this entire project is bolstering up the Hulk Hogan article so I'm not sure if it will ever contain all of the content he wants it to contain. He needs to learn that this is not Hulkapedia. Professional wrestling is a subject under general sanctions, isn't it? I'm not sure if there is a warning with all of the new contentious topic designations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, LM2000, I ran into an edit conflict with your edit. Looks like we covered some of the same territory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already done this. My concern is not that HHH Pedigree is editing the Hulk Hogan page… my concern is that the discussion on hulk hogans page lead to witch hunt where HHH Pedigree went a deleted all content I’ve added to multiple wrestling pages. Is it appropriate if I add back the content and edits to the page? Probably not, that would start a edit war which he clearly is attempting to start. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll add onto the above that many pro wrestling articles are much, much too long with an excess of details about non-notable matches and other WP:FANCRUFT. HHH has been commendably cutting down on those.

However, I'm concerned by Edit4Peace's continual accusations of bias that have been made on that talk page. There seems to be a lot of WP:AGF that's not taking place here, as they are assuming the status quo version of the article is intended to maliciously paint Hogan in a bad light, rather than just neutrally reflect the sources. (If I'm being honest, I don't think it's HHH who has the neutrality issues, here.) — Czello ^(music) 07:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you read their User page, you'll quickly see that they are the definition of an SPA as they state that they are here to work on articles involving Hulk Hogan and his career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The accusations of bias are accurate, if you examine that HHH and others do not cut back negative parts of Hulk Hogans career and add to to them as LM2000 has. The users replying back keep ignoring this hypocrisy. In LM’s credit, LM has not retaliated against the discussion by going through and deleting my edits on other pages. HHH pedigree deleted ALL my contributions on NWA list of world champions and WCW list of world champions. I presume he is hoping to start start a edit war with me. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I have only made one accusation of bias, which has not been addressed by either party as far I know no one has justified why postive parts of hogans career are minimalists by deletions while users add negative content that is not necessary. It appears their goal is to make hogan look less favorable and more controversial. I assume that bias is the right term for this accusation. Perhaps I am wrong. How would you describe counter productive actions like this? Edit4Peace (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Dude, this is too excesive. As I explained several times, Im traveling, so now, I have to ask for a computer, since it's annoying to answer from my phone. 1 As I explained several times, the Hulk Hogan article is huge (like many other pro wrestling articles, includes too much week per week events and fictional storylines) so the work is to summarize, not to increase, pero WP:SIZE. 2 I am the user who answered you, the users who edited the article are LM2000 and Random. 3 The article includes a balance between his positive contributions and the negative controversies. 4 there is no bias on my side. 5 About the NWA article, I explained it twice. It's a list of wrestlers who won the NWA Championship, like many other title lists. You included history of the NWA title (see NWA World's Heavyweight Championship), statidistics (see the infobox from NWA World's Heavyweight Championship). Also, you included champions before the NWA (see World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (original version)). Then, you included information about WCW and WWF unification, WWE buying the AWA and their assets, Hulk Hogan WCW and WWF reigns, WWE creating the Universal Title... all this info doesn't belong into this article and you can find it on the respective articles, that's why I removed it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not excessive, the article treats hogan successes and his negatives differently since the 3 editors began making changes. There is far too much detail about negative parts of his biography according to your standards. You seem to be upset I am challenging this, and then deleted all of my content I added in other articles. In both articles I those topics included similar information. There is no need for multiple articles, and should be listed on one page. You should apologize for this unprofessional reply you made and not take it personal. Edit4Peace (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Admins, I would agree with @LM2000 that it has mostly been the pair of us trimming Hulk Hogan's entry rather than HHH Pedigree. I originally added the "Too Long" template not out of supposed bias, as Edit4Peace/Bighulkamania frequently claims, but because the article was 15,000 words when I came across it . This isn't an issue with just this article to be honest - there's a lot of wrestlers' articles that have far too much cruft or use a week-by-week approach. I don't believe Edit4Peace's comments on the talk page are in good faith and have felt mostly driven by their original appearance on the talk page, where they were deeply unhappy about the reference to Hogan's public image controversies in the opening summary.

While I have not been involved in the "edit war" on the List of NWA/WCW pages, I would agree with HHH Pedigree's reverts on the two pages and that they were made in good faith. Most of the information added by Edit4Peace here would be better suited to (or is already in) the NWA World's Heavyweight Championship page rather than awkwardly put at the top of a list, though I am also deeply skeptical that these additions weren't generated with AI considering the formatting use and previous edits I have seen from Edit4Peace. Additionally, as for whether Hogan should be on the (unrecognised) NWA list of champions, I would suggest not - the reference given states "[Hogan] almost won his first heavyweight championship when he seemingly defeated Race during their Wiregrass match. But a referee reversed the decision and disqualified [Hogan] after he tossed Race over the top rope." Reversed decisions aren't counted as reigns, recognised or otherwise, similar to Chris Jericho's brief 'reign' over Triple H in April 2000 not being included, or even referenced, on the List of WWE Champions. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Further to RandomEdits point, there's a reason the term "Dusty finish" was coined. If we included every dusty finish that didn't result in a title change, then we'd have some of the longest articles on Wikipedia. YellowStahh (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

There aren’t actually that many dusty finishes; and why you are ok with midnight rider, Jack Veneno, Ed Carpentier, Bobo Brazil, and other but reject ONLY hogans does do anything but prove the double standard and HHH Pedigree’s effort to upset me and start a edit war.

there is tons of evidence hogan beat race and got to hold the belt for a week.

there is also two reigns for bruiser Brody that should be added to the unrecognized list for Ric Flair; and should also be added. There are newspaper clippings about them. One is in St Louis or Kansas City I think and another in Omaha. Beyond that, Wikipedia list of champions includes a very comprehensive of ever disputed title change and why Bruiser Brody and Hulk Hogan get omitted is NOT FAIR. Edit4Peace (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The content that you believe shouldn’t be included actually was there prior to my edits for years. I don’t think you did enough research before you made your reply. I only added hulk hogan and a subsection to explain the unrecognized title reigns listed in the title history. Also midnight rider, Jack veneo, Carlos colon, and other ric flair disputed and unrecognized title reigns that had the same dusty finish as hulk hogan remain in the article. According to your justification those should be deleted to. It is very suspicious that after having a polite disagreement on Hogan’s talk page, that HHH Pedigree went ahead and deleted all my other contributions on Wikipedia without assuming distorting, excessive deletion (really, you are defending deleting the entirety of my contributions?), edit warring, and retaliation. Edit4Peace (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if you can properly source it, and it's a title change that's not just attributed to original research, I would say go ahead and throw it on there. But you have articles getting major revisions like the List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions, which is meant to be a featured list, that has been taking a hammering through all of this. On this revision you claim Hogan has an extra title reign at 2000 Bash at the Beach, WCW.com and WWE.com do not list it. In the chaos of 2000's WCW, this was reversed like 20 minutes later, where Russo in his promo now referred to the title change as the "Hulk Hogan Memorial belt" and then Jarrett was still defending the belt half an hour later against Booker T. Now parts of this, is covered in the notes of Booker T's first title reign. So if we want to talk to about some of things that have been added, these should probably go through a discussion first, where we can discuss sources. YellowStahh (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand where the confusion is, I added the NWA 1979 Race-to-Hogan title change, NWA 1994 Flair-to-Dusty, WCW 1997 Sting-to-Hogan title change, WCW 2000 Jarret-to-Hogan title change, and the WCW 1994 Steamboat-Flair titles changes all as in reconsider and use the dagger symbol (†) to notate its unrecognized. The same formats that was used for similar midnight rider title changes, and others. The AWA list of champions acknowledge both Nick Bockwinkel-Hogan title changes in the same was using the dagger symbol (†). Yet these editors have a biased problem with Hogan’s reigns on NWA or WCW being added to the list as unrecognized?

would you do me a favor? Would you please add hulk hogans title reigns back to the NWA page and WCW pages? I am curious if other editors add it with citations if they will retaliate and delete it. Clearly these additions were in good faith and follow precedent. There is no reason to ignore them because WWE won’t officially recognize them. WWE doesn’t recognize 8 of Ric Flairs 28 championships but Wikipedia still listed those 8 titles as unrecognized in the lists.

these are the changes:

1. Harley looses to Hogan by Pinfall March 24, 1979 Dothan Alabama at Ric Hewes Stadium (it was not a “house show”), reign was for five days

2. Harley award title; March 30, 1979 NWA stripped the title from Hogan because Race sent a protect to the board claiming hogan threw race over the top rope before pinning him.

3. Hogan vs Sting, December 30, 1997 WCW Monday Nitro episode Baltimore, MD .. hogan wins by pinfall.

4. vacated, January 8 1997 WCW Thunder episode 1, WCW strips hogan of title

5. sting vs hogan, Superbrawl VIII, sting wins by submission

6. Jeff Jarret vs hogan, bash at the beach 2000, hogan pins Jarret

7. Vacated by russo

9. Jeff Jarrett vs Booker T, Booker t wins Edit4Peace (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

No I will not add these, because A) I will not comment on the ones in the 70s as I have not done the research. B) in answer to 3, this match took place on December 29th and ended in a no contest as Nitro went off the air, this is categorically false. C) The vacation of the title on Thunder is accurate as Hogan was not stripped of anything. D) SuperBrawl VIII should also be on the article. E) and I can't believe I'm down here, I have already described to you above the series of events for Bash at the Beach 2000, if you can realiably source this any other way, like I said go ahead, maybe PWI or Meltzer has different wording. But me adding any of these would lead to an edit war because the facts are completely wrong. YellowStahh (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude, why are you getting upset? Please don’t get passionate about this.

the nitro match should count, because Monday December 30, 1997 the reff counted the pinfall… then off air Bret Hart illegally restarted the match and Sting made hogan tap out. Bret wasn’t an official reff. The. Monday, January 5, 1998, which was Nitro #121 (Season 4 Episode 1) hogan paraded around with the belt all night as champion. Then finally on January 8th 1998 WCW #1 season 4, episode 1 JJ Dillion stripped both Hogan and Sting of the championship. Hogan was technically by this decisions unrecognized for ten days. This same situation happens between Rocky steamboat and ric flair at spring stampede 1994 and Wikipedia lists it as a unrecognized reign.

i have done research and can credibly site all the 6 unrecognized reigns not on Wikipedia (well they keep getting taken down for wrong reasons)

im happy to share this research with you so you can add them to the pages. I don’t want to engaged with an edit war and other users are currently targeting me unfairly. It’s useless for me to add content; but you seem like a LEGIT editor who wants to improve Wikipedia. Would you like to help out? I’ll send you the research on your talk page if your interested. Edit4Peace (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I see I didn’t respond thoroughly about the Jeff Jarrett match. I apologized. I watched the video footage and hogan put his foot on Jarrett’s chest and the ref counted to 3. Hogan left with the championship intending to have a champion vs champion match with Booker t. Booker t has since claimed it was hogans idea to make him champion. However your right in the caos of Russo; Russo changed the script on Hogan with telling Hogan or Bishoff. Also Hogan still has the WCW championship he beat Jarrett for and it was on display for years at hogans shop where fans could take pictures with the notorious belt. I understand why WWE doesn’t recognize it (well kinda, because they recognize the Nash-to-Flair title change at Flair’s 16th championship that happen under similar caps and there wasn’t even a referee pinfall in that disruption. NAsh just gave flair the belt and then flair lost in the same night.)

anyways here is a video showing a fan paying to take a picture with the Jeff Jarrett belt. It even has Jarrett’s name on it. You have to skip to the 15 minute mark to see the belt. It has nwo spray painted on it now but you back to wait a few seconds where the blogger shows you the jeff Jarrett name plate.

Wikipedia won’t let me share the YouTube video. But you can find it on Daze with Jordan the Lion and the video is titled “What Happened to Hulk Hogan’s Championship Belts?” … just skip to the 15 minute mark to see hogan still had the Jeff Jarrett bash at the beach 2000 belt. Edit4Peace (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I don't mean to be so blunt, but I don't see the point in going around in circles, any further diving into this feels like I'd be reiterating the exact points, and I would just urge caution on edits and to think of them a bit more objectively. But subject to my points above, there is no Monday December 30, and I believe cagematch to be a reputable source, though I've seen the end of the episode many times [167] the match you are talking about ended in a no contest. I see very little relevance to keep reiterating my points, you continue to say you can source these but refuse to provide any sources. YellowStahh (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, we are not going around in circles. You are presenting facts, I am returning with counter points and then you return with a counter point. This is how consensus is reached. I don’t appreciate you suddenly giving up now and throwing insults that we are debating in circles. The talk page is just for this, you present your case, if I don’t full agree I present my counter points, then yours and finally we will agree.

my main point if these title changes should be listed as unrecognized, I’m not debating WWE should count them. However you really aren’t bringing a strong case to justify why these title changes shouldn’t count but the tons of unrecognized changes for Dusty Rhodes, Harley raced and ric flair get stay.

i would suspect that consensus would be “yes we should include the 3 unlisted hogan pages, there is evidence, it appears people are wrongly vandalizing these pages to make Hogan’s record look bad”

or logically.. the conclusion you and I could agree to is “all unrecognized changes should be taken of the lists. It’s not logical for encyclopedias to make exceptions for flair, dusty, and Harley race but disregard them for hogan and bruiser Brody.”

I can support either two options, but currently it makes no sense why you a editor in good faith would support not coming to a consensus.

So do you agree Hogan, Flare and Brody’s missing changes should be added to the list?

or do you feel all dusty finishes should be removed? Edit4Peace (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

“yes we should include the 3 unlisted hogan pages, there is evidence, it appears people are wrongly vandalizing these pages to make Hogan’s record look bad” Look the fact there is so much argument against your points, shows consensus is not in your favour, hence the argument being a frivelous gesture, and me leaving the argument at that is actually doing us both a favour in time and effort. I have already made my points and other users can weigh in on them. [168] I can even point to the Vince Russo promo where he proclaims that the title change at Bash at the Beach 2000, to be the "Hulk Hogan Memorial Belt" and proceeds to overturn the result of the match. But any further discussion at this stage wouldn't add relevancy to the above points I've made. Removing myself and awaiting further opinion from other users should be seen as perfectly acceptable by anyone. YellowStahh (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you really think I am saying the Jarret-to-Hogan title change should be recognized?

Please confirm that you understand, my argument is that the Race-to-Hogan 1979, Sting-to-Hogan 1997, and Jarret-to-Hogan 2000 SHOULD BE UNRECOGNIZED using dagger symbols in the format Wikipedia acknowledges all unrecognized title changes (except for some reason hogan).

currently these unrecognized changes where DELETED. Which I think is wrong.

I AM NOT advocating for any of the above title changes to be “recognized” as legit wins. Only that they receive the same respect as Midnight Rider and many many others, like Bobo Brazil for example.

I sorry sir, but you made a very unfair reply. You havnt replied to my counter points and the evidence I have provided is that the users are wrong. Just because it’s 4 against one and the evidence proves I’m right; doesn’t mean Wikipedia should side with the majority. There is overwhelming evidence these title changes happened and should be markers as unrecognized.

The main point you are avoiding in all cases, especially Russo(who has tremendous reason to be bias against it) is that WWE counts the Nash-to-Flair title change which happened under the same circumstances and the 1999 finger poke Nash-to-Higan title change. There for simply saying that the Hogan-to-Jarrett title change should be listed on Wikipedia as UNRECOGNIZED using the dagger sumbol. That all Dusty finishes should be treated with the same respect as other Dusty finishes.

please confirm that you donudnerstandC my argument is to list UNRECOGNIZED title changes. Your reply makes it sound like you think I’m sitting here debating you that Russo and ect qualify as legit wins. Edit4Peace (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

[169] [170] Look the fact you're still engaging in an edit war while we're discussing here, it shows a level of objectivity isn't present. Once again it would be arguing in circles. YellowStahh (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Edit4Peace has made any positive contributions to this project, does not understand the reason or scope of Wikipedia despite multiple explanations, is using AI for editing, is ignoring responses to their objections, and is wasting everyone's time here. RF23 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Sad to say, but I agree. This dispute over the Hogan article has gone on for more than a week now and Edit4Peace has been completely dismissive every time someone indicated that they weren't following policy. Since this ANI discussion began (which they started), Liz warned them about personal attacks on editors;[171] Edit4Peace doubles down on the attacks, accuses Liz of bias, and demands an apology![172] Clear case of WP:NOTHERE! Sanctions got placed on pro wrestling articles so that silly disputes like this could be more easily resolved.LM2000 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

After Edit4Peace edited Hulk Hogan article, I strongly believe he is biased and his focus is to present Hogan in a positive light, dimising his controversies and highlighting his positives.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

We'll probably need some action quickly here, since Edit4Peace is actively taking an axe to Hulk Hogan right now. To HHH's point, Edit4Peace didn't like the "poorly written" lede, so they created this one,[173] with gems like:"He became the first pro-wrestler ever to speak before a National Political Convention at the 2024 RNC[44]. His speech was the most effective celebrity endorsement of a presidential candidate since 1960[45]." Of course [44] and [45] aren't real sources, a reoccurring theme with Edit4Peace.LM2000 (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

My edits were all done with good faith. His controversies that have nothing to do with his in ring action belong in the subsection for legal issues.

I think you are just edit warring. After all that “clean up” why would you want the page disorganized with lawsuit information in the wrestling career section and not in the lawsuit section? I didn’t hide or delete hogans controversies; I only deleted statists and moved the info to be more accessible. You have said previous posts statistics and quotes don’t belong in Wikipedia articles, but now you are upset that negative statistics and quotes are being removed. This is why I suspected you of bias previously.

also here are links proving hulk hogans endorsement of trump was effective. He also was the first pro wrestlers to ever speak at the RNC. These articles say hulk hogan helped sway to young male vote for Trump. Regardless it was a historical moment for a pro wrestler to given such a high profile position to speak at a national political convention. Countless media covered the endorsement. It wasn’t just a blip on the media radar. They also made a big deal about the MSG speech. Hogans political activism at the end of his life was a big deal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hulk-hogan-trump-friendship-wrestling-b2801850.html

https://www.politico.eu/article/hulk-hogan-donald-trump-wwe-right-wing-politics

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hulk-hogan-trump-friendship-wrestling-b2801850.html Edit4Peace (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

These sources do not back up your claims in any way... RF23 (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What sources? This one’s headline is “HOW HULK HOGAN HELPED TRUMP WIN THE WHITE HOUSE”. What about the times is spent back up my claim which is; hogans endorsement was the most significant celebrity presidential endorsement in the modern era. https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-sunday-times-magazine/article/wrestling-helped-trump-win-white-house-wwe-f6l7ccd8v?utm_source Edit4Peace (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

"What sources?" the Politico and Independent sources you linked directly above mention nothing about Hogan influencing voters. If you read the Times article you linked past the headline, you'll see it doesn't talk about the effect of Hogan's endorsement and instead talks about how Trump shaped his campaigning style after pro wrestling. You have provided no source that even mentions his endorsement's influence, yet alone the laughable claim that it is "the most significant celebrity endorsement in the modern era". RF23 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, the title of the article is HOW HULK HOGAN AND WWE HELPED TRUMP WIN THE WHITE HOUSE… yet you wanna say the article says nothing about how hulk hogan helped trump win the White House?

I think it’s laughable you thought your counter argument of just shouting out “this proves nothing” while standing infront of legit non biased newspapers headlines explaining how hulk hogan helped Trump win (by swaying male voters in blue wall swing states).

You are going do a better job at proving o havnt given any credible sources. Edit4Peace (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

"You are going do a better job at proving o havnt [sic] given any credible sources" are you talking to yourself? The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to provide sources for your claims, not on me to counter them. RF23 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have given you several example of proof, the burden of proof is now on you to prove they are false. I also have proof you are biased, because in some commenting her instead of providing evidence or debating me, you just proclaim”he’s hulk hogans ghost!”. How is this acceptable behavior on Wikipedia?

Here is another article and a quote:

“ In what is likely the most bizarre moment in Bollea’s journey, Hulk Hogan would ally with Trump during the 2024 presidential election, seamlessly adapting his trademark performance for the MAGAverse. In a series of appearances — first at the Republican National Convention, then at Trump’s epic Madison Square Garden rally and victory celebration at the Capitol One Arena in Washington D.C., the night before the inauguration — Hulk would deliver a promo to rile up the MAGA faithful, flex his muscles and then tear off his shirt to reveal a Trump-Vance-MAGA shirt beneath it. Trump followed Hulk Hogan on stage as the conquering hero and champion.

It was surreal. The message, messenger, symbols, language, audience, and the meaning and emotions they created together were all one. A type of rare semiotic unity had been achieved. The Democrats had — and continue to have — no real answer for such power.”

https://www.salon.com/2025/07/27/were-living-in-the-world-hulk-hogan-and-donald-trump-made/

“Hogan’s presence in the campaign was also credited for elevating a masculinity brand for Trump to lure higher percentages of male voters to the Republican ticket”

https://www.al.com/news/2024/11/we-did-it-hulk-hogan-a-key-trump-campaign-figure-celebrates-election-in-alabama.html?outputType=amp

And if that’s not good enough, here’s a college professor who did an entire podcast dedicated to proving you are wrong about to say there is no evidence

https://eaworldview.com/2025/07/hulk-hogan-trump/

burden of proof is now on you. Check mate? Edit4Peace (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

(Continued from above) I'm not sure if the wording is the issue with the edit, but "Hogan’s endorsement was considered the most effective celebration endorsement of a presidential candidate since Frank Sinatra endorsed JFK in 1960." Seems to be unsourced from the sources you are providing. The statement in the edit is also left unsourced. Sinatra isn't even mentioned in any of the articles you've linked in this conversation. This feels more like your opinion and would be considered original research. I'm not interested in makin this personal, but your talking about the burden of proof and checkmate, but please provide proper sourcing for the statements you're adding. YellowStahh (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You have no proof of this, you are just unhappy I don’t agree with your edits. Please proof your points and don’t make general statements. Edit4Peace (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

"His speech was the most effective celebrity endorsement of a presidential candidate since 1960[45]" proves my point. That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this encyclopedia, and I've been reverting vandalism here for 15 years.LM2000 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Just pointing out as well this isn't even remotely true, Hogan was mocked for his endorsement and it received media attention in a negative light. Also the "first ever wrestler to speak at a National Convention" isn't true, the Rock spoke at the 2000 RNC. RF23 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

First, it is a historical fact hogan was the first pro wrestler to be given a prime time speech at the DNc. You can rewrite the statement in a better Wikipedia style, but it doesn’t negate the fact this part of hogans life was important and historical, and that his endorsement was a big deal to sway male voters… as well as Joe Rogans. These article prove the hogans endorsement wasn’t mocked and covered with bipartisan in helping Trump appeal to male voters. It’s especially relevant since Democrat celebrity endorsements backfires. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hulk-hogan-trump-friendship-wrestling-b2801850.html?callback=in&code=ZGVJMZJIMDATNWEYMC0ZOTMXLWEYZGUTZJBLY2YXYZC3MZFM&state=a6ecadd4dee04ffb93d42c76e890f965&https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-sunday-times-magazine/article/wrestling-helped-trump-win-white-house-wwe-f6l7ccd8v?utm_source=chatgpt.com&region=global https://www.politico.eu/article/hulk-hogan-donald-trump-wwe-right-wing-politics/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Edit4Peace (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

it literally isn't, as I stated The Rock spoke at the 2000 RNC. Hogan can't be the first wrestler to speak at a convention when another did 24 years earlier. You have provided no sources that Hogan's endorsement helped at all, neither link you posted states anything resembling your claims. RF23 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Well I’m quit shocked that the Rock endorsed George Bush at the 2000 RNC. Regardless, hogans impact on the 2024 election was more significant. He had more media coverage better results, the candidate he endorsed was in big trouble and eventually won after hogans endorsement. Edit4Peace (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

“ In what is likely the most bizarre moment in Bollea’s journey, Hulk Hogan would ally with Trump during the 2024 presidential election, seamlessly adapting his trademark performance for the MAGAverse. In a series of appearances — first at the Republican National Convention, then at Trump’s epic Madison Square Garden rally and victory celebration at the Capitol One Arena in Washington D.C., the night before the inauguration — Hulk would deliver a promo to rile up the MAGA faithful, flex his muscles and then tear off his shirt to reveal a Trump-Vance-MAGA shirt beneath it. Trump followed Hulk Hogan on stage as the conquering hero and champion.

It was surreal. The message, messenger, symbols, language, audience, and the meaning and emotions they created together were all one. A type of rare semiotic unity had been achieved. The Democrats had — and continue to have — no real answer for such power.” https://www.salon.com/2025/07/27/were-living-in-the-world-hulk-hogan-and-donald-trump-made/ Edit4Peace (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out nearly every new reference in the linked version of the page's opening summary's final paragraph added by Edit4Peace didn't exist. They all have names like ":2" and had no actual reference points contained in them. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The statements are false, the sources are fake, and the assertions are absurd. I am very curious to see which celebrity endorsement of the Nixon/Kennedy 1960 race was greater than Hogan's endorsement of Trump. Did Gorgeous George swing the race in Kennedy's favor? Was George Hackenschmidt responsible for Teddy Roosevelt's landslide in 1904? Good grief!LM2000 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is your answer, I’m surprised you didn’t know https://www.biography.com/political-figures/john-f-kennedy-frank-sinatra-friendship Edit4Peace (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

the real question is how effective was "Oprah"'s endorsement of "Obama"? RF23 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Oprahs endorsement was very ineffective in 2024. Also Tes Kennedy is given credit for his endorsement getting Obama the nomination. I supposed a good argument can be made that she was effective in 2008; however Obama didn’t need her help. He won in a landslide. She contributed to his nomination. Trump is a EXTREMELY unpopular political figure and his first term is ranked by historical in worst in history. Therefor Hogans endorsement, the media coverage it received, and its effectiveness on the male voting block I would argue was the most effective since Sinatra helped JFK barely beat Nixon. Kamala Harris was beating Trump in the polls until the RNC; after Hogan began doing speeches Trumps polls gradually improved; especially with male voters. Regardless though my statements should be rewritten a different way, for example “Hogan’s speech at the RNC is among the most effective since celebrity endorsements for male voters since Sinatra endorsed JFk in 1960.” Should this be better? Edit4Peace (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

your claims are so outlandish I'm beginning to thing you're the ghost of Hulk Hogan. You have yet to provide any source backing up your claims. RF23 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This is false and a personal attack. I have backed up all unclaims. All edits I made on August 17 used existing Wikipedia citations. I didn’t even add new ones. All my edits were moving and reorganizing content I didn’t create. The only content I did contribute was very minor.

You however can not apply the same standards to yourself and provide any proof for your recent statements on talk; you just make empty statements that don’t belong on Wikipedia or contribute to this debate.

i would appreciate if you please dialed down your passion. Edit4Peace (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

you have continuously claimed Hogan's endorsement significantly helped Trump, and the two sources you provided provided nothing resembling this claim. I doubt you could find a source for these claims even if using a biased far-right source RF23 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I gave you three sources, and you have yet to prove to me they do not prove hogan helped Trump win the election with his endorsement. Clearly your accusations are the one that is biased because you are unhappy with the result and probably unhappy that I have challenged your claims; and unfortunately you can’t prove why these three independent non partisan news sources are not good citations. This must be frustrating for you. Poliyical, the times, and the independent clearly all

agree hogan helped Trump sway male voters in blue states and helped him win. This one is even titled “HOW HULK HOGAN AND WWE HELPED TRUMP WIN THE WHITE HOUSE”. please proof this article as false? Please respond back free of passionate and emotion and debate me in a mature matter. I appreciate the discussion. I’m not hurt by your claims, but I want to keep the discussion peaceful and on topic. Can we agree to that?

here is the proof again you asked for yet so quickly dismissed without any facts or proofs to back up your dismissal.

https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-sunday-times-magazine/article/wrestling-helped-trump-win-white-house-wwe-f6l7ccd8v?utm_source=chatgpt.com&region=global Edit4Peace (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:HEADLINE. Nothing in the article you link to supports your claim. Schazjmd (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

How, the headline is titled HOW HULK HOGAN & WWE helped TRUMP WIN THE WHITE HOUSE?

your comments are going to need substance to defeat this article as not credible. The entire thing explains HOW HUlK HOGAN HELPED TRUMP WIN

clearly you must be biased if you can’t accept this as legit sourcing.

https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-sunday-times-magazine/article/wrestling-helped-trump-win-white-house-wwe-f6l7ccd8v Edit4Peace (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Edit4Peace, a headline is meaningless. Please read WP:HEADLINE. The body of that article does not support your claim. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

“ In what is likely the most bizarre moment in Bollea’s journey, Hulk Hogan would ally with Trump during the 2024 presidential election, seamlessly adapting his trademark performance for the MAGAverse. In a series of appearances — first at the Republican National Convention, then at Trump’s epic Madison Square Garden rally and victory celebration at the Capitol One Arena in Washington D.C., the night before the inauguration — Hulk would deliver a promo to rile up the MAGA faithful, flex his muscles and then tear off his shirt to reveal a Trump-Vance-MAGA shirt beneath it. Trump followed Hulk Hogan on stage as the conquering hero and champion.

It was surreal. The message, messenger, symbols, language, audience, and the meaning and emotions they created together were all one. A type of rare semiotic unity had been achieved. The Democrats had — and continue to have — no real answer for such power.”

https://www.salon.com/2025/07/27/were-living-in-the-world-hulk-hogan-and-donald-trump-made/ Edit4Peace (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you failed to explain why it’s meaningless. Clearly you are just rejecting the article and proving your bias and refusal to acknowledge in the face of evidence from multiple source that hogans endorsement had an incredible impact. They are all also from 2025 and from non partisan sources.

here is another, and it not a pretty pro hulk peace; but it even admits Trumps combo with Hulk was deadly election realists for democrats and even admits it still effects modern politics. “In what is likely the most bizarre moment in Bollea’s journey, Hulk Hogan would ally with Trump during the 2024 presidential election, seamlessly adapting his trademark performance for the MAGAverse. In a series of appearances — first at the Republican National Convention, then at Trump’s epic Madison Square Garden rally and victory celebration at the Capitol One Arena in Washington D.C., the night before the inauguration — Hulk would deliver a promo to rile up the MAGA faithful, flex his muscles and then tear off his shirt to reveal a Trump-Vance-MAGA shirt beneath it. Trump followed Hulk Hogan on stage as the conquering hero and champion.

It was surreal. The message, messenger, symbols, language, audience, and the meaning and emotions they created together were all one. A type of rare semiotic unity had been achieved. The Democrats had — and continue to have — no real answer for such power.”

https://www.salon.com/2025/07/27/were-living-in-the-world-hulk-hogan-and-donald-trump-made/ Edit4Peace (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

You linked https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-sunday-times-magazine/article/wrestling-helped-trump-win-white-house-wwe-f6l7ccd8v. That is the source that I addressed in my comments. Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Direct quote “ Hogan’s presence in the campaign was also credited for elevating a masculinity brand for Trump to lure higher percentages of male voters to the Republican ticket.”

https://www.al.com/news/2024/11/we-did-it-hulk-hogan-a-key-trump-campaign-figure-celebrates-election-in-alabama.html?outputType=amp Edit4Peace (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This is FALSE all citations i used in the new edits I did on August 17 were existing citations on the page. I did NOT add any of them. You owe me a apology for this personal attack. Edit4Peace (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, hopefully admins will intervene and take action. My edits were done in good faith; and HHH deletion of my content is relocation because I disagree with the way hogans page has been edited. Especially since you declared it finished but left it completely disorganized and with a bias pen left stats and quotes that are negative about hogan while deleting stats and quotes that were positive. I’m shocked you don’t agree that the page should be organized better and free of all stats and quotes, and I’m shocked you are now complaining that you have been edited after Liz’s statements that editors may do these things. You also make a bunch of statements that don’t include examples or proof, that just comes across as winning. Liz’s statements were rude and she should not have been surprised with my reply. Especially after I listed many examples and points that she did not address. You still havnt addressed any criticism directly except. I think you are getting too personal and should refrain from editing hogans page any further or risk a admin flagging you for a edit war or vandalism. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

These are clearly your opinions only, my edits will be provin by an unbiased admin that they all were done in good faith and were just as necessary. I would challenge you now to list what contributions I made that were not good, and I hope for a long list rather than just rude empty statement. I have listed all my points and evidence, but LM, Random, and HHH just choose to ignore them and only get upset; perhaps because they clearly don’t want to concede to any constructive criticism or engage in any counter opinions. HHH’s actions were clearly retaliatory; it’s no longer about if the edits were good. Especially since you exposed yourself as hypocritical; you agree hogan’s unrecognized reign should not be included in the list yet you didn’t edit and delete midnight riders unrecognized claim to the list when it was under the same situation. I believe HHH only deleted it because I added it and he is just trying to engage me in a edit war, hoping I would retaliate by deleting his edit three times and get banished from Wikipedia. Edit4Peace (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have provided proper sources about this, atleast seven. The editors can rewrite the statement to make it proper prose for Wikipedia but they can not win the debate that their is no proof that Hulk Hogans endorsement did NOT significantly help Trump away male voters in swing states to win the White House. Also my sources are all from non biased sites with no well documented allegiance to left or right wing media.

the source I am using are:

1. The Times

2. The Independent

3. Politico

4. the Salon

5. AL.com

6. EA World View

7. The Times of India

obviously Fox News, Newsmax, and others have articles to but I’m not going to bother using them to win a unbiased opinion that Hogans endorsement was a big deal and helped Trump more than any celebrity endorsement going back to 1960. I concede that Oprah played a role in 2008; but I really don’t count that because Obama didn’t need her endorsement and won by an overwhelming landslide. Sinatra and Hogan wher significant because of there media coverage and both elections where close. Hogan and Sinatra actively Cambodian more than just putting out a statement. While Oprah did this to; it’s really hard to say that Obama needed her like JFK or Trump owe Sinatra or Hogan. Ted Kennedy is usually given credit for his endorsement clinching the democratic primary nomination. Edit4Peace (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• This editor should honestly just be blocked by now as a POV pushing NOTHERE fan? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:849:6C52:50FF:14FD (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why should yeh editor be blocked? Please support your claims. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because you keep spamming the same text over and over without realizing that it doesn’t support the edits you want to make?

  Because you don’t seem to be able to engage with the points other people make and you just keep repeating yourself?

  The endless personal attacks?

  Your repeated claim that you don’t have to find support in a source for your edits, that it is someone else’s problem to read the source for you and explain why it doesn’t support you (which you then proceed to ignore)?

  Editors need to make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  If a admin is reading this, have conceded to many many points other users have brought and engaged them with substance. While they only reply back with empty statements and denials, I would argue they are responsible for being accused of POV NOTHERE because they can’t contribute to the talk, only deny, and I keep engaging them with facts, sources, and constructive conversation. Because I have a different option they have chosen instead to retaliate by excessively deleting all content I have written for Wikipedia on 4 pages and try to bait and setup an edit war. I have every right to be offended and angry by their actions. Which is why I have brought this subject up to the administration page after ready Wikipedia facts about how to report users. I don’t understand why I’m getting zero support from users on the administration page and why I have to engage with the users from the hulk hogan page I feel are not making edits in good faith because of the contradictions in their edits. Yes in good faith they deleted unnecessary positive content about hulk hogan; but in bad faith they didn’t delete unnecessary negative content about hulk hogan AND in the case of LM he added negative content. Hopefully someone at Wikipedia can engage with me and the points I have maxed instead of unfairly telling me simply I’m wrong without addressing my points I concede I have made coding errors but that doesn’t seem justified to delete all the thousands of words I researched and spent hours finding sources for. I’m not trying to make hogan look better either, all of my edits have left the negative statements in place. Unlike the users are gladly accusing me of. A proper investigation will be able to see this is true. Thank you for your time. Edit4Peace (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please for pete's sake just stop with your utter WP:PROMO edits. Wikipedia is not and is never going to be a Hulk Hogan fan club because we need to be neutral. Everyone here agrees that your edits are WP:DE. Best outcome for you would be the admit that your edits were wrong and stop edit warring. 212.70.114.16 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  My edits are neutral, what is so wrong with me reorganizing the lawsuit content until one subsection for lawsuits? Have you done any research about this situation? Please back up your statements. Anyone who claims to see to be neutral will realize that the other editors are biased and trying to make Wikipedia page a negative look for hogan. While I’m being falsely accused for no reason. I have no deleted any negative content about hulk hogan and you can’t prove it. My citations are valid and just because the editors disagree with what the citations say; doesn’t mean the fact within them are wrong. Stop trying to get me to stop replying… if you send me a message I have every right to respond. Please be mature. Edit4Peace (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Anyone who claims to see to be neutral will realize that the other editors are biased and trying to make Wikipedia page a negative look for hogan.

  This, right here, is why you're not editing neutrally.

  I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and let this go, because you might find yourself being blocked from the Hogan article (or Wikipedia at large) if you continue to validate the accusation that you're a single purpose account.

  You might also find it useful to read WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. — Czello ^(music) 06:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Your false accusations are easy to see through, and attempting to bully people who disagree with to stop participating in discussion is exactly why you will eventually get blocked. If you don’t want to reply with examples and substance, then I don’t know why you keep just stirring the pot with your constant complaining. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  BTW, are you an WP:UPE for Hulk Hogan? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• By the way, it doesn't seem like anyone pointed out that User:Edit4Peace is practically a SPA so even TBanning them from any Hulk Hogan topics will be an effective 'indef' 212.70.114.16 (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is a false accusation, if you are going to be a participant on Wikipedia then you need to learn to add substance to any claim you are going to make, or you are going to give Wikipedia a bad reputation. Edit4Peace (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• My level of interest in these topics is below zero, but I think it's interesting that Edit4Peace has repeatedly posted chatgpt-tagged links here. [See comments dated 12:31, 17 August 2025 and 13:35, 17 August 2025]. This, together with the already-discussed use of sources to make hyperbolic claims in content that can be found nowhere in those sources, makes me question whether Edit4Peace's contributions here are a net positive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  You have provided no examples of facts to back up your claims, yet you falsely accuse me of the same. Please respond back wig specifics and not empty statements. You clearly have not read any of the quotes or links I provided. It’s unfair that you dismiss all of them. Edit4Peace (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please for pete's sake just stop edit-warring already! Has you gave anything other than headlines to back up your claims? Have you read WP:NPOV? Or even WP:PROMO? But of course, you're just going to say that your edits are neutral. Again, are you an undisclosed paid editor? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I’m sorry, but complaining and wishing people would just go away is very immature. Also your hypocrisy. If admins held you to the same standard you wish to hold me you are the one in danger of being blocked. I presented quotes and articles, you have presented ZERO discussion as to why they should not be there. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am surprised this discussion is still going on (including on my own User talk page as well as article talk pages and even the Arbitration Case request page) and I just have ONE question for Edit4Peace. You have been arguing nonstop for 3 days now. Have you found any registered editor who has agreed with you on any of the points of disagreement you have brought up? You only have to identify one editor whom you haven't entered into a dispute with because it seems like everyone I see is disagreeing with you. That's my only question in the face of this exceedingly long complaint that seem irresolvable to me. I've never seen the General sanctions for wrestling imposed but this seems appropriate at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just seen their comments on your talk page. I admire your patience in not blocking them. — Czello ^(music) 06:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, after reviewing their contributions, I started skimming their comments because they were becoming repetitive. It started reminding me of User:Joeyburner4 whose case is also on ANI right now. Two editors who argue relentlessly. There are probably some insults in there on my User talk page but I think they have bigger issues going on than making snide comments towards an admin who is trying not to be pulled in a futile debate about professional wrestling, a subject which I have less than zero interest in. I just want to see if this IP account ever shows back up again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean like how you insulted uses by devaluing their contributions because they are new? And then rudely responded to their requests for help by ranting about “you are taking my time away from the slugs” and complaining about talking about wrestling; yet hypocritically still here stirring the pot when days ago you could have just rolled up your sleeves like a reputable admin and stopped the escalation? Just how do you feel you have been helpful and not part of the problem? Edit4Peace (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the complaints from you are a good evaluation of your administrative skills; here we are arguing for three days because of your lack of admin ability. All you have done not deescalate. I have found many editors who I agree with and you would have known this if you would have done your role properly. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• I thought I'd mention that about an hour ago, an IP account showed up on the Hulk Hogan talk page making a legal threat and so they have been blocked under NLT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Disappointingly, Edit4Peace agreed with the IP. I've urged them not to do that and be more careful as I don't think they realise how close they came to a block there. — Czello ^(music) 06:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t understand how they’re not blocked already between the constant pointless bickering and relentless personal attacks of calling several experienced editors biased for not agreeing with them. They have made hundreds of edits, not a single productive one, and are just wasting everyone’s time here. RF23 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Probably because of the hypocrisy and counter productive comments you make cancels out any complaint you have. Anyone Neutral can see through your bully tactics and won’t comply with your immature demands that everyone be blocked who disagrees with you by gawd, dates to reply back to your rants. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Disappointed how? It’s obvious you are contributing nothing to the solution and being extremely counter productive. I suggest you refrain from participating because your neutrality is nonexistent just like the admin. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  This seems to make it clear that Edit4Peace will continue to adamantly refuse to learn anything or hear what anyone else is saying.

  If nothing else, they need to be blocked until they understand that sources need to support what they want to add to the encyclopedia and editors can’t use “you haven’t proven to me that the source doesn’t agree with what I want to add!” That’s exactly backwards. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you can’t contribute with any substance then you are part of the problem, you can’t “learn” anything helpful from your sarcasm comments. You should apologize for your poor behavior and non neutral attitude. Especially since you are unwilling to contribute evidence to back up any accusation or point you have made. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why did you block them in retaliation? Isn’t that just giving them more evidence for their case? Very immature move. You could just be a good neutral admin and not sit back and enjoy the caps you are creating. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NLT is the policy you’re asking about. Everyone who makes legal threats is blocked, it has nothing to do with neutrality. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  That’s why neutrality is needed so there will be no basis for that. You really think Hogan’s brand is going to be happy with the biased way Hogan’s lead bio ends? “Permanent damaged public image” is acceptable? Put yourself in the accusers shoes; shouldn’t you be upset by such a biased and unfair ending and when you read all the resistance and immature responses from users like you perhaps turn to other resources? Editors are supposed to protect Wikipedia from those threats. More should have been done to make that user who was blocked happy and withdraw the threat. Instead he was blocked and probably escalated the situation. It was such poorly handled by the admins. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you want to overturn WP:NLT, you should have posted about that on one of the policy boards instead of trying to claim that following established policy is 'immature'.

  We are not here to care about what Hogan's 'brand' thinks about anything. We're here to provide information from Reliable Sources. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Request admin closure along with any administrative action deemed appropriate. This issue has taken up more of the community's time than necessary already -- and everyone's points have been made, for better or for worse. --tony 16:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, unfortunately my requests were denied. I don’t recommend closing the page; it’s clear a consensus should be reached. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Actually I change my mind, I didn’t realize this was the admin page and it the hogan talk page I thought I was replying to. My points I made in creating this admin page have all been ignored, and instead everyone has contributed to distracting from the point of this post. Which is; users shouldn’t be aloud to retaliate against those who they disagree and go on an edit war path deleting the uses content across multiple Wikipedia pages. There for this should be closed as you recommend and elevated to high Wikipedia authorities. Edit4Peace (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: boomerang

This has gone on long enough. The latest string of replies today by Edit4Peace, both here and on various talk pages, seem to imply they're not getting it. There's no listening to other people taking place at all, just endless digging their heels in and accusing everyone else of having an agenda. At a very minumum, p-block from Hulk Hogan to see if they're capable of contributing to this project after their only topic of interest (WP:SPA) is removed. — Czello ^(music) 16:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The only issue with this, is that it doesn't cover enough ground and he would therefore need to be blocked from the other articles he's vandalized and/or the potential to vandalize. Virgil (wrestler), List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions, are three other articles he's put false information onto and due to the nature of Hogan's work in the wrestling business over a 40 year span of time, it leaves a lot of ground open to the same kind of abuse. YellowStahh (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban from professional wrestling, then, as I wasn't aware of the non-Hogan issues.

Although given their general attitude a standard block might be inevitable. — Czello ^(music) 17:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

support Indef For others: a Tban from wrestling would be another solution but it would be more like an indef because of their very narrow editing interests 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I see no issue with anyone else's editing here. — Czello ^(music) 17:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for ambiguity, I mean a note for others proposing Tbans 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood. — Czello ^(music) 17:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Support t-ban or block in addition to telling admins cautioning him that they aren't neutral, Edit4Peace has now declared that WP:NLT shouldn't apply to the Hogan article and we should have made changes so that people like him would be happy. They've shown zero ability to understand anything that anyone else has said and appear determined to continue this behavior with no change. There's no upside to having them continue to edit about wrestling. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've chosen to indefinitely block the user as NOTHERE. This is my blocking rationale for everyone to read: Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia; this new user is here to create a hagiography at Hulk Hogan and to treat talk pages and discussion pages like wrestling venues. The user regularly fails to provide sources, utilizing LLMs in pagespace and wikipediaspace, and fails to assume good faith over and over. They childishly escalate instead of discussing and make personal attacks on each and every account they come across. On Wikipedia we disagree constantly with each other, but we don't hit each other with furniture or body slam from the turnbuckle. The new username change indicates they'd like to be seen as a face and a heel, but it's still the same relentless personalization they've exhibited since their first hours. BusterD (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP tracker on user talk page.

I got a talk page message with a hidden link to an IP tracker website (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LogicalLens&diff=prev&oldid=1306061890). A few days ago, I also received an email with a malicious link (probably phishing) that I forwarded to the ArbCom. LogicalLens (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP is 207.228.201.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). IP range 207.228.200.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is globally blocked for three years for open proxy. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 06:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose 101.128.65.160 should be blocked as well since they're an obvious proxy. It's also a good idea to add that domain to the spam blacklist. @LogicalLens: Do you know why someone might want to do this to you? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. I blocked that IP for a year. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

And added the domain they used to the global spam blacklist. In addition to its other more egregious problems it's also a URL shortener, which is by itself sufficient cause to blacklist globally. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Other people's experiences may differ, but I've only ever seen URL shorteners used to disguise malware or commercial spam. They're an immediate red flag for me. Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen t.co and youtu.be used validly (heck, the latter at least is official). I think I've seen goog.le used validly sometimes, but overall, yeah, shorterners are a bad thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Both of those domains are on the global blacklist. Whether or not they should be is unclear (IIRC I spoke strongly but futilely in favor of removing youtu.be once). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

T.co is The Website Formerly Known As Twitter, and the long-form links, in the rare cases a link there is appropriate, are easily available. Given that (IIRC) selecting 'link to this video' on Youtube gives you, by default, a youtu.be URL, and there are valid use cases for Youtube links, I'd agree it should probably be allowed, but that's most likely a discussion for elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

See m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2024-10#youtu.be. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit war, personal attacks, threats ongoing

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

Efficacity has made numerous reverts to 2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting in a slow edit war, undoing bold text of the shooter's name that is there for a redirect per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT:

• [174]
• [175]
• [176]
• [177] This last one is particularly troublesome with the comment if a poll is to be conducted, that may be a good thing since they seemingly have refused to discuss it with involved editors. @Locke Cole explained the issue to them in numerous edit summaries, starting with and edit summary (other diffs on request)

I'm not involved in the edit war but having noticed it, I began looking at some of their TP notices regarding the edit war and saw they were noticed by 2 other editors for other unrelated issues: [178], [179], and [180]. So I reviewed some of their recent editing and noticed a number of issues, some of which I either reverted or corrected. (diffs available if requested)

Later, I noticed they had gone to User talk:MusikAnimal#Bolding to discuss the bolding issue at 2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting mentioned above. I'm not sure why they chose that uninvolved user talk page, and I don't wish to involve @MusikAnimal (unless they wish to comment, of course), but there I asked @Efficacity why they weren't discussing this at the article talk page. In that discussion, I explained the MOS, and if they felt (as stated) the redirect should be deleted, the proper course of action was deletion discussion.

From there, they responded with personal attacks:

• STOP, could I be more clearer. You, Butler, are nonsensical. I will not allow it. Stop following me, whatever other seemingly demented things you are doing. Go away.[181]
• Then a threat on my talk page: You will stop now[182]
• And: Not going to accept compliments from you until you stop being ridiculous. You are annoying me and most likely others. Please quit, this is not enjoyable. I don't care what you think of your so-called methods or how you define the culture here. [183]

Before bringing it to ANI, I informed them of the civility policy and their response was this:[184]. Thus I presume Efficacity does not care for our community policies and guidelines, and seemingly does not want to participate in discussion necessary for a collaborative editing environment, and is probably WP:NOTHERE. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd say this person also has issues under WP:RGW/WP:CIR looking at that argument. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to go overboard with alphabet soup in my post, but... yes, absolutely! They can't seem to frame discussion in the right place, or in a single place, which I've noted in additional evidence below. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd add one addition concerning piece of evidence to the above. I'm not sure how @Locke Cole kept their sanity because Efficacity posted numerous complaints and such between their own talk page and Locke Cole's TP in a rather disjointed discussion, culminating here. Interestingly, the complaint that Efficacity emotes is that Locke Cole [isn't]] implenting discussions properly, except that it is Efficacity who can't seem to frame the discussion in a single thread on a single page. Ultimately, their statement to Locke Cole that I will have the edit you seem to want changed, reversing the current status indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which further concerns me. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Partially blocked for one week. If the incivility or edit warring keeps up, we can do something harsher. Why don't you guys just point Efficacity toward dispute resolution, though? There are ways to discuss this calmly and rationally, then come to a consensus. It annoys me when people dismiss the manual of style as "just a guideline", but it's not holy scripture, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

They've been pointed to the talk page, which if you look at their contribs, their only edits to article talk-space are almost all changing the ratings of assessments (except for their very first article talk-space edit, where they were asked a question that appeared to go unanswered, but it was because Efficacity replied on another user's talk page instead of the article talk page, see here). @MusikAnimal pointed them directly at to the talk page in this discussion. Efficacity ignored that completely and continued to ask MusikAnimal directly about a content issue they were uninvolved with. I did use the standard {{uw-3rr}} template in this edit a few days ago, which does contain links to dispute resolution avenues. They removed the notice a few minutes later, clearly not reading it or comprehending it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

So Efficacity is back to editing, but as they've twice told me they do not want to interact with me, I'm hesitant to attempt further discussion with them. Their only edit since the PBLOCK contains MOS:GEOLINK issues, as well as factual issues (they add that George Mason University is in Fairfax, Virginia, when that university is actually within Fairfax County, Virginia (just outside the actual city), and for WNBC they change the unlinked "New York City" out for the linked Midtown Manhattan). If someone else wants to take a stab at talking with them, please do. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Another flurry of edits, this one caught my eye, Efficacity added https to the URL (which is good) but removed the www (which is "bad", as it still redirects to www anyways, see this VPT thread for a little more). I know @Epicgenius had warned them about care with removing "www", so not sure what else can be done here. There's also more MOS:U.S. at that diff. This edit adds a blank invocation of {{Birth date and age}} (which, helpfully, does not render despite having placeholder fields in the wikitext). I guess that edit might be okay since it leaves a spot for a future editor to add a date in the future? But I'm torn on if that's why they did it, or if it was a mistake. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Locke Cole They're under the mistaken impression that www is always bad and should be removed. Reviewing the remainder of the converation, they admit that it's appropriate when required, but based on their editing practices, I doubt they're checking them (I have seen this issue in a number of their edits, some of which I fixed or reverted; diffs available if needed). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely feeling more and more like a WP:CIR issue. Epicgenius did reply at the VPT thread, so not sure if more will be done or what. The behavioral discussion should definitely stay here IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

For awhile, I've actually been thinking there's a non-human element involved (some automation or possibly LMM). I haven't suggested it out loud yet; but maybe I should so other eyes on it can tell me I'm wrong or maybe there's something to my hunch. (I updated the link edit they did before I noticed the VPT thread you linked - I'll comment over there) ButlerBlog (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq just so we can discuss conduct with the existing AN/I discussion (and not at VPT). @Butlerblog has already left a fresh note on this, but another thing I noticed in his recent handful of edits is that with this edit, it seems they are definitely not double checking the URL when they do their changes. They made this change:

−

* [http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-black6-2008nov06,0,4496764.story Los Angeles Times obituary and biography]

+

* [https://latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-black6-2008nov06,0,4496764.story Los Angeles Times obituary and biography]

The HTTP → HTTPS change is fine, but the bare latimes.com address takes you back to the www.latimes.com address, and both URLs also redirect to a completely different page, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-nov-06-me-black6-story.html. AGF and all, but if they were double checking as they were going surely they would have just updated the URL to the new target? These are external links, but still. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the message I left on their TP, they removed it and then replied on my TP. Based on that response, it sounds like they'll stop remove www, but will likely still change http to https. I'm presuming they are not checking the changes (hard to prove that) but I did note that they should be verifying such changes. Typically, what they're changing are {{URL}} entries and ELs - I don't think I've seen them changing any citation URLs recently. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It's progress, I appreciate you being willing to try and address it. Hopefully things improve from here. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I explained about www in www.example.com at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#The need for www and https in external links (permalink). Regardless of the technical details, repeating changes without discussion after being asked to stop is disruptive. I have warned Efficacity that I will block them if it continues (see User talk:Efficacity#Warning regarding URL changes). Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am having trouble communicating with Efficacity. My latest attempt is at User talk:Johnuniq#URL. One problem is that the user deletes responses at their talk and replies elsewhere. A second problem is that they are fixated on explaining why their edits are correct while ignoring my point that it is disruptive to repeat edits against objections unless a consensus can be shown. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I have had the same problem with their disjointed discussions and have seen them follow the same formula with @Epicgenius (and I think it happened with @Locke Cole, too). But I will avoid further interaction unless needed as that would likely only further enflame things, considering they don't want to hear from me. If they ping me in (or if you do, @JohnuniqJohnuniq), I'll come back into it, but otherwise, I'll just try to be more gnomish.

I'm not sure if it's worth pointing out to them that we actually already have two bots (SchlurcherBot and Bender the Bot) that are both actively working on changing http to https. Making some assumptions on the current temperature of their position, adding that to the mix might just be counter-productive. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

2600:8806:2402:C700:F192:DE34:75A9:3597 and RGW

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

---

2600:8806:2402:C700:F192:DE34:75A9:3597 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user has, for the past hour or so, been disruptively editing several Ukraine-related articles in a WP:RGW-style attempt to write Ukraine as a fascist state (e.g. here, here and here), as well as taking their grievances with anyone who reverts them to their talk pages. ("Because your ass likes to kiss Ukraine, you cannot admit that.", Ukrainian Army is fascist. Not deniable.) This has been brought up multiple times on their talk page, yet they still refuse to listen. Lynch44 21:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31hrs for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Some help here, if possible

See that [185]. Thank you! Hellenic Rebel (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be repeatedly reverting another editor’s edits without explanation, nor discussing it with them on their talk page, i.e. an edit war. Also, you haven’t alerted them to this discussion as noted at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve left the notice for you. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

To offer a different perspective: the edits they're reverting (though they have not sufficiently explained) changed the article's lede from "The Rashtriya Janata Dal is an Indian political party, mainly based in the state of Bihar." to "The Rashtriya Janata Dal is a dynastic, caste-polarizing political outfit in Bihar, dominated by Lalu Prasad Yadav’s family and sustained through identity-driven mobilization." so it seems they were right to revert. I have semiprotected the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, shouldn't it be WP:ARBECRed due to WP:GSCASTE and WP:CT/SA restrictions? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I've upped the protection to ECP. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Sayno123

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

---

• Sayno123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had already put Sayno123 on final warning for trolling back in July. Their pattern was to go onto a Talk page and say something pointlessly inflammatory. Much of it was anti-trans but other right wing talking points were also hit on (i.e. this edit to Talk:Zionism). Things mostly went quiet after the warning but then they came back to add a link to "Autogynephilia" (a widely discredited medical hypothesis that borders on being a transphobic conspiracy theory), as well as other controversial links, to Wi Spa controversy. Not content with that, they then added an off-topic transphobic rant to Men's rights movement. That got reverted by ClueBot. I think it most likely that their intention is solely to cause argument and disruption but even if they are sincere this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE --DanielRigal (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The housing of transgender women (biological males), prioritizing males' gender identity over biological realities, and biologically male transgender activists. Yep, this is very clearly a transphobic WP:NOTHERE editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Locke Cole

User:Locke Cole has been engaging in tendentious editing regarding the meaning of "Floppy disk" and "Floppy disk drive" and has recently likely violated the 3RR rule in the PATA article. Tom94022 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

[186][187][188] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom94022 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This is your classic content dispute. We've talked significantly on Talk:Parallel ATA, and also at Talk:Floppy disk, but haven't really achieved any consensus. I tried to back away from this for some time, but Tom continues to edit Floppy disk in such a way that he seems to be demonstrating WP:IDHT, even though on the talk page both @Thumperward and @WhatamIdoing have expressed concerns he hasn't addressed. Definitely some edit warring going on, but Tom is literally the pot calling the kettle black if he thinks it's just me that is engaging in WP:TE... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that in spite of multiple reliable sources and without the support of any other editor Cole insists that some floppy disks and some floppy disk drives are not in fact floppy disks (FDs) or floppy disk drives (FDDs). There is 4,400 word discussion beginning July 7 at Talk:Parallel_ATA#Floppy_disk during which Cole received no support for his POV that "high-capacity FDDs" including the Zip Drive and the LS120/LS240 family are not FDDs; there are too many RS's that categorize such drives as FDDs to include them herein but perhaps the best are summarized in Floppy_disk#Categories, which includes the Computer History Museum's current article entitled "Floppy Disk", it lists both the "Zip Disk" and "the Zip 100 drive" under the category "Floppy disk." Cole denigrates many of the RS's as "dead wood" arguing that the language has changed but so far he has not produced a single RS in support of his POV that such devices and media are not FDDs or FDs.

I haven't updated the statistics for his more recent editing but from July 7 thru Aug 1 Cole made 43 edits on FD related talk pages amounting to adding ~51k words and made 23 edits on the associated article' pages, many reverts and notably this edit [189] where he removed about 19,000 words, some of which were removed solely on the basis of his POV. I have now spent in excess of 12 hours repairing the damage done to the article.

Both the Parallel ATA and Floppy disk articles deal with obsolete products and technologies, so do not have a lot of active editors and consequently there has not been a lot of participants in the discussion. By my count he has never received any consensus for his POV, but declares it and then proceeds to edit into an article and then revert when his POV is removed. For example, in Talk:Parallel_ATA#Floppy_disk @Zac67 and I supported the original usage of Floppy disk drive and only other comment was Secondly, even if you think the current version is wrong, please stop flip-flopping the article. Nobody is going to die if it is wrong for a few days. Wait until the discussion has formed a consensus. Yet Cole declared a consensus of himself, insists that only his POV remain, and used his declared consensus to then make massive deletions in the Floppy disk article and elsewhere. The three reverions cited above are specific examples of his continued assertion of his unsupported POV. Similarly in the Floppy disk the consensus was to revert his damage rather than retitle the article to something like Floppy disk (low-capacity).

I believe I have addressed any concerns expressed by @Thumperward or @WhatamIdoing and so far I have not seen any talk indicating a lack of my response. Also I believe I have responded to all of Cole's claims with RS's but he has yet to produce a single RS in support of his POV.

In Cole's view we haven't really achieved any consensus but then as I understand policy the disputed material should remain in its previous state which, given his continuous assertion of his POV, I suggest is an admission of tendentious editing. If the administrator's agree I request he be banned from editing any article that relates in any way to FDs or FDDs. Tom94022 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this came up awhile back too? I've reverted the article to status quo ante bellum and protected Parallel ATA for a week, as a start. Note there was no 3RR violation but there was absolutely edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, this did come up before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floppy disk for reference. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no rule requiring that the article remain in a WP:STATUSQUO version. I suggest reading that essay about how to avoid edit warring. There is no policy that says potentially bad or WP:OFFTOPIC information can stay in an article forever, until consensus finally forces it out.

Fundamentally, I think the problem at Floppy disk is that editors (=humans, not sources) need to decide whether this page is about the thing that all of us called floppy disks back in the day or if this page is supposed to be able all the products that used a particular technology. Consequently, I think this is a content dispute, and that what's needed is an agreement among editors ("consensus").

One way to put the content question might be this:

• Should the article be about this?

This was called Retitle on the talk page Tom94022 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Or should the article be about andand also ?

This was called Restore on the talk page Tom94022 (talk)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page was Restore and unless I misread you, your position was Restore was acceptable as long as the tagged material was restored with RS's - which they were. Tom94022 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't interleave your comments with another user's, per WP:INTERLEAVE. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Tom, my position is that editors need to come to a good, shared understanding of what does and doesn't belong on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. If reliable sources say they're a floppy, they're a floppy. Who cares about anything else? If you're on the winning side, privately do a little happy dance and then let it go. If you're on the losing side, privately shout at your display about how Wikipedians are idiots and then let it go. If there's no consensus on what the sources say, use dispute resolution. If you need help finding sources, I guess I could try to find them, but I don't really want to get dragged into stupid arguments about tech. I got enough of that in the 1980s and 1990s. If people edit war or go against the dispute resolution consensus, post here, and I'll block them. There, that should cover everything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't whether it's possible to find a source that says X or not-X. The problem is that Wikipedia editors need to decide what they want this page to be about.

Compare, e.g., Ketogenic diet: That article is about a medical treatment for refractory pediatric epilepsy. Oh, but I found a source that says the traditional Inuit diet is a diet that is ketogenic – shouldn't that be included, too? And that low-carb fad diet – that's actually called a keto diet by name! And every weight loss diet is ketogenic, because ketogenic literally means that fat molecules are being metabolized. So we'll merge in weight loss, too, because weight loss is ketogenic?

The answer is a firm no, because the article's scope is "a medical treatment for refractory pediatric epilepsy" rather than "a WP:SETINDEX for all the diets we can find a source saying that it has a ketogenic effect". It doesn't matter "if reliable sources say they're a floppy" (or that the diet is ketogenic, etc.); what matters is whether editors choose to write on this page about X (what the sources have called "standard" or "traditional" floppies) or X+Y (any storage device using a disk-shaped flexible magnetic medium). This decision about Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes that has to be made by Wikipedia editors, not by sources.

We make these decisions all the time, and we need to make a decision here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate If you need help finding sources, I guess I could try to find them, but I don't really want to get dragged into stupid arguments about tech. I appreciate the offer, certainly if you can be a second set of eyes for sources that are only available in print that would be welcome. But the bigger problem Chris mentioned at the talk page is that finding sources that explicitly say "floppy disks" don't include ZIP/Jaz disks or Super Disk/LS-120 is basically asking someone to prove a negative. Tom has produced sources that refer to these successor formats as "high-capacity" or "super floppy", but never directly as "floppy disk". He did make claims of some print documents from 20+ years ago calling these formats "floppy disks", but as they aren't available online, verification is difficult (and besides, one source is hardly going to prove this, and old sources are a concern). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment The original issue along with the responses by the involved editors indicates this is a content dispute. ANI is for behavioral issues, which I don't see here - unless you can call arriving at an impasse behavioral (which it's not). @Tom94022: Just because both sides arrive at "all-or-none" positions does not make one side of that position tendentious while the other side is holy. That's not what tendentious editing is. If it were, you'd be making yourself guilty of the same. Additionally, your POV that your invested time was repairing the damage indicates a faith assumption by you that is not WP:AGF of the other editor(s). And not to nitpick, but the byte counts for edit and page size are bytes not words. Your claim that 19,000 words of an article were removed gives a mistaken impression. So... this doesn't belong here. You need to either find common ground, or take it through the (correct) dispute resolution process. ButlerBlog (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog, I like this phrasing arriving at an impasse [is not] behavioral...Just because both sides arrive at "all-or-none" positions does not make one side of that position tendentious while the other side is holy and would be happy to see you put something similar into Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I think that this point is not well understood these days. In fact, I think this might be an underlying cause of frustration for both of the currently open ArbCom cases ("Anyone who persists in disagreeing with the One True™ POV, after I've repeatedly explained The Truth™, has a ban-worthy behavioral problem!"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, thanks for that. I'd be open to that discussion, although I do think the wording at WP:TE is fairly clear. Maybe it would be helpful to be worked in a subsection under "What is tendentious editing?" as "What tendentious editing is not". ButlerBlog (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't going to win this, and Locke Cole should know that. I don't really think Tom94022 should be drawing attention to his own obsession with this domain, given that it takes two to tango and for years one of those parties has invariably been Tom94022, but so long as everyone is ostensibly playing by the rules then there's nothing admin-actionable here. Maybe it's time for an RFC or a 3O or something to get fresh eyes on what basically boils down to a long-running content dispute over about a dozen articles which never seem to get any better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC opened, please let me know if there are any concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If this is just a content dispute, I apologize for my ignorance in bringing it to this forum, but I would point out that the three reversions cited at the beginning of this request were not his first three reverts of "floppy disk" from this article, by my count they were 1, 2, 3 and 4 prior reverts, making three in a row a 3RR violation. I would also note that although Cole claims to "back away" you should note that subsequent to a discussion with User:WhatamIdoing of the use of "floppy disk" in the Parallel ATA article when he peremptorily made his reversions on Aug 12. Yes I am invested in this issue and I have a lot of experience in the subject matter, including an extensive "dead wood" (Cole's term not mine) library, but I have been very careful to provide reliable sources for all my proposed edits where all Cole has done is dismiss them and then unilaterally impose his POV in multiple articles without any other editor support. That seems like tenditious editing to me, and again I apologize if my understanding is incorrect.

On the other hand, there does seem to be agreement that we are in an editwar. I have tried hard to discuss on the talk page before taking action. Cole on the other hand is quite preemptory, taking action with little or no talk agreement and seems to be far more involved in conduct issues than I am (FWIW, in searching for this section I found my name 10 times and only in this section while Cole appears 25 times in several sections). I can provide examples if an Administrator wants to evaluate both our conduct Tom94022 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Tom, WP:DROPTHESTICK. seems to be far more involved in conduct issues than I am (FWIW, in searching for this section I found my name 10 times and only in this section while Cole appears 25 times in several sections). Tom, this is called casting aspersions. Don't do that. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tom94022:

• You've accused another editor of violating 3RR on rather flimsy evidence. Please review WP:3RR, which is more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. You haven't shown that (and I don't see it in the edit history of the page).
• You've accused the editor of tendentious editing, then doubled down on that with your response above (seems like tenditious editing to me) while trying to flimsily leave yourself "an out" on your faith assumption (and again I apologize if my understanding is incorrect).
• You've cast aspersions by suggesting the number of times a user's name appears in the current ANI page is some indicator of misbehavior. Given that this isn't your first trip to a noticeboard, I think you know that has nothing to do with anything.
• After the RfC was established, you apparently didn't like it, so you went in and edited an existing RfC after it was open AND comments made on it.[190] There's a right way to handle updating an RfC and a wrong way - your approach was the wrong way.

You were originally directed to simply work it out through the dispute resolution process the right way, yet instead, you seem intent on turning it into a behavioral issue of your own. Taking note of Chris's comment above (I don't really think Tom94022 should be drawing attention to his own obsession with this domain, given that it takes two to tango) I'd suggest that you read WP:PETARD and then go thou and sin no more. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Two Administrators have now said the conduct does not amount to a 3RR violation without explaining why. I have read the policy, let me state the time line as i see it and then I request someone help me understand why it is not

1. On July 8 Cole removed reference to "floppy disk drive" from the Parallel ATA article
2. The phrase or equivalents were restored on the same day
3. On Aug 12 between 12:28 and 12:45 he made these three reverts of "floppy disk" from the article, [191][192][193]
4. At the time there was no consensus that the material needed removal, myself and Zac67 favoring retention with Cole in favor of removal. There were multiple asserted RS which Cole disputed by attaching multiple tags. It seems to me the three reverts on Aug 12 rise to the level of a 3RR violation. Also isn't such an act an indication of tendentious editing?

@Butlerblog I would appreciate advise on the right way to a right way to handle updating an RfC - to paraphrase Voltaire, "accurately define the questions, then we can have a discussion." I did read WP:PETARD which does suggest our conduct needs a full investigation Tom94022 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Your diffs show one revert on July 8, then three reverts on August 12. As ButlerBlogsaid, Please review WP:3RR, which is more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. (Emphasis original) You have established three reverts within 24 hours, but WP:3RR is more than 3 reverts in such a period. I hope that helps identify the mix-up.

Also, regarding your "full investigation", consider that at Wikipedia, there is a preference that things be handled at the most grassroots level possible; normal editing, discussion, dispute resolution are preferable to RFCs, which in turn are preferable to ANI threads. I don't think anyone wants to jump to sanctions when the RFC may be solving the underlying content dispute. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to jump to sanctions when the RFC may be solving the underlying content dispute - that is well put! In fact, it's better than my response below. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: the conduct does not amount to a 3RR violation without explaining why You haven't shown (and I don't see) a 4th revert in a 24 hour period. How is that not yet clear to you if you have read the policy?

To paraphrase an unknown philosopher, "When you're standing in a hole, it's time to put down the shovel", thus I'm not sure why you'd want to continue this. With 19 years of experience and over 8k edits, you're not exactly a "noob" and you shouldn't actually need me to explain how to look up information pages, but OK... At Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to RfCs, note If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question. So there is no ambiguity, I'm speaking of this series of edits in which you made changes to an open RfC, editing the existing options after there were already responses. If you don't understand that's a "no-go zone", then maybe you need stiffer sanctions than simply saying "don't do that" because I honestly believe you've been here long enough to know better without some one having to tell you that. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Thanks for the explanation, I missed the "more than" - in my many years I have never seen 3 in any one short session so even though I did read the policy I missed that detail, sorry :-(. The edit war has spread to Talk:Floppy disk where I now have tried to ask the question that should have been asked at Parallel_ATA. Probably didn't do that right either. However, i think it is pretty clear that both Cole and I have made " ... repeated attempts to insert or delete content ..." but Cole has done it "in the face of the objections of several other editors," both behavior that could "frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." Doesn't this rise to the level of WP:TE if nothing else I would like to see an administrator allow me to improve the wording at the Floppy disk site and then ban the both of us from the discussion until the vote, at which point we could both state our POV. You might even consider closeing the discussion at Floppy disk and open it a Parallel ATA. Tom94022 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

You keep pushing the "let's have sanctions" argument, to the point of being okay with being sanctioned yourself as long as Locke Cole is also sanctioned. You should note that nobody else has expressed the view that the provided behavior rises to the level of sanctions. What is the problem with letting the RFC play out and abiding by its consensus? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tom94022 To expand on EducatedRedneck's comments, if an admin pblocks you, it's going to be for a time period (like 1 month or 1 year or indefinite). They don't have time to be dinking around with keeping single editors out of a discussion until it closes. Thus, "be careful what you wish for". Just follow the established policies and guidelines and then abide by the outcome. You're still required to abide by the policies and guidelines, regardless of what another editor is doing. Or are you trying to tell us that you're unable to have self control here? ButlerBlog (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, so after doing my best to write up a neutral proposal per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, Tom has engaged in repeated shenanigans at the RFC.

• After 4 !voters had already commented, he tried to revise the answers, adding bias and opinion. I reverted him, pointing out that I had left open the option for adding more choices, and nothing more.
• A short time later he added more options, basically duplicating the existing options #3 and #4, but adding his opinion and links to sources he claims support his POV. Not wanting to edit war, I left it alone.
• @WhatamIdoing did call him out on this, and his response was to add even more opinion to his RFC answers (and fix a typo, apparently).
• I did finally respond to his claimed sources as a reply to his !vote in the comments section. Seeing this, he decided to reply, but interleave his response in clear violation of WP:INTERLEAVE (something @EducatedRedneck previously warned him about already in this very AN/I). Understandably, I reverted this.
• After pleading his case on my talk page (comments are still visible, not gonna diff this one), he creates multiple sections at the bottom of the RFC, interleaving his replies with full quotations of my response. He then comes back to my talk page (again, still visible) to ask would you mind if I deleted the 5 dialogs from the middle of the discussion, they are now taking up space. So basically, WP:INTERLEAVE, but now with a dash of fait accompli. My replies on my talk page are probably showing a hint of frustration at this point.
• Tom then adds an entire separate question to the RFC, this time after thirteen people had already !voted. I reverted that on WP:RFCNEUTRAL grounds, and just the general principle of not significantly modifying an RFC after it has begun. He tried again, this time with a rewording, but it's still not appropriate, so I reverted it. Inbetween that, he came to my talk page (last section, no diffs) to explain himself. Before I could reply, he made the second attempt (previous diff).

Now, I don't know if we're in WP:BOOMERANG territory or not yet, but I've done my best to ignore the things he opened this AN/I with and tried to refocus on the dispute. But we still have another 28 days (unless things die off earlier than that) and we're only two days in to the RFC. I have zero intention of engaging him with his sectional interleaved reply, and I agree with WhatamIdoing that his answers are not appropriate for an RFC but they've already attracted some support so it's a little late to unring that bell. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Need some help. Usually, the RFC regulars (of which I am one, but I've !voted on the content, so I don't want to clerk it as well) are able to handle this kind of problem without needing admin assistance.

The problem isn't that Tom shouldn't be allowed to ask his question; he should be, if he wants to ask that question. The problem is the method he's using. If we want to talk specifically about whether Super floppy should be WP:SPLIT from this article, then that should be an ordinary split proposal, or even a second RFC. It shouldn't be a tacked-on question in someone else's RFC after the Wikipedia:Feedback request service notifications have already been sent out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, for the moment it's removed, but hopefully someone will respond and can shepherd us through this ordeal. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe this reflects the current status:

According to WP:RFCNEUTRAL "ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the rfc tag)."
In my opinion, the RfC is improperly worded and I ask that you improve it along the lines I have suggested, that is expand the choices offered to note that: "3" is the current state of the article and was approved by the unanimous agreement of 5 editors, that "1" and "2" necessitate moving verified material in the current article to either a new article or the variant article, and that "5" is the same as "3".
I would also request you add back the additional question that you reverted, you may wordsmith it you want but I request that you review any proposed changes with me before you post. Your two reverts of my attempts to improve the Rfc were less than 1 hour after my posts. I would appreciate a response to this request in less than 1 hour after you next post anyplace. Tom94022 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

No. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC) (Note: re-paragraphed for readability)

Yes #3 and #5 are the same, but that is because Cole would not change the description of #3 to note that

1. it is the current scope of the article that had been just agreed to by the unanimous consensus of 5 editors, and
2. that #1 and #2 are essentially proposals to WP:SPLIT high-capacity FDs from this article.

I believe these two points are unbiased information that would enhance the discussion. I am concerned that without such information if the consensus is #1 or #2 an editor will use it to delete verified material. How do I make it clear in the discussion - I suppose I could ping each editor in favor of #1 or #2 with this information?

It is only a few days into the RfC so adding this alternative unbiased statement [194] after the tag seems permissible, but I expect Cole would again revert it unless told here, not to so. I am pretty sure was in the proper place as stated in the policy but if I made a placement mistake, I would again appreciate advice as where to place it so that Cole does not again revert.

Finally, the frustrating thing about this continuing discussion is Cole placed the RfC in the wrong article and asked a question not related to the actual content dispute. To reiterate, the edit war at Parallel ATA is over whether the [[Floppy disk] is properly listed as one of the several storage media accessed thru such an interface, as he asserted, {{tqq|(no floppy disk drive ever used PATA)[195] yet indisputable that the several models of high-capacity disk drives could read and write "traditional" Floppy disks as well as their own "high-capacity" floppy disks. A compromise[196] was under discussion at Parallel ATA when Cole made his massive deletion at Floppy disk leading to its restoration and now an RfC as to whether that article should be split.

I suppose one way out of this ongoing discussion is for it to be made clear at Floppy disk that the RfC is a proposal to WP:Split the article from its current scope, #3, into a separate high-capacity article, #1, or incorporate its current high-capacity FD material into the variants article, #2, and I can raise a new RfC at the Parallel ATA article as to whether this proposed compromise is appropriate. I am truly indifferent as to whether the floppy disk article is split into a separate article, #1, so long as the verified high capacity material is preserved, and if the RfC is clarified I will stop editing there but I will then raise a separate RfC at Parallel ATA to answer the still unopened question - so @Locke Cole interested in a compromise? Tom94022 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• If you believed that the original #3 and your new #5 were the same, you really shouldn't have added #5. That can only cause confusion later, and sometimes it splits the votecount, which can result in disputes over whether a consensus can be found at all. A more productive approach would have been to post a !vote that says something like "#3, because that's the current version, it's what five of us agreed to last month over the OP's ongoing objections, and I think it's supported by these sources" or whatever your reasoning is.
• WP:PRESERVE is a long-standing policy. The only question in my mind is which page the high-capacity material will be preserved on. Wikipedia should have good, encyclopedic information about superfloppies. It just IMO shouldn't be (primarily) on the Floppy disk page itself (primarily, because of course related subjects need to be mentioned briefly, so we can WP:Build the web between articles). You are, of course, perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion than mine, but I haven't seen anybody calling for Wikipedia to omit this information entirely.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's tackle those "notes" for RFC choice #3:

1. it is the current scope of the article that had been just agreed to by the unanimous consensus of 5 editors ... Tom, can I ask: do you care what I think, or anyone who disagrees with you, what they think? Because you claim unanimous consensus, but nothing could be further from the truth. And on that point, it's worth noting that Tom presented a false choice ("revert or retitle"), unwilling to consider other options. He doubled down on this by performing a WP:BADNAC (specifically, WP:NACINV) and claimed consensus where IMO, none existed. On top of this, it was after Tom had WP:CANVASSed editors (something an uninvolved editor noted at the quickly shut down AFD I started in response to the canvassing, stating I did see a message near the bottom where 9 other editors were pinged. However, only 4 of these editors are in Xtools Top 10 of page authorship currently. Unfortunately, I believe canvassing may have indeed been attempted in part on that talk page as one of the editors did respond with support).
2. that #1 and #2 are essentially proposals to WP:SPLIT high-capacity FDs from this article If the result of the RFC is 1 or 2, then as WhatamIdoing notes, the content could be WP:PRESERVEd in other, relevant pages. This RFC is supposed to help determine the scope of floppy disk, implementation details can come later once a consensus (if any) is reached.

I believe these two points are unbiased information that would enhance the discussion As noted above, it is very biased, and even presuming it were true, it wouldn't be appropriate per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. ... an editor will use it to delete verified material You do know there is a page history? And as per WP:PRESERVE, other pages where that information could be presented in a manner consistent with the results of this RFC? ... interested in a compromise? I am very interested in the RFC, as biased as some of the answers are thanks to you, being allowed to run its course. I am also very interested in your disruption coming to an end. You accuse me of WP:TE, and then pull stunts like this on my talk page, insisting I respond in less than 1 hour after you next post anyplace. I don't work for you, I volunteer here. Despite what you may think, there are other topics that I'd like to work on, but this has consumed far more of my time than I'd ever imagined. Now I'd recommend considering the words at WP:AOTE carefully. Am I perfect in this whole content dispute? Absolutely not. But repeatedly accusing me of TE, and as noted above, [y]ou keep pushing the "let's have sanctions" argument, to the point of being okay with being sanctioned yourself as long as Locke Cole is also sanctioned, is not going to work out how you hope. Especially since you engaged in more canvassing in the RFC (specifically WP:VOTESTACK)...

Knock it off. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Tom, I think you need to drop the stick. Now. Insisting on being consulted reeks of WP:OWNership, and demanding an answer within an hour of Locke Cole's posting is completely unreasonable. Nobody seems to agree that the RFC needs to be reworded and your changes seem to have been disimprovements. You've made your arguments at the RFC. Step back and let the RFC play out; it will be fine without your intervention. Otherwise, I think a block might be necessary to prevent further disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I give up! Although I have done a lot of editing I am not very experienced in WP:LAWYERING or in generating RfCs, I came here for help in what I see as a problem and got a lesson in both but not a lot of help. So I went back to the article and made the case for keeping the article as it is[[197]], including getting permission from the Computer History Museum to post extracts from Disk/Trend Reports, probably the most authoritative source of flexible disk drive market analyses of the 20th century, which BTW Cole denigrated even though he has been several time pointed to material on Disk/Trend. One last question, can I now point each editor who has already expressed a preference for a scope to my additional discussion and suggest they review their current preference in light of what might be additional information? I would not want to waste more time by getting again immediately reverted by Cole. FWIW, I will place an RfC at Parallel ATA to ask the question that should have been asked. Please archive this discussion after answering my question Tom94022 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I like how even the most basic question of Tom ... do you care what I think, or anyone who disagrees with you, what they think? goes unanswered. Anyways, a couple of things:

• One thing that keeps sticking out at me in all this is when you say things like Cole denigrates many of the RS's as "dead wood", then again with including an extensive "dead wood" (Cole's term not mine) library, and finally which BTW Cole denigrated. First of all, ask Tom where I said "dead wood". He can't produce a diff because I never said that. What I did say was Do you have a more contemporary source, one that doesn't rely on a dead tree edition? (emphasis and Wiktionary link added) "dead tree edition" (or even just "dead tree") and "dead wood" mean different things, entirely. Using dead tree is not a denigration, simply a statement that it's only available on paper, so verifying claims with it is problematic. Tom has persistently assumed bad faith about what I say almost from the start here, as evidenced by this ongoing distortion of what I originally said over a month ago. These are text-book personal attacks. I did express WP:OLDSOURCES concerns, specifically ..., older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. But that's hardly unreasonable when being given the names of sources that are 25+ years old.
• As to Tom's question, ..., can I now point each editor who has already expressed a preference for a scope to my additional discussion and suggest they review their current preference in light of what might be additional information? I strongly urge against this. Tom has already engaged in canvassing repeatedly in the past month, and I fear any message he delivers will be deliberately biased towards his POV.
• FWIW, I will place an RfC at Parallel ATA to ask the question that should have been asked. And I strongly recommend against allowing a dual RFC to be conducted where we could end up with conflicting results. IF the current RFC ends in a way that requires additional input, we can cross that bridge once we come to it. But creating the potential for conflicting results and more places for arguments to continue is not going to help resolve this any quicker. This would be clear disruption if he follows through.

—Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned about the request to point each editor who has already expressed a preference for a scope to my additional discussion and suggest they review their current preference. @Tom94022, I really think that you need to leave the Floppy disk article, its talk page, the existing RFC on that talk page, your proposed new RFC at Talk:Parallel ATA, and even this ANI discussion alone for a while. That means no "pointers", no "discussion", no "suggestions", no comments, no questions, no links, no nothing. Just let the rest of the community sort out what it wants all by itself.

After a decision has been made (or we have a finding of no consensus), we can talk about what to do next. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. If reliable sources say they're a floppy, they're a floppy. Who cares about anything else? ... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the paraphrase, but I don't see much difference between "dead tree" and "dead wood" and why does an RS only available on paper make a claim problematic if you ascribe good faith to the editor?

Cole I read what you say, but I disagree with you, to me it seems that rather than discussing issue in good faith u continue to assert your POV and then take actions unsupported buy any other editor. I've asked for your help in improving the RfC and you simply refuse. So for the most part I try to ignore your assertions. I do listen to other editors, like WhatamIdoing who was discussing a compromise solution at Parallel ATA when you began your editing at Floppy disk.

@WhatamIdoing OK, I will step back from Floppy disk article but there are really two different questions. Regardless of the consensus at Floppy disk it has nothing to do with whether Super Floppy disks or disk drives are properly included as media or devices in the Parallel ATA article. I believe you were one to suggest a separate RfC and that is what I would like to do now, why not? Tom94022 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

About the dead tree/dead wood wording, if you'd clicked through to read the definitions, then I think you'd see a difference:

• dead tree (noun): Made of or pertaining to paper, especially as opposed to a digital alternative.
• dead wood (noun): (figuratively) Matters or things that have become unnecessary or otherwise useless; bloat, dead weight.

Why future RFCs need to be in the future, instead of right now:

• If you want to get a real answer your RFC question, then don't ask it when everyone's already riled up about a different discussion. If you ask it now, you may get responses that amount to "whatever he wants, I'm against it", purely because people are frustrated with you. NB that I'm not saying editors should do this; I'm saying that editors are humans, and that humans have emotions, and that therefore some of them might behave in a way that has more to do with the emotions of social group dynamics than with purely impersonal logic about how to organize Wikipedia's contents.
• Also, there is a logical dependency: if you want to ask whether superfloppies should be mentioned in the lead of Parallel ATA, then it'd be helpful to first have certainty about where the information about superfloppies is going to end up.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Do you have diffs of Tom's canvassing? If that's what has been happening, that's of concern. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Try ⌘F on the words "Especially since you engaged in more canvassing" and "On top of this" to find some links from earlier comments in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

For convenience, I believe this one of the links are what were presented earlier. I did immediately find any diff for canvassing near the passage containing "On top of this", only of another editor claiming there was canvassing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This was the first canvass, and this was an uninvolved editor confirming that it appeared to be canvassing based on see[ing] a message near the bottom where 9 other editors were pinged. However, only 4 of these editors are in Xtools Top 10 of page authorship currently. Unfortunately, I believe canvassing may have indeed been attempted in part on that talk page as one of the editors did respond with support. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all - I missed those above (that's on me). ButlerBlog (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war at Renganaath Ravee

Harithavishnuraj (talk · contribs)

I should have filed this report a long time ago, but unfortunately kept forgetting by the time I got to a computer to do so. Harithavishnuraj and I have been in a slow motion edit war since December at Renganaath Ravee. I initially discovered the page via recent changes and made some significant cuts to unsourced/promotional claims. Harithavishnuraj responded to a single warning in December[198], but since then has silently restored their preferred version of the page over and over. The claims they add aren't supported by the cited sources and fail WP:BLP(namely awards and credits that only cite that a film exists/won an award, with no indication that the article subject was involved). I've left several warnings on the user's talk page as well as attempting to start a discussion at the article talk page here, but since December have received no communication in response other than restoring the BLP violating content. I'm not sure what else I can possibly do past an ANI report at this point.

Diffs of my reverts [199][200][201][202][203][204] though I think the extent of our edit warring is more clear just by looking at the article's history. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 13:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You've left 5 warnings on their User talk page and now brought them to ANI. I think you have brought the article problems to their attention. Harithavishnuraj only edits one article, let's see if they return to work on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Website promo

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

---

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

Hi, There might be a bit too much of PROMO

• here
• there.

As I have already reverted a few months ago (after someone in 2015), please, regulars consider the case. How cross-wiki edits are traditionally handled? @Peacelovefun: are parts of your global contributions ok?

Thanks for your attention and have a nice day. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

For future note, please leave the subject a message on their talk page about the discussion. I've done that for now. jolielover♥talk 04:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Should we do this on Meta too? To this thread? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an ANI discussion on the English Wikipedia, so no, I don't think so. I'm not entirely sure of procedures on Meta but if there's a problem there too, there's likely a venue to bring it up. jolielover♥talk 04:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: @Peacelovefun is an 11 year old account who has made 14 edits and all of the edits are either links to flipscript.com as a source (August 2025), mentions of FlipScript (April 2025) and general citations with FlipScript as a source (January 2015).

Aside from marking non-minor edits as WP:MINOR and potential undisclosed WP:COI issues, this account exists solely to promote FlipScript.com and clearly isn't here to build an encyclopaedia. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, they have one edit not-Flipscript related: [205]. But agreed that this is clearly a promotional-only account, and have accordingly blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Account globally locked by Johannnes89 on Meta. Thanks, The Bushranger, TurboSuperA+, and Woodroar for the help and the reverts. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

166.205.97.96 and Religion as Fringe

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

---

Subj. IP address has been edit warring on Curelom and cumom trying to impose fringe standards on Mormon religious content. Posting here because there's a bunch of different ways to solve the problem of varying levels of effort, and I don't have a preference:

• Anon-block the IP
• Checkuser it against relevant banned uber-Skeptic accounts.
• Semi-protect the article.

I have literally no interest in the article or outcome, just spotted the shenanigans. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a sermon written in 1869 isn't a reliable source for what modern members of the church believe about cumoms. Pratt didn't mention most of the text being attributed to him in that section, meaning it's just unsourced fringe content. It isn't fringe because it is religious, it is fringe because it treats the theory of undiscovered beasts of burden as a possible history of the Americas without attribution to any source. WP:FRIND is useful here. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, this is a content dispute. We should stay on the talk page unless you have some sort of behavioral issue to report here. If you do, be clear about what it is and provide some diffs. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Could some diffs be provided for those of us that are not well-versed in LDS subjects and articles? It's not clear what is being argued here or even where it's happening. In the article? On the talk page? Details, please. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz @Jclemens See [206], [207], [208], [209], and [210], might be violating WP:ONUS there by mischaracterizing of edits. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Onus? Jclemens added "Some other North/South American animal species with which Smith was unfamiliar with including possible beasts of burden such as the llama, tapir, guanaco, or other possibly useful creatures like the alpaca, vicuña, jaguar, or monkey." without a source, as one of many paragraphs of original research. [[211]] The onus is on him to provide a source. They only source is for a block quote speculating that elephants may have been trained to live in wooden submarines in the bronze age. It doesn't mention llamas or alpacas at all. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that text after the IP had been edit warring about it. I don't pretend to take a stance on its sourcing or appropriateness, and wouldn't have brought it here had the IP address not demonstrated such vehement opinion on "Religion as fringe" that I've seen as problematic in other since-banned editors. Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Religion as fringe? That's a funny way to write I have concerns about the addition of unsourced text. Just provide sources instead of imagining my opinion on religion. In fact, please cease focusing on whether or not I may be an atheist. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment. For context 166.205.97.96 brought a deletion request to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD Request: Curelom and cumom. That brought my attention to the article. I noticed a PROD had been declined by Kvng under the rationale that they found sources. I then did a WP:BEFORE and found many sources in google books and elsewhere, so I declined the AFD proposal and removed the template. That's what set the whole thing off. In my opinion, the anon IP did not do a proper BEFORE. I spent this morning proving that by editing it. The article is in a completely different state now as I spent several hours sourcing it. Most of the text was not in fact original research as alleged by 166.205.97.96 but was based on this journal article: Miller, Wade E.; Roper, Matthew (2017). "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives". BYU Studies Quarterly. 56 (4). Whoever wrote the article didn't bother to cite it though, and much of the content was unreferenced earlier. I've also added sources for the various proposed animals that could be curelom or cumon in published Mormon theological texts. There's no longer a verifiability issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I did do a proper before. BYU is not an independent reliable source for issues pertaining to the church that owns them. Do you have have independent reliable sources? 166.205.97.96 (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. One can't write on religion without using religious publications by people practicing that faith. That would be like saying we can't use sources written by Catholics on Catholicism, Jews on Judiasm, Lutherans on Lutheranism, Hindus on Hinduism, etc. The topic in question is about a passage in the Book of Mormon. It would be inappropriate to exclude BYU which has the most respected Mormon seminary in academia from writing on the Mormon religion. Note wikipedia's job is to reflect accurately what the sources say without endorsing a particular point of view. I think the article is neutrally written. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

When the only people commenting on the subject are believers in objectively untrue claims, Wikipedia excises that material. We've always done that. See, for example, the extravagant claims of creationism or reincarnation or transcendental meditation. Religion isn't a pass for promoting pseudoscholarship. jps (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say we can't use Mormons as sources. That's a strawman. But we can't use the church as the only source for an article, that's a sign it doesn't meet our notability standards. Check out WP:LDS/RS and WP:SIGCOV. We also can't balance mainstream scholarship against sermons from the 1800s as a form of neutrality. We would only end up with a false balance. Note, my IP changed, but I was recently 166. 74.254.224.99 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment I'd put money on this IP being the same person as Big Money Threepwood (talk · contribs), who was checkuser blocked last year by Moneytrees. ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

But they're absolutely right in calling out this nonsense. Wikipedia is being used as a Mormon POV Push in these instances. Also, if you suspect this, you should post it to WP:SPI since we aren't supposed to point out connections between IP addresses and accounts, if I understand WP policy correctly. jps (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not a Mormon. I have no agenda here. The reliable published sources say what they say, and have been accurately reported. When we write on religious topics we do in fact need to communicate neutrally and clearly what those religions actually believe. You seem to want to erase the perspectives of religious people about their own religions which to me smacks of anti-religious WP:Systemic bias and WP:Censorship.4meter4 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of being Mormon. I don't know what is going on in your mind. But you are acting on behalf of the Mormon POV in your actions intending on keeping content that can only be sourced to Mormon belief and apologetics. There has been, to my knowledge, not a single outsider who has commented on these two words that are mentioned one time in the Book of Mormon. We do not go into the weeds about religious belief when it has not been noticed by outsiders because to do so would cause Wikipedia to act as a WP:COATrack for such beliefs. That is what you are promoting. Yes, we are biased against obscure religious beliefs. That is how it must be or we would be positively overrun by extravagant claims of increasingly obscure religions. jps (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There has been, to my knowledge, not a single outsider who has commented on these two words that are mentioned one time in the Book of Mormon.

George Seibel's The Mormon Saints The Story Of Joseph Smith, His Golden Bible, And The Church He Founded[212] and Daymon Michael Smith "Fragmenting the Book of Mormon Imaginary" in Scripturalizing the Human: The Written as the Political[213] Did you just not look? Jahaza (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither of these sources is about the sources actually in the article right now. I did see Seibel's 1919 text, and I would be fine to see that source added... but it is a bit obscure and pithy while too obscure to be remarked upon by others, I guess. Mark Twain seemed to have done it better. Just about the only thing we could use it to source would be a single sentence that Seibel said "the work adds nothing to human knowledge..." except the names of these two animals. The implication is tongue-and-cheek, so I guess we could also say that the two words were object lessons about how insipid the Book of Mormon as an invention is? Not sure. The second source I did indeed miss, but it doesn't do much more than report that Reynolds said something. So I guess we can reference Reynolds's Concordance in the article, that's cool. Now about the paragraphs of other text sourced only to the walled garden of Mormon apologetics, what say ye? jps (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I think when you start blanketing religious publications as a walled garden you've stepped away from wikipedia's core goal of covering the sum of all human knowledge, and frankly have stepped into an area of clear prejudicial bias. Inevitably there are going to be topics within religions that are only covered from within. As long as the publications are in the academic sphere including religious seminary publications or by prominent theologians (which these are) I think they can be generally considered to meet WP:GNG and therefore should be included.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside the canard that it is at all reasonable to have a "core goal" such as you describe, Wikipedia' definition of "knowledge" by necessity incorporates those ideas that have been independently noticed. The alternative is to fall into WP:IINFO traps. Hell, we don't even cover all topics within the academic sphere! Do you know how many obscure proposals from various scientific outfits never see the light of day on these pages because no one noticed the ideas? We ask for notability and WP:PROMINENCE for a reason and excise claims which are not noticed on purpose. jps (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that is you are engaging with source bias by excluding the very scholars who dedicate themselves to a particular area of study. If one wants to become a scholar of Mormon literature one actually would go to a Mormon seminary and publish in a journal dedicated to that topic. Excluding those journals would be prejudicial when writing on Mormon topics because it in effect erases the scholars from the literature record. If one were doing a literature review for a journal and applied that practice an editorial review board would reject your paper outright as incompetent. Now obviously there are religious studies scholars more generally and there are apologists from other faith traditions which write critiques of Mormon doctrine, and there are other writers in sociology, anthropology, etc. that may engage with Mormon doctrine on occasion in scholarly studies. However something so esoteric as this particular passage in the Book of Mormon is unlikely to be the focus of exegesis by a non-Mormon, however, within the faith itself it is a topic of scholarly study and one that has invited both apologetic response and criticism. There's enough there to build an article, and do a competent job summarizing what has been published in a manner of a lit review. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The same argument could be made for creationism. To become a scholar on Mormon literature, one absolutely does not need to go to Mormon seminary. We have plenty of sources who are not Mormons who publish in secular journals/books about the Mormon religion. By the same token, we have plenty of sources that are not creationists who publish in secular journals/books about creationism. What we don't accept are creationist journals which document minutiae of the movement no one outside of the creationist bubble cares to discuss. This is how we've done things here for the 20 years I've been involved. To make an exception for BYU Studies is unfair to the creationists and the dozens of other WP:FRINGE religious beliefs that we excise from our pages. Yes, belief that the Book of Mormon is an accurate account of something from thousands of years ago is a fringe belief. Sorry. jps (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You are eliding creationism and young earth creationism. We treat young earth creationism as a fringe scientific view. Jahaza (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh? All creationism whether it be young earth, old earth creationism, or neocreationism is fringe... just as the claim that the Book of Mormon is an accurate account of something from thousands of years ago is fringe. jps (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a false analogy. Creationism is inherently a fringe theory because of the way it tries to impose itself within other academic areas of study and influence the way other subjects are taught such as evolution. The need for scholarly separation becomes more critical at that point because of conflicting accounts in the literature and the clearly divergent ideological frameworks at play across different academic fields. In this case the topic is a low stakes game because inherently it is about the interpretation of a text inside the Book of Mormon, and the way Mormons try to interpret a text that poses challenges. Non-Mormons don't have a need to justify the existence of animals called curelom and cumom but Mormons who believe Mormon doctrine do. There's a reason why non-Mormons can ignore this topic. It has no impact on them. Creationism on the other hand does because of the way it has tried to insert itself into public education and influence the way non-Christians live their lives. It's therefore a topic which invites outside comment/criticism and needs to be compared to a wider epistemology. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon not being written in the 19th Century is inherently a fringe theory. It imposes itself within other academic areas of study and influences the way other subjects are taught such as history and archaeology. The need for scholarly separation becomes more critical at that point because of the conflicting accounts in the literature and the clearly divergent ideological frameworks at play across different academic fields.

Creationism is just as low-stakes as belief that the Book of Mormon is an ancient account. No legitimate scholar takes either claim seriously. There are plenty of creationist claims that creationists have need to justify that non-creationists do not. Take, for example, their attempt to identify all the different created kinds. We don't go into loving detail about all those. We shouldn't go into loving detail about every obscure word coined in the Book of Mormon either.

jps (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't really speak to that as I am not particularly knowledgeable about the Mormon religion and the beliefs stemming from Joseph Smith, or creationism apologetics either. All I can say is that in this particular exegesis of this specific Mormon text there is enough of a lit review to pass our notability guidelines, and I can't see the value of not covering a topic of this kind. From a purely epistemology/cultural anthropology standpoint I find it interesting as an outsider of this religion. I certainly learned a lot about Mormonism just sourcing the article in terms of the way that choose to engage with religious text in relation to the outside world. I don't believe what they do, but I find it fascinating. And to me that makes it valuable enough to be included in our encyclopedia. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It's only enough of a lit review if you accept journals like BYU Studies as being more legitimate than Answers research journal. jps (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I did see Seibel's 1919 text you saw it and you declined to mention it and instead told us that there is not a single outsider who has commented on these two words that are mentioned one time in the Book of Mormon.? That's rather problematic. Jahaza (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, sorry my turn of phrase offended you so. It's not a particularly useful source for an encyclopedia as far as I'm concerned. I was hoping for something rather more present-day and serious. jps (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I just happened to be looking at this noticeboard, and I saw that the IP only recently just started editing in this area. I don't want to say anything redactable, but before I used the GeoLocate tool, I correctly guessed the exact city I thought the IP would be from. Another banned editor I interacted with who came off as combative in a similar way as this IP was from the same city, but I don't recall them editing LDS topics when I first interacted with them. The banned user I had in mind mostly edited AP2 topics. I don't want to say the name because I have not done a thorough behavioral analysis. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

IPs aren't allowed to edit AP2 topics in the first place, so you didn't see me in that tire fire. 74.254.224.99 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, I've read through this discussion on the nuances of writing about religious subjects which is very interesting. BUT this seems like a content dispute, what is the misconduct issues that has brought this dispute to ANI? I'm not seeing why this discussion is happening HERE, on this noticeboard instead of on an article or WikiProject talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Ozan33Ankara

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

---

• Ozan33Ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AlaskaLava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This may sound exaggerating, but it genuinely looks like the majority or at least a good chunk of Ozan33Ankara's time here has been dedicated to cause trouble in articles and talk pages by pushing an Arab origin, generally without WP:RS on their side. Several users have voiced their concern against this. In other words, Ozaan33Ankara is engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

• June 2025: Ayyubid dynasty: They were really persistent on this one:

1. Removed sourced information that the Ayyubid dynasty belonged to a Kurdish tribe [214]
2. Pov pushing an undue Arab genealogy and edit warring [215] [216]
3. Removed sourced info (and edit warring) of the Ayyubids speaking Kurdish as their mother tongue [217] [218]
4. Kept causing trouble at Talk:Ayyubid dynasty: "Ozan33Ankara, it's quite noticeable that all three of your contentions so far on this article relate specifically to mentions of Kurdish identity or language in this article, so edit-warring or deliberately absorbing editors' time with regard to every minor detail pertaining to this issue is not a good look."

• June 2025: Al-Tirmidhi: Used non-WP:RS to push an Arab origin and removed sourced mention of Persian ethnicity [219] because they thought it would be a good idea to engage in wishful WP:OR and deduce that "the term "Persian" could refer to cultural or regional affiliation, but it's not clearly defined as ethnic." and that a Cambridge-published book (The Cambridge History of Iran) is not WP:RS because the authors are apparently Iranian "let's not overlook that the authors making these claims are Iranian themselves.". But didn't Ozan33Ankara just claim that Persian wasn't meant as an ethnicity in this case? So why does the origin of the authors matter? In other words, they're contradicting themselves, not actually caring as long as they get to push their pov.

• June 2025: Daysam ibn Ibrahim al-Kurdi: Tried to forcefully redirect the article to "Daysam ibn Ibrahim" [220] because they didn't want the word "al-Kurdi" (the Kurd) mentioned. Also removing that Daysam was a "Kurdish" Kharjite [221]. Downgrading the article [222] so that they can overemphasize Daysam's origins (that he had an Arab father), not even bothering to make a space between the words, nor write the name of one the authors (Madelung) name correctly. After their claims were quickly debunked by WP:RS, they said they were willing to "compromise" and go with the version provided by WP:RS [223]. I mean of course, that's what we're supposed to do, yet they saw it as a compromise on their part...?

• July 2025: Sultanate of Mogadishu: Edit warring since July 2025 to push an Arab origin [224]. Don't know what this one is about, but I am not optimistic per the rest of the cases here.

• August 2025: Abu Mansur Wahsudan: Downgrades a GA article by forcing a random medieval poem about this figures father being Arab [225], despite the article of his dynasty (Rawadid dynasty) saying that their origins are disputed between Kurdish and Arab, but that they were still ultimately Kurds. Of course, Ozan33Ankara does not care about what WP:RS says and the quality of an article, as long as they get to make x appear Arab.

• August 2025: Samaale: Replacing a genealogy given by a reliable source with a genealogy (an Arab one) that they constructed themselves through WP:OR [226]. After some edit warring [227] [228] [229], they continued this show at Talk:Samaale, engaging in WP:SYNTH [230]

• August 2025: Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties. Edit warring to keep non-Arab dynasties/states, zero explanation with their edit summaries [231]. Only ended up removing the (Rawadid dynasty) (yet another Kurdish dynasty targeted by them, this one has an Arab or Kurdish origin) and Qarmatians (a religious militant organization) [232] after being told that they would be reported [233]. Otherwise WP:STONEWALLING in the talk page.

And it wouldn't be a proper WP:TENDENTIOUS case without some WP:ASPERSIONS, which are quite rich;

• 10 June 2025 "Could you please refrain from promoting a particular narrative?"

• 10 June 2025 "You don't seem to apply the same neutral stance to other pages where their descent dictates their ethnicity in the header."

• 11 August 2025 "Can you stop removing dynasties of Arab origin just to push a narrative?"

To no surprise, they never backed this up with diffs.

Before all this, last time they really edited was back in 2020, I won't include diffs from then unless it requested. Based on all this, I propose a smaller topic-ban that does not allow them to edit nor discuss about any piece of information related to an Arab origin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also add the fact that they went into the Walashma article and removed sourced text that went against the Arab claim for no valid reason. They then ignored the sources cited in the article pointing to them being of a local origin, and added them into the Arab dynasties template. When I removed it, they added it back then removed it later. I suspect they only removed it because I objected.

Also, as for WP:ASPERSIONS, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sultanate_of_Mogadishu, they kept accusing others of "promoting narratives", or "suspect coordinated editing" when users disagreed with them. They were advocating for the entire removal of the early origins section of the article just because it didn't support their Arab argument. Users in the talk page and NPOV noticeboard disagreed with this as there was no valid reason to delete that section. Limegreencoral (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have been on Wikipedia for many years and I am not a new account created to push a narrative. Like any editor, I may make mistakes, but I am always open to dialogue and understanding. Disagreement does not automatically equal disruption, and I have repeatedly shown willingness to reach consensus when differences arise.

• June 2025: Ayyubid dynasty

1. I did initially remove that statement, but I later recognized that it reflected the majority opinion of scholars and have not attempted to remove it since.
2. I believed adding the opinion of certain scholars was permissible after Rawaddid Dynasty page where minor view was added, but I now understand that per WP:HISTRS and WP:UNDUE, outdated views should be avoided.
3. I still disagree with this point because the cited source does not explicitly claim what is stated, it is an interpretation by the original editors. However, to avoid edit-warring, I have left it as it is.
4. Disagreeing in a discussion does not mean I am “causing trouble.” I have left that discussion to avoid constant edit warring.

• June 2025: Al-Tirmidhi: This is not about “pushing” anything, other editors besides me have attempted to add that he was from the Banu Sulaym and this is actually widely known. Even recently someone tried to do that and you reverted their edit. [234]

• June 2025: Daysam ibn Ibrahim al-Kurdi: My initial reasoning was that the article title should reflect the nature of the individual. “Al-Kurdi” implies Kurdish identity, yet some scholars (e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica) note he had an Arab father and just referred to him as Daysam ibn Ibrahim. I later saw that many reliable sources indeed refer to him with the name Daysam ibn Ibrahim al-Kurdi, and I accepted that. This is another resolved issue being brought up to frame me. We even discussed it in the Talk page and reached consensus.

• July 2025: Sultanate of Mogadishu: I was the one who opened the NPOV noticeboard discussion on this matter wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV concern on Sultanate of Mogadishu article: ancestry framing and misuse of city origins, I have not edited the article since, and am glad that other editors, including Kowal2701, have worked toward balanced content.

• August 2025: Abu Mansur Wahsudan: Consensus was reached here. My intent was to include one of the few remaining historical references to him, a poem by Qatran, which in my honest opinion is relevant for readers as it's one of the few remaining historical works on the individual.

• August 2025: Samaale: My edits concerned the genealogical traditions of the Somali clan, not pushing Arab origins. This is similar to the unfounded claim you made on Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties, where you accused me of adding entries that had been present for years and only objected when following my edit pattern.

• August 2025: Template:Historical Arab states and dynasties: I repeatedly invited you to reach consensus, but you refused. You argued the Rawadid should be removed because their origin is disputed, yet the majority view accepts them as Kurdish with possible Arab ancestry by your logic, this reasoning would also apply to cases like the Muzaffarids, whose Arab origin is undisputed.

I have a long editing history on Wikipedia and consistently seek consensus. Disagreement over content is not proof of POV-pushing, and I have made efforts to step back when consensus is clear. My aim is to highlight scholarly opinions in a fair way, not to promote an agenda. I have invited you constantly here, yet since I am here It's fair to speculate that was only done to make a notice on me on this page. By your logic you are WP:STONEWALLING Iranian, Persian, Iran or MENA pages. Based on the above I might disagree, but I am always open to an understanding. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

As expected, taking zero responsibility of your months of disruptive pov pushing, dismissing it merely as “disagreements” or “misunderstandings” (despite them all being the same story, i.e you disregarding WP:RS/Wiki policies to push an Arab narrative), not even reading what WP:STONEWALLING means yet randomly accusing me of. Hope an admin will look into this before you cause trouble to other articles and users. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi (talk). Can you not assume I didn’t read it? And no, I leave disagreements to avoid constant back-and-forth like in the above cases, or I try to reach consensus. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have let many disagreements go. Anyway, I will await the admins conclusions on the matter. Also, if I were pushing an agenda, I would not have asked for your input User talk:HistoryofIran#Request for Neutral Input Regarding Sourcing on Sultanate of Mogadishu Article even though we have disagreed many times. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, either on subjects related to Arab origins as proposed by HistoryofIran, or perhaps even better on ethnicity broadly construed. Despite Ozan33Ankara's ~2300 edits (when their alt account AlaskaLava is counted in), they seem not to understand how WP articles are supposed to be written (i.e., from the sources up, rather than from a specific POV down). I don't believe their lack of understanding is in bad faith, and I do believe that they can become a good editor, but only if they learn it by editing dispassionately in areas where they don't have as high stakes as they appear to have in ethnicity-related articles. Given their sporadic editing history (since 2015), topic ban should be appealable on WP:AN in no less than one year. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per HistoryofIran's long and detailed timeline of events and pattern of disruption outlined above. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on ethnicity broadly construed per HoI and Apaugasma. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
• Since Ozan33Ankara would still have been able to do some of those edits (eg the Ayyubid article) even with a topic ban on subjects related to Arab origins, on ethnicity broadly construed does sound indeed sound better, so I'll support that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBan this is quite the POV pusher that shouldn't be allowed to push more than what is already done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.115.8 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger you missed an 'a', so it points to wrong user 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Lightningpower2005's article creation

• Lightningpower2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lightningpower2005 is an EC editor with 802 total edits, account created February 1, 2025. According to xTools, they have created 61 articles, 2 of which have now been deleted. Many of these are likely dual creation in draft space and main space. Over the past week, I've regularly seen Lightningpower2005's film articles through AfC and NPP. Almost none of the articles are sourced and many contain copyrighted summaries; sourced articles tend to rely on unreliable sources, such as IMDb.

In February, TheDutchArchivist asked Lightpower2005 to "Please attempt to add sources or create sourced articles before adding films to the list". Since then, they've received many notifications on their talk page that their articles are moved to draftspace due to lack of (adequate) sources. On August 17, I told them to Please slow down, informing them about NFILM. The following day, Cavarrone wrote Please don't create unsourced pages. Regardless, today only, they have created I peggiori, which was unsourced by them. Since my notification on August 17, they have created the following:

• Life Is Too Long: Sourced to IMDb and filmportal.de
• Buddy (2013 German film): Sourced to IMDb, filmportal.de, and German Youth Media Commission
• Da muss Mann durch: Unsourced by creator, with CV
• Chick Thing: Single source

Although Lightningpower2005 seems to be starting to add some sources, there are still obvious issues that have are not being addressed after multiple attempts at communication. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, with a warning that the next block will be indefinite. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I will provide additional context on the matter here. I started noticing him when he started editing on the Lists of Warner Bros. International films (I created the lists to avoid clutter on the main pages and all the film articles he created are Warner Bros. films). He kept adding films that have no articles or sources attached, his edits don't even match with the rest of the pages' layout. I told him multiple times not to do edits like that. He stopped after a while, but he would start all over again and I simply gave up reverting his edits. This is most likely a case of WP:CIR if you ask me, I should probably apologize for the considering I kinda cause this, you can blame me for telling him to create these articles.

Also, while I agree that IMDb can't be used due to it being user-generated, the source used in the article isn't IMDb itself, but rather Box Office Mojo (which IMDb owns), which isn't user-generated and is used in most articles, though. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

DarknessGoth777 and banners

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

---

DarknessGoth777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DarknessGoth777 has been warned and blocked previously for adding banners to article talk pages without proper justification. Despite these repeated warnings and block, they continue to do so, and also revert those attempting to remove the banners they add. Examples include adding serial killer to Henry VIII's page, adding WP:LGBTQIA to Scar from the Lion King on the basis that he has been considered queer coded (despite no mention of that existing in the article), amongst many other similar cases.

If you have a look at their edits that have been reverted, the list of these incidents is extensive.

Many editors over multiple years have attempted to warn them to please stop this behaviour, but messages on DarknessGoth777's talk page are mostly not responded to. The last time they responded on their talk page was in 2024. Since the 21st of May 2025, they have been given 8 different warnings about adding inappropriate banners to pages, but have showed no signs at all of slowing down. The 25th of May warning on their talk page involved three different editors all agreeing that DarknessGoth777 should not continue to add banners to talk pages. Just today, they added contentious banners to two articles and reverted someone attempting to remove them. First and Second GraziePrego (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Strange IP behavior

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

---

I have noticed some changes by various IP's, that appear to be involving edit wars, insults, bad words, and sockpuppetry based on user actions, this behavior started at Satire and got worse over their own talk pages leading to get blocked, but yet they continue to ban evade and IP hop can someone take a look at these IP's. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP's also think it is fun to vandalize showing they have the behavior of WP:Go ahead, vandalize in them, they are literally admitting they are vandalizing not caring that it damages the wiki and is a complete sign that they are WP:NOTHERE. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Known LTA-admins please close per WP:DENY — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Fabrice Ram is honestly being a little rude right now...

Fabrice Ram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has made an article called Equipment of the Belgian Air Component.

I nominated it as csd, and the user kept on removing it even though they were the author as shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equipment_of_the_Belgian_Air_Component&action=history saying "Removed deletion notice. No reason to have one."

I reverted it, and then they removed it AGAIN, but this time a revert. So then I had to add it again.

Then later, it got declined because the user improved the article (which is not the problem I will talk about that later.)

But when that happened, the user wrote rude stuff on talk:Equipment of the Belgian Air Component like "Get lost, Wikipedia doesn't belong to you." as shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equipment_of_the_Belgian_Air_Component&diff=1305571160&oldid=1305566333 and there were more rude stuff that @Ponyo redacted and later, @Pigsonthewing informs them at User talk:Fabrice Ram that it was removed because it was not civil.

But two days before @Pigsonthewing notified them, @Fram marked the article again for deletion, but this time an afd, because it was not notable, as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipment of the Belgian Air Component. I made a comment saying "delete" but @Fabrice Ram then replied saying things like "Don't you get you genius", "your opinion has 0 value", "as I TOLD YOU ALREADY, instead of being hurt in your feefees maybe be patient for once." and "delete your message instead of trying to be arrogant."

On @Fabrice Ram's talk page, they literally say "Collaboration indeed. Which is absolutely not what happened with that page, as I explained to one of the harasser what I was doing, and he doubled down. So please feel free to talk to them. The "who cares about Belgium", of a guy criticising the content while not knowing anything about the topic is not what I call respect, and collaboration." as a reply for @Pigsonthewing's notification.

I reported this to wp:help desk and they say if they do one more wrong thing, take action, I would like you guys to take action.

I don't think the punishment should be that bad, just do something please and thank you. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

They even respond to me "Wanna be constructive? Flag each source that you don't like..." at User_talk:Fabrice_Ram#August_2025. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

When someone create a page, the courtesy if you don't like it is to reach out and try to understand.

Right away asking something to be deleted a SECOND time when I already told you what was the plan is plain disrespectful, using arguments that were already wrong the first time.

Saying that a project is not "notable" when in fact it's an article that exists for multiple nations, and as I explained, I was making it along the way.

So yes, attacks, attacks, attacks, critics, critics, critics, but no help to write the article. Is that really what we want?

Instead of having mutual collaboration to write and improve an article, there is a willingness to just delete it as the Wiki police?

Some people spend hours working on BUILDING something, and some seem to enjoy to pass by and just say "delete". And you expect people to not be annoyed by that? I'm sorry, but passive agressive behaviour is for sure not more respectful. It's even worse. So should I ask a punishment?

What's the result? Information potentially being lost for what reason? Lack of patience? lack of communications prior to request deletion of articles, on top of that based on fallacious reasons? Fabrice Ram (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd read up on WP:OWN. Nobody owns an article. Anybody is allowed to nominate an article for deletion should they believe to find a reason. Then a decision is made by an admin, based on discussion or votes. There's no rule or such thing on "people spend hours". You don't own it.

Secondly, those comments are very uncivil. – Callmemirela 🍁 00:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Callmemirela thank you. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Beyond that, you've been around Wikipedia long enough to grasp a basic concept: many subjects just just are not notable. WP:Deletion policy isn't there for the sole purpose of establishing a shooting gallery for Mean!Kids! to shit all over you, but to provide a mechanism to remove those non-notable articles. It's that mechanism which keeps Wikipedia from being Urban Dictionary. (What, would you approve of an article called Equipment of the Narnian Air Component?) Be annoyed all you want, but you're still required to abide by WP:CIVIL, annoyed or not. Ravenswing 02:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenswing thank you too for understanding me and telling @Fabrice Ram that. @Fabrice Ram could do more uncivil stuff, so you should ping @Fabrice Ram so they understand by getting notified. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree with his removal of your CSD tagging, the "club" criteria clearly didn't apply. -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan that still is not allowed. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

By the wording of the policy, you're correct. But since you were so far off on your tagging, I'm inclined to let the removal slide. CSD needs to be used carefully. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

And you say above that the CSD was declined because the article was improved - that's incorrect. Ponyo's edit summary clearly said that A7 did not apply here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan sorry it was a grammar mistake. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A few observations: (1) the CSD removal by Ponyo was more than appropraite because of the errant CSD reason provide (G7-clubs), however since your tagging was clearly an error, you could have retagged with the appropraite CSD rationale. This is unnecessary as I think the current AfD discussionis sufficient for now. (2) The same essentially applies to Ram's removal of the CSD -- I can understand that how in your mind you were probably challenging general notability, that is not the CSD template you used; (3) I can understand how Ram's behavior can be viewed as WP:UNCIVIL, especially if you look through the lens of their talk page warnings and notices; but Rafael is quite WP:POINTY in their interactions with Ram that I believe is making the problem worse than it needs to be. @Rafael may I suggest you don't need to reply to every comment from Ram, and just let his position stand on its own merrits and trust others to see things as they are. I think at most a WP:TROUT is all that is needed for both, at this point since the AfD discussion is well underway. TiggerJay (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC) (ce: changed CIVIL to UNCIVIL, as that is what was intended TiggerJay (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC))

Ok. This might have happened because this is my first major edit war.

(By the way my username is @Rafaelthegreat not @Rafael) ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Kelebaser using AI on talk pages

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

---

Kelebaser (talk · contribs) is a new user. The user's first concern was that the article Marcial Maciel lacked "the most significant aspects of a subject's life" (i.e. his sexual abuse cases that were revelaed practically when he was dying) in the lead section. At this point I didn't notice AI, and I answered that the concerns were already addressed in the article, as this is mentioned in the second paragraph. The second comment ([235]) including multiple non-natural phrases and structures that only an AI bot would use:

• I appreciate your comment, but I must respectfully disagree.
• In the case of Marcial Maciel, a careful review of reliable sources — including investigative journalism (e.g., New York Times, Agence France-Presse), Vatican statements, and peer-reviewed scholarship on Catholic clerical abuse — indicates that his legacy is fundamentally dual
• In sum, including Maciel’s sexual abuse and related misconduct in the opening paragraph is not editorializing or “elevating controversy”
• Etc.

I pointed them out about WP:AITALKs: "Please note that WP:LLM comments are not allowed in Wikipedia, we expect you to comment, even in rough English." And the answer was "Please keep this discussion focused on the article content per [WP:CIVIL] and [WP:NPA]. I am a human editor, and personal accusations are not constructive." ([236]) At no point I said this person was not human, but that answer included AI prompts again: Example: "In contrast, in the case of Maciel, there is currently nothing about sexual abuse in the first paragraph." After some back-and-forth AI returned ([237])

• According to Wikipedia’s guideline on lead sections (WP:LEAD), the lead should summarize the most defining aspects of the article.
• The flip side of that is how things currently stand: the first paragraph only mentions positive aspects, with only the second paragraph addressing wrongdoings.

Since I'm not here to speak with AI tools through third parties, I'm asking for advice in this situation (for future instances as well), or if I should only collapse such sections with {{Collapse AI top}}. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have a PhD in a discipline that requires clear and concise writing. This discipline is also highly logical, analytical, and mathematical. All told, just because I can write well doesn’t mean I am using AI. You have continuously defaulted to unfounded and subjective accusations throughout the discussion we were having instead of addressing the substance of the issues. It is too bad that you are now posting here. Much more is expected of a seasoned editor like you. Kelebaser (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The linked comments, as well as this reply, do not strike me as generated by an LLM. I'm not seeing the hallmarks of obvious machine generated text in structure, tone, or consistency of typographical elements. tony 03:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The reply above does not, but the linked comments are very clearly LLM-generated (and do not read as highly logical, analytical, or mathematical). In addition to the whole tone and the usual twists they seem to make when the topic of llms come up, the opening has a misunderstanding of WP:LEAD and a nonexistent quote. CMD (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"Keeps all existing facts" or variations on it are a fairly common LLM tell preceding suggested rewrites. Kind of a distraction to what appears to be a WP:SPA issue though. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not have any text in what I wrote that I can see as literally a quote. What I did do, though, was post in accordance with my understanding. If I was mistaken that is not an issue from the point of view that I did not plow through in editing the article. I was hoping for a constructive exchange with fellow community members so that if I was indeed mistaken it would be brought to my attention such that a conversation could nonetheless contine. And I did not say that what I wrote was highly analytical or logical or mathematical. I made a note about my background and how it might explain some of my writing style. I appreciate your engagement, and if you look through the discussion carefully you will see that in essence Tbhotch has not been engaging constructively. Kelebaser (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kelebaser -- okay, so you keep dancing around this question -- so it's time to put the question to rest -- have you used ANY computer aided tool/software/program/website to "generate text" from a prompt, broadly speaking in any of your 10 contributions to wikipedia so far? As people fear consequences, let me assure you that the consequences for saying you have is very minor right now, but if "evading the truth" is discovered, the consequences can be far more severe, so please, don't waist our time and be 100% truthful in your answer. TiggerJay (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not dancing around the issue. No one has asked me directly so the opportunity for a straight answer never came up. So I appreciate you asking. And the answer is “no,” I have not had AI think or write things for me. But I do feel very strongly about the topic I was commenting on and was trying to be proper with my language and tone. But this post is now informal, so let me explain something. There is an upcoming documentary on Mariel, I forget where or from whose. It is on streaming. That sparked my interest so I looked ip Mariel on Wiki. On mobile the first thing that appears is first paragraph and then picture. Since the first paragraph said nothing about the sexual abuse my first instinct was that the documentary was sensationalist so I dismissed it. But then I thought how weird so I came back, scrolled down, and saw that the sexual abuse issue had been relegated to later in the entry while the first paragraph was just praise. So I was initially misled and just like me many users can be misled as well. The only thing I was arguing for is not having only praise in the first paragraph and instead incorporating a more well rounded summary which would in fact be in line with the short summary. I have never participated in Wiki in the past but given how strongly I feel about this I decided to jump in. I apologize if given my lack of experience I am not perfect at it but I am trying my best with a very important topic. Kelebaser (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answering plainly so there can be no confusion about your contributions. I believe that this should put the question to rest WP:AGF. The way you were dealt with should really only apply when there is obvious use (not suspected). To be honest, I do NOT see the "obvious signs", however I do see some of the concerns that have been alleged above. Notwithstanding, I think that everyone's time would be better spent to move forward, instead of hyper-focusing on LLM concerns. If you have used any tools, you now know better, and that is good enough for me. At the end of the day, it is your behavior and working through consensus that is the key thing. I think there are some concerns there as well, but they are not soo egreegious that they need to be at ANI and I think dispute resolution is currently a better venue for this to continue at. TiggerJay (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the typos I am on my phone and autocorrect is getting in the way. What got written up as Mariel was meant to say Maciel. That’s the most important correction I hope the other typos do not get in the way of understanding my post. Kelebaser (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, the sole complaint against this editor is the suspicion that he might be using LLM/AI? There is no other editing that could be considered policy vioations? I'm surprised you decided to take this to ANI if this is your only concern, User:Tbhotch? Did you consider taking this disagreement to dispute resolution? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tbhotch - I tend to agree with Liz, this seems primarily a content dispute that quickly devolved down the road of an accusation of a policy violation (LLM in this case). Seeing as how this has all transpired on the article talk page, I don't think ANI was the best escalation venue. TiggerJay (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

[EC] I don't see any dispute at this point since there are no edits beyond the talk page and the AI-like wall-of-not-giving-direct-answers to the original concern. I'm not looking for a block if that's the question, but this comment that was posted after the thread was opened simply indicate that AI won't stop being used, at least for communication. I don't know if the user will rely on it for contributions in the future.

• I don’t see a reason this needs to go to ANI. This is a content dispute, not a conduct issue. We should keep discussing here and aim for consensus on how best to reflect sources and policy. (I don't know why a new person knows ANI or the functions)
• Last but not least, accusing others of using AI is not a substitute for policy-based critique. Since AI seems so much on your mind, for all anyone knows it could actually be you who has been using it all along. Moving forward, it would be appreciated if you kept the discussion focused on content and sources. You are a seasoned editor, and the community expects more from someone with your experience

This tool provided by the FLC indicates AI-involvement, 100% in this last link, so it is not just me thinking that there is a conduct issue here, rather than a dispute. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Please give this a rest. I would appreciate it if instead of trying to “win” our discussion by reporting me you’d instead contribute by engaging with the actual points I was making. Also: just because this is my first time actively trying to make a difference in an entry doesn’t mean that I am not aware of Wiki guidelines. You keep on speculating about me instead of engaging constructively. Kelebaser (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Because this thread is about your conduct and not about Maciel. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don’t understand why you would proceed this way instead of just discussing and trying to arrive at a consensus. I hold no grudge and would be happy to continue discussing in the talk page. Hopefully at some point you decide to engage again there or someone else chips in. Kelebaser (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I would advise you to not rely solely on GPTZero. GPTZero and other artificial intelligence content detection software is known for being unreliable. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There's no sole reliance here. And if it's not llm, that means Kelebaser is making things like "The Wikipedia guideline WP:LEAD requires that the lead paragraph summarize the most significant aspects of a subject’s life, career, and notability" up entirely on their own. CMD (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not put that in quotes, and like I said in an earlier response in this thread I am new at this and that was my reading of the guideline. If I am misunderstanding I apologize, but nonetheless I still believe in the substance of what I was getting at in the talk page. Kelebaser (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It's apparent that Kelebaser has read WP:LEAD and understands it enough to explain the guideline in that way. Also, their writing style may just happen to be similar to that of an LLM. It's probably best to just move on. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 on moving on... After 19 years, if you asked me what LEAD says, in my own words, without using wiki-speak it would probably sound similar to that. And I would expect an LLM to know (and state) that it is only a guidelines, instead of errantly calling it a policy which is quite a human thing to do. TiggerJay (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Knowing what a paragraph is is not wiki-speak. Llms do not know anything, they definitely don't know the difference between policies and guidelines. CMD (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not relying on GPTZero. I am providing an example that indicates potential use of AI. For mere testing, I added this comment and this comment to that tool and gave 100% human. I assume it looks for paterns in language and structure to determine how AI is used. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Because like I noted above my responses here are informal in tone given the context. In the talk page I was aiming for a professional and balanced tone as I was expecting to engage in constructive discussion. Context matters. Kelebaser (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Requesting closure. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Dha.protecter

Dha.protecter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. It all started when the editor added their own original research in the article Islamic extremism by interpreting quotes from the Quran and hadiths on their own and connecting them to the concept without a secondary source (diff). I tried to talk to the editor about it after they restored their original research (diff), but instead, the editor made personal attacks and was unwilling to discuss constructively (diff). Now they have continued adding original research, but this time, from secondary sources (diff). The editor also added it in the article Islamic terrorism (diff). The sources do not even verify the content the editor added. The alleged quote that the editor added from Bernard Lewis is non-existent. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It would have been better to have done this discussion in the talk page of the article, and to have brought it up on WP:NPOVN? The editor seems like a newbie, and we really shouldn't WP:BITE them, even when they are entirely wrong. ANI is a major escalation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Stephen tried to discuss it and was met with insults (you idiot, you can F off. lol) and clown emojis. The personal insults from Dha at Dha.protecter's talk page are unacceptable even for a brand-new user. --tony 14:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah seems like newbie might be WP:NOTHERE when I read the full section.

apologies. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It may seem like a major escalation, but it is common sense to respect others, even though there is a policy about it as well (WP:NPA). I would not mind bringing it up on WP:NPOVN, since I was also considering bringing it up on WP:NORN. I would have moved the discussion to the article's talk page if it was a content dispute only and if we could not reach a common understanding, but the situation got escalated unnecessarily by uncivility and the editor's refusal to continue discussing. I discuss with anyone who is willing to discuss. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the selective removal of my ANI notice (diff) and refusal to take responsibility, as well as a new comment such as this one, it does make me question whether the editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Most of their edits are their own negative views of Islam. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Dianelevien

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

---

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

Dianelevien has disruptively attempted to promote a non-notable subject despite being warned not to several times. They initially created Rudy Hudson in draftspace, and moved it directly to mainspace after it was declined three times. I draftified the article, and they proceeded to submit it over and over again, edit warring over removing the declined AfC templates. Their only attempt to communicate so far was inserting a comment in the article saying something along the lines of "We are working on the article, please don't delete it." They then moved it back to mainspace yet again, so I bought the article to AfD. Instead of participating in the discussion, they initially kept removing the AfD notice on top of the article again and again and again and again (the abuse log has some failed attempts.) They eventually did decide to participate using an LLM, and the AfD was closed as delete. Today, they have recreated the article in mainspace clearly knowing that the subject isn't notable. Dianelevien isn't here to build an encyclopedia and I'm honestly tired of having to deal with this. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Huge unsourced "Sponsorships" sections on many sportswear manufacturers articles

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

---

Alessio Pasquinelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Macron (sportswear) article is a good example of this problem, which can be found in many sportswear and sporting goods supplier pages, in their "Sponsorship" sections (Macron example here.) A whiff of WP:PROMO is detectable here, though I haven't investigated it.

That section is just a list of sports clubs and associations with accompanying pretty little country flags - 99% unsourced, no citations, and the linked articles make no mention of the sponsorship. At the time of writing, I have removed that section, the article currently does not contain it.

I have removed sponsorship sections like that from a number of articles, and User:Alessio Pasquinelli, an editor with 6k edits and ten+ years experience, has reverted me more than once. I have had "discussions" on his Talk page, but I fear they do not have any ability in English. That Talk page indicates a reluctance to communicate on their part on many occasions

What to do? - Roxy the dog 20:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This comment reads to me like the user has been in contact with the companies' owners and making edits on their behalf. The past discussions and warnings on the user talk page about COI/paid editing seem to show this isn't a new issue by any means. In combination with edit-warring (example) and difficulties with collaborative communication, an article-space p-block may be appropriate. FWIW, I have a low tolerance for COI/paid editors who persistently edit-war against good-faith volunteers. Left guide (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I do mean this in the most civil way possible, but is it worth doing something less than an indef when their ability to communicate is so obviously hampered by their poor knowledge and use of English? I can understand why we have a policy of only blocking COIs/paid editors from mainspace when they have the ability to clearly communicate desired edits collaboratively in talk spaces, but here that doesn't really seem to be an option going by their talk page interactions which are incredibly hard to parse. Just for instance looking at this comment on their talkpage from the section November 2018: "first of all, great thank four your notices! I'm an Italian collaborator of this Company, Sorry for mine editing errors, but I don't und what's you mean for dipstrutive changes, I keep my sources on the official way, than I add. Please you'd explane me better. best regards, and thank a lot for your supporting" While I can just about make our their meaning here, it's hard to imagine a scenario where they could usefully contribute on talk pages when suggesting edits that would require any nuance to be conveyed.

To be honest looking at their talk page this looks like an issue that should've been nipped in the bud some years ago but either wasn't raised at the proper venue or was missed entirely. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: I appreciate the civility, but I'm sorry, if one looks at their edits, they're basically edit-warring everywhere they go. If it was confined to one or two articles, I could get behind a lesser sanction of individual page-blocks. What remedies do you propose to help rectify this situation? Left guide (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you've misread/misunderstood my comment @Left guide, I suggested they're indeffed, as in just indefinitely blocked across the board, because I don't see how they would be able to collaboratively contribute even on talk pages given their inability to communicate clearly. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, my apologies. I understand it better now, and will strike the last reply. Not opposed to an indef, but I guess I'm a little more lenient and willing to give them one last WP:ROPE chance on talk pages. Left guide (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems there are three issues at play, UPE, COI and CIR. 1) Re: UPE, it's clear from off-wiki evidence that the editor is an account manager/promoter/marketing develope/advertising agent in the field/subject of their on-WP activity/editing. They have not directly addressed this, nor properly disclosed. 2) Re:COI this has been evident since 2019 per their activity and talk page that they are connected to the articles/companies. 3) Re:CIR, despite the fact that they have been editing English WP for over a decade, their English skills are not developed enough to understand what disruptive editing is, or what constitutes edit warring, or why UPE is highly problematic. These problems have gone on for over five years. To my way of thinking the situation calls for some sort of administrative action, otherwise it will continue. Netherzone (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism returned to Turkish war crimes shortly after protection expired for that exact reason

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

---

• Turkish war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have already put in a request at requests for page protections increase, but I thought I’d leave a message here as well just to be sure because this has been so persistent. There seems to be a strange obsession with IP editors to add an unsourced 5.3 million figure to the late Ottoman genocides death toll, even though the source itself gives a maximum number of 4.3 million. 47.51.12.122 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. By Curbon7. Next time, just put a report in at WP:RFPP/I. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

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

Potential bot and request for assistance

Hi all, I discovered while reviewing edits made to the 2025 Malian protests page a rather nondescript series of additions from this IP address (@2409:40d4:11fe:55b2:8000::) which presented an exceptionally skewed version of events as detailed here, using language that was structured in a startingly similar manner to that used by sweeper bots. Additional edits made by that account only added to that concern, as it appeared that after having been blocked on one front they very quickly began making edits from another, listed here (@2409:40d4:11e6:de84:8000::).

I'd recommend that someone more experienced in the matter look into this, but was otherwise unsure of what to do. Though they received partial blocks from another editor after a series of edits on other pages. What worried me most is that the pages it seemed to focus on were those pertinent to the contemporary politics of semi-autocratic regimes, but which hadn't seen activity from other editors over a significant period of time. Thus I fear this may be occurring under the radar on numerous other pages across the website, though I can't say for certain. Thanks in advance, and best wishes to all.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I reverted some questionable edits made to Template:African coups d'état. Otherwise, I'm not sure what action you are seeking to happen. Or was the goal of this complaint primarily to raise awareness? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

NOTHERE and "legal warnings" from Flanker235

• Flanker235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In September 2023, Flanker235 initiated an ArbCom case request regarding, among other things, a section entitled "Incest" on Talk:John Boyd (military strategist). Flanker said that Wikipedia might be legally liable, asserting that the section might suggest Boyd committed a sex crime (this, of course, is not at all what that section was about). That Arb request was summarily rejected and the supposed legal concerns were further rejected at a subsequent ANI (permalink).

This month, Flanker has resumed their editing regarding the Boyd article. This included a talk page statement erroneously claiming they were banned and again arguing that there might be a legal issue with the talk page. While they maintain that they are making no legal threat, they have described their edits as Legal Warnings. Today, Flanker opened BLP/N discussion on the matter. That was summarily closed as non-applicable (Boyd died in 1997). While archiving the "Incest" talk page section has been floated by other editors (and seems appropriate, given its age), Flanker says that the section and undefined associated material should be removed. This does not strike me appropriate.

During the last ANI discussion, it was understood that Flanker needed to cease the comments about potential legal action. They have now doubled-down almost two years later. Since these are their only contributions over the last 24 months, I believe Flanker is not here to build an encyclopedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Flanker235: even if as you say you are not intending to pursue legal action, on several occasions you have written about your professional qualifications and experience putting you in an expert position to comment on legal issues with respect to reputation and defamation, and then rested on your qualifications to give the opinion that specific editors could be subject to legal consequences, and you certainly seem to be preparing evidence for a legal pursuit on your talk page. This is no different from a legal threat as defined by policy; please remove the "archived legal warnings" from your talk page immediately, and make no further comment on this website about your knowledge of the law. You are welcome to address your legal concerns directly with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team, but you may not do so on the website itself. We see the "but I'm not going to sue!" defence all the time and we are not impressed by it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact I just forwarded the concerns to Legal myself, for advice. I don't think any of it comes remotely close to being a legal concern whatsoever, but I'm also not a lawyer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh good grief. (1) Since the dead cannot legally be defamed in the United States, any such action would be summarily dismissed; (2) @Flanker235, anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can actually look at that section and realize that it has nothing to do with sex crimes. Even were Boyd still living, it is in no wise slanderous, and the very suggestion is absurd on its face. (3) Whatever your other self-proclaimed credentials, you have said more than once that you are not a lawyer. Fair enough: then stop pretending that your concerns have any legal grounding whatsoever. Why you're riding this hobby horse I don't know, but it's time and past time to step off of it and move on gracefully. Ravenswing 19:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Flanker has consistently tried to remove criticism of the article subject. While technically avoiding a direct legal threat, they have said things such as I wouldn’t count on any protection from potential legal problems if I were you. The existence of those two threads, whatever their age, is still a potential problem for you. In any case, their presence does the article no credit. At a personal level, I think it’s outrageous that it was even allowed to remain. This is very disruptive, and is a grossly disproportionate view of the legal risk of the issues under discussion. While not strictly a legal threat, it is having the same effect. I’m seeing a case for a pblock from the article and talk page to prevent further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd go a bit further and suggest a topic-ban from military strategist!John Boyd. I'm not confident a pblock would be enough if they're bringing this up at other noticeboards problematically. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I have concerns that @Flanker235 is using WP:LLMs to make their edits, in addition to the other issues noted above.

Their user page says Per WP:LAW: "Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the countries in which it operates.", which makes no sense because WP:LAW is just a link to WikiProject Law; WP:LAW is not a policy nor a guideline. Hallucinating shortcuts (and explaining the shortcuts) seems to be common (see this talk page post). Their user page also has Markdown and section headers in title case. Flanker235, if you are using large language models or "AI chatbots" like ChatGPT to write comments and/or make edits, please stop. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Not to justify their behavior, but Flanker has indicated that they have more than a little trouble understanding the Wikipedia coding system. I noticed the same peculiar link to WP:LAW and ChatGPTy listing style, but I'm a little sympathetic to them using AI/LLM if it allows them to better formulate statements on their user pages that are appropriately formatted for Wikipedia. That said, any response they make here on ANI ought to be their own words. Since their user page says they're a resident of Australia, it might be a few more hours before a response can be expected. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Their user page says "Per WP:LAW: "Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the countries in which it operates."", which makes no sense because WP:LAW is just a link to WikiProject Law; WP:LAW is not a policy nor a guideline. And it's not simply a case of mistaking the shortcut: as far as I can tell though they format it as a quote this is not in fact quoted directly from any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A "find this exact text" search turned up exactly two results:

1. Flanker235's user page
2. This page, since I quoted their user page

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• On top of his other nonsense, he's also said [238] that he wants the Foundation to acknowledge that my concerns were misunderstood and that the handling of the matter caused unnecessary reputational harm to me as a contributor. I hope he's not holding his breath on that one. If he wants to avoid further reputational harm to himself as a contributor, he should stop muttering about his credentials and making a pest of himself over nothing. EEng 06:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• I have invited the editor to come here and discuss the situation. Despite having an account for many years, they don't seem that familiar with the bureaucratic hallways and rooms of the project. But after reading through all of the information available includuing the aborted attempt at an arbitration case, I don't think this is an urgent situation although the editor clearly feels some urgency about it. I have archived most of the content on the article talk page, mainly because it was more than a decade old. If anything, I see a need for education, not sanctions. They are not going to engage in legal activity, they are just worried about it.

And if the editor does make an appearance, please, ANI regulars, do not be dismissive if they are not knowledgeable about policy and jargon. It's a bad look when approaching editors who are unfamiliar with noticeboard protocol and Wikipedia's alphabet soup of guidelines and policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Liz, you're a saint. EEng 12:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hear, hear! 👏🏻Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Overstated, EEng#s but nonetheless appreciated. Over the weekend, I received a lot of bashing from our new editor who worshiped at the throne of Hulk Hogan so the compliment is welcome. I think we just need to remember how bewildering Wikipedia's policies and bureaucracy are to editors who are not that active and to our readers, too. Experienced editors have a huge advantage in discussions on noticeboards like ANI over editor less familiar with the policy jargon and details. But, again, thank you for your kindness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm entirely serious about this. I've written to the Vatican and the wheels are in motion. You'll be beatified next Tuesday, after which you'll need to choose your degree of martyrdom: torture or violent death (top tier); strict asceticism (middle tier); or denial of desires through fasting and penitent labors (entry tier -- BTW, Wikipedia editing counts as penitent labor, so you're halfway home already on that one). EEng 18:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but the principal issues here don't involve alphabet soup. We can all agree, I hope, that the average reader can grasp that the simple use of the word "incest" in a discussion does not constitute a direct accusation of sex crimes, or that legal issues ought to be in the hands of those with genuine legal expertise, as opposed to "I think I heard this somewhere from someone." (Perhaps Flanker235 would have things to say about me telling him what's what in the journalistic field -- by way of example -- based on that I majored in journalism for a couple of years, nearly fifty years ago, or that I subscribe to several publications.) Ravenswing 16:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did forward Flanker235's concerns to WMF Legal. I'm very heavily paraphrasing their response, but they had not heard of or from Flanker235 when I wrote, but suggested that it was appropriate for us to ask an editor with this sort of legal concern to contact Legal directly. If they receive a complaint that they think warrants action, they would forward it to oversight or Arbcom. They did not believe this was necessary with respect to the material Flanker235 highlighted. I've left a note on Flanker235's talk page suggesting they contact Legal themselves if they still think we're not taking their concerns seriously enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• This user is requesting courtesy vanishing: m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/153197. Phạm Ngọc Phương Linh (T • C • CA • L • B) 13:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has, indeed, made legal threats - saying "this is not a legal threat" does not magically make it not a legal threat when the content is clearly intended to cause a chilling effect. Blocked indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  With that, I think the matter is resolved. Thanks, The Bushranger. As an afterword, I want to emphasize my appreciation that not everyone understands how Wikipedia works (sometimes this is a feature, not a bug). However, when anyone—regardless of expertise—starts mentioning my username in posts stating that I and other editors could be legally liable for something, a pretty significant line has been crossed. Worse has been said to me, but I'd rather my time on Wikipedia be exempt from unfounded legal claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Lebanese Australians

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

---

An IP address 59.102.77.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept adding defamatory content after being warned for the final time. The article is Lebanese Australians Diffs: [239], [240], [241], [242], and [243] As people say, sanctions needed! CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours by User: ScottishFinnishRadish. jolielover♥talk 12:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

2806:2A0:1516:8EEA:0:0:0:0/64

A few weeks ago, I gave the benefit of doubt to the IP. After I reviewed multiple of these edits, I found incorrect assesments of sources which were later removed by other users. Since the content was removed, the IP returned. The last summary "do whatever you want", indicate no intentions to stop. I'm asking 2806:2A0:1516:8EEA:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) to be blocked from Morena (political party) to be forced to edit the talk page. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The user now moved to 189.201.73.190 (talk · contribs), so something else will be needed. Still, this person is refusing to discuss any change even when aware that this discussion exist. For more context, this person has been NPOV-forking multiple Morena-related articles. For example, at the son of López Obrador, the IP added this comment [244] which lacks any relevance to the subject of the article. This has been going for months and the IP doesn't notice any wrongdoings, even when inadvertently deleting text from the page [245][246] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Mario662629

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

---

User:Mario662629 had four of their created pages deleted after nominations and discussions:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 29#Eventual champion elimination seasons (3 pages)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 12#Template:Uw-colorblock (1 page)

This user likely deserves a little warning for creating too many pages that had to be deleted, but they shouldn't be blocked yet. They likely created these pages in good faith. 2001:56B:3FFA:3632:9961:B1C6:E784:2F12 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

A more concerning thing is their block on Commons. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Undisclosed paid editing by User:Areju11

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

---

• Areju11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's talk page is full of COI warnings and requests for them to make paid editing disclosures, but they as of yet have made no disclosures and continue to edit/submit articles.

They've had three articles draftified or rejected via AFC for being promotional, and one speedy deleted:

• Draft:Ibraheem Aljediea (draftified)
• Draft:Authentise (draftified)
• Khaled Azazy (deleted as G11)
• Draft:Joseph Holberg (AfC rejected as advertising)

In another article, Space Cowboy (performer), they added content that was blatantly promotional and seemingly from subject, due to the addition of first-person pronouns and a "fill in the blank here", highlighted in my comment here on their talk page. Nil🥝 22:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

User has now resubmitted the declined Draft:Joseph Holberg, with zero changes. Meters (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:NiamatSidhu at Bojerud

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

---

• NiamatSidhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bojerud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NiamatSidhu has been trying to create a new page about the Antal people (see Draft:Antal (Indian surname)). They have, on one occasion, hijacked the disambiguation page Bojerud to be a redirect to Antal (after a previous IP edit (possibly the same editor while logged out?) had replaced the content of the page. They have been warned that this is a contentious topic at Wikipedia and that they should edit with extra care in this area. They then subsequently engaged in page move vandalism, rewriting the contents of Bojerud (again, using an IP) and then moving the page to Antal (Jat clan in India). Because this is a contentious area, I believe an action stronger than a warning from a fellow editor is in order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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

EnayatSidhu's edit history is of trying to edit Antal (surname) in a similar way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I think at least NiamatSidhu should be blocked as they were warned a couple times about WP:CT/SA and the impacted pages should be EC protected per WP:ARBECR. S0091 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Page move vandalism repeated again today. This time by EnayatSidhu. Possible WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the repeated efforts to recreate Antal (Jat clan in India), I recommend that that page be salted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Salted, and also blocked NiamatSidhu and EnayatSidhu as loudly quacking socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

139.130.59.226

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

---

The following IP address has been vandalizing non stop: User:139.130.59.226. They has been warned and still continue. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at their talk page, the last warning given was over a week ago. @GOAT Bones231012, you are required to notify the user involved when starting a thread involving them. I have done that now. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I just left a warning for test editing, and then saw this afterwards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

They only made 4 edits today, one of which was reverting one of their earlier edits and they haven't edited in hours. "Vandalizing nonstop" is quite an exaggeration, GOAT Bones231012. Did you consider reporting them at WP:ANEW? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok whatever leave them alone, they’re a great editor. My bad, will stop reporting. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No, they aren't a great editor. But this is not an "ANI-worthy" situation, for urgent incidents or intractable behavioral problems. These are edits that were easily reverted by our capable patrollers. No admin attention is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

What are you going on about? I already said my bad and will stop reporting. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe this kind of attitude is something need a warn. You need to be more civil when communicating on Wikipedia or you are highly likely to lead yourself some trouble. And some words like "What are you going on about" it's a little bit touch the line. -Lemonaka 02:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

GOAT Bones231012 and MMaNapoleon450's edit warring on Zhang Weili

GOAT Bones231012 (talk · contribs) and MMaNapoleon450 (talk · contribs) has edit warred a lot on Zhang Weili,
GOAT Bones231012's some edit summaries seemed not to be very civil, for example, My favorite thing to do is revert your edits and although they came with might be a consensus to stop edit warring on User talk:GOAT Bones231012#You win, GOAT Bones231012 still reverted on Special:Diff/1306657087 with an edit summary of "loll"

Nearly all edits from MMaNapoleon450 (talk · contribs) are changing the birthdate of Zhang Weili, this looks like a single purpose account to me. -Lemonaka 02:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Lemonaka, it's not clear to me what action you are seeking by opening this complaint. Why you didn't bring this dispute to WP:ANEW as it seems to involve edit-warring? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe there's something more than Edit warring, @MMaNapoleon450 is clearly not here to build if you look through all their edits. -Lemonaka 04:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, with diffs? What have they done besides changing the birthdate? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Special:GoToComment/c-MMaNapoleon450-20250818234800-GOAT_Bones231012-20250815131000 -Lemonaka 04:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

and this Special:GoToComment/c-MMaNapoleon450-20250815094200-GOAT_Bones231012-20250815073900 -Lemonaka 05:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's an odd conversation. I wonder why neither editor has showed up here at this discussion yet. Maybe, like me, they find the purpose of it unclear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

just because we disagree on what year she was born doesn't mean I'm trolling MMaNapoleon450 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

At least, this is a trolling behaviour, User talk:GOAT Bones231012#c-MMaNapoleon450-20250815094200-GOAT_Bones231012-20250815073900 -Lemonaka 07:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably too early to fully consider, but this feel like to me like a possible WP:IBAN situation. I will say that both were able to work together to help improve Ardlethan, but not well at Zhang Weili. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive infobox changes

TheSouthernIrishman (talk · contribs) has repeatedly ignored talk page requests to not add flag icons to infoboxes with changes like these (among others), showing no concern for MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. It's a clear case of apathy and WP:IDHT. This user even got a final warning about it before making the changes I linked here. When that and all other notices fell on deaf ears, I unfortunately don't believe the editor is willing to listen to anybody, so a block could be warranted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• I put a note on their talk page, linking to WP:Communication is required. We will see if they are wise enough to heed the warning before they go back to editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Evidently that was disregarded as well, Dennis Brown; the user made this change afterwards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits)

Fdom5997 persistent undoings and disruptive behavior + personal attacks

Reported this user five days ago for the exact same reasons. That person didn't listen to my argument and nobody took action to stop them from being rude. For now, Fdom5997 will keep reverting esplly the IPA charts and phonology sections of articles mostly Santali, Korku, Kharia, Gta, Newar for whatsoever reason, which ultimately leads to edit wars and nonsensical accusations/uncivil personal attack against me. I've tried the best to avoid hostile dispute by adding latest concrete sources, hoping it would satisfy the content, but they keep pushing the undo button all the time without proper rationale and any engaging talks. See in the page Kharia language, Peterson (2011:33) shows no consonant called /ɾ/ exists in the language, only /r/, but Fdom5997 aggressively keeps undoing it no matter the misleading and outdated information is presented. Should I have to ask mods to intervene this and address Fdom5997's inappropriate behavior again? Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no hope of determining who is right about the content issue here. What I see is that neither of you are using article talk pages or other form of dispute resolution. Fdom is inappropriately reverting without explanation and some of the edit summaries mentioned in the last ANI ("you're lying", "shut up") are problematic. You are inappropriately labeling Fdom's edits vandalism. My ordered preference of options here would be

1. Withdraw this and resolve to use talk pages rather than revert
2. If that can't happen, implement a two-way interaction ban
3. If disruption continues, sanction both editors

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggested number 1 when this was last raised, but just got a rude reply for my pains. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Manaaki teatuareo No, you are not getting the facts straight, because I looked at those sources and the actual info that they provide is not consistent with what you claim it is. I am reverting your edits because they are incorrect, and misrepresenting of what the symbols are. That is not "vandalism", that is correcting you. And none of the info is "outdated" as you put it either.

And Peterson (2011:29) does describe the symbol as a flap. They do not have to transcribe it with the exact symbol to prove that's what it is. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Fdom5997, can you commit to explaining that in edit summaries when you revert? And will you use the talk page if you find yourself repeatedly reverting? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, can do. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You should always provide a link to previous discussions and you can find it here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Fdom5997 has been modifying IPA charts and phonology sections based on their own original interpretations in opposition to sourced content since I arrived here 6 years ago, this was one of the first editors I interacted with and I had to shout a lot to get them to stop doing it.  Tewdar  07:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Andriyrussu and systemic disruptive editing

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

---

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

The user has a long block log which includes an indefinite block. I do not remember all the details, but I am sure one of the reasons was that they were removing Russian names from the articles on Russian-speaking or formerly Russian-speaking localities in Ukraine. This is one of the warnings I gave to them before their indefinite block, which they reacted on defensively, and at the end of the day it contributed to the block. Recently, they resumed the disruption [247] and went on a mass-removal spray. I gave them a warning, they reacted defensively, I explained, they did not react on my explanation but stopped removals [248]. Today, they resumed the removals (from the very same articles as they did before, [249]). Courtesy ping @Mellk:. On the same day, they disruptively edited the articles on football players (see e.g. this nice edit summary), demonstrating they do not really care about WP:V. as a result, they were warned by @Anwegmann:. Courtesy ping @GiantSnowman:. My conclusion is that they user is net negative in at least two subject areas, and restoring the block would probably be the best solution. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that the Russian names of Ukrainian localities is a CT topic (Eastern Europe) and also a WP:RUSUKR topic, but the football players, as far as I see, is not. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a long history of disruption, and edits like this are really concerning. Given the history and their attitude, I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 20:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Given in their unblock request they promised not to repeat those mistakes, it is clear they did not follow through with this. Mellk (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have interacted with the user in question in the past and can provide some background. He tends to be brash and not particularly polite, he has a nationalistic bent (I believe one of the blocks or warnings he got in the past was for having a "list of traitors to Ukraine" made up of sportsmen born in the territory of modern Ukraine but who had represented Russia – from what I can see he still keeps the list, but under a different name) and a tendency to get into edit wars. He also resorted to socking after being blocked for calling a Moldovan editor retarded, IIRC, during one such edit war.

I know this is not a promising resume for an editor. However, if I you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, I will dispute his characterisation of the user as a net negative in Eastern European sports, particularly football. He is knowledgeable in the area (he is in fact correct about Yurii Tlumak's team), perhaps too knowledgeable – he has created articles about obscure players from the Ukrainian lower leagues that likely are not deserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but he borderline single-handedly keeps a lot of articles about Ukrainian and Ukraine-based footballers up-to-date. This certainly does not excuse being a dick to fellow editors, but I think that this very niche topic area would suffer a big loss if the user were to be blocked. Given his repeat offender status I would not oppose such an action if there is general support for it, but I would like to recommend instead a TBan from towns and cities (an area that I believe needs less combativity, given that we have more than enough with IPs and throwaway SPAs) and some sort of 1RR restriction overall. I would be happy to try to talk to Andriyrussu in that case, to try and let him know what is expected of him. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

May be this could work. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen surrounding this editor's original ban, he was already under an effective 1RR restriction—if not de jure then certainly de facto. So I'm not sure how placing him under a more "official" one now would help change his actions if it clearly hasn't already. I understand your point about his work ethic related to Ukrainian footballers. The problem is not his knowledge or his dedication. It's that he rarely sources his changes. Indeed, with the Yurii Tlumak example, the concern isn't with the possibility of him being wrong. It's with the fact that he didn't provide a source for the edit and then reverted my correction of that fact asserting that if I want to find a source, I have to find it myself. That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. As much as I want to buy into your argument here, I just don't see how any of this is ever going to change. It hasn't now for years, even after a previous indef ban. He hasn't changed his ways or his approach to editing, which he promised to do when he was unbanned. I don't see how leniency here will do anything but prolong a years-long problem. Sorry for the wall of words, by the way. There's a lot to unpack with this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. This! It's a real pity. @Andriyrussu: Do you think you can change? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and, again, being right does not justify him being an ass to fellow users. I repeat that I would not be opposed to stronger sanctions if there is generalised support for it, but I would still prefer it if something could be worked out. At any rate, I have reverted one of his, so to speak, controversial edits and left a summary inviting him to come here. Hopefully he will understand that his behaviour is well below par and we can see if we can work something out from there. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this will depend on whether they decide to respond here or not. Mellk (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for what I did, but considering my contributions (for free by the way) to Wikipedia, you shouldn't focus on just this occasion. I hope you praise the contributors, who sacrifice their free time for Wikipedia, in the same you persecute them for any minor mistake. Andriyrussu (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

"I only put dog poop in one brownie. You should be thanking me for all the rest of the brownies I made for you" is how this comes across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don’t tell me that’s actually a commonly-used English phrase. Seriously though, a wrongdoing can automatically overwrite some of the good things you’ve done; contributors with over 1 million edits have been blocked before. ^EF⁵ 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is exactly zero contrition in this "apology," which shows that there is no hope for a change in behavior and makes rather clear that the promises this editor made in his unblock request were not honest either. Anwegmann (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not, at least I don't think so, but it's paraphrasing something my mom often said, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Your mum put dog poop on brownies? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the language of the settlement name, I don't see the creator putting any source to the Russian name of it when he created the page, so he also edit-warred with me. Without providing any Wikipedia policy he is following, he is following his logic that if Russian is the second most spoken language in Ukraine, all settlements pages should have the Russian name version of it. Is there any consensus on this?

Regarding the lack of source when i updated the player's match stats, why should i put source to every match he plays? The stats are already available in the UAF external link, so it has source always. If a player plays 1000 matches during their career, should the page have 1000 sources?

I respect the role admins play in protecting Wikipedia, and I'm proud of the many positive contributions I've made to the project over time. Everyone makes mistakes - that's how people learn and improve. Comparing one honest mistake to "putting dog poop in a brownie" is unfair and disproportionate, especially given my consistent track record. If mistakes were grounds for bans, many long-term editors would be gone by now. I'm here to build, not break, and I'm committed to following Wikipedia's rules moving forward. I ask for fair treatment that acknowledges both my contributions and my willingness to correct errors - not a permanent ban that discards all of that. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration and second chances. Let's keep it that way. Andriyrussu (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry but this response puts me back to my opinion that the user is not capable of editing constructively and needs an indef block or a community ban. Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You edit-warred with me, so I don't think you can make a decision here. Your opinion is biased. Andriyrussu (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The decision will be taken by an uninvolved administrator, we are all giving our opinions. Mine can be found above. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Andriy, as you can see from the comments above and below this recent message of yours, your replies here do not fill people with optimism. I believe that I have, both here and on your TP, given you credit for your contributions and attempted to stop you from getting blocked, but you are making this very difficult. Rather than show even a modicum of self-criticism, you are trying to justify what is, in practice, clearly sub-par behaviour.
While I can agree that you should not have to provide a source in the article for every mino change to a player’s career, on being challenged by a fellow editor you could simply post a link, in your edit summary, to the page you are using to update the statistics. I would assume that after the second such instance you will not be bothered again (by the same editor, at any rate).
Regarding towns, however, your argument is off the mark. You claim that Ymblanter is following his logic that if Russian is the second most spoken language in Ukraine, all settlements pages should have the Russian name version of it. First of all, this is not his logic, but our Manual of Style recommendations. From MOS:PLACE, [a]t the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary. Secondly, the notability or relevance of these equivalent names is not up to the whims of an editor, and in the case of Ukrainian towns this is not due to Russian being the second most spoken language in Ukraine. Wikipedia guidelines consider a relevant name to be one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Many settlements in Ukraine are likely to fall under one or both of these categories, given that such territories were inhabited, controlled, or even founded by Russians, and that many of them are, for this reason, also best known in English by their Russian transliteration. Some minor places in Western Ukraine probably have weaker links to Russia and can do without the Russian version of the name (bigger cities probably should keep it, however), but for towns in Eastern Ukraine it is entirely reasonable to have the Russian name as well. Bear in mind that this logic also applies to other languages: in your userpage you indicate Tarasivtsi as the birthplace of your FM alter ego, and you will find that, for historical reasons, the Romanian version Tărăsăuți is also provided in the article. You will also find that this logic applies to Russia as well: Vyborg, near St. Petersburg, also has the alternative names Viipuri (Finnish) and Viborg (Swedish), despite the city having been a part of Russia or the USSR for 290 of the last 315 years.
These things are what I mean when I said that you are a bit of a hothead and nationalist sentiment gets the better of you. With some luck it will now be clear that those changes introduced by other users were not arbitrary, nor do they apply to Ukraine alone. An apology to your fellow editors, as well as an acknowledgement that you were mistaken, will likely go a long way in keeping you around and sparing you an indefinite block. I hope you choose to do so and can stick around to continue your work. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I created probably several dozen pages on locations in Western Ukraine; I never add Russian names to those. (Polish and Romanian names can apply sometimes though). Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that they will stop the disruptive editing regarding names of localities, so if there is no appetite to reinstate the indefinite block at this stage, then I think at the very least there should at least be some kind of topic ban from names of localities. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel the same concerning their inability and unwillingness to change the way they are editing. I also believe that this editor has reneged on the "promises" they made in their original unblock request, showing that they were not honest to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

To prevent automatic archivation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody make a decision here? GiantSnowman 14:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

If they are violating the terms of the reversal of their indef then I see no reason why we don't just indef Andriy again. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite Topic Ban from Ukraine and Russia broadly understood

As no admin seems to want to close this with an indef, and the user doesn't seem to understand what the problem is, this should avoid the problem reoccurring, no? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy with the above proposal. Pinging @Ymblanter: and @GiantSnowman: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Suppport topic ban or indef. GiantSnowman 17:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Support either option as well. Anwegmann (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

support indef to stop disruption 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:F134:285D:DA0E:29AC (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Likely undisclosed AI/LLM use to expand articles by Covnantay

Covnantay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over the last year or so, has been making prolific edits considerably expanding articles about widely disparate topics. In all cases, the additions come as massive expansions in a single edit, without any intermediate edits or use of sandboxes. Having scrutinized the text of his recent (15 August) expansion of Chuanjiesaurus [250], Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) had this to say (in a personal communication) The sources do not really support the text, although they cover approximately the same ground. For example: "The Chuanjie Formation preserves a dinosaur-bearing red-bed system with diverse ichnofaunas (theropod and sauropod tracks) and skeletal remains, indicating fluvio-lacustrine floodplain settings during the Middle Jurassic.[4] " – The study instead says that tracks are very rare (a single sauropod track), there are by no means "diverse ichnofaunas". The study also does not have anything on paleoenvironment at all.}. Such hallucinated false claims are typical of LLM-generated articles. When @Gnomingstuff: independently asked Covnantay on their talkpage on the 12 of August whether they were using AI to write articles [251] they did not respond. Given their lack of response or communication, I felt compelled to make this thread, and if they do not respond here then I think that blocking them may be the only viable option. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

In Baruch Solomon Löwenstein, the added text is extremely vague, sometimes saying what isn't there rather than what is. Some things, said in as generic a fashion as possible, don't actually match anything from the two sentences in the Jewish Encyclopedia referenced. In Tom Pilkington added some stilted, also vague text, and cite 5 only actually references "help and encouragement" not the claim attached to it. Nemapogon angulifasciella has the same continued awkward hedging language, with "Specific details about the life history of N. angulifasciella are limited" and "While direct host associations for N. angulifasciella remain undocumented, it is presumed to share similar feeding habits."

There's also some very suspicious botlike behavior. Going back nearly four months, they make exactly one such edit, every single day. There are never any fixes to text, never any follow-ups, ultra-generic summaries. The only time they appear to have edited like a human was on their intial article, Emmanuel Agida, where they filled out the COI disclosure [252] but then abruptly removed it.

I think that a limited block so that they can engage here is necessary. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is an issue I brought up on various biology WikiProjects but nobody's picked it up yet, thanks for doing that. This is kind of a broad pattern of edits to species articles, although it's not always the same editor. (I don't know whether it's a sockpuppet situation or whether this is just kind of what LLMs do to this kind of article.) I've mainly been looking for common AI prose tells so I'm glad someone with experience in the subject matter checked the sources. But there are lots of the former, for instance in this sample diff (note: take all of this in aggregate, on their own they are not necessary conclusive):

• The usual markdown formatting, capitalized subheads, etc. This tends to get bot-fixed which can obscure the main issue.
• Morphological data specific to this species are scarce in literature, though generalized descriptions of the family Ulidiidae provide insight into possible characteristics -- This kind of "specific details are scarce but this thing is kinda like that thing" commentary is common with especially newer AI, I suspect due to some "please find sources" prompt addition. Google AI Overview does it a lot.
• Variations on this sentence seem to show up constantly: As of now, *Amethysa basalis* has not been assessed by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

I don't see any evidence that this is being done in bad faith -- and WP:LLMDISCLOSE is not policy nor is the full essay -- but obviously still an issue. The main reason I asked was because I just want to know what's going on -- like, is this a coordinated project, a class assignment, something like that? What is the prompt (so we can spot typical output from similar prompts better in the future)? The (I think) AI edits seem to really pop off after a certain date which suggests some kind of sudden motivation. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw your original post on the Wikiproject biology talkpage, but I didn't put two and two together that Covnantay was one of the users you were talking about until this post. I think given the ubiquity of LLMs nearly 3 years on from the release of ChatGPT in November 2022 (prior to which AI generated text like this was basically non-existent on the internet), I think this a broader reflection of the pervasiveness of the usage of LLMs in modern life and their use to generate text on the internet, rather than any kind of co-ordinated campaign. People who don't feel confident in their writing or research skills can now use LLMs as a crutch, even if the end result has serious problems. It's probably only going to get worse from here. I suspect the prompt is something like "Write me a wikipedia article on [x topic]", though I haven't tried to generate Wikipedia articles using LLMs myself. Detecting AI generated text is notoriously difficult and as much an art as a science, so some kind of blanket solution to automatically detect LLM-generated articles on Wikipedia is probably not workable unfortunately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• This is a confusing area for both editors and administrators to work in. Policy doesn't outright forbid all use of AI/LLMs by editors but, right now, editors have been blocked from editing on this platform becase of their use of these tools, a step that I think could be contested in an unblock request or an article deletion contested at WP:DRV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Policy does, however, forbid fictitious references and other hoaxes. I don't think anyone has been blocked solely for using AI, without any other issues. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

User has been using an LLM without performing sufficient review on the model's output. I've reviewed a few of their earlier contributions, only looking for hallucinated references:

• [253] – The Business of Western Wear: A History of Lee Jeans does not appear to exist.
• [254] – All ISBNs in the "Selected works" section fail checksumming and do not appear to exist.
• [255] – The Forts of Newfoundland: 1600-1700 does not appear to exist. Neither Plaisance to Placentia: A History of Newfoundland's French Settlement nor the provided website https://www.nfhistory.ca/ appear to exist. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Utrecht does not exist.
• [256] – https://www.remobrasil.com.br/atletas/waldemar-trombetta does not exist, the domain remobrasil.com.br is entirely absent from the wayback machine. The 1980 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events does not appear to exist. https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/summer/1988/ROW/mens-coxed-four.html does not exist and the archive url Covnantay provided also does not provide any information [257]. https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/stories/news/detail/brazilian-rowing-veterans-inspire-next-generation/ does not exist.
• [258] – Unable to determine if Encyclopedia Iranica even has a 2009 edition, no page numbers are provided either way. Neither Geographical Study of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province nor the "Iranian Journal of Geography" appear to exist. https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/Files/fulltext/1385/agriculture_census.pdf does not appear to exist. Islamic Architecture in Iran by "R. Hillenbrand" does not appear to exist. Rural Life in Iran by "M. Afshari" does not appear to exist. https://kohgiluyeh.gov.ir/roads-transportation does not appear to exist, nor does the kohgiluyeh.gov.ir domain. https://www.health.gov.ir/rural-education-report does not appear to exist.
• [259] – https://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia does not exist, and would likely not be helpful if it did.

This combined with their **occasional** *use* of markdown (also see the referenced page ranges on the latter link, useless) means the only good-faith assumption I can make is that they have used a model to generate multiple edits, and performed insufficient review on the output. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• I support deletion of all edits this user made without further checking. My reasoning is that checking every single of these 200+ articles would require considerably more time than the user needed to write the AI prompt to generate these "articles" to begin with, and is therefore not sustainable. I also support a block if they do not engage here and promise to stop these activities. This sort of thing is highly detrimental to our project. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for raising these concerns. I want to clarify and acknowledge a few things directly. Firstly, I understand the issues pointed out about my edits not always matching the cited sources, and about some references being unverifiable. I also now see how my editing style, large expansions in single edits, generic summaries, lack of follow-ups has raised red flags. To be transparent, yes, I have most times used AI tools to help draft text and references and it’s ChatGPT. I did not realize that this needed explicit disclosure under current Wikipedia expectations, and I apologize for that oversight. I also see now that I did not always review the draft text carefully enough, which led to errors and unsupported claims slipping through. That is my responsibility. Going forward, I will stop using AI to generate article content. Only write from reliable published sources that I have personally checked, make smaller incremental edits so that changes can be reviewed more easily. Go back through my edits and fix or remove unverifiable material. I want to be a constructive contributor here, not add work for others. I appreciate the feedback and I am willing to learn and adjust my editing practices so they align with Wikipedia’s policies and community standards. Covnantay (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  This reads like typical model-generated text to me, and I've ran it through gptzero and it concurs. Would you please respond in your own words @Covnantay? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Those are my own words, and I apologize again. I was only trying to expand the stub articles, but I didn’t verify the sources, which was wrong. I will start working on them as I’ve promised. Covnantay (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for raising these concerns. I want to clarify and acknowledge a few things directly.. This is a red flag for AI useage, because this is exactly how a LLM-generated text would start. It's either LLM generated or indistinguishable from LLM-generated, and if it can't be told from being LLM generated it must be treated as if it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree: none of the edits can be trusted. Revert them all. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Noting I've declined a few CSD G15 taggings by Chicdat that referenced this AN/I thread. I've done this with an explicit note that they can be re-tagged if a clearer showing is given of why they qualify for G15, but just as a reminder, G15 has requirements beyond merely being AI-generated, and in my own efforts I was unable to find evidence that would qualify toward those requirements, except for a single nonfunctional link (which is not on its own dispositive). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Fine with me, CSD probably wasn't the best route forward for those considering the non-obviousness. I've reverted the past 120 or so edits of that sort by Covnantay; about 50 or so more remain to be reverted. The additions to the articles contained telltale signs of AI; at least one had markdown. In a few cases there had been improvements since the edit; I refrained from reverting those. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Covnantay prohibited from using AI/LLMs

Given their inadequate and possibly AI generated response to this ANI post, I propose that Covnantay be prohibited from posting AI/LLM text on Wikipedia, including both article content and talkpage comments, and if they continue to add suspected AI content they should be subject to escalating blocks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Even if we accept for the sake of argument that you can write good articles with AI/LLMs, the weight of the evidence here is that Covanantay either will not or can not, and whichever you pick, their AI/LLM tool usage is detrimental to the project and should be ended. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support: this goes somewhat beyond policy, but policy is probably behind the times here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• I would just indef Covnantay rather than banning them from the only thing they've ever been here to do; the most likely result of that is either they violate the ban or walk away entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would support an indef. My personal assessment is that their above response is also model-generated, and multiple detectors I've double-checked with also agree. I foresee future disruption if they are allowed to continue editing. Failing an indef I support barring Covnantay from using LLMs. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  They have made articles on some Nigerian BLP subjects (e.g. Emmanuel Agida), as well as made edits to other Nigerian BLPs that don't look AI generated to me. Emmanuel Agida does strike me as questionably notable though, and I wouldn't be suprise if it turned out to be UPE (see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA for why the references to Nigerian newspapers may not be reliable). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Indef or the very least a pblock on non-talk namespaces. Using LLM to reply to a thread about them abusing LLM is a sign that they don’t care. If they want to contribute via article talk pages, whatever. Northern Moonlight 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support along with an indef on WP:CIR and WP:ENGAGE grounds. The fact that in a discussion where Covnantay is challenged on the use of unreviewed AI output, the user employs obviously AI-generated text in defense and then claims it is not suggests Covnantay does not have the competence to communicate in their own words or the willingness to communicate in their own words -- and both are required. (Moreover, Over on Commons, Covnantay has been uploading copyvios as own work so I suspect if reviewers dig into Covnantay's non-AI-assisted contributions we would find copyright issues too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Highly experimental support. We should try out the topic ban from chatbot-editing to see how it works and how users such as this adapt to it.—Alalch E. 01:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: mass rollback of Covnantay's additions

Given the apparent confirmation of Covnantay using AI/LLMs without checking their output, and the issues therein, including fabricated references, I propose a mass rollback of Covnantay's suspected AI article expansions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - There's a ton of garbage here and very little that furthers the project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support: realistically speaking if it doesn't get done now it probably isn't getting done. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support nuking from orbit. Checking AI additions just in case they might contain useful content is a waste of volunteers' time. Narky Blert (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support: My above review, which was based on a very limited number of their contributions and focused only on finding obvious hallucinated references, indicated pervasive model misuse. I do not believe it is worth editors' time to review and fix unreviewed LLM output. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support No reason to let the slop sit around slopping up the place. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support and suggest a speedy WP:SNOW close as fast as possible. With something like this it's time-sensitive to roll them back as quickly as possible because a well-meaning editor might fix obvious issues without noticing that eg. an entire source is fabricated, which complicates rollbacks. Given that the additions have both obvious-at-a-glance and less-obvious-but-still-very-serious problems, the risk of this seems high. --Aquillion (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  If an editor makes relatively minor corrections to Covnantay's AI expansions then I say a wholesale pre-AI revert is still warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I understand it, at that point it can no longer be automated; someone would have to find and fix such cases manually. I suppose it wouldn't be that hard depending on the scale of the problem, but it's a reason to act faster when dealing with reverting mass-edits. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to do those ones manually. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support including acceptance of some collateral damage. Later useful edits to unaffected parts of articles should be manually reconstructed.—Alalch E. 01:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Assuming it hasn't already been done, it should be done ASAP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support Is there tools available to do mass rollback. Quick as possible. scope_creep^Talk 08:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Largely inactive socks

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

---

User:S and User:Sup3rior are clearly the same person, however they have collectively made only one edit in the past year, so they are unlikely to see or respond to a talk page message. Neither user page makes any mention of the alternative account. Electricmemory (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like legit sock, There's a userpage redirect. -Lemonaka 13:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That makes it legit?? The target makes zero mention of the sock whatsoever. Electricmemory (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you notify the editor that they're the subject of ANI discussion? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Volodia.woldemar persistent unexplained content removal

Volodia.woldemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), hereafter "V", is engaged in a pattern of unexplained content removal. I have repeatedly tried to elicit substantive reasons to no avail: [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], and [265].

Most recently I aired my concerns on V's talk page, but was brushed off.

V was brought to AN3 a few days ago for similar behavior and was told to focus on content. That message did not stick. Less than a day later V was back to deleting without providing any substantive rationale.[266] Previous similar deletions include: [267], [268], and [269]

Of particular concern are edits where the summaries claim the edit is removal of unsourced content, but the diffs show removal of numerous sourced statements and sources. Examples include [270] and [271]

I am the third person who has tried to explain to V that removing content because they just don't like it is contrary to the goal of building an encyclopedia. In keeping with V's pattern of behavior, they brushed off the first attempt by deleting it without engaging. Please help. Uhoj (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There seems to have been a fairly extensive discussion about the edits here on this talk page: Talk:Military–industrial complex - Wikipedia

I'd suggest going over the discussions beginning July 24. If you don't agree with the reasons that you've been given, that's something to take up on the talk page, or possibly through Dispute Resolution. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan and @Conyo14 Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Regarding Talk:Military-industrial complex yes there were some valid concerns about NPOV brought up back in July by editors other than V. I attempted to handle those by adding back in progressively smaller pieces to try and zero in on what was concerning to those editors and what wasn't. The other editors have since bowed out of the discussion, while V seems to have deputized themselves to remove everything that I try to add to this article regardless of content.

At no point during the Talk discussion has V voiced substantive concerns about the content. V's edit summaries avoid engagement with the content.

I previously tried to handle this as a content dispute by inviting editors from the associated category pages and NPOVN. No one showed up from the category pages and while one person did appear from NPOVN to agree with one of V's deletions, they have not engaged.

At this point I have no idea what V's objection is and thus am effectively barred from contributing to the article. That seems more like stonewalling than a content dispute.

I brought this issue here because I exhausted talk and informal dispute resolution and V has taken similar actions on other articles including the use of misleading edit summaries. Uhoj (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Uhoj - I think I am the person you're referencing as the one other person who weighed in at NPOV. I'm busy now but I will try to reply on the MIC talk page this evening PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@PositivelyUncertain Yes I was referring to you. Glad to hear you'll be coming back to the discussion. Hopefully you can help us move past the current all or nothing impasse. Uhoj (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing here seems unexplained. It seems like this is mostly a content dispute. Plus the content you're adding back in appears to violate WP:NPOV, so I'd suggest asking for assistance at WP:NPOVN or ask the associated project. Conyo14 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Honestly, I start to feel a little upset. Editor Uhoj has a problem with his content and editing but is trying to present that I am the only one having a problem with his editing of the page in question. I and the other editors have always explained everything on the talk page on that article and in the edit summaries. But he tries no matter what to push his content into article. I am starting to think that the problem here now is some attempt of something resembling WP:GAME by the editor who started this here. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar If this were about content you could settle it instantly by linking a diff where you gave a valid reason for reverting my edits. That you continue to vaguely wave your hands illustrates the defect in conduct that caused me to bring you here.

Citing WP:GAME is just as bad as previous incidents of wikilawyering where you cited WP:MOS and tried to use WP:BRD as an excuse to revert without discussing. Diffs: [272] and [273] against me and [274] against another editor in the edit summary. Uhoj (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to link to Volodia explaining those three diffs, including a post on the article talk page?

Because your post claims that they didn’t discuss it. This is kind of like your original post here where you claimed they hadn’t discussed anything on the talk page, but everyone other than you could see an extensive discussion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

V justified repeated reverts in those diffs by saying things like "It is simple, WP:BRD." Meanwhile, the text of BRD says "BRD is never a reason for reverting." and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." Wikipedia guidelines say: "An editor is disruptive if they are using a few words of policy to claim support for a viewpoint that clearly contradicts those policies"
That is why citing BRD as a justification for repeated reverts is an example of something other than productive discussion and why ANI is the correct forum for discussing this pattern of conduct. Uhoj (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

None of your claims about what Volodia is doing have been true. This is not at all “just saying BRD”:

I don't understand what is not clear user Uhoj, as you can see, all your text except that 'the 2025 worldwide military spending template' is challenged, and not just text for various reasons, there were WP:MOS issues too. And that template can go to the current applications section maybe. And why is there a section with "other countries" with sources old 40 years. If during the Cold War, for example, there is some valuable content for that era, there is a section about that, if current applications there is a section for that already. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Uhoj, if your edits are reverted, build consensus for the changes at the talk page before reinstating them. Don't reinstate them just because discussion has gone stale, and don't reinstate them just because you don't view the objections as substantive. You can seek out further and more substantive discussion via further engagement at the talk page or use of dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers What strategy do you recommend for building consensus in this case?

V has taken the position that out of >30k of text that I wrote for this article only 1 graphic is admissible. I have attempted to build consensus by adding back in smaller fragments rather than the whole thing. I have asked V six times to provide some reasoning that I could use to put the text into acceptable condition and been rebuffed. What should I do instead to bridge the current chasm?

Regarding dispute resolution, what options are left aside from this noticeboard for conduct and an RfC for content? Uhoj (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Start with the smallest and strongest addition. The one based on the best and most recent source. Review recent discussion to see if other editors have given reasons for opposition to it. Start a new talk page section with the proposed language, tweaked if necessary to address objections. Wait until there's consensus for the addition. Consider an RfC if no consensus develops. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give that a try. Uhoj (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous editor engaging in disruptive activism

Editor 98.153.219.158, who seems to be identical with editor 12.133.95.206, goes through pages with Israeli context and replaces Gulf of Eilat with Gulf of Aqaba and engages in edit warring when reverted. In the case of Nahal Ofir it is double ridiculous, as the term appears in a direct quote set between quotation marks and displayed in a blockquote. The 2 other articles are 2014 Israeli oil spill and List of rivers of Israel, both with strictly Israeli context.

If one style, or one name version, is already in use in one article, nobody is allowed to change it (cf. BC/AD vs BCE/CE): this is the standing rule.

If one name version is more suitable for a topic, it should be preferred - and definitely kept if already introduced. In Israeli contexts, the city of Eilat is the name-giving one for the adjacent gulf. In Jordanian - or if one so pleases, other contexts too - it's the twin city of Aqaba. The name Gulf of Eilat is the only one used in Israeli contexts, is well established (see article where it is part of the lead), and has its redirect, which had never been disputed.

Repeated reverts, againt clear rules & good Wiki practice, must lead to the guilty party being blocked.

The use of multiple anonymous usernames for continuing the same line of edit warring also goes against all rules. The style, wording and parroting of the opposite side's edit summaries clearly indicate that it's the same person behind both anonymous accounts. Btw, both accounts being anonymous, I cannot do more than ping, since they have no talk page.

Wikipedia isn't the right place for political activism. Arminden (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses do in fact have user talk pages, so I've went ahead and notified both of them of this ANI discussion. Also, IP addresses cannot be pinged; the best way to communicate with IP editors is to edit their talk page. Have you discussed the issue directly with the editor? ANI is usually a last resort. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I believe the extended confirmed restriction (and the contentious topic in general) only applies to the Arab-Israeli conflict and not to Israel in general (although Israel is certainly controversial). Nahal Ofir is within the topic area, but List of rivers of Israel does not appear to be within that topic area. You and the IP editor(s) are both accusing each other of being activists without evidence, which constitutes personal attacks; please try direct discussion with the IP editor(s) before requesting a block or posting on ANI, since this looks mainly like a content dispute. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Castel1403

Castel1403 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A case of NOTHERE. New editor keeps removing sourced information and has been warned three times including on contentious topics. Semsûrî (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I live here argument in Turkish [275]. Borgenland (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space until they communicate Star Mississippi 17:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

KylieTastic

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

---

Hi all,

I’m filing this report regarding editor User:KylieTastic, whose reply to my undeletion request included the following:

“…either this is a LLM hallucination or you are really very bad at ‘thoroughly’ reviewing sourcing!”

This comment was part of a response to a polite and good-faith undeletion request I submitted for a draft article about myself (Alexander Wright, a published mastering engineer and writer). I had clearly stated that I was the subject, that the article was written by me (a human), and that I had reviewed it thoroughly for tone and sourcing.

Regardless of their judgment on the article’s merit, this phrasing constitutes a personal attack and violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It is unprofessional and frankly hurtful to be spoken to this way, particularly when I am new to this platform and was under the impression the platform emphasizes civility and neutrality.

The deletion rationale cited GPTZero as evidence, which is a black-box, non-reliable external tool not endorsed by any policy. It was used as the basis for labeling the article AI-generated, which is itself speculative. The dismissive and sarcastic tone compounds the issue. The fact that I am writing this as a human being should go some way to prove that this is, in fact, a real submission.

I’m requesting administrator review of this incident: not to escalate unnecessarily, but to ensure standards of respectful, constructive interaction are maintained.

Thanks, User:User908494849484

User908494849484 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @User908494849484, you had incorrectly formatted this section and failed to notify the user in question as required; I have fixed both issues for you. CoconutOctopus talk 19:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing about KylieTastic's comment strikes me as uncivil. The draft was deleted for being AI, and a read of it by myself shows that the majority of your sources did not actually exist. If you did not use AI to wrote it, can you tell me why your sources were all dead links? CoconutOctopus talk 19:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CoconutOctopus, I appreciate you taking the time to address the formatting and notification issues.

I’d like to clarify that I personally wrote the draft. I am a real person, and I submitted it with genuine intent. I understand the article was eventually removed due to sourcing concerns, but I did carefully check the references, and all the URLs appear to be working on my end. There’s a chance I may have made a mistake while entering or formatting them, especially since I’m brand new here still getting the hang of editing on Wikipedia.

My sources were not all dead links, several were intact. If the links appeared broken when you checked, I’m more than willing to fix or update them. I’m here to learn, and I welcome sincere, constructive feedback.

That said, I do want to revisit and express my genuine concern about the tone of the initial comment I reported, which implied I was “either a hallucination or very bad at thoroughly reviewing sourcing.” It may not strike you as uncivil but it is hurtful to receive that comment. That kind of language feels out of place in a community that promotes civility and assumes good faith. It’s perfectly okay to disagree about the quality of an article, I understand that. But those discussions can happen without sarcasm or personal digs. User908494849484 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

When you say that you reviewed the sources that were dead links, can you give us some more detail on how you're using 'reviewed' in this context? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean to say that the 7 URLs are correct and working on my end, not returning 404s. User908494849484 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the Audeze profile link that's working right now for you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.audeze.com/blogs/audeze-artists/audeze-catches-up-with-mastering-engineer-alexander-wright User908494849484 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's not the link you put into the article, so you can understand why we're a bit suspicious about your claims to have reviewed everything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am trying my best here to format things correctly without making mistakes. As I said earlier, there’s a chance I may have made a mistake while entering or formatting them, especially since I’m brand new here still getting the hang of editing on Wikipedia. User908494849484 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the first two references cited, no matter what I Google, I cannot find an article on Rolling Stone entitled "David Kushner's 'Miserable Man' Is a Sad-Boy Ballad That Pulls You In" nor one on Billboard entitled "How David Kushner Turned 'Miserable Man' Into a Breakthrough Hit". Could you perhaps post an excerpt from these articles? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I checked Miserable Man - Wikipedia and did not find those sources, nor any that appear to be other than various chart positions. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

OP blocked 31 hours for repeatedly deleting this topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

User908494849484:

• You said that you had "thoroughly reviewed" the draft, and in the course of thoroughly reviewing it you managed to miss the fact that five of the seven references didn't lead anywhere. That being so, I'm not sure why you don't think "very bad at thoroughly reviewing sourcing" is a plain and simple statement of fact. In fact I can think of only one other possible explanation, and to suggest that one would be much more heavily critical of you.
• You say that "there’s a chance [you] may have made a mistake while entering or formatting [the references]". The Audeze reference you have now provided differs from the one you posted significantly: it is not just a mistake in formatting, or anything at that level. I am wondering both how you could have accidentally written something so very different from what you meant to write, and how your thorough review failed to pick it up.
• You say "The deletion rationale cited GPTZero as evidence". I am totally bewildered as to where you got that idea from. I deleted the page, and my deletion rationale didn't mention GPTZero; nor was it likely to, as I did not use GPTZero. Perhaps you would like to thoroughly review the deletion rationale. JBW (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposing topic-ban for disruptive user שמי_(2023)

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

---

שמי (2023) consistently disrupts articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today alone, disruptions include edit warring to insert claims based on a depreciated source into Gaza war [[276], [[277] (an article under 1RR), edit warring Gaza Strip famine (also under 1RR), to delete content [[278], [[279]. These 1RR violations are accompanied by numerous other disruptive edits, for example removing content with no explanation [[280] and being highly combattive on talk pages. Again, all of this refers to today alone, but the user's edit history shows this to be a recurring pattern and they have already been warned in the last week, and previously blocked. Everything I see suggests that this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia but instead treats WP as as WP:BATTLEGROUND. To give them the benefit of doubt, I propose a topic-ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in the hope they can edit more constructively in a less contentious areas. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Would like to comment since that this falls under ARBPIA, WP:AE might be a better venue. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am a relatively new editor on the English Wikipedia when it comes to entries dealing with conflict. Therefore, as part of my learning, I have (and I assume will) make editorial mistakes, stemming from not knowing the rules or forgetting them. I have also added information that was received in the entries, which enriched them and did not lead to disputes. שמי (2023) (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I received a ban regarding the dispute. I think it is fair to rule in my case like this before I responded. It is not fair and respectful. שמי (2023) (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator I have topic banned this user from the A-I conflict topic for a period of one year. If any other admins wish to alter this ban in any way they can feel free to do so. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it is fair to rule in my case like this before I responded. It is not fair and respectful. שמי (2023) (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law. If you can provide a convincing argument to not be topic-banned, then it's always a possibility that the ban is lifted. There is zero patience for disruptive editing in this area. THe mistakes you've been making are not technical ones that a new user would have some leeway with, but issues of conduct. You could very easily have been indefinitely blocked, not just topic banned. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal then please do; you can do so on my talk page using this template. CoconutOctopus talk 18:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: This recent edit (after the above) is a TBAN violation. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeat Vandalisim from IP 24.132.237.70

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

---

Over a period spaning from April 4, 2025, to now, the IP repeatedly changed the Gulf of Mexico to "Gulf of America" on multiple pages.

[281][282][283][284] For the vandalism

They were warned several times.

[285] [286][287][288] For the warnings.

The IP is clearly not trying to improve the encyclopedia.

Special:Contributions/24.132.237.70 for the IPs edits

[289] ANI Notice Redacted II (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

2600:4809:21f3:1500 IP (not proper formatting) on several articles being disruptive and not explaining edits.

I am coming from Hurricane Erin (2025) where an IP editor has been reinstating reverted edits to make the article conform to their style preferences [290] [291]. I did some investigations and the IP has edited several other articles in a similar manner. Edits are extremely numerous, so besides reverts, the best display of their behavior is simply their contributions. The IP does change, but they all have the prefix in common that I put as the title. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how IPs work, but I notified the IP who made those specific contributions. Once again, they keep floating around the range. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I have notified the most recent IP used. (Oops, I didn't see that you already notified one of them.) With IPv6, you can usually assume that a /64 is one person/network. Special:Contributions/2600:4809:21F3:1500:0:0:0:0/64 covers their contributions. (Like you said, the first four quartets are the same and are consistent; that's because the IP editor gets assigned dynamic IPs within a /64 range.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, have you discussed with the IP editor at all? Coming to ANI is usually a last resort. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

On one of the IPs I did notify them of redlinks to no response. I feel like I remember a place to report disruptive IPs that wasn't as major, but I forget what it was called. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I might have been thinking of the vandalism noticeboard, but that would probably be inappropriate as the nature of the IPs edits don't seem malicious (though they are not necessarily helpful). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I was about to say basically the exact same thing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The IPv6's first edit went against MOS:1STOCC with "FEMA". In the second edit, according to MOS:/, they were wrong about "Kearny/North Arlington" but correct about the unspaced "Carlstadt/Moonachie". WP:ANV can be contacted if/after someone goes through their edits and finds more evidence to issue {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-mos2}}, {{uw-mos3}} and {{uw-mos4}}. 174.138.218.72 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article for a couple of weeks until the storm is out of the news and less of an attention draw. Leaving this open in the event someone feels like actions against this IP are merited. Star Mississippi 17:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

71.187.226.120

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

---

71.187.226.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Persistent disruptive editing (reporting abandoned accounts to WP:UAA), and maliciously changing redirects, despite this, I've reverted them to revisions made by expeirenced editors. Here are the diffs: [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], and [303]. I've tried to resolve the dispute in one of the redirects' talk page, but they kept claiming that I should revert it to the "false" version. I literally don't know what to do. I've read the policies, but still don't know what to do. (Urgent as this IP keeps making unconstructive edits, see their contribs) CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Purely to add context: Editor 71.187.226.120 is repeatedly attempting to connect a redirect for a former name to person's current name and wikipedia article which would appear in conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender_identity since this person was never notable under their prior name. Driftingdrifting (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! This IP address is still pending sanctions. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

IP is now making legal threats and should be blocked at this stage. Patient Zero^talk 02:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

They were blocked before by Gadfium for exactly this issue, so this is recidivism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

IP Violating WP:CT/ARBPIA Rules

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

---

The user with IP 91.2.140.73 was warned about making edits on WP:CT/ARBPIA topics, but continues to do so, having made at least five related edits since the warning was issued, including some vandalism. אקעגן (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

blocked for 31 hours. Star Mississippi 17:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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

User:CEA-2013, User:68.192.209.131, User:WayneJrTheArch reported for WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV

• CEA-2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.192.209.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WayneJrTheArch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editors are adding promotional material from their own website theaocc.org onto American Orthodox Catholic Church and have revealed a deliberate lack of maintaining WP:NPOV. Editors have completely disregarded the meaning of being on Wikipedia, for their own self-promoted ideas. Also requesting temporary page protection. AndreasMar (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

These accounts have very few edits, AndreasMar. Can you highlight, with diffs, the edits that have you concerned and caused you to come to ANI and open this complaint? You need to provide evidence for your claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

For CEA, they are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church&oldid=1305365360, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1305366252, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CEA-2013&oldid=1305405184. For the IP they are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1306968051. For WayneJr they are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1306971293. According to the external website Wayne is a part of that self-promoting continuation. These other diffs show blatant self-promo and POV-pushing Liz. AndreasMar (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Please hide this revision

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

---

here: Special:Diff/1307395346, they replaced the infobox image with the flag map of germany in ww2, please hide this revision, thank you. ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

•  Done. I've deleted the offending revision. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 101.100.177.230

101.100.177.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing disruptively since March 2025. They have been warned on their talk page multiple times, by myself and Remsense (talk · contribs). This user has been insisting on a narrow interpretation of the term "Teochew", despite its established meaning in English, for example:

• Special:Diff/1305481635/prev
• Special:Diff/1284720941/prev
• Special:Diff/1278574204/prev

On Talk:Swatow dialect and Talk:Teochew Min, I have tried to offer multiple paths forward, and QuestionableAnswers (talk · contribs) has very thoroughly explained the established nomenclature in the field and suggested productive ways that the user could contribute to Wikipedia. The user has ignored all of our suggestions and continues to edit disruptively against consensus. Their last reply to me was "i do not understand what seems to be the issue, but you don't live in Shantou", showing refusal to engage constructively. [Update: they are repeatedly providing sources that directly contradict their claims, see Talk:Swatow dialect for details.] Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC) [updated 10:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)]

Thanks for bringing me into this topic.

Hello~ fellow Wikipedian, I am here in good faith and in honesty believe my contribution are utmost sincere without bias and with my knowledge of contribution and without disruption.

First topic is about Swatow dialect, which is spoken in "Swatow City" also known as Shantou in Mandarin. People in this city speak a different language or a dialect as compared to the other counterpart.

Second topic is about Teochew dialect, which is spoken in "Teochew City" also known as Chaozhou in Mandarin. People in this city also speak a different language or a dialect as compared to the other counterpart.

The issue here is Freelance Intellectual do not agree with me, and claims that both are speaking a language or a dialect belonging to Chaozhou or "Teochew", which I believe it is misleading to the public as it is clearly a different language and dialects, hence I sub-classify it into Southern Min. Which in comparison to Portuguese and Spanish which are of different dialects or language, but related within the same language family which is the Romance language.

From my point of view, user Freelance Intellectual is trying to explain that Swatow dialect is a dialect sub of Teochew, from public point of view claiming that Portuguese language is a subset of Spanish language, from my point of view, this is generally consider bias and misleading, every language and dialect has the right to be recognized, instead of suppressing them, just like how Catalan language are being viewed as Spanish, hence is what lead me to start the contribution of my knowledge into the article.

Correct me if I am wrong, I have engage constructively with you several time, and explained to you, but there are numerous time that have deleted or undo my works. Those contribution took me hours of my time for contribution, and I have provided a very clear explanation to provide idea and explanation why this dialect or language differs from one another in which you do not agree and had it erased, which shows that you do not respect my contribution or the local traditional culture in Shantou such as:

The Acceptance of people in "Swatow" which resides in Shantou City, which obviously spoke a language called Swatow dialect, you have therefore explained to me several time, which I get it, but is causing a very bias and misleading information to the public such as claiming that people in "Swatow" are speaking a language or a dialect that is spoken in "Teochew" aka Chaozhou, instead of Swatow dialect

So correct me if I'm wrong, people in Shantou City speak Shantou dialect aka the Swatow dialect, right? so it goes the same as people in Chaozhou City which speak the Chaozhou dialect aka Teochew dialect right?

but user Freelance Intellectual is not even a native person from Shantou, or rather he is an Malaysian Chinese from Malaysia, I have explain several time that I am only contributing what I know about as I speak the languages as my native tongue. So my question to you is how much do you know about Shantou city or Swatow dialect? If so, why are you erasing my contribution? You do not accept my point of view on Swatow dialect and you might not even speak this language natively and your dialect which is spoken in Malaysia is not even the same as what we have spoken in Shantou, So in what good faith are you erasing my contribution?

I urge you fellow Wikipedian, I am only contributing in what I believe in my utmost good faith and my knowledge into Swatow dialect, and without any bias or misleading information.

I do not seek to disrupt any article in Wikipedia but rather share what I know to the fellow communities who seek knowledge, rather than restricting knowledge.

101.100.177.230 101.100.177.230 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base article content on contributors' personal knowledge. All article content should be cited to published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Greetings! Yes it was cited before, together with reference and cited to the published reliable sources from a University in China, Freelance Intellectual had undo my contribution previously as he did not accept the view of the differences in Swatow dialect as being an independent dialect or language of Southern Min.

• Special:Diff/1287287848/prev

I have provided the source of the language back then but the contribution was then reverted by Freelance Intellectual as he simply do not accept the view of Swatow dialect as being an independent language/ dialect or rather he believe that this should be sub under Teochew.

https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/shan1244 = Language spoken in Shantou as Swatow dialect. - exist as a language uniquely spoken.

https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/chao1238 = Language spoken in Chaozhou as Teochew dialect. - exist as language uniquely spoken as well.

Fellow Wikipedians, as the reference above. Swatow dialect is not a subset of Teochew dialect.

However they both belong to the same parent language family called Southern Min.

Alternatively, Teochew dialect is also not a subset of Swatow dialect, as you know it has different accents, different usage of words, some differences in grammar.

As i understood that User Freelance Intellectual spoke a dialect or language called Penang Hokkien which is spoken in Malaysia which is part of Zhangzhou dialect belonging to a language family called Southern Min. https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/fuji1236

in which we have some similarities in comparison to Portugese language, Spanish language, Catalan language and belonging to the same language family which is the Romance language

But all these dialect and language are different from one another.

So the language the he spoke in Malaysia would not be the same as the language spoken by a native Shantou people.

I urge you fellow Wikipedians, every living language has a right to exist and to be recognized. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course every language has a right to exist (that's why I care about these articles!), but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs about how they are named. The first reference is irrelevant for language naming, and Glottolog contradicts your position, as I pointed out on Talk:Swatow dialect. And as I asked you before, please stop (incorrectly) guessing my ethnicity, nationality, linguistic background, and gender. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response!

If you sincerely care about this article as stated; Swatow dialect then why does it look so empty and lack of information?

Where are the History section? Oh the last I remember I wrote a whole lot of bunch but it was erased at the end of the day because you did not agree how Swatow dialect sound or seems as you pictured, then and a few months had passed, still the same, the page looks like it is lack of information and vague.

When are you going to expand more information and write more on this article instead of leaving it looking so dull. Swatow dialect a few more years down the road? are you going to contribute and expand on the history section? the samples of how the dialect/language sounds like? March - August 2025, I've been waiting for you to contribute for 5 months, and nothing is being actioned.

If i were to contribute? you would have it erased.

If you cared about this article you would have contribute more instead of making it look plain boring and lack of information, instead micro-guarding this lack of information article.

but instead you are more interested about how you want the public to perceived your Malaysian food cuisine Apam balik how is it spelled in Malay language or how is it named in Malay language or Hokkien or how you want it to write and to sound it, which I find it both of us have degree of difference in terms of care and interest within these article. I sincerely doubt that you have any interest to developed this mis-information and lack of information Swatow dialect article, or at least if you really care then where is the samples? the pronunciations? how do you say "how are you" in Swatow dialect? Do you even speak Swatow dialect? If you do, then could you name a few examples? please illustrate to the public, if i am not able to contribute, then surely you can!

If you sincerely care about this article you would have invested more of your time into this article Swatow dialect rather than Apam balik.

I am genuinely concerned about how long will this information mis-guide the public for, 5 month? then turning to years? So when are you going to start to contribute?

I've waited since March 2025. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT may be of help to you. If you're knowledgeable on this subject, find and use (cite) excellent WP:RS on the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll add a gloss to that. Local or expert knowledge may prompt you to create or improve an article, and that's all. Then you go and do the research. I've lost count of the number of times I thought a topic was notable, or a fact incomplete or wrong, but couldn't prove it. So, don't write the article, or post on the Talk Page in case someone in future can prove or disprove it. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm almost certainly the only longterm editor to have been born and raised in Plympton, Massachusetts. I may be the only longterm editor who's a resident of Northampton, Massachusetts. Odds are strong that I'm the only one who's ever been a season ticket holder for the Springfield Falcons hockey team. Does that make me, by definition, not only knowledgeable in all three subjects, but give me a veto over every other editor's contributions to those three articles?

I really hope your answer is "Of course not" ... especially since one of those three statements is a lie. We have, in fact, no way of knowing whether your "personal knowledge" is truthful or factual, any more than you have any way of knowing whether mine is. This is why we rely on so-called "reliable" sources for information on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 10:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I may be the only longterm editor who's a resident of Northampton, Massachusetts. Seems unlikely given the percentage of the population with PhDs. Nice town, though. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, if there were over 275,000 active editors who'd been around a decade or more (which overestimates the case by a factor of 100 anyway), Northampton's percentage of that total would be 1. Herewith the pedantry of this morning. Cheers! Ravenswing 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@101.100.177.230: "Correct me if I'm wrong": the correction (which has been explained to you several times now) is that the English term "Teochew" refers to all Chaoshan dialects. If you are acting in good faith, please self-revert your most recent edits. The terminology could be changed if a new consensus is reached, but please accept that the consensus may not match your personal preference. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Freelance Intellectual

My question here to you is why the English term "Teochew" why not "Swatow" instead?

Swatow is also within English dictionary. Christian bible was written and published as Swatow dialect

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Swatow_dialect recorded and published in 1883.

English-speaking-foreigner first arrived in Swatow at Port of Shantou, rather than Teochew which located 60km deep inland.

The English term "Swatow" would be more appropriate to refer all Chaoshan dialects. Rather than "Teochew" given number of reason below:

Reason 1. Population speaking-wise

Swatow has a population of 5,502,031 people.

Teochew has a population of 2,568,387 people.

how can a bigger-speaking city population speak a language or dialect that is 60km apart?

Reason 2. The people in Shantou aka "Swatow" does not speak Teochew dialect, Chaozhou, as they have their own unique accents, slang, dialect as a result of different exposure of environment and historical factor.

Reason 3. It is spoken in two different cities, how can it be the same? you tell me, you speak Penang Hokkien which have some Malay language element, Teochew dialect would have their own language element such as some degree of She people influence, and Shantou dialect which was initially a Southern Min dialect and the language was form as a result of the opening up of Port of Shantou in 1858 which brought in Hakka immigrant, Teochew immigrant, Putian immigrant and other immigrant from Fujian as a result of formation of Swatow dialect in which this dialect is somewhat mutually intelligible to your Penang Hokkien, as compared to Teochew dialect

Reason 4. Shantou is literally an immigrant city that was formed during Qing Dynasty, a melting pot of immigrant from all over China, which creates its local unique language/ dialect which is Swatow dialect and you know it is different as compared to Teochew, The Hakka plays an important part as well into developing the Swatow dialect, it is not mentioned in the article because you consequently revert my edit, hence I couldn't contribute all this information into Shantou dialect under the history section which is missing.

I am acting in good faith, the public deserve to know this valuable details of information, if this is self-reverted back to what you want as "Teochew", then this particular information you are pointing to is inaccurate, bias and mis-information towards public. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Hello Kwamikagami! It would be great if you can assist me on this, how can a native people from Shantou people cannot call their own language Swatow dialect, but being forced by a group of individual or person who is not from native Shantou being force call and use Teochew dialect? does it make sense to you? what is your thought and input on this, would love to have your input.

"quoted from your previous comment"

Names of languages don't correspond to administrative borders. French isn't spoken only in France, and not everything spoken in France is French. There's no reason we can't do the same with Chinese. I don't understand this idea that there are human beings who speak languages, and then there's this other species of Chinese beings who speak dialects. So "Chaozhou dialect" is the dialect named after Chaozhou. It doesn't matter that it's also spoken outside Chaozhou and that not everything inside Chaozhou is Chaozhou dialect -- it's just a label for the thing, which being linguistic is defined linguistically. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

both Teochew and Swatow are dialects* of a language sometimes known as 'Teo-Swa', but which here on wp-en we call 'Teochew Min'. it is admittedly not ideal to use the same name for both a language and a particular dialect of that language, and it sounds like that is your point of contention. [we have something similar with English English.]

however, we generally chose names for articles based on wp:commonname. if you wish to change the name of the article -- perhaps to something like 'Teo-Swa Min' -- then you either need to [a] show that that name is justified by wp:commonname, or [b] convince people that the current name is undesirable for some other reason -- such as being confusing or ambiguous. if you get consensus to move the article [= change the name], then everyone is happy. however, if you try to impose your will without such a consensus, then you'll just get blocked, and you will no longer be able to improve the articles on Swatow and related dialects.

*if i understand correctly, speakers of Teochew and Swatow dialect can understand each other, and so are 'dialects' rather than 'languages'. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

But what if both Teochew and Swatow are both categorized into a language called Southern Min instead of Teo-Swa or otherwise the very confusing term 'Teochew Min'?, would categorizing these both language under Southern Min works as well?

Thanks for sharing your input on this.

• Yes Teochew and Swatow dialect can understand each other at a certain degree, which is similar to Portuguese language and Spanish language which both could understand one another at 80%, however there are differences in terms of usage of words, unique accents and tone, which is why these language exist separately with its own identity.

101.100.177.230 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

That would be Original research 37.186.45.17 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

indeed, if there were no Teo-Swa branch, and Teochew and Swatow were independent branches of southern min, then we should indeed reflect that in our articles. but you would need a reliable source that establishes that fact -- being a native speaker wouldn't by itself give you any particular insight, and even if it did, we would need something verifiable — kwami (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this! @Kwamikagami

@Freelance Intellectual Can we agree on this?

Teochew and Swatow is an independent branches of Southern Min.

Instead of strongheaded wanting Teochew to sub under Swatow, or Swatow sub under Teochew, it doesn't seems to add up. I will put up the reference within the article to support this. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

that contradicts all chinese sources that i'm aware of, but i'm not aware of many — kwami (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It also contradicts the sources provided by 101.100.177.230 (talk · contribs), which takes us back to the topic of this discussion: their disruptive editing. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

You are also not answering to my question, are you going to improve this article? Swatow dialect, may i kindly ask? its been 5-6 months of time had pass, but I see no improvement in the article.

I see you have a lot of interest in Malaysian food Cendol, Bakkwa, Apam balik, why not divert those interest in Swatow dialect history section? Would be helpful to those people who want to know more. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

For reference, we had an editor who got blocked here a few sections above for pig-headedly displaying the same attitude in their editing. Borgenland (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A little while earlier this month, the good folk who grok regex provided some layperson explanations here. In return for their gracious help, I think it only right that A language is a dialect with an army and navy gets a mention here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shirt58: If I understand correctly, you're an admin, right? Could you please have a look at this case? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

(Coincidentally, I've also helped with regex at Module:lang-zh!) Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Your Module:lang-zh! is based on Teochew dialect you've got into the wrong page, it shouldn't be in Swatow dialect, that is what happen if you micro-guarding and article for a long time, stubbornly fixated into your idea into getting people in the public mis-informed, and mis-guided, it is like North Korea what ever the dictator says, decide what it is.

And that is why back to the topic of this ANI

I wrote "I do not understand what seems to be the issue, but you don't live in Shantou"

that is to indicate that you do not know a lot of things about Shantou and you even sub Swatow dialect under Teochew dialect as what you claim you do, which is wrong, can you claim that English is a dialect of German? see? it creates confusion to the public, mis-informed.

I ask for apologies if this seems to be a negative connotation and hurt your feelings. But this information you shared in regards are simply mis-information to the public in which every "good person" or "hero" in a movie will do his best to help as he cannot stand if there is unrighteousness, un-justification or mis-information, which is why a random person like me helped to contribute when he sees something is amiss, I cant just sit back and relax and do nothing, most of my people in Shantou are not good in English, they cannot contribute towards Wikipedia as it is banned in China, refer to Wikimedia censorship in mainland China. Hence there are a lot of misconception and mis-information.

Hence I'm doing it in good faith without bias and mis-information.

I hope all the Admin can look into this, thank you! Wikipedians Admin. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the right action to take now? As can be seen above, this user refuses to accept responses from other editors. The article content they disagree with is supported by citations (in particular, supporting Teochew Min, Tan (2018) devotes several pages to the history and varying denotations of the term "Teochew"). They have been disruptively editing for several months now, despite attempts by multiple editors to engage with them constructively, and they are ignoring Wikipedia policies, especially WP:OR and WP:CON, as well as relevant guidelines like WP:UCRN and WP:NC-ZH. Unless they demonstrate a change in behaviour, I believe we should unfortunately consider a block. Since this is an IP editor, it might be appropriate to apply a time-limited partial block of Teochew-related articles. The IP has a small number of constructive edits to non-Teochew articles, e.g. Special:Diff/1291278781/prev. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not seek to disrupt edit on Teochew-related article, it is not my native language/dialect.

My natural concern is Swatow dialect, as this is my native language/dialect.

I do not have any varying denotations of the term "Teochew", similarly I just want "Swatow" to have the same level of existence as "Teochew". Can't a dialect co-exist same level as the other? Where is the equality in this may I kindly ask?

Teochew dialect exist because of its environmental factor and it is because of its history, and i don't intend to change what it is.

in regards of WP:OR I did cite it up with original research but however you had it removed,

refer to

Special:Diff/1287333478/prev

In regards to WP:CON, I did ask for your consensus, how ever you ignored my request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swatow_dialect

In regards of WP:UCRN

Isn't "Swatow" commonly recognizable names?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Swatow_dialect

If WP:NC-ZH. Then it should be 汕头 aka Shantou or Swatow.

Fellow Wikipedian, if you kindly take a look into this article

Swatow dialect it doesn't have much information and a lot of areas still can be improve and it falls within my interest that i would like to contribute to share to the members of the public, knowledge is not restriction but to share.

As compared to Teochew dialect, if you visit this article, you've got a ton loads of information inside,

Once again fellow Wikipedians, I urge you, every living language has a right to exist and to be recognized. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

In regards to WP:CON, I did ask for your consensus, how ever you ignored my request.

They replied on the talk page five times. Am I missing something? Northern Moonlight 23:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Could an admin please review the above? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

archive prevention 2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Content dispute

Yes Admin please review the above, let me give you all an example.

Teochew dialect:

1. How are you? 乐后波？（How it sounds in Teochew dialect) written in English romanization would be "Ler Hou Bou?"

2. Fish 鱼 are pronounce as "Her" in English romanization.

3. Pig 猪 are pronounce as "Ter" in English romanization.

4. Cook 煮 are pronounce as "Zi" in English romanization.

5. Greetings 汝好 are pronounce as "Ler Hou" in English romanization.

Swatow dialect:

1.How are you? 鲁侯伯 (How it sounds in Swatow dialect) written in English romanization would be "Lu ho bo!"

2. Fish 鱼 are pronounce as "Hoo" in English romanization.

3. Pig 猪 are pronounce as "Too" in English romanization.

4. Cook 煮 are pronounce as "Choo" in English romanization.

5. Greetings 汝好 are pronounce as "Loo Hoh" in English romanization.

Ladies and gentlemen, above are the example to show you all the differences between Teochew dialect and Swatow dialect and should be not be sub to one another, i have given an example before in Special:Diff/1287333478/prev, however Freelance Intellectual dictates that it should sound the same, acting as if he own the article, as he constantly mention to me that no one owns an article in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swatow_dialect , but clearly his action seems to me he own this two and no one can add in additional information, make any edit or changes pertaining to this article. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

you don't seem to understand the difference between a language and a dialect — kwami (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "方言" or otherwise known as dialect in Chinese can be confuse sometimes, and can be confused as language too at times for Non-Chinese language speaker.

Min Chinese would be the language you are referring to.

For instances the Hainanese, Fuzhou, Taiwanese, are all related to Min Chinese,

then under the Min Chinese language, we have all the Min dialects, Northern Min, Puxian Min, Central Min, Eastern Min.

Now particularly we are focusing on Southern Min, it has broad-range covering Fujian's Zhangzhou dialect, Quanzhou dialect, Xiamen dialect, and then Guangdong's Swatow dialect, Teochew dialect, Haklau dialect in which they too are all belonging to Southern Min dialect.

Rather than categorizing Haklau dialect or Swatow dialect into Teochew dialect of Southern Min, would you think otherwise if public would seek deeply of this information or otherwise an explanation? Why the Guangdong's Southern Min cannot exist independently and should it be sub-conjugation to a 60 kilometer-away or 400 kilometer-away to a city called Chaozhou or otherwise known as Teochew in Southern Min dialect/language.

What would the native person in Shantou think if you were to do that?

What about the other Guangdong's Southern Min dialect? such as Zhanjiang dialect?

Alternatively is there a better to explain the differences and avoid misunderstanding between these two? @Kwamikagami 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

no, Teo-Swa is the language i'm referring to -- minnan is not a language, just an ISO code. you've been asked for a reliable source that Teo-Swa does not exist, and as far as i can tell you've failed to provide one. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Teo-Swa ”潮汕“ language do exist outside of Wikipedia. However in Wikipedia, it no-longer exist otherwise alternatively the term of Swatow is missing or Swa is missing, and its naming is not indicated within the article showing that Swatow contribution is insignificant to its contribution towards the language/dialects.

However, Swatow dialect is definitely a dialect of Southern Min, here are my source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Southern-Min-language. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Where in the source you cited does it say that? Northern Moonlight 16:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

now you're just lying. Teo-Swa is a branch of minnan in multiple standard classifications.

you also continue to confuse the name of an article with its topic. those are two different things. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami

Hi Kwami, how is that so? When an individual spoke Southern Min language in Shantou and they can somehow understand. It would be so if they wouldn't understand.

Southern Min is a language, Agree?

under Southern Min, you've got several classification under it.

such as;

1. Teochew dialect

2. Swatow dialect

3. Zhangzhou dialect

4. Quanzhou dialect

5. Amoy dialect

It is a very clear-cut, how could it be confusing as the name of the article?

Being said, I've explain the difference between Teochew and Swatow dialect as above.

You've created the Teo-Swa branch back then also known as "Chaoshan Min" Special:Permalink/1205561838, now it is no-longer exist, otherwise it is now renamed as "Teochew"

Now my question is why bother retaining Swatow dialect if you think it belongs to Teochew dialect Might as well sub it under Teochew indefinitely.

and that is definitely what @Freelance Intellectual want as his main objective is to propose a merger to erase Swatow dialect.

You are a linguist-expert, you decide what's best in keeping dialects alive. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami You may read back what you have wrote back in 2024. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

that's not the classification of southern min, it's just a list of dialects

you want to delete useful info because you're not getting your way? we can't take you seriously if that's your attitude. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Then do kindly explain to me what is the classification of Southern Min.

Swatow dialect is a language/dialect of Teochew dialect which is a language/dialect of Southern Min which is also a language/dialect of Min Chinese language/dialect?

I am not deleting any useful info, I am just trying to make sense of "current issue" which is a thing doesn't make sense.

Special:Permalink/1205561838 <= I mean this was a very good article. Why was it deleted? 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

read the article on southern min — kwami (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

you know why it was deleted, you directed us to the merge discussion — kwami (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I did, thank you for pointing that out.

Southern Min

Hokkien under the Quanzhang division (泉漳片)

Teochew, Swatow, Jieyang, Haklau Min under the Chaoshan division (潮汕片)

-Copied from Southern Min page-

Now we realized that Chaoshan Division is missing, because it was deleted.

Hence all the dialect that was previously classified under Chaoshan division.

All now sub to Teochew dialect. (Which create the confusion)

Swatow dialect , Jieyang dialect , Haklau Min dialect sub under Teochew dialect( Which is not a language by itself because it is a dialect of Chaoshan(deleted) of a dialect of Southern Min.

Isn't that confusing? 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Chaoshan Division is not missing, it's the article that you are arguing about. again, you need to distinguish names from content. until you do, we can't discuss the issue intelligibly.

if you want to rename the article, start a move discussion and present your evidence. we've said this before. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

i've unsubscribed to this thread. there's no productive discussion here. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You may read on Haklau Min why is it not classified as Teochew dialect and why is the classification is classified as "Disputed", there is an explanation and on-going discussion, but however it did not happen in Swatow dialect yet. @Kwamikagami 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Propose 12-month block

Their behaviour in this discussion alone has shown their repeated failure to listen to other editors, and repeated failure to provide sources for claims. Given their insistence on making a point about the naming of Teochew that is both contradicted by sources and goes against consensus, and given that their disruptive editing has been going on for 5 months already, I propose a 12-month block on Teochew-related articles. For the sake of concreteness, this could comprise: Teochew Min, Swatow dialect, Teoyeo dialect, Southern Min, Haklau Min, Min Chinese, Chaoshan, Shantou, Chaozhou, Jieyang, Teochew, Teochew people, List of Teochew people, Teochew culture, Teochew cuisine, Teochew porridge, Teochew opera, Teochew string music, Teochew woodcarving, Teochew Letters, Teochew Romanization, Guangdong Romanization, Peng'im. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

support TBAN for preventing dubiously sourced information from getting into the encyclopedia 2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Freelance Intellectual, what you've proposed is a WP:TBAN, not a block. But I've simply blocked. You've got a month of respite. If they come back and keep trying to push their favoured interpretation without any sources, or baselessly speculate about editors' origins, please let me know and I'll extend it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Thank you.

On a procedural point, I saw on WP:BLOCK that blocks could apply to specific pages, which is why I proposed the above. Is that not a usual procedure? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the technical limit on the number of pages you can be p-blocked from is, but I know I'm not going to bother typing all that out into the block form, so it's well past the "asilvering limit" if not the technical one. -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Haha, I see. I don't know what the interface is like, so that's good to know! Freelance Intellectual (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:PBLOCK#Technical considerations:

When blocking a user from editing specific pages, there is a limit of 10 pages that may be specified.

I counted 23 pages listed in this proposal. Left guide (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide, I believe that's per block, not in total, and since we now have multiblocks, theoretically the limit would be higher. -- asilvering (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Derosse, conflict of interest editing, and personal attacks

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

---

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

Derosse is an editor who is exclusively adding references to a new 'AIVO Standard' which relates to optimizing content so AI systems will find it. [304], [305] A lot of these additions relate to blog posts and websites written by Tim de Rosen, and they have warnings on their talk page about LLM use and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

Given that, I was surprised to see them accuse another editor of COI editing. They've also written a few social media posts attacking that editor off-site, which I will not link to per WP:OUTING. I commented on this at Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization. The responses I got included accusing me of spreading FUD, Baselessly asking if I habe a COI, stating that This would tend to incriminate you as a serial complainer who derives sadistic-like pleasure from interloping in multiple subjects and Talks, and that It's high time that Editors like you were held to account and named and shamed. Since they requested that Let's place this conversation in the public domain where you can't hide behind Wikipedia's "Wizard of Oz" curtains I have brought this matter to ANI for further comment. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I need to address both the misrepresentations in MrOllie’s statement and the pattern behind them. On references and sources: I have indeed added material related to AIVO Standard. That is because it is an emerging topic in AI visibility and optimization, not because of any intent to advertise. In early stages of coverage, secondary sources often include blogs, trade sites, and early adopters. To frame this as “exclusively promotion” ignores both the normal trajectory of new topics on Wikipedia and the fact that I have engaged in content-building discussions across related articles. On COI accusations: MrOllie describes my raising COI concerns as hypocrisy. That is misleading. When I question an edit’s neutrality or potential COI, I tie it to observable patterns. MrOllie, by contrast, makes repeated insinuations about my motives without evidence. This is precisely the type of personalized argument WP:COI is not supposed to become. On off-site conduct: The suggestion that I am “attacking editors off-site” is vague, unsubstantiated, and inappropriate to bring here. If there is concrete evidence of improper off-wiki behavior, it should be presented clearly, not through insinuation. As written, this skirts close to WP:OUTING itself, which warns against dragging unverifiable off-wiki material into Wikipedia disputes. On conduct and pattern of escalation: MrOllie emphasizes isolated words I used in frustration (“FUD,” “serial complainer”), but omits their own history of aggressively escalating content disagreements to ANI. This is not the first time MrOllie has sought to discredit editors by framing content debates as behavioral issues. That pattern risks chilling contributions on contested topics and turns ANI into a forum for silencing rather than resolving disputes. On proper venue: This case is about sourcing and due weight, not misconduct. The correct venue is the article talk page, where sources can be evaluated against WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:DUE. Bringing it here with sweeping accusations about motives, COI, and off-wiki behavior does not resolve content issues — it inflames them. I will continue to contribute constructively and welcome content-based critique of sources. But I will not accept being misrepresented at ANI as a way to shut down discussion of an emerging topic. I also think it is time ANI considered whether repeated filings of this nature by the same editor are themselves disruptive.

Derosse (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to link to your off-site postings yourself, then everyone can judge. Otherwise, I'll be happy to email a link to any admin that needs one. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several points in MrOllie’s statement mischaracterize my edits and intentions. On sources: I have added content about the AIVO Standard because it is a topic receiving increasing discussion in AI visibility and optimization circles. Early coverage is primarily in trade sources and specialist blogs, which is typical for new fields. If editors believe particular sources do not meet WP:RS, they should be challenged and improved on the article talk page rather than framed as evidence of “promotion.” On COI: Raising the possibility of COI is not a personal attack when tied to observable editing patterns. By contrast, repeated insinuations about my own motives without evidence crosses into WP:NPA territory. On off-wiki claims: The suggestion that I am “attacking editors off-site” is vague, unverified, and skirts WP:OUTING. Unless there is clear and relevant evidence, this sort of insinuation should not be brought into ANI. On conduct: Yes, I have used strong words in frustration, which I will avoid in future. But MrOllie has a history of escalating content disputes into ANI filings, which risks chilling contributions and shifting focus away from content. On venue: The dispute is about sourcing and due weight, not misconduct. The proper venue is the article talk page, where sources can be assessed under WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NOTE. ANI should not be used as a shortcut to win content disputes. I will continue to work collaboratively on content and welcome policy-based critique of sources. But I also expect reciprocal adherence to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Derosse (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

One thing I want to address is your interpretation of COI as linked with ill intent. That is a common misinterpretation. COI is a set of circumstances and a claim of COI is satisfied by identifying the qualifying circumstances. Conversely, being a good person does not resolve a conflict of interest. It still exists and must be handled appropriately. As WP:COI states Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You also state that you’ve “filed” your COI. I can’t find that. Can you point to the edit where you reported your COI? Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven’t created a formal COI disclosure section on my user page yet, so you wouldn’t find one there. I did acknowledge my affiliation, but I recognize that’s not the same as a permanent COI statement. I will add a proper disclosure to my user page to avoid any confusion going forward. Derosse (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I have  Blocked Derosse indefinitely, as just about all of their edits have been promotion of "AIVO", and they have also submitted LLM-generated drafts and posted LLM-generated comments (including in this discussion) without disclosure despite repeated warnings. — Newslinger talk 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent genre warrior

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

---

Quickymatter12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been mass-changing genres across multiple articles, with no sources or discussion. They even add in a hidden message in these edits: "<-- Genres are sourced in the "musical style and influences" section-->", even though they don't provide sources, and in some cases, no such section exists in the articles.[306][307][308][309] They have continued to edit in this manner,[310] even after a level 4 warning,[311] with the first warning being issued back in June,[312] and are causing significant load of work for other editors to undo. Magatta (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not exactly accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet or anything, but I would like to bring up that this user account was created only a day after User:Leon s redfield was blocked, also for genre warring (and things like personal attacks but mainly genre warring), in the same subject area (rock songs). I'm not noticing any other similarities between the two editors though. So this is just a mere observation. λ NegativeMP1 00:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Due to Quickymatter12's repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced genres despite being warned repeatedly, I have indefinitely blocked them from editing encyclopedia articles. They are free to make well-referenced formal edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing, Harassment, BLP targeting, and suspected ideological bias in Holocaust-related BLP article editing

We do not entertain personal attacks lobbed against editors you are in a dispute with. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To Whom It May Concern-

I am reporting an egregious case of harassment and ideologically motivated editing on Wikipedia, affecting a biography of a living Jewish Holocaust educator (article: Dov_Forman). An editor with an editing history that suggests NPOV issues in the form of white-nationalist sympathies disingenuously tagged the page as COI and harassed me when I questioned the designation, accusing me of being the subject of the article.

Summary:

An editor has repeatedly accused me of being the article subject (which I am not), despite my clear denials on the talk page. The same editor has repeatedly added a Conflict of Interest (COI) tag without evidence. In close timing, another account removed large, well-sourced portions of the article without consensus. I am concerned these actions are coordinated.

Based on my review of their editing history, I believe the primary editor may be acting with white nationalist/white supremacist bias, particularly in articles about demographic change and "white decline." I am concerned this bias is affecting their editing on Holocaust- and Judaism-related topics and may be a factor in targeting both the article subject and me.

Evidence:

Harassment and targeting of me:

[313] — Accusation by Tweedle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I am the article subject. ("@Abed Kative are you Dov Forman as well?") (WP:BLP, WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HARASS, and WP:AGF)

[314] — Tweedle doubling down on accusations (of arbitrary removals and spamming) after my polite denial and references to the talk page and threats/bullying to cement his way ("I am not sure why you would bother about lying about this…you just removed it arbitrarily…Spamming secondary sources is not an argument…If it goes further than this, I will start a dispute resolution") (WP:BLP, WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:AGF)

[315] – Another editor (IP user 2A0A:EF40:224:FA01:E96C:344C:8B32:6736) accuses me of being the subject of the article, and accuses the subject of the article of using the page as his LinkedIn. (WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, WP:BLP, and WP:HARASS)

Targeting of Holocaust-related article:

[316] — Original COI tag addition to Holocaust educator’s biography, by Tweedle.

[317] Repeat COI tag after my edit, by Tweedle.

[318] — Repeat COI tag despite prior explanation and denial by coordinating account, by IP user 2a0a:ef40:224:fa01:e96c:344c:8b32:6736.

[319] — Large, unexplained removals of well-sourced content, incorrectly alleging sourcing issues, by Smartse, who engaged on the talk page without acknowledging the policy violations by the other editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1305679656 – Again large removals of well-sourced content, including the death of a Holocaust survivor and context that was reported in multiple cited secondary sources, by Smartse.

Ideological bias evidence of editor Tweedle:

Adding "displacement" to white demographic decline definition, disguising this change under the editor summary "added additional fertility table in for the UK section, i might make a image for this section as well" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065727897 - January 15, 2022

- Added "and displacement" to the definition of white demographic decline

- The term "displacement" is commonly used in white nationalist rhetoric

- Added fertility tables broken down by ethnicity to emphasize differences

Focus on "indigenous ethnic White British" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1064452001 - January 8, 2022

- Emphasized decline in births to "indigenous ethnic White British parents"

- Retained "indigenous" to frame white British as the legitimate inhabitants, implying that "indigenous white" people are being replaced by other races

Framing immigration as "mass migration of non-whites" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065595419 - January 14, 2022

- Used the loaded phrasing "mass migration of non-whites to the Western world" in a negative sense and blamed "liberalised immigration policies"

- Focused on racial categorization of immigrants

Denmark edit on limiting non-Western residents and use of highly problematic sources (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1062956956 - December 31, 2021

- Cited friatider.se, a known right-wing populist editorial stance, frequently criticized for spreading disinformation and promoting propaganda narratives aligned with the Russian government

- Emphasized Danish policies limiting non-Western residents

Systematic removal of Cuba demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1066044514 - January 16, 2022

- Removed section about Cuba's white population decline

- Selectively removing data that doesn't fit the supremacist narrative of Western white decline

"Old society in its own homeland" quote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1063329294 - January 2, 2022

- Added David Coleman quote about "marginalization" of "old society" in its "own homeland"

- Classic white nationalist framing of demographic change as invasion/replacement

Amsterdam demographics overhaul https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1276079622 - February 16, 2025

- Replaced integration information with detailed immigration statistics, creating a narrative about decline of “indigenous” Dutch

- Removed content about Dutch language courses for immigrants

- Focused exclusively on tracking foreign-origin populations, including framing Islamic populations as a problem

Using outdated "coloured" terminology Multiple edits in June 2024:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229262920 (Coventry)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229263472 (Sheffield)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229263643 (Glasgow)

- Added 1950s data using the offensive term "coloured people" without proper historical contextualization

Historical data cherry-picking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1225127429 - May 22, 2024

- Added 1981 demographic estimates specifically to show higher historical white percentages

- Created 40-year timeline emphasizing white population decline

Islamic population focus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1228549591 - June 11, 2024

- Selectively added Muslim population estimates while removing other religious data

- Pattern of emphasizing Islamic demographic growth

These edits demonstrate a clear pattern of using Wikipedia to promote white nationalist narratives about demographic replacement, while maintaining a veneer of factual accuracy by citing sources. The user systematically emphasizes white population decline, frames immigration negatively, and uses loaded terminology aligned with far-right ideologies.

Request: I am asking for administrator input to (a) address the harassment/personal attacks, and (b) review the disruptive editing pattern.

I am asking you to investigate whether this conduct violates Wikipedia’s harassment, neutrality, and BLP policies, and whether there is coordination between accounts. I am especially concerned about the impact of possible extremist ideological bias on articles about Jewish history and the Holocaust.

I have already tried to resolve content disputes via the Talk page [320] or an RfC, but the conduct issues persist and need admin involvement.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Abed Kative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abed Kative (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Long-winded replies like this that accuse other editors of an agenda not only won't be taken seriously, but might reflect poorly on your own conduct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Bintang3

Bintang3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am reporting a personal attack made by user Bintang3. They called me a "crazy person" in this diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KAI_KF-21_Boramae&diff=prev&oldid=1307243719.

This insult was made during a content dispute. I was attempting to improve the article by adding a new section about India's potential interest in the KF-21. My edits were based on diverse, cited sources, and I made sure to include both arguments from a defense analyst as well as the response from the Indian Air Force. I believe my contributions were in line with Wikipedia policy.

The user, instead of engaging with my cited sources, resorted to a personal attack, publicly insulting me and claiming my edits were "baseless," despite the clear citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrylee814 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Terrylee814, before you take an inexperienced editor to ANI for this kind of thing, it's best if you can remind them about WP:CIVIL first. Wikipedia is somewhat unusual online for actually caring if users yell slurs at each other. I've warned them for personal attacks. If they keep going, you can give the next level warning, or if things are really very bad, go straight to WP:AIV. -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about WP:CIVIL and WP:AIV. I'll remember that for next time. Terrylee814 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Rtgeeofficial254

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

---

Rtgeeofficial254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been here for just over a month and depsite having been warned continues making AI generated autobiography attempts. AI generated drafts and mainspace articles of artists for his record company and other promotional and AI generated edits. It appears the editor is Not listening to warnings. Cannot link to specific edits as the drafts/articles have since been deleted, however here is a list of articles/drafts: User:Rtgeeofficial254/sandbox (twice deleted), previous version of User:Rtgeeofficial254 (which was deleted), Tronic Sounds Entertainment, Draft:Tronic Sounds Entertainment and Draft:R.T.Gee. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

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