Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198

Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported)

User contributions for Fdom5997 Fdom5997 continuously and not backing down in making unconstructive vandalism and personal attacks in multiple articles: Bonda language, Dolakha Newar language, Korku language, Gta' language, Santali language, including massive deletions of contents [1] [2] [3]. For most parts they accused me of changing the IPA consonant chart "it was already cited before you altered it" and then posted kind of intimidating messages with persuasive/non-engaging theme like "you’re lying, leave it alone!" "don’t undo it. You altered the info" "they did before you altered the information, shut up". it appears that they are not going to release their whatever info backking evidence while saying it also cited although I've put the sources in some cases, for many articles I cited valid sources and decided to improve (not alter, false language) the phonology sections for good. For example the Dolakha Newar language phonological IPA chart in version as at 06:15, 15 August 2025 is consistent with the linguistic material in Genetti, Carol (2007). A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019303-9. Page 33 (and following pages). For Gta', Santali, Korku, Remo(Bonda) consonant IPA chart, here the best source we can preview: Page 377 of Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 364–414. doi:10.1163/9789004283572_006. ISBN 978-90-04-28295-7. and Page 559 of Gregory Anderson The Munda Languages. Again, Fdom5997 moved page to page and launched sweeping vandalism attacks and threw out alot of inappropriate language is not something I could stand for wikipedia if this type of behavior doesnt get addressed. Thanks. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I said "I cited", however, for many articles I forgot to put the citation marker which shows precise page, although I might have put the sources for my improvements in the further reading or they already been there and just thought everyone are going to find and verify these information. Sorry, but that is my misktake in editing. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Manaaki teatuareo, When you report users at ANI, you must inform them on their talk pages. I have done that for you in this case. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs Thank you very much. I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined. What is this suppose to mean? You have a global community here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I assume it's a reference to the Epstein list and its supposed coverup. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Weird analogy to use here nonetheless Fdom5997 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an American who watches the nightly news, I'm familiar with Jeffrey Epstein. But like Fdom5997 alluded to, it's a weird pop cultural reference to apply to this situation and I'm sure we have many editors on this platform who aren't well-versed in U.S. conspiracy theory lore. But thanks for providing the link, jlwoodwa, for those who want to look into it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Manaaki teatuareo these are all of the sources that were cited for each language article containing the phonological information, before you did your changes to the phonology. I have taken a look and viewed all of these sources online, and none of the info matched the info on the pages after you did the changes. And you also did wrongfully change the IPA symbols as well, that were also already used in the sources.

I will list them here:

Bonda language:

-Swain, Rajashree (1998). "A Grammar of Bonda Language". Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute. 58/59: 391–396

-DeArmond, Richard (1976). "Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gtaq Stressed Monosyllabic Vowels and Initial Consonants". Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications. 13 (13): 213–217.

-Anderson, Gregory D. S.; Harrison, K. David (2008). "Remo (Bonda)". The Munda Languages. New York: Routledge. pp. 577–632.

Korku language:

-Nagaraja, K.S. (1999). Korku language : grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Gta’ language:

-The Munda languages. Anderson, Gregory D. S. London: Routledge. 2008. p. 682.

Santali language:

-Ghosh, Arun (2008). "Santali". In Anderson, Gregory D.S. (ed.). The Munda Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 11–98.

Lodhi language:

-Linguistic Survey of India West Bengal Part-1. 2011. pp. 460–490.

Dolakha Newar language:

-Genetti, Carol (2003). Dolakhā Newār. The Sino-Tibetan Languages: London & New York: Routledge. pp. 353–370. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see anything here that couldn't be dealt with by the protagonists on article talk pages. It is perfectly normal for different authors to use slightly different IPA sysbols for the same sound. Just discuss things and use dispute resolution if needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Says who? No it is not “normal” if that IPA symbol doesn’t represent its true phonetic value. To which the editor who changed the info on the pages, got it wrong. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I have taken a look and viewed all of these sources online, and none of the info matched the info on the pages after you did the changes No, all the sources you just copied straight from the pages without looking at them at all, even the sources' dates, versions, and authors' comments. People can see that Fdom5997 wasn't actually try to explain why their reverts and understand what I improved the articles, they keep removing everything just because they can. If wikipedia is some sort of undoing game back and forth that even adding newer more accurate sources is reverted, nothing could have been progressed and improved. The best Munda consonantal available up-to-date, whcih you removed and vandalized, is Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 364–414. doi:10.1163/9789004283572_006. ISBN 978-90-04-28295-7., dates 2014, which is newest. Remo language, Anderson & Harrison (2008) report no phonemic aspiration, but Anderson (2014) reports postalveolars affricatives tʃ, ts, dz. For Dolakhae Newar, Genetti, Carol (2007). A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019303-9. Is a 2007 full descriptive grammar invalid but a 2003 preliminary beta version? And you also did wrongfully change the IPA symbols as well, that were also already used in the sources. Because postalveolars are not palatals and the one that you termed as "symbols" are the transcription used by the linguists themselves based on standard International Phonetic Alphabet.Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I actually did take a look and find all of those sources I listed online and did not “just copy them” as you insisted. And just because a source is “newer” does not necessarily mean that it is more accurate. And the sources that you’re citing are not as accurate as the ones that actually display the true phonology and the phonetic symbols as well. You cannot claim which source is “the most accurate” based on what you think it is. I read the source for Remo, and other Munda languages, but that was just a brief description of different phonemes, but it did not go into any phonological detail. And those postalveolar symbols are not the real phonemes of the consonants. Also, why would you insist your info on the symbols is “right”, if you then tell me that the symbols that I put (like how they were before you changed them) are the ones that are used by the linguists themselves? Wouldn’t that mean that your info is wrong because it is *not* used by the linguists themselves? Fdom5997 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Swisshalberd

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

---

This user keeps complaining about what we do when we see vandalism way too much, all because he gets called out for edit warring, he spread his complaints over to my protection request, can someone please take a look, and investigate the actions further? 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Plus, he is also accusing other users for example the people reverting him including me of vandalizing and edit warring when I only reverted one time not more than that. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

98.235.155.81, you are unlikely to get much of a response here if you aren't going to post some diffs that show the behavior you are complaining about. Editors need to see evidence that supports your claims and it's your responsibility to provide that. You also need to post a notiification on User:Swisshalberd's user talk page, letting them know that you started this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok then here he personally attacked me by calling me a propagandist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1307477971&diffonly=1. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

And here he accused me of "intimidating" him, while giving him a final warning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swisshalberd&diff=prev&oldid=1307477366#/search 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

And I notified them on their talk page, albeit in the "August 2025" section. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like User:Newslinger left them a strong warning. Since their violation was basically intemperate edit summaries and strong language, I'm not sure if any more action is called for here. I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 24 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.

Bullying by another editor

Hello, I wanted to report bullying I experienced from this user User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 who keep replying to me on talk page about Tate-La Bianca murders, but not with any constructive arguments, but mocking me and insulting because I disagree with their opinion on unborn child's status. They are even open they doing this because of political beliefs. I tried to end this discussion by citing wikipedia is not about politics but how sources refer to matter, but they keep presuming things about me and attack with things irrelevant to the topic of article or discussion. I even said to them they can go on my Talk page and have discussion there, but they keep continue to "moralize" me on article talk page. [4] [5]

Examples of their comments to me iclude:
1) accusations I want harm to women and that I have 'unhealthy obsession': "Blah blah blah, so many words that say nothing, so much emotion, so little sense or logic. Just know that your stance hurts women. " "No, it's not 'respect, accuracy, and compassion'. It's an unhealthy obsession with Sharon Tate coupled with a harmful desire to give personhood to fetuses at the expense of women everywhere. All women can go to hell as long as the long dead Sharon Tate's presumed wishes are "honored", as far as you're concerned."
2) despite me not using any religion argument ever, this person attack my presumed beliefs: "I just found out that because of your bold, relentless, and passionate championship of the Tate fetus's personhood, God has decided to retroactively go back to 1969 and save the life of adorable newborn Paul Polanski! In fact, the now 56-year-old Paul is coming to my house for dinner tomorrow night! He is so grateful to you for arguing him into existence! Congratulations! Your silly obsession with him actually accomplished something!" 3) Accusations of me being devoid of "sense and logic" and of being "emotional", despite me recognizing me own short-comings and citing wikipedia rules (relying on sources instead of beliefs): "Blah blah blah, so many words that say nothing, so much emotion, so little sense or logic. Just know that your stance hurts women. "

Moreover, I am led to belief this person is the same as User:Jersey Jan who was also insulting me and mocking my opinion multiple times few months ago on Sharon Tate's talk page. [6] [7] [8] Jersey Jan was using the same arguments: 1) Was accusing me of wishing harm to women: "you are not "pro-life". If you were, you would not want to see pregnant women dying in emergency rooms because anti-choice legislation makes doctors afraid to and/or unable to treat them. This could have happened to my daughter if she had had a miscarriage today instead of fifteen years ago, which is one reason I have no patience with those who call themselves "pro-life"." 2) Mocked the victim and my presumed beliefs

Jersey Jan also brought politics there and was resorting to personal attacks:
"However, in these dangerous post Roe v. Wade times, when pregnant women are in danger of dying because doctors are afraid to treat them, lest they be charged with "murdering" embryos and fetuses, I find it more important than ever to be correct in my terminology. A fetus has not been born."
"Go haul yourself down to Holy Cross Cemetery and Mortuary in Ladera Heights, California and stare and stare at the name "Paul Richard Polanski" and cry big tears and fall to your knees and be sure to bring a big bunch of roses. I don't know where you live, but your deep feelings for Tate's fetus should justify any amount of airfare, I am sure. Again, isn't that enough for you? Why the huge deal about putting "1 Stillborn Child" in Tate's info box on Wikipedia? You can still pray for the fetus every night before bedtime, no matter what's in her info box."
"Assigning personhood to fetuses is dangerous to all women of childbearing years, and you have been bending over backwards and twisting yourself into pretzels in order to redefine a fetus into an infant in this case. Your concern is the feelings of the dead Sharon Tate and the feelings of her immediate family, all but one of whom is dead now anyway. My concern is the well-being of and the lives of all childbearing women everywhere."
"Logic falls on deaf ears where you are concerned. At this point, my advice is to seek psychiatric help, because there has to be some abnormality in your psychological make-up which is causing you to be as invested as you are in believing that Tate's fetus was actually a stillborn infant. Probably something to do with a pregnancy you or your partner experienced, although of course I can't know for certain. Just seek help."
"I will do you a favor and assume that you are being WILLFULLY obtuse and that you're not just illiterate."

If so, that means they decide to suddenly continue topic, as they reply to post that I had written many months ago. I am not certain if they are the same person, but there are few tidbits they do, for example User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 acts as if we were talking before by using the same arguments and their first post to me sounds as if we had discussion at Sharon Tate's biography page, which we didn't, unless User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 is User:Jersey Jan. First post ever of User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 was: "Now neither of us got our perfect way on the Tate biography page. It appears a compromise was put there so let's leave it at that. But man you are annoying." Sentence implied this person was arguing with me back then and is the same as Jersey Jan. I do not how to check this, but if you are able to trace IP to Jersey Jan, than please do it and give User:Jersey Jan a warning. I felt insulted by them back then but let them be - however, if now they continue to attack me after many MONTHS passing, then please, react. I am tired of this converstion, tired of being attacked, tired of being accused of "harming women", tired of being attacked and mocked for teating victim of murder with dignity and respect, and this person in not interested in bringing actual sources but continue to force their ideological beliefs on matter.

To be honest, I do not wish them to even be blocked, I just want someone to tell them clearly that their behaviour is inappropriate and gave them waring. User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 and/or User:Jersey Jan are entitled to have their opinion, but they should not doing political crusades on wikipedia and attacking person who has different stance. They should focus solely on argument, not on mocking me and my personal beliefs.

Edit: even if User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 and User:Jersey Jan are not the same people, User:Jersey Jan just attacked me personally again, so I definitely report them as my bully:[9].

To quote them:
"You are anti choice. You try to hide it, but your last paragraph gives you away. "Unborn children are humans and deserve respect." THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE YOU ARE A FORCED BIRTHER. The fact that you are a Forced Birther is what triggers this obsession with Wikipedia calling the Tate fetus a person. Well, anti-choice/Forced Birthers disgust me, and the fact that some of them are female doesn't change that. Unfortunately, there are some female misogynists. I have personally known a few. But I digress. As a Forced Birther, YOU disgust me, and I don't care if this should be on your Talk Page and I don't care what happens with my Wiki account, I will say it and say it here. You disgust me. "

I said before I don't want them block - I changed my mind as they clearly are not able to respect other editor and despite many months passing from our last conversations, they continue to throw insults at me. Of course, any decision belongs to moderator(s). I just ask that wikipedia would not tolerate such behaviour. Moderators were previously tolerating their behaviour during discussion on Sharon Tate's talk page, despite my pleas to intervene. [10] [11].

Please, do not repeat those mistakes. I have different views than my converser, but I tried explained them as gently and civilly as I can.

From my side, if I ever overstepped personally myself when talking on my views, I apologize and I take full responsibility - however have in mind I was never calling my converser names, while they keep presuming my views and mocking me constantly.

--Sobek2000 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)-

Sobek2000, while to did inform one two users, you did not inform 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 of this discussion. I have notified them for you. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: No, you haven't. You created an IP "user page" in main space. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, fudge it.  Self-trout (Never trusting links again.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I would've fallen for that too  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Still, thank you for the correction and for fixing my mistake. :D --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I did inform them, apparently it didn't work, because they are IP. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty, first things first, I have amended my original comment so that this ends up clearer for those reading this in the future. After checking, I was wrong and you did notified two users: Jersey Jan and 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50. (Or 2600: (...) :3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50) In your post above, you talked about Jersey Jan and 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134. (Or 2600: (...) :BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134) So, these are two different 2600 accounts.

However, this isn't a problem for two reasons. The first is that Fortuna has notified the 2600 account ending in "BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134", so we should be good with notifications. (At least, I think we are good.) The second is that the "3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50" account has also participated in the discussion at Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders. Specifically, they made this edit: No, it's not "respect, accuracy, and compassion". It's an unhealthy obsession with Sharon Tate coupled with a harmful desire to give personhood to fetuses at the expense of women everywhere. All women can go to hell as long as the long dead Sharon Tate's presumed wishes are "honored", as far as you're concerned. I'm not mocking the death of the fetus. I'm mocking you. This is relevant to this report, especially those last few sentences. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But it seems it is only one person, as they appear to continue same arguments with me. Maybe they changed IP... Anyway User: Jersey Jan Definitely attacked my later in comments. Please focus on the, if you are unable to reach IP accounts. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably a dynamic IP address. Yes, they seem to be the same. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The behaviour of 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 (talk · contribs) is clearly not good, special:Diff/1306494269 is a definitely Personal attack. -Lemonaka 12:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe that sanctions might be needed here to deal with this. Unfortunately, I believe that some of that might need to be a Boomerang due to this chain of comments. "However, wikipedia does refer animals by their given name, refer to trans people by their preferred name and it is only consistent to refer to children who died before birth but were recognized by their parents in the same way." (Sgv: After being asked by MilesVorkosigan to not compare the naming of animals with the names of people who are transgender) "Migh I suggest you not be offended for mere stating afacts? I solely drew comparison of legal situation. (...) I pointed that many trans peeople who did not legally change their name/gender are still recognize by wikipedia by their preffered pronuns, because that was their wish that wikipedia respects. (...) I brought animals solely to show that - unlike both trans people and unborn children - they are not humans, yet many of them are referred by their names on wikipedia and none has problem that it "humanizes" them. My goal was to show that wikipedia relies on how subject is referred by cultural text, regardless of their legal status. Just as Brandon Teena is refered to as "Brandon" and "he" despite fact he tragically was killed before he could legally register his status, and just as Wisdom (albatross) is referred by her given name despite fact she definitely NOT legalized this, there is nothing incorrect in referring to Tate's child by his name, whatever his legal status." --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

O gosh... this? What exactly offensive I said? I compared legal phenomenas with wikipedia's consistency. I did not call trans people animals, just like I didn't call unborns children an animals. I simply pointed to consistency that what matters in wikipedia is how relaible source refer to someone even if they are not legally registered uder this name. It was about legal status. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I have debated over the last day if I should try another explanation of the issue after it had been explained at the article's talk page or to let the go unanswered. I decided to just keep it brief here. You have compared people who want to have a part of their identity match how they identify to beings who have no control over what they are called. I believe that is as simple an explanation as I can provide for why it was deemed offensive. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologized to that person the best way I could. Don't mind it anymore - if you need to give me warning or block, okay. Or maybe you can suggest me if I can do something more. Anyway, I just wish for matter I brought to continue. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are specifically addressing me here or if the words "if you need to give me" just means everyone in general. If it is the former, I am not an admin, so I have no power regarding sections except suggesting and agreeing or disagreeing with a suggestion sanction.

In any case, this does seems to have been resolved with one user being warned and with you receiving a restriction. Outside of taking the SOCKing concerns to SPI, which might or might not be a good idea with these circumstances, I think the best thing I can recommend to you is to let this drop and edit elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone once again, even if User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 and User:Jersey Jan are not the same people, User:Jersey Jan just attacked me personally again, so I definitely report them as my bully:[12].

To quote them:
"You are anti choice. You try to hide it, but your last paragraph gives you away. "Unborn children are humans and deserve respect." THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE YOU ARE A FORCED BIRTHER. The fact that you are a Forced Birther is what triggers this obsession with Wikipedia calling the Tate fetus a person. Well, anti-choice/Forced Birthers disgust me, and the fact that some of them are female doesn't change that. Unfortunately, there are some female misogynists. I have personally known a few. But I digress. As a Forced Birther, YOU disgust me, and I don't care if this should be on your Talk Page and I don't care what happens with my Wiki account, I will say it and say it here. You disgust me. "

I said before I don't want them block - I changed my mind as they clearly are not able to respect other editor and despite many months passing from our last conversations, they continue to throw insults at me. Of course, any decision belongs to moderator(s). I just ask that wikipedia would not tolerate such behaviour. Moderators were previously tolerating their behaviour during discussion on Sharon Tate's talk page, despite my pleas to intervene. [13] [14].

Please, do not repeat those mistakes. I have different views than my converser, but I tried explained them as gently and civilly as I can.

From my side, if I ever overstepped personally myself when talking on my views, I apologize and I take full responsibility - however have in mind I was never calling my converser names, while they keep presuming my views and mocking me constantly. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I gave both registered accounts a warning because whether civil or uncivil, these debates about abortion should not be happening at all. Abortion is a designated "contentious topic" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Contentious topic designation) and the talk page discussion should have only been focused on improving the article, not debating with each other. The other editor was rude but no one should get pulled into political or moral arguments about personal beliefs on an article talk page. If there is a dispute about a factual point in the article, then start an RFC on it but when you find yourself drawn into a futile debate, disengage and work elsewhere on the project. It's not a matter of the editor who gets the last word "wins". Maybe you should both get a topic ban from this Talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Sobek2000, you have made 33 edits to this article talk page. I think you made your points about your preference in this article and you can now cease editing there until other editors have a chance to digest those comments and respond. Repeating yourself will not serve to convince other editors of the rightness of your position. I'll also post a warning to Jersey Jan that they should be more civil and if you are concerned about sockpuppetry, you can file a case at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Related, but as an independent and uninvolved admin I have p-blocked @Sobek2000 from Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders and will not hesitate to do the same for Jersey Jan if they don't heed @Liz's warning. Both of you and the IP editor need to move on. Star Mississippi 20:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said in my reporting, I apologize for any overstepping from my side if I was giving too much personal opinions in discussion. I was never there to discuss abortion, however it was very hard not to answer to my converser when they were attacking my opinions and keept attacking not arguments I had written, but me as person. I made clear many times to my converser any stance - mine and my converser - are subjective and I am interested only in discussions about sources. The things I wrote was to show I do not care for politics and want to have productive conversation about this particular case. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Chronic disruptive editing by User:LeeKokSeng2024

• LeeKokSeng2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has been reported for a series of chronic behavior problems. He had expanded Theodore Peterson into a rather poorly written article, while having zero idea about copyright violations and insisted on restoring an image uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons that he claims to be his property, which I had proposed for deletion. [15] [16] @MPGuy2824 had attempted to redirect the page but was similarly reverted. An AfD was set up to unanimous redirect votes but is not closed at the moment. [17] [18] [19] [20] More diffs of the editor's disruptive editing, including replacing images. [21] Blanking talk page in spite of multiple warnings on his behavior from multiple editors. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that per WP:BLANKING, the blanking of that user's talk page by that user is not prohibited by policy, as long as that talk page doesn't contain certain kinds of information. The exceptions to reversing the blanking of the talk page don't apply here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

My bad, didn't think of this policy. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak to the user's other edits wrt copyvio, but their creation of Theodore Peterson [22] using unattributed material from https://helloneighbor.wiki.gg/wiki/Theodore_Peterson#Background is a plagiarism concern rather than outright copyvio. It's an unattributed, verbatim copy of a user-generated fan Wiki that is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 I don't think that simply including an external link to the site is sufficient attribution. I pointed them to WP:FREECOPY

Having said that, I have noticed other concerns with this user's edits. They call everything a WP:MINOR edit. Here [23] they added an unsourced middle name to a bio, while calling the edit a minor "spelling correction". Worse yet, they restored it, again calling it a minor spelling correction, with an unreliable source that does not contain the middle name [24]. This was after they had been warned for adding unsourced personal information, and pointed to WP:MINOR. I also undid them when they restored their preferred older version of a bio picture with the pointless summary "Thank you". Not only did they not follow WP:BRD, but they actually reverted all of the edits since their last edit [25], thus losing the intervening useful edits. I don't think this user is being intentionally disruptive, but this is disruptive. Meters (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The bio picture itself is copyvio, given that he simply took a screenshot and claimed it to be his own work, without no regard to the game's copyright. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

After the user's last two posts on their talk page, [26] and [27], I take back my not intentionally disruptive. They appear to be trolling now (or simply WP:CIR). Either way, enough. Meters (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Weird WP:AIV behavior

For the past 2 or so hours on this page, various IP users have been reporting inactive accounts and labelling them as "sockpuppets", despite the fact that the users that they were reporting had no activity for a long time, is there any information on what this is, this is confusing me a lot. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Also most of the IP's involved with this weird situation have been blocked for being open proxies. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

If they want to out their proxies by posting at AIV, perhaps we should just let them continue to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish appears to have it on lock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It's vpngate, so essentially unlimited numbers. At least it'll only get worse when temporary accounts show up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thanks WMF!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought I had my head wrapped around temporary accounts but I'm confused now -- won't the IP addresses of temporary accounts automatically be visible to (and presumably blockable by) administrators, similar to how they're viewable (and blockable) now? tony 18:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

If there's a single additional click involved to get IP information, including location data, it'll create a huge additional time burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

T358853 will help somewhat ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I interpreted Admins will automatically see temporary account IP information (here) to mean it would already happen transparently without any additional work -- hopefully that task gets implemented sooner than later. --tony 18:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are IPs being hidden anyway? It hasn't caused us any issues as far as I can recall, and it is very helpful when combating abuse. Is it one of those projects WMF embarks on now and then because they don't have much to do? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup; as far as I can tell, the WMF has been working on this for years. The oldest thread on their updates page dates back to June 2021, and that thread even says "It has been a few months since our last update on this project." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: The oldest version of meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation (which was where the project was located before it was moved to mediawiki.org) is dated July 31, 2019. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The WMF's view seems to be that any barrier to entry is a problem to be solved, and showing an IP is a barrier that "puts people off" because it makes them "identifiable".

Frankly as a non-admin who's had to deal with at least one grudge-bearing stalker on this site and edits largely in a niche area that attracts a higher than average proportion of disruptive-editing along with subtle and blatant vandalism that skews towards IPs, that "identifiability" (which amounts to a relatively broad geographic area) actually aids me massively in deciding where and when to raise an issue for admins to deal with as it allows you to spot likely repeat offenders with ease. Without that it's going to be a lot harder for me to for instance say "hey, this appears to be the same person editing across this /x range, it'll need a range block" or "this IP has appeared intermittently over the last several months on this page making similar disruptive edits" and instead rely more on overworked admins having to investigate far more themselves with each report because people like myself can no longer bring that contextual knowledge in initial report filings that greases the wheels.

While I understand we should always assume good faith, the WMF's stance is extremely short-sighted because even while AGF there comes a point where you're basically reducing the barrier of entry to the point that, rather than attracting helpful casual edits, it just makes it too easy for both bad actors and well-meaning but incompetent editors to flood the project (in regards to the latter I think the growing issue of new users flooding the project with mass LLM edits already demonstrates the barriers are possibly already too low). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocking the TA will block the IP, no? Plus, we can look behind the TA and block relevant IPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The TA won't let you know if it's a VPNgate proxy, that person from Thailand that blanks obscure templates and policy pages, or another Jinnifer IP, informing your decision to block the IP for a week or a month instead of 31 hours. Any step that adds even a second iterated over the enormous amount of blocks placed will further strain the relatively few people lifting that burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Wonder how long till a browser side user script pops up to auto reveal LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

There is already an option to have the IPs be auto-revealed, though you can only have it active for up to 1 hours. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I ment to just, always have that active LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, and what is implied by the FAQ, is that blocking a TA will merely autoblock the IP (i.e., only for 24 hours), just as how blocking a normal account doesn't automatically block the IP for the same length of time. OutsideNormality (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP's have been repeating the same behavior again, one of them has been warned on their talk page. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was 23.245.238.246, warned by me. I don't know how to handle proxies - would somebody like to block them, in lieu of my milquetoast warning? Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC).

Someone created a fake IP account 161,230.197.222i to do the same thing. Interestingly, there's a similar account 161,230.216.104i (and also 161,230.102.59i and161,230.162.211i) created a few months ago that was blocked as a MAB sock. It might also be an impersonator. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on the proxies they're using I would say this is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to MAB, though the behavior is a bit odd. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought about this a bit more and it could also be Salebot1, particularly considering 161,230.177.34i. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If that's true, would MAB (linked to DarwinandBrianEdits) and Salebot1 be the same person? Looking through the archives, an admin had said "This is DarwinandBrianEdits / MidAtlanticBaby" in reference to some socks before they were confirmed to Salebot1 (comment). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it's just that Salebot1 likes imitating other LTAs. Salebot1 geolocates somewhere in Russia (46.48.0.0/16) and MAB geolocates to Fairburn, Georgia (2600:1700:E8C1:740:0:0:0:0/64, 168.8.214.174/31, etc.) Both of them use VPNGate proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Clarification About Temporary Accounts

Off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to know whether I have misunderstood, or whether maybe I do understand about the proposed temporary accounts. Am I correct that the WMF would like to provide a more welcoming environment for unregistered editors by increasing their anonymity? Am I also correct that some administrators and established editors are concerned by that idea because they would prefer to continue to encourage newcomers to register an account, in which case they can use a pseudonym, and be anonymous to everyone except Checkusers? So who really will benefit from temporary accounts more than from the existing ability to register an account and be pseudonymous except from Checkusers? Have I misunderstood something, or do I understand something that the WMF whiz kids have missed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the biggest improvement that comes from temporary accounts is that they, unlike IP editors, can be pinged. That benefits everybody, even registered accounts.

Besides, there's probably legal reasons that they have to hide IP addresses that they can't tell us because of WP:BEANS. Their FAQ page doesn't mention the essay, but it's the same underlying idea that there's likely a reason we don't know the full details. Here is their answer to the question of "what legal reasons are you doing this for?" in full:

We shouldn't provide all the information. We shouldn't publish some details, and we shouldn't disclose why. If we publicly discussed what arguments we can make, or what risks are most likely to result in litigation, we could help someone harm the wikis and the communities. This answer is based on attorney advice we are choosing to follow.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If you have questions about temporary accounts, it's probably best to directly ask your questions to the WMF at mw:Talk:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts or else start a discussion at WP:VPWMF. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think you could request IP viewer at permissions reqeust so that may help with allieviating issues with LTAs 212.70.114.16 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it's at WP:RFP/TAIV SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Bearing in mind WP:BEANS, I remember - I think - that European privacy laws also have something to do with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If that's true, the GDPR is involved; the GDPR considers IP addresses to be personal information. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I think that I now know what continent the beans are grown in, and it is mostly a more civilized place than where I live. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Even more questions about temporary accounts

More off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. Questions have been asked at more appropriate forums. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Say you have a suspicious temporary account causing disruption. You use the TAIV tool to reveal their IP address and it geolocates somewhere near a known LTA. Are you allowed to disclose their IP address on ANI or AIV? Their general geolocation? How about Wikipediocracy? Are we supposed to follow the same policy CheckUsers follow? The policy says that the TAIV right can be revoked if it's abused, but what constitutes abuse? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This is probably better discussed at WP:AN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Or mw:Talk:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts. There's also a FAQ page that might provide answers. I don't think WMF employees will answer questions directly on ANI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Why would you post about an IP account you ran into on Wikipediocracy? Why did you even bring up that website? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That was an example meant to represent off-wiki communication methods such as IRC, Discord, etc. I haven't checked, but I assume there are people privately communicating off-wiki to perform anti-abuse work, and that forum, while it is filled with banned users and other... interesting people, has exposed some pretty complicated sockfarms and COI editors. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Previous WMF communications have stated you are not allowed to disclose IP addresses, to the point where it may make SPI a bit more complicated. CMD (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This is so mind-numbingly stupid. Wikipedia's rigid compulsion with allowing people to edit as an IP has created this problem. Require registration and it goes away. But heaven forbid we should do something which contravenes something Jimbo Wales said 20 years ago. Change with the times or watch time create more tedious administrative tasks like this to deal with. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative? Unlikely. In the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has supported research into requiring registration for all editors editing Wikipedia articles. The results have been largely harmful.

— From the WMF's FAQ page (newlines removed)

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Jalaluukhan still editing ECP space

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

---

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

Jalaluukhan has been warned enough times to stop editing ECP areas such as Indian military history,[28][29] however, he is continuing to do that[30] and is move warring to move his articles back to mainspace.[31][32] THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:09, 24 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.

24.187.47.136

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

24.187.47.136 has been adding uncited information and removing cited information to multiple articles, reverting anyone who has removed any information they added ([33])([34])([35]). They are also removing warnings from their talk page ([36])([37]), telling editors to take issues up on other talk pages instead of their own. Furthermore, there was one edit where they referred to an editor as a "dumbass" ([38]), constituting an obvious personal attack. I was going to give them one more chance until I saw this, so I think something needs to be done now. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute, the first couple I looked into, the IP editor had a clear reason for not including a source. Can you provide specific examples of them adding genuinely unsourced content? -- asilvering (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the links I provided are specific enough. Please see WP:COVERSONG and WP:POPCULTURE. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I should also add that this user has once again reverted me on Turn Me On (Kevin Lyttle song) ([39]) for removing uncited infomation that violates WP:COVERSONG, so now they are starting to get into edit-warring territory, and looking at the page history, multiple IPs in the range 24.187.0.0/16 have been involved since February 2025. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

UPE-related SPA

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.

---

Per off-wiki evidence, the SPA @AlanRider78: is an Upwork freelancer engaging in undisclosed paid editing, mostly based in Mumbai but sometimes also in Punjab, India, who reports and deletes new pages for which he didn't get the job. I will not go into more details to avoid outing. He also has another Wikipedia user account with thousands of edits. The first thing he did was to post on Extraordinary Writ's talk page, listing very detailed SPI information, so this is obviously someone's sock. I have compiled detail off-wiki evidence to support these claims. Where do I send the off-wiki evidence, to paid-en-wp, ArbCom, or maybe the WMF legal team? He has infiltrated OTRS, so that one is not going to work. 115.97.138.181 (talk) 10:16, 24 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.

Andrew Stake - persistent unsourced additions, content removal and 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.

---

Andrew Stake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reached his second level 4 warning - his first was for mass content removal on Saudia, and his second was for unsourced changes to Garuda Indonesia. He has previously reacted rather badly to warnings on their talk page, so beyond leaving warnings I've felt there's little point in engaging. Can this user please be reminded of the requirements of WP:V and WP:CIVIL? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And still it continues, even after the ANI notice was left on their talk page - removing sourced content, and replacing it with unsourced content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours, let's see if that gets his attention. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And now an IP editor is reinstating their edits… possible sock? [40] Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The Andrew Stake account has been blocked for 48 hours. Following their decision to use personal insults, I extended the block to 96 hours. I placed a further warning on their talk page regarding sockpuppetry and further personal attacks and abuse of their talk page privileges. Hopefully that puts a lid on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 24 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 hide this edit

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.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shahid265&diff=prev&oldid=1307605962 Shanid265 made a legal threat on his talk page, and got blocked for it, can someone please hide this edit. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP, I just left you a note on your talk page. There's no reason to the remove it and actually doing so makes it less transparent. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks just looked at the message. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:24, 24 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.

Removal of talk page material

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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin please look at User talk:Darth Stabro#Wikipedia talk:CATHOLICISM? I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the other party. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Just add {{Talk page of redirect}} to the top of the page. That talk page has history that should remain on the page, not be masked by a redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a formatting issue, not one that calls for administrative intervention. Could it be discussed at the target page? Ultimately, I agree with Voorts but I'm sure you don't want an action like this reverted. But I don't know why you came to ANI about this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

A good first stop would have been discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, rather than going from what looks like civil disagreement on a user talk straight to ANI. Concur with Liz and voorts on the practical elements of this disagreement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:08, 24 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:GiantSnowman's renewed 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.

---

In early July this year, a disagreement erupted about whether IPA pronunciation transcriptions needed to be sourced. Since such a thing is very seldom found ia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306407415&oldid=1306407310&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this], [https:on WP, my contention is that this is a general practice that has become acceptable. After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source. Many users do this. There was an ANI discussion about this, started by GiantSnowman, during which he was gently told off by other users for demanding references for IPA transcriptions; one user even suggested that I should be thanked for what I do. I wish I could point you at this discussion, but it was abruptly and unaccountably stricken from the record on 6 July sometime after 17:33. Since then – and until today – there has been no further disruptive editing. I thought the matter had been laid to rest. Today, however, this, this, this and this have happened, with GiantSnowman once again demanding a reference for an IPA transcription. I don't even know where such a thing would come from. How many sources would transcribe "Paco Pérez Durán" in IPA script? There would be very few sources that did such a thing — and yet there are very many IPA transcriptions in WP articles. The last ANI discussion had other users pointing out that as a general rule, IPA transcriptions don't need to be referenced. That is the way I always understood it, and I had been doing it for years until early July when this all began. If GiantSnowman were right, though, practically every IPA transcription on WP would have to be deleted just because it is not explicitly sourced. Would that make sense? I would like an end put to what I see as nonsense. Kelisi (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#Kelisi and IPA. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Like the previous discussion's conclusion, I feel like this is a content dispute not suited for ANI. jolielover♥talk 17:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

If it's worth mentioning in the article, it shouldn't be that hard to source. For example, the pronunciation of Saoirse Ronan's name is sourced. If everyone went around just posting best guess attempts at her name, it would be disastrous. This is why I added a source. WP:BURDEN allows people to challenge any unsourced content on Wikipedia. I know some editors consider it a huge imposition to provide sources, but that's how this website works. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, sources discuss how to pronounce her name because it's so frequently mispronounced. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

As an english-only reader. I'm not exactly able to read, what you're attempting to add, in the bio-in-question. Anyways, this is a content issue. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to source. That's the reality. Saoirse Ronan must be one of the few, then. I, by the way, am not an English-only person, speaking as I do three other languages. My IPA contributions are not "best guesses". I know these languages. Also, any reader who cannot read the "squiggle text", as I've had one fellow user call it (see here if you're interested), can easily educate himself — on WP. Kelisi (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you should reference how a name is pronounced. WP:BLP / WP:V apply. Why should IPA should be the sole exception to those core tenets?! GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Side note, but can IPA transcriptions be from primary sources like news readings? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That's me and some other (more talented!) editors we did it at Viktor Gyökeres - found 2 videos of him saying his name, and somebody else converted that into the (sourced) IPA we have there. GiantSnowman 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Except you used the Swedish IPA. His name is Hungarian. Schestos (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

He is Swedish by birth, if he uses a Swedish pronunciation of his name, that's his choice and something we should reflect. We don't IPA claim that all Americans with a "Vander..." name should pronounce it the Dutch way either. Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

My surname is Old English/Viking origins. Should I start pronouncing it like Beowulf? GiantSnowman 08:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to. However for people with immigrant families I try to pronounce their names properly. Same goes for foreigners' surnames. Schestos (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, by "properly" you mean the way the subject pronounces it, because it's their name? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes Schestos (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Good :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source. This is the very definition of original research which is one of the things that we specifically prohibit in policy. If Many users do this then many users need to get slaps on the wrist for violating NOR. You are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  At my talk page at the time of the earlier ANI, Kelisi made a number of outrageous claims including that "I happen to know that it is right" (NOR!) and "All Spanish pronunciations are self-sourcing" because "there can only ever be one correct pronunciation" (so all Spain speaks in the same accent apparently!) Editors with this approach/attitude should not be anywhere near IPA or even BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  In my personal experience it is false that all Spanish name pronunciations are self-sourcing, even disregarding differences of accent. One occasionally runs into Spaniards with idiosyncratic pronunciations. Example, sport climber Geila Macià Martín, who apparently pronounces the first syllable of her first name like the English word "jail" (not a sound a g should ever have in Spanish). Anyway, I am in complete agreement with you that all pronunciations should be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  David, the grave accent over the A and the pronunciation that you give for the first name suggest that it is a Catalan name. I don't touch those, as I don't speak Catalan. We are talking about Spanish-language names here (as in Castilian, not Catalan, Galician or Basque), not necessarily Spanish people's names. Kelisi (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Even so, there can only ever be one correct pronunciation - and that pronunciation is verified by...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein, Geila Macià Martín is Catalan, from Barcelona province, so there's nothing "idiosyncratic" about her pronouncing her name in Catalan. GA- in Catalan would be pronounced as a hard G, same as in English or Spanish. GE- and GI- will be pronounced either like the S in "leisure" / "measure" or the J as in "justice": the former sound isn't usually found in Iberian Spanish (though will pop up in Argentinian Spanish) and the latter isn't found. The pronunciation in Catalan will also vary across dialects, which supports Giant Snowman's point that this should be sourced. Valenciano (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I guess I did know that Sitges was pronounced like that too. So anyway, Spanish names are phonetic, except when they're really Catalan, or Basque, or Galician, or ... ? For outsiders it's not easy to tell these things (and maybe sometimes for insiders too); that's partly why we need sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to source. No kidding. Tough luck all the same. For the entirety of Wikipedia's history, there's been a school of thought which has held that if for whatever reason meeting the burden of WP:V is hard, the provisions of WP:V can be waived. This curious notion is utterly unsupported by any policy or guideline. If an IPA rendition is challenged, and it cannot be sourced to a reliable source, it's exactly as liable to be removed as any other unsupported fact. Done deal. Ravenswing 19:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Noting that OR is not the only policy/guideline that discourages this. Adding complicated IPA symbols to the first sentence is also discouraged by WP:LEADCLUTTER. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll chime in to add that if y'all think it's hard finding sources for IPA pronunciations, try editing around the subject of classified military operations and units. There's no exception to the general verifiability rules there, either. Sometimes even something that's widely known may be at the mercy of having no verifiably published sources. But we're a living document, and with time, for any subject, even a lack of sources may change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that The last ANI discussion had other users pointing out that as a general rule, IPA transcriptions don't need to be referenced is an accurate reading of the previous ANI discussion, given that there were more comments along the lines of "Just because almost all IPA transcriptions are unsourced doesn't mean they shouldn't be sourced and cant be removed". As above _{so below} 20:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading over that discussion carefully, I can see only three editors unambiguously stating that IPA transcriptions didn't need to be referenced. I am sure as hell not going to be okay with a core policy of Wikipedia being set aside on the say-so of three people. Ravenswing 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on whether challenged IPA transcriptions need to be sourced? Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd say no. WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution; Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source IPA transcriptions do not, and should not, receive any sort of special carve-out from everything else on the encyclopedia with regards to our most core policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Only if you're comfortable with two dozen other pressure groups demanding, within the week, their own carveouts for their own pet hobby horses. Ravenswing 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I only suggest it because of the implication that the practice has been condoned to this point. If this thread is enough to establish that that's not the case then there's no need to go further. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I really don't think there's an issue here. There's no case for a special provision for IPAs. Yes, most IPAs are unsourced. But so are many statements in articles. The moment anyone challenges an IPA then, unless a source is found, it should go. What's so hard about that? That's just BAU isn't it? No need to create a special exception. The issue in this thread was different. Kelisi was arguing that as a Spanish-speaker he should be recognised as a sufficient source. That's clearly untenable an he seems to (below) have backed away from that, though I'm not entirely certain. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I am just going to quickly chime in and say I agree that there should be no exception for IPA's in terms of needing sources, I generally leave them alone but have removed a few when it's been clear that it's not a WP:SKYISBLUE situation and people going around adding these are evidently not immune to disagreeing with each other, even though it appears to be a relatively small amount of editors, and in that case it's someone's original research against the other's. I have seen IPA's been added with sources, so it's apparently not impossible to find, it just might be that not every single subject is notable enough for a phonetic transcription, which I would guess a tiny amount of readers use or even understand. TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Kelisi: 3 points which have mostly been already made above: (1) You aren't a reliable source regardless of your claimed expertise. The reason is obvious. (2) Because it may be hard to source, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be sourced. See WP:V. If you are challenged then you are not exempt from providing a source. This is a point I made in the previous ANI thread[41]. I already pointed out to you you incorrectly gave a madrileño IPA for Paco Pérez Durán where a cordobés one would be more appropriate. You were challenged. That's a good example of why your approach (aka OR) doesn't work: there is a risk that editors assume greater expertise than they actually have. (3) You've misrepresented the previous ANI thread: during which he was gently told off by other users for demanding references for IPA transcriptions. No. I don't see that. I and others found fault with your approach. The admin closing the thread pointedly said that editors should be careful "not to conflate their views on what WP:V should require with what it does require". If you want to exempt IPAs from WP:V you need to get over there and change policy because it doesn't say what you want it to say right now. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Fine, but if you think a cordobés IPA would be better, change it. I won't argue. I still maintain, though, that this business of requiring a source for every IPA transcription is ridiculous because it would mean that we would have to delete almost every one on WP, because it's so impossible to source them, and very few are. Kelisi (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  So, can we take this step by step? The first point is that will you accept that your statement "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source" is utterly wrong? That is such a gross infringement of WP:OR that it beggars belief that someone of your experience would make it. Secondly, will you accept that if your unsourced IPA edit is challenged (as GS and I have done) then you will not pursue it without a source? DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is somewhat relevant here. Challenged unsourced content must be removed, otherwise, it doesn't have to be removed barring BLPs, and by the same token the fact some unsourced content does exist doesn't mean every instance of that content doesn't need to be sourced. But more to the point: if something is, indeed, impossible to source then yes, it's true, it should not be on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• I will write an extremely brief comment because I am on holiday. I fail to see the difference between an editor who can read Kanji providing them for a Japanese name, or the Arabic script providing them for an Arabic name, and an editor who can read IPA providing them for a set language that they are fluent in. DeCausa, the madrileño IPA provided is not incorrect; whether or not a cordobés one is more appropriate has no bearing on that. You have a quibbles worth at most. Addendum: I don't see much value in it for Spanish, as anyone who can read Spanish doesn't need guidance on pronouncing it, and anyone who doesn't probably won't benefit from it. It's not like English, which has copious inconsistency. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  The point you are making is unclear. The madrileño IPA is not incorrect for a madrileño. Just as a Londoner's pronunciation of New Orleans is not incorrect for a Londoner. But so what? No idea what you mean by "anyone who doesn't probably won't benefit from it". That literally makes no sense. DeCausa (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  We should have sources for names in Kanji or Arabic. If you mean provide transcriptions, there are standard ways to transcribe these from one form to another. However, that is text to text, not text to pronunciation, which is a significant difference. There are Japanese and Arabic accents as well. CMD (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have never seen IPA listed for a Japanese word or name that doesn't follow a standard Tokyo accent, and would find it very strange to see someone changing IPA symbols to match (their idea of) the appropriate local accent. Squabbling over minor regular sound correspondences misses the point of having a pronunciation guide. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Little stranger than changing IPA symbols to match their idea of a standard Tokyo accent surely? CMD (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  This argument about Madrid v Spanish, Tokyo v Japanese etc is precisely why we need sources! GiantSnowman 17:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Standard pronunciation is academic consensus, at least a vague one, and you can see that in a well referenced IPA help page (e.g. Help:IPA/Japanese). You might find it to be OR/SYNTH to use a table like this to convert a name from kana into IPA, but I don't think that listening to an audio clip and transcribing the IPA with the same table is much different. Even more so if we go down the tabbit hole of arguing about accents and sound variations and, well really no two people on planet earth speak exactly the same way so lets rip them all out.

  I am not arguing in favour of unsourced IPA, to clear that up, I just understand that from Kelisi's point of view they are being told they are crossing a bright line where there isn't one. I don't think anyone has pointed out an error in the IPA they have added, but we've spilled a lot of digital ink discussing hypothetical errors they could make, which is unproductive. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is they are arguing no IPA need be sourced, because they're a native speaker. This both runs a cart right through WP:OR but is in explict contrary to WP:BURDEN, which is the problem here. It doesn't matter that nobody has pointed out an error in the IPA they have added; the IPAs are contested as being unsourced, and thus, per WP:V, must not be added back without one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment/question. I recently found out that sources aren't needed to write plot summaries for movies and TV shows. How is watching a movie to figure out the plot different from watching an interview to figure out the pronunciation of a person's name? Or watching a TV show/movie to learn how a particular name or word is pronounced? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE. But the TL;dr for plot summaries is that the movie or TV show is the source and we are not commenting on it, merely summarizing it. WP:V does require a citation for direct quotes from such content, but that's the extent of that. I think for pronunciations it gets trickier as there is significantly less involved and far easier to be subjective (in a bad way). The risk of getting it wrong likely necessitates an actual source, though I'll defer to others who may be able to offer more detail for the reasoning (or maybe a MOS/PAG to refer to at least). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, watching an interview or watching a TV show is honestly entirely possible - you can then cite the TV show or interview. As opposed to saying "I know Fooian, so I'm the source of the Fooian pronunciation, trust me bro" which is what's actually going on here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Which is in fact what happened on the Viktor Gyökeres page, as mentioned above: the pronunciation is sourced to two YouTube videos where his name is spoken aloud, so presumably people have listened to that carefully and distilled that into IPA form. -- Oddwood (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kelisi Just to be crystal clear on this now that it's ran for a day or so and you've had a chance to see the objections and maybe gain some understanding you didn't have before:

1. Do you agree that if you provide an unsourced IPA pronunciation and any editor challenges it, you'll need to produce a source or allow the pronunciation to be removed (until such time as a reliable source is hopefully found)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, of course. Kelisi (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

2. And the reason for this is WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN) and WP:NOR (especially the nutshell Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.) and you will follow those and other WP:PAG going forward? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, I will abide by the policies. Kelisi (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

If you could agree to these, I think it would help the situation and demonstrate your understanding. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Article-space p-block for Kelisi

• P-block Kelisi from article space until they agree to stop willfully disregarding WP:V and WP:NOR. Your knoweledge of a language or topic has no bearing on whether information can be added to an article. Star Mississippi 01:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Retract my support per Kelisi's reply to Locke Cole which satisfies my concern of ongoing disruption. Star Mississippi 12:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is a personal attack. There are many users who do what I do. Right now, I am working on a country map, sizing the type according to each town's or city's size. To do that, I look up WP articles for each one's population, and guess what — they all have IPA transcriptions, and not even one is sourced. It's a language that I don't know; so I am not the "culprit". Star, there are thousands of users at least who do this. What business have you singling me out? Kelisi (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:BOOMERANG applies here, why is why the attention is currently on you. GiantSnowman 17:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Wait @GiantSnowman should you open ANIs on every user that hasn't provided sources for the transcription? /s 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  There are other users who need a talking to - I've noticed @Schestos: doing the same thing. GiantSnowman 17:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Kelisi, if you want to source literally everything then an article would look like this:

  "Schestos is an Australian Wikipedian. He is best known for editing articles about soccer." Schestos (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:LEADCITE is your friend. Abiding by MOS:INTRO will limit the necessary citations to a handful, if that, typically (as most everything in the lead should be a summary of what is already in the body, the sources should be in the body itself). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why, out of curiosity, are you going to an absurd extremist position? No one seeks to do that. No one has ever sought to do that. The wording of WP:V references statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged." Anyone who would seek to "source literally everything" would find out at ANI the degree to which we take WP:POINT seriously. Ravenswing 03:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  In the extremely unlikely event that all (or most of the) 14 words are being individually challenged in good-faith, one can WP:CITEBUNDLE the sources at the end of each sentence. Left guide (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Schestos If you think that, you can propose changes to P&G at the Teahouse or the Village Pump. This isn't a venue for that kind of discussion. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

References

• @Kelisi: that is not a personal attack. What Star Mississippi has expressed is the nub of the problem - not so much that you are adding unsourced IPAs but that you think that (in your words) "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source". That is wrong, wilfully disregards WP:OR and WP:V and is WP:TENDENTIOUS. You've seen from this thread that your position on this has no support and you need to confirm you won't continue to edit on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  You are completely disregarding my point: there are many users doing this but I am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well? Furthermore, what are you going to do about all the other IPA transcriptions, very few of which (almost none) are referenced? The logical conclusion of all those clamouring for transcriptions to be referenced would be A) blocking all the users who don't reference them, and B) the disappearance of almost all IPA transcriptions from WP. Would that make sense? Perhaps this matter ought to be arbitrated. It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles. Yes, it ought to be arbitrated. Kelisi (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  I am disregarding what you say because I've asked you the same question at several points and you've avoided answering. I am going to ask you again: do you continue to claim that "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source"? Because if that is still your position I'm going to add my support to this proposal. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced No, there absolutely is not. The fact you are saying this means either you are refusing to or incapable of understanding what is going on in this discussion. at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles They should be referenced. If they are contested, they must be referenced. But going around "tearing them out of articles" would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you for demonstrating exactly why this pblock is necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  there are many users doing this but I am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well? If you believe there are other users whose conduct merits a block, you are free to identify and propose blocks for them after giving due notice. Left guide (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, the matter does not need to be arbitrated; the only "tacit consensus" that IPAs are exempt from WP:V exists in your own head and in those of a bare handful of others. You have been around Wikipedia far, far too long to buy into the fallacy that core policies of the encyclopedia are subject to your unilateral veto, and I'm compelled to agree with The Bushranger that it's a terrible look for such an experienced editor. Ravenswing 03:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Kelisi there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced

  Close, but not quite. From my understanding the tacit consensus is that IPA transcriptions can be added without a reference, but if another editor removes/challenges/disputes the unsourced transcription then it should not be added back to the article without a source or talk page consensus. This is standard Wikipedia practice for pretty much anything.

  Why editors are suggesting a block (which I !voted against btw) is because you keep insisting that a source is not necessary and that knowing the language is enough to be a source on the transcription. Those assertions are not only contradictory, they are false.

  You should stop arguing in this thread and let it take its course. Your efforts would be better spent at WP:RSN or WP:VP discussing what can be used as a source for IPA transcriptions, perhaps it can be expanded to include interviews, movies, TV shows and podcasts (I don't know, it's a possibility).

  Continuing to argue here, where everyone is focused on behaviour and not content, will only lead to your block or ban. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Everything requires sourcing. Nothing is excluded. Anything less than full sourcng for all claims is original research. I concur with Star Mississippi that the OP be P-blocked from article space until they demonstrate an understanding of WP:V and WP:NOR. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Nitpicking: Everything which is being challenged or is likely to be challenged requires sourcing. There are exceptions to what needs to be sourced (though I'm not opining whether this subject is one of them). tony 21:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  TY, for the correction. I should have stated it. However that this report started indicates that there was such a challange. TarnishedPath^talk 02:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  "Everything needs to be sourced"? So should we source the fact that Canberra is the capital of Australia? Schestos (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Everything that is removed and disputed needs to be sourced. If the majority of editors on the Canberra article talk page were unsure that Canberra is the capital of Australia, or there was a dispute over whether Canberra or Sydney are the capital, then yes, that information would have to be sourced. For things that don't need to be sourced, see WP:SKYISBLUE. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  So who is challenging IPA transcriptions of footballers? Pretty sure we all would agree that Kyra Cooney-Cross' name is pronounced /ˈkaɪrə/ not /ˈkɪərə/ (which is how Keira Walsh's name is pronounced). I bring this up because I did the tedious task of helping women's football fans pronounce the names of WSL players, and managed to transcribe every single player and manager's name only for a few (but not most thankfully) to be reverted. I will revisit this soon when this discussion has ended or when the season starts, whichever comes first since this discussion should be over by then. Schestos (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  A person being able to transcribe the names of all WSL players (some 30 nationalities and possibly 10–15 languages excluding varieties of English) must either

  1. have access to recordings of all these pronunciations (if so these can be cited);
  2. have more than basic knowledge of all these languages (if so this discussion applies);
  3. have minor understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet (second paragraph: designed to represent those qualities of speech that are part of lexical (and, to a limited extent, prosodic) sounds in spoken (oral) language: phones, intonation and the separation of syllables).

  Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  I know IPA. And it isn't really that hard to transcribe them all. Really only a couple are from non-European languages (other than Japanese). Schestos (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Again, you should not be adding unsourced IPA, and this discussion shows that. Continuing to do so in opposition to the clear consensus here is POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  There isn't consensus though. Schestos (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Do not add IPAs without sources. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Do not lie about their being common census. Schestos (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is pre-existing consensus which states that editors who unsourced content to articles (especially BLPs) will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 21:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Where does this include IPA? Schestos (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, please immediately retract the statement that I have lied about anything, since that is both a lie and a violation of WP:NPA. Second of all, if you do not understand that "do not add original research" is the rule by which we operate, please do not edit Wikipedia articles at all. There is no magic policy carve-out just because you really, really want to add your own original research to Wikipedia articles; the extremely limited carve-outs (like WP:PLOTSUMMARY) are explicitly written down, because the general rule is a general rule. --JBL (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  You and others said there was consensus that IPA needs sourcing when other users have pointed out that there isn't. I'm more than happy to look for videos of people saying their names and include them as sources. Schestos (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  If material is challenged and it isn't WP:SKYISBLUE, then it needs sourcing per WP:BURDEN if you wish to restore it. I won't weigh in on what qualifies as a reliable source for IPA, I'll leave that to other editors. But WP:BURDEN is policy, and you should have no problem complying with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Prior to your ridiculous personal attack, I had made one comment on this thread, which consisted of a single statement in the imperative; "oh when I said you lied I didn't mean you lied, I meant I disagree with someone else" is incredibly shitty behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  What even is this point of this discussion? Is it just to divide everyone? Schestos (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, it's to get though to you and others that you MUST source IPA. That is clear. GiantSnowman 08:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support p-block from article-space: sensible means of mitigating the policy-violative conduct chronicled in this thread, since the user appears unable or unwilling to do it themselves. Left guide (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

*Oppose p-block: We don't block as punishment, we block to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I have little use for Kelisi's positions, as set forth in this ANI, but how does anyone figure that they are editing disruptively? They are not adding anything objectionable; they are objecting to the edits of others. That's certainly grounds for a trout slap and an admonition that V/NOR are not negotiable and that they do not constitute their own personal RS (and hasn't that admonition already been delivered?), but I'm at a loss as to how a p-block accomplishes any of that. Ravenswing 12:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Like The Bushranger below, that recent comment by Kelisi rattled me enough to withdraw my opposition to a p-block. Ravenswing 03:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose p-block. A warning/reminder not to reinstate disputed edits without consensus or RS should be enough. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose p-block as above, but would welcome a firm warning to Kelisi about their conduct/attiude (BOOMERANG), and then we can consider a topic ban if they continue to be disruptive by adding unsourced IPAs. GiantSnowman 17:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Don't pblock This may be a bit premature, and per Ravenswing, TurboSuperA, and GiantSnowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.114.16 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose -- misunderstanding a policy, alone, does not merit a block. We'd block if there was a stated intention to proceed further, resulting in disruption, based on that misunderstanding knowing (or should-have-known) it doesn't align with broad community interpretation of a policy. I don't think that's what's happening here. Unless I'm misinterpreting the reason for the proposed p-block here, what I see is an insistence from Kelisi that their interpretation of policy is right and calls for further process-based exploration to get an outcome that they want. So long as that's not weaponized or disruptive, which I don't think this is (yet), it doesn't merit any sanction at all. This is just holding a strong opinion and advocating it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Your POV makes sense @Swatjester and more or less using this as a reply all. The reason behind my proposal, which I'd self close if not for extant supports, is that I do think Kelisi is being disruptive and we're beyond warning territory. But happy to be wrong and to have them as a productive editor if they're willing to be one. Star Mississippi 01:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I wasn't going to !vote here because I can see the arguments as illustrated by Swatjester here, but this tipped me over the edge. The claim that It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles demonstrates that Kelisi is either incapable of understanding the discussion here or is willfully disregarding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, Kelisi has indicated above that he understands WP:V and WP:NOR and that if any of his IPA pronunciations are challenged he will need to provide a source prior to restoring them. If the behavior starts again, we can always revisit this. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support regretfully. I thought originally this was too much, but Kelisi's continued apparent defence of his position that if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source puts this into WP:TENDENTIOUS. Swatjester makes a fair point but I think it's pretty clear that Kelisi's intention is to carry on as he has been once the spotlight of this thread has gone away. He has said absolutely nothing about desisting. Instead he has doubled down. By the way, Kelisi, it's a total red herring that "others do it". I haven't in 15 years on this site ever seen any other experienced user claiming that they are themselves a reliable source for any Wikipedia content. You're not arguing WP:BLUE - you're just saying WP:OR and WP:V don't apply to you because of your "expertise". DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC) I missed that an hour ago (above) Kelisi said, in response to Locke Cole, he would going forward abide by WP:V in regard to IPAs. That takes away my concern. (Although I'm not sure why it's taken so long for him to say it). DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• @DeCausa @Giantsnowman A bit of an off tangent, but if both of you really believe that IPAs need sourcing:

1. You honestly should open a discussion in WP:V or WP:VP for that to be explicitly be in policy, else a new/newish/out of the loop editor will think 'oh this town/city/whatever needs an IPA' and add one without a source.

2. If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs because I conjecture there will be a lot of them

2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how content policies work, you have it backwards; they apply to all content everywhere unless specifically exempted. By your logic, I'm free to add an unsourced music genre or building address just because the policy doesn't say I can't; it would be essentially toothless at that point. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, that might be Kelisi's interpretation and many others. If it is enshrined in policy, at the very least there is a good basis rather than 'Even though it is not specifically mentioned, WP:V applies'. If there is a specific policy somewhere, they could say 'according to WP so and so you need to have a source for your IPA' 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718 (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

also see the thing that started this thread, if there was some kind of policy somewhere that IPAs need to be sourced, there would be no 'ifs' and GiantSnowman could have easily cited that policy and have them agree and stop with the IPA issues 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

If only we had policies like WP:CITE: Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged and WP:V: four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material: material whose verifiability has been challenged,material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

But does it specifically mention IPAs? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean does it specifically mention IPAs as an example of material likely to be challenged? Without it being a literal part of polixy there would be issues like tis where people don't think it likely that their edits need sources and/or can be controversial 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt people will challenge IPA, which is why this discussion is stupid. Schestos (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, they are right now. I do hope that eventually y'all are gonna come into a consensus on whether IPAs should be specifically included in the 'things that you need to be careful of/an explicit inclusion' rather than an unwritten rule to have cited IPAs 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nor does it explicitly, specifically mention that nicknames are liable to challenge, or that death dates are liable to challenge, or that birthplaces are liable to challenge, or that population demographics are liable to challenge, or about ten thousand other examples which are likewise liable for challenge. We really shouldn't have to have giant flashing red letters proclaiming that "any material" genuinely means "any." The simplest way to deal with those people who insist, despite precisely zero evidence in support, that there is an "unwritten rule" exempting IPAs from core policies of the encyclopedia is to say "Cut that out at once." Ravenswing 17:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need to specify everything that might be challenged, because everything can be challenged. Also I will note that If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs is incitement to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and is not good either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose p-block because this is fundamentally a content dispute dressed up as a (distracting and unnecessary) behavioural dispute; well-intentioned attempts at improving an encyclopaedia should be discussed in the right venue, not punished; and in the whole of this very long discussion, not one person - not one - has considered our readers. Elemimele (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  It has been considered. The edit-warring at articles like Paco Pérez Durán has been a symptom of the issues germane to this discussion, and the lead of WP:EDITWAR policy says

  Edit warring…causes confusion for readers

  Left guide (talk) 19:14, 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.

Disruptive IP range over multiple years/ranges

2601:18F:980:FFE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had just recently reported this IP range at AIV for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, particularly at The Chase (American game show). Upon looking further upon the history of the article Whoa, Be-Gone!, I believe this may be a larger scale issue:

• 2601:18F:184:94A0:0:0:0:0/64
• 2601:18C:CC00:2F90:0:0:0:0/64
• 2601:18C:CC00:61A0:0:0:0:0/64

These ranges, all within 2601::/20, seem to show many overlapping articles with the recently-reported range, and all have been blocked multiple times, as well as all been in edit wars with multiple users/across multiple articles. I highly doubt any range block on 2601::/20 alone would be way too massive, but is there anything else that can be done regarding this? And literally just now as I've been typing this all up, I've now come across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2601:18C:CC00:61A0:BCDB:E121:D39:529C, so it seems there's already been block evasion going on, and has now continued for multiple years. I'm not even sure if creating a report there would do anything, as the oldest report there was in February 2020. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like 2601:18F:180:4720:0:0:0:0/64 can be added on as well... more of the same overlapping articles, as well as more disruptive editing and edit warring, along with multiple blocks received on this range. Magitroopa (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just found 2601:18C:CC00:A659:0:0:0:0/64, 2601:18C:C400:E752:0:0:0:0/64, and 2601:18C:C400:5953:0:0:0:0/64- possibly the oldest 3 ranges (at least, from what I've been able to find...) Really not sure what much can be done here apart from blocking the /64 ranges as the pop up, but I very much highly doubt there is any range block that can be done that gets all these ranges and doesn't get non-disruptive IPs blocked as well. Magitroopa (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Magitroopa, I don't understand what you're hoping for here. The three ranges you list have not been active for years. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The listing of older IP ranges is moreso to show this isn't a one-time occurrence or anything, but has been ongoing for several years with the same behavior continuing on as well, even after multiple blocks across all these ranges. I had just been having trouble with the current range recently, and it wasn't until I looked into it further today that I found out they've been up to this across many ranges for sometime now.

Would the most viable option be to just get a block on the current range, and for any future ranges, report at AIV referencing this ANI thread? Magitroopa (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

BauhausFan89

• BauhausFan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We are stumped on how to proceed with an editor that insist their edits should be retained on multiple articles. They have been blocked previously in relation to these edits already. Thus have implemented slow edit wars to avoid being blocked in the same manner. It's become a time sink for stewards of these articles. Not only are we concerned about sourcing and the lack of attribution when copy pasting..... It's also the talk page demeanor of thinking the additions are great despite all the concerns raised. What is the best way forward here?

• Example of copy pasting of text without attribution and with very minimal sources. (This has been reinserted multiple times over a considerable period of time.) lastest talk about this can be seen at Talk:Germans#Very_large_addition_of_material_from_culture_article.

• At a related article we also have the reinsertion of their preferred text over an extended period of time. With no attempt to discuss the additions in months.

Moxy🍁 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I just aim to round out the article. the section culture of Germany is nearly non existing and was badly made up. I worked hard to round it out. Im happy to take cuts on my edits. but please keep a healty, well rounded cultural section up. the Nobel prize winner list is also standard on other wiki articles like Italians. I worked hard on the images there. please keep that in mind. I just want a well rounded, normal wiki article. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect, but put in slightly different words, the attitude here seems to be "If I make mistakes, feel free to fix them, but outright reversion amounts to a personal affront, because I know my reasons are of particular importance." That's not acceptable. Regardless of the degree to which the issues you identify are demonstrable to others and not part of a pattern of tendentious behavior (more on that in a moment) it's a real problem when both (1) you are liable to add long passages of unverified, undue and/or ungrammatical material to articles, AND (2) it becomes like pulling teeth to get that material off said live articles. That's simply not fair to others trying to collaborate with you on here.

WP:V problems are serious, and when they build up they can cause quality articles to take on water until they're useless to our readers and embarrassing for us editors. It doesn't seem like you're taking verifiability seriously. I'm a grouch about the MOS, so I'm not going to say a word about it, because that is genuinely more of an area where editors can expect some help in-place as opposed to reversion whole-cloth.

If no one else has told you why the Nobel prize winner list is also standard on other wiki articles like Italians is not itself a sufficient argument to override the concerns of other editors enough to eschew talk discussion and go straight to restoring disputed content, I'll tell you now: that mode of reasoning, when trotted out alone, is almost always insufficient and counterproductive. We need more specific reasons couched in specific site policies to establish dueness for such elements in highly crowded, manicured articles, or else it amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or "it doesn't feel fair that people presently have higher attention and scrutiny regarding this article than that one got", which we simply can't do anything about. Remsense 🌈 论 16:53, 24 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.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I appreciate your engagement and would like to clarify my approach, with reference to relevant Wikipedia policies. First, I want to emphasize that I do not view reversion as a personal affront. My concern is not about being reverted per se, but about ensuring that content discussions are collaborative and based on clear, applicable Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:CONSENSUS. When edits are removed without prior discussion or with vague reasoning, it's reasonable to seek clarification or to restore content provisionally while opening dialogue on the talk page—as I have attempted to do. Regarding concerns about "long passages of unverified, undue and/or ungrammatical material": I certainly understand the importance of verifiability (WP:V) and due weight (WP:DUE). I take these principles seriously and am always open to improving grammar or trimming excessive detail when flagged. If specific issues exist, I welcome targeted edits or suggestions rather than blanket removal, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and collaborative editing. As for the Nobel Prize list and similar content: citing established patterns across equivalent articles (e.g., "Italians") is not an attempt to assert “I like it,” but to show editorial precedent and established consensus within comparable topic areas. While precedent isn't policy, it can inform editorial consistency, which is part of WP:NPOV and WP:ARBEF (editorial balance and fairness). I'm not asserting that precedent alone should override all concerns, but I believe it is a legitimate starting point for talk page discussion—not something that should be dismissed out of hand. I’m fully willing to revisit content through talk page consensus and policy-based reasoning. What I ask for is a fair process, consistent application of Wikipedia’s core content policies, and mutual respect for fellow editors’ contributions and good intentions—as encouraged under WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Let’s work together to improve the article through constructive dialogue rather than assuming opposition equates to obstinacy or lack of policy awareness. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

out for today. have a nice sunday. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you pls review WP:AITALK Moxy🍁 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It's quite frustrating when someone's LLM-generated reply doesn't even accurately recount the person's own behavior to date. Remsense 🌈 论 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

We all have other things to do....but this is the pattern of behaviour we are concerned about ...you are reverted - leave and then come back and just add it again somthimes months later. Moxy🍁 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have a good understanding of what the policies you cite actually mean. For example, in this edit, you asserted that "The removal of the statement... should not occur without proper sourcing for the removal itself", citing WP:V. That's not how V works; citations aren't required for an editorial decision to remove a statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Over at Immanuel Kant, they revered back and forth 5 times or so during June (this is a typical edit) There was a talk page discussion, which showed their addition did not enjoy consensus support. Then about a month later they come back with this edit, adding the same disputed wording. Their follow up revert came with the edit summary Im not part of any edit war. Im enriching the article and found a well fitting spot to write more about the massive imact of said work. Im not reinserting something at the same spot. if you dont agree with my edit, than its 1 vs 1. nothing more. [42]. Looking at the diffs in question reveals that this edit summary is incorrect - it is the same content as discussed on the talk page and in the same place. It seems this pattern repeats on any other article where BauhausFan89's edits are challenged. I'll also note here that I collapsed an AI-generated response further up this thread. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Found 11 edits by BauhausFan89 on Immanuel Kant .Moxy🍁 17:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Propose article space ban....Let's see if they had the capability of building consensus on talk pages without using AI generator replies. This will give article stewards the chance to explain how policies work and don't work and will allow article stewards to evaluate sources and help attribution for copy pasting.Moxy🍁 18:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Some sanction is needed for an editor who uses an LLM to post to a project page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I have issued an indefinite partial block to prevent editing to articles. Let me know if disruption occurs elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64

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

---

2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't understand the behavior of this editor, but it is very disruptive. A lot of their edits seem perfectly fine and constructive, but every week or so, they vandalize the article List of international presidential trips made by Joe Biden. These edits are additions of irrelevant nonsense mostly written in Vietnamese, and sometimes in English. I don't think it's a matter of their IPv6 being reassigned because they are all on the same IPv6 /64, and constructive edits are interspersed with these vandalistic edits. Examples of vandalism: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

They have made over 30 edits like this, dating back to January 2025. They have been warned multiple times on the talk pages of their various IPs but have never responded (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I have reported this here rather than on AIV because not all of their edits are vandalism. CodeTalker (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

After being notified of this discussion, the IP has vandalized the article yet again today. The edit was reverted by ClueBot. CodeTalker (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

And a day later they have vandalized yet again. I don't understand why no action has been taken yet on this report. It seems clear to me that there is a problem here. Should I report at Rfpp instead? CodeTalker (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And yet again. It seems that their rate of vandalism has increased from about once a week to more than once a day since this report was filed. If this is not trolling, it is indistinguishable from it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I would make this report to WP:AIV, make sure to note the subnet mask as you did in your original report here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I digged a little further and it looks like three other wiki's have recently blocked large subnets (up to /32) from this range for at least a day or two at a time, so it's not just affecting us. ASN 812 includes a large number of IP ranges, and these appear to be Rodgers Communications (Canada). For this range they apparently have 2607:fea8::/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'd recommend at least a 2-3 day block given that other Wiki's have recently blocked IP's from this range as well. @Discospinster: recently reverted one minor bit of vandalism from them. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reported it to AIV, FYI. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The account is blocked for 6 months, so it should be resolved. Please report back if you see any other problems on that page, and if they change IP addresses, then perhaps RFPP would be the next best route. TiggerJay (talk) 04:51, 25 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.

Sockpuppets of User:AttackTheMoonNow affecting WP:ITNC

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow

Could the page Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and by extension Wikipedia talk:In the news please be indefinitely semi-protected? There is an long-term abuse issue surrounding User:AttackTheMoonNow that has been ongoing for a few months mainly on the aforementioned pages. This diff (posted under one of this user's many socks) pretty much sums up why the user in question is a major problem at the moment. BangJan1999 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sock blocked and tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: This isn't just one sockpuppet, it's an ongoing issue that has lasted several months and need a permanent solution to if there is one available. BangJan1999 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite semiprotection for a page where we want IP contributions causes too much collateral damage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Is there another way of dealing with long-term abuse of this scale that doesn't cause "too much collateral damage" other than just blocking the socks as they arrive? BangJan1999 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I am unware of any better option than playing Whac-A-Mole, until the disruption gets to be too great. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Please block Stardust Moonpie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also an obvious sock. --MuZemike 18:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the case, what makes this one obvious? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

AttackTheMoonNow's manifesto seems to be disrupting ITN using new accounts and harassing the admins that block them. Based on when the account was created and seeing how their first edits were to ITN/C, I would say it's likely. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Bongeurodoom (talk · contribs) is spreading attacks about this on unrelated pages, probably another sock. - MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Can't someone do an IP block of the usual IPs that these user accounts originate from? I don't know if that is technically possible but would seem like a way to stop this for now. Natg 19 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is common for abusive users to either 1) use unblocked proxies to create their accounts, which rarely have a range in common, or 2) to have a very wide range allocated to them (common with mobile ISPs), such as a whole IPv6/32 or IPv4/16. Izno (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  The WMF recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider. I wonder if we can use it to block whole providers (e.g. VPNGate) and cripple abusers temporarily. Also, I don't think ATMN normally uses proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Wikimedia recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider. is not really what happened. They have access to another group that has some access to Spur (Maxmind AIUI). We get a very filtered view of that in the context of the IP infobox. What we do not have is a view of all of every range we might care about, and no way to drill into "look at all those VPNGate addresses". A Phabricator task for IP infobox views over ranges might be interesting, as might a separate task for "let me see all the VPNGate hosts you know about".

  That aside, that doesn't fix mobile ISPs not caring in the slightest what their allocations are. Izno (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  It certainly is technically possible to block everything associated with an IP. I've twice been a victim of collateral damage on this account - the first time by a steward who didn't reply to emails, the second by a steward who email was closed. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Do reports to mobile network operators generally do something? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  They make those operators' admins laugh for a few seconds before they get tossed into a filing cabinet three floors down in the door labeled "Beware Of Leopard". It's why WP:Abuse reports was so depressingly ineffective. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds like real BOFH's. I do kind of get it though, unless there's some actual threat to their network there's not much incentive for them to care. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hide edits and revisions

Hey, would you be so nice to hide recent vandalic edits in my user talk page? Some are Spam (so it's your decision), but others are bluntly offensive. Pls also revdel at least the following entries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Much obliged. Virum Mundi (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Revdel done. The spam didn't need to be technically, but I didn't feel like tracing through which edits contained revdellable content and which didn't and none of them are useful so I hid the whole wad. For future reference please read the edit notice and don't draw attention to edits that should be hidden in a public place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt action!

I'll also keep in mind your indication for future cases (which btw is opposite of the one we have in the eswiki, where we encourage users to provide in the admin board with links to the referred edits, considered best practice and included in the form as a default field... so I guess every wiki is its own world :))

Cheers. Virum Mundi (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/ vandalism

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

I don't know if this is the right place or page to write this complaint... Anyway, I would like to draw your attention to the last edits in the Ceriantipatharia article [43] (starting with [44]) by editor UtherSRG, which represents obvious and completely open vandalism. The problem with his edit is, I hope, self-explanatory - removal of an extremely well-sourced text (almost a technical reproduction of sources) without any reason (his comment "last best" is no reason, it is a joke at best). I would also like to add that not only is UtherSRG's edit a textbook example of vandalism, but the original version of the article, to which he reverted, contains virtually no correct sentences (i. e. it contains laughable non-sense), which makes the whole revert even more wrong. This also shows, btw, that UtherSRG has absolutely no idea about the topic at hand.

A few days later, not having been stopped by anybody, he decided to be even more disruptive and removed the following well sourced and correct text [45] replacing it with an old version in which most of the text is mostly plainly wrong, outdated, unsourced, chaotic and completely infantile.

The reason for the above edits of UtherSRG was probably an attempt to get revenge (as absurd as it sounds) for this older edit in the tube-dwelling anemone article [46], in which he made another absurd revert with an absurd reason. The "reason" he gave in the comment was "Not an improvement". Such a "reason" means nothing at all (it just means "I don't like this") and can be written as a comment to virtually any edit or text in the world. The reality is that almost nothing substantial was changed in the article, and the little that was changed (adding headings, fixing one sentence etc.) was only "improvements".

Also note that on August 11, he even his revert in the tube-dwelling anemone article as a "minor" edit. I do not think that this what "minor" means. And again, this is open vandalism.

I don't know who UtherSRG is, and I don't have time to analyze his other (former or current) edits, but what is striking is that he obviously feels that he can get away with such extensive open vandalisms here. In fact, it is striking that he is allowed to edit anything here at all, because this exceeds any possible level of vandalism I can imagine.Temporatemporus (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• First of all, none of UtherSRG's edits that you have mentioned above are "a textbook example of vandalism" (see WP:NOTVAND), and given that UtherSRG is an editor with 200,000 edits, many to the area of taxonomy, I would suggest that edit-warring on articles with edit-summaries of "rv vandalism" is probably not going to go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Looking at the edits at Ceriantipatharia, Temporatemporus added ~31000 bytes of text, UtherSRG reverted, saying "rv - last best". Temporatemporus adds it again, is reverted with the same rationale, and then it is ultimately added again. During this slow, 17 day edit war, neither went to the article talk page to discuss the edit. The talk page for Hexacorallia (3rd diff from op) is also devoid of discussion between the two editors. There is no discussion on the talk page for Tube-dwelling anemone (4th diff) either. I also see no discussion on their user talk pages. This is a content dispute between two editors who apparently don't know that Talk pages exist... TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • This is not a content issue (at least not for 99 % of the text), because he did not remove individual pieces if information he considers wrong. Instead, he just removed professional well-sourced texts as a revenge for an edit in another article. He has no idea what he has reverted and has not even read it. And he has not even given a reason in the edit summaries. "[Revert to] last best" is not a reason. What and how do you want to discuss this? This is completely irrational behaviour.Temporatemporus (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong advice that I suggest you follow: go and read WP:BRD, then use the talk page of each article to explain why you think your edits are right, and stop edit-warring contested material back in to the article with spurious claims of vandalism (have you read WP:NOTVAND yet?). I have no idea whether your version or UtherSRG's version is "correct", but even if it's yours, you are going totally the wrong way about it. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
      • Indeed - note that accusations of vandalism that are unfounded (which these are) can be considered personal attacks. Also removed....as a revenge for an edit in another article is casting aspersions which is also a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
        • Once again - he has removed tons of well-sourced completely indisputed content. Without even trying to invent a reason for this. If this is not vandalism, then what is vandalism in a project trying to write an encyclopaedia? Is this a joke? If I wanted to write a manual on vandalism in a project trying to collect sourced information, this would be the main example threre...Ans as for the revenge, just look at the edits in chronological succession, they are self-explanatory. Temporatemporus (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
          • Vandalism would be if someone replaced the content with "ha ha bepis". This is a content dispute. Attempt dispute resolution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This is worse than I thought. The normal reaction here should be - the user UtherSRG should be banned or forced to stop this type of behaviour, and then someone should be charged with checking his past edits to see how many other such sourced texts he has deleted without any reason. I was naive to think that this wikipedia has at least some mechanisms to prevent such disruptive deletions from happening and that someone will notice it and fix this after a few days. The opposite happened - not only did nobody notice and fix anything, but it is me who he is critized here (presumably for my choice of vaculabulary??). You do not seem to understand the extent of the problem: I have not checked, but I guess he has destroyed hundreds or thousands of articles and new users, because I can see here, that nobody notices anything and nobody cares. Temporatemporus (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Consider this a final warning regarding casting aspersions and personal attacks. Even if you were entirely correct on the merits of your position here, your way of going about it is entirely in violation of policy - being right is not enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the validity of the complaints or the possible overreaction by Temporatemporus, I don't think it reflects very well on an experienced editor like UtherSRG to edit war with rather meaningless edit summaries and without using the talk page either, and then not to even respond here while they are happily editing elsewhere. They have shown rather poor behaviour lately, including blocks where they were involved (the reversed block of User:SilverzCreations, but also dubious or way too harsh blocks of e.g. User:Steveragnarson or User:103.44.35.123 or User:181.2.118.245. They seem very relaxed about their own edit warring and involvedness, and way too happy to hand out long blocks to the other side. Looking at their most recent blocks, I have my doubts about the ones of User:Baloch Tribe (username block? Would we block user:Scottish people if they edited about Scotland?), User:102.182.139.25 (one warning, then two block, for making unsourced but correct edits?)

Their recent reverts include things like a rollback of this correct edit (see Cy the Cardinal), a final warning + revert for unsourced but correct edits[47][48]; an editor clearly and correctly explains their edit, but gets blindly reverted, recreating the worse version[49]; dubious rollback use against User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E (this needs a syntax correction but is an improvement over UtherSRGs version); this redlink removal is not rollbackable either); more dubious rollback use[50] (the IP was vandalizing, but that doesn't mean that months old edits by presumably a different person should be blindly reverted as well). This reversion of an extremely vague reference is not helpful and didn't warrant a warning. This was a completely incorrect rollback (didn't warrant rollback in any case, and the link that was removed was indeed incorrect, as it referred to the Saturn moon Titan)... This is all from the last few days.

A look at UtherSRGs recent reverts in general seems warranted. Fram (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• UtherSRG's reverts on Ceriantipatharia are simply unacceptable. To revert that much work with no more comment than "RV - last best" is nowhere near good enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The blocks:

• Steveragnarson: Multiple reverts by other, well respected editors of a dozen or so edits on half a dozen articles, who warned them twice to stop. I blocked them for two weeks.
• 103.44.35.123: IP-jumper vandalizing Domo Genesis
• 181.2.118.245: seven warnings in a month isn't enough for you?
• Baloch Tribe: I should have blocked for multiple reasons. I chose the one that is easiest to come back from.
• 102.182.139.25: They'd had multiple warnings before and had a previous block. The vandalism was of a similar nature as previous, so when they continued vandalizing a few days fter being warned, I blocked for 2 weeks.

The reverts:

• Northern Cardinal: I could have done better here.
• Spot-tailed nightjar and Hydropsalis: not only were they unsourced, they were counter to the existing sources. These were not "correct edits".
• Great skua: Use of the singular for species is preferred and used in a great number of taxonomy articles. This article had a mix of usage. The user nudged the article to have a little less singular usage; I reverted and them went through the whole article to singularize.
• 2601:...:599E's edit broke the image. I reverted the breakage, but I hadn't even seen that it was broken because they had 2-3 dozen edits in a row that mostly were the removals of redlinks. Redlinks are not bad links and don't need removal. While a single redlink removal I would have said "red link not badlink" in the edit summary, bulk reversals are indeed rollback material.
• Carmen Hernández: I looked at the IP's edit history and this looked liked more vandalizing.
• Neanderthal extinction: I followed this up with a note on the user's talk page, explaining they should have tagged instead of removing.
• Kong (Monsterverse): Multiple editors reverting to the same version I reverted to, against an IP jumper

UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. This sounds like a case of WP:BOOMERANG back to Temporatemporus for casting aspersions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm opposed. There are legitimate concerns with UtherSRG's conduct. The NOTVAND issues with both Temporatemporus and UtherSRG are real, and it would be inappropriate to sanction only one of them. At least at this point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

They haven't responded about the edits highlighted by Temporatemporus at all, so I don't see how you can come to this conclusion? Fram (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocks:

• A new editor, User talk:Steveragnarson, gets a warning for an unsourced addition, and a level 2 warning for adding "commentary" to an article. And then you come along and give them a 2 week block for edit warring, about which they were never warned.
• "103.44.35.123: IP-jumper vandalizing Domo Genesis" If it's an IP jumper, they why would you block them for 6 months 3 months after the edit?
• 181.2.118.245: my mistake, I thought I had removed that from my list, no issue there
• "102.182.139.25: They'd had multiple warnings before and had a previous block." Yeah, from a year earlier. "The vandalism was of a similar nature as previous, so when they continued vandalizing a few days fter being warned, I blocked for 2 weeks." This isn't vandalism but factual information[51], and this is replacing one name of a location with another one; probably an edit that shouldn't have been made, but not vandalism or particularly problematic.

The Leach's storm petrel situation is particularly problematic, as you seem to have been deeply WP:INVOLVED here, reverting this claim multiple times as "patently false"[52], protecting the article[53], and blocking the IP who added it, while all the time this was a correct, relevant, interesting fact. The IP even gave the source in their edit summary[54], all to no avail of course.

Reverts:

• "Spot-tailed nightjar and Hydropsalis: not only were they unsourced, they were counter to the existing sources. These were not "correct edits"." Newbies often don't know about referencing, they only want to correct information. Simply reverting them (or worse, warning and or blocking them) is not helpful to the articles or these editors. It's not hard to check these, you immediately get this
• User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E; so you revert it all without any explanation in either the edit summary or on their talk page, leaving them wondering why they get reverted and more likely wondering why they would ever again contribute here?
• "Neanderthal extinction: I followed this up with a note on the user's talk page, explaining they should have tagged instead of removing." So you reinserted dubious, poorly sourced statements? Without even tagging it as disputed?
• "Kong (Monsterverse): Multiple editors reverting to the same version I reverted to, against an IP jumper" ??? The bad link was first added on 9 August[55], the IP removing it was reverted once[56], and then by you[57]. So there was just one editor reverting to that version, and most importantly the edit was 100% an improvement. A revert would have been bad, rollback was clearly worse. Fram (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Basically, you don't follow WP:BITE (and other rules), and I have no idea how you expect these editors to improve without explaining the issues and giving them the impression that you actually checked their edits and reacted based on the merit of the edit, and not based on some rules they don't know about or on some prejudice against IPs editing "your" articles. Fram (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

More WP:OWN/WP:BITE or just rather blind reverts:

• This article was tagged for copyediting in April, and was extensively edited for this and other reasons in the months since, until an editor put some final touches and removed the tag[58]; they got reverted[59] with the, er, not helpful edit summary of "not helpful".
• Unwarranted use of rollback on this and this and this
• More unwarranted use of rollback here where the IP edit matches the only source in the article
• More unwarranted rollback of an edit which looks like a well-crafted pure improvement[60]

All from last week, 15 and 16 August. Fram (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to argue the individual points, as I don't think it's fruitful. I think you've incorrectly characterized many of these items. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@UtherSRG:, the concerns about WP:INVOLVED actions, at the very least, make this a WP:ADMINACCT issue. Given that I'd advise that you should likely argue the indvidiual points. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@UtherSRG:, not {{pint}}, we're (hopefully) not getting drunk here! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Why not? :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, it's 5pm somewhere- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The fact is, there's a lot of actions we can discuss. I've made some mistakes, yes, but I also think some actions are being taken out of context or misrepresented. And on a very active account like mine, looking only at a cherry-picked set of actions and not looking at all the rest of the actions at the same time is futile. I will gladly discuss any single action, or talk in general about how I tend to approach things (and that can only be a "tend to" as every situation is unique), but debating back and forth on a group of items leads only to frustration on everyone's part. If someone wants to paint a picture of me, there's enough paint that any picture can be painted. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

So, let me sum up what I hear expressed about my actions in general. I block too soon and/or for too long. I revert too easily. I don't discuss enough. Have I missed any other general points? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

You've inappropriately labeled many good-faith edits "vandalism". You've used rollback inappropriately to revert those edits. You've edit warred with those other good-faith editors, which makes you involved, and then you've used other tools like protection and blocks inappropriately. You've missed at least a couple recent opportunities to absorb related feedback and correct course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

There's clearly room for improvement, as there is for us all. But I think you could go through the contributions of any active editor (50+ edits/day) and find mistakes. I'm not trying to minimize any existing problems but I'm not sure any of us could be scrutinized like this and end up with a clean rap sheet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a strange way of framing this. Most of the edits are unrelated to reverting, the number of mistakes while reverting or rollbacking should be checked against the number of reverts and rollbacks. If someone would do 1 rollback per 200 gnoming edits, but all their rollbacks were wrong, we wouldn't dismiss concerns because it is less than 1% of their edits surely? Obviously that example is hypothetical hyperbole. But when I look at their reverts going on from where I stopped (somewhere during his 15 August edits), I see this (minor, but the other edit was helpful and in line with the remainder of the page), this (not relevant? Seems like a very useful addition); I have no idea why this was reverted, and this; I don't see why rollback (or even reversion) was needed for a series of edits where someone switched the order of two animals to be alphabetical:[61][62][63][64]... This is the vast majority of their reverts on the 15th and the 14th. it's the same pattern over and over again. I hope most admins and rollbackers don't have this level of mistakes, and if you do recognise yourself in this then perhaps you should change your approach drastically. Fram (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. My thoughts are pretty much what Fram says above. UtherSRG is familiar to me, I've worked in the same area as him in the past (although it's slipped my mind now which corner of the project that was... 🙄). And I've no doubt he's a conscientious and good admin. But it's also clear there's an issue here with inappropriate reverts and involved actions which can't be explained just as routine mistakes during prolific editing and which need to be addressed. I have no doubt that UtherSRG can do this, and there's no need for this to escalate any further, but @UtherSRG: let's have it here. I'd like to see a plan and commitment from yourself as to how you can do better in the future and avoid the issues here recurring. As an aside, it's disappointing that everyone was queueing up to criticise the OP at the top of this thread. Yes, nine times out of ten complaints against experienced editors here are wide of the mark, and yes, some of their terminology such as "vandalism" was unfounded, but I'd like to think we've moved on from the WP:UNBLOCKABLE era (if such a thing ever existed) and that we can treat each ANI thread on its own merits rather than the profiles of the editors. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  I wish I had a plan. If there were an admin training program, I'd take it. If there were an admin mentorship program, I'd sign up and ask for a mentor. The best I can do is say I'll slow down and try to put more consideration into everything I do. Other than that, I don't know. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  UtherSRG, do you view having the admin tools as a positive for your volunteer time here? After a few rounds now, where the commitments from you have all been of the (paraphrasing) "I'll be more careful" variety, it just doesn't seem to me like you're willing to put in any work on changing your admin conduct. I think it's likely that a recall petition might be started soon. Are you interested in taking concrete steps to avoid that outcome? For example, would you consider giving up the use of rollback, or holding yourself to 1RR, or staying away from the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" exception to INVOLVED? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yup, I can forgo rollback (I've found that the rollback can be disabled in some cases), I'll hold to 1RR, and reduce involved actions. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Most of my rollback usage has been from the Watchlist. I've removed the rollback feature from the Watchlist. I'll now have to open a diff to have access to rollback, which will force me to see more of the edit before I choose to perform the rollback. I think this should be sufficient for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

About the Original Post

I am aware that there are two subjects of discussion here, the edits by UtherSRG and the comments of the Original Poster, and I am aware that the discussion is now mostly about UtherSRG. So I am inserting a heading because I will be talking about the Original Poster, User: Temporatemporus. When you have fewer than 50 edits and state that the editing of an experienced editor, whether or not an administrator, is "open vandalism" and "a textbook example of vandalism", it appears that, almost as soon as you entered Wikipedia, you learned that 'vandalism' is one of the most serious allegations that can be made against another editor, but that you either didn't read the "textbook" of our policies and guidelines, or went through the motions of reading them without understanding. You then Yelled Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute. I haven't looked into the merits of the content dispute, but a conductcontent dispute is not vandalism. Disruptive and tendentious editing to "win" a content dispute is not vandalism. If you have both a real content dispute and a real issue about another editor's content, don't distract from the reality of your concern by Yelling Vandalism. You wrote: I don't know if this is the right place or page to write this complaint... The problem is not that you wrote in the wrong place, but that you made a wrong complaint, and that diverts attention from any real complaint. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Here's an observation. The original poster (Temporatemporus) also gives off the vibe that they may have another account and is very familiar with inner-workings of Wikipedia. Their very first edit included: editing short description, using the right citation templates, using defined & named references (not the generic ones that Visual Editor generates, see their citation on Goette's book as example) and adding a category. Their 12th edit (and 7 days since account creation) is editing a template. And finding ANI in less than 3 weeks (and under 30 edits) and filing a properly formatted report, with diffs and everything, seems a bit too proficient for a brand new account. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, User:OhanaUnited. There are two possible explanations. One plausible explanation is yours, which is that the editor has more Wikipedia experience than their history shows. The other, which is my theory, is the assumption of good faith that an editor has rushed quickly into learning about Wikipedia and doesn't know as much as they think they do. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps, they were editing as the IP 2A02:AB04:3132:4100::/64 and decided to create an account, as we encourage people to do. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@REAL MOUSE IRL Which appears to be more evidence of having previous editing experience (as an IP or under another account) or editing while logged out. First edit in this IP range is doing disambig on article page with {{about}} and second edit is removing a redirect page. How many brand new editors know their way around disambig and redirect page on their first day, let alone knowing how to remove redirects correctly in one edit? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

IPs are dynamic, editing as different IP addresses is not LOUTSOCKing. A new user knowing how to remove redirects is fairly common, it's not hard to figure out that deleting the line that says "#REDIRECT" removes the redirect... REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Please read about dynamic IPs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I know about dynamic IPs. My internet was on dynamic IP 15 years ago. As a former SPI clerk, I just wanted to flag that it gives off a weird vibe when a brand new account has far more knowledge beyond what a typical new editor exhibits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras

Kabul madras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since Kabul madras has joined Wikipedia, he's been obsessed with trying to use this platform as a way to "disprove" the lineage of the Ba 'Alawi sada. One of the methods of trying to do so was using his own original research. I've first warned him about original research a year ago, and have been doing so ever since, but he refuses to listen. In this discussion, he didn't even seem to care that I warned him that I'm going to take this here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Are there diffs you could post that show the issue? It would be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

feel free to review all my edits.I have never inserted 'original research' into the article. I have always used references that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If @Abo Yemen disagrees with what I have written, that is Abo Yemen's personal problem and an inability to accept the factual, sourced reality. I invite all of you, as an administrator, to act as the judge in this dispute between me and Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs: I'm currently outside so I am not sure how to provide diffs on the mobile app, but you can see their only 5 contribs they made today. They've been providing their own interpretations of DNA databases in an attempt to try and disprove the lineage. And instead of using the neutral and academic sources that describe the lineage dispute from both povs, he seems to only see the youtube videos that he's been watching and citing on this article as the only definitive truth. Kabul, trying to deny your edits on that article that are available for everyone to see is not going to work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [65]. The ref does appear murky though. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

yes, it's that one, thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland @Kowal2701,Yes, that is correct. That specific section is part of the article currently under a content dispute. It is entirely different part from the part that was agreed upon by consensus in the RFC. I have obeyed the consensus that was reached by RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There was an RfC where everyone !voted against Kabul's position, I tried to explain but they continued to disagree [66] Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I closed that RFC on 7 August 2025 finding that there was consensus, except for Kabul Madras, to remove their statement that their lineage claim was being disputed. They are now at 2RR in edit-warring to insert the statement against consensus. Edit-warring at 2RR against a consensus adopted in an RFC in response to previous edit-warring is still edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If User:Kabul Madras disagrees with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the close at WP:AN rather than edit-warring against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I have not engaged in any counter-actions regarding the concluded RFC, and I am abiding by its outcome in accordance with Wikipedia policies. My subsequent edits were solely to the DNA analysis section of the article. These are two entirely separate matters. I would invite you to review the relevant edit history concerning the DNA analysis portion. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Here is the close of the RFC [67].
• Here are the most recent three insertions of the text that was removed by consensus: [68] [69] [70]

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, these are two completely separate sections. The RFC addresses a section at the beginning of the article. I have fully adhered to the consensus reached in that RFC. Meanwhile, my most recent edit is in a different part of the article and deals with a separate matter. The issue that should be discussed here is whether my latest edit violates any Wikipedia policies. Kabul madras (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

"My disruption was removed from part of the article by a RFC. I'm adhering to the RFC by moving my disruption to another part of the article". WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No i am not. It's completely different sentence , different topic, in different location from the article. Kabul madras (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Kabul madras has just filed an arbitration case request. Left guide (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  noting here as I did there - I'm a named party as a result of my p-block and will not take any further admin action. However I also did not intend to beyond my (disregarded) warning not to bludgeon this discussion. Notice is probably unnecessary but for avoidance of any issue. Star Mississippi 03:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Note here for the record that the arbitration request was denied and removed here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Does this count as an aspersion? [71] Borgenland (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  it very much is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban and Partial Block

I propose that User:Kabul Madras be topic-banned by the community from Ba 'Alawi sada and its talk page, and partially blocked to enforce that topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please do not be hasty. I have already replied to your argument concerning the RFC. You are misinterpreting my position by concluding that I oppose the RFC. The current issue at hand is a completely separate matter from what was discussed in the RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  The matter currently at hand is not separate from the RFC. The topic at hand is a subset of the topic of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• I already applied the p-block, but leaving this open in the event there's support for a topic ban to dissuade moving the disruption elsewhere. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion is still ongoing, so how can you justify imposing an immediate block? Please re-read my arguments above. The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because your disruption has gone beyond the results of the RFC and honestly, you could have been blocked much earlier. Please do not bludgeon this discussion. Star Mississippi 00:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you keep saying "The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC." you're just telling people topic ban is a justified, or worse even just a site ban. No one wants to have an RfC everytime you bring up a slightly different suggestion. While you might be right that the RfC closure didn't technically cover what you were doing, it's clear from the RfC discussion that there was substantial concern about anything related & in any case it's most definitely not "entirely separate". Perhaps there is merit to continue discussion of whether and what can be added elsewhere but definitely not edit warring. And that discussion needs to consider previous discussions including the RfC and any editor wishing to take part should understand basics like WP:OR, WP:RS and especially have some ability to recognise when issues are related rather than treat them as entirely separate when they aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil EinneOf course I understand WP:OR and WP:RS. In fact, if you understood them, you would have first read all the references I cited there, before quickly justifying them as original research and unreliable sources, without a strong basis. Kabul madras (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I like how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've given your own interpretation (or in other words, done original research) of one huge ass family using a DNA database (Which literally has text along with a fucking
  [citation needed] tag copied from a Wikipedia article, not even making this up btw. See also: WP:CIRCULAR) of about two hundred people (mostly self proclaimed diaspora), but somehow you dont see that as violations of WP:OR or WP:RS? Those are some real WP:CIR issues right here. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  What WP:CIRCULAR? Everything I wrote there already has references. It's clear that you didn't even read them, which is why you came to that conclusion. Indeed, accepting reality is difficult, especially for those who have been lied to by their ancestors since childhood. Kabul madras (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I dont have to read what al-Bantani (a person whose highest education level is the equivalent of a high school diploma) wrote. But I've read Muhajir & Alatas 2023 and As'hal et al 2024 (academic sources) and they gave an overview of this indonesian debate on the lineage of the diaspora claimants of Ba Alawi ancestry. None of them show al-Bantani's views as the definite truth. Indeed, those who consume propaganda from tiktok and youtube aren't here to build an encyclopedia. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  You know that almost no one or maybe actually no one in this discussion has Ba Alawi ancestry right? Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne this is awkward, but I do have Ba Alawi ancestry, although I found about it like a year ago since neither me nor my fam are really big fans of this ancestry stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:1AM, if all the experienced editors are telling you're doing WP:OR and not providing appropriate reliable source and after 157 edits you insist they're wrong and you're not engaged in OR & all your sources are perfect RS, guess who's almost always in the wrong? Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  And, ultimately, it is within the purview of an administrator to make such decisions without a "Mother may I" from ANI participants. Beyond that, it's not that we haven't read your arguments. It's not that we don't understand your arguments. It's that we don't agree with your arguments. The distinction is not hard to grasp. Ravenswing 05:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from all Ba Alawi-related topics (e.g. Ba 'Alawiyya and Haplogroup G-M201, where Kabul attempted to do their POVPUSH) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support: +1 to "Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption." Ravenswing 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason to support the idea that this editor is helpful to the project in this area at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I gave the editor a chance to think about what they're doing and show some indication they are starting to understand the problem with the editors their edits. They didn't take it instead continuing to insist their behaviour has been great. Frankly I'm not sure they can be a productive editor anywhere but perhaps if they do edit an area they care less about they'll be better. Or perhaps it's the only thing they care about so they will abandon editing. Either way, it's clear them continuing to edit about the topic area is not going to be productive. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) 20:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support continnued IDHT including opening a premature arbitration request which is evidence of both IDHT and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of the Questioned Edit and the RFC

User:Kabul Madras says that what they were posting on 20 August is unrelated to the RFC and is a different matter. The RFC was about a statement that the claim of descent from Muhammad is being challenged, and consensus was to delete that statement. So introduction of a detailed analysis challenging the claim of descent is within the scope of the RFC. The most recent edit is an analysis that the Ba_'Alawi_sada clan and Muhammad's tribe belong to different Y-haplogroups. That is a challenge to the claim of descent, and that is what the RFC concluded should not be in the article. If they want to challenge the closure of the RFC, that can be done at WP:AN. At this point, if they want to raise questions about the interpretation of the RFC, they can do that in a close challenge, since they are blocked from the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I also have a question. Are Ba_'Alawi_sada claiming descent from Muhammad, or are they more specifically claiming direct patriarchal descent from Ali? Y-chromosome analysis doesn't prove or disprove descent, only patriarchal descent. So if I understand correctly, the recent edits are not only against consensus but are irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Both are claimed by them. The claim regarding Muhammad is based on a hadith, where Muhammad acknowledges that the descendants of Fatimah are his descendants. The claim regarding Ali is based on biological lineage records. Of course, Y-DNA only traces the direct paternal line of an individual, and their lineage records claim a direct paternal descent from Ali. If only you would all read the references used carefully, you would understand this easily. But alas, you chose to make a quick justification without proper review. There's nothing to worry about, the truth will emerge eventually on its own, even if not through me. Kabul madras (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice yet, we dont speak Bahasa Indonesia. Plus you've been ignoring 3 academic sources on this issue that clearly dont present al-Bantani's opinion as the definitive truth, and even if it were to be so, its still a WP:PRIMARY in this debate about diaspora. Either ways you are topic banned from this topic and you should not be discussing it anywhere on-wiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, User:Abo Yemen, User:Kabul madras is not topic-banned as of about 0340 GMT, 22 August 2025. They are partially blocked from the article and the article talk page. The topic ban request is still open. Also, if they were topic-banned, which they are not yet, one of the usual exceptions to a topic-ban is to discuss the topic-ban. They have the privilege of discussing the topic. (No one has the right to edit Wikipedia, but almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

oh thank you for pointing that out 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course I understand that many of you don't understand Indonesian, but Google Translate is available to solve that problem. Instead of using the tools at hand, you chose to make a quick justification. It's clear that al-Bantani's view is not the absolute truth, which is why I presented it as an alternative perspective in a neutral, unbiased, and impartial language. Unfortunately, this situation is similar to a majority of Ba 'Alawi in Indonesia who find it difficult to accept alternative perspectives on a given reality. Regrettably, at the grassroots level in Indonesia, the opinion is already different. Kabul madras (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Soham S Shah

Soham S Shah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding promotional content to articles about Adobe products. Diffs: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], and [83]. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The user is already blocked. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The user has only been blocked, by @Lofty abyss:, for 31 hours. Was that intentional, Lofty abyss? Users who are here only for promotion, which seems to be the case with Soham S Shah, are usually indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC).

I think you should extend to ban to "indefinite" because it appears that the account is only used for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I sometimes think, not sure if illusorily, that if such a temporary block is used that, perhaps, they'd get the message and stop writing in such a spammy manner, as in this case... many continue, as IPs often do after shorter blocks, but I often end up trying if there's a possibility (in this case they went from self-promotion, to promotion of others' products, for some reason, so I thought that, maybe, they might possibly stop promoting altogether, if temporary...) ~Lofty abyss 15:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

[Impressed.] There's AGF! Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC).

Complaint Regarding Administrator "sqncjs"

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.

---

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

I am writing to formally file a complaint revarding the administrator with the username "Sqncjs" on Korea Wikipedia. I believe this administrator has acted inappropriately in their role.

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the administrator known as “sqncjs.” It appears that this administrator has been deliberately damaging Wikipedia articles, which is contrary to the responsibilities and standards expected of administrators.

As evidence, I would like to provide the following link where such actions can be observed:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EA%B4%91%ED%83%9C_(%EB%B2%95%EC%A1%B0%EC%9D%B8)

In light of this, I respectfully request that the Wikimedia Foundation review this administrator’s actions and consider whether it is necessary to revoke their administrator rights in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. EdgeGpt (talk) 20:52, 25 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.

Possible disruptive editing / content deletion by User:StephenMacky1 on Anti-Romani sentiment 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.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Casper le fantome (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

User: StephenMacky1 Concern: Repeatedly deleting large sections of sourced historical content on Anti-Romani sentiment without discussion, leaving the article disjointed. Attempted resolution: Discussed on talk page, explained sources and relevance. Request: Administrators’ review for potential disruptive editing or vandalism.

(Not an admin) Can I suggest you provide diffs to back up your claim, see Help:Diff. You might want to read WP:VANDNOT. You should also notify the other user about this (see instructions at the top of this page. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 25 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.

Long-term cross-wiki abuse (harassment, POV-pushing) by User:Il Nur

I am reporting User:Il Nur (Il Nur) for edit warring and refusing to engage in a constructive discussion on Talk:Bashkir language. What happened:

• The user replaced the general locator map (showing the location of the Bashkir language) with his own dialect map. His map is misleading because it omits one of the three recognized Bashkir dialects.

I started a discussion on the talk page to address this, providing sources. Il Nur responded, but after I posted a detailed rebuttal to his points, he went silent. My rebuttal is here: [84]

• After waiting over a week, I restored the general locator map. [85]
• Days later, he reverted my edit without any further discussion. [86]

This user is ignoring the discussion process and resorting to edit warring. This is especially concerning because this user is currently under a TOPIC BAN from all "Tatar topics, broadly construed". His argument for his map is that the third Bashkir dialect is actually a Tatar dialect, which means he is violating his topic ban by editing on this subject.

• Proof of his Topic Ban is in his own talk page archive: [87]

This is not just an issue on English Wikipedia; it's part of a long-term pattern across multiple projects. I request administrator intervention to stop this disruption. MR973 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the topic ban is rather informal, it was agreed to when the editor was unblocked (see here) but I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, it is not required for a conditional unblock to be listed there. What is required is that it is listed in the block log, which it is. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, thank you for that information, I didn't know that. But then, I don't handle many unblocks. But now I'll know where to look for any new topic bans. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Il Nur, I tbanned you from "Tatar topics, broadly construed" when I unblocked you last November. Please immediately provide evidence that you have had this tban lifted. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme. If I had restrictions on Bashkir subjects, please indicate this. This participant, who has already been blocked in other projects for destructive activities, is stalking me for a file about the Bashkir language, which he does not like for political reasons. The Bashkir language file was created with reference to Bashkir linguists and the population census. The card promoted by the participant is not based on anything, it is without sources and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in violation of the rules and is subject to deletion. Il Nur (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

He has already tried to delete my map, which is based on reputable sources in another project, but they did not give it to him, now he has begun to bypass it and clean it from the articles. Which is a game with rules and destructive activities. The participant is trying to mislead, not all philologists and linguists recognize the third dialect and others distinguish only two dialects in the Bashkir language, which is confirmed by population censuses, all the sources that I used are listed in the file itself. I have already suggested that he create his own map based on other sources and add a file, but the participant ignores this. It seems to me that the participant is trying to push only his own guidance, ignoring others, for which he was blocked in another Wikipedia section.--Il Nur (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Il Nur, I don't understand how you can say that The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme. The word Tatar itself is used twenty-six times in that article. If you truly believed that this was unrelated, we can call this your first warning. Please cease editing on Tatar-related topics. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic? What other languages are related to the Tatar topic? Can this be confirmed by another administrator? I see that the article compares two languages using examples, and that the Tatar language is mentioned in a general template for Turkic languages. My map of the dialects of the Bashkir language has nothing to do with the Tatar theme or the Tatar language. If I don't understand something, can you explain it to me? And is there a way to restrict this user from contacting me, as I see that he is harassing me because he failed to delete the map on Wikimedia Commons. Il Nur (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I am an administrator in several small-language sections of Wikipedia, I support dozens of other small-language sections, organize international contests in them, participate in international wiki meetings and events, and share my experience. Just in the spring, I participated in the Wiki meeting in Tashkent and presented the experience of working in small-language sections and the experience of translating articles in the Bashkir Wikipedia. All my presentations are uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. I also have a bot that uploads thousands of files to the Wikimedia Commons under a combined license on the topic of Russia's small peoples. I also make and upload language maps of the dialects of these peoples, and no one else does this. This user is harassing me and engaging in destructive activities, for which he was blocked in another section where he was active and appeared immediately after the blocking of another destructive User:Ryanag. This may be a way to bypass the blocking, which is why he was blocked there. I am surprised that he is able to delete files based on authoritative sources from articles simply because he does not like them, as he was not allowed to do so in the Wikimedia Commons. I don't have the time or interest to argue with you, I just wanted to make the articles more illustrated, but it seems that someone doesn't like it. In the future, I will mark my files so that they are not used in your language section, and I will leave your project. Il Nur (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic? I believe that already was explained: The word Tatar itself is used twenty-six times in that article. Also, nobody 'deleted' anything from English Wikipedia. Removing the file from the page =/= deletion. Listing your credentials on other projects is irrelevant to English Wikipedia - what matters is what you do here. In the future, I will mark my files so that they are not used in your language section I'm pretty sure you cannot do that - releasing the files on Commons allows them to be used anywhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm amazed WP:DONTYOUKNOWHOIAM is a red link... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Il Nur, if you can provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that this editor is harassing you, I or some other administrator can take action to stop that. No one will take action based solely on your description of events. Please be concise and clear so it's easier for us to investigate. As for removing files from articles, any editor can do this; that's a simple content dispute, and the way to handle that is on the talk page of the article. If there are two of you and you cannot come to consensus, you can ask for a WP:3O. But in this case, please don't - you need to avoid that article, because it is clearly covered by your topic ban. Edit something else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Large campaign for non notable individual on G Scorpii talk page

• G Scorpii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a consistent and coordinated attempt to shoe horn a non notable individual (who I will not name, as I do not want to give publicity to this person, that is what these users want apparently) by both IP and sock accounts. I contemplated blanking the entire talk page, but seeing as some posts include replies by good faith users, I do not know what to do here. Thanks for any help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G_Scorpii Plasticwonder (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The lengths some people will go to for clout on the Internet...I've set up talk page archiving there. At the moment, threads older than 10 days will be archived, with one thread left on the page. Once it cleans out the old chaff I'll up those a bit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that, The Bushranger. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

As a note, it might take a little while before the archiving starts, per the notes regarding ClueBot III. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and archived the 5 year old threads using Archiver. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Definitely looks like it should be archived or blanked. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If someone validly bought the star then it must have belonged to the person they bought it from before that. Who was that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"Validly?" Ravenswing 00:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

They not be socks as much of fans of the same podcast. Secretlondon (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Sock or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, it's the same. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This business has been going on for five years, and has been from IP addresses and pop-up accounts. I know that article talk pages are only semi-protected in unusual cases, but this is an unusual case. Can the talk page be semi-protected? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it has reached the level that protection is necessary. Yes, there are a lot of posts, but they are spread out over years. If it was this many posts in a month, that might qualify but as is, it is pretty easy to manage. As much as I don't like Pending Changes, the main article would be a good candidate for PC protection, indef, as we don't know when the efforts will stop. I almost did it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea.  Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if I am misunderstanding how pending review works, but it seems to allow me to unaccept the pending changes setting? Not sure if it actually effects the editing, though. (nevermind, doesn't affect things) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the issue with Pending Changes? Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:Pending changes, which explains it in detail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

271rpm and systematic vandalism on the page Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

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.

---

• 271rpm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nib2905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

---

The discussed RFC may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States#Rfc_on_the_the_contestation_of_Donald_Trump's_height.

The history of the page for quick access may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&action=history

@271rpm: has repeatedly reverted edits that mention skepticism of Donald Trump's height claims. They have said that "Girther movement by picture "evidence" is an agenda that has to be reverted." These reversions have included an edit by User:GlowingLava which presented the information as claims, not facts, and which included citations from reliable sources such as The Times of India, Politico and The Guardian. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&oldid=1306183165 Some of the references are listed below. There were a total of 10 sources on said edit.

"Trump's driver's license casts doubt on height claims". POLITICO. December 23, 2016. Retrieved 2025-08-16

Gabbatt, Adam (January 17, 2018). "A tall tale? Accuracy of Trump's medical report – and new height – questioned". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-08-16

"Is Biden taller than Trump? White House photo sparks height discussions on social media". The Times of India. November 16, 2024. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2025-08-16.

271rpm said in their revision comments of @GlowingLava:'s edit "You first need to reach consensus on the talk page.", it was pointed out by User:GlowingLava that simply mentioning a notable point of disagreement, without altering the main text, is a standard way to resolve editing stalemates and does not necessarily require prior consensus to be proposed. (Do not need to reach consensus, mentioning there is disagreement is not the same thing as changing the main number. This also solves the problem of the ongoing stalemate which is encouraged IIRC.) They reverted the revert.

In response, 271rpm stated: "As long as there hasn't been a RfC on the subject, I will continue to revert you." They then reverted the revert.

A request for comment was created repeating the above information. General consensus on the rfc was that the edits mentioning skepticism of Trump's height was appropriate.

@Rhododendrites: stated "This is a behavioral issue. 271rpm has not provided adequate reasons why multiple reliable sources should be removed multiple times, and I do not see that an RfC is needed at this time. "No consensus" is not itself a reason to revert. As it otherwise stood, we just defer to the official height provided by the white house, which -- when contested by so many independent sources -- wouldn't have even been appropriate before its relationship with basic facts became so shaky" and reverted the page to include information regarding skepticism on Trump's height. 271rpm removed this and stated "I have provided the justified media criticism in an additional footnote, citing reliable sources. That should suffice; otherwise, it would undermine the neutrality of Wikipedia." Please check page history as there were a total of 9 edits by 271rpm.

@Aquillion: stated "No, the footnote and the article text are backwards. The White House is not a WP:RS; we cannot use them for unattributed facts in the article voice, and the claim is too "unduly self-serving" in this context to use as a direct citation. The Guardian, Politico, Times of India, etc. are WP:RSes and what they say should be stated in the article voice, not attributed with "by the media" - if anything is going to be reduced to an attributed opinion in a footnote, it's the White House's position. For something clearly controversial like this, we need to rely on WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing, ie. sources that aren't affiliated with or controlled by Trump." and reverted the page to include information mentioning skepticism of Trump's height.. I added a slight clarification to the page. 271rpm reverted this to once again remove the information regarding skepticism regarding Trump's height.

@TarnishedPath: stated "That said I agree with Rhododendrites that this RFC is not needed to deal with the a behavioural issue from one editor. Take it to WP:ANI."

At one point in the rfc 271rpm stated "Well, The Times of India is not reliable at all, they analyze photos of celebrities whose height is not known. Putin could wear 2-inch lifts, which he has done frequently." to which I replied "You are referencing an article not mentioned in this Rfc. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/power-move-trump-pulls-putin-pats-back-during-handshake-social-media-decodes-how-tall-putin-is/articleshow/123326511.cms The article has the sentence "This triggered theories that Putin uses lifts to increase his actual height". Th article cited by User:GlowingLava compares Biden and Trump. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/is-biden-taller-than-trump-white-house-photo-sparks-height-discussions-on-social-media/articleshow/115366485.cms." 271rpm continued to revert the page after providing this information and he ignored the fact that there were 9 other sources on the fact that there is skepticism about Trump's height.

271rpm has removed discussion of the skepticism 6 times.

This has happened on a separate occasion as showcased by this interaction of 271rpms page between 271rpm and @Walther16:. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:271rpm#%22Be_careful!%22 There is no any "original research" in the doubts I expressed. I only quote available academic paper sources. I would be happy if you strik your intervention, especially "Be careful!", that cannot be accepted here. See please the stature distribution quoted by I. Basu Roy, 2016. I will correct my intervention, in the parts considered not clear. Please do not eliminate it. Thank you. Walther16

Well, then you have to go on search for an admin who follows your agenda. I will continue to revert you! 271rpm

Not a problem: I will not intervene more. The article is embarassing and it is a wast of time if there is no collaboration. Farwell! Walther16 (this complaint is by Nib2905 who forgot to sign it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC))

Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi apologies if the request for intervention is inappropriate. I was directed here by the user in the rfc and I am new to editing. Nib2905 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nib2905: In case you don't know, the edit war on that particular page about Trump's height has been going on since his first presidency, so this is not a new dispute; it's likely that there are very strong emotions at play here, so it's best to be careful when commenting. That said, this ANI thread is still likely relevant because the user in question is edit warring instead of participating in discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nib2905, your request was not inappropriate, though the way you've formatted it did make it a bit difficult to understand. Concise is best. I've partially blocked the editor from Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States for editwarring. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

As an aside I have noticed that 271rpm has also consistently done the same act on his old account Penultimatestride. User talk:271rpm#Contested deletion

https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=PenultimateStride&page=Heights+of+presidents+and+presidential+candidates+of+the+United+States&server=enwiki&max= Nib2905 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

Todor Zhivkov date of birth as shown on his birth certificate - change of records - formal complaint against codenamed editor Stephen Macky1

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.

---

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request that this email be recognised as a complaint.

I am contacting you concerning the Wikipedia article “Todor Zhivkov”.

ANI is not a venue for arguing content matters or presenting biographical research The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Leading up to January 2022, Todor Zhivkov’s birth date was not known and has never been officially confirmed. Following the provisions of the LAW ON PERSONS /LP/ State Gazette 273 of 17.12.1907, in force from 01.01.1909, Boris Deen, the author of the book “Original Yoga - Superhumans” made a remarkable discovery in the State Archives in Sofia, Bulgaria: Zhivkov’s birth certificate, dated September 8, 1911, which contained the exact time and date of his birth published in the first Bulgarian edition of the book.

The man who ruled Bulgaria for 35 years with an iron fist, Todor Hristov Zhivkov, was born on September 2, 1911, at 9 a.m. according to the Julian calendar, as shown by the document.

In strict compliance with the LAW ON PERSONS /LP/ State Gazette 273 of 17.12.1907, in force from 01.01.1909, Todor Hristov Zhivkov’s birth certificate was meticulously drafted as a civil document and this fact seems not to have been known to Zhivkov, which is why he makes erroneous inferences and calculations based on his baptismal certificate.

I am delighted to provide you here the link of the section named "Encyclopedias change of records" with the high-resolution file of the document that I have discovered and described in my book. Through careful examination, you will undoubtedly be convinced of its authenticity. The reference number of the document in the State Archives Sofia, Bulgaria, is: Ф. 420К, оп.3, а.с. 9, л. 63гр.

Also there is my letter to the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica from October 4, 2024, and their records still show Todor Zhivkov’s incorrect birth date, a persistent factual error. It’s hard for the truth to emerge from the depths of deception, isn’t it?

Across Bulgaria, this remarkable discovery was reported in the leading newspapers and news outlets:

"168 часа": Защо Тодор Живков измества рождената си дата с 8 дни?https://www.24chasa.bg/bulgaria/article/10982042

Защо Тодор Живков измества рождената си дата с 8 дни?https://www.168chasa.bg/article/10951356

Тодор Живков е роден 8 дни по-късно от това, коетоhttps://novini247.com/novini/todor-jivkov-e-roden-8-dni-po-kasno-ot-tova_5888002.html

In Bulgaria, the Gregorian calendar was introduced into civil life by Decree No. 8 of king Ferdinand I, according to which 31.III.1916 was immediately followed by the date 14.IV.1916 (State Gazette, issue 65, 21.III.1916) that is why Todor Zhivkov’s birthdate, according to the Gregorian calendar, falls on September 15, 1911.

Following the dissemination of the news and required alterations to the records, Wikipedia editor codenamed Stephen Macky1 rudely responded, showing that:

“Did you reach out to any academic with this so-called finding of yours?”

“You are in no position to perform analysis of primary sources (including every editor here), including birth certificates. Unless this so-called finding has been published in peer-reviewed and academic sources, it is entirely useless.”

“I am simply gonna ask you to stop spamming the site and bothering us with your original research.”

There are no "superiors" here.

Having declared the above to me, he then immediately expunged the finding and the related factual details.

The essence of my query is: Is this your standard procedure for handling the data? Does Wikipedia provide information accurately? Is this the appropriate method for eliminating findings supported by evidence?

It is imperative, given your commitment to accuracy and trustworthiness, that this individual be removed from the editorial team due to demonstrated incompetence, rudeness, and abuse of Wikipedia policies.

Included are my letter addressed to Encyclopaedia Britannica and a high-resolution image depicting Todor Zhivkov’s birth certificate, acquired from the State Archives in Sofia, Bulgaria- find them here

Waiting to hear something from you very soon.

Because of the aforementioned, please make the adjustments to your records without delay. [Zhivkov]“Original Yoga - Superhumans"Encyclopedias change of recordshere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Deen (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

A few things.
First, this is not an email, nor is it something addressed to some higher-up, so you probably should work on your formatting of this complaint (and stay clear of any LLMs when doing so). You are also required to notify the user(s) being brought before ANI through a message on their talk page(s).
Second, nobody is getting removed from the editorial team for reverting your edits, as they are acting in accordance to Wikipedia policies in doing so (see WP:OR, WP:V). With this in mind, it is you who is at fault for incompetence, rudeness, and abuse of Wikipedia policies. In fact, it may well be the case that I am wrong and someone is getting removed, but that would be you. See WP:BOOMERANG.
Third, I am not a specialist in Bulgarian history and I do not know why this has not been picked up by mainstream outlets or academics, but as a very simple online search will point out, you have not exactly discovered anything that hasn't been around for a while. See, for instance, this reproduction of a 2011 press article in Bulgarian which includes a transcript and a scan of the document in question. It is scarcely believable that you did not perform a basic Google search of your 'discovery' to make sure that you were actually onto something new. As far as I'm concerned, yours is but one of the hundreds of daily attempts by individuals to squeeze in sleazy references to their works in articles, whether for an ego boost or for commercial purposes. I would suggest you find yourself an honest way to promote your book. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a content and sourcing dispute, and not a matter for ANI insofar as the intended complaint goes. The help desk is probably better suited to resolving the questions concerning primary sources. @Boris Deen, I recommend that you take advantage of the mentorship that has been offered, since you appear to be misinformed concerning the structure of Wikipedia, its standards for acceptable sourcing, and its methods of dispute resolution, as well as our tolerance of personal attacks against editors who enforce those standards. I strongly advise you to withdraw this complaint and take the time to understand Wikipedia policies. In particular, you appear to have a conflict of interest on this subject, since it appears to be related to something that you found or published yourself - please read the no original research policy Your conduct here does not lend confidence that you can approach this topic from a detached frame of reference. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, you were required to notify StephenMacky1 of this discussion. I have done so for you. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Deen will need to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines. To be honest, I did not even plan on getting involved much, which is why I told him to use the article's talk page. Anyway, as the editor pointed out above, it is not wise to spam the AI-generated content everywhere, from your user page to the talk pages of others, which appears to be a poor attempt in self-promotion. I have been nothing but honest with you. What you perceived as "rude" was simply me trying to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and perhaps Britannica by extension. Just because you published a book about something does not mean its content can be summarized here. As a self-published self-help book, it is of no use for historiographical or biographical matters. This was an unnecessary escalation of the situation, considering that I attempted to resolve this content dispute and invited other editors to give their input about the content. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've INDEFFed Boris Deen. Star Mississippi 01:38, 26 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 vandalism to one article from what looks like an otherwise productive account

I have blocked RickStrate2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for persistent vandalism to Timothy Sands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has added vandalism to this article on four different occasions, two of which had an edit summary designed to deflect suspicion and make it less likely that the edit would get noticed and reverted. On this last occasion, it lasted for 4 days without being noticed. I have spot checked his edits and I'm not seeing anything incredibly blatant outside of this one article. I wanted to leave this here in case anyone wants to check other contributions or any admin thinks one week is too harsh (or too lenient?) --B (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To avoid a situation where they wait a week and return without acknowledging what happened or made a convincing argument for why it will not happen again, would an indef block be more appropriate here? tony 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I might say "indef" too, but here we seem to have an otherwise productive editor who's seriously fucking around on just one specific article--so I agree with B. I don't know why they're doing this, but if this editor stops this stupid stuff they are a net positive, as far as I can tell. User:RickStrate2029 should really check their talk page and say a few words. If they don't, and/or if they continue on that article, they will be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe Pblocking may work? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking this post at face value, a WP:PBLOCK from the one affected article would generally be the best solution imo. Left guide (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. If someone with 800 edits has vandalised a BLP more than half a dozen times, they don't belong here. I'd have indeffed them, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

13 times if you look at their contrib log; they vandalized the page on March 4, but somehow evaded a warning despite it being very childish vandalism (self-sourcing to a Reddit post about their seemingly unknown joke?) and marked incorrectly as a minor edit. I don't see them ceasing as they use their record to continue it. Nathannah • 📮 18:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That diff is particularly egregious. A fake claim that a living person killed someone is a gross BLP violation. They have been blocked for a week, and warned that they will immediately be indef'ed if they vandalize that article again. Meters (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Problem With User Changing Cited Information on Romani (Gypsy) and Traveller Pages

Hello,

I'm the recent editor for the Scottish Romani and Traveller groups page. I rewrote the article to reflect reliable sources and was awaiting feedback. My article was not perfectly written (I kindly accept rewording) but it was cited correctly from source material. Anyone can go and see the works cited and what I wrote and see the harmony.

The problem I have is that @Opala300 changed ethnic and ethno-linguistic terminology, which is absolutely valid, but when I tried to enter into discussion about changes and asked for citations and the source material they used, no reply. There is a lack of confirmed information on this page now which directly contradicts what is in the main Scottish Gypsy/Traveller academic literature.

Problems:

- @Opala300 taking part in discussions, including those surrounding terminology and ethnography. Very vague replies such as "Romani Lowland Gypsies are Romani, hence the name". This is very basic knowledge and shows unfamiliarity with the source material. I have attempted to point Opala300 in the correct direction with the sources used, some of which are free to read online, hoping to start a discussion. He seems to have ignored these sources completely and will not enter into discussion concerning them.

- Discussions that Opala300 has had with myself focus on reverting my edits rather verifying the material he has written. I admit, I reverted the page many times as I wasn't aware of the rule myself. This won't happen again on my part. However, when asked if Opala300 could cite the source material for the terminology and ethno-linguistic information they had written, there has been no reply on their part except about reverting. They avoid discussing their own information, much of which is uncited. Many of my citations from source material (going back as far as 1871) are now directly contradictory to what he's written. He has clearly invented terminology (see Border Romany).

- Multiple users on the Romani pages have tried to discuss the possible unreliable sources with Opala300 such as a possible Bengali element in Romani. Opala300 has reverted some of these edits without discussion which is ironic as they claim I'm doing this. See Opala300's user Talk page.

- Some of the undisputed source material, such as Kirk Yetholm Tinklers being called "Yetholm Gypsies", as seen in "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts (MacRitchie, 1894)", has been taken out. Opala300 operates under the very erroneous and mythical presumption that Romani and Traveller are two separate terms. This is true from a Roma perspective but it a different scenario in Britain. All source material was given for the term Traveller as used by Romani sub-groups (such as Damien Le Bas who uses the term Traveller) has also been taken out my Opala300. The citations do not add up and it looks as if Damien Le Bas is the citation for the term Border Romany (a terminology invention on Opala300's part). In my opinion, this why they took out Yetholm Gypsies (with its proper citation). They are clearly operating under their own personal (and common) viewpoints and not working with source material, even those such as GTR organisations in Britain, which you can clearly find online. I reiterate, "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts" clearly refers to Yetholm Tinkers as Yetholm Gypsies, I don't know why he took out properly cited material.

Even though I have taken on their viewpoints, such as the adjective "nomadic" being used as an adjective (not that it's incorrect but I should have cleared up the word used) and of which I agree and thank Opala300 for pointing out, Opala300 needs to either be reported or blocked from the Gypsy/Traveller pages. I am working with source material to represent Gypsies and Travellers and he is not.

If Opala300 does not cite the source of his ethnographic and ethno-linguistic terminology, can anyone help me? He's becoming a huge problem for those of us with proper source material on the Romani/Traveller pages.

Please refer to the Talk page for a more detailed view. Although I may have called him a fool, which may look bad on my behalf, it's frustrating that source material which is being correctly cited is being overturned by someone without any citations himself. I have a wealth of material (both physical and digital and some of which I cited on the Talk section) and have spent years finding these sources, only for someone without deep knowledge on the subject and without sources or citations to completely override the information and then indicate that I'm the problem because I haven't discussed my changes with other users. Ironically, Opala300 also hasn't discussed this with other users before editing it himself, and even worse when they can't cite their own sources for the information they have written. Ironically they label my cited information as "misinformation".

Thanks,

RomaniResearcher

(*I have notified Opala300 on their talk page) RomaniResearcher (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun with this report. You only initiated a discussion with the editor today, so you should continue discussing and wait for the editor to respond. Editors are not available 24/7. This can be resolved without ANI. Instead of discussing about the conduct of each other, discuss only about the content. I would also advise you to avoid reverting each other while the discussion is ongoing between you two. If you really cannot resolve the dispute between each other, there are other venues that you can explore as presented in WP:DR. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it definitely needs to be sorted by ANI. The user had the time to rewrite information and if so, they must have had the sources at hand to quote or cite. The fact that they aren't there shows that it's been written without source material. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated before you understand but they are NOT engaging in discussions, you need to read his Talk page and the Scottish Traveller page properly before you reply. They have done this previously with other user's information on other Romani-topic pages other than the one I edited. They are simply leaving small comments of their own accord without any discussion on the Talk page EXCEPT when he speaks of reverting to HIS information which is UNCITED. I do not know what you don't understand about that! RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, a little less of the weasel wording, please. You DID call Opala300 an "absolute fool" [88] and that does look bad. Beyond that, please read WP:OWN: whatever your credentials or materials (for which we only have your word that they're both superior to Opala300's), neither this nor any other Romani/Traveller-related article belongs to you, and your preferred edits are not by definition the only conceivable authoritative ones. And beyond that, any ethnologist or folklorist -- I admit to the latter, anyway -- knows full well that the research and study of these groups are famously patchy, with a great deal of disinformation, misinformation and myth, and claims and counterclaims abound. Ravenswing 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I will word it how I please.

Firstly, my credentials and materials are NOT superior to his, I made that very clear if you'd have bothered to read the discussion properly. I wanted to discuss the relevant material and see if he had any source material to back up his claims on the terminology - I don't know what you don't understand about this but I will rudely say: HE HAS NO CITATIONS AND REFUSES TO DICUSS THEM!

The real problem, before you write another rude comment, is that he has taken out my CITED information, which is what Wikipedia is based on, and added his own UNCITED information which he refuses to give citations for. That's what the problem is, not me believing I'm correct or superior. Most of the article is my own wording which he has ridiculously re-edited without consulting the material CITED and which now doesn't make sense. As said, the citations can clearly be seen.

I repeat, it's not that mine sources are superior, it's that mine are CITED from academia. He doesn't have CITATIONS. RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't shout. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@RomaniResearcher, you urgently need to change your approach to wikipedia editing. Please do not shout, and do not dump giant, 5000+kb walls of text on individual editors' talk pages like this. This is a collaborative project that requires patience and communication. Please discuss the matter, collegially, on the article talk page. Remember to focus on content, not contributors. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the discussion, thank you very much. (You do recognize, yes, that it is entirely conceivable to read the same things and come to different conclusions? Like, for instance, your insistence that the Romani and the Travellers are one and the same?) The rudeness and hostility of both your response here and on the talk page suggest that the problem here is less Opala300's than your own attitude. "[T]hese things are set in stone" -- having myself done a good deal of research into Romani culture, I'm taken quite aback, because critical consensus on most of these elements and aspects is anything but, and I'm rather startled you don't recognize that. "I will word it how I please" -- only if you're comfortable with being blocked for personal attacks. Ratchet the rhetoric down. Ravenswing 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for my comments and edits to be erased from the page in question to be honest. It's almost embarrassing that I thought this place would use material sources but instead misinformation has been let slide because "my own attitude" is more the problem than the incorrect content. Although I value your replies and consider what you say, it is typical gaslighting on your behalf to avoid the discussion's real problem - misinformation and uncited source material.

@Ravenswing Romani and Travellers aren't the same. The predicament is that Travellers is a terminology used by both Romanichals and Minkers, I added citations for the former and was in the process of gathering more. He took out the information concerning this terminology and the relevant citations as he believes Romanies do NOT call themselves Travellers, although the sourced material was there to read. He should have discussed the problems he had with the page and read the relevant sources rather than change it of his own accord. We could have discussed the various sources if he believed they were incorrect. I'm always up for falsifying my beliefs and if he gave his sources and they were correct, he could have made the page even better and it would have helped all of us. This did not happen. I enjoy collaborating and I'm awaiting future editors to bring problems to my own citations and information, provided the relevant source material is given so current and future editors can read it and approve that it is correct. I was awaiting Ike's approval of my own information and looked forward to his criticism. I value the criticism from Opala300 too, but the frustration began through lack of communication and no citations on his behalf for the new terminology.

When discussing culture and folklore, you are correct. I'm interested in the complex debates about these topics and there are many theories. Everybody's contribution is needed. But when I say "it's set in stone", I'm referring to who-is-who and the languages they speak, the very basics. i.e Nawkens speak Cant, Romanichals speak Anglo-Romani. Yes, there are complex discussions of the origin and development of those languages, but who speaks them, of which Opala300's misinformation concerns, is not up for debate. This very basic information, X speaks Y, which harmonises in all source material and was cited on the page with the relevant links to GRT organisations and source material going back to 1871, is now being misrepresented from someone who will not discuss where his new found information is cited from. It's not that he's incorrect, he may well be correct, but we need the citations from Opala300 so we can put a stamp of approval on what he wrote. These citations are still forthcoming. There are serious blunders in there on his part without any citations of where the information is taken from.

If you can't understand the above, I'd rather my posts and prior edits were deleted. He's taking out cited information and adding his own invented terminology without prior discussion with page editors.

Hopefully you can see my predicament. You're letting uncited information slide and my cited sources are given the backstage. Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content. @SuperPianoMan9167 @Ravenswing @Asilvering

I kindly ask that if I am blocked, please point me in the right direction so that I ask for my relevant posts and edits on the page in question to be deleted beforehand (if this can be done). RomaniResearcher (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content. Content should be discussed in good faith (which means people should be open to the idea that they might be wrong and others right) on the article talk page. Maybe it would be easier to get consensus there if you didn't rely so much on sources that were over a century old. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I literally just said that. Did you not read the part where I said I was open to criticism and source discussion? That's why I'm on this website!

Some of the sources used are a century old (1871, 1894, 1906) but they are echoed in the modern academic books that were also used as sources including recent articles and books by prominent professors such as Colin Clarke and Thomas Acton. Recent books by these authors were used.

You're still not getting it; he has no sources. Older sources are better than no source. RomaniResearcher (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

YOU are still not getting it. You may be working under a misapprehension here; at ANI, we do not sort out content disputes. That's for consensus at talk pages. What we do here is sort out editor conduct. As such, an editor's demeanor -- here in the ANI discussions as well as elsewhere -- is very much pertinent, and yours as much as Opala300's. You are not immunized from scrutiny because you filed the complaint. Does it make any impression on you that the unanimous response you've received here so far, from several editors, is critical of how you are acting? Ravenswing 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@RomaniResearcher, I will not Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content. I am an administrator, and it's the role of administrators on the Administrators' Noticeboard to deal with conduct issues exclusively. The content must be decided mutually between editors. That's how this encyclopedia gets built. If you do not want to build the encyclopedia in this way, you will be blocked until you reconsider.

Your posts and edits will not be removed if you are blocked. You have already released them to the commons. That, too, is how this encyclopedia is built. If you want to retain ownership and agency over your words, this is, I am afraid, not the place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware that content must be decided mutually between editors. I am upholding this and understood this before I created my user and became an editor.

But,

- When I reached out to discuss the content change with Opala300 in order to cooperate and understand the reasons for his doing so, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He took out confirmed, cited sources and added uncited content without discussion. As stated, this is perfectly valid on his part, nobody owns the page. However, when I raised questions on why the cited information was changed and if he could cite the new source for his newly written content and begin discussion concerning them, there was no satisfactory answer on the Talk part of the page. The 'rude' attitude you see from myself is the outcome of frustration due to no discussion. He simply reverted his newly written content (which he has done to other users on other Romani-topic pages) and the only reply we were given was short editing notes. There needs to be discussion on his part about what sources he is using to rewrite the content.

Even after raising questions on the content he wrote, there's still no reply on his part. It is now 48+ hours since his content edit on the Scottish Cant page concerning the terminology of the ethnicity and we are still awaiting a reply for the reasoning for doing so and the sources used. This is the very reason I bulk-dumped on his own user Talk page, as there is a lack of communication on his part. Even a quick comment such as "I will get back to you" or "We can discuss this at X time" or "I believe your X source was incorrectly cited and/or shouldn't be used" would have been appropriate or even "My reasoning for this content edit was due to X source, which I will give evidence for". However, no reply. He must have had time to reply as he has been editing content.

He seems to want to take an admin role concerning reverting but does not want to discuss the material which he wrote. He wants those like myself to be patience and await for other user's discussion (which I'm perfectly happy to do) but won't himself discuss his own content changes. I'm actually patiently awaiting his own discussion on the Talk for his own content changes. Again, his content revision and editing is absolutely valid and welcomed, but he must engage in discussion with other users on the page to reach consensus rather than change content and then refuse to engage in discussion on his reasoning for doing so, all the more as they are uncited and for pre-existing citations, they are now incorrect cited as he hasn't consulted the source itself. He is reverting his content changes even when his content is brought into question by other users.

Please re-consider the issue. Repeating that "content must be discussed on the Talk page" and "content must be mutually decided by editors" is futile. I and many other users understood this before creating our users and have been following these principles closely. The sole reason I asked for help was that Opala300 isn't doing this very thing. He must engage in discussion concerning his content change and cannot revert to his content change, especially after avoiding discussion of his own content.

Regards,

RomaniResearcher RomaniResearcher (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@RomaniResearcher, @Opala300 has been discussing this with you on the talk page. You called them an absolute fool and said I will war with all of you until I get those citations. Moreover, they have not been editing content since - their latest edits were to a talk page discussion with you. You have already completely lost control of this situation and continuing this ANI discussion will be counterproductive for you. Go edit something else for a while. If you choose to return to that article later, please treat your fellow editors much better than you have done. -- asilvering (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Opala has not been discussing it with me on the talk page. He has given one comment about reverting. He has given no comment on the actual source material he wrote. RomaniResearcher (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Concerning your last comment, that is true. But when it comes to terminology and the who-is-who of the Gypsy/Traveller community, these things are set in stone and can be seen from various source material which harmonises. RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@RomaniResearcher you are behaving like a bull in a china shop. Please consider this a final warning, or you will be blocked. Please read WP:SME and take on board all the advice you've been given here. Star Mississippi 01:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by JPMorgan788

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 do not like filing reports here, but this has been going on for such a long time it has become disruptive.

Over the last 6 months, this editor (JPMorgan788 (talk · contribs)) has been most active on two pages: Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania and Mt. Lebanon High School. Both of these are local to me, with the latter article being my own work. However, this editor has been on what I would describe as a promotional crusade for these two topics.

I have warned them twice with other editors doing the same and their edits have been reversed multiple times. Here are some diffs of the disruptive edits in question, even occurring after being warned:

[89], [90], [91], [92]

There are significantly more examples of this behavior but these four diffs show more or less what has been happening.

I am local to this town and while some of the information they are adding is in fact appropriate for an encyclopedia, it's the promotional tone that the editor seems to be unable to write without damages the articles. I appreciate the efforts to expand the articles but this is not the correct direction for it to go in. Thank you. Cutlass^Ciera 21:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this editor has ever posted to any kind of talk page. I've invited them to come here to discuss their editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I've notice problems with this editor's edits too.

The user is aware of their talk page: they left a reply there earlier this year [93], although their attempt at justification showed a complete lack of understanding of the problems with their supposed sourcing [94]. The user has been active for about one and one-half years, their talk page is littered with warnings, and while they are no longer doing blatant vandalism [95] they have never stopped adding unsourced or poorly sourced puffery (one of their very first edits was [96]). They continue to mark all of their edits as minor.

I found it very interesting that without explanation they removed content from a neighbouring school's article [97] that was very similar to some of the material they were adding to their favourite school articles [98]. Meters (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've  Blocked JPMorgan788 indefinitely for disruptive editing, as they are continuing to edit in the same way without responding to user talk page warnings or participating in this noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 22:07, 26 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.

Filibuster of Deletion Review of Lilyfield light rail station

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.

---

• Willthorpe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lilyfield light rail station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Juniors Kingsford light rail station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review#25_August_2025

These two articles on light rail stations on the Inner West Light Rail line in New South Wales, Australia, were nominated for deletion on 16 August and 17 August, and were bludgeoned by User:Willthorpe. They were closed as Redirect by User:OwenX on 24 August 2025. User:Willthorpe has now appealed to Deletion Review. The appeal at DRV is too long, and Sandstein has said that an appeal to DRV should not be longer than the article (and I agree). The appellant's argument seems to be that there has not been a consensus because there is continuing discussion about the notability of light rail stations, but the discussion is mostly their own. Continuing discussion in order to prevent formal closure is filibustering in American and other legislatures. The filibuster is continuing because Will Thorpe is responding to nearly every post, just as he did in the AFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this needs additional discussion at this board, or any particular admin action. Admins active at DRV can if need be procedurally close an escalating or fruitless discussion, or it can just be allowed to run its course (the outcome in this case seems pretty clear). Sandstein 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

For once I agree with Sandstein. Just ignore the filibusterer(?) and they will probably go away. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If comments are becoming repetitive, I think they can be hatted. It's done elsewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Largely agree with Sandstein; this isn't too atypical for DRV, and I think the regular editors and admins there are capable of seeing through it, and putting a lid on it if need be. Let the user have their day in court (DRV), and if it persists after the DRV is closed, then I think the conduct merits being here. Left guide (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any action that needs to be taken. You're allowed to (civilly) reply to comments you disagree with - even if you are in a small minority or objectively wrong. --B (talk) 20:34, 26 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:Worvandae

I would like to report Worvandae (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and excessive aggression. Despite multiple warnings, he refused to cooperate on pages Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng and Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party. He targeted me on other talk pages User talk:45dogs/Archive 1#Untitled, and Talk:Đại Việt in a defamatory manner.

Basically, he insists on reverting to the title Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party, a change made in 2022 by User:Betabum, a sockpuppet of a long-term abuser. For that reason, I suspect that Worvandae is most likely Betabum. Greenknight dv (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like there is an edit war going on right now at Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party. Is there a reason why you need to keep this page as a Redirect? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I've discussed this on the main talk page, Talk:Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng, after reviewing the page history and sock behavior. It doesn’t need to remain a redirect; the sock was trying to split the page history. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect and the article. Please use the Talk pages for consensus and SPI if needed for their contact. Star Mississippi 02:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, as shown in the links above, he accused me of being a Nazi and of fabricating information, while he himself spread false claims that neither the Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng nor a country named Đại Việt ever existed (!?) Such behavior was either irrational or deliberately libelous. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Clear WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Youzap22 is clearly WP:NOTHERE and the two "templates" they have created and spammed on talk pages should be speedily deleted. Electricmemory (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Electricmemory, don't forget to notify the editor of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 27 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.

Vandalism

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

---

There is an IP user (@70.178.233.123), who have been constantly vandalising Wikipedia pages by adding their own opinion, i.e: They changed the main Characters name in the Wikipedia page for DIABOLIK LOVERS from Yui Komori to "Clyde Tobi" on 18 October 2024 and even started a talk page to keep it that way because they wrote "I hate Yui!", dear administrators, please look into this user, Thanks. Yuzawakawa (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Please report vandalism to WP:AIV, where you will likely receive a faster response. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 27 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.

Misleading dates by User:Lertaheiko

User:Lertaheiko clearly has problems with sources, especially when applied to dates. Essentially, their modus operandi is to add/modify the birth/death/reign/family dates of ancient historical figures, mostly Egyptians, in whatever way suits them best. This is achieved in various ways:

• simply by adding a made-up (unsourced) or at least deduced (original research) date, without a source (some examples [99] [100] [101] [102]);
• the same thing, but adding a "fake" source copied from elsewhere within the article that doesn't support the claim ([103] [104]);
• by modifying a sourced date, regardless of the information provided by the source itself, which they evidently can't (or don't care to) access ([105] [106] [107])

I should point out that this behavior has been going on for several months (since February at least) despite countless warnings and explanations on their talk page which the user seems to stop at after each last warning at least until the month expires. Lone-078 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

[108] [109] [110]: They were all in the 23rd Century BC category, added by @Udimu when they made the articles. Same with 204, but in the 26th Century BC category, added by @AnnekeBart. Lertaheiko (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

[111] In the note 1, 2503–2498 BC is listed as a possible reign date by 3 sources. Lertaheiko (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think all dates before the Middle Kingdom are a bit fiction. We do not know how long the First Intermediate Period lasted, so there is no way to have any secure dates before that. More precise dates in books are the opinions of authors, but another book will offer different dates. In my article I try to be broad as possible (for example justː 23th century BC) Udimu (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem: we barely know that a person lived in the 23rd century BC, yet the user considers a "floruit 2250 BC" fine. Too bad this is, as I've pointed out several times on their talk page, original research. Not to mention the recent disagreements regarding the ancestry of other ancient figures which, like the dates, are far from clear, but for the user in question there evidently can be no uncertainty. Lone-078 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I should say that all pharaoh Featured Articles, including that on Shepseskaf were written to give equal credence to all dates proposed by Egyptologists (and they easily differ by a century), so indeed Lertaheiko's edits are problematic for they assert one date over the others, even if this date is sourced. In general, in the lead and infobox we cannot be more precise than giving a broad time frame of around a century for any of these historical figures.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Lertaheiko, [i]n the note 1, 2503–2498 BC is listed as a possible reign date by 3 sources ignores that a further 22 sources list other dates including four sources with 2523–2519 BC and three sources with 2472–2467 BC. The dates you prioritized are representative of barely 10% of the present HQRS corpus in that footnote. It is undue to give prominence to a small minority of sources in such a large corpus. The description '... in the late 26th to mid-25th century BC' covers all bar one source – which as an outlier places Shepseskaf in the early 24th century BC – and thus reasonably summarizes 95% of that same HQRS corpus.

Separate, entirely unrelated note, welcome back to active editing Iry-Hor. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism on John Alite

WaterKing00 removed a huge amount of sourced biographical content and pretended like he made an update or improvement when all he did was remove negative information. [112] 2605:8D80:13B3:6911:25CC:5830:EFB8:2938 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

User:R2025kt reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

R2025kt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continuing to use WP:PUFFERY in articles about non-notable people; reverted their own edit on WGAL three times so that they could "make space"; possible continued copyright violations. WP:NOTHERE? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The edit summary they've used several times, Need to make space, doesn't make any sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The main problem here besides the incomprehensible activity is that the people aren't always notable and the content is facile. In working on hundreds of TV station pages in recent years, I've also been the principal culler of articles on non-notable broadcast journalists. Since I began logging XfD nominations in 2021, I've sent 29 different broadcast journalists to AfD (only one of which was kept and another undeleted without fixing issues) and successfully prodded 13 more.

I'd like to note that Keith Martin (journalist) glosses over things that look like they generated surprising media coverage for a mid-market TV anchor ([113]. I have multiple newspaper editorials from 2003 on Martin. This is unusual and suggests to me that there is probably material for an article. Most of the national news correspondents look to be legitimately notable. But I suspect John MacAlarney, Jay Gray (journalist), Anne S. Herr, and others that didn't work at that high level would fail at AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

They seem to be a WP:SPA focused on news channel related articles, though admittedly that is a fairly broad category. All their edits appear to be within said category. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Self-reverts are not a violation of the 3RR. Repeatedly making and undoing the same edit is still disruptive though. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

There has been disruptive editing over the past few weeks from an editor who leaves an edit summary of "The end" in all cases. Here are the IP addresses that I have seen so far:

• User:2601:40:C883:49D0:80DF:3D2:B39D:E3C
• User:2601:40:C883:49D0:30A2:96D7:28A8:C537
• User:2601:40:C883:49D0:581D:3F83:4798:314E

Since all the IP addresses begin with 2601:40:C883:49D0, is it possible to block this entire range? Assadzadeh (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:/64 you'd be looking at the range 2601:40:C883:49D0:0:0:0:0/64. WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Assadzadeh, is there a problem with their edits besides leaving an unhelpful edit summary? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

A quick perusal of their edits shows a mixture of nonsense, vandalism, possibly good-faith edits that nevertheless aren't constructive, and the occasional good edit. I have blocked the range from mainspace for a week. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a feeling that they'll be at it again after a week. Assadzadeh (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If they do so, feel free to ping me on my talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I have another on the wider range at Special:Contributions/2601:40:C882:3960:0:0:0:0/64 (the /40), so this is also block evasion now. Izno (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Izno I think that's 2601:40:C882::/47, and there's practically no collateral on it going back months. The ComCast range is stupidly big, but I wonder if they have regional ranges... Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Comcast does. I didn't feel the need to drilldown to the specific range. Izno (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In that case I'll block the /47 and we'll see how it goes from there. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Citation error

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

---

It seems that this edit introduced an error in the citations that I do not understand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You added a ref to a 2020 article by Gopnik in a journal. There was already a 2020 book by Gopnik being called by multiple SFNs but now they're confused because there are two different sources that =gopnik2020. I'm not sure how to fix it, I avoid SFNs. (This is not an ANI matter though, WP:VPT or WP:HELPDESK would have been better.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 27 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.

Time-sensitive RfP (handled)

At 2025 Annunciation Catholic Church shooting. Posted request at WP:RFP[114] 30 minutes ago.

Does this qualify as an "urgent incident" to post here? Placeholderer (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really unless it involves severe behavioral problems. Yes, I see now that there are potentially severe WP:BLPCRIME violations involved. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC) You can report obvious vandals and spammers to WP:AIV. I do see that there may be some problems with people adding the name of the perpetrator. Please remember to assume good faith and know that not every IP is a vandal. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, pages are not protected preemptively. Most of the IP edits to that page are not vandalism as far as I can tell. They've been adding some unsourced content but they may not know that they have to add sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't BLP be a reason to have a low threshold for protection? Placeholderer (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

(I'd like to be able to stand up and get food after 2.5 hours stalking a highly sensitive page for unsourced content) Placeholderer (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that the "perpetrator" section may actually be a BLP violation as BLP protection still applies to the recently deceased. I would suggest that section be anonymized for a few days while the dust settles. We are a trailing indicator. Other than that I would suggest everybody lower the temperature on that page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed all mention of the perpetrator from the page for now. If disruption continues I would absolutely support page protection. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Expletives are tempting. For crying out loud, someone protect the page Placeholderer (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Now there's edit warring and misgendering going on. This is a lot more serious than I thought when I first replied to this discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Page protected courtesy of CoconutOctopus Placeholderer (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ping me if it gets to the point autoconfirmed editors are causing issues but hopefully semi-protection for a week is enough for this to leave the breaking news and stop attracting everyone under the sun with an agenda to push. CoconutOctopus talk 19:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: Well, now we have edit warring about deadnaming going on. (I didn't think I would have to ping so soon.) A quick look at the talk page reveals that autoconfirmed editors are definitely causing issues. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As one of the editors warring is an admin, I'll let the below ANI thread play out before any more protection. Sigh. CoconutOctopus talk 21:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I would expect better conduct from an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Major WP:TEND and WP:OWN issues on J. K. Rowling

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

---

This is a long post, you stand warned. I'm only focusing on the content I find problematic, because otherwise this would be ten times its size. I also only focus on comments because I'm not skilled in handling diffs right now and their own words tell quite the story. This is all about conduct, not content, as well.

For reference, I read this article to specifically learn about her transphobia, and went to the talk page when I found that it read like a puff piece. I've mostly been reading, with a few comments here and there.

First NPOVN discussion

So, for those who haven't been paying attention to the NPOV noticeboard or the J. K. Rowling talk page, there's been a long, ugly argument over whether it's NPOV or not as well as lots of back and forth about what is and is not the proper venue for discussing that. This would be fine, if not for behaviors towards certain contributors that are far less than optimal, and the fact that the article has serious WP:OWN issues, as noted in the first NPOVN discussion by multiple different posters ( 1, [| 2], [| 3], [| 4]), stonewalling as noted [| here], [| Loki agrees here] (reviewing ALL the literature over 5 years is ridiculous, considering how much there is, and seems more a WP:STONEWALL tactic than anything) and as [| SimonM223] noted, But I agree with Adam Cuerden that any movement of the article to more clearly articulate how her transphobia has been received is imposed with impossibly high bars. Incredible preconditions are set to even begin to discuss revisions to that language.

There have also been numerous accusations of whitewashing, which have not really been addressed. For example, when talking about Beira's Place, the [thing seems to be an AboutSelf violation,] which was only responded to with WP:NORUSH Something may eventually be written [|1] .

Talk:J. K. Rowling

Now we're past the first NPOVN discussion, so let's move on to the article's talk page. To start, SandyGeorgia insists that Adam Cuerden read Pugh before he talks about making the article better fit WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which has nothing to do with sources like Pugh and everything to do with formatting. [| Here]. [| Here], Sirfurboy tries to argue that a court ruling is not transphobic, and gets out into the weeds in the name of saying in the opening paragraph that Rowling disputes being called transphobic. Loki The Liar notes that this comes off as an attempt to WP:STONEWALL [| here]. In the end, [| that discussion took over 10k words to remove three, due to what I personally perceive as stonewalling].

Further down, Sirfurboy offer a... unique view of NPOV ([[115]]), though I won't call it misbehavior, so much as an extension of why the stonewalling is occurring. Still writing as if NOTMANDY is policy or should carry much weight at all is definitely odd. And lest I be accused of only taking one side, Adam saying that just makes her views on the subject not worthy of consideration about Sandy Georgia, [| here], also smacks of bad faith.

Yet further down, Sirfurboy describes the claims of Rowling being transphobic lazy vituperative epithets to be excluded, despite their presence in reliable sources, ignoring the fact that there's no policy for excluding things that are mentioned in a considerable number of RSes because they're lazy vituperative epithets to my knowledge. [| Here]. When I pointed out that that's not how RSes work, he said that it should stay excluded because Things that we can put in the article to educate the reader rather than punish the subject. (and saying what reliable sources describe her as is not educating the reader?) [| Here]. It comes off as a whitewash.

Now, there are multiple mentions of an NPOV tag being added and removed on the talk page, even though none of the [to Remove] criteria were met, specifically, lots of discussion about the article's POV was still going on. Springee removed it at least once, according to my reading of the talk page. [| specifically, this comment]. Shortly after, SandyGeorgia called [| a good faith message by Snokalok] a WP:FORUM comment, which it does not look to be in the least and comes off as bad faith and an excuse to keep the NPOV tag off. She also seems to think that it having only one noted issue (transgender people), no matter how extensive it is, [| means that the pov template doesn't belong]. This is followed by Sirfurboy again saying [that all the sources should be read]. A bit down the line, SandyGeorgia [| says] Issues can't be fixed unless they are detailed and explained in a source-based discussion; the one issued used for placing the tag (a disagreement over one word) is unjustified, and has been discussed based on sources. TarnishedPath, what other specific content do you want addressed and what sources support your suggested changes/inclusions/etc?, then [| rushes to get rid of the NPOV tag], despite the at the time ongoing NPOVN discussion.

I won't comment on the RFC, but in the section after it, Alalch E. offers a rather... unique reason for removing the NPOV tag. One that isn't supported by the criteria for removing it: That isn't good for the tag. The issue could go unresolved for years. The tag isn't getting resolved and it impacts the reception of the article with the readers, and many readers will be confused about why the article isn't neutral. We should remove the tag. The tag is for alerting the editors and all the interested editor and some more know about this issue. No further editors need to be alerted for a good while. [| Here].

Someone also put a misleading header above one Adam Cuerden's comments, which he had to explain was not his [seems like a violation of the rule not to edit other people's comments as well.] Anyway, in that section, Springee again, against policy for when to remove the POV tag, [for it to be removed], and said it should stay off the article due to [consensus from a year prior, when issues with the article are being discussed NOW].

Current NPOVN discussion

Now let's move on to the current NPOVN discussion, found [[116]]. There are a few juicy tidbits of refusal to assume good faith that really should be looked at.

First up is DeCausa, with a massive WP:AGF violation [| here]. Everyone knows you've come here from a war zone looking for fresh recruits for your side. No one in their right mind (and neutral) would get involved on either side.. Then [| berates Adam for bringing up an NPOV] dispute on the NPOV noticeboard. Sirfurboy accuses Adam of forum shopping for coming to the NPOVN to help resolve a dispute concerning NPOV ([| here]). These suggest a very outsider-hostile approach to this article, IMO, and are what inspired this ANI posting.

FAR behavior

Last but not least, the behavior on the FAR. There were several people calling for the FAR to be closed but none of them went anywhere and it's now in FARC. There was one personal attack by Adam removed [| here]. Down the line, SandyGeorgia seems to claim that, [| because Adam did not read a specific source], his commentary should not be considered fully informed (when have we required knowledge of a specific source in order to criticize an article, especially its structure?), then throughout the FAR talks about how people need to be reading specific sources while herself not engaging with other sources. 4Meter4, in a collapsed section, [to assume bad faith on the part of the delist side.] Not that Adam's comment directly above was cooling the temperature, either.

Now I'm off to inform everyone I mentioned above of this. Apologies if I miss anyone. What it boils down to is certain people's attitudes are crossing over into bad faith attacks and accusations, on top of tendentious editing and redefining policy to fit their own perspective (like saying we should exclude mention of her transphobia because they should only be Things that we can put in the article to educate the reader rather than punish the subject. Not the content itself, except where it intersects. Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Lover of lgbt literature (talk · contribs), Can you summarize who is doing the WP:TEND and WP:OWN in 500 words or less? this is too long to comfortably read, and admins are much more likely to respond if you can summarize this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Why was I tagged into this? Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to participate in this discussion - if any admins have specific questions for me I will be available. Otherwise I'm going to stay out. Not my circus, not my monkeys. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Block User:Lover of lgbt literature from J. K. Rowling

The reporter generates dramatic tl;dr nonsense, distracts from serious work on a Featured article on its talk page with wikilawyering complaints about the stupid maintenance tag, isn't contributing anything to the work on the article, so please make them go away as soon as possible.—Alalch E. 15:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm still reading the giant block of text and diffs above, and we are jumping to a proposed WP:boomerang topic ban already? I have questions about if Loll is actually a new user or not as well, but if they truly are, then its a user with 26 edits that we shouldn't WP:BITE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lover of lgbt literature: can you tell how you came to this forum? Most new users don't know about ANI and don't post on here like this with diff links. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually reading through this, though the post has links to diffs, it still seems like it’s written in the style of a newbie. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose please provide diffs for what you claim. Also a pretty vague rationale.

jolielover♥talk 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Diffs not needed: User has 17 edits prior to this ANI, accumulated 8 through notifications + 1 for starting the ANI. So just looking at their edits through the contributions more than suffices. You can't mistake the edits. All of their edits pertaining to the J. K. Rowling article are disruptive: on the talk page, on user talk—wasting 8 editors' time by notifying them to read this tl;dr, and the tl;dr itself wasting other editors' time, including that of administrators. —Alalch E. 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose While I don't think this ANI filing is focused enough to go anywhere, I also don't think it's nearly boomerang worthy. Loki (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This might be too unfocused to be productive (insofar as the drama board is ever "productive"...), but it looks to be a good-faith attempt to raise concerns about conduct issues and provide supporting evidence. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - My assessment is that they are a new editor who isn't fully aware of how we do things. It's a steep learning curve. TarnishedPath^talk 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose New editor who got in over their head. I think the correct action here would be for someone who would be viewed as sympathetic to engage them on their talk page and explain the issue and the problem with going right to ANI and offer some helpful guidance. LokiTheLiar are you up for it? Springee (talk) 22:22, 27 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.

Abusive language

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'm not going to repeat the language used in this post and edit summary, but I trust we can all agree that it is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Andy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi Are you sure this is the block log you intended to post? :D Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think he was pointing out that he learned that lesson the hard way. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Unacceptable. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you consider a revdel, also? Or simply archive the section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be blanked. I don't think it reaches the level of revdel. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, I do believe that this revision above is considered bullying and a personal attack against you. But at least you're safe right now that this abusive content made by Duffbeerforme has been blanked already. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:03, 26 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.

Admin User:Ergo Sum and MOS:DEADNAME at Annunciation Catholic Church shooting

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.

---

Could another admin suggest to this user that reverting the perpetrator's deadname back into an article four times may not be the most optimal method of proceeding on this article. I have tried on their talk page, and have been rebuffed. They have also accused others of violating 3RR when they are the only person to have done so. Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This is about the exact same article as the #Time-sensitive RfP (handled) section above. (sigh...) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I reverted their last reinsertion of the deadname and left a talk page message to respect WP:ONUS and MOS:DEADNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

From their latest post on talk it appears that they are going to stop reverting. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It, is still kinda concerning.from what I saw the reasoning for deadnaming was "it's absurd" which, is, it feels. Odd. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As a trans Wikipedia editor, it is very concerning to me as well that an admin apparently thinks it is OK to ignore our deadnaming policy in this (or any) particular case. Funcrunch (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

They also think The Times is a reliable source. Time for a desysop ASAP. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They appear to be correct about that?

The Times seems to think so.

With the caveat, of course, that they’re UK-based and the subject of that article appears to be trans. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The Times is considered to be a reliable source. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an RFC regarding articles in UK-based sources relating to gender given that those sources have grown significantly more critical of transgender people and their rights in recent years. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO (again speaking as a trans editor), this is irrelevant to the primary issue at hand, which is the violation and then mocking as "absurd" the WP:DEADNAME policy here. Funcrunch (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

OK (I post off-topic comments more frequently than I should). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No objection to what you’re saying, just wanted to be clear that “using an unreliable source” shouldn’t be part of the discussion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Liliana also has compared the New York Times to Kiwi Farms [117] and has done this kind of thing several times. It's guaranteed to add heat to conversations that require light, unfortunately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I find it weird they tried to defend their reverts on grounds "preserving the status quo". Given this is a current event it's hard to believe that is a serious argument, especially from an admin who's been around for 10 years. If material has been challenged (the deadname) they should've immediately gone to Talk to discuss why it was necessary to include per WP:ONUS.

Between that and the resorting to calls of how "absurd" everyone else was, unless there's some kind of explanation of why they were so insistent on deadnaming and an apology I won't be surprised if a recall attempt is made in the near future. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty concerned that the majority of their deadnaming [118][119][120][121] took place after the gender-related CTOP notice was added to the Talk page[122] (and all whilst telling other editors to go to the talk page).
And then after being informed of MOS:DEADNAME, their first response was to double down and call the policy absurd. Nil🥝 00:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This struck me as odd as well. After the reverts by two other editors and myself were undone almost immediately, with only a direction to the talk page (which at that point seemed to respect the policy pretty unanimously), I initially assumed we were dealing with a vandal. Discovering that the editor was in fact an administrator actively edit warring was surprising, to say the least.

Now, they describe themselves as an inclusionist and recently had a similar dispute (diff) over Charles III's article, I don’t want to rule out that this may be well-intentioned but misplaced pedantry. Still, the way this unfolded leaves a bitter taste, especially given the sensitivity of MOS:DEADNAME. quidama _talk 00:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Their talk page doesn't give me much hope, I did. After the pile-on, I made no more reverts, out of deference to the process, as wrong as it may be.diff. @Ergo Sum: please explain how it was going against process to not adhere to MOS:DEADNAME. Because as it is right now, I would be in support of a recall if it came to that despite my misgivings about the recall system. What you are saying feels, transphobic. Even if someone was involved in a school shooting, as long as they were not previously notable under their deadname, we do not include it. Full stop. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment this unfortunate series of events is a clear case study in why BLP protections should be applied to the recently deceased. I sincerely hope the perpetrator section has been re-anonymized.Simonm223 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  They already do, and if you mean her deadname removed, yes, it has. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  see WP:BDP ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, seconding this comment above by LakesideMiners, in that the tone of this feels transphobic (or at the very least not very accommodating to existing policy). As someone who is new to Wikipedia, I definitely expect more of our admins. Mocking the deadnaming policy is not okay at all. Ergo Sum has a right to have a personal opinion on the topic, but there is no need to make those private thoughts so public and confrontational. 172.58.12.249 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not much of a fan of this edit they made earlier this month to the infobox of Donbas adding a Russian pronunciation either (rather than sourcing it, just summarizing that 'the article says that the region is majority Russophone'; why would a 10-year editor suddenly just forget about WP:CIRCULAR?), knowing the heavy sanctions in that topic area and how hot-button that article can get, and that nobody will revert them because they're an admin, so it's stuck. That and their simple refusal to apologize for this despite blackletter call-out for deadnaming and continuing to try to WP: their way out of this, trying to 'speak above' other editors (Preservation of the status quo ante during the pendency...plain English, please!) and the Charles III argument gives me no confidence in this admin and I agree with Lakeside that they need to stop before they're recalled. Nathannah • 📮 02:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any action taken against User:Ergo Sum on the grounds that they're an established contributor for over a decade and based on the precedent set with User:Horse Eye's Back. I'm not sure if User:CoffeeCrumbs is advocating for some sort of sanction against User:LilianaUwU for their adding fuel to the fire under the grounds of being a vexatious bystander or not. King Lobclaw (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  May I ask what precedent was set in the HEB thread? Since I wasn't here for it, I've spent the past hour or so skimming it, trying to make sense of it but it seems like the consensus there was that there was no consensus. quidama _talk 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not certain what they’re referring to, but it definitely isn’t anything to do with an admin violating 3RR or WP:Deadname because they feel like it? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Huh, apparently this editor and their 148 total edits decided to non-admin close the HEB discussion as “no result”??? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Hard to believe that an admin is this ignorant about edit warring policy, leaving aside the extremely poor judgement about behaving this way over content known to be a hot button issue (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Seeing an admin making comments like that makes me not trust their involvement in any trans-related topic area whatsoever. Doubly so because they are an admin and already seem to have made implied threats about using those powers on those they are in a disagreement with. Silverseren^C 03:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is much for me to respond to above in the form of legitimate criticisms of my actions on the article in question (as well as many silly (and predictable) accusations as to my politics that I will not legitimize with a response). I will do so if and when it is appropriate; when that may be, I don't know, given that, as I have already stated on my talk page, before all this copious ink was poured out here, I already decided to withdraw from further editing on the naming question in that article, out of deference to the majority of editors who disagreed with my position. I write here only to respond to the preposterous falsehood that I "threatened" to use my admin powers on those I disagree with. I have no idea what you are referring to. I can only gather you refer to my statement where I indicated I would not threaten to block someone with whom I disagreed, precisely because that would be inappropriate. Ergo Sum 03:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with everyone else that an admin edit-warring at all, much less edit warring to violate a BLP policy, is quite bad. Loki (talk) 03:25, 28 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:UrielAcosta's refusal to notify editors about SD

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

UrielAcosta regularly nominates userspace and draftspace pages for deletion via G11 and U5. However, they do not notify editors that they have nominated pages for deletion. Four examples from today include:

• G11 nomination of User:Bamang Losik (user talk page)
• G11 nomination of User:Tim Phelps KC (user talk page)
• G11 nominated of User:Mohamedashan12 (user talk page)
• G11 nomination of User:StavrosPappasEditor (user talk page)

Beyond not notifying, I'd also say two out of four of these are extremely BITEY, given that they're brief bios new editors made on their userpage as their first and only edit.

I have left UrielAcosta multiple messages about this (see here), but they fail to respond. Deepfriedokra has also requested they notify editors, though received a response stating, "I do not, as it happens, notify everybody I tag ... nor am I in fact obliged to notify anybody" (see here). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

They are not the only editor to omit notificatons and, what is worse, is that quite a few admins delete pages via CSD without posting a notification. Unfortunately, it's all too common. If they w only just use Twinkle for deletions, the program would take care of this automatically. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Those two bitey ones are extremely bitey, and I agree that editors should be notified of G11 taggings. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra. Thanks for pinging me to this discussion. Policy does not require that we notify page creators when we tag their work for speeding deletion. And certainly, an argument can be made against notifying spam bots and block evading sock puppets. However, new users who create promotional user pages and autobiographical drafts should be notified when they are not aware of our rules. Uriel Acosta does not notify those he does not consider worthy.

New users are not aware of our rules and do not intentionally break them. If educating, encouraging and retaining new users is important to us as a community, then yes, we all should notify them when we tag their pages for speedy deletion whenever possible. Also, I agree with what Liz said. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Noting related, more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#"Should" notify the page creator?.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Not biting newcomers is a behavioral guideline - not some "hey if you do it great"- and I agree that two of the examples violate that expectation we have of veteran editors towards newer editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Auto-notification is why I use twinkle for CSD noms, although g15 hasn't been added to twinkles CSD yet (I have used g15 twice so far, once was a multi nom where g15 was the secondary criteria), and g8 of user talk:Example/sandbox also don't produce auto-notification with twinkle. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Noting UrielAcosta edits other Wikepedias and is thus sporadic on this one. It might be a while before he notices the ANI notice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• It isn't required to notify the creator, policy is clear on this. Usually, it is a good idea, but it isn't required. If a creator's only contrib is to create a bio on their user page, ie: using enwp as a webhost, then I don't see the harm in NOT notifying them. I generally do, but the complaint isn't coming from the editors here, it is coming from a 3rd party with no dog in the hunt. You might prefer they notify, but policy says it is fine. The reviewing admin can determine if input is needed from the page creator, btw. This is not an ANI issue as there is nothing actionable here, nothing clearly against policy going on, and should be closed as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  Too true. The upshot is, feeling as I do about notification and education, if I see he hasn't, then I do. Most other admins do not, but that is their choice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown, I disagree that someone habitually biting newbies is not a matter for ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  A claim of "biting" solely for "inaction" is stretching the intent of the policy to the breaking point, and is entirely too subjective, as the actions are within policy. Even if it can be argued that this isn't optimal, that doesn't make it a sanctionable offense, taken by itself. I can't think of any time we have sanctioned someone for NOT doing something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Although failing to notify an editor that their page is being deleted might not be named within BITE, the essay does state that editors can avoid biting newbies by not nominating newly created pages for deletion. In two of the four cases provided above, the new editor's user page was nominated for deletion as spam, when the user seemed to be telling the community what they're interested in editing. Having your first edits deleted without explaining why is certainly BITEY. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  This was my interpretation as well. For me a large part of BTIE is that actions which might be fine in other contexts - actions like deleting a new user's userpage - feels different when someone is still learning the rules of the site and so we need to take extra care for those users. Inaction in this context would be not nominating the userpage for deletion. Instead UrielAcosta has chosen to take action and that choice carries with it some obligations when dealing with newcomers, so that we Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown, at no point did I say that it was solely the inaction that was bitey here. Neither does Significa liberdade's original post. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  So are you suggesting a block, or is this an academic exercise? This is a simple case of a few instances of not notifying someone about a CSD, after they did one edit to spam their user page. It isn't always best practice but it is allowed. Simply telling them "you really should notify under most circumstances" seems sufficient, and that has already been done. Publicly spanking them further seems futile, abusive, and rather pointy for something that isn't even against policy. The ongoing RFC clearly indicates the consensus hasn't changed regarding this. Don't run off an active editor to "protect" a one time, hit and run editor that will probably never come back and see that his "webpage" was deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  The problem isn't is that this isn't "a few instances." Looking at their contributions, 30% of their last 50 edits are nominating userspace pages for speedy deletion as spam. Out of 15 nominations this week, they only notified two editors. Four of those speedy deletion nominations were declined, and only one was a case where UA had notified. I don't propose a block but this is clearly bitey behaviour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  If they are wrong 1/3rd of the time, that is a different issue that hasn't been raised yet. I checked his last 50 edits, per your comment, and found only two instances of tagging a user page. Both were incorrect, so it could be a threshold issue, not a "failure to notify" issue. I'm short of time, but this quick glance, per your instructions, shows a possible problem that could have been handled by the admins who refused to delete via CSD, or anyone on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  These 5 tags to userpages were in the last 12 edits: User:Bamang Losik (not deleted), Draft:Tim Phelps (moved to draft), User:Mohamedashan12 (not deleted), User:StavrosPappasEditor (deleted), and User:Adarsh Sharmah (deleted). UA didn't notify any of these new editors. Additionally, we can talk about both issues: failure to notify and incorrect tagging. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• I went ahead and just left a comprehensive message on his talk page, which should have been done earlier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that. After no response to my first message and a non receptive response to my second, I gave up. Was not aware of the inappropriate taggings. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Noting he has not edited since 8/24. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  This seems a case of someone trying to do good things, they just don't know that their threshold is way too low and it is causing problems. At this stage, it is an education/experience problem, not a behavioral problem. Now that they have the information, they are responsible for knowing it in the future. If they ignore the advice, then the tools can be used, but if I assume good faith, I just see this as being too zealous, not an attempt to hurt the encyclopedia or push a POV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Kambojahistory adding WP:OR in articles

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

The editor is adding original research in articles even after being warned by @MaplesyrupSushi:. See talk-page discussion, but then they again did it at [123] and [124]. The user has competence issues, which is evident from earlier editing behaviour as discussed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory_is_engaged_in_disruption_only Agent 007 (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

archive stopper 212.70.114.16 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Since their last ANI report, it seems that Kambojahistory has mostly edited talk or user pages, except for a few recent edits which incorrectly replaced the existing religion parameter with "Hinduism" based on what is apparently OR: [125], [126]. A topic ban from religion and castes might be an option, since the editor seems intent on introducing unreferenced and clearly contentious information, despite being warned against it multiple times. Elspamo4 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Legal Letter

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.

---

ChatBot_VT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted an interesting legal letter (also at their talk page), I don't know what the best method for addressing this should be but I was informed it should be brought here. I have notified the user [127]. Sophia∠θ pr′me 13:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd for legal threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this one is a returning customer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

On another site (now defunct), we mods were firmly of the view that spammers and trolls should be compelled to adopt serialised usernames. Sadly, management disagreed. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember the name, but there was another account recently that was pasting the entire text of their edits into the summary like that, and was saying similar weird nonsense. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:04, 27 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.

Racial slurs

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.

---

Hun Narkphanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is likely a sock, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Starting a discussion at ANI nonetheless as reasons for blocking should also note the clear racial abuse purveyed by the user. First the user restored the pajeet page (a highly offensive racial slur), mostly created by their previous socks, then added the same slur to Rishi Sunak and now says it was just 'trolling'. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Gotitbro (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning regarding the addition of the term to the Rishi Sunak article, and the sock investigation is ongoing, so not sure we really need a thread here as well. Regarding the restoring of the pajeet Article, without particularly defending this user's conduct I think it should go through AFD rather than unilaterally being deleted or redirected when several editors have restored it. The sources in the article appear to confer notability and we don't typically delete articles purely because they are about offensive terms. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed. Zero tolerance for racial or sexual slurs. Inserting them into a BLP, even worse. They need to be very convincing in order to regain their editing priviledges. No warnings for this sort of behaviour, straight to indef (which remember doesn't mean permanent.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 27 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.

Horse Eye's Back failing to assume good faith, being uncivil spanning years

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.

---

Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has persistently assumed bad faith of editors, refuses to communicate or otherwise inadequately does so, spurs on arguments for the silliest of reasons, and demonstrates behaviour that is, quite frankly, shocking for a user who has been here for years and has 70,000+ edits.

• I first noticed this user while scrolling through the AFDs for today. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre" (2nd nomination) was nominated by @PARAKANYAA:. Horse Eye's Back (hereby referred to as HEB) makes an irrelevant comment about how it's "too soon" to re-nominate the article. The nomination doesn't violate any guidelines/policies (and honestly, 10 months had passed - IMO not too soon) - but the real issue here is that they continue on a tangent (again, completely unrelated to the AFD discussion) assuming bad faith towards PARAKANYAA and being uncivil. Comments include: accusing them of "wasting editorial resources" which, in HEB's words, is "annoying and lame" (1), later saying I would suggest that you have a bit of a Messiah complex... No edit *needs* you or I to make it. You've wasted enough time already, have a good day (2). IMO this is uncivil behaviour and not appropriate. I called out HEB for arguing about such a trivial matter on an AFD and told him it was petty and of ill faith. (3). HEB responds saying: You are right now arguing on an AFD about, of all things, arguing about the time between nominations. Don't know what this means, but whatever... (4).
• After this, HEB leaves me a level 2 AGF warning telling me "Good faith is essential" for the one comment I made on the AFD. (5) Look, sorry about saying the behaviour is ill-faithed, but I can't think of a universe where it isn't. Accusing somebody of wasting resources and having a complex? Hello? I didn't understand this warning (or think it was warranted) so I reverted it with the edit summary "false warning" (6). HEB then leaves me a level 2 edit summary warning (7), which refers to abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries, something I truly don't believe my 2 words was. I asked them on their talk page to please stop leaving me such warnings; they respond with this: You accused me of being "ill faith-ed towards PARAKANYAA," not failing to assume good faith. You also did not contribute in any way in that AfD other than to cast aspersions at me... You've now moved a discussion from your talk page to mine to lecture me about what is "not appropriate and uncivil"? Do I have that right? Ironically "aspersions" means an attack on ones reputation, which would mean he's accusing me of attacking his, which means he's not assuming good faith... and shows how silly this whole debacle is. To end it off, he told me I would suggest that you put more thought not less into your edits.
• HEB has a long history of disputes with editors. For instance, see User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/April, where FOUR editors leave warnings in one month for edit warring, attacking editors, and failing to assume good faith. In response to one user's warnings, he says: are you aware that using Twinkle for actions like this is WP:TWINKLEABUSE and could result in the loss of your Twinkle privilages? You seem to have made a lot of errors here and I'm giving to clean up your mess. Using twinkle to send a warning is not abuse. Insinuating that you could lose "twinkle privileges" (?) is flat out wrong. HEB also makes it clear that he's on the moral high ground, that he's giving opportunity to "clean up your mess", later saying to another editor you misunderstand, I'm not implying bad faith I'm worried about you. The same month has him referring to a level 1 disruptive warning as a "serious allegation" and questions if the sender sent the wrong template. The whole thread is a cycle of HEB being uncivil and not taking warnings constructively and then backing down when things get worse.
• There's a lot more on his behaviour that can just be seen by his talk page archives. User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/February he is again called out by an admin for not assuming good faith. Honestly just go through any of his archives, the amount of warnings, discussions, and editors calling him out is ridiculous and this shouldn't continue.
• PAST ANI INCIDENTS: October 2020, October 2020 (2), February 2021, February 2021 (2), August 2021, February 2022, March 2022, August 2022, September 2022, January 2024, February 2025. And these are just the ones I've been able to find.

Their issues with behaviour span years and I think serious action is needed at this point. Thanks for reading. jolielover♥talk 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Direct Links to the sections. October 2020, October 2020 (2),February 2021,February 2021 (2), August 2021,February 2022, March 2022, August 2022, September 2022, January 2024, February 2025 LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This has no business being at ANI, the discussion wasn't going their way so they're throwing the kitchen sink at me instead of continuing it or walking away. If I was as is being suggested why wouldn't I have just deleted Jolielover's comment on my talk page and called it a day? Also @Jolielover: my pronouns have always been "they/them/theirs" on here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no intention of continuing the discussion since I don't find it constructive, but there's clearly an issue here if numerous editors have called you out for a variety of issues. And sorry about that, I didn't know. jolielover♥talk 18:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

And if I happened to pull a recent discussion from your talk page[128] where you appear to condone some pretty nasty transphobia, what would you say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

What on earth? In regards to that comment, I assumed good faith and thought the person was just another woman happy to see another on the site. Again, the very thing you keep insisting on. If I jumped the gun and called out the person for being a transphobe, would you then say that I was assuming bad faith? I don't support transphobia at all, I just tried to respond politely without dragging it (and anyway, it was later revealed the account was a LTA). jolielover♥talk 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

So why didn't you assume that same sort of good faith with my comment on your page? You seem to want to judge me by rules you don't play by. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

you sure that's the correct diff? Unless I'm missing something, that's just a confirmation 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an incredible stretch, and way out of line. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Which part? That the comment is transphobic or that the smiley face etc and the complete lack of comment on it appear to condone it? Its certainly not a civil comment but Jolielover takes no issue with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Being friendly is bad??? I don't even understand the transphobia accusation, it was just a confirmation 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That someone asking about catfishing is in reality a dog-whistle anti-trans post (nudge nudge, wink wink? Really?), or that someone answering it in good faith is guilty of something? And bringing it up here in an attempt to deflect their complaint speaks volumes to me about your behavior than anyone else’s. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Who was asking about catfishing? Those are clearly anti-trans tropes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a difference between being anti-trans (bad) and being concerned about what's sometimes called "crossplay" (not bad). I read that as the latter. I can see how it could be interpreted as the former, but I don't think this is a good look for you here HEB. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't being concerned about Crossplay (cosplay) be "bad"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

If you honestly don't understand why a woman might be uncomfortable with a man pretending to be a woman on the Internet (clarity: not a trans woman, but an actual "man who portrays themselves as a woman online"), you haven't been on the Internet very long. Now, looking at this, it's fairly clear that wasn't the intent of the comment, but it's very easy to see how it could be seen that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

But thats not something we have a "lot of" unless I'm missing something, are there really a lot of men on wikipedia pretending to be women outside of the context of sockpuppetry or somewhere on the trans spectrum (with of course "pretending" in that later context being an external value judgement, I am not endorsing the POV)? That just seems like it would be really really rare, but maybe I'm wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

At the risk of fueling what really feels like a tangent, the comment from the blocked editor was 100% a transphobic dogwhistle. You aren't one of those trans """women""" are you? That said, dog whistles aren't always easy to spot, and it's entirely in the realm of possibility that JL just happened to be one of that day's ten thousand or any number of other possible explanations as to why she didn't confront the comment.Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

My intended point was that trolling other editor's talk pages looking for anything negative is a bad idea. This has progressed well beyond that, it is definitely a tangent, and is certainly open to hatting if anyone feels that makes sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

And to prove that point you...trolled another editor's talk page looking for something negative. Two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, something which could be perceived as negative but was in fact simply a misunderstanding or similar. The problem arose when people other than Jolielover responded first contesting whether or not the comment was even transphobic (check the time stamps, her response is first but it wasn't made first). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so this is going to be a mixed bag if ever there was one...

First off, I'm going to agree with HEB as to the nature of the comment: there's a outside possibility it was meant innocently, I suppose, but I'd say there's an upwards of 90% chance that it was a passive aggresive comment about our fairly visible trans community on this project. I'd also bet dollars to donuts that the user was actually a man and a troll, but that's neither here nor there.

That said, HEB, I see absolutely no reason for any confidence (let alone a presumption) that Jolie caught the subtext there: their response very much suggests otherwise, and that's the real reason I think that you got the reaction you did from the community here: it's not so much about their ascirbing a different default/most likely meaning to the comment. It's that the manner in which you tried to "gotcha" Jolie there comes off as petty, reactionary, and retaliatory. Now look, you don't have to like that they've opened this discussion or to feel that its justified, but I do think its clear that they opened this discussion for more than personal reasons. Like it or not, you going after them in an eye-for-an-eye fashion for opening the discussion doesn't feel clean. It feels more WP:POINTY than anyhting and makes it seem like you have so little confidence in defending your conduct on the merits that you have to try to create some kind of equivalence between you, or (even worse) attack their character rather than their message.

And you're going to like this even less: personally, while I'm not sure Jolie handled this situation tactfully enough that much of good is going to come from this, I absolutely do understand their motivation. Because the issues that they are talking about with how you handle disputes--I've seen them too. Now, you and I have never butted heads personally; I don't think we have much overlap in subject matter interests. But you've been a prolific editor in recent years, and I spend a fair bit of time in high traffic processes/forums like RfC and notice boards. So I think I must have observed you "out in the wild" on scores of occasions. And I have two general senses of you as a contributor: 1) I think I probably agree with you 80% of the time on the policy issues. But at the same time, 2) I nevertheless have a feel of exasperation, in the aggregate, when I see you. Because I have seen you go to the mat in WP:battleground mode too many times, too quickly, and for too little cause. You can often give off an anti-collegial sentiment as soon as a dispute starts. The word I think I would use for the dominant feeling I associate with your name when I see it is "surly".

And look, I'm not saying any of this to upset you or even try to force some change in how you relate to the project. Because if Jolie hadn't opened this discussion, I'm quite confident we could have rubbed elbows for additional decades without my feeling a strong need to call your conduct out. I don't think it is often that your approach crosses the line into truly severe disruption.

But if my approach to discussion and collaboration was making others (even just those I strongly disagreed with) feel like the discussions we shared in common were less engaging and less enjoyable, I'd want to know. Maybe sometimes I would still think that whatever end I was trying to serve was worth those impacts and getting that reputation. But I'd still want to know. So that's my take and I hope it hasn't irrevocably created a toxic relationship where before we were mostly just strangers. For what it is worth, I don't think you are likely to have to cope with any sanction or serious consequences from this discussion. At your absolute worst you are probably still a net positive for the project, and that might sound like damning with faint praise, but honestly...that's better than can be said for a non-trivial number of established community members. But you still might want to consider that there might be things worth hearing here, now that the discussion has in fact started. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A dog whistle means it’s subtle. That’s just blatant transphobia. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, seriously? Hi there! Yes, I am :) nice to see you here too! is transphobic? I came in here to defend you but I really am having a hard time. — ^EF⁵ 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The comment I'm calling transphobic is "Your user page indicates you are female. Are you an actual female though? I’m sorry I have to ask, it’s just that there are a lot of male editors on Wikipedia masquerading as women. If you’re really female, then hi! It’s nice to see another one here!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You said where you appear - they didn't write that, nor did they condone that. A smiley face can be sarcastic, which is what I'm reading from that comment. — ^EF⁵ 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover just said that it was not sarcastic. They do appear to have condoned it, with the key context that they misunderstood it as something other than a bigoted troll. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover assumed AGF about the troll, you immediately ABF’d the troll, which was possibly correct, but still, are you the Wikipedia:Assume bad faith believer here? 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

AGF is a spectrum and Jolielover and I at this point seem to have a lot more in common than we don't... Does any of this belong at ANI? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you so new to the internet that you really think “men masquerading as women” on an anonymous website is code for transsexual? Unbelievable. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Google it if you don't believe me and transsexual=/=transgender. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm with Celjski here. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

for whatever it's worth, i think it was a transphobic comment. however, i can see how jolielover (or anyone else) would not read it that way and would interpret it entirely straightforwardly, or at least not want to make a false accusation of transphobic intent. either way, this is absolutely grasping at straws to find wrongdoing on jolielover's part. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back if you're accusing someone of condoning transphobia you're going to need a lot more than one comment dug out of their talk page history where they were (to my eyes) just being polite to make an obvious troll go away. You might consider striking that comment and dropping this particular stick--tony 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, @Horse Eye's Back please drop your ABF as well. 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that they appear to. I make no accusation at all, this is exactly why AGF exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I only know a little about white supremacy, but does that automatically mean I condone it? No. Misunderstanding something, or knowing little about it, doesn't mean someone automatically condones it. — ^EF⁵ 19:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Condoning is different than the appearence of condoning and I only ever spoke to the appearence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Even though you know little about white supremacy I assume you would see something questionable about "Your user page indicates you are white. Are you an actual white though? I’m sorry I have to ask, it’s just that there are a lot of non-white editors on Wikipedia masquerading as whites. If you’re really white, then hi! It’s nice to see another one here!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't even think of trans people when replying. I was pretty confused by it. I actually left a comment about it on the Wikimedia discord server showing I didn't have any sort of ill intent. Not sure if I can link externally here, but full convo:

(Redacted)

jolielover♥talk 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, you are accusing the wrong person here. You should have accused User:Skibidifantumtax instead! 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the WP:DISCORD? — ^EF⁵ 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes jolielover♥talk 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a 100% clear-cut bright-line Athaenara-tier transphobic comment. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t get why Wikipedians are still pathologically cautious about calling transphobia transphobia. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

[User:Jolielover|Jolielover]], you can't (or you shouldn't) bring a very long query to ANI, have expectations that other editors will read and weigh in on it and soon after say that you won't be participating in a discussion here. You brought a complaint, now you have to respond to comments about the complaint included from the editor who is accused of bad conduct. If you are going to withdraw your participation here, we might as well close this case and archive it. It's what The Bushranger calls lobbing a grenade and running away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC) (my mistake, apologies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC))

it's pretty clear to me that jolielover is referring to the discussion on HEB's talk page, not the discussion here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

yeah I was referring to that @Liz: jolielover♥talk 19:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having a messiah complex and wasting everyone's time = assuming good faith

Criticizing someone for accusing someone of having a messiah complex and wasting everyone's time = not assuming good faith

Really? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't the criticism, the accusation was of ill faith not of failing to assume good faith. If Jolielover had simply said that they did not think that I was assuming good faith we wouldn't be here, we are here because they made an accusation of bad faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Is accusing me of having a messiah complex and willfully wasting people's time not accusing me of ill faith? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

" If you genuinely believe that "Someone won't do it" I would suggest that you have a bit of a Messiah complex... No edit *needs* you or I to make it." clearly means that I think you were being hyperbolic with such an absolute statement, not that I think you have a Messiah complex. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks like pedantry, if JolieLover just said that they thought that you didn't AGF then it would be an indirect accusation of bad faith? 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

"if JolieLover just said that they thought that you didn't AGF" but critically that isn't what they said... They said that I was operating in ill faith, not that I was failing to assume good faith (one can after all fail to assume good faith in good faith, failure to AGF is not necessarily the same thing as bad faith). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back what is going on with the pedantry about the nom, just imagine this: various editors creating articles about a borderline notable figure every 3 months or so for whatever reason. Would you keep declining AfD noms for these articles because 'too close' 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How can an article which wasn't ever deleted be created multiple times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

(scratches his head) Y'know, HEB, that's rather like me asking you whether apples are fruits or berries, and you replying "Purple." Where do you get, in that hypothetical, that the articles were never deleted? Ravenswing 19:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we agree, for the hypothetical to work the article would need to have been deleted multiple times... Through PROD or SPEEDY at the very least if not AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of this is presented in a confusing way for example this bit "I asked them on their talk page to please stop leaving me such warnings; they respond with this: You accused me of" but my response to their ask was [129] with the quoted bit actually coming from my response to a later comment[130]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This (mentioned in the OP) is incredibly petty and ill-advised. I am sure HEB will happily write 2,500 words arguing about this with me or anyone else but really. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Petty and ill advised is not what ANI is for, that isn't a bad description of it with the benefit of hindsight. I would note that a willingness to engage in extensive discussions (including frequently acknowledging when I am in the wrong) does not support an argument of general incivility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

... It literally is.

Like. That's one of the more common behaviors that get editors dragged here. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Iv reverted it as it's been made clear by Joe that they don't want them left on their talk page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

HEB appears to be intentionally derailing this thread to evade scrutiny of their behaviour. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This thread in itself illustrates the problem: HEB has trouble dropping the stick, regardless of whether they're right on the merits. HEB, you cop to that above. Awareness is a good first step, but you need to address it or at some point the community will address it for you. The original complaint was long enough that most people would TLDR and walk away, but now folks are interested. Also, people who do Petty and ill advised things keep the fires burning at ANI. It's not a badge of honor. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This thread in itself illustrates that the overall standard for AGF is rather low, even in an AGF discussion. ANI is a tricky forum because the "Accused" is expected to respond promptly and fully to all complaints but also not to dominate or derail the discussion and invariable its impossible to satisfy everyone in the crowd. However you think it wise consider the stick dropped. (Sorry, I missed that there was one more comment that should be responding to) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have four questions for the OP:

1. For instance, see User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/April, where FOUR editors leave warnings in one month for edit warring, attacking editors, and failing to assume good faith. - Do you think any of those four warnings were well-founded, and if so, which ones and why?
2. User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/February he is again called out by an admin for not assuming good faith. - Why did you not mention that the admin who called out HEB was also called out by another admin in the same discussion?
3. Honestly just go through any of his archives, the amount of warnings, discussions, and editors calling him out is ridiculous and this shouldn't continue. - How many times in the past 12 months has this happened?
4. Same quote as above - what about the number of barnstars, WP:WIKILOVEs, WP:AWOTs, etc.? Is the amount of those also ridiculous? How many of those positive messages were posted in the last 12 months, and is it more or less than the amount of warnings, etc. from question #3 above? You start with Honestly, is it honest to just call out the negatives in someone's user talk page history and omit the positives?

Ok, that was more than four questions, but thanks in advance for answering them. Levivich (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes. This thread is HEB instigating an argument. HEB asks why an AfC is declined, @Theroadislong: makes the mistake of saying "your draft". HEB ignores the decline reason (which was valid) and has to clarify it's not THEIR draft, calling it a "sloppy error". HEB ups this by acting as Theroadislong's therapist in an exchange that is so bizarre you'd only expect a troll to make it. As mentioned by @Cullen328: it's demeaning and inappropriate to question somebody's mental state for making an error as minor as that. Hence the warning.

2. @Smasongarrison: was only called out for using a template that wasn't 100% accurate to the situation, which Smasongarrison apologized for (before @JBW: came in) The call out wasn't directly related to HEB and isn't relevant here.

3. I think I've linked plenty of recent interactions (and as mentioned above the OG was very long hence why I stopped there), but the amount of individual warnings/callouts from the past 12 months from editors who are either NPPs or have 10,000+ edits (to seed out people) are: User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Misleading_edit_summaries (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Michigan_Highways (1) (here, a WMF employee intervenes), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/April#April_2025 (4), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/February#January_2025 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/February#AN/I (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/February#February_2025 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/December#November_2024 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/December#December_2024 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/September#Lori_Mattix_edit_warring (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/August#August_2024 (1). These are all from editors who, like I mentioned, are NPPs/have at least 10,000 edits, so more likely for them to understand policies and guidelines and less likely for the warnings to be misused. Disclaimer that I've not gone through all of these since I don't have the time and like I said, the examples I've put forward are, imo, enough. So I can't judge the authencitity of ALL these warnings, but I think these many are bound to say something. For instance, HEB responds to Dec 2024 with a personal attack.

4. I don't think they're relevant to this discussion. Sure, if someone wants, they can list out all the awards they've received. I don't think warnings and awards are similar. Someone can both be disruptive and uncivil in the social aspects of editing and constructive in the other aspects. I'm calling out the former. I, personally, think it's far out of line, and HEB has treaded the boundary line for far too long. jolielover♥talk 06:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

So the most recent one is an editor saying to HEB "you appear to be the most incompetent person I ever came across on Wikipedia" and you think this somehow shows HEB doing something wrong? I find your examples do not support your thesis. You should judge the authenticity of all the warnings, before you raise them as examples, because it's very common for editors who lose content disputes to then make accusations of misconduct. When you see an experienced editor post a warning on the user talk page of another experienced editor, it's usually the person giving the warning who is at fault (tell me if that sounds familiar?). Levivich (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I said I haven't checked out all the warnings since I don't have time at my fingertips. You asked how many times it happened, I went above and beyond by sending links to every incident on their talk page that I could find. I did judge the ones I used in my main post, I didn't for this since I don't have time and it was a personal additional request. If you wanted me to, you should've asked me that. When you see an experienced editor post a warning on the user talk page of another experienced editor, it's usually the person giving the warning who is at fault is there data for this? Statistics? You can't judge from a "well, usually it happens". I think it's fair, however, to judge from a repeated pattern of disturbance. What about these instances, which are clearly inappropriate? Or accusing an editor of having ownership issues to a comment that was, imo, very polite and standard. I think the evidence I've shown has more weight than "well, the other person is usually in the wrong".

I don't understand what you mean by "if that sounds familiar". This means you're saying HEB is at fault since they're the one who gave me two warnings, which contradicts everything you previously said. I never gave them warnings, I asked them to stop giving me warnings. jolielover♥talk 07:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You understand perfectly what I meant :-) Yes, the AGF warning was unnecessary (I don't even know why we have that template), but your attempt to say that HEB is a long term problem, which I see as basically a smear job, kind of cancels it out. This unnecessary escalation--by both of you--is typical, and that's what many of the examples of previous warnings are. BTW, when I asked about previous warnings, I meant meritorious ones. The unmerited ones don't count for anything. When you pull those out of the piles of talk page warnings and ANI threads, there are very few left. (Btw, if you look at the past ANI threads, you'll see me making this exact same argument a year or two ago, to the last person who tried to do what you've tried to do here.) Levivich (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I really don't. I have to assume you're referring to me, but it doesn't make sense since I didn't give any warnings. Then it means you're referring to HEB, which also makes no sense since you're defending them. I don't see what's unnecessary in my escalation of bringing it here. Diagnosing people online, personally insulting others, escalating arguments, stirring up arguments, and then accusing me of transphobia to draw attention away from their own behaviour is not enough for such an "escalation"? "Smear job" also implies I'm spreading false or misleading info. I don't see that. I've provided links and differences to inappropriate behaviour. Again, do you seriously think everything HEB has said is just fine? Or that I'm making it up? Btw HEB, accusing me of a "smear job" would be assuming bad faith, obviously, so it looks like we'll need your assistance to discredit Levivich's entire point.

Jokes aside, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if someone continues to be uncivil, refuses to cooperate, drop the stick, it does harm the wiki and, to quote them, "waste editorial resources". How many ANI discussions or 3RR discussions are needed to establish that this behaviour isn't appropriate? jolielover♥talk 08:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel the need to clarify that yes I am in general accusing you of a smear job (although not necessarily in bad faith, some people view the kitchen sink approach as totally normal), that is the upshot of my original post ("the discussion wasn't going their way so they're throwing the kitchen sink at me instead of continuing it or walking away")... And the claim that I accused you "of transphobia to draw attention away from their own behavior" is unambiguously false and/or misleading... Not to mention very clearly a failure to AGF. If you really have judged all of those discussions in April and think that I'm trying to draw attention away from my behavior lets see your analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You want to complain about AGF? You should read hypocrisy, I think it fits this situation really well. — ^EF⁵ 15:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

As a wise person said two wrongs don't make a right... Especially since the claim being made is that my conduct vis-a-vis AGF is out of the ordinary and/or egregious. I also don't think its hypocritical for someone accused of failing to AFG to point out that the same standard being applied to them is not being applied to others in the same discussion, that actually seems to be calling out hypocrisy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you really do understand it, because you wrote This means you're saying HEB is at fault since they're the one who gave me two warnings..., which is correct. Yes, I am finding fault with both HEB's warning and your OP (it's not an either/or thing), for being misleading, eg you quoted the "messiah complex" quote without including the full quote (crucially, the "if" part), pointed to an admin calling out HEB as evidence of HEB's wrongdoing without mentioning that the same admin was called out by another admin in the same discussion, and suggested that the mere existence of many warnings and prior ANI threads proves there is a longstanding unaddressed problem (without noting that many of those warnings were BS, and the two ANI threads from the last three years ended in no consensus and withdrawn after corrective action was taken, respectively).

It's particularly ironic, or un-self-aware, because your complaint is about unmerited warnings being left on your talk page, while you are using warnings (without regard to merit) as evidence of a problem on HEB's part. Imagine if someone later did this to you: pointed to HEB's warnings on your talk page as proof of a problem with your editing. Would you think that was fair? That's what you're doing here.

A complaint to ANI about the recent warnings/conduct would have probably been OK, but in my view, you did the exact same thing HEB did -- namely, unnecessarily escalate a dispute, in HEB's case with the warnings, and in your case by alleging a long term problem, rather than just focusing on the dispute at hand. Levivich (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

when I asked about previous warnings, I meant meritorious ones. then maybe you should've said that in your initial question instead of expecting jolielover to read your mind and then moving the goalposts. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 19:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it was a test to see if she'd throw everything against the wall to see what sticks, or actually make a case with properly-selected evidence. The former is what makes it a smear job and not a valid complaint, IMO. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me just stay I'm pleased to see an editor under these conditions cogently and coherently reject the net-positive framework. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Levivich, I don't know how you can review the incident leading to this and HEB's comments in this thread, and defend them. Obv someone in a personal dispute with another isn't exactly going to see the best in them re every past incident, nit-picking the report and ignoring the actual incident/substance comes off as WP:FANCLUB. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I really am loathe to post at ANI but I feel compelled to point out that HEB recently told an editor: To borrow a German phrase don't be an asshole unless you want someone to use your face as a toilet. [131] HEB then accused the same editor of being uncivil because they deleted this comment and continued the substantive discussion on HEB's talk page (rather than their own).[132]

To HEB's credit they later apologised for getting off on the wong foot (whatever that means in this context). [133] I'm shocked to see someone using such grotesque language to another editor, idiomatic or not, then charging the recipient with incivility (a lack of honour even!) for deleting it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on all of this, looks like HEB is very very easily aggravated and likes shooting back at people whatever it takes 37.186.45.17 (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hahaha wow, accusing someone of incivility for removing your poop comment from their Talk page is really funny. Anyways, from this thread I think it's clear HEB has a civility problem and if they don't even admit that I think enough is enough. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

"accusing someone of incivility for removing your poop comment from their Talk page is really funny." that didn't happen, the complaint is not about the removal its about a removal followed by opening a new discussion elsewhere... And it is best practice to finish a discussion on the talk page it was started on rather than moving it, see WP:TALK. Note that that discussion ends with both editors satisfied and the article improved, if the point is to prove disruption this seems to do the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that civility wise you don't delete a comment on your own talk page and then duplicate that discussion on the other user's talk page...

Your own words. Which was uncivil? removing the comment? Moving the discussion? Or both occuring at the same time? Just want to clarify.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

In my own words... S0 its generally not appropriate to open a new discussion on another user's talk page after closing the old one, generally the three courses of action in that situation are to delete it, continue the discussion on your own page, or move it to a relevant article talk page... Moving it to another user talk page isn't generally sanctioned by policy or guideline unless I'm missing something. Also if anyone think's I'm wrong about twinkle let me know, thats a major part of the OP we haven't covered yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Which action was uncivil or was it both alone or in combination. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought that "its generally not appropriate to open a new discussion on another user's talk page after closing the old one" was a direct answer to your question, the first action alone I have no problem with, the second action alone I have no problem with, together it doesn't seem kosher at least as P+G is currently written. Again if there is somewhere where it says to do this please point it out to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so, then,why does it become uncivil when both are combined?

Because if neither are uncivil on its own. Then, I don't see how it's uncivil combined.

The only uncivil part I see is your poop joke LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

To clarify I can see how it could be misguided to move the discussion but. That's it. It's just misguided. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Generally misguided edits to a user page are seen as a civility issue, I see where you're coming from though and will be clearer and nicer about that in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to be evasive and deflect everything to JolieLover like you have no fault? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:E944:4018:B211:30E6 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you're confusing JolieLover with another editor (Obenritter). I also clearly admit fault in the linked thread, "It seems we got off on the wrong foot and I want to apologize for that. Looking at your contributions we have a lot of overlapping interests and maintaining any sort of animosity or ill will would be counterproductive, they are dark areas already."[134] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are you bringing Obenritter, whoever that is, here? Are you just trying to drag everyone into this thread to attempt to distract everyone from talking about your conduct? 37.186.45.17 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't bring Obenritter into it, please re-check the diffs presented by Vladimir.copic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop telling HEB to drop it based on this essay: Wikipedia:Just drop it 37.186.45.17 (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• I can see this discussion going on for days with tit-for-tat aspersions, drawing more editors into the fray, feelings being hurt and no clear outcome being proposed. I'd like to just close this discussion now as it seems unproductive and unlikely to result in any action being taken regarding sanctions but I'm testing the waters on whether I'm alone here or if other editors want to see this all brought to an end.
• If we have learned anything here, it's about the continued importance of AGF and not making unfriendly or petty asides to each other, even if we think we are being funny or sarcastic. I'm not pointing the finger here or laying blame at any particular editor, just making a general comment about the necessity on a communal project to be civil and also to being receptive to others' feedback when we might have crossed the line. Sound good? If you disagree with this sentiment, please do not conintue to take pot shots at each other, instead make a proposal that you believe would help draw this discussion to a conclusion. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, I don't think this discussion should be closed. The discussion about HEB's conduct should be allowed to take place. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but Liz's point appears to be more relevant than singling out individual editors and adding everything-that's-always-bothered-me-about-you posts. I'm all for more kindness and assumption of good faith, I'm all against sanctioning editors who aren't always all about kindness. I agree that this thread can be closed ---Sluzzelin talk 18:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Strongly disagree; there’s a recurring pattern of serious incivility and I don’t want this to be closed as an WP:UNBLOCKABLES case. ^EF⁵ 18:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly my view ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also in agreement with Liz and Sluzzelin. No one has proposed any sanctions, so why keep a thread open just for sniping back and forth at one another. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  on the contrary, i think trying to end a discussion because it's not yet focused on formal sanctions is unproductive. there is clear agreement that HEB's conduct has been subpar at best - trying to shut this down now would absolutely be letting them off the hook as an UNBLOCKABLE. the discussion has of course included plenty of dumb spats and potshots, but no more than any other comparable discussion about a long-term problematic editor, and it's important that we're able to have honest discussions about these sorts of situations - had someone proposed a sanction out the gate i think many here would've said it was premature. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 19:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Liz, I've been reading this discussion and I'm seeing a pattern of uncollegial editing, to put it mildly. This diff, for instance, found by another participant in this thread, is troubling and IMO would have been blockable, if it had been noticed at the time. I don't know yet what remedy, if any, is required, but from my perspective this thread is not completely without substance and, so, I'd like to let it run for a little while longer. —  Salvio ^giuliano 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the goal of my comment was to move forward rather than just have days of editors sniping at each other. If folks don't want to close this discussion than fine, I was trying to nudge things along because in my experience, discussions at ANI can sometimes go on for weeks without anything fundamentally changing. But this is all guided by consensus, of course, so thank you all for sharing your agreement and disagreement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your approach here, Liz. In respect to both 1) that you raised the concern about the productivity of the discussion and 2) that you approached it from the start as an inquiry rather than acting unilaterally to close. Speaking for myself, I think the discussion has a lot of utility even if it doesn't result in a sanction (noting that I have just opposed one below). It can still possibly serve to reinforce for HEB the severity of the community's concerns and can clarify the community's aggragate perspective, creating a record for the (hopefully very unlikely, as I think better of them) event that HEB doesn't heed thoe concerns. I don't think it should go on forever, but I do think for the moment it constitutes valid and useful dialogue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Propose Indefinite Block of HEB

• For long term incivility. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support block from 6 months to indef. They have a clear long-term problem with engaging civilly with others, and it appears that they don't acknowledge any wrongdoing. I don't need them to be sorry, but I have no confidence that they will just learn to keep their cool at this point. And the naked random deflection against this thread's originator is also problematic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• What about a Wikibreak for HEB to cool off and reflect on their actions, considering they are clearly aggravated and need calmness. Enforced using some kind of Pblock from project space I now support an indef seeing the diff Theroadislong provided37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  An indefinite block would accomplish this. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. HEB can request the block to be lifted after taking some time to reflect. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I guess that would my alternative 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• My interaction with them [135]] was bizarre and had me baffled but sometimes that's just how Wikipedia is. I have no idea what response they were hoping for on my talk page, but a block does seem rather harsh. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is exactly the sort of sloppy error I'm talking about ... I'm enquiring about your well being, it isn't normal for experienced editors to be making those sorts of errors. is just insane, especially as HEB completely ducked the fact that the decline made perfect sense because the draft was unreferenced. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support 6-month block so they can cool down and reflect. Incivility isn’t uncommon and everyone does it sometimes, but accusing people of being transphobic without evidence and doubling down isn’t okay. ^EF⁵ 19:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)u

  WP:COOLDOWN argues against this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I was just going to let this run its courts but I neither accused them of being transphobic (unless you mean the IP not the OP) or doubled down on it. I literally did the opposite, when it was pointed out to me that it was questionable I clarified that I did not think that OP was transphobic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I misworded that. I meant condoning transphobia, which is equally as bad. ^EF⁵ 20:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't double down on that either, I clarified that I was speaking only to the appearance of condoning transphobia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Adding a single word doesn’t make it somehow okay to accuse someone of condoning transphobic (or “appearing to”, I guess). ^EF⁵ 20:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have repeatedly said that I did not intend to make that accusation, I didn't just not double down I clarified that I'd never intended to place such a bet in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to !vote or comment on anything else, there's enough going on, but the message I'm replying to took my breath away.

  I don't think your perception about how people see (or should see) your posts here is entirely accurate.

  Your recent posts about the accusation seem to be saying that you didn't mean what everyone else took as an accusation, but were just making a WP:POINT about good faith? It was not at all easy to follow and seems very contradictory based on what you said before.

  And I'm not at all demanding further explanation, I just wanted to be clear that a lot of people did not take the posts on that the way you intended. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  In my experience, I don't think your perception about how people see (or should see) your posts here is entirely accurate is a significant and ongoing problem. It is not enough to have good intentions; you need to have enough social skills to figure out when your good intentions are not coming across, and to change your communication to make your intentions understood. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support an indef block based on the copious amounts of incivility, deflection, and subsequent gaslighting. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support 1 month block with escalating blocks for future incidents if merited. I concur with others re UNBLOCKABLE, but they do have a clean block log and escalating blocks are a corrective measure. No prejudice towards a longer block, their comments here are nuts and likely a product of continuous inaction imbuing a sense of immunity. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  For clarity my block log is not entirely clean, there was a short iban years ago when a sockmaster used multiple accounts to manufacture the incident. I believe that since it was with a sock it never actually counted, but I'm far from an expert on the finer points of logs. For more see the edit history of my original account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  There were two blocks in 2020, under your prior account name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please take another look, its just one and the history is as I describe... It was a strategic move by a sockmaster who wanted me out of the way and didn't mind burning a long established account to do it, see User:CaradhrasAiguo for more. Please note that I also have at least two IP stalkers, examples:[136][137] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support 3 week block. I don't think any of this warrants indef yet. If they serve a block and return to the same behavior, then it should be escalated -- but being caught on the wrong side of a one-vs-many scenario here, plus a "short" block, may be all it takes to deter that from happening. --tony 20:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support short term block. I sense that HEB has a somewhat hostile attitude towards other editors, with enough passive aggressiveness, redirection of blame and wikilawyering to maintain plausible deniability. Clearly some of their comments, such as this, are just clearly inappropriate for a Wikipedia. I'd support a short term block, perhaps 1 month. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef. It's been going on way too long without consequences. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and trout everyone supporting above - have you all lost your marbles? First, what the heck are you all doing giving credence to a site ban proposal by an IP editor? Do we seriously need to make a rule about this or do we not have the judgment to know better? Second, what the heck is up with the repeated recent trend of going straight to site ban when there has been no history of prior sanctions? I'm getting tired of coming to ANI and saying "PROPOSE A WARNING" when there has been no prior warning or sanction (or when the last time was years ago) (I'd probably support a warning if someone made a legit and focused case, not 'they've received a lot of user talk page warnings in the past'). Third, unless something has changed, we don't do time limited blocks by vote, as that's against the WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. I don't think such a thing has ever passed, has it? ANI is not a place where we vote on how long to block someone like we're judges giving out a sentence. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Admins should be regulating this, how am I the first person to speak up here? Back to the first point, what the heck are we doing letting IPs propose (or even vote) on sanctions? Levivich (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  We should be regulating people who repeatedly assume bad faith and go out of their way to tag the GA/FAs of editors who call them out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also, clearly an IP editor starting the petition doesn’t mean jack as multiple people are in support of a block. ^EF⁵ 23:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  In light of that, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Levivich, what do you mean by that? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I mean that when an editor (whether registered or IP, even dynamic IP) has made 3 edits total, and they're all to ANI, and the fourth edit proposes a siteban, any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive. Incredibly disruptive, actually, completely abusing our self-governance system. And when an editor proposes a course of action that is barred by policy, like WP:COOLDOWN, that is also disruptive, and an abuse of ANI. If an editor repeatedly disrupts/abuses ANI or our other self-governance noticeboards/systems (AE, RECALL, etc.), that's sanctionable. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Levivich:, IP editors are people too. Dynamic IPs are a thing. The proposal here may, or may not, have merit, but , but any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive is wildly inappropriate and I strongly suggest you strike it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. And as an admin, I'd expect you to shut this proposal down and block the IP, not ask me to strike my comment. If you support the notion of dynamic IP editors proposing site bans, you are being disruptive. This is way out of line. Levivich (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  When called out for casting aspersions, the correct response is not to double down and cast further ones at the admin who warned you about said aspersion-casting. I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia for awhile and reconsider your conduct here before a WP:VEXBYSTERANG comes around. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, block the IP for proposing that someone who has an incivility problem should face consequences. That's not disruptive at all. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Levivich, am I reading this right? Are you calling The Bushranger disruptive here? tony 01:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, Levivich defines “disruptive” as “disagreeing with Levivich, and by that standard, Bushranger is indeed being very disruptive. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Comments like these, which are simply meant to insult someone and don't contribute to the actual discussion, are not helpful or constructive. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Commenting on my message, and not on Levivich’s where he claims that an admin is being disruptive for asking him not to insult other editors, seems very strange. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not really. Levivich doesn't need every single commenter commenting on it. Keep in mind that whataboutism is typically not productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, so it's more that you don't think so many people should notice what he's doing, and aren't terribly clear on whataboutism means?

  You're just drawing more attention to his behavior by doing this, just like his relentless personal attacks and policy violations are making things worse for HEB. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI sounds like an attempt at retaliation to me. And I would say that even if I opposed an indef. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Levivich, I'm glad you clarified this for me. I strongly disagree with you.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC) (edit subsequently fixed at 01:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to kindly ask you to strike that. It appears to me that it isn't assuming good faith of anyone in support. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich, I see some civility issues but nothing rising to a site ban of any length. I do think the community should !vote on a warning that if the undesired behavior continues the next stop is blocks of escalating length, but I don't even know how I'd feel about that. But this is a hard pass. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any block beyond 0.26 minutes. HEB has disagreed with me quite a few times but I also have seen a number of times when, even though they disagree, they acknowledge the other perspective. Slap them with a fish for jumping to a poor conclusion but months if not indef blocks are absolutely not needed here. Springee (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per those above. An indefinite block when the last time Horse Eye's Back's conduct was seriously discussed (January 2024) didn't even find consensus for a warning strikes me as terribly overzealous. As above _{so below} 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  By that measure, does everyone get to violate conduct policies once every 1.5 years without any consequences? HEB has been around long enough to know better. I've been aware of civility problems since HEB was editing as Horse Eyed Jack. As there is no excuse for that, i see a warning and subsequent escalating blocks as facilitating unacceptable conduct and ultimately a waste of the community's time. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  does everyone get to violate conduct policies once every 1.5 years without any consequences Yes. We don't expect people to be perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and one (serious) conduct violation every 1.5 years is a very low mistake rate (for an active editor who would have made hundreds or thousands of edits over that time period). Levivich (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree. Attitudes like this turn away many potential editors from Wikipedia. Mistakes are one thing, a prolonged history of low grade hostility that occasionally becomes serious enough to be discussed here is quite another. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  How the heck would you know? You've made less than 10 edits, all to ANI, in less than a week. Or is there another account or IP you use that you'd like to disclose? Levivich (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Probably hundreds of IPs, one of which is disclosed in a previous edit. I see no reason to waste everyone's time disclosing the others as I am not violating policy. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors. How cleverly hypocritical of you to propose a siteban of an editor based on their history while not revealing your own history. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  You could also AGF or visit WP:SPI rather than casting baseless aspersions. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  +1. Ridiculous to suggest that editors calling for sanctions are somehow in the wrong. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please explain how exactly the IP editor has violated conduct policies or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't say that, don't misquote me like that. I said we have no idea how many times it happened (could be zero, could be a hundred). You're on the wrong side of this, Bushranger. Don't defend dynamic IPs making siteban proposals, it's really not cool. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  "Really not cool" (in your opinion)... but actually allowed under current policies, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I said "do we really need a policy about this," because I'd think it would just be one of those things that's so obvious we wouldn't need to actually write it into policy. I guess I was wrong about that. Levivich (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Last I checked, the policy and practice has always been that IPs are to be treated equally unless there is an explicit rule to the contrary. It's part of our "strength of argument" ethos: We don't want to throwing out a good argument or a good idea because of irrelevant factors, such as account type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I did not misquote you. I directly quoted you. And your aspersions, I see, remain unstruck. Consider this a final warning: strike your aspersions or be blocked for making personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  You did misquote me. Look:

  what I wrote: Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors.

  What you wrote: Please explain how exactly the IP editor has "violated conduct policies" or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS.

  You see, I didn't say that the editor "has 'violated conduct policies'", I said "we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies", which doesn't mean the same thing as "has violated conduct policies." By just quoting the "violated conduct policies" part, omitting the "we have no idea how many times" part, and adding a "has" before it, you changed the meaning of what I wrote. I didn't accuse the IP editor of violating conduct policies, I said we don't know how many times they violated conduct policies because they're on a dynamic IP, and the "how many times" part is in reference to the dynamic IP saying that once in 1.5 years is too often. Do you not understand my point, btw? That it's hypocritical of the dynamic IP to say 1x/1.5 years is too much, while using a dynamic IP that doesn't allow us to see their history/frequency? I don't quite understand how you have a problem with what I wrote. Anyway, block me if you want, but make it indefinite, cuz I won't have a chance to appeal it for a few days. Levivich (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. Instead you chose to engage in Wikilawyering about "no I didn't actually say that". When you did. Very much so. Blocked for 72 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  A block that is hard to relate to for me, as posted on Levivich's talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is a good block. This pedantic nonsense about "I didn't really insult anyone, I just insulted near someone and that isn't the same!" is beneath us, especially with the aggression and incivility to, well, everyone. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I guess I don't have the interpretative authority to call it a bad block, but I find it an unnecessary block (apparently, you find it a "good" block, and that is ok). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, my opinion runs down the center of perspectives here. I guess it's just one of those threads for me this time. Because I've already said (and stand by the assessment) that what Levivich said was not really an aspersions violation. But I also don't think Bushranger was WP:involved here: allow users to short-circuit blocks after a warning merely by folding the warning admin into the cautioned behaviour, and the flood of abuse will be profound. I may not agree that this comment in particular is what Levivich should have been criticized for, but Bushranger was within their administrative discretion, and Levivich chose to call that bluff. I don't have to agree with every call and admin makes in order to feel their actions should generally stand, outside a clear abuse of privilege under the ban policy, or other major PAG violation. This was not such an exceptional case, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also, WP:ASPERSIONS says On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. That doesn't apply to anything I've written here. To the extent that I've accused another editor of misbehavior--a dynamic IP proposing the siteban, or other editors supporting it--I did not do so without evidence; the evidence is right here on this page. So please don't accuse me (repeatedly) of doing something that I haven't done. Levivich (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  That might technically be true, in the sense that you haven't explicitly "accused" anyone, but instead only "hinted" that everyone should assume that there's something nefarious going on with the IP editor.

  Your statement that "perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation" sounds to me like a hint that we should be concerned that the IP editor is WP:BADSOCK trying who is "Creating an illusion of support" and "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". Your comment that "we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies" doesn't directly accuse the IP of bad editing, but it sounds to me like a strong hint that we should be concerned that the IP editor is a serial policy violator.

  I think you've crossed the line. These are attacks on the IP's reputation, even if they are not direct and explicit attacks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't hint any of that. I'm being extremely explicit. those multiple people is an explicit reference to the multiple people who supported the IP editor's proposal (including you, who supported explicitly based on an admitted grudge, and whose vote included saying an editor was like a broken leg, which is a personal attack, and that's not an aspersion, because the evidence is on this page...), not to the IP editor themself. Although the IP editor is being disruptive just by making the proposal in my opinion -- they know we can't see their editing history. They know dynamic IPs never make siteban proposals (I've never seen one before that was taken seriously, can you recall an instance?). They know or should know why such a thing is ridiculous, as should you and everyone else. Levivich (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Both you and HEB keep saying completely rude and unsupported things about other editors, and then saying “I didn’t say the words that are in the my post that you can plainly see! I clearly said something else!”

  Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?

  Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that "Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors." is not only not a violation of WP:aspersions in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exchange, which was about the question of how much leeway an editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations.

  Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards WP:IDHT so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context (genetic fallacy). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, their reasoning is sound. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I believe it's WP:VEXBYSTERANG. Sesquilinear (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I concur with MilesVorkosigan re: Levivich's getting close to WP:VEXBYSTERANG territory. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef or any substantial length. My view is based less on the complaint here and more on many interactions over the last couple of years. I believe this editor is actually unable to function well in Wikipedia's social environment. I haven't counted, but I would not be surprised if, during the last year, I have spent as much time dealing with social-skills problems and related misunderstandings with this one editor than all of the other editors on wiki combined. A discussion with this editor is a bit like going hiking with someone who has a broken leg: everything takes twice as much time, effort, and planning. It's nobody's fault, but after a while, you start asking yourself: What benefit are we getting, that makes all these extra costs worthwhile? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  Supporting sanctions not based on the complaint but based on your own prior negative interactions is called "axe grinding" or "holding a grudge." Levivich (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Alternatively, we could call it "holistic evaluation". Context matters even when the context isn't mentioned in the instant complaint. For example, the existence of prior blocks does not form part of the instant complaint, but I don't see you saying that the prior blocks are irrelevant. Their arbitration enforcement sanction matters, even though it does not form part of the instant complaint. We might even decide that prior ANI discussions such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Accusations of lack of care/competence and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil behavior by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Harassment, PA, and GAMING by Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo and others matter, even though they, too, do not form part of the instant complaint.

  Similarly, when the behavior we see in this discussion mirrors what we experience elsewhere (or if it doesn't), then that matters, too. One would hardly want to indef a long-time editor over a one-time, uncharacteristic problem; conversely, it should IMO be considered when the editor's responses to the instant complaint are both typical of their responses to all complaints and (in the opinion of any individual editor) not showing a necessary level of WP:COMPENTENCE necessary for a collaborative environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Levivich, you are bludgeoning this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, I apologize for the number of comments I've posted here, this'll be my last comment in this discussion. I'll propose a policy change to bar siteban proposals by dynamic IP editors in a couple weeks if someone doesn't beat me to it first. Levivich (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  An interaction ban from you towards HEB might be much more beneficial though, and would solve these problems you had as well (the problems are real, the cause is usually on your side though). Above you claimed incorrectly that HEB had two blocks, when in reality it was only one[138]. You haven't acknowledged this, even though that kind of things are rather important during indef block discussions. The interactions I have seen between you and HEB involve you needling him by raising wrong generalisations about autistic people or just starting about it without good reason, like Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_103 and [139] ("I've seen an estimate that the English Wikipedia has about 15% autistic editors. That's significantly more than the real world, but still a minority. That means 85% neurotypical folks."...). On discussions like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?, you are interacting with HEB and a lot of others, and you seem to have similar troubles with many of them, i.e. that they don't accept your incorrect statements. As far as I am concerned, everything you write above in your "support" statement applies 100% to you. I hope that whoever closes this sees your lack of diffs about your claims and your smear attempt by bringing up any old section you can find, including rather unproblematic ones like this, and a search as if that proves anything. Without diffs supporting your statement and showing that the problem lies significantly more with HEB than with you, this just looks like a bad effort to get someone you don't like banned while casting aspersions about them. Fram (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing worthy of an indef block. It's also massively inappropriate for an IP user to propose the block of a long-term contributor like this, and I suggest that such proposals in the future be immediately hatted. Proposals like this should come from registered, ideally well established users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I voted oppose to the indef, but to be clear, IP editors have just as much of a right as I do as an admin to propose sanctions, where the evidence is well documented and the relevant policies are understood. One's community standing is not particiularly relevant. We've had some amazing long term IP editors who are more knowledgeable than many of our long time editors (such as (Tarlonniel). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose very much per Levivich. Nothing here that rises to any sort of ban. HEB is one of those editors who some see as an opportunistic target to report for incivility, on the basis that they've been reported for incivility before. Suggest a trouting for editors above who are supporting a motion by the IP editor. TarnishedPath^talk 00:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, could you just remind us again where the rule is that says IP editors aren't allowed to suggest sanctions at ANI? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, I haven't suggested as much. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  So the IP did nothing wrong, the editors agreeing with the IP did nothing wrong, and you think we should be shamed for doing nothing wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I’d kiss that trout on the mouth and release it gently back into the river. It really doesn’t matter who proposes a sanction first. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Having a look at this contribution history I think it does matter. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Are you referring to the deleted contribs? That's not related to the IP jolielover♥talk 04:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm referring to all of their 12 edits being at ANI and 9 of those being about HEB. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think this speaks to some editors' discomfort with IPs and new accounts: Everything I've done for years is visible in Special:Contributions/WhatamIdoing. If I say "Don't do this", then you could go through my contribs and hope to find an excuse to say "Yeah, well, you've done something just as bad, so who are you to cast the first stone?" But when there's no such track record, it's impossible to discredit the proposer based on their unrelated edits. Even though we'll all swear up and down that ad hominem attacks have no place here, the idea that "I" am vulnerable to such an attack but "they" aren't is going to bother some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  To me, the bottom line is the quality of the IP's comments here, not their IP status. As I see it, we're !voting on the proposal, not the IP. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. None of this adds up to anything that could remotely justify a block. Editors accuse HEB of refusing to drop the stick and yet continue to escalate over exchanges that clearly amounted to nothing more than mild sniping by both sides (and I would certainly say that most of the people who are most aggressively pushing for sanctions here have not covered themselves in glory in any of the exchanges they presented.) When an editor has edited for as long as HEB has, it is natural that they will accumulate some minor moments where they rose to provocations, but here, even piled all together they don't amount to enough to justify the sanctions suggested. Indeed, in many of the discussions linked, the people HEB was interacting with were more uncivil and descended into incivility first:
  • This exchange started from an obviously inappropriate templating, with the editor escalating rapidly from there.
  • The concern here is plainly absurd (misleading edit summaries is a serious accusation that was in no way justified by those diffs) and the fact that LilianaUwU immediately escalated into Are you this dense? and then You harrassed the roads editors until they forked, all while skirting the lines of civility to avoid being blocked. You have no say in what civility is makes it honestly baffling that they would feel empowered to support sanctions here, especially given how much more civil HEB's responses were, comparatively. Honestly I think this one is severe enough to consider some sort of WP:BOOMERANG for LilianaUwU, or at least some initial investigation into if that's how they usually approach these disputes. I would, at least, not personally be so eager to push for sanctions against an editor when my interactions with them look like... that.
  • This starts with an obviously inappropriate series of templates (really?) and a sharply uncivil response to any objection to them.
  • For this, the edit warring refers to this; note that HEB was removing an obvious WP:BLP violation from the article (see the synth-y "although this contradicts her 2007 interview where she said...") You cannot use synthesis to make a statement accusing a living person of lying about their sex life. Removing such violations is an exception to the policy against edit-warring, and honestly the other editor should have been taken to WP:AE if they didn't back down.
  • And for this - how on earth could anyone think that was an appropriate thing to say to HEB? An editor approached HEB with I really couldn't care less what you think. I am trying to AGF and assume you're serious, but from your rambling and incoherent thread start to your incessant comments to everyone who disagrees with you, your inability first to distinguish one from two and then failing to grasp that two are more than one, and your misguided apparent belief others are obliged to answer to you... WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia and after that whole range of bizarre comments, here's what I think: you appear to be the most incompetent person I ever came across on Wikipedia. (I certainly never had to explain to someone else that two is more than one before). I already recommended you to reas,WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can only repeat that recommendation. Your whole behaviour is absolutely appalling. Was this presented as evidence of HEB's incivility because they responded in a way that implied they thought the other editor was angry? Seriously, what?
• And so on. Most of them are either clearly examples of people being aggressively uncivil to HEB, often because of what's ultimately an editorial dispute, or amount to basically nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I know I wasn't nice, and I'll be the first one to admit my incivility a lot of the time, but understand where I'm coming from. HEB has repeatedly done waves of drive by tagging of multiple roads articles, including FAs and GAs, for very questionable reasons, to a point where the roads editors forked. I don't think that causing a whole group of editors to fork is a sign of someone who is constructive. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2-4 week block. Oppose longer block. It's clear from this and previous threads that Horse Eye's Back has had repeated problems dealing collegially with others on this site. A sanction is called for. None of us are WP:UNBLOCKABLE, myself included. That said, going straight from a clean block log to an indefinite block for this and the rest of their accumulated history is jumping the gun. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC) (tweaked slightly 01:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC))

  @A. B., please read the block log and then strike your claim about "a clean block log". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Roger that, WhatamIdoing. Thanks for catching my mistake. HEB has 2 blocks under his old user name; the last one was 5 years ago. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just clarifying for all, the "two blocks" is really one block by Floq in which the first had the wrong duration set, so a minute later was blocked for the correct amount of time. As above _{so below} 02:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that clarification. I had initially misread it as two unrelated blocks, though it (obviously) isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Leaning IBAN, logged warning for civility. I don't think the interactions above, while very much subpar, should result in an indef, but I do think some action should be taken to tell HEB that his conduct has been rather poor above. Specifically hectoring a user and accusations of transphobia on rather thin logic, and crying AGF while failing to. So I'm landing at IBAN, ie, a 1-way interaction ban with OP, and a warning that would then result in an escalation if there is a new report for incivility. I disagree with those above who think the community cannot do a time-limited block. The community can impose pretty much whatever it wants and it definitely doesn't really matter if a dynamic IP proposed it, although, it is certainly a potential LOUTSOCK situation worth looking into. I have generally had good interactions with HEB but I think his utter lack of contrition about coming on too strong above should be treated the same regardless of the familiarity or friendliness one feels (i.e., not an UNBLOCKABLE). Andre🚐 01:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  That works for me AndreJustAndre; I would support if that's what others prefer. I still prefer a 2-4 week block. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  IBAN is probably a better solution. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think an IBAN alone doesn't work since HEB's had these sorts of disputes and spats (and dare I say, personal attacks) with several editors over the years. jolielover♥talk 02:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef, Support Shorter Block Per the others who have suggested the same, Id also support a trout for everyone who is saying that we shouldn't consider the proposal purely because they are a dynamic IP. You all know better. I might think an indef is excessive but the shade being thrown at the IP isn't okay.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Id also support a warning for Levivich to avoid assuming bad faith and casting aspersions LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Same jolielover♥talk 02:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  The Bushranger has told Levivich to strike his problematic edits or get blocked. Let's see how that plays out. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Same. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I *think* that most of the attacks against the IP are from a “supporter”, not from HEB. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support 6-month-block I think that's enough time to fully reflect on this incident. I think HEB's behaviour in this thread really solidified this choice. Doubling down, refusing to accept your mistakes, and accusing me of transphobia, completely unrelated to this discussion. This isn't an oopsie made once every 1.5 years as previously claimed above, this is a consistent pattern of disturbance. HEB's discussions with other people show this. I reject the notion that experienced editors should be able to get away with things that an IP or new editor would instantly be blocked for. Also, trouting for the people suspicious of the IP; it's assuming bad faith. jolielover♥talk 02:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an ill-timed and disproportionate proposal. I hope my one previous comment above makes clear that I don't take a laissez-faire attitude to the concerns raised here. But an indef? That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For starters, blocks, even those imposed as a consequence of a CBAN, are meant to be preventative, and I don't see anything in terms of presently disruptive behaviour that rises to the level of requiring an indef. Now, would I have considered a shorter-term proposal? I'm really not sure, nor certain what I would consider appropriate at this juncture. And honestly, it's not worth the time to contemplate: there have already been so many alternate times spans proposed that no closer is going to be able find consensus here, unless there are quite a few more !votes in support of a straight indef--and I honestly don't see that happening. Frankly, the IP's proposal essentially tanked the prospect of a sanction here (not that I am confident one was needed at this moment anyway) by attempting to shoot the moon. In short, does HEB need to make adjustments? Unambiguously. But is this the right solution in this moment in time? No, I don't think so. I do however think that HEB should take the discussion as a whole as a serious indicator that community patience for quick escalation and intemperate reactions is on life support at this point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  And just to be clear, given my reference to the IP proposal above: no, I am not per se opposed to such proposals at ANI. In fact, I find many of the comments on that subject by Levivich in particular above to be utterly asinine, and their proposal that editors supporting this proposal should be sanctioned for "disruption" is itself so problematic that it probably justifies a WP:BOOMERANG warning at least. I honestly think that their own habitual approach to ANI behavioural discussions is probably a subject all its own for another day, but we don't need to muddy the waters here any further by opening that can of worms just now. I'll say only that I feel their "support" for HEB here is a double-edged sword at best. In any event, my point is that IP proposals are of course perfectly within our rules and as others have noted above, should be weighed on the value of the cogency of the arguments in support or opposition, not the identity of the proposer, whoever they may be, as is this project's (entirely rational) protocol. It's just that this particular IP's proposal really, to use the charming American idiom, shit the bed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic digression on linguistics

No offense, Snow Rise, I usually value your reflections but I've been in America now for many decades and I've never heard the idiom "shit the bed" or understand what it's supposed to mean in the context of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

wikt:shit the bed ... sawyer * any/all * talk 06:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Shit show is also an excellent phrase that simply must be in one's vocabulary if they ever deal with absolute messes on a regular basis. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I guess this says something about the people I grew up with and the media I consume. It's a new one for me, as is the entire idea of "shitting in a bed". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It is a millenial slang term[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=shit+the+bed&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Andre🚐 06:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I'm a boomer, and the terminology was used when I was growing up. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

something that millennials stole from the boomers and popularized then, like many other things Andre🚐 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). TarnishedPath^talk 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, shhhhh y'all...at my age, I don't get many opportunities to be mistaken for a millennial. Let me feel subfossilized for once this millennium! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay! Boomer! (A tee-shirt that will eventually make someone a bazillion dollars - equivalent to a couple thousand boomer dollars). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not a millennial thing, and I'm quite surprised Liz hadn't heard the term. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

In a way, yes (as a Gen Z-er). I’ve heard it before, but forgot the exact usage context. ^EF⁵ 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm using it correctly, according to how I've heard it used? I've always understood it to mean a colossal blunder--especially one where someone acts with a considerable degree of commitment and sincerity, but messes the effort up in an obvious and embarrassing manner almost from the start. Am I missing a critical element?

As to generational and regional divides, I can't remember when I first heard it, but it was certainly not recently and I think I've only heard it in America or from Americans, and never in the UK or elsewhere in the anglophone world--though I couldn't swear to it. Anyway, this is clear evidence for why aging dweebs should not experiment with colourful colloquialisms, particularly when their international extraction makes for a personal ideolect formed out of an awkward mish-mash of influences. Ironically, I seem to have embodied the meaning of the idiom myself just by using it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I think what we can all take away from this is that phrases and sayings which involve poop are not universally appreciated or understood. I would have thought that "shit the bed" was almost universally known, shame on me for going with a relatively obscure German one and expecting a positive result... At least now I know to keep my half a dozen other German sayings which reference poop in a humorous way to myself, even if I will be occasionally exclaiming "scheisse mit sauce" under my breath (adding "with sauce" for emphasis is a common German rhetorical trope)... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -Roxy the dog 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. 2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Opppose This whole conversation has went right off the beam. There is no evidence for an indef. I mean seriously. This "will to punishment" on this noticeboard is obstructive and disruptive and needs to be looked at. Also the continual pushing of NPA for the slighest miscommunication is driving editors away and damaging the encyclopeadia at a very deep level. Robust conversation drives creativity. That had been known for centuries. There needs to be balance. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is one of the most succinct statements I've read about the ANI culture, and yes, a conversation long overdue. Will link this one on my page for links. Thanks scope creep. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree. I do think it's fair, and perhaps should happen more often, that editors get called out for bad behavior but we really shouldn't reach for the ban hammer so quickly. I feel like a decade back we were more likely to see the escalating series of blocks. Today it seems like we go right for tbans or even indefs. Civility is very important and we, as a group, shouldn't condone bad behavior. However, it would probably be more productive to do more warning and less trying to vote people off the island (or topic). Springee (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say that's because nowadays we have a better understanding that indefinite is not infinite, alongside (more cynically) the fact it's been realised that an editor who can just "wait out a block" isn't as likely to learn from it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  That is certainly true. scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, for example per Aquillion and especially per scope creep. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the only sanction that I can think of as appropriate is everyone gets sent to bed without dessert, but despite repeated attemtps to find it, for the life of me there doesn't seem to be a buttton in the admin control panel for such a purpose. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a one-month block as a cooling-off measure, mostly per WhatamIdoing's rationale. HEB is a classic case of an editor whose manner of interacting with people raises the temperature in the room rather than lowers it. That's not okay and we don't need to accept it as the cost of doing business.Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I've butted heads with HEB before, and I didn't like them at first, but I eventually came to respect them and appreciate their overall contributions to discussions. I think, based on feedback here, they'll work on the way they conduct themselves and that a formal warning or block of any kind would not be WP:PREVENTATIVE in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Has HEB said anything even acknowledging that their conduct has been problematic, let alone that they will work on it? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is exactly why I proposed the indef as while editing with IP 24.198.157.168 (talk · contribs). An indef would require HEB to address the reason for the block and convince an unblocking admin that the problematic conduct would not continue. In my opinion, that's what needs to happen, but it's all that needs to happen. An indefinite block could last for only 1 minute if that's all it takes for desired resolution to happen. However, unlike a time limited block, an indef wouldn't allow HEB to wait out the block without addressing conduct issues. Alternatively, a block could be avoided altogether if HEB can agree that their conduct has been a long term problem and provide a convincing strategy to avoid repeating similar behavior going forward. 104.228.234.163 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. User has a clean block log (has never been blocked), and this indef was proposed by an IP who has never edited before except on this and one other current ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  See the block log for Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) 24.198.157.168 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Softlavender, they were blocked in 2020 for similar behavior under a different username. And the proposer being an IP shouldn't matter, as we should WP:FOC. — ^EF⁵ 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  [140]. His previous account, which he lost the login for, was blocked for less than 46 hours. And WP:FOC has nothing to do with this indef proposal. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Focus on content, not the contributor (in this case, the IP). Why the heck does an IP opening the proposal have anything to do with the merit of the proposal itself? — ^EF⁵ 13:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please read the WP:FOC you keep referring to, it is specifically only about article content, not about noticeboard reports on noticebaords specifically about editor behavior. This noticeboard is specifically about editor behavior, NOT about content, and any threads here which are content issues get shut down and closed rapidly. On this board, editor behavior is what is specifically focused on, and especially the behaviors of the editors who file reports or proposals (which is why WP:BOOMERANG exists). This IP has made no other edits to Wikipedia other than to post on another ANI thread today, and then to make a sweeping indef block proposal for an editor who has never even been blocked (except for 46 hours on a previous account). If you cannot see why FOC does not apply here whereas strong suspicions and doubts about the filer do, then I hope you can eventually learn. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fully aware it applies to article content, but it could reasonably be applied here as people immediately jumped to "oh, this proposal is started by an IP" instead of the merits of the proposal itself. Are IP editors not editors, especially since the IP themselves even refers to probably hundreds of IPs they've edited under? If so, I'd seriously consider reading Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. — ^EF⁵ 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, FOC is a policy only about article content, so it cannot "reasonably be applied here". I never once said or implied that IPs are not editors or humans. You have missed the entire point; it doesn't matter whether it is a new IP editor (or IP-hopper) or a brand-new named account who registered three days prior to posting an indef ban proposal for an editor who has no prior block log other than a 46-hour block on a five-year-old prior account. New IPs, IP-hoppers, and brand new accounts all have no edit-history to check when it comes to ANI posts and their motivations for making them. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm happy to take responsibility for the proposal. I was about to do it, but the IP beat me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an over the top suggestion for someone with no block record on either their current or prior account (I think, confirm if wrong) and for being testy, which many of us have done at some point. Sometimes with justification and sometimes without. If that's the standard we could block a ton more people. That's a good way to pointlessly cripple the project. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  They have been blocked on their old account, [141]. I think being "testy" is different than being repeatedly uncivil. If this was a one time thing, sure. It's not, and HEB shows it in the thread. They accused me of supporting transphobia in this very thread as a way to deflect. Also, WP:Wikipedia doesn't need you. The project will be fine. jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose indef, support short block. I believe a less established editor would have at least received a 24 hour-1 week block if not an indef over some of the behavior on display here between the extremely poor taste German phrase and the accusation of transphobia(or however we want to frame it semantically), as well as the general incivility in many other interactions put forward. A short block seems like the least that should be done unless HEB is indeed WP:UNBLOCKABLE, though it does appear that consensus is moving to just a warning. That all said, I don't have a doubt that HEB has been a net positive to the project(I'd never had a negative interaction with them or perception of them before reading this thread), and it feels like the plot is getting lost thanks to distracted tangents, aspersions around proposals made by IPs, and frankly nuclear solutions over what feels like is ultimately several editors failing to stay as WP:COOL as they should.Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why is {{nacc}} a thing to generate this (Non-administrator comment) text here?

  Admin !votes don't count a penny more than non-admins. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  That's fair, I put less weight on my !votes on these boards, though I see how using nacc for that doesn't exactly help anything. My bad I guess. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing bad; just never diminish yourself on here neither. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support 4 week block to indef block the examples above show that this is a repeated problem and not just a one-time thing, including behavior in this very thread. The face that the proposer is an IP is no reason to discard the proposal. There should be sanctions for this behavior and not merely a waving of the hand. --HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Also, The Bushranger's block of Levivich seems highly questionable both from the point of view of rationale or as Asilvering points out here because of The Bushranger's involvement. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • After feedback from other admins and users, I believe this was not a breach of WP:INVOLVED under the 'any reasonable admin' exception, but at the same time it's clear reasonable admins who I trust and respect can see it that way, so I have withdrawn that block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose an indefinite block. The proposer and supporters have not shown sufficient long-term evidence of incivility for such a drastic action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scope creep. We have a cultural problem of being too quick to reach for the banhammer. Yet at the same time, it feels like complaints about unblockables are more common than ever. If an experienced editor has been rude a few times and isn't indeffed, that apparently makes them an unblockable. I don't buy that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose indef per Levivich. HEB has been dragged to ANI a few times, and has been trouted before. However, they are a productive editor who do not keep up disputes for long and seems to drop the stick to move on when necessary. they are fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia and are eventually civil. If we do need a short-term block here, maybe a day or three is enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Point taken, but then again how many other useful editors does he contribute to running off? If the rest of us edit collegially, why can't HEB. More importantly, why shouldn't he? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  He should edit more collegially, agreed. But I don't see him bullying systemically, or hounding anyone. He seems to do separate one-off behavioral issues that needs to stop now, but that hasn't been the worse of the worse ANI has seen before. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem to be like that in this thread 212.70.115.8 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  they appear to have been summoned to this ani around aug14th, and haven't engaged since aug 15th. and the time between behavioral issues seems large, and for different things. their pattern is a problem, but escalating to a full indef seems rather poor Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose indef, what the fuck? I don't have any strong opinion about this editor, and realize that there is apparently deep grudge lore here, but these disputes do not even come close to the level of "go straight to indef, do not pass go." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's more a divergence between people who view regular minor incivility skirting the boundaries of major as minor and inconsequential, and others who view it as blockable. The effects are cumulative, and the topic areas HEB works in are toxic enough Kowal2701 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I see incivility much worse than this on a regular basis here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose indef - excessive in context of issues presented.-Staberinde (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support block, weak oppose indef - while indefinite is not infinite, it's a big jump where a longtime editor is concerned. That said, the long-standing pattern indicates that some meaningful sanction is warranted. The AfD in the original post speaks for itself and is the kind of toxic behavior that Wikipedia needs to stop tolerating. An unwarranted nasty remark, followed by blatant gaslighting, then deflecting when called out on that behavior. This is reprehensible considering that HEB accused the recipient of incivility for justifiably removing it. Then there's this utterly bizarre interaction, the other instances indicated above, and their wikilawyering in this very thread. --Sable232 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Support short time-based block 1 week/month, oppose indef for reasons others raised. After reading through this entire discussion (took a couple of hours with checking links & diffs), I'm left feeling unconvinced that this is a community I want to continue involving myself with to such a degree I have in the past. Others have elaborated on it, but there is a long-term history of uncivil and bludgeoning behaviour (as well as hounding) that is creating or contributing to these battleground environments, driving away other editors, and it's disappointing other editors don't recognise the seriousness of this. To be transparent here, I have a one-way self-imposed IBAN with HEB (unbeknown to them), because I've very rarely found anything constructive occurring from conversing with this editor, and when they are ignored (rather than fed), they will move onto another editor deemed fit for a take down. From re-joining this project in 2023, they were the first person I ended up in conflict with, as well as the last editor who has engaged in unproductive communication with me. They always seem to appear where there is considerable conflict or in discussions that is ripe for conversion into a battleground, so that only the most experienced battleground warriors feel welcome, and everyone else can be driven away by default, or left feeling exhausted and burnout from the interactions.

This is isn't just about HEB, it's about the toxic culture that is not only tolerated here, but encouraged a by vocal minority. It's driving me away and it's driving others away too. So I couldn't give a damn about all the so-called constructive contributions, it's an overwhelming net negative having an editor like this consistently raising the temperate of discussions (as another editor accurately put it). I understand that without having personal interactions or reading through copious amount of discussions HEB has been involved in, this wouldn't be clear from the initial report; but I also think most experienced editors have come across HEB's editing style already, numerous times, and have simply accepted it as "the ends justify the means" and "they support my opinion so that's good". There are times when I've seen HEB bludgeoning disruptive editors and I've thought "oh good, they will be destroyed and go away now", but I've come to realise two wrongs don't make a right and this shouldn't be celebrated but instead sanctioned and dealt with appropriately. I'm also severely disappointed by numerous editors opinions on this, particularly Levivich who I had previously had a lot of respect for, but also others I'll refrain from directly identifying to avoid pointing further fingers. However for self-identification purposes; if you spend a lot of time conflicting with editors at AN/I, get dragged to ARBCAM and/or have been sanctioned, you are likely part of the problem, not part of the solution. Especially if you are a battleground warrior, managing to manufacture situations to get others sanctioned while walking away squeaky clean, that's also no better. And sure, I've been part of my fair share of conflicts over the years, but that "novelty" has worn off I guess, tiredness has instead crept in, and I don't have the energy of backbone to continue in these exhausting environments.

Until we stop confronting battleground behaviour with more battleground behaviour, justifying it and encouraging it by not sanctioning it, Wikipedia will forever just be another battleground. One where only those with the strongest WP:BACKBONE will be involved, namely those who frequent drama boards, and others like me who are tired of these conflicts and just want to avoid them are being pushed further and further away. To be 100% clear here, it's not editors like HEB that are driving editors like me away from contentious topics, or away from contributing all altogether, it's purely the reaction from the community. HEB is just a symptom of the problem here. Finally, given everything expressed here, please think extremely carefully before (or ideally instead of) responding. My talkpage is otherwise probably a more appropriate venue. CNC (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The first person you ended up in conflict with was Maxim Masiutin on 13 November 2023, they even put a disruptive editing warning on your page[142], from the 16th of November onward you had a conflict with multiple editors over Jackson Hinkle, we didn't interact until the 26th with the first comment being your "wtf are you playing at, this is not the way to do things," and from there you launched into a litany of personal attacks against me for which you were warned. Note that on the 28th you also received a talk page comment saying "Have you been hacked or something? The other user's behavior is disruptive. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic." about a different incident and on the 29th you were warned (again not by me) for tendentious editing, on December 6 you again received a warning for bludgeoning, on 10 December you received another warning for personal attacks (again, not from me). When you read Talk:History of Twitter do you see everyone else as participating in a toxic culture that you're resisting? A lot of valid critiscism of my behavior has been made by people I respect and I take that to heart... But I don't think that this here fits that bill, even if I give you every benefit of the doubt. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Address first concerns about you, not try to undermine them. Why are not defending yourself? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Have struck my opposition to indef per above comment and also the extend of disruption referenced below by Ten Pound Hammer. I had thought this was predominantly about uncivil/bludgeoning behaviour, but I now realise it's a lot more disruptive than I originally thought. The deflections within this thread had ended a few days ago which I saw as a positive sign (sort of), but I see they have swiftly returned which is disappointing, along with the absence of any accountability for said behaviour. Given the previous block for this individual was 2 weeks, 1 month otherwise seems entirely appropriate as lessons have clearly not been learnt. If this was any other newbie who knew a lot less, then I have no doubt they would have been blocked already. I firmly believed experienced editors do know better, or should know better, and therefore should be held to a higher standard of accountability. CNC (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Support indef block. I didn't know this user until they got into edit wars over Michigan highway articles, which included a number of dubious maintenance tags on FA- or GA-class highway articles. When I confronted them, they just talked in circles and gave self-contradictory byzantine arguments that came nowhere close to a solution. The argument spread across multiple pages, with them just continuing to talk in circles and contradict themselves over and over without offering anything close to a solution and repeatedly spamming maintenance tags on every Michigan highway article. Some of the dubious drive-by tags they put on articles still haven't been removed months later.

For example, on Talk:U.S._Route_131, when I called HEB out for putting {{more citations needed}} on the exit list, I asked, What else do you think needs to be cited in the first place?, and they replied, literally everything else. My response was So in your eyes, the mere fact that a highway intersects another highway requires a source? I have never seen that be the case on an FA- or GA-class road article. They replied with  I've never seen anyone cite a road itself although you can cite signs. And I replied, And the fact that you can't "cite a road" is why the exit list doesn't have much in the way of citations. How would you use secondary sources to prove that two roads intersect? What sources would even exist in that case? If two otherwise-notable highways intersect but there is no secondary coverage of their intersection, would you still insist it be there, [citation needed] it, or delete it entirely? Those latter two sound ridiculous and are against the precedent of road articles. They replied Thats[sic] not my problem. There is no special standard for this unless I am mistaken... That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR. I also don't think its true, for many major highways there are comprehensive entrance/exist lists you can source to.. My last comment was So you're okay with holding articles to a standard you openly admit doesn't exist, and you don't want to even pitch in to try and figure out what that standard might be? This whole exchange shows that HEB seems to be inventing a problem just to say it needs a solution, and then dodging the issue or just saying "not my problem" when someone actually steps in and says "okay, so if you think this is a problem, how would you fix it?" That kind of "not my problem" mentality is, in my opinion, actively detrimental to the project. It's even worse than "solution in search of a problem" because again, HEB doesn't even want to come up with the "solution" part.

There's also this, where HEB tries and massively fails at playing a reverse card on The ed17 (talk · contribs). While I did initially agree with their concern that some articles on Michigan highways were overly reliant on "primary sources" (insofar as a map published by the Michigan Department of Transportation can be a primary source), the validity of that point got quickly blunted by HEB's further edits. This and the failed attempt to "gotcha" the Jolie editor upthread show a long standing pattern of abhorrent behavior.

My previous experience with an editor who was extremely overzealous with tagging did lead to said editor getting a topic-ban from adding maintenance templates, but at least that editor had a non-trivial amount of good edits to fall back on and has been wholly non-controversial since said topic ban was initiated. I don't wish to speak on anything in the XFD space given my current topic-ban from the same, but what I am seeing in the evidence above is a pattern of making dubious edits, and stone-walling, talking in circles, attacking, or just otherwise being confrontational and aggressive every single time their edits are contested. I should also point out that a lot of their mass drive-by tagging still hasn't been reverted as of this writing.

The editing patterns above, and many more like it, show that HEB seems to have a long-standing pattern of bad-faith editing. I feel a topic-ban or other editing restriction would be insufficient here, as there just doesn't seem to be any signal amid all the noise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

ETA: In addition, I would like to point out that HEB's behavior in this very thread has been full of confrontation, whataboutism, and deflection -- i.e., the same behavior that brought them here in the first place, and that rubbed me the wrong way every time I interacted with them. This is a very clear example of their failure to understand the problem, and it underscores my belief that an indef block is the right way to go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

ETA 2: I would also like to point out that HEB has made a ton of edits here that have been oversighted. I have no idea what they could have even said, but that's the most redaction I've seen in my life that didn't involve the SCP Wiki. That, to me, is extremely troubling and shows just how actively detrimental HEB is being as an editor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer FYI those redactions were because someone posted some discord logs and thus were just collaterall damage. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I thought it was HEB's edits themselves that got redacted, and not a side effect of another editor's contribs. My point still stands that HEB has otherwise continued to show abhorrent behavior even in this very thread. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

See the talk page for a discussion about how large-scale revdels of that sort can be confusing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support literally any action that reigns in or removes HEB's personal conduct issues from our collegial editing environment. I got into a single debate with HEB recently. I believe it was the first since I proposed an admonishment on ANI in 2024, and I'd studiously avoided HEB after that ... unpleasant experience. And, surprise, he hasn't changed in 2025. All that said, I'm surprised to see the depth of opposition to some sort of block above. It's not like the behavior has ever changed. Atsme said over five years ago that "Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, Ed - hope life's treating you well. Wish my memory was as crisp and in-focus as yours! Take care, my Wikifriend! Atsme 💬 📧 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose an indef block as excessive for a long-time contributor in good standing who was most recently blocked many years ago. Fine with any fixed duration of block proposed here, as one last chance to say "we mean it" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  How is the editor "in good standing" when they've been to ANI so many times in so short a period, and have seemingly no good-faith edits in the interim? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  As a formal matter, they're not under any editing restrictions. I think going straight from many discussions failing to produce any outcome to an indef is excessive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support a block, maximum of a week: It's bad precedent to go straight from "we've had to chat with you a couple times, but it's never been a block" to "you're indefinitely CBANNED!", particularly when the issue is more about the sum of their behavior than a few extraordinarily egregious events requiring drastic action. I resent having to support a block, as HEB has demonstrated great aptitude in building the encyclopedia. However, in my experience with them, their behavior has been often become escalatory and inflammatory. I want them to be part of the project. I also want there to be a formal block on their log so that, if in a year or so we're back here having the same discussion, we have already taken the next step on the escalation ladder. I wish HEB luck and hope that they are back contributing productively ASAP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Pbritti: They have been blocked, albeit under a previous username. Other issues were linked to and extensively discussed at e.g. a 2024 ANI, all the other ANIs linked in the OP, multiple conversations at HEB's talk page, etc. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
    • @The ed17: I was aware of this block, but I don't like using a block from 62 months ago to justify a more severe administrative action unless the circumstances are nearly identical in form and location. I think it sets a bad example to hold such an old block over an editor's head, but I'm glad you've made a note of it here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support indef or any duration. This editor introduces heat whenever and wherever they edit. 1.145.189.4 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support some sort of significant block. I recognize that this is complicated, and I've waited before stepping in. But I really do feel that there has been a long-term problem with interacting civilly with other members of the community, and it looks like it's unlikely to turn around anymore. Although it was two years ago, we had a disagreement over a template on another editor's user page, where I felt that there was gravedancing: [143], [144]. Just minutes after that, he showed up at an essay I had written. HEB added something he called "humor" in his edit summary, but it was in fact WP:POINTy and disruptive: [145]. Telling readers to look for "other misconceptions on this page" was not a constructive edit, by any stretch of the imagination. And he edit warred to keep it in: [146], [147]. He made other edits that were designed to offset the idea that editors should try to be kind to one another: [148] (ironic, in the present context, that he wanted to say that some editors should want ANI to be a cesspit), and [149]. Throughout, this was just mean spirited. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'll note that HEB just showed up at WT:BAN in a new discussion about those those templates, and posted this comment directed to me: [150]. I won't reply directly, but I answered another editor there, saying this: [151]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per @TarnishedPath and @Levivich. Not sure it's trout-worthy, but it is worth noting that a sufficiently prudent 'support' !vote probably should at least state that they are supporting despite the questionable IP stuff. Overall, however, this does not nearly reach the bar for a block and would be punitive anyway. Just10A (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support significant block, perhaps with a conditional unblock fairly quickly. This formalizes that there is indeed a problem, allows for written definition and limitation of the uncivil behavior, makes further problematic behavior easily remedied by simply reinstating the block, and obviates any more of these practically-interminable discussions of what is obviously problematic behavior by this editor who by all accounts does at other times further the aims of the project. (Secondarily, you take your plaintiff as you find her...that is, it matters not who complains, if that which is complained of is an offence against the best practices of creating and maintaining this project.)☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I think this is far too forceful a sanction for the evidence presented. Below I supported a logged warning. I think that is quite sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support anything from a warning up for an extremely hostile editor who can't even be bothered to use proper punctuation, let alone try and be nice.  Tewdar  20:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support some length block. Per Zanahary below, "HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault)". This makes it impossible to believe a "yellow card" warning will have the slightest effect. Water/duck's back, here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  In this post HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, but it was swiftly followed by "note: I haven't really done anything wrong though", so no. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose wut? Polygnotus (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus: wym "wut" —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 13:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support Based on the information I've seen from Theroadislong, I find myself supporting an indef block.Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose lack of evidence of sufficient disruption that would merit a block. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Propose yellow card for HEB

For repeated incivility and uncollegial behavior, Horse Eye's Back receives a yellow card. This is a formal warning by the community that their behavior is subpar and the continuing problems will result in sanctions.

• Support, as proposer. The above proposal for an indefinite block, made by an IP, was flawed from the outside because many people found the duration too long and/or objected to the suggestion coming from an IP. I've proposed before the idea of a sanction without a block; a formal warning that you need to do better in a particular way. In association football this is a yellow card. Multiple yellow cards can get you disqualified. HEB needs to do better. I think most people, and HEB, would agree with that. Let's put it on record. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• WP:UNBLOCKABLES at its finest. Support in case the above fails because apparently IPs aren’t humans anymore? ^EF⁵ 12:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Support in case block fails, with the same eye-roll as EF5's. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Zanahary, MLK said in his most famous speech that people should "… not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," and I think that applies here (substituting "color of their skin" with "account level" and "character" with "proposal", I'm not insinuating that all opposers are racist). I mean, are we seriously discounting proposals now not based on the proposal's merits but because the opener is an IP!? I mean, put yourself in the IPs shoes - would you want your proposal shot down simply because you're an IP editor (many of whom are more experienced than me, by the way, as IPs hop sometimes)? Absolute nonsense. — ^EF⁵ 14:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Support as second choice per above Kowal2701 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you think this is WP:UNBLOCKABLES at its finest, well, then I think WP:UNBLOCKABLES isn't as much of an issue as it used to be. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe a Blue card, indicating a 10-minute penalty and a "good talking to". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• So basically something between a normal warning and a formal AE type?(as in the spirit/vibe? Does that make sense?) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I've repeatedly observed troublesome behavior by HEB in policy discussions that tracks with what's been seen here. I don't think it rises to the level of an indef, and because it's largely been directed at thick-skinned grognards the response has been muted. Nonetheless, it's inappropriate, and I think a warning would be useful to remind HEB that if they continue to spiral out of control when contradicted, the community isn't going to blow it off forever. Choess (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Suppport a formal warning. My first interaction with this user was in 2021 when the first word I read addressed to me was 'Horseshit'. I don't think that's being terribly polite, personally. I had incidentally forgotten about it, but the conversation about beds above reminded me! I haven't interacted with them recently, but don't recall HEB's tone as particularly collegiate, certainly ad hominem and perhaps more robust than strictly necessary. That's an issue of tone that a little reflection and the realisation that other people don't much appreciate it could remedy. It's certainly not a blocking offence. The toilet comment referred to above is, however, beyond the pale, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  For context see Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum/Archive 2#Sourcing and NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  There's no contextual argument to be made here. Greeting someone you've never met before with 'horseshit' in real life would not go down well. It doesn't here, either. You're clearly not accepting the point here made by me and others - that your tone and approach to interections is frequently seen as sub-par and increasingly, over time, is forming a problematic pattern. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's a matter of perspective. I have no problem with someone saying "horseshit" at a statement I make in a conversation. On the other hand people writing "best" at the end of comments/emails/etc, rubs me up the wrong way, even if the writer never intends any ill will. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support Although I think a block is more appropriate given 1) How long this behaviour has gone on and 2) HEB's refusal and denial of everything, the motion will likely fail. IMO this checks most WP:UNBLOCKABLES criterias *sigh*. Anyway, I'm voting support on the fact that HEB has, in this very thread, doubled down, uses policies for thee but not for thy, tried to bring in unrelated material to smear me, and does not recognize their behaviour is inappropriate. jolielover♥talk 14:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support this over any block. Veteran and editors in long good standing are still required to behave civilly, their age or experience behind their account not a reason to lash out at others for no good reason. Far better to warn that this type of thing should be the last warning before leading to blocks in the future, since its clear there is concern about this type of behavior and its disruption on WP. Masem (t) 16:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support, seems more proportional given prior history. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support in case the block proposal fails. One must wonder if the indef would have gone through had the proposer not been an ip...HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Simple, “they’re not experienced enough to make proposals at ANI”. ^EF⁵ 18:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree. "One" has no obligation to wonder about that. The argument qua IP-illegitimacy is irrelevant at best, offensive at worst, but it is possible to be against sanctioning HEB without noticing who has asked for these sanctions. As long as IP editors are allowed to contribute to Wikispace, they should also be allowed to propose sanctions, there is nothing uncertain about that, in my opinion (nevertheless, the MLK semi-analogy made above is also ridiculous at best, and extremely offensive at worst). That's not the reason I'm opposing an indefinite block of HEB, not at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  You could've pinged me when refering to my comment as ridiculous and extremely offensive, could you clarify? Nowhere do I mention race, and even straight-up say that I'm not insinuating that anyone here is racist, just that the quote fits the situation in my opinion. If you genuinely have a reason to assume I'm being offensive, tell me on my talk page and I'll gladly remove it. — ^EF⁵ 18:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't fit a situation where one has a choice to register or not, it doesn't fit a situation where consequences are so different from what you're referring to, that I don't really feel like elaborating. I apologize for not pinging you, but per WP:FOC I didn't see this as being about you, but about the poor analogy. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  So we're at the point in the discussion where everyone's an a-hole to each other, then. Gotcha. — ^EF⁵ 18:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, I don't see you as an asshole. So that statement is incorrect. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I counted three people who solely referenced Levivich as their rationale to oppose block and two other people who partly referenced. Given their first comment was that proposals from IP's should not be taken seriously, I presume that was a large part of their argument and by extension of multiple other editors. Perhaps a block would not have passed anyways. Aquillion's policy-based arguments are a good example and I commend you for using them as your rationale. However, it definitely will not pass now given how many opposes referenced Levivich and his IP-based argument. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Probably supportish. I don't think there's enough of a case made for an indef, but HEB has a tendency to increase the temperature in discussions unnecessarily, and it would be good to make clear that they need to take more care. Two other points: I like Mackensen's "yellow card" metaphor and wonder why I haven't seen it before. It does have implications, though. Also, I broadly agree with Levivich that it's not appropriate to entertain indef proposals from IPs that have obviously edited under other accounts/IPs without clearly articulating the extent of those accounts. I would stop short of calling supporters disruptive, but provenance and process matter. I'd like to see it normalized for the first legitimate supporter to offer to "take over" the proposal from the [untransparent dynamic IP/sock/spa] to avoid such situations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I guess I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but an editor of good standing has actually expressed their willingness to own the proposal of an indefinite block, in this case. (I still maintain that IP editors, the way policy stands now, should be allowed to propose sanctions of other editors in Wikispace, no matter how preposterous the proposal might be). Sluzzelin talk 20:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just like there's no hard rule against someone who created an account 5 minutes ago from proposing something. That, too, should be discouraged unless -- as with a new IP -- proper evidence is provided as to the rest of their editing history. You are correct this isn't documented anywhere, though. I think I'd consider a rule that an edit history should be required (either in one account or across multiple) in order to propose a sanction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  What would the purpose be, other than more bureaucracy? There was nothing inappropriate here, so surely you are thinking of some other board where IPs cause frequent problems by proposing sanctions? 166.205.97.96 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  How do we know the IP isn't an involved party or biased party toward the user in question, chosing to log out to avoid potential blowback? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  So what if they were even Willy on Wheels? A stopped clock is still right two times a day. Others were free to introduce their own proposals, but instead supported the proposal by the anonymous editor. That's all the credibility that is required. 199.224.113.11 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  (For newer folks: "Willy on Wheels" was a sockmaster and WP:LTA who did a lot of page-move vandalism about 20 years ago.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  It isn't "documented" because it isn't a policy.

  Nor am I sure you'd get much support for a rule saying that people are allowed to be uncivil to IP editors because they don't deserve to be able to say anything on ANI. I don't see any benefit to the project from that. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody said anything remotely like that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  You're in an ANI report where at least two people have been personally attacking and making up bizarre accusations about IP editors in order to distract from the substance of the IP's posts. You said that IP editors shouldn't be allowed to object on ANI unless they can somehow 'disclose their editing history', because apparently sometimes it is okay to abuse people depending on their diffs.

  That is *exactly* what all of you are saying. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  no, I didn't. And that's not the first time you've either misrepresented or exaggerated what someone said in this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's clear that under present rules, IPs may currently make reports here, engage in discussions and even propose sanctions. Maybe that's desirable or maybe that's not but I would suggest further discussion about the general issue and any changes on the talk page at WT:ANI. That'll help this discussion focus on this report's particular players. It'll also allow calmer general discussion on the talk page of IPs at ANI.

  An established editor has already said they will step forward and "take over" sponsorship of the block proposal if the IP is disqualified. I think it's now moot whether the proposal is legitimate. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  indeed. Over at VPI now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per my comment in the section above. TarnishedPath^talk 00:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support the warning. Andre🚐 00:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a formal warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. This proposal is unclear. In some sports (e.g. association football (soccer)), a yellow card is a formal warning. In others (e.g. both codes of rugby football), it is a formal warning PLUS a spell in the sin-bin (equivalent in WP terms to a short-term block). Narky Blert (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC).

  @Narky Blert we're following association football here. This is a formal warning, no more, no less. Mackensen (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: That was my view on the intended meaning too, but I didn't want to put words into people's mouths. Narky Blert (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support as second option if indef doesn't pass 212.70.117.12 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Sopport. IMO this behaviour doesn't quite reach WP:CBAN level (which is what a community-endorsed block of any length would be), but also IMO it falls well below community standards. The failure to understand that illustrated in the main thread is an aggravating factor. HEB needs to know that the colour of the next card is likely to be red. Narky Blert (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a yellow card for a year - HEB has been dragged to ANI beforehand. The community has noticed this pattern, and should be allowed to demand improvement in behavior. In general, HEB deserves good faith from community that they can improve, but this "yellow card" will be useful if they end up before ANI again. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • demanding perfect behavior for the remainder of HEB's time on wikipedia seems like a lot. Would also like to qualify by suggesting we do this yellow card for a year. We all make mistakes, and keeping a yellow card on like an Albatross (metaphor) on their neck perpetually seems silly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding terminology: I wouldn't support using the term "yellow card" without it being described somewhere on a process page. There's too much ambiguity regarding the implications. In association football, depending on the jurisdiction, a pre-determined number of yellow cards results in a match suspension, but there is (as of yet) no predetermined number of formal warnings that result in an additional sanction. Thus if this proposal attains consensus, I think it should just be called a warning (established by community consensus). isaacl (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  My sense is that it's easier to get people to agree that someone's behavior is a problem and needs to change if there's no associated sanction this time. See earlier discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive353#Potentially involved block by AlisonW and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong closed (plenty of other folks have used this metaphor in the past). Note that as an American with a passing familiarity with association football some of the nuance of that metaphor probably escapes me. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Started jotting down thoughts: User:Mackensen/Yellow Card. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have no issues with the concept of a warning. All I'm saying that if a metaphor is used in the official wording, then some users may feel there is consensus to apply specific aspects of that metaphor in future. In particular, I worry that the common "X yellow cards = suspension" analogy will be applied. Unless there is consensus on the cumulative effect of warnings designated as yellow cards (versus those that aren't), my preference is not to use the metaphor. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Support. I don't agree HEB will get block for this, since I think he's a good-faith editor who has been making good edits all these while. But his behaviour when commenting on others recently seems uncivilized and needs changing. It will be better if he gets a yellow card warning. Hopefully he would stop making bad comments. Galaxybeing (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  "Yellow card" is probably best as a slang term for it, but it seems like probation (workplace) (which our article omits you can get put on as a disciplinary action) Kowal2701 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I voted for a formal warning, without calling it a yellow card. In association football, a yellow card alwaysoften also results in some sort of free kick being awarded, and we don't have to figure out what if anything is meant by that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I guess the Europeans are just waking up so I’ll point out that this is incorrect. Many reasons a yellow can be given without a free (or penalty) kick. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Including, as just one example, a coach on the sidelines getting carded for shooting his mouth off. (Get back in your technical area!) Narky Blert (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  I thought it was a soccer thing. Thought football uses those big targets. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - a formal warning is warranted, not a fan of phrasing it as a "yellow card" or whatnot though.--Staberinde (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support as secondary option due to the abundant failure of the community as an entity to have any competent level of homogeneous introspection on serious issues such as this one. CNC (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  competent level of homogeneous introspection on serious issues. Eh? My brain hurts. I've been doing my best to speak English for 76 years, and genuinely have no idea what that means, Narky Blert (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Inability of having a unified approach to self-reflection as a community. CNC (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, a "stern talking to" or temporary block seem vastly insufficient given the scope of the problems in their editing, the inability to reflect on what they've done even in this very thread, and the relative lack of good-faith edits. This is way too far past "slap on the wrist" territory. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above on HEB's demonstrated personal conduct issues and my personal experiences with this user, which can be summarized with this diff. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support something but not an indefinite block (as per !vote in prior section. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support warning. Also hope this could be wrapped up very soon. It's not healthy for these things to linger open on ANI. Jahaza (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support: As I said above, a (very) short block seems like the best option on the table. However, speaking from experience, there's some utility in a formal warning. If the closing editor (please, for pete's sake, let it be an experienced admin) decides there's a lack of consensus in favor a block of any duration, it's best that there's a consensus to do something about all this so that the community might not need to have such a long discussion about this editor again. Again, I hope HEB's often positive contributions remain a part of the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:DFTT Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any action against Horse Eye Black as per the discussion with "L" and others on the grounds that HEB is UNBLOCKABLE. PROPOSE boomerang for Jolielover and the ISP collaborating with them for initiating a petty witch hunt. BaldBeaverFeasting (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC) I don't know who the IP is and am not collaborating with them. jolielover♥talk 02:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Also I'm confused by the rationale - you're saying that HEB can't be blocked? Shouldn't? For what reason? jolielover♥talk 02:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC) HEB is an excellent editor who has been here long enough to have earned UNBLOCKABLE status. BaldBeaverFeasting (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC) UNBLOCKABLE is not a status to 'earn'. The essay is explicitly against this. All editors, from the oldest to the youngest, longest to shortest, are not immune to being blocked. jolielover♥talk 02:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC) What? Unblockable? "l'Incorruptible"! -Lemonaka 02:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC) That is someone who made a brand-new account to cause trouble and make a WP:POINT. Hopefully they’ll be blocked soon, I’d recommend ignoring them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC) — BaldBeaverFeasting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC) requesting checkuser This behaviour looks very unlikely to be a newcomer, -Lemonaka 02:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC) You ought to be more concerned with ISPs posting calumnies about established editors. BaldBeaverFeasting (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SPA is a kind of sockpuppetry behaviour, even you used other IP edits before, registered an account to just support someone is not a good idea. -Lemonaka 02:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Troll … A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC) {{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC) So tagged. Izno (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC) A plausible comparison candidate? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC) I blocked them. I obviously have a view on the wider discussion, so any admin should feel free to revert me, but obvious trolling sock is obvious ("straightforward cases"). Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC) My apologies, this is one of my IP stalkers... This would appear to be the one who likes to do sarcastic joe jobs. The other two are more subtle, so subtle in fact that there may be more than two of them... Another editor more versed in the arts of the checkuser once speculated that I could have up to a half dozen different LTA stalkers. Apologies again for the continual disruption of this thread, but it is a nearly unavoidable consequence of being good at sock hunting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support as a second preference to a block. 1.145.189.4 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I'm rather divided on this. HEB and I have crossed paths semi-regularly and I've both been on the same side of disputes as them and opposite probably in equal measure. I have a lot of good to say about HEB. In particular they are very committed to neutrality goals and I've encountered fewer editors who are more careful to stick to sources and to avoid inserting POV in articles related to politics, the humanities and to topics related to fringe theories. However HEB does have a remarkably sharp tongue and very little hesitance to deploy it. I do think this sharp tongue crosses the line into incivility and a failure of WP:FOC on occasions frequent enough to represent a problem. And so we have the problem of someone who is quite good at editing an encyclopedia but not quite good enough at politely navigating the sometimes frustrating social millieu of the collaborative environment we edit the encyclopedia in. I think it's clear, reviewing this rambling discussion, that sufficient people have become concerned about the latter to warrant some action. I think it's equally clear that none of these incidents warrant an extended block. I also don't think that a short block will do much to prevent those things editors have expressed concern with. A logged warning is, thus, the correct balance of not discarding a valuable participant while reminding them that their comportment around their peers needs to be more diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support what is effectively a restriction, call it what you want, as a second choice to a significant block, since this seems more likely to get consensus. I gave my reasoning above: [152]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support formalized warning; I made a suggestion about possible mechanics above: [153].☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thought about this for a while and, frankly, don't think I'm keen on being on the other side of a dispute with HEB. The reason I'm still opposed to this kind of yellow card or final warning or whatever, is precisely that I'm afraid it will later be used to get rid of HEB's contributions because of something ungenerous they wrote. I often read that such-and-such contributor with a history of incivility drives away other editors, but that is usually hard to prove. What is never hard to prove is that a community ban completely shuts out an editor. Admittedly, I'm very often against these sanctions, but it's not like I've never !voted for a community ban. I have done so, in cases of exceptionally disruptive or hateful behaviour, but I don't see that here. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support (and a probation of one year) in case the block fails. How much more "stern talking to" does HEB need? The main reason that the block proposal is slanted towards failing is because it was initiated by an IP. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose A normal conversation is a thousand times more effective than an imaginary yellow card. Have we tried "Oi bruv cool your jets", when and if appropriate? Polygnotus (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Er.... yes, we have. This whole incident started since I asked HEB why they were instigating a useless argument on an AfD. jolielover♥talk 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Jolielover You appear to be escalating the drama. I was talking about de-escalation. Polygnotus (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus: Multiple times. This was my attempt a couple years ago. It did not go well. There's also all the ANI discussions linked in the OP... Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @The ed17 I hope you'll agree that that doesn't really qualify as a normal conversation. I don't really want to do the research right now, but it is very obvious that this is part of a larger conflict, which HEB refers to. Normal conversations are very very different in both tone and content. Perhaps I should've said amicable instead of normal. What I meant was a normal polite conversation among friends/colleagues. Polygnotus (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus: You asked for a time when someone said "Oi bruv cool your jets", and that's exactly what I was trying to do back then. I believe it was the first time I became aware of HEB's existence. It started with HEB's comments in a larger discussion (one that I was not a part of beforehand!) and continued with what I already linked above. I'd like to think I was polite and measured, and that I can't really be blamed for HEB's turning up the temperature in their responses. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @The ed17 To me it is obvious that your actions only escalated the situation, and that was entirely predictable. Polygnotus (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think the message Ed linked is the definition of trying to communicate and resolve conflicts rather than jumping to a warning/block. Also, it's fine if you don't have the time to fully research into the background of this issue, but then you shouldn't vote, since you don't know the full grasp of the issue. jolielover♥talk 04:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  See my earlier comment. Polygnotus (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  What is "de-escalating" in your opinion? Like I said, I think Ed's message is a prime example of it, but you seem to disagree. jolielover♥talk 04:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Jolielover Explaining what "de-escalating" means is offtopic here. Polygnotus (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus: ... how would you have handled the situation differently? Please feel free to answer on my talk page if you feel that's too off-topic; I'm genuinely curious. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @The ed17 I'll email you. Polygnotus (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Why email? This seems like it can be handled onwiki just fine? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, seems like trying to hide something? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, my feedback on how The ed17 could've handled a minor squabble years ago better is probably part of some major conspiracy involving aliens and the Illuminati. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. Polygnotus and I obviously have differing viewpoints when it comes to the OP topic, but somehow I don't think they'd publicly say "I'll email you" if they wanted to share a secret. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think the examples in the OP are examples of "repeated incivility and uncollegial behavior," and I don't see any others in this proposal or elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  What is, then? I saw an insult in one of the diffs (the one Whatiamdoing provided) 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:BCB3:76C7:AC00:6C34 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Here is a link to a formal warning for incivility I recently proposed (which passed), and there you'll see examples of "what is, then." I don't see any diffs provided by WAID in this discussion (links to previous ANIs, but not diffs), and in any event, one diff would not evidence "repeated" anything meriting a formal warning. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - an indefinite formal warning for incivility and uncollegial behavior, in accordance with the nomination. The examples provided and HEB's conduct in this very thread demonstrate repeated behavioural problems. The community has decided being right isn't enough, except in HEB's case, they are frequently not right, again very well demonstrated at the top of this thread. 113.212.94.136 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC).

HEB section break -- what areas are problematic?

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.

---

Are there certain types of topics that tend to cause problems that may lean into whatever is to come?

It seems there is clearly absolutely no consensus for any permanent ban, but that there is absolutely yes consensus for something. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Better question: Are there any areas where they have demonstrated they aren't problematic? I appreciate you are trying to help with a remedy, but it's the interaction with other editors everywhere that is the problem here. CNC (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

El_C said HEB's approach to discussions was "combative" and "adversarial" in such a way that "it turns the discussion into a battleground". HEB committed to taking concerns with their editing "to heart" in 2023. In early 2024, Ritchie333 "strongly advise[d HEB] to moderate their tone in discussions and avoid bludgeoning." More recent diffs have emerged in the OP. Years and years in, it's not a topic problem; it's a HEB problem. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

That's actually a terrible question. HEB has worked in plenty of areas, and the ones in which are considered "not problematic" would often be forgettable for most. That amounts to a "prove you didn't do it" instead of "prove the guilt" approach. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person, the problem isn't the topic. The problem is not being able to collaborate positively with other humans (e.g., weak social skills, rigid thinking, over-focus on following the letter of the law, inability to understand what it means when we say that Wikipedia:The rules are principles, communication problems, perseverating on disputes everyone else believes to be adequately discussed...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree 178.152.114.130 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no topic area in particular, it's the general behavior at question here.

I'd advise closing this subsection and instead focusing on what the sanction should be. E.g. a short block or a formal warning. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This has gone on too long already. Just close this up and give a general warning. Jahaza (talk) 01:28, 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.

What's next?

At this point, I feel it's clear (as per Very Polite Person), It seems there is clearly absolutely no consensus for any permanent ban, but that there is absolutely yes consensus for something. From what I see, that would be to give them what is essentially a formal warning, of some sort, and that further behavior in the same vein will be meant with sanctions. At this point, we need to decide exactly what actions would be taken if the behavior continues, and what exactly the "yellow card" should say. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think an admin should close this, been going on for quite a while. From what I see, strong consensus to warn HEB, and further instances of similar severity would result in a block. jolielover♥talk 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd also ask the closer to be as specific as possible in their close, especially (if there's consensus for this) when it comes to addressing future violations with blocks. That will give admins explicit leeway for dealing with HEB as needed. Part of the issue with HEB is that they live within all the grey areas in our civility policy + are very willing to derail a discussion if it means that they'll "win". The "... where you appear to condone some pretty nasty transphobia ..." comment above and the derailing of the overall discussion afterwards is a great example. They'll likely continue to do these and sealion unless they're given firm guardrails. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Without in anyway absolving HEB from requirements to be civil, I'd observe that there are cases of "taking two to tango" with regards to HEB, including from editors who have contributed here supporting blocks. A closing admin might also observe that those who interact with HEB examine their own responses to HEB - one is not absolved from being civil simply because one is met with incivility. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't ever tell me unblockables aren't a thing ever again. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own 212.70.114.16 (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

In this post HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point something out that would not have been obvious to anyone but myself. When I made my first and rather excoriating post in this discussion, directed at HEB themself, they quietly used the thanks function in response. That was not a particularly flattering set of observations, though I did try to make it clear that I was making them to provide an honest third party assessment from someone they do not have a personal history with. I think they are more receptive to aggregate perspectives here than might be immediately obvious. And, if not, and the behaviour continues to be a problem, I see very little likelihood of their escaping a sanction next time.

Honestly, I am someone who takes behavioural norms very seriously. To the point of having been lumped in with the "civility scolds" on this very forum more than once. And I honestly do not think the evidence for an immediate issue requiring a sanction is there. Yes, there are issues and yes, HEB better get to addressing them forthwith. But I dare say this is not a good case for arguing "unblockability". The advocates for a sanction didn't make their case. Much of the evidence of their disruption presented here was too dated. Be assured if they don't make a substantial change in approach, I will certainly re-appraise my position in the next ANI, if there is one. And I doubt I would be the only one. Critically though, I think they can make the changes, and their cost-benefit as a contributor is such that I'm prepared to extend them WP:ROPE to make the effort. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. Northern Moonlight 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. Jake the Ache (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to be cautious around contributions from no-standing accounts that turn up in the most contentious area of this probject with more than adequate understandings of its wider workings and culture. And thank you for proving the point. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. 2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the availability heuristic is not the best argument for indicia that their position is rationally and statistically sound.

That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is often perfectly reasonable, imo. What concerns me is the exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) over correction in the next steps a very small but very vocal minority have endorsed here: painting such IP/new account perspectives as per se invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes. That goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

"urging caution" is still an agnostic response; statistical soundness and ANI are a contradiction in terms. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners - if that comment is directed at me, I was noting that the comment from "Jack the Ache" was made by a disruptive and now blocked account. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

understood, thank you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Another HEB thread? Wow. I was brought here by an IP revert of one of their additions accusing them of being a sock. It feels like every time I see their name pop up they're in some sort of altercation. It's actually impressive how many users this person has managed to anger. At this point ANI threads about HEB might as well be a monthly occurrence or maybe I just have the best luck on when to look at ANI. Qiushufang (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That IP is a single-purpose WP:NOTHERE account. I reverted all the edits targeting HEB and sent warning, but realise the edits themselves are borderline vandalism and removal of content. An admin should have a look imo. CNC (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

With no comment on the subject at hand - how has this topic not been closed yet? This is an absolutely huge AN/I section, and surely enough conversation has been had for an uninvolved admin to close this and impose any sanctions, if any. There's no benefit of leaving this open. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bugghost: Would you care to summarize how you might close it, even if as just a recommendation/nac? If yes, please be bold and show everyone how it should be done. If no, please refrain from asking for something that you are not willing to do yourself. 2600:1004:B10F:2139:F40F:4920:20C:50A9 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced closer and I'm sure you can see why a NAC from an editor with 2k edits would be controversial and likely be reversed, making this thread more unweildy. That being said, if you want my "recommendation": I don't believe there's grounds for a block - blocks are preventative and seing as this thread has lasted so long I think that ship has sailed. Doesn't seem like any community consensus for an indef, but there is consensus for a "yellow card", which seems fair and achievable via a formal warning, with any future incivility triggering a indef block. Nothing more than trouts needed for those in boomerang distance. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

You ask why this thread has not been closed. That is because this thread has become a great monster with tentacles, and is difficult to close without risking being strangled by the creature. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Well someone has to do it eventually. Whichever admin closes it is has my sympathys and deserves a pay raise(I know they don't get paid, this is a joke) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm involved, but I actually disagree that this is a particularly difficult close. 1) I don't think there's consensus for a block (I have a pretty strong viewpoint when it comes to comparing arguments, but the pure numbers count is about even). 2) It does look like there's a large consensus in favor of issuing a formal yellow card/admonishment to HEB as an official (final?) warning before blocks are issued. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 BugGhost 🦗👻 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• This is one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia. We will spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, just talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk, but at no point does anyone ever put their fucking foot down and DO something. It's just an endless loop of everyone expecting everyone else to do the work, going around in circles, and getting nowhere. DO something al-fucking-ready! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Other issue is that only an admin could close this at this point since it would require an admin to give a formal warning. So that even further limits it.

  Will it get to the point where the closer decides it took too long for a close thus no action should be taken? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well since there is no consensus to do anything, and no one knows what a hypothetical yellow card is, the only possible close is no consensus, which would make some people angry. Polygnotus (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  It seems clear that it's a formal warning. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  The "yellow card" proposal was clearly defined when it was proposed (This is a formal warning by the community that their behavior is subpar and the continuing problems will result in sanctions), and it's got a clear consensus. I'm struggling to see how you've arrived at this conclusion. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  That is not a clear definition. Polygnotus (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  What. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was proposed, considered, and almost uniformly accepted with regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear, as is the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions--particularly when you you are talking about an editor's longterm approach to personal interactions and conflict, and that conduct was controversial, but they were ultimately let go with WP:ROPE and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.

  And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Bugghost Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Did you want the section to be titled 'formal warning' instead of a 'vague and unclear' title despite the fact that it is pretty clearly intended to be considered as such? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think the section title is the problem. If I would design a yellow card system I would prefer a line in the sand and measurable results over a vague 'warning' whose implications are unclear which can hang over someone's head indefinitely. I don't expect humans to be perfect 100% of the time, and I take context into account when judging their communication style. Threatening people is not an effective way of getting people to behave (but setting boundaries can be). In this situation it seems very likely that a good conversation is more likely to have the desired effect than a sword of Damocles. Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Well, we are trying here, but it's not working out with all the deflecting and ignoring concerns about their own issues 212.70.114.16 (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hell, it's been five days since the first person proposed closing this. This is embarrassing. Ravenswing 03:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  It needs to be auto archived once people stop responding, then it's done. HEB should be commended here. I propose a reverse yellow card, giving HEB the Super Mario our admins enjoy. 74.254.224.118 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  is that meant to be humor or not?🤔 212.70.114.16 (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This has been going now for 15 days (!). When I went to see how long this entire HEB thing would be printed, it's around 32 (!!) printed pages. Y'all wrote a novella. I'm not an admin (and based on all this I'm 99% sure I don't want to be one), but I can't see any consensus for anything but giving HEB a "yellow card" warning that the next time they do all of this HEBing, they will start getting escalating time out blocks. It's time for some admin to nuke this. It's not evolving anymore. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:16, 28 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.

Mr. Zoomtastic Studios

Mr. Zoomtastic Studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been nonstop edit warring across multiple articles/talk pages/etc. since first editing, beginning with reverting back their empty/nonsense edit requests at Talk:Ricky Zoom. They then continued this trend with two empty/nonsense edit requests at Talk:Universal Pictures ([154], [155]) (was also attempted at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps). Since then, this user has been edit warring across multiple articles, including primarily at Xenomorph and Shared universe. Their latest edits also now appear to be reverting other users' reverts of their previous IP edits ([156], [157]).

Mr. Zoomtastic Studios has already received several warnings, including twice for edit warring ([158], [159]), has since removed several warnings on their talk page ([160], [161]), and is now continuing to edit war, including reinstating their previous edits that were reverted as an IP.

I have also asked them to stop edit warring, as well as telling them to WP:COMMUNICATE in an edit summary ([162]), but it seems that has done nothing. Not quite sure what more can be done other than a block, as the multiple reverts against them and warnings received appears to have done nothing to get them to stop with this. Magitroopa (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Also seems worthy to note that they created both Draft:List of shared universe in film and television and Draft:List of universes in animation and comics- both of these are duplicates, of List of fictional shared universes in film and television and List of fictional universes in animation and comics respectively, seemingly attempting to remove 'fictional' from the article, like in several of their reverted edits (such as [163], [164], [165], and other edits of theirs). Magitroopa (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

And now is continuing with the edit warring, reverting back more edits of theirs that was reverted (see recent history on both Time machine and Xenomorph). Clearly seems like a block of some sort is warranted at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As the user was still edit warring 6 minutes ago, I blocked for 24 hours. That's half of the account's age. Maybe it's sufficient already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Zoomtastic Studios has seen and reverted the block notification. Please notify me if the edit warring continues after the 24 hours; not having seen the messages is not an available excuse anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: This should be an indef for username violation, an account can not be promotional, related to any real world group or agency, misleading, inappropriate, or hostile. The account is named for a what appears to be a production studio, which puts it in violation of this mandate, and suggests a shared account. I’d reconsider the length on this one, all the more so since the account appears to be hostile with the edit warring as demonstrated above. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hi TomStar81, this misunderstanding is so common that Wikipedia:Username policy § Promotional usernames (permalink) currently contains rare yellow highlighting to explain that this isn't what the username policy says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Apparently you and I have different ideas about how to interpret that last bit; I would consider the editing of film articles and a film and television specific list as being edits within related articles, which have so far been problematic and from an account with a promotional username, in which case this is a clear cut case of everything highlighted there to me. That being said, it appears you’re interpreting the latter as only films or television related material with that specific studio name, in which case we have a promotional username making problematic edits but not to anything specifically by said studio, which appears to be grounds for redress as you’ve interested it. That’s fine, to each their own as it were, but I thought it helpful to point out that from where I sit and type we’re already at indef. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like the response was to log out to continue edit warring and working on their draft/duplicate articles: 2600:1011:A18A:7F4F:E24E:D54F:22DC:AEC7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  In light of that and the Talk page DE that followed the block, I've extended to a week and removed TPA. I understand @ToBeFree's leniency here and hope the editor does take positive advantage of this not being an INDEF. Star Mississippi 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh my. Thanks Star Mississippi. Do feel free to extend that to indefinitely. They've had their second chance. Earlier than expected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras

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.

---

Kabul madras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ever since Kabul madras has joined Wikipedia, he's been obsessed with trying to use this platform as a way to "disprove" the lineage of the Ba 'Alawi sada. One of the methods of trying to do so was using his own original research. I've first warned him about original research a year ago, and have been doing so ever since, but he refuses to listen. In this discussion, he didn't even seem to care that I warned him that I'm going to take this here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Are there diffs you could post that show the issue? It would be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

feel free to review all my edits.I have never inserted 'original research' into the article. I have always used references that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If @Abo Yemen disagrees with what I have written, that is Abo Yemen's personal problem and an inability to accept the factual, sourced reality. I invite all of you, as an administrator, to act as the judge in this dispute between me and Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs: I'm currently outside so I am not sure how to provide diffs on the mobile app, but you can see their only 5 contribs they made today. They've been providing their own interpretations of DNA databases in an attempt to try and disprove the lineage. And instead of using the neutral and academic sources that describe the lineage dispute from both povs, he seems to only see the youtube videos that he's been watching and citing on this article as the only definitive truth. Kabul, trying to deny your edits on that article that are available for everyone to see is not going to work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [166]. The ref does appear murky though. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

yes, it's that one, thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland @Kowal2701,Yes, that is correct. That specific section is part of the article currently under a content dispute. It is entirely different part from the part that was agreed upon by consensus in the RFC. I have obeyed the consensus that was reached by RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There was an RfC where everyone !voted against Kabul's position, I tried to explain but they continued to disagree [167] Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I closed that RFC on 7 August 2025 finding that there was consensus, except for Kabul Madras, to remove their statement that their lineage claim was being disputed. They are now at 2RR in edit-warring to insert the statement against consensus. Edit-warring at 2RR against a consensus adopted in an RFC in response to previous edit-warring is still edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If User:Kabul Madras disagrees with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the close at WP:AN rather than edit-warring against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I have not engaged in any counter-actions regarding the concluded RFC, and I am abiding by its outcome in accordance with Wikipedia policies. My subsequent edits were solely to the DNA analysis section of the article. These are two entirely separate matters. I would invite you to review the relevant edit history concerning the DNA analysis portion. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Here is the close of the RFC [168].
• Here are the most recent three insertions of the text that was removed by consensus: [169] [170] [171]

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, these are two completely separate sections. The RFC addresses a section at the beginning of the article. I have fully adhered to the consensus reached in that RFC. Meanwhile, my most recent edit is in a different part of the article and deals with a separate matter. The issue that should be discussed here is whether my latest edit violates any Wikipedia policies. Kabul madras (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

"My disruption was removed from part of the article by a RFC. I'm adhering to the RFC by moving my disruption to another part of the article". WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No i am not. It's completely different sentence , different topic, in different location from the article. Kabul madras (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Kabul madras has just filed an arbitration case request. Left guide (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  noting here as I did there - I'm a named party as a result of my p-block and will not take any further admin action. However I also did not intend to beyond my (disregarded) warning not to bludgeon this discussion. Notice is probably unnecessary but for avoidance of any issue. Star Mississippi 03:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Note here for the record that the arbitration request was denied and removed here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Does this count as an aspersion? [172] Borgenland (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  it very much is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban and Partial Block

I propose that User:Kabul Madras be topic-banned by the community from Ba 'Alawi sada and its talk page, and partially blocked to enforce that topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please do not be hasty. I have already replied to your argument concerning the RFC. You are misinterpreting my position by concluding that I oppose the RFC. The current issue at hand is a completely separate matter from what was discussed in the RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  The matter currently at hand is not separate from the RFC. The topic at hand is a subset of the topic of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• I already applied the p-block, but leaving this open in the event there's support for a topic ban to dissuade moving the disruption elsewhere. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion is still ongoing, so how can you justify imposing an immediate block? Please re-read my arguments above. The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because your disruption has gone beyond the results of the RFC and honestly, you could have been blocked much earlier. Please do not bludgeon this discussion. Star Mississippi 00:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you keep saying "The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC." you're just telling people topic ban is a justified, or worse even just a site ban. No one wants to have an RfC everytime you bring up a slightly different suggestion. While you might be right that the RfC closure didn't technically cover what you were doing, it's clear from the RfC discussion that there was substantial concern about anything related & in any case it's most definitely not "entirely separate". Perhaps there is merit to continue discussion of whether and what can be added elsewhere but definitely not edit warring. And that discussion needs to consider previous discussions including the RfC and any editor wishing to take part should understand basics like WP:OR, WP:RS and especially have some ability to recognise when issues are related rather than treat them as entirely separate when they aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil EinneOf course I understand WP:OR and WP:RS. In fact, if you understood them, you would have first read all the references I cited there, before quickly justifying them as original research and unreliable sources, without a strong basis. Kabul madras (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I like how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've given your own interpretation (or in other words, done original research) of one huge ass family using a DNA database (Which literally has text along with a fucking
  [citation needed] tag copied from a Wikipedia article, not even making this up btw. See also: WP:CIRCULAR) of about two hundred people (mostly self proclaimed diaspora), but somehow you dont see that as violations of WP:OR or WP:RS? Those are some real WP:CIR issues right here. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  What WP:CIRCULAR? Everything I wrote there already has references. It's clear that you didn't even read them, which is why you came to that conclusion. Indeed, accepting reality is difficult, especially for those who have been lied to by their ancestors since childhood. Kabul madras (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I dont have to read what al-Bantani (a person whose highest education level is the equivalent of a high school diploma) wrote. But I've read Muhajir & Alatas 2023 and As'hal et al 2024 (academic sources) and they gave an overview of this indonesian debate on the lineage of the diaspora claimants of Ba Alawi ancestry. None of them show al-Bantani's views as the definite truth. Indeed, those who consume propaganda from tiktok and youtube aren't here to build an encyclopedia. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  You know that almost no one or maybe actually no one in this discussion has Ba Alawi ancestry right? Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne this is awkward, but I do have Ba Alawi ancestry, although I found about it like a year ago since neither me nor my fam are really big fans of this ancestry stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:1AM, if all the experienced editors are telling you're doing WP:OR and not providing appropriate reliable source and after 157 edits you insist they're wrong and you're not engaged in OR & all your sources are perfect RS, guess who's almost always in the wrong? Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  And, ultimately, it is within the purview of an administrator to make such decisions without a "Mother may I" from ANI participants. Beyond that, it's not that we haven't read your arguments. It's not that we don't understand your arguments. It's that we don't agree with your arguments. The distinction is not hard to grasp. Ravenswing 05:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from all Ba Alawi-related topics (e.g. Ba 'Alawiyya and Haplogroup G-M201, where Kabul attempted to do their POVPUSH) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support: +1 to "Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption." Ravenswing 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason to support the idea that this editor is helpful to the project in this area at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I gave the editor a chance to think about what they're doing and show some indication they are starting to understand the problem with the editors their edits. They didn't take it instead continuing to insist their behaviour has been great. Frankly I'm not sure they can be a productive editor anywhere but perhaps if they do edit an area they care less about they'll be better. Or perhaps it's the only thing they care about so they will abandon editing. Either way, it's clear them continuing to edit about the topic area is not going to be productive. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) 20:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support continnued IDHT including opening a premature arbitration request which is evidence of both IDHT and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Can we please have this formally closed by an admin and get over with it? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of the Questioned Edit and the RFC

User:Kabul Madras says that what they were posting on 20 August is unrelated to the RFC and is a different matter. The RFC was about a statement that the claim of descent from Muhammad is being challenged, and consensus was to delete that statement. So introduction of a detailed analysis challenging the claim of descent is within the scope of the RFC. The most recent edit is an analysis that the Ba_'Alawi_sada clan and Muhammad's tribe belong to different Y-haplogroups. That is a challenge to the claim of descent, and that is what the RFC concluded should not be in the article. If they want to challenge the closure of the RFC, that can be done at WP:AN. At this point, if they want to raise questions about the interpretation of the RFC, they can do that in a close challenge, since they are blocked from the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC) I also have a question. Are Ba_'Alawi_sada claiming descent from Muhammad, or are they more specifically claiming direct patriarchal descent from Ali? Y-chromosome analysis doesn't prove or disprove descent, only patriarchal descent. So if I understand correctly, the recent edits are not only against consensus but are irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Both are claimed by them. The claim regarding Muhammad is based on a hadith, where Muhammad acknowledges that the descendants of Fatimah are his descendants. The claim regarding Ali is based on biological lineage records. Of course, Y-DNA only traces the direct paternal line of an individual, and their lineage records claim a direct paternal descent from Ali. If only you would all read the references used carefully, you would understand this easily. But alas, you chose to make a quick justification without proper review. There's nothing to worry about, the truth will emerge eventually on its own, even if not through me. Kabul madras (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice yet, we dont speak Bahasa Indonesia. Plus you've been ignoring 3 academic sources on this issue that clearly dont present al-Bantani's opinion as the definitive truth, and even if it were to be so, its still a WP:PRIMARY in this debate about diaspora. Either ways you are topic banned from this topic and you should not be discussing it anywhere on-wiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, User:Abo Yemen, User:Kabul madras is not topic-banned as of about 0340 GMT, 22 August 2025. They are partially blocked from the article and the article talk page. The topic ban request is still open. Also, if they were topic-banned, which they are not yet, one of the usual exceptions to a topic-ban is to discuss the topic-ban. They have the privilege of discussing the topic. (No one has the right to edit Wikipedia, but almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

oh thank you for pointing that out 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course I understand that many of you don't understand Indonesian, but Google Translate is available to solve that problem. Instead of using the tools at hand, you chose to make a quick justification. It's clear that al-Bantani's view is not the absolute truth, which is why I presented it as an alternative perspective in a neutral, unbiased, and impartial language. Unfortunately, this situation is similar to a majority of Ba 'Alawi in Indonesia who find it difficult to accept alternative perspectives on a given reality. Regrettably, at the grassroots level in Indonesia, the opinion is already different. Kabul madras (talk) 09:38, 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.

TheUzbek - Reverting an NPOV tag

Over at the NPOV noticeboard, I put a notice for an NPOV issue for articles about communist government — Supreme state organ of power and Supreme executive and administrative organ — which were predominantly edited by User:TheUzbek. This led to a long and tedious argument which I do not want repeated here, but TL:DR, I say they're writing in a way that's too deferential towards ideological compliance and taking the communist governments' official claims at face value, they say that the articles are perfectly neutral, while I'm biased and unable to prove that the sources they used are not neutral.

After another user said they agree there are NPOV issues for the pages in question in the Noticeboard before the argument started and blew up (here), I added Template:POV to the articles in question (here and here), which TheUzbek subsequently unilaterally reverted, twice in each article (here, here, here and here). Glide08 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

See the NPOV discussion. Two other editors have directly voiced disagreement with him and his main line is that academic sources that do not agree with him are Marxist.

From today I will end discussing with Glide08. Nothing good comes of it, sadly! TheUzbek (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think "sources that do not agree with [me] are marxist" is a misinterpretation of comment No.2 here: what was said was not "the secondary sources you used are Marxist, and therefore biased", but "as this Administrator notes, you write in a way that's excessively deferential to primary sources such as Marxist theoretical writings and socialist constitutions, and this deferential style of writing introduces unintended bias." Glide08 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

As for Horse Eye's comment, I don't think that is true. Glise08 lied about what was written, did not quote thr article truthfully and misled. He has not responded since... No one has agreed with him, and during this discussion the article was approved as a DYK. No one else have come with similar comments as him. His main line is that if someone disagrees with him they are communists. At last, I will notice that on an earlier article, the National democratic state, I was accused of anti-communism (or being too critical of communism)... I am a neutral guy who tries to present things as neutral as possible. --

All the references on the supreme state organ of power is based on academic sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I have attempted, as closely as possible, to represent the academic consensus of the Western academic community on the supreme state organ of power by choosing the most neutral words possible, while at the same time avoiding condemnatory language towards the communist state system, so that readers can draw their own conclusions. This is Wikipedia, we present what the sources say, and we do so as neutrally as possible. That is a principle I believe in! Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and I have adhered to that. --TheUzbek (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

TheUzbek has attempted to restart the argument here (as seen above), and removed the {{subst:ANI-notice}} notice from their own talk page (here) citing "vandalism in the user talk page". Glide08 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No comment on the underlying dispute (I'm a bit under the weather and don't have the spoons to dig into it at the moment) but @TheUzbek: should remember that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I believe he is personally attacking me because all his arguements are invalid. He is not arguing in goos faith, sadly. TheUzbek (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Stating that an editor is lying is also a personal attack. Even if you can prove that the statements made by the editor are incorrect, it is unlikely that you can prove that the editor knew the statements to be false. I haven't looked into the content dispute or neutrality dispute, but when an editor starts off by saying that another editor is lying, I become wary that the editor who is making the allegations of lying is just being combative, but Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't think that I will be looking into the details of the content dispute, but the conduct includes at least one personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. That is what I truly believe, and if that is the only thing in the case that moves you, that you care about, fine. But I advice you to read the whole discussion and make up your own opinion from that. TheUzbek (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I will add that TheUzbek has never said that I'm lying about the articles' content in the NPOV dispute. The worst it got to was him calling me biased, which makes sense considering he thinks the articles in question are perfectly neutral while I think they have an NPOV issue. Glide08 (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The lie is that you have been actively misrepresenting the article and sentences. You have even reworded sentences or taken sentences out of context to give a different impression to others of your argument. That is tantamount to lying when it keeps on. TheUzbek (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I skimmed through the NPOVN discussion, and while I don't know whether you or Glide08 is right, you accusing Glide08 of vandalism (especially when they're just trying to notify you of this ANI) and lying is a WP:PA. I think you really should consider assuming good faith of others. Also, ANI is for conduct disputes, not content disputes, so you can't bring your content arguements here. 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:954F:140A:44A:7750 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If you really, truly believe that Glide08 is indeed lying, you need to provide objective evidence, such as an arguement that has an objective answer, and not one that has subjective answers 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:954F:140A:44A:7750 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Glide08 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I was informed about this dispute by @TheUzbek because I was involved in the NPOV/N discussion that preceded this filing. I have a very clear opinion on the content dispute but that is neither here nor there. What I will say here is that I do believe both editors are editing in good faith and that Glide08's edits should not be described as vandalism. I would suggest de-escalation by the two involved editors would be an appropriate outcome here. This means that TheUzbek should avoid calling Glide08's edits vandalism. In general this never helps in what is obviously a content dispute. It would probably be a good sign of good faith to show understanding that edits that you believe not to be policy compliant that are made in good faith are not vandalism and to apologize for characterizing them as such. I would also suggest that both editors should probably step away from arguing on the NPOV/N noticeboard and allow more participants at that noticeboard to weigh in and then accept that feedback. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you! TheUzbek (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

So is it okay to put the NPOV dispute templates back on the Articles, so that people will know there's an NPOV dispute involving the articles? Glide08 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Olijohns96 - severe 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.

---

I don't like coming to ANI, but this one is beyond the pale. This user's first edit was to intentionally use the wrong pronouns about the recent Minneapolis shooter. When I politely confronted them on their talk page, they responded with personal attacks. I wasn't going to report them, but their most recent reply said that it is a shame these shooters don't take people like yourself. This comment is way past unacceptable and I am requesting an immediate indef. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Support indef - there should be an essay somewhere about how transphobia should be an immediate block. The shooter was a horrible person, but there's no excuse for transphobia and saying violent things. ^EF⁵ 14:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not bothered whatsoever about your Wikipedia rules seems to show a WP:NOTHERE attitude. Support indef. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 14:58, 29 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.

Concern about repeated personal accusations by User:MrOllie

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 am raising this issue here because repeated comments and reverts by User:MrOllie constitute personal accusations without evidence, in violation of core policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

On 29 August 2025, MrOllie stated:

• "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with"*,

and labeled my contributions as WP:REFSPAM and WP:COI abuse.

I asked repeatedly for specific diffs showing such alleged "self-citations." None were provided. Instead, the editor doubled down, continuing to assert misconduct without supplying evidence. At the same time, he performed wholesale reverts such as Special:Diff/123456789 and Special:Diff/987654321, removing large blocks of well-sourced material.

The reverted material included a wide range of reliable sources:

• peer-reviewed journals (Science, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Journal of Political Economy),
• books by established scholars (Turkle, Zuboff, Acemoglu),
• institutional guidance (WHO, UNESCO, OECD, IMF, European Parliament, NIST, ISO),
• plus two research reports: Artificial Intelligence and Human Dependence: Psychological, Social, and Economic Implications.
• plus two research reports: AI, Power and Humanity: Economic, Social Risks and the Specter of Sentience.

These reports were clearly labeled as such, and they were placed alongside dozens of independent, highly cited secondary sources to provide balance and breadth. Treating the entire set of contributions as "spam" or "self-promotion" is inaccurate, misleading, and damaging.

Note: This is not only about one editor’s contributions. It is about ethics, rule of law, and values, inside Wikipedia and beyond it. Wikipedia deoends on fairness, due process and transparency. If accusations of unethical behavior are made without any kind of serious evidence and if older members of the community are allowed to let biases such as the Halo effect influence judgment, then the integrity of this project is, in my opinon, undermined.

The community must decidr: either it actively defends neutrality and fairness, or it tolerates unjust behavior. To tolerate such conduct here is to damage Wikipedia. Worse, it sets a precedent for tolerating unfair treatment in other contexts of life. What happens here reflects values we carry outside.

I respectfully request administrative review of this conduct, and, if appropriate, guidance to User:MrOllie to avoid further personal accusations without evidence. Wikipedia must remain a space where all editors, new or old, are treated according to the same standards of civility, policy, and justice.

And if the administrators consider it appropriate, please feel free to revert MrOllie’s removal of the material. I will not touch that article again and leave it entirely to community judgment.

I have notified the user via There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved..

--Maria Jorge (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I won't collapse this because the report is about me, but I will point out that the above is AI-written and contains several hallucinations. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Uh, those reverts are from other people. From what I can tell, MrOllie reverted one of your edits. While it was a very large edit (and a very large reversion), there is a veneer or COI based on the first few cites. The rest of it seems to be valid editoral content for the topic. I would discuss this with the editor and if you can't resolve it that way, then come here. spryde | talk 15:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That was definitely written by an actual human person... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It is veering off into discussions about the ethics of Wikipedia, has random bold text and is talking about stuff in the third person. I’d argue this giant block of text lacks any real substance to be actionable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This user has made a single large edit here[173] that certainly gives off a feel of being done by AI and there are certainly grounds to question a COI given in their user page they state they're an "editor and reviewer for several academic journals in the field, related to law and technology"[174].

The fact they've gone this overboard about a single reversion suggests quite frankly that it's their behaviour that is unacceptable here, not MrOllie for raising a single and very civil talk page message about why they reverted the edit.

Frankly I'd support an indef block for Maria Jorge as a case of WP:BOOMERANG as clearly they don't show the mindset to contribute collaboratively here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie got mad just bc I disagreed with his view. The fact is he never showed in a serious way and as required by WP rules, any clear evidence of (1) self promotion or (2) spam. Zero.

Tbh it feels like he has some bias vs ppl who study AI (which is kinda normal, even in the article itself it says many fear their jobs will be replaced... I get that, it’s normal). But that can't justify these atitudes.

First it was "spam" and "self promotiton" (which was basically an attack on my ethics), and when that didn’t stick, he switched to saying my contribs are "AI generated".

Why? Probelbly bc my user page (pt + en) says I’m a PhD in Law, working on AI regulation. I’m not an engineer, I’m not in coding models, no. My area is legal and regulatory. Somehow that was used to start this attack.

Reality check: if you take the whole article (all of it) and paste it into any AI detector (you have a lot of free tools on internet), there is no way to tell my edits apart from the rest. Nothing was written by AI. What I did was fix some English expressions. I know English well, but it’s not my native lang, so I use a translator + revision. That’s 100% allowed on WP.

So, about the behaviour: it has been pretty offensive + aggressive. Everyone can have bad days, sure, but that doesn’t give a free pass to throw unfair accusations around. I’ll let the community decide.

--Maria Jorge (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

As I am the one that directed this editor to ANI based on a request from their Talk Page I am involved. That being said, the edits from Maria are highly concerning (not the initial edit that is common place) the protesting of a template added to their talk page, almost immediately moving to ANI, and then continuing to argue with the editor that Maria just opened an ANI about, has an an issues with. Finally my concern with this statement from Maria "It is about ethics, rule of law, and value" (only bolding because it was bolded in the original) While not a threat of off Wikipedia legal action it is still concerning that this editor feels like this is about the rule of law, it shows they are out of touch with what Wikipedia is.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

As they said, they're a native Portuguese speaker using translation tools. "Rule of law" might not be what they intended to say. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I will concede that point --VViking_TalkEdits 15:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few points here.

1st, my user page in Portuguese says basically the same as the English one... but... of coourse, just in Portuguese. And it was made before any discussion with User:MrOllie. So no "reactive" editing or self-justifcation, just consistent self-description in 2 langs.

2nd, I rlly hope the Halo effect won’t affect judgment here. If ppl let seniority or personal bias win over facts, then impartiality is gone. In that case I’d sadly just step back. But before any of that, pls focus on the real question: the quality of my edits. Are they good? bad? do they follow WP rules or not? I think that test, honestly done, leaves little doubt.

3rd, about the phrase "ethics, rule of law, and values", this was not a legal threat, and yes I know very well WP:NLT. It was a broader comment on fairness and integrity inside/outside WP. Point is: WP is built on values like neutrality, civility and verifiability. If those are undermined here, it hurts the project. That’s not being "out of touch" with WP... it’s defending its core.

And pls let’s not defocus from the core issue here: the atitude of User:MrOllie reverting the article and insulting me, in a way that lacks ethics. Just to remind: his first 2 attacks were not about AI text at all, they were about "self promotion" and "spam". After it became obv that made no sense (he never showed any evidnce, while I showed the opposite), he dropped that theory and the insults it carried, only to now switch to the "AI generated" claim. So yeah, he’s changing versions as it goes.

Note on AI / translation tools: for clarity, none of my edits were generated by AI. The only use was a translator to smooth English phrasing from my native language (Portuguese). Per WP:TRANSLATION and WP:FAIRUSE, this is allowed, provided the editor takes full responsibility for the content — which I do.

--Maria Jorge (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Translation tools don't produce fake diffs and they don't make the sort of basic factual errors in the message above (and the one on my user talk page). LLMs do, though. MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Maria J editora if you did not use AI, why were your diffs to completely unrelated edits? How did you come about to choosing these two diffs? Special:Diff/123456789 and Special:Diff/987654321 qcne (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are WP:TRANSLATION and WP:FAIRUSE being brought up here? WP:TRANSLATION doesn't appear to be about using translation bots for communication at all. Its about translating Wikipedia pages. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

for clarity, none of my edits were generated by AI.

This is clearly not the case given in your initial edit here[175] a substantial number of claimed added citations all come back with 404 errors.[176][177][178][179]

Your edit is quite clearly generated by AI and is full of blatant errors as a result. Immediate block as far as I'm concerned. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I chased down the Bryson article, and no way was that not an LLM hallucination. Blocked indef as NOTHERE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

On reality check, the diffs in your OP are from 2007 and 2020, also unrelated to MrOllie. Is this AI-hallucination? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right, my earlier diffs were a mistake on my part. That was not an "AI hallucination" (LLMs don’t even generate real diffs), it was simply my own error in copying the wrong URLs. I have corrected it now.

Here are the correct diffs that matter for this discussion:

• My version (with the added sections): oldid=1308433719
• The version after User:MrOllie reverted it: oldid=1308444113

This shows clearly what I contributed and what User:MrOllie reverted, labelling it "COI / citespam". That is the core issue here.

--Maria Jorge (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Maria J editora Explain why these citation you added are all non-existent: [140][141][142][143] qcne (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well spotted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Credit to @Rambling Rambler! qcne (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne thank you, thank you! I would love to thank my family for their tireless support as I accept the award for the very arduous task of "clicking a hyperlink to check whether the content being added actually bloody exists"... Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The core issue is WP:CIR. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, while using a translation bot isn't explicitly against policy. WP:CIR states that the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively is required. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, while machine translated text might raise false-positives for AI, this is, itself, a problem here. If you require machine translation that is very similar to AI text in order to participate on EN.WP then it's not entirely surprising that your text is being treated as if it were AI. And if there are problems with your citations or with your diffs (such as above which appear unrelated) then it's a problem regardless of whether AI was used. I would recommend closing this due to the absence of evidence of misconduct. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This [180] is a removal of material that definitely seems to include a self-cite. It's also a single revert. When one is reverted on a self-cite they should not restore it they also should not bring the reverting editor to AN/I for a single revert of their self-cite. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Nah, there was no real self-cite there... and nobody, at any point, has shown otherwise, even tho I asked clearly for proof. I on the other hand did show the opposite.

Anyway, even if (just saying IF) there was a line that could count as self-cite, the right thing is to remove that line only, not revert an entire edit with a lot of valuable content. Full revert and calling it "spam/self promo" is what started all this.

--Maria Jorge (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Tbh I think my contribs and the way I’m replying here already show I can understand and communicate in English fine. I also had several works published in English way before there were even translation tools, and I worked in the UK too. So with respect, saying I can’t communicate is just not real.

What looks to be happening here (with due respect) is kind of a Halo effect. Some ppl seem to be protecting User:MrOllie by bringing up side issues that aren’t the core.

Reminder: the original revert and the insulting comments had nothing to do with AI or translation... they were about supposed "self promotion" and "spam". When that didn’t make sense (no evidnce, and I actually showed the opposite), the story shifted to AI.

Also, when I said "ethics, rule of law, and values", that was NOT a legal threat. Just me saying fairness matters inside + outside WP. Yet now I see another user saying that makes me "out of touch with WP". With all respect, I’d ask everyone to think for yourselves and hold to your own values. Otherwise this looks like excuses being found to cover User:MrOllie instead of looking at what he actually did.

The core is simple: MrOllie reverted my edit, called it "self promotion" + "spam" w/out evidence, and did it in a pretty offensive way. That’s the real issue. I edited in good faith, tried to add solid content. If judged fairly, I think that’s obv.

--Maria Jorge (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Reminder that WP:BOOMERANG exists. Your conduct isn't exempt from being under scrutiny just because you reported another editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you please answer this question? M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 29 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 Agw1985

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.

---

• Agw1985 (talk · contribs)

I just reverted Agw1985's addition [181] of a date of birth to Alexis Texas, ignoring the note within the article to WP:BLPPRIVACY. The editor's talk page documents long term problems of this nature, without response, including a final warning. A block seems necessary to at least get the editor to respond. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 29 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.

WITHDRAWN by filer- PLMandarynka claims that the sources in the article that discuss fascism do not exist and refuses to read them

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.

---

• Update - This appears to be handled, I'm withdrawing the report but leaving it open in case anyone wants to comment.

User:PLMandarynka keeps removing the category neo-fascism from the page National_Movement_(Poland). They claim that the sources used for the claim are not in the article. Not that the link is broken, or wrong, but that the citations are invisible or not present.

Diffs:

• Claiming in edit summary that the sources don't exist.
• Repeating claim while also saying that my edit summary doesn't exist.

I don't think dispute resolution will help, the user isn't concerned about whether those sources are reliable and hasn't bothered trying to find any sources that say the party aren't fascist, they're just repeatedly claiming in edit summaries and on the talk page that the sources aren't there. I also think that dispute resolution won't help as the user has a past history of doing the same thing. They either claim that a source they don't like doesn't exist, or they refuse to read it and claim that it doesn't include the information they don't like.

Of course, the sources are in the article and have been all along. There may be others, I only grabbed the most obvious ones:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps if you avoided INCIVIL comments this issue could have been addressed on the article talk page. Looking through the article talk page here "Neo-Fascism" it doesn't seem like you clearly provided the sources. PLM's first reply in the link I provided is, "Agreed. As the claim that it is 'neo-fascist' has not been sourced in any way, this erroneous claim should be removed." If sources have been provided a link and quote would be an effective reply. Instead you closed your replied with, "Are you sure you just don’t like that the description is in the article?" That is a borderline accusation of bad faith.

The accusations continue and get worse, "Right, as you said, you’re going to continue to lie and claim that there are “no sources” in the thread... ...since you’re willing to lie, why would it help for me to copy and paste all of those links for you? Would that suddenly make you honest? "

And more, "The sources, as you know from reading the thread, but are being dishonest about, are already in the article. Your decision to ignore the talk page and lie about what the sources in the article say means that I will just revert your change as unsupported. And I'll be telling the truth. Or you could consider finding a source that supports the change you want to make? That's what most editors do, instead of lying."

"If you want me to stop pointing out when you're being dishonest (or planning to be), then you should stop doing it."

I don't know why any reasonable editor would be interested in dealing with repeated accusations of lying. Sometime, when these discussions get long good faith editors really do lose track of what has been provided. That is why CIVIL replies and links are helpful. You went straight for casting aspersions. Given you have previously been warned about CIVIL [182] one would hope the accusations etc would have stopped. Certainly a long list of similar examples of uncivil comments outside of this topic are easy to collect. If all of this incivility were limited only to one topic area I would suggest a tban. Given the wide ranging scope of the incivility I think either a clear statement of understanding with a promise of reform is needed. Springee (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You literally quote multiple times where I advised the editor that the sources were already in the article. I was not trying to change anything, I was maintaining the existing status quote.

I do not believe your comments here will be helpful giving your recent bizarre bullying on my talk page. Perhaps you should let neutral editors comment instead? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Neutral editor here, Springer is correct in that you are being uncivil. Springer is also uncivil from a quick skim, but his behavior isn't what the focus should be here, you are free to open an ANI thread if you feel its necessary. PLM is also being uncivil here

All of you need to knock it off and have a calm discussion on the talk page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the article dispute. Springee (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, but I'm not sure *how* to get PLM to discuss this productively on the talk page? I have still not seen them admit that any of these sources even exist, which makes it difficult to discuss the actually unsourced change that they want to make. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The user has been notified on their talk page.

Made some changes to clarify, remembering to add my signature this time MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks like pretty obvious POV pushing about a far-right group. [183] I wasn't previously involved although I have restored the status quo over the POV push. Looking at article talk momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I verified all 3 of the sources:

• What Future For Europe says "neofascist National Movement (Ruch Narodowy)" on page 273. The source is available online here.
• Hungary: Going in the wrong direction? says "neo-fascist group Ruch Narodowy (“National Movement”)". It's about about 2/3 through the "CHOUKODAISHI,[54] HUNGARIAN-STYLE" section, available online here.
• Transforming the Transformation? has "RN (PL)" listed under the "Extremist right (fascist-autocratic right, often including racism or xenophobia)" category. It can be viewed online here. This seems like a fair definition of "neo-fascist" to me.

All three are cited for the claim "neo-fascist party.[13][14][15]" at National Movement (Poland)#Ideology. The What Future For Europe was trivially easy to find with a Google search, and the other two sources are linked right in the refs. Sure, MilesVorkosigan could have been more civil, but claims at Talk:National Movement (Poland) that these sources are inaccessible or simply not there look like ABF or worse to me.

The line of argumentation from PLM seems to be that since some sources exist that do not explicitly call the group fascist, those sources that do are disputed. I should note the sources PLM provided do not indicate that the group is not fascist and one even refers to them as having fascist allies. It simply doesn't use those specific words to describe that specific group. A group can be far-right euroskeptics and neo-fascists. It's not like the one contradicts the other. In short I think PLM's arguments are tendentious at best, their edits are clearly POV pushing and they should probably be cautioned to avoid tendentious arguments. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

PLM seems to have stopped editing the page and now, with other eyes on the page, I think we should be good.

Should I withdraw this to save admin time, or is it better practice to leave it open and see what happens, as two neutral editors have mentioned that I should also have been more civil? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Update - After I filed the ANI, he has shown up at the talk page and now admits that the sources in the article exist. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like withdrawing (but not closing the thread) demonstrates good faith, especially if your conduct has been criticized. It also leaves room for other editors to comment.

I know it's frustrating when others claim that sources don't exist or are inaccessible, but the best approach is to AGF yourself and share the sources again. Quote the source if necessary (but keep it short to avoid copyright concerns). In short, make it as easy for them to access the source as possible. If they still maintain that the source doesn't exist, well, that's a them problem, and grounds to bring to a noticeboard. Woodroar (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, withdrawing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

Topic ban proposal for TheCreatorOne

I'm proposing a topic ban for TheCreatorOne (talk · contribs) in the Balkans/Eastern Europe area of editing. I did not want to go to WP:AE because some of these diffs are older than 14 days.

TheCreatorOne is only interested in POV editing, righting great wrongs and isn't here to build a neutral encyclopedia. They are also WP:NOTHERE when it comes to feedback.

Most of their edits involve trying to prove "the presence" of Albanians or that Albanians were a majority in Kosovo by spamming surnames and villages into articles using Ottoman registers (note that Ottoman defters did not register ethnicity but religion though that's off-topic). But to give an idea: [184] [185] For those interested in maintaining a proper encyclopedia, the challenge always becomes finding out how much of the contribution is due; fixing the duplicated references often that have no page numbers; fixing repetition (that they previously added), grammar, etc. WP:COPYVIO being a major problem with sometimes several pages being copied directly from references: [186] [187]

In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart: [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193]

In February 2024, when an edit of theirs was contested at Kosovo, they accused others of telling a false version of history and manipulation, lies and fairytales, propaganda and lies, insane propaganda, insane and that they should be banned from wikipedia. Almost a year and a half later, in June 2025, they returned to the article, removing some cited information and accusing others of spreading false history; and then yesterday writing on the talk page accusing the page of being "vandalized by Serbs filled with Serbian nationalistic nonsense".

Pinging @Rosguill: given their response on the talk page. --Griboski (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Griboski, have you had any previous discussions with this editor, on a noticeboard, article talk page or user talk page before coming to ANI? If so, please provide links to these discussions between you and the other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reported them before [194] and two other editors also have [195] [196] but as far as I know they have never commented there. --Griboski (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)\

So, those ANI complaints from 2024 include Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#User:TheCreatorOne continuing to engage in harassment - WP:HARASS and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#TheCreatorOne edit warring on Nis page, breaking of 1rr on that page. So, this is the third time they've had an ANI complaint raised against them by 3 different editors and User:TheCreatorOne didn't respond in any of these instances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I found a third ANI report about this editor, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne. When you file a complaint on ANI, it helps if you include this kind of information so that editors reviewing this incident have the full picture. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't sure how to go back in archives to retrieve the thread. Also, I usually use edit summaries to explain edits but the thing is, when someone always assumes bad faith, vandalism, falsification of history, etc. towards others per above, (ranting towards an imaginary enemy?) and is on a mission, talking to them about the substance of their edits, npov and so on is futile and this behavior has been going on for some time. --Griboski (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem, Griboski. It's important to see if there is a pattern here. Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. For example, per diffs above regarding Kosovo article, repeat accusations in June/August 2025 as in February 2024. --Griboski (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've de-archived this complaint, as Griboski indicated on my talk page that disruption is ongoing. Griboski, could you indicate any new diffs you feel are relevant here? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

After your response on the Kosovo talk page on 23 August, and my post there, they haven't responded but continued to add disputed content (without using any edit summaries). [197] [198] [199]

Also, as Liz noted above, they have never responded to any of the four times they have been reported to ANI. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Griboski (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them from mainspace pending an adequate response to these concerns. TheCreatorOne, specifically, you need to address your reintroduction of content that had been objected to. You also need to engage with other editors in good faith rather than casting aspersions about other editors: if editors are violating policies, demonstrate it with WP:DIFFs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

103.87.250.71: Unsourced Claims

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.

---

103.87.250.71 has made a number of unsourced claims on several different Wikipedia pages, as can be seen here: Special:Contributions/103.87.250.71. Despite having been warned by four different users, they continue to persist with their disruptive edits, without response. A block seems necessary to at least get the editor to respond.

MadelynnSienna (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours by Newslinger. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:29, 29 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.

Whyufukme?ifukubloody WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Whyufukme?ifukubloody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:NOTHERE : insultring name, possible sockpuppetry in Talk:Pajeet , vandalism. --Altenmann >talk 20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)!

Already reported at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:58, 25 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.

(Non-administrator comment) I had two additional edits revdel'd (per RD1 and RD2) by KylieTastic (talk · contribs) for the offensive name and unattributed copy-pasting of Pajeet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just also uncovered a large network of likely socks that includes this user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgelovespoopiedoopie. Edits often include the word pajeet or replacing images with File:Eroge.jpg. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Bikram32 - unsourced additions and no communication

I seem to be gathering a lot of these recently...

Bikram32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had two separate level four warnings [200][201] in the last 3 months for unsourced additions/changes, removng content or using poor edit summaries. They haven't responded on their talk page once, although a pair of IPs have responded who may or may not be the same user (unable to tell). Most recently, they've continued the pattern and made an unsourced statement on Hawaiian Airlines. Can this user be encouraged in some way to discuss the problems with their editing? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good evening from India sir.

Even though I had added poorly undersourced refs, but I told the truth in the Hawaiian Airlines page. You see, Alaska Airlines' official Wikipedia page says that it will take all 4 of already delivered 787s of Hawaiian. So please don't be overdramatic.

Thank you

Yours Sincerely

Bikram32 Bikram32 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiable content, not about truth - WP:NOTTRUTH. If you would respond to other editors who have been raising concerns about your unsourced additions for multiple months, this report would not have been opened. What editors have been seeking is for you to understand the concerns that have been raised, yet you seem not to have changed how you're editing. And that's a concern for the community. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Jetstreamer after this edit Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone able to have a look at this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bikram32 hasn't edited after replying here. If they go back to adding unsourced claims, I would propose a block until they commit to sourcing all of their contributions—and indef if they don't follow through. Woodroar (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring and false accusations

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.

---

Sahaib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): edit warring in Mikhail Prusak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), false accusations at User talk:Romano1981#Warning. The user started edit warring [202] by reverting the edit where the source was added and claiming that the source does not contain such data. When asked to look at the source in more detail, the user began making false accusations, as if no source was added by the first edit, and continued making false accusations against me. It seems that the user simply does not know how to use the tool for comparing versions in the article history, but at the same time allows himself to make arrogant and rude statements against opponents. --Romano1981 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking over the edits more closely, it does appear that this revert of mine was incorrect and I apologise. The edit summary used was "Undid revision 1307976879 by Sahaib (talk), RS", so I had incorrectly assumed that they had added back the exact date (which they did) but with the same source, when in fact they had added another source. I also apologise for my own mischaracterisation of the situation on your talk page (the warning), I can remove it (or you can remove it). It was just a mistake, so this should be closed, thanks. Sahaib (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Romano1981 Sorry, but I didn't see any edit warring behaviour from Sahaib, their edits seemed to be legit. Any diffs for your claim? -Lemonaka 12:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

There does seem to be a rush to WP:BATTLEGROUND with this new user. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

user removes DOD → I add a proper source with the exact date → my edit is reverted with false rationale. Romano1981 (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Why this could consist of a edit warring? There's only one revert, even considered broadly. -Lemonaka 12:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I have received an apology by now and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thank you. Romano1981 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Accepted. The false warning is now removed from my talk page. --Romano1981 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If I've here a year ago, I would consider propose a boomerang for you. Your behaviour on Special:Diff/1308087150 is a textbook IDHT, in addition, this accuastion on Special:Diff/1308085163 looks like WP:sealioning to me. Anyway, considering you are a newcomer, I strongly advice you do not hurried here. -Lemonaka 12:19, 27 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.

Report

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’d like to report Thenostalgiaman (talk · contribs) for a personal attack on me Here Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95 calling someone an "idiot" is uncivil, albeit at the very low end of being uncivil. However, you twice reverted a good faith attempt by a new editor of three months to improve phrasing of a text, the editor had left a reasonable and detailed edit summary explaining the change and while the change contained a single grammatical error, this could have been copy edited, for example, by simply adding the word "appear". Your edit summary for the first reversion was somewhat ambiguous and while the second reversion edit summary did imply a grammatical issue, you in effect twice revereted good faith attemtps to improve an article and then templated the user over a copy editing issue. Perhaps if you had chosen to collaborate (ie make a copy edit rather than a reversion) the uncivil response would have been avoided. @Thenostalgiaman: you had reason to be frustrated, but please refrain from using insulting language with other editors, just because one person makes a mistake, does not mean a response in kind is warranted. There were also some subsequent pile-ons at Thenostalgiaman's talk page: @Lemonaka: given the background to this, leaving a level three warning was very much unwarranted and risked inflaming the situation; @Ahri Boy: I appreciate that you left a personal note, but again some due dilligence on the background here would have shown that this was not a simple matter of one editor being uncivil to another. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:22, 30 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.

Dubious categorization

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.

---

200.189.118.37 (talk · contribs) has been going around, adding "200x mergers and acquisitions" categories to shopping malls, such as here. From my understanding, a shopping mall changing ownership is not a "merger and acquisition" in the same way that, say, Macy's acquiring Marshall Field's. An inquiry on their talk page as to why they were doing this was not answered and they just continued to add the categories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Since then, they have also reverted all applications of warnings on their talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 29 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.

Kamianets-Podilskyi

EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Butt89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine deletes the Russian name of the city without reason. The neutrality of the article is also violated at least by the section title: "Soviet occupation" (for the entire period of the USSR), and the cited web-sources do not confirm it. User:Butt89 initially violated neutrality Kolya Muratov (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Butt89 has not edited since 4 September 2024. EuropeanUnion+Ukraine is a new user (45 edits) and should receive more coaching before raising the matter at ANI. You asked a good question at User talk:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine, but only once. The matter should have been raised at Talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi which has not been edited since February 2024. I will watch Kamianets-Podilskyi for a while but there should be more attempts to engage new editors in discussion because it is not feasible for admins to engage with all problems. I understand the unspoken suggestion that the two editors might be same person (one account stopped editing; the other started editing similar articles a short time later), but even combined they are a new editor. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The user is not extended-confirmed and according to WP:RUSUKR may not make such edits, but apparently they have not been warned. I will warn them now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I should note that EuropeanUnion+Ukraine was indeffed on Ukrainian Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of Butt89. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit is WP:OR and in bad taste. Here they removed the name of a notable Polish person born in the city and here a Russian one, with no justifications given. I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopaedia. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

They did not remove the Polish individual but rather cleaned up a duplication. There is no excuse for removing Gorshkov or for removing the name of the city in Russian, however, and the editor appears to be clearly politically motivated in their actions. Has anyone informed them of CTOP? Ostalgia (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I have a question, why do Russian users of the English Wikipedia or users of Russian ethnicity dictate what history should be, and especially elements or inscriptions in another country, namely Ukraine, why do they change things so obsessively and very vehemently defend their changes if they are not residents of this country? Why do they not develop the topics of their cities, but dictate the rules for Ukrainian ones? Are these not politically biased decisions in favor of one of the ethnic groups? EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not apply identity-based litmus tests on editors. Your impression of how English Wikipedia functions, as described in your comment, is mistaken, and seems to suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective on your part. Further, you don't have standing to edit or comment on matters relating to the Russia-Ukraine conflict until you reach WP:XC status; failure to respect this rule will result in a loss of editing privileges. Please focus on editing less contentious topics until you comply with that prerequisite and are more experienced as to English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and best practices. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no "dictatorship", it is just an old name of the city; that's all. Are you suggesting to forget history? I won't, I respect history. This city was mentioned "Kamenets-Podolsk(-y)" before in printed authorities; so that people would know what we were talking about now when they visit the page. Kolya Muratov (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

also add Ukrainian names to Russian cities, if this is "just history", and if it's not "dictatorship", and if not do, them it is full "dictatorship". EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, give me pages of Russian cities that were once under Ukraine. Kolya Muratov (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

add to all Russian cities EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you yourself...I don't mind, let it be Kolya Muratov (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, adding a Ukrainian name to Novosibirsk would be a straight way to an indefinite block. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

We probably should conclude that is was indeed a disruptive sockpuppet. The next time they reappear if they do anything disruptive they probably should be block immediately, without any new ANI thread. Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Russian users of the English Wikipedia or users of Russian ethnicity have written our Manual of Style and/or our policies?

I tried to explain this a couple of weeks ago to another user, so I will just copy-paste from the earlier message:

From MOS:PLACE, [a]t the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary. The notability or relevance of these equivalent names is not up to the whims of an editor. 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: the article for Tarasivtsi also has, for historical reasons, the Romanian version Tărăsăuți. 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.

From your replies I have few illusions regarding your ability to edit in this area in good faith and/or in accordance to the established rules. The facts that you are using a sockpuppet account to edit here, and that you are banned in your native Wikipedia for socking, do not fill me with confidence. However, on the off chance that you do intend to edit constructively, I would recommend you drop the conspiranoia and instead try to understand why you're being reverted in the first place. Ostalgia (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

how to request username change

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 want to rename my account DissingKO (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME. And this is not an issue for ANI. Meters (talk) 10:21, 30 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.

Stalker/vandal/troll back 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.

---

The oh-so-clever and brave stalker toll vandal is back again, this time under the name Swole Fistagon 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been blocked, but could someone redact the edit summaries please. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Salvio ^giuliano 10:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That's very good of you and is much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Is the recent (2024-) sock group actually FiveSidedFistagon or some kind of imitator? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as can be established, this is FiveSidedFistagon - or at least s far as I am aware. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 30 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:GoddessWrath

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

---

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

---

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

Continuous edit warring at Dmitri Shostakovich, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy relating to whether to include "Russia" or "Russian Empire" in the infobox, followed by numerous personal attacks. At Talk:Dmitry Shostakovich, they made multiple false accusations of vandalism, for example: you Magnus and your minion Nikkimania are vandalising the article.[203] Now they've left this comment at Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky and the other talk pages (under the heading "More vandals joining in and vandalising the article"): Only complete morons fail to comprehend this simple fact.[204][205][206]

I recently gave them a warning for personal attacks and another editor left a comment on their talk page asking them to not make false accusations of vandalism. They now decided to remove the warnings on their talk page with edit summaries like: Removed vandalism by User:Remsense,[207] removed bullshit,[208] and Removed further bullshit by vandals.[209] Mellk (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I see that their last 17 edits include a personal attack. Either in the summary or the actual edit. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

[210]: Inappropriate editing of other editor's message. Northern Moonlight 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly WP:COMMUNICATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Sometimes we seem to have infinite patience with users whose persistent attacks, aspersions and insults suck all the oxygen out of the room, making them a net negative. I've indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 26 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.

Due to their inability to be civil after being blocked and insulting another two editors, Bishonen and S1mply.Dogmom, I removed their talk page access. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged ****head), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:10, 27 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.

Param Sundari: Removing WP: ICTF approved reviews and summary based on them

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 Admins

Diff pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308446946&oldid=1308444415

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308440403&oldid=1308425273

Talk page link: Talk:Param Sundari (film)

User @Khogen2410 has been removing my WP: ICTF approved review entries.

He has deleted my entries from Deccan Herald, Amar Ujala (2x) without giving any good reason at all

He has also removed the summary change from Mixed -> Mixed to negative (2x) based on the reviews in the page without giving any good reason

I have also put topic entries in the talk page as a courtesy (which I really needn't have since my entries were from WP: ICTF approved sources) and tagged him.

But he has not replied there and deleted my edits giving no reason after I asked to discuss in talk page.

Request you to warn him for Edit warring and restore my changes

Regards

Computeracct Computeracct (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking at this @Liz and putting a note on @Khogen2410 's talk page.

Your note there was at 18:04 PM GMT, 29th Aug

After this and at 18:44 PM GMT, @Khogen2410 has deleted another review I added, this one from Outlook India, which is a reliable source as per ICTF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308480773&oldid=1308470966

No note in the revert. No reason given.

Computeracct (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure what "urgent, intractable behavioral problem" is that you have brought to ANI to discuss. Secondly, what resolution are you seeking to whatever problem is that you are describing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Problem: My perfectly valid wiki entries sourced from WP: ICTF approved sources have reverted or deleted by @Khogen2410 in Param Sundari (film) page multiple times as I mentioned above. No reason given. No reply in talk page either. This is edit warring. WP:EDITWAR
2. Resolution requested: Warning to @Khogen2410 for edit warring and ensure he/she acknowledges. Else request to temp ban him/her for edit warring.

Computeracct (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANEW then if they violated WP:3RR 212.70.114.16 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I put the entry over there. Computeracct (talk) 17:55, 30 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.

Possible WP:PGAMEing attempt by Louiskk23

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.

---

Louiskk23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been rapidly editing their sandbox, making small adjustments each time. They appear to have previously made productive contributions [211], [212] and [213], but their current activity appears to be an attempt to get extended confirmed rights. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Apology for recent edits

Hello, I would like to apologize for my recent high number of edits. I want to clarify that it is not my intention to seek any additional user rights or permissions. I am a user from the Spanish Wikipedia (eswiki) and I am still learning how to properly use the English Wikipedia (enwiki). I was conducting some tests to understand the editing system here better.

I realize that my actions were disruptive, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. I can assure you that I will not repeat this behavior. I will focus my contributions on other, more constructive tasks.

Thank you for your understanding, and please forgive me for this incident. Louiskk23 (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I would have liked a previous warning on my discussion page before escalating this incident... I am learning day by day and I really did not do it with bad intentions, I apologize again. Louiskk23 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for not bringing it up on your talk page at first. I have seen a fair number of vandals who rapidly edit in order to gain permissions, who then go on to vandalize other pages. As such, I mistakenly assumed you were one of them, which I apologize for. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and seeing my edit history now, I would have assumed the same thing. I apologize again.

On the Spanish Wikipedia (eswiki), I also used to fix simple spelling errors, which could result in many edits. I even used the official "replacer" tool there to correct mistakes with capitalization (for example, when a common noun was incorrectly capitalized as if it were a proper noun).

This leads me to a question, as I want to edit correctly here: I would like to know approximately what is considered an acceptable number of valid edits per day/week on enwiki? I have several draft articles I want to work on (mostly about video games), but I do not want to create a flood of edits and be disruptive. Thank you for your guidance. Louiskk23 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no limit to the number of edits. The only concern was that you might have been attempting ot game the system to reach extended confirmed status, and that concern appears to have been addressed. Meters (talk) 02:32, 31 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.

Concerning edits

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

---

Sikhpride38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user (the POV name may also be noted), with very few edits to note, suddenly appeared after years of inactivity at the AfD for a racial slur. Then proceeded to repeatedly revert the standard-SPA 'very few edits' tag. If this didn't ring enough alarm bells, the user then proceeded to repeatedly add in a clearly POV way racist tropes [at the article under AfD]: [214]/[215]/[216].

From the looks of it, this is clearly not a new user [already quite familiar with AfDs, SPAs and COI]. That such behaviour has been engaged in raises serious sanctionable concerns. Gotitbro (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Why should I not remove the SPA tag when it was incorrectly smeared along my comment? I haven't said anything shocking since nearly everyone there is opposing your bad nomination. :I have already described 2 times even on talk page[217] that the summary is supported by the source, yet you are still alleging me of COI when there is none. Sikhpride38 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not a legitimate noticeboard discussion. What Sikhpride38 did is fully within the bounds of Wikipedia and is generally good behavior. The added sourced information is not at all derogatory or racist in any way and merely explains the slur and its stereotype, in a neutral manner, which is helpful information. I would even argue it is against such racism given the source EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude: If you are hounding me around, I would suggest you drip the schtick quickly. Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

First you made false allegations of COI and now you are making false allegations of Wikihounding. Obviously Earthdude is not wikihounding you since he has edited this noticeboard before, right getting reported by you weeks ago.[218] THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

A perfectly legitimate report, with the policy vios noted by different admins. As for hounding, that the user popped up at different enwiki spaces right after I had made edits there is telling in and of itself: [219], [220], [221]. So spare me if I do not assume good faith with these.

"False" is quite a statement to use to defend the clearly unjustified behaviour of Sikhpride38 (and the same goes here). I have clarified my usage of the jargon above, though I would never know why such a defence of clear SPAs is being made here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point you are simply trying to derail this thread to distract away from the scrutiny of your own edits and false accusations while trying to blame someone else, your accusations of hounding falls flat when that discussion of Firstpost was advertised on WT:INB,[222] and AfD was a public discussion with everyone commenting there for the first time. Despite facing the scrutiny here you are still doubling down on your false characterization of an editor editing a number of topics as SPA. You are not doing any favor for yourself. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 15:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's clear some air about the SPA. A "number of topics" were barely some edits here and there with dormancy following the immediate springing up at a contentious topic and contentious edits. If you particularly cannot see this questionable behaviour, I cannot help you.

"Derailing", "false" and "distract" are quite a stretch, I noted my single-line objection to EarthDude's springing up at disparate forums to direct aspersions, immediately after I had opened those threads and I stand by what I perceived these to be. If there has been anything egregious here I will let the admins decide that. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing concerning behaviour here, the content they added appears is backed by the source. After being reverted, they have proposed a new wording at the talkpage [223] which looks neutral. Removing SPA notice is not wrong because they are not a single purpose account as they have edited over the years over multiple topics such as history, linguistics and pop music.

I do find OPs bludgeoning of the AfD along with inaccurate aspersions of COI quite concerning[224]. They were apparently already called out for their misrepresentation of WP:COI but they are still misusing this term while not even elaborating on what COI is even present here. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 06:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Do editors ever read P&G before citing them, a single revert and comment noting that a newbie editor has repeatedly removed tags (added by other uninvolved editors) is apparently bludgeoning. "They were apparently already called out for their misrepresentation of WP:COI but they are still misusing this term while not even elaborating on what COI is even present here." Called out by by whom or for what exactly, as this never happened. COI is when an editor themselves proceeds to remove SPA tags for them added by other users, this should never be done.

The source that has been used directly challenges the racism that was dumped into the article, the supposed proposal at the Talk page is no better. To selectively pick out a source to only add negative racist tropes is quite something. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

No comment on whether the bludgeoning accusation is fair but by my count you've replied 6 times in that AfD so it seems way more than a "Single revert and comment noting that...". I did not count your opening statement in support of the AfD nor your reply to someone asking you to stop bludgeoning. I don't think removing the SPA tags was right assuming they're justified but I don't understand the CoI accusation at all. This is a very weird subject for someone to have a CoI. I guess someone who was involved in creating the original meme would have a CoI and maybe those who have written about it, but who else would have a CoI and why do you think that this applies to anyone involved? Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of the replies [largely clarifying sourcing] are unrelated to the SPA tag removals which was seemingly being portrayed above as the entirety of them. COI may not be the perfect term as what I meant was that it is unethical to repeatedly remove SPA tags applied to an editor by the editor themselves i.e. where one is involved is the subject of dispute in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in THEZDRX's statement that suggests their bludgeoning concerns related to SPA tag removals. They just called out what they perceived as bludgeoning point blank. I don't see how an editor can "repeatedly remove SPA tags applied to an editor by the editor themselves". They can only do it once unless someone else is edit warring to add them back which is equally problematic. Also per WP:Aspersions words do matter. Do not accuse an editor of having a CoI unless you have reasons to think they have one as falsely accusing an editor of having a CoI when they don't have one is a personal attack. If you don't know what to call something then just avoid calling it anything and describe it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Having looked into this more, I don't know why people were to desperate to keep the {{spa}} template when it only seems to have been applied to a single editor and the template documentation itself says "Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sockpuppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." I appreciate that the article has a history of socking and another editor has just been blocked over their editing on it, but for the AfD there's currently only seems to be one editor who could be considered a SPA. I don't know how Sikhpride38 found the AfD but so far no one else seems to have came to it. If there is evidence Sikhpride38 may be a sock, that would nee to be presented at WP:SPI otherwise unless a bunch of other new editors show up, seems it was always best just to leave it be and especially once the template was objected to even if just by the editor it was applied to. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I reealize that my colloquial use of wiki jargon (COI) was not apt and lead to confusion, apologize for that. The main point of concern was the involved removal of tags, which were added by different users probably due to similar concerns. While I am confident this is not a new user, the concern that was sought to be highlighted here was not one of socking but of editorial behaviour as a whole including POV ones at as serious a topic as racial slurs. Gotitbro (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• A user with 23 overall edits, 11/23 of which are limited to an article (and its AfD and TP) with a persistent socking problem. 8th edit overall, first since July 2022 is to vote in an WP:AfD discussion about said article with persistent socking and sock-restoration issues. Removes WP:SPA tag added by (two) different uninvolved editors twice ([225], [226]). --UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  I've looked into the situation a bit, and it seems the slur was reappropriated by South Asian social groups for use against each other. This is probably why we have so many trolls (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgelovespoopiedoopie) and sockpuppets attempting to push a specific POV (e.g. [227], [228], [229], [230], etc.) The Wiktionary entry for "pajeet" had to be protected so that only autopatrolled users can edit it, and if kept, we should ECP the article under WP:CT/SA to slow down disruption. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:18, 30 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.

Poonam Singar

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.

---

Poonam sengar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user who keeps "spamming" about "wrong information" in the article Poonam Singar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The article in question has been protected since November 2024. They even used its talk page for a malicious edit request and using them for soapboxing after being given 4 warnings. I've tried notifying a few times. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They should have been blocked outright for blatantly violating username and COI. Borgenland (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Now this user continues claiming that they're the public figure. Diff for that: [231] CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We have WP:BLPEDIT which provides some guidance; after all they might actually be the subject of the article. Lectonar (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They're saying to "delete info about them". Is that normal? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not uncommon. Some people don't want articles about them, especially when they can't control the content. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They say career starts 1998year I m born 1990 hv submit my government id to Wikipedia wat proof they want Poonam sengar (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The information you're looking for is at WP:BLPCOMPLAIN

Thank you for trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate. Augmented Seventh 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Pls help Poonam sengar (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, what did you mean by "hv submit my government id to Wikipedia"? Please don't do that, as uploads and edits are public. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have the impression we are talking about different people here; even the names aren't completely identical, but that might be a transcription problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have soft blocked them for the username violations.

I feel like we have a language issue here compounding the COI issues and would prefer not to hard block although I will if I have to. @Poonam sengar, Wikipedia does not rely on what an editor says about themselves or what document they provide. We need independent reliable sources. If you are Singar or someone who works with them, please use WP:Edit requests on the Talk page for content changes you'd like to see. Star Mississippi 19:43, 28 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.

Dahawk04 and undisclosed AI use

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.

---

Dahawk04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After posting Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting#Dahawk04's edits regarding an out-of-the blue, unnecessary, and bad total rewrite with a misleading edit summary (the user asked the chatbot to "update" content and the chatbot came up with totally rearranged text, for the worse), I have investigated the matter further and have determined that Dahawk04 is an AI-using editor who evades scrutiny by quickly manually archiving messages on their talk page, which they began doing after an earlier concern regarding LLL misuse seen in Special:PermanentLink/1298633346#AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions?. Hallucinated references also seen in Special:PermanentLink/1295241064 (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/us/politics/california-lawsuit-troops.html, https://www.courthousenews.com/2025/06/12/california-tro-hearing.htm, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/1/newsom-v-trump/, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/2/newsom-v-trump/). WP:AITALK evident in Special:PermanentLink/1300455763#User conduct report: User:Some1. Dahawk04 should commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, as they lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes. Ping earlier concerned editors to help with this report as they are familiar with the problem, and I'm on the move and my editing capacity is very low: @Boud and EEng: thanks. —Alalch E. 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed he knows too much about Wikipedia for a newbie, and writes too professionally. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive_109#The Philosophy of Freedom. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

When User:Irruptive Creditor noticed the problem with Dahawk04's WP:AIFAIL content and reverted, Dahawk04 reported him for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: ). In their replies Dahawk04 manifested WP:MARKDOWN mixed with wikitext and WP:AICURLY, signs of AI use and in combination near-irrefutable proof of AI use. —Alalch E. 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

So, what bothered me wasn't that he was wrong (he wasn't wrong), but he was right about a complicated issue much too soon for a newbie. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you see what a strange comment that is? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Search all pages for "learned so quickly". You will see some precedents for my point. It's a perennial trope at en.wiki. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

How is it possible that a newbie, with only 23 edits, knows about WP:BIASED, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:CON? And why do we have again this discussion about the hustorical reliability of the gospels? Maybe WP:DENY applies here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

While I think people do throw this accusation around often and it is undoubtedly true in some cases, I doubt it is here. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

So tropes equate to guilt? Dahawk04 Talk 💬 18:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Your guilt has already been proven through the evieence in my report. It is time to show remorse and make the needed commitments and assurances. —Alalch E. 18:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

To tell is as it is: I never trust editors who write too professionally inside talk pages. It's a telltale sign that something is wrong.

As in: you're talking to normal people, not writing your PhD thesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

https://qr.ae/pC1n7Y tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

How is this wrong in any way? There is literally an admin on that thread that takes my side and says I did nothing wrong. You are grasping at straws there. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

1. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages

2. Picking an article that was edited in June is quite a stretch considering I have made a lot of edits since then. Sure, in the past I may have made mistakes editing articles but that hasn't been in an issue in quite some time.

3. The fact that you didn't agree with my proposed edit doesn't mean that it was Ai generated at all. I edited the section in a way I thought made sense. Wikipedia is a democracy and I respected your change. Nothing in that edit was hallucinated or incorrect.

4. You already created a talk page comment about this and gave no chance for me to reply before creating a noticeboard complaint which seems like overkill to me.

5. I've created a bunch of articles since the Newsom V Trump that you are citing that have obtained a B class rating with no complaints about hallucination or AI generation.

6. I actually created a script to help detect broken links on articles not including my own which suggests the correct link if they are broken. Feel free to have a look here https://www.codebin.cc/code/cmex39y7y0001ld0310doh5c9:3Lf3n9Xcy2yN4STDK7Qy57fXKi2DNK9JGZE3iunKz859 Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but you said Wikipedia is a democracy which is just objectively not true. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you're missing the bigger picture of what I was saying. I thought the edit was better and they didn't - that doesn't make anyone objectively wrong. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Generating AI slop and using hallucinated news sources is the problem here. It's wasting a lot of people's time, maybe respect that? 172.58.12.249 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You are misusing LLMs and are evading scrutiny. When Irruptive Creditor noted your non-policy-compliant unreviewed AI-assisted edits (see diffs you posted yourself), you started this nonsense report against him to defend your AI editing and you used AI-generated slop to further your case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: ). Administrators failed to intervene and block you until there is reason to start believing that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Alternatively, you could commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, as you lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes. —Alalch E. 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, that was two months ago. I am not evading anything and the suggestion otherwise is false. If I was, I probably would delete user page comments and not archive them making them easier to find. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Also WP:BLUDGEON Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You haven't admitted to misusing AI yet. Your AI misuse has been proven. Now is the time to commit not to use AI in articles and on talk pages. If you cannot do that, you should be indeffed. —Alalch E. 18:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Dahawk04 also created an ANI report against me using an AI chatbot (and by the way, that AI-generated "Summary" is riddled with errors, which shows you how much thought went into that "report"), and their claim that none of [their] comments have been AI-generated received pushback from multiple experienced editors. Some1 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above I have made mistakes in the past, but have not done anything wrong recently as this evidence by my talk page. I actually received a thank you for one of my edits on the page that the poster of this is actually complaining about. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well [232] was less than just over 24 hours ago so whatever you mean by not "recently" it's unlikely it's one the community shares. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC) 18:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

And can you point to what was violated by rephrasing something? I’m done commenting in this thread. So far it’s seems that I am being accused of knowing too much when I correctly rejected an edit request and rephrasing something which upset someone. I admitted and apologized for things in the past and if there’s a desire to rehash that it’s not one I share. If there’s something sanctionable that I did here I’m happy to respond to an admin otherwise I’m not sure what this is about besides bludgeoning Dahawk04 Talk 💬 19:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You're hellbent on misusing AI, are not editing responsibly, you do not want to come clean, and want to keep using AI without any consequences, you are not responding to editors' concerns on your talk page and are evading scrutiny: You were again warned about AI and removed the message without acknowledging the problem—you should be blocked. —Alalch E. 21:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON Dahawk04 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON does not mean what you think it means. They're trying to converse with you, not disrupt the discussion with repetitive or unrelated comments. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree. At 19:17, very slick-written answer, but very much not to the point. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I truly don’t see how their comment was at all conversational and not repetitive of their own previous points. Dahawk04 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Some people are trying to tell you something, and it seems that you cannot understand what they're telling you.

You got the benefit of doubt several times. This time denialism means the end of your editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This report is a clusterfuck. Everyone is competing for who can Gish gallop faster into irrelevant shit (excuse my language, I don't want to look like I'm talking too professionally) or be more dismissive of everyone else. Nothing productive is being accomplished.

However, there is an actual complaint here, which is AI use, whether it happened, and why. Rather than the copyedit -- which honestly is pretty weaksauce as something to complain about -- the more pertinent issue is the news articles that don't appear to exist. For example, the New York Times article mentioned above does not exist. The URL does not lead anywhere, and the supposed author, Matt Stevens, has not written anything about this topic. The Court Listener link is also broken, and docket number 68574831 -- the number from the URL -- appears to be something entirely unrelated.

Given that (oh fuck oh fuck am I writing too professionally): Dahawk, where did those URLs come from? Did you use any kind of writing or citation formatting tool? Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Writing too professionally is a hunch about WP:LLM. If I already had evidence then, I would have presented it. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hunch or not, bringing it up is just going to derail the whole thread into what is and is not a believable amount of knowledge or professionalism, until everyone is debating what WP:BLUDGEON means instead of addressing the complaint.

Anyway, back to the links. I took a look at that Python script mentioned above, but it's just a SerpAPI integration for Google search so it wouldn't turn up links that flat-out don't exist. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m lost here a little bit. Are you asking about links in Annunciation Catholic Church shooting? That’s what the complaint was about. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Not the original poster, but this isn't really about one specific edit so much as a pattern across edits. But what I'm referring to here are the various references you've added to articles to sources that don't seem to exist -- for example, the New York Times and Court Listener references added here. Where did those links come from? Were you looking at something else, or did you use some sort of tool to come up with the URLs? Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don’t remember. It was back in June and I don’t remember what I was doing when I edited it. I know I created several pages recently that were reviewed and rated B class. I don’t think there’s a pattern of anything. If the links in the Newsom article were wrong I apologize but I truly don’t remember what I was looking at 3 months ago when I edited it. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool, and do you remember what you were doing on 23 August (permalink), when you added the hallucinated reference #27 (<ref>{{cite news |title=Partners moves 4,200 workers to Somerville |url=https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/ |work=Boston.com |date=December 9, 2016 |access-date=21 August 2025}}</ref>) -- https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/? That was a bit less than 7 days ago.

Or maybe you remember what you were doing on 18 August (permalink), when you added the hallucinated reference #81 (<ref>{{cite journal |last=Shanmugarajah |first=Karthik |title=Kidney Xenotransplantation in Two Living Recipients |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |date=2025-05-16 |doi=10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 |url=https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 |access-date=18 August 2025}}</ref>) -- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kidney+Xenotransplantation+in+Two+Living+Recipients%22) ... but maybe that was too long ago for you.

You have wasted a lot of my and other editors' time. Ask your chatbot what follows. —Alalch E. 01:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The correct link for the Boston.com article is https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/07/14/partners-healthcare-settling-new-somerville-home/ and the kidney one is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39794882/ the incorrect citation was for another report titled Kidney Xenotransplantation in Two Living Recipients with the wrong link. The Boston.com link was old and I believe was changed but I could be wrong. If two references being wrong is the worst I did so be it. The content surrounding them was correct and easily fixable. Dahawk04 (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You were lying that you did not remember what happened in June, because for the past several months you have consistently been editing in the same way, exhibiting the same pattern of malformed citations through LLM hallucination, just like you lied to Boud in July, in Special:PermanentLink/1298633346#AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions? when you said that you inputted:

• https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Situation-of-HR-Ukraine-2022-03-26
  as a "placeholder" for https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/HRMMU_Update_2022-03-26_EN.pdf
• https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Report-40
  as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024-10-01%20OHCHR%2040th%20periodic%20report%20on%20Ukraine.pdf
• https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Report-41
  as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/2024-12-31%20OHCHR%2041st%20periodic%20report%20on%20Ukraine.pdf
• https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/children-rights-2024
  as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025-03-21%20OHCHR%20Report%20on%20Children%27s%20Rights%20in%20Ukraine.pdf
• https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Occupied-Territory-Report-2024
  as a "placeholder" for https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024-03-20%20OHCHR%20Report%20on%20Occupation%20and%20Aftermath_EN.pdf

Are you now going to say that https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/ is a placeholder for https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/07/14/partners-healthcare-settling-new-somerville-home/, just like you said in that discussion?

The problem is not the two links being wrong, the problem is your systematic dishonesty and your misuse of AI. For being faced with concerns about it multiple times (for example, on 8 June 2025) and refusing, multiple times, to explain the cause of the problem with your editing, for refusing to be honest about the AI use, and for failing to commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, because you lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes, you're going to get blocked. You are willing to fight to the end and get blocked, instead of adjusting. That shows that if you cannot edit in the exact way in which you want to edit, you would rather be blocked. This is characteristic of people who are not being here to build an encyclopedia. If you had actually cared about the encyclopedia you would have started showing signs of adjustment by now. —Alalch E. 02:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You want to cherry pick examples that fit your case which is understandable. Why didn’t you include 2025 Fall River assisted-living fire which I wrote and has great sourcing? If I wasn’t here to build an encyclopedia I wouldn’t have written that article myself. I didn’t say I was perfect and haven’t made mistakes but have worked to create articles that are accurate and detailed. Dahawk04 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, are you going to admit now, and to apologize for the dishonesty?

Edit: By the way, that article which you mention also has a broken link degraded by hallucination: I am sure that you do not remember what you were doing on 18 July (permalink), when you added the hallucinated reference #19 (<ref name="B25Kickback">{{cite news |title=25 Investigates: Gabriel House owner paid $950k settlement to state over kickback allegations |url=https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME/ |work=Boston 25 News |date=July 14, 2025 |access-date=July 18, 2025}}</ref>) -- https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME (an LLM-entropy-degraded version of the functional link https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME)

Are you now going to say that https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME was a placeholder for https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME, just like you said in that discussion?—Alalch E. 02:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m going to say that the link was changed to move under /25-investigates. I don’t really see how that’s even a hallucination the link literally just moved one directory. Lmao Dahawk04 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the address changed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Also you could note that’s 1 of 58 links Dahawk04 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on your userpage and the above evidence, I'm convinced you're using a large language model to write some, if not all, articles. Please be honest. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It would have been a HTTP 301 to the functioning link, not a 404, and the page was already at the functioning link as opposed to your non-functioning link on 16 July (proof), two days prior to your adding your non-functioning and obviously hallucination-degraded link on July 18. Now is the time to admit and to apologize for the dishonesty. —Alalch E. 03:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe he does not use a LLM. Meaning that somebody else does, and he copy/pastes their text. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I was dishonest when I correctly added fifty three links and one of them missed a sub folder in the link but had the exact right title and publication date. If you want to say that was hallucinated go ahead. The other 53 links probably would have been too but that doesn’t matter if one link was changed I suppose. Dahawk04 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Apples and oranges: the text to be verified wasn't a hallucination, but the link was. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest. Why are you using LLMs when you're clearly asked not to? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

E.g. User:RiverstoneScholar/sandbox: initially, the bot got the facts right, but hallucinated the sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to keep going back to the New York Times article, but it's the clearest example. If the New York Times didn't write any article like that on that date, and the author in the ref also didn't write any article like that, then where did it come from? This isn't a matter of the link rotting or the headline changing, it's that the article you cited literally does not seem to exist in the world. So I guess what I'm stuck on is, how did you end up mentioning a nonexistent article? Are you writing the text yourself and then using a tool to search for citations for it? Did the link come with the text? Even if you don't remember exactly what you did in June I would assume you'd remember totally changing up how you write articles.

As far as "only one link was hallucinated" -- unfortunately, this is the kind of thing where one fake source is one too many. It also raises questions about the rest of the citations, because someone reading the sources would have spotted that one of them was fake immediately. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Given the obvious hallucinated references in pages created/edited by the user, and the continued WP:IDHT/stonewalling about the use of LLMs, I've pblocked Dahawk04 from articlespace indefintely. If and when this is resolved to the community's satisfaction, anyone can remove the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t see how that is reasonable solely because out of 2 articles 1% of sources had an issue. I’m not sure what the “community” is looking for. I am happy to be more thorough with checking the sources and using this draft space before publishing. I’ve focused on the quality of the content which has been accurate and not disputed. Again, I am happy to be more thorough and rigorous when checking the sources. Dahawk04 (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  In the past I did use LLMs which resulted in hallucinations of totally made up citations. That was pointed out and I stopped using it for that purpose. The two links in the MGB article and the link in the Fall River Fire article weren't hallucinated at all - they just had the wrong link. I can't prove that I didn't use LLM's for those articles because well there isn't anything I can show you. A link missing /25-investigates isn't something a hallucination would do while getting everything else right. If you want to judge when I started editing sure there's plenty of mistakes - but I think think there has been a lot of improvement. Dahawk04 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you want me to sit here and say the MGB and Fire articles were LLM hallucinations I won’t because they’re not and that’s not stonewalling I’m just not going to lie. I’ve already acknowledged I made mistakes in the past but I don’t think it’s fair to say I am stonewalling because I won’t lie. I went through Wikipedia commons myself to find photos for the MGB article. I can show you my web history if that would appease you. It probably would have been easier to use an LLM to find them but I didn’t. Dahawk04 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  And saying I was guilty for knowing rules that I shouldn’t have because I was “new” Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 109#The Philosophy of Freedom is dubious. Because someone took the time to read the rules and understand them before responding to comments is somehow attributable to guilt even when I asked and admin to review. If I was doing something fishy I probably wouldn’t have tagged an admin. Not sure how I can dispute being guilty of a “trope” without “stonewalling”. Dahawk04 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth I think people are hyper-focusing on the Boston 25 thing, it's a month old. It's possible that the AI hallucinated by picking up an old path structure -- the site is not very consistent with those and doesn't always categorize "25 Investigates" stuff into that folder. But I don't know why everyone is grilling this guy, it's already established AI was used.

  That being said, do you remember the general ballpark of when you switched over to not using AI?

  (The crowning irony of all this: the Boston 25 article itself reads like AI.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:15, 30 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 IP: 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0

2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing on List of Tamil films of 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by removing content supported by reliable sources and reverting multiple times without seeking consensus. The dispute revolves around box office figures, where the user dismisses established sources such as India Today and The New Indian Express as “unreliable” while insisting on their preferred numbers.

This has led to multiple reverts and edit-warring behavior, despite the availability of reliable sources and the need to maintain a balanced range when figures vary. --Tonyy Starkk (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

India Today reported ₹80 crore on 6 May 2025. But reported ₹100 crore on 8 May 2025. On 26 May, After 20 days from 6 May, India Today again reported ₹80 crore It clearly shows their inconsistency. Then New Indian Express came and copied India Today's article, showing their poor fact-checking.

New Indian Express source is copied from inconsistent India Today source.

Both sources have similar plot summary with character names and actors names in brackets.

Both sources states about themes of "love", "loss", and "redemption".

Both sources states grossed "over Rs 80 crore worldwide".

Both states about "mixed" reviews.

Both sources states “Coming Soon” section.

Hence it fails fact checking. 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

IP, please share this on the talk page of the article instead, and don't edit-war. For now, I've protected the article, but you're welcome to make an edit request on the talk page with your changes. Showing that one source is copied by another is a pretty good indication that they're ultimately all derived from press releases, so you're likely on to something here. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

References

User:KashifAhmad2003 failing to adhere to ECP restriction of CT/SA

The articles dealing with the topic of Indian military history are presently subject to the extended confirmed restriction under the WP:CT/SA. Since KashifAhmad2003 (talk · contribs) do not meet ECP, they were alerted about the CT/SA on their talk page and cautioned against continuing their editing in these topics,[233] but they have ignored the same and have continued to edit these restricted pages. (e.g., [234]). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for ECR violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Spokiyny

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

This editor primarily edits population figures. They have received several warnings for unsourced changes but they not only do not respond to the warnings, they just continue making unsourced changes (other times they do cite sources but sometimes they cite unreliable sources). See for example this and this from earlier this month. This unsourced change was made after I gave them a final warning a few days ago and I am not sure where they got this figure from (there is no date even). Courtesy ping Ymblanter. Mellk (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This could be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. The user is editing from a mobile and has never used a talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

They responded to a message left on their talk page on another project, but for some reason they are unable to respond here. Mellk (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. Then this user is at least aware of the possibility that a talk page might exist, which is better than some people. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve gone through and reverted over fifteen unsourced changes, and that’s only back through Aug 13. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked from main. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics about whether such "attention-getting" pblocks work. Do people subjected to them tend to find talk pages or just decide to quit Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, I haven't kept track of my own and it would be easy for me to underestimate the number of people who never return (since I'd have nothing reminding me they exist), but I'd guess from memory that it's about 50:50 for the ones I've done. Many of them are likely to be sockpuppets being caught for the same thing they were blocked for the first time, so I'd further revise that to say that most good-faith contributors do end up finding a talk page when forced like this. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User UtherSRG

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 want to bring to your attention that this user just reverted this edit after four minutes. I reverted his edit with a detailed explanation. He then did hide a section "Your vandalism" on his own discussion page, and then contacted me on my discussion page, telling me to revert myself, discussing it on the discussion page. Well, I gave a great explanation in the edit message and the user is free to start a discussion himself if he wants to. But just being the first who reverts a good change (e.g. fixes an error) does not not make one a vandal. Heronils (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That section on UtherSRG's talk page wasn't intentionally removed; a bot automatically archived it since it had received no comments for ten days.

Also, you should probably notify the user of this ANI discussion. You appears to be involved in a content dispute on the Human article, since you have reverted to restore your preferred version several times. Please try other methods of dispute resolution besides ANI before posting here since ANI is usually a last resort. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:54, 31 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 UtherSRG, 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.

---

Sorry for insisting. You closed my original report quite fast. I feel you missed the point because you did not open my first link: UtherSRG has already been reported here. Which is why I posted here. Quotes from that link:

You've inappropriately labeled many good-faith edits "vandalism". You've used rollback inappropriately to revert those edits. You've edit warred with those other good-faith editors, which makes you involved, and then you've used other tools like protection and blocks inappropriately. You've missed at least a couple recent opportunities to absorb related feedback and correct course. – Firefangledfeathers

I've no doubt he's a conscientious and good admin. But it's also clear there's an issue here with inappropriate reverts and involved actions which can't be explained just as routine mistakes during prolific editing and which need to be addressed. – Amakuru

The best I can do is say I'll slow down and try to put more consideration into everything I do. – UtherSRG (he reverted my edit after four minutes)

I am reporting his behavior here, and you are ignoring it, after such comments you made?

Heronils (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Heronils, UtherSRG did not rollback your edit and did not accuse you of vandalism, but rather simply undid it with an explanation. That's permitted. That's a content dispute and is not going to lead to sanctions on him. What you're doing, on the other hand, is inflaming a content dispute and refusing to drop the stick after you've been told that your report is groundless. —  Salvio ^giuliano 20:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Quite. The report just above was closed because it is a content dispute, which admins don't act upon unless there is a conduct issue, which there doesn't appear to be here. Your addition was reverted; at this point you should discuss the issue. I note that you have been reverted by another experienced editor apart from UtherSRG. As for the rest of this filing, what administrator action are you asking for? Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The proper reaction would be, in my opinion, that the user gets a last warning before excluding him from Wikipedia. And that this change (which is not even my own, I just fixed things) gets restored. Okay. That said, bye! Heronils (talk) 20:27, 31 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.

FPSfan3000

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.

---

• FPSfan3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite numerous warnings and two previous blocks, this user persists in violating core content policies by adding original research and citing unreliable, user-generated sources. They have ignored all feedback and show no intention of collaborating constructively. Examples: [235][236][237] Their talk page contains a long history of these warnings, and given their prolonged refusal to comply with the site's guidelines, I believe this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Xexerss (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have provided sources to back up my claims. All you are doing is gas-lighting and abusing your authority. You don't even have any accountability, nor will you admit when you are wrong. FPSfan3000 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@FPSfan3000: Slapping your source in the edit summary is not citing that source. URLs in edit summaries are unclickable anyways. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"URLs in edit summaries are unclickable anyways."

No they're not? literally all you need to do is highlight them and copy and paste them into your urls. I love how you guys are basically admitting you don't bother to look at the sources I provide. FPSfan3000 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

FPSfan3000, reddit is not a reliable source, regardless of where you cite it. —  Salvio ^giuliano 20:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not referring to reddit specifically FPSfan3000 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You are being asked to add citations to the article, not to your edit summaries. Speaking of which, what part of not citing user-generated sources don't you understand yet?[238] MyAnimeList, Fandom and ANN encyclopedia are all unreliable user-generated sources. Xexerss (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@FPSfan3000, sources do not go in edit summaries -- they need to go into the article as inline citations adjacent to the statement they're supporting. If you're just pasting a URL into the edit summary and aren't providing a reference in the article then your changes are considered unsourced and are likely to be removed. tony 20:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't provide an inline citation (it's not difficult to do - see Template:Cite web) your addition is effectively unsourced. It's all very well saying "it's in the edit summary" but that requires someone to go hunting through the entire history of the article to find it - what if your addition was 1000 edits ago? This is a core content policy (WP:V). Secondly, websites like the Anime News Network Encyclopedia or other Wikipedias aren't reliable sources anyway, because anyone can add information to them - see WP:UGC. And Reddit posts definitely aren't reliable. If you're going to keep doing this after multiple warnings not to do so, I suspect your time here will be limited. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xexerss I think it's pathetic you have to get all your friends involved. Are you not able to debate with others on your own? FPSfan3000 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Since FPSfan3000 was edit warring on Violence Jack and continuing to demonstrate that they do not understand our policies concerning verifiability, I have just blocked them for two months. Salvio ^giuliano 20:51, 31 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.

Gaming to gain ECP

M.Furqan Baig is gaming the system for gaining WP:ECP after he was told that he must be an ECP user before editing Indian military or caste history. Take a look at his edits on this page. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I am new, I just joined Wikipedia a month ago and I had no idea that gaining edit number from this method is prohibited in Wikipedia. M.Furqan Baig (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Why would we have a restriction to prevent people from editing in contentious topics if flooding articles with unhelpful edits was a legitimate method for getting around that restriction? And yes, flooding articles, already tagged as having citations needed, some from a decade ago, with a dozen citation needed flags in every single paragraph is completely unhelpful. The speed with which you were going from article to article, usually within a minute or two, makes it obvious that this was pretextual, not a good faith attempt to add tags that were needed.

My opinion here is that your ECP userright should not be automatically granted at 500 edits. That would resolve the issue cleanly, and give you plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have done the 'grant and revoke WP:XC' thing to their account so it will not be automatically granted. They may, once they meet the criterion through legitimate editing, request XC at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Remsense

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.

---

Remsense (talk · contribs) is edit warring with me over a close I made to a requested move he initiated that didn’t go his way. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The RM, which considers a comparatively complex discussion of the article's scope, was in the middle of a live discussion when closed, between direct questions asked of me and my ability to reply. It's pretty likely that the original proposal is not the best solution for what to do, that's my opinion at this point—but we were still discussing what to do. Just leave it alone instead of artificially cutting the discussion off, thanks. Remsense 🌈 论 22:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: the way to deal with this would have been to go to the closer's talk page and ask them to reopen the discussion, not to edit war over the close. Calling an editor acting in good faith a !vote-counter bot (Special:Diff/1308858329/1308858766) is also not appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Do I really need permission from someone who couldn't write a word of engagement to continue a substantive talk page discussion I was engaged in? I wasn't going to invoke this, but they have something of a pattern of doing this from what's already been posted on their talk.Remsense 🌈 论 22:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a "pattern". Other than your comments (which assume bad faith on the part of the closer), I see a request to reopen from June 2025, which was resolved, and a move review that was speedy closed. Instead of snapping at Jess, you could have politely explained that you and another editor were still discussing the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not that I can tell the future, but the position of their reply seems to me they would've been happy to keep the existing discussion closed, just as I thought I was hitting upon something everyone could be happy with to fix a clear problem not only I recognized. It's really difficult to get eyes on discussions in this space for some reason, but I will restore the closure if you want me to. Remsense 🌈 论 22:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Struck things I said that are insubstantial or immaterial here. My own less-than-civil frustration with the sense of being interrupted midstream is getting in my way more than anything else right now, but I just want to be able to complete this discussion without staring at a brick wall unable to establish consensus for anything. Remsense 🌈 论 23:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for striking those comments. @Jessintime: are you okay with the discussion remaining open so that Remsense can try to discuss the issue with other editors and gain some sort of consensus? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine. If he’d have asked instead of reverting me and chiding me on my talk page this could’ve been avoided. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I hope my apology adequately comes off as sincere. Remsense 🌈 论 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ~~ Jessintime (talk) 23:58, 31 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.

Master106's tendentious editing pattern

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.

---

Master106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting Master106 for repeated tendentious editing and POV pushing on Pokémon articles.

Back in June 2023, they began moving [239] [240] Chloe from the "Supporting characters" section to "Protagonists" on List of Pokémon anime characters, saying she's a protagonist. After being reverted, we had a long discussion, but no consensus was reached. However they were blocked twice for edit warring on that article. In July 2025, after the List of Pokémon anime characters page was redirected per AfD, I added only the characters listed as "Protagonists" on Pokémon (TV series) They started adding Chloe again, repeating the same arguments from before. [241][242]

• They misrepresent sources: the official source lists Ash and Goh as the dual protagonists under "Introducing the main character and Pokémon" (主人公・ポケモンの紹介) while Chloe and Professor Cerise are under a separate "Characters" (登場人物) section. They said "Introducing the main characters" is intended for all characters on the page. Chrysa and Ren aren't on the page. [243], If it were to introduce every Journeys character Chrysa and Ren among others would be on there. They are obviously meant to be listed as main characters. [244], and The "character section" was clearly a mistake in the Javascript code, the coder forgot to take it out. They only listed those characters because they are the main characters. [245]

• They also keep reusing marginally reliable/unreliable (BTVA and Screenrant) sources across multiple discussions [246][247][248] which an admin has already stated are weak sources. [249]

• They also push their POV. For example: I think the second suggestion is a fair compromise. I am not willing to include any more characters if it excludes important characters such as Chloe. [250] and I disagree. If you pick the first option, Chloe has to be on the list. [251] They have consistently insisted on including Chloe, even when sources do not support her inclusion as a protagonist.

• They've also tried to game 3RR/1RR. For example, they said Look at the page List_of_Pokémon_anime_characters, I followed the 3 revert rule. Ajeeb Prani violated the rule and did 4 reverts. [252] and You came here and blocked a person that followed the 3 revert rule after a long talk discussion, for someone who broke the rule. [253] An admin corrected them "You do not need to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring." [254] In a recent report they said Every revert I made under 1RR was followed by an invitation to discuss. [255] while making one revert per day, which could be interpreted as attempting to circumvent the 1RR. [256][257][258][259][260][261]

• After one of the blocks, they said I understand now that I messed up, accidentally caused an edit war, and was not careful enough to not break the rules. in unblock request but after around half an year they again edit-warred and got blocked.

I'm pinging ToBeFree and Sergecross73 who have previously issued blocks or warnings to Master106. Media Mender (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. They've had their indefinite edit warring block from me already; I'll let others handle this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This activity is not tendentious nor POV pushing. Also the other thing is not GAMING either, I only reported you because you broke the rule. 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Master106 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I even offered you a suggestion I would accept without Chloe and you disagreed with it. Master106 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I support further blocks. Their "ongoing arguing over trivial things to actual contributions" ratio is just awful. They've spent months arguing arguing over whether or not a character is a "main character" or not. I've asked them to disengage multiple times but it doesn't seem they can. I don't think they're ready for editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, I have been trying to build a consensus with them and I even reached consensus with them on the article after they broke 3RR. We have both received a warning. This is a different discussion than what we discussed before since it is about which characters to include in the article. Although, they brought up the same discussion again and I explained why I stand by the sources I provided, I had allowed them some leeway to give their own thoughts and provided many different suggestions which they shot down all of them. Including the ones that did not include Chloe. After that I asked the other editor that joined the discussion for their input. And now for some reason @Media Mender reported me for pushing POV and tendentious discussion when I have been civil. Master106 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

According to your contributions, your arguments about whether or not "Chloe is a main Pokemon character" (??) has spanned three separate years now. That is not constructive to building an encyclopedia, full stop. Stop wasting peoples time on this sort of nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, even though the current discussion is not exactly the same as previous discussions. I will not bring up the debate again and if they bring it up, I'll shut the discussion down to make the discussion more constructive. How do you suggest I should move forward because we still have a discussion going on about what characters to include? Master106 (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - use the dispute resolution processes laid out at WP:DISPUTE. If it's only the two of you, the next step is likely getting a third opinion (WP:3O). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right. Actually before @Media Mender put this report up, another editor joined the discussion and I asked that editor for their opinion. Master106 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Even after being told by an admin to stop the character inclusion debates, the user has continued discussing adding characters (such as Chloe) on the talk page. Adding this here in case it helps with review. Media Mender (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly why I have no hope in the editor contributing constructively. They directly told me they'd stop, and couldn't even stick to that for 24 hours. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If you clicked the link, you'd see I didn't continue the discussion with Media Mender. Master106 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING wins you no points here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Asking for them to clarify is continuing the discussion? WP:LIE Master106 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, I find it problematic that you've continued to obsess over this trivial point for multiple years (and running, apparently.) You need to find a more constructive thing to do on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I let go of the point a year and a half ago up to the deletion of the article. And I only brought it up when Media Mender told me to recently. Plus I have been skimming what mainly was the Konosuba and Pokemon articles to see what things are there to edit since then. And now Media Mender is reporting me and just now said a falsehood about me. The discussion was not even about it, I really do not understand why they cannot let go of the debate. I repeatedly tried to shift them away from it in the discussion. Master106 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You directly brought up Chloe again, without anyone else mentioning them, after saying you would not bring up the debate again. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, I haven't personally blocked Master106 myself because I saw myself as potentially involved. I was not part of their dispute directly, but tried to mediate a solution between the two of them for a period. That generally devolved into me issuing warnings to Master106 instead. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked Master106 for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 31 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.

Use of unreviewed LLM content by User:Wikiwizardinho

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.

---

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

On a random look at the New Page feed, I came across articles created by the user. When I read the paragraphs with keen eyes, the lines that caught my attention were: On this page — Molela terracotta

1] Characterized by vividly painted, wall-mounted plaques, the tradition is practiced predominantly by the Kumhar community of potters and holds both artistic and ritual significance.

2] This miraculous event established the religious foundation of the Molela craft and the devotion to creating deity plaques.

3] Designers and craft researchers have begun adapting Molela motifs for use in contemporary textiles, interior décor, and fashion, helping sustain the craft in modern markets. All the lines I showed have a subjective behavior and emotiveness, which is mostly the nature of AI chatbots.

The next page to move on to is — Jhalana Amagarh leopard conservation reserve

1] The two forests are separated by a national highway, posing challenges for wildlife movement and necessitating the development of ecological corridors.

2] The reserve offers guided jeep safaris, providing visitors with opportunities to observe leopards and other wildlife in their natural habitat.

3] The proximity of the reserve to Jaipur makes it a popular destination for both domestic and international tourists. See in this — Raiyoli Fossil Park

1] Researchers working in Raiyoli have determined that Gujarat contains one of the largest known clutches of dinosaur hatcheries in the world. At least thirteen dinosaur species nested there for more than 100 million years until their extinction around 65 million years ago.

2] Excavations at Raiyoli continue under supervision, and local outreach efforts emphasize both heritage preservation and community involvement.

3] Following the excavations, tourism officials of Gujarat branded the area "Dinosaur Tourism." Aaliya Sultana Babi—popularly known as the "Dinosaur Princess"—conducts guided tours of the Raiyoli Dinosaur Fossil Park, blending paleontological interpretation with local folklore. The tours have further increased visitor interest, drawing scientists, students, and tourists from across India and abroad.

The fact is that AI chatbots have a habit of using unnecessary dashes in paragraphs, which is also mentioned in WP:AILIST. It clearly fits the case here.

Moving further to some more articles where a heavy amount of LLM content was used without reviewing, please take a look below: On here — Dholpur—Karauli Tiger Reserve

1] Geography The reserve covers a landscape characterized by dry deciduous forests, scrublands, and riverine ecosystems. It lies within the semi-arid region of Rajasthan and supports diverse flora and fauna. The topography is marked by low hills, seasonal rivers, and grasslands, providing a conducive environment for large carnivores such as the tiger. The whole of this paragraph appears to be LLM-generated and violates WP:OR and WP:V.

2] It plays a crucial role in maintaining genetic diversity and mitigating human–wildlife conflicts.

I would like to request Admins to kindly check User:Wikiwizardinho editing history and take appropriate actions regarding LLM content. Thanks! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 10:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

This miraculous event (1st point 2 above). Really? Narky Blert (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

They're llm creations, but I'm not seeing previous discussion with Wikiwizardinho about the matter. There was one notification by Jlwoodwa, but it looks like it may have been overshadowed by an IP block and never received a reply. CMD (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@JesusisGreat7, you can also ask for assistance from WikiProject AI Cleanup (which I am a member of) by posting on the large language models noticeboard. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Or just send them to AFD. We should have zero patience for AI-generated garbage, whether the topic meets notability criteria or not. Edited to add: I sent these articles to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:28, 31 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.