Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Kansascitt1225

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansascitt1225/Archive

User User:Kansascitt1225 was recently unblocked after years of requests. This has caught myself and other long time editors by surprise, as this is a long term abuse account (7 years now), hyper-focused on the Kansas City Metro Area. Their edits throughout the years have been extremely disruptive and time consuming to a number of editors and administrators. Their edits center around Johnson County, Kansas and its relation to Kansas City, Missouri. They can be quite subtle and I ask that you comprehensively familiarize yourself with the KC topic area and this user's history. Kansascitt1225 is extremely good at gaming the system and appearing to act in good faith. here are the sockpuppetry cases that accumulated throughout the years. I should emphasize that sockpupptry is not the central problem, the problem is their unique crusade to right their perceived wrong on the Kansas City topic area; this has remained consistent for 7 years. The introduction of sometimes quite subtle POV/Biased information by cherry-picking statistics on density/crime, basically anything to make Johnson County, Kansas look favorable in comparison to Kansas City is disruptive. Especially because some of it looks (is even?) quite credible, unless you are familiar with this users long history. I do not believe due diligence was done by the unblocking, at the very least a topic-ban should have been required. We are basically right back where we were a few years ago as evidenced by these diffs, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] please compare these to the information complied in the sockpuppetry cases and the deleted information on Kansascitt1224 talk page. I want to stress that in the last few years Kansascitt1225 has learned how to appear contrite and in good faith, but we are dealing with the exact same problematic material being introduced as the previous 7 years. The past is the best indicator of the future and there is not reason to think this will not becoming increasingly disruptive if allowed to continue. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important not to relitigate past editing mistakes and just focus on any problems that exist since the unblock request was approved. So, you're claiming the policy violation is POV pushing, that's what the current problem is? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The diffs above are all current, but won't make much sense without the historical context. Essentially it is POV pushing, albeit I think a POV unique to this individual, things like overemphasizing crime in KC, awkward insertions of "car-dependent" as an adjective in KC articles, inappropriate comparison of density, insistence on removing suburban from articles about Johnson County (despite municipalities like Overland Park literally describing themselves as suburbs of KC in their internal city planning documents). I should emphasize this is not a content dispute so much, but long term effort by this user to essential spread bad things about KC, and good things about their home suburb, for whatever reason. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all of the edits are WP:SEALION WP:SPA. And they're all over extremely extraordinarily complicated and intricate subject matter, which would require the equivalent of a specialized degree to discuss and cite. Basically like WP:MED or WP:MILHIST or WP:BLP. Most intensely interested people are barely qualified to even discuss extremely complicated history, urban development, census, and sociology; and they're maybe qualified to identify and revert this abuse according to Wikipedia policy.

This is a person who sits at Dunkin Donuts to propagandize the WP:OR that the census population of every city fluctuates daily by the existence of commuting to work and back. After years of specific lectures, this is an untrainable person who in the last couple days still claims an WP:RS is maybe an opinion, and does NOT know how to sign a post.[8] Just re-cited an extreme right-wing propaganda group that I only know of due to his spamming it.[9] Just posted a wall of text including his own warning template that one of the sources was unreliable. I can't even bring myself to find that. — Smuckola(talk) 23:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the worst LTAs I've ever seen in my research of the SPI archives of legendary LTAs. I adamantly propose a site ban. @Yamla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansascitt1225/Archive

To vigorously agree with my most esteemed and embattled colleague Grey Wanderer above, the other best indicator of the future is the *present*! The LTA immediately repeated the identical abuse. All of this abuser's unblock requests are actually just blatant demands that were nakedly couched in years of brutal weaponized civility (WP:SEALION) and weaponized incompetence (WP:CIR). The last unblock demand is virtually identical to every other unblock demand, which were all categorically rejected as mindlessly abusive demands. Countless admins told him for years that he's community banned and that something inexplicably even worse will happen if he doesn't stop all requests and edits for X time period, but all he heard was "so you're telling me there's a chance".

He simply kept WP:GAMEing the system with endless unblock demands forever until he accidentally found a different set of admins who knew nothing of the case. That unblock demand was simply his patented topic rant about righting great wrongs, plus the innovation of "but I'm not trying to right great wrongs". It is identical to all other unblock requests that had been correctly denied as categorical abuse. However, from these people, the only stated and effective criterion was that he had already "waited" one year with allegedly no editing on the wikipedia.org website, plus a one sentence blurb about believing in unexplained, unprovisioned, magical, spontaneous, self-rehabilitation of an extreme LTA. They did not notify anybody previously involved in this mile-long SPI archive, not even a blocking admin. They did not link to, mention, or consider, that SPI archive. They mischaracterized his magical rehab duration as being six years, which is actually the entire period of abuse. The years of unanimous consensus was handwaved away as being inexplicably nonexistent. The thread was conducted effectively in secret from all of us and handwaved through. That brand of WP:AGF is called toxic positivity. That's not assuming good faith, but wishfully projecting good faith. And I know they do it in good faith. :)

And that culture is why we endured six years of this abuse. And if it wasn't him, it'd be another one.

They thought a person who had already elevated this to personal WP:HOUNDING of anybody who disagreed, and who had posted a Wikipedia comment detailing his daily plan of traversing the metro between each public wifi network for the express purpose of block evasion with sockpuppets while saying he DID NOT KNOW that any of this behavior was in any way wrong, was miraculously healed while repeating the identical abuse. Just because he did the abuse this time without a sockpuppet or block evasion.

Just look at the SPI archive. Grey Wanderer and I lost zillions of hours of our lives, our peace, and our sanity, to exhaustively cataloging and chronicling this abuse. Just for hope. This has broken us. Consider the human suffering and pain, instead of building an encyclopedia or doing anything else. All dismissed as a minor misunderstanding and inconvenience.

When unblocked, he immediately just resumed exactly the same abuse, performing automatic reverts of us reverting him. He still has absolutely no concept or concern of what constitutes a WP:RS, and citations including nothing at all or including an extreme right-wing propaganda think tank or anything else that's tinder thrown on the bonfire of his single-purpose propaganda. He talks and acts like an WP:RS is just some kind of opinion, but it's actually just whatever doesn't get reverted. Any action or inaction simply must be in service of this WP:ROBOTIC WP:SPA agenda.

What had he spent that year doing? Getting blocked on reddit for zillions of sockpuppets spamming zillions of these identical rants on zillions of subreddits, to try to recruit people to brigade Wikipedia for this one topic. All of it is weaponized helpless incompetence and sealioning, as if to say "but I *simply* want to ask *one* question ten miles long for the millionth time" and "but I *simply* don't understand". I know at least one of those reddit mods. Countless redditors in countless subreddits (all dedicated to these topics of KC and of urban planning), said all the same things as us here. Many of the replies were simply to ask him why on earth he had just spammed an identical post on countless subreddits, again and again and again. Then repeat *that*. Even the few who agreed with some points advised him to back off. That's just one website; I have no idea how many others he might have brigaded.

If ya can't tell, yeah there's a concern about posting specifics, so I guess maybe I could look that stuff up privately if I had to, but that would be beyond the already beyond-the-pale. (edit: I found a screenshot of the wiki-brigading reddit post, in which he claimed that this SPI case had "no answers". NO ANSWERS. No explanation from anybody in six years of LTA, never, not one, just blocked for no reason with no explanation. He's talking about the SPI archive page which he relentlessly and directly attacked and was reverted on for years. But that reddit sockpuppet was deleted with countless others, leaving apparently no online record.)

This week, I reported this to WMF's Trust & Safety. The response was vigorous agreement and encouragement for this ANI post but while claiming no authority for this category of abuse. Yet. — Smuckola(talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a mention of a Kansas-related topic ban in the ban appeal discussion. I think immediately resuming the same areas of conflict from before merits that much at least. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Yes thank you, but that was simply a desperate suggestion which could not be the minimum. — Smuckola(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if dealing with this editor has caused you stress over the years. But for admins who patrol this board and who didn't live through this odyssey, we need to see diffs of conduct you believe is unacceptable. Or, if there is an admin who is familiar with this editor from past encounters, please ping them to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: We did all that, immediately at first, in this thread. I issued a ping @Yamla: (the admin who had said this LTA is under "community ban" when denying the spam of unblock demands) and Grey Wanderer posted a flood of current, post-unblock diffs! And he linked to the SPI archive which, as I said, we already exhaustively curated for exactly this reason. Or just see the current page of the LTA's edit history. I am quite heartened to see Liz in on this, because I have always seen that your still waters run deep, and this is the test. Thank you so much for your kind and patient attention. :( :( :( :( — Smuckola(talk) 00:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is very kind of you. I don't have a reputation of acting quickly but I do like to see complaints on ANI to move along and not get stuck in limbo land. However, I do always like to hear from the editor whose activity is being scrutinized and they haven't been active for a few days. But comments from them about a dispute often can quickly reveal whether or not they "get" what the problem is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, DoubleGrazing, and Yamla: Yes you have always been patient and kind but also technically fair, that I have seen, which is a rare gift in life. Ok I just posted another comment evaluating his comment here today as being more of the same abuse. Have you learned to love it yet? Are we all sorry for being wrong yet?

My questions to you as an admin is, was his latest unblocking conducted in a valid way? Did they follow procedure by notifying 0 past participants, providing 0 links to the SPI archive, discussing and factoring 0 past offenses, categorically rejecting 100% of all past evidence, and rubberstamping it based solely on the unverified allegation of having done no Wikipedia abuse for 1 year? With no followup involvement or responsibility whatsoever. All that actually meant is that Grey Wanderer and I, the LTA's unwitting and un-notified slaves, haven't done all the work to file a new set of offenses on Wikipedia yet and they don't care what he did elsewhere.

They blasted him through the chute as simply somebody else's problem. In normal life outside of Wikipedia, this is what people call a kangaroo court or a "boys' club". As an American, I know what the pardon process is worth.

Does it matter to Wikipedia policy (such as WP:SO) that he actually spent that last year getting himself blocked on different websites for all the same offenses? Including attempted brigading of Wikipedia, in which he lied to redditors that no Wikipedia admin had ever explained any offenses or reasons for blocking? Again, I personally know one of those blocking moderators on Reddit, so ask me privately if you want. There are tools to access deleted reddit content, because all his accounts were mowed down. — Smuckola(talk) 18:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smuckola: this is way out of line, and I'd ask that you strike these aspersions. First, there is no policy that requires anyone to notify editors who have been involved in past unblock requests about future ones. Given that you were apparently so deeply concerned about the prospect of Kansascitt potentially returning to en-wiki, you should have watched his talk page for future unblock requests. Second, there is a link to the SPI archives in the thread you linked to above. Third, I did review all of the past behavior and I was persuaded by this unblock request. It's bizarre that you'd think several admins consider a banned sockmaster to be part of an old boys club with them. Fourth, are you suggesting that everyone voting in unblock requests is now required to troll /r/wikipedia just to make sure that nobody is being disruptive there? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi user:Liz and user:Schazjmd. I’ll try to explain myself, my past edits and what my interests are here on Wikipedia along with my past issues in dealing with civility and multiple accounts. I will also show my viewpoint in dealing with these editors and my disruptive past, most of which was simply block evasion and using multiple accounts along with ip addresses to evade my past block which hasn’t happened in over a year. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Kansascitt1225, I look forward to seeing your explanation and your response to these comments about your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi user:Liz and user:Schazjmd I’ll just address the concerns in each paragraph above. I list them below by paragraph because there is a lot on there.

The first paragraph states that “Their edits throughout the years have been extremely disruptive and time consuming to a number of editors and administrators”. Yes I fully admit they have been as this was a behavioral issue and I was younger then also. Bypassing my block and using multiple accounts was a very disruptive thing to do an I already apologized to these editors for wasting their time.

It was also quoted that “Kansascitt1225 is extremely good at gaming the system and appearing to act in good faith”. This is because I am acting in good faith other than that, I was simply jumping IP addresses and bypassing my block with new accounts.

It was also quoted that “ the problem is their unique crusade to right their perceived wrong on the Kansas City topic area; this has remained consistent for 7 years. The introduction of sometimes quite subtle POV/Biased information by cherry-picking statistics on density/crime, basically anything to make Johnson County, Kansas look favorable in comparison to Kansas City is disruptive. Especially because some of it looks (is even?) quite credible, unless you are familiar with this users long history “. I’m not trying to right any wrong, I am just simply trying to make the pages more up to date and more accurate. You can easily google Kansas City urban decay, redlining or white flight or crime to verify the past quickly which is why it’s credible. There are many before and after images of how the city of kcmo has deteriorated and become basically completely car dependent. I’m not cherry picking and trying to present thing more neutrally than I did 7 years ago. I have learned about looking at biases in references and how to present them better. I never said Johnson county was “better” than KCMO. It simply has more jobs, a higher income, higher overall density than surrounding counties, and much less crime than kcmo; basically regardless of how you present the information. To them I guess it seems as though I’m trying to “promote” Johnson county and they are angry that I was unblocked because all the reverting they had to do when I was bypassing my block.

I am being accused of “sea lion”. When I was editing from the IP addresses back when I was blocked, I would say “same person here” because I thought if I made better edits I could get unblocked which was a terrible idea. I said “same person here” so people knew I was the same person and was later just slapped with it being a sea lion confession. I am also getting labeled as having a right winged agenda which seems uncivil to me especially since I’m not even right or left winged and don’t associate with a party.

The other user quoted. “This is a person who sits at Dunkin Donuts to propagandize the WP:OR that the census population of every city fluctuates daily by the existence of commuting to work and back” which I wrote on the Overland Park, Kansas page.

Clearly this user is uneducated on the topic. It’s called commuter adjusted population. It’s how many people are in a city during the working day. This user gets offended by this and says it’s wrong for some reason.

As far as the rest. I was mostly upset because I got blocked on here and went to Reddit to ask questions and post demographics, Census and economic things. I want to work collaboratively with people on here and already apologized for incivility on here and quit Reddit. The first user on here was upset with me and I felt as though he assumed bad faith since the beginning when he removed the fact of urban decay in Kansas City as can be seen here [10].

Sorry I’ve caused disruption in the past but just want to see how we can move forward. I also learned about proper copyrighting and that you can’t use any picture. I agree to follow Wikipedia policies and think most my edit summaries on the KC area articles have been well referenced since I’ve been unblocked. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I must say this comes across as a rather unconvincing account of what happened and why ("sorry not sorry" is an expression I hear young 'uns use, which might apply here?). Putting that aside, on one hand we have real or alleged POV-pushing in a clearly-delineated topic area; on the other, an editor who claims to have seen the error of their ways and is wanting to demonstrate better editing behaviour going forward, which assurances the community have accepted. Wouldn't TBAN on KC-related topics therefore be the obvious way to reconcile this, at least until such time as this promised better editing has been demonstrated in practice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, Yamla, and Liz: Well done. Yes, it's "I'm sorry that you're all totally wrong for disagreeing with me for absolutely no reason (because there couldn't possibly be one), but most of all I'm super sorry for having been caught. So anyway, get on my level. Here's your coursework again." WP:SEALION WP:GAME WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:NOTHERE WP:CIR

Except no, instantly violating the premise of wrongfully unblocking an LTA does not result in remaining unblocked. A mere topic ban would be complicit, implying that the previous block was wrong, that the wrongful unblocking was right, and that the current repeat block defiance on the articles and in this ANI thread are ok. Anyway, if it did, then no a topic ban does not apply only to Kansas City. The topic is demographics, and he also instantly pumped the same topic in many localities. WP:SPA WP:TENDENTIOUS

Every single message, including unblock requests, has been a relitigation of a POV-pushing topic rant, including right now to your face. All of us fools have been schooled and served once again. ANI just became a fake lecture hall because he was invited here. The only thing he's learned (through pure power, aka blocking, and only for YEARS) is to save the "so anyways why are YOU so mean to ME for disagreeing?" part until later, while talking you to death (arf! arf! arf!) forever on a specific talk page. Just kidding, it's actually down below in this thread where he addresses sounding defensive. He said basically "Yeah I was defensive just now. So you say you want defensive. Oh I'll SHOW you defensive. You're all so mean to me, and WP:SO says I'm innocent. Just like a pardon changes 'guilty' to 'innocent', this is not the zillionth chance but only the second one."

How many ANI threads need their own References section? It's as if "I won't ever push my POV on those articles without approval. So, I'm forced to do it here on ANI; my class is in session; you're welcome, students!"

You see the relitigation of the sealion hedging here: "The first user on here was upset with me and I felt as though he assumed bad faith since the beginning when he removed the fact of urban decay in Kansas City as can be seen here [163]". He lets you assume this is an apology, but it's actually a passive-aggressive broken record. He's so very sorry that everyone else is wrong. The sealion is the cutest predator ever, only yummy fish ever see those fangs! Why did you need to be so yummy?

He didn't learn anything through magical rehab; he only memorized one single consequence of having been blocked, and never should have been unblocked.

The same POV and POV-pushing will exist in any other such topic too. His only area of interest (WP:SPA) whatsoever is actually unfathomably complex, which some university professors could get wrong. But he thinks he's God's gift to sociology, history, and demographic research with an honorary self-made PhD in riding around town. The rest of us have the sense to stay in our lane, or find a qualified expert. The closest I tend to do is occasionally formatting existing census citations.

Recidivists gonna recidivate. WP:CIR. Wikipedia's magically wishful toxic positivity does not work. Site ban. — Smuckola(talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Smuckola yea I did learn something. I learned how to conduct my behavior better and not to bypass my block especially during a disagreement. I learned that if I have a disagreement, which does happen I can use the talk page, and work collaboratively. I was even thinking of going to the NPOV notice board with this a couple days ago to get an outsider perspective on the edits since my unlocking. (The edits before were my unblocking were unacceptable yes). You seem to have a personal grudge against me honestly and I feel like you’re making it sound like I’m trying to utterly destroy Wikipedia and belong in prison or something. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla, Liz, and DoubleGrazing: Admins, my informed and consulted understanding is that this above comment explicitly violates WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF exactly as always before. This brand of WP:SEALION is called DARVO ("deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender").

In this way, he

1) violates universally established consensus

2) creates (maintains) his hostile environment

3) ignores and defies established processes

It defies respect for community and contradicts all his trained lip service thereof. This above offense stands alone, it stands upon the mountain of violations of this ANI thread, and it trounces the galaxy of violations in the six year SPI archive.

One of the many pillars of his past block is that he constantly insists that every disagreement is wrong (or can't be understood, or simply doesn't exist) and that he has assumed bad faith of those people. This above paragraph alone is one of many statements in this very ANI thread that repeats the past block offenses, and is why he should never have been unblocked.

It continues the WP:SEALION lip service and gaslighting projection of a standard domestic abuse tactic called DARVO ("deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender"). He effectively says "But I was just about to perform the bare minimum of civil conduct that I always knew is right! If only you hadn't suddenly interrupted and discouraged me." After he had already filled the same articles with walls of the same repeat offense against the unblocking admins' warnings. That's DARVO, blaming the victim and reversing it to seem like he's the victim.

Other, far less severe, chronic abusers have had admins require them to propose sample content and reactions to sample scenarios, on their own Talk page, as a condition for considering unblocking them. They didn't get the automatic unblock that he got. Here we have him failing it all within ANI, after he already did it immediately post-unblock, and without him even being asked. Again, even a topic ban would be complicit. Site ban. — Smuckola(talk) 21:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I won’t edit the topic until a decision has been made. I am genuinely sorry for the past disruption tho. Additionally I just wanted to point out that on the Economy of Kansas City page I found another reference that says the GDP is split almost evenly between the 2 states. The first one says it in the article which sites the second one, from bookings and shows that 51.2% of the economic output (GDP) is in Missouri while 48.8% is in Kansas. I understand my past poor behavior but genuinely don’t understand what the issue is with this edit tho. This brookings study has about the same results as the “right winged biased one” on the GDP numbers. I tried presenting that neutrally saying that the economy was split fairly evenly between MO and KS. Please show me where I went wrong here Kansascitt1225 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Hi user:DoubleGrazing yeah after I read that it sounds a little bit defensive, which it kind of is. I’m sure to other people it was more sock puppetry for deception than it was to me because they couldn’t tell I was the same person. Most of those were so blatantly obviously the same person because I would edit with a new account like 10 minutes later the exact same thing. Most of them were just to bypass my block years ago.

I know I’ve been VERY disruptive in the past It’s just frustrating being told you are acting in bad faith over and over after getting unblocked. I thought I would get a second chance and never felt like I really did after my initial block. I apologized on my talk page and to each of these editors personally. I promised on my unblock page that I would only use 1 account this time and work collaboratively with others Kansascitt1225 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sanctions

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

---

• Support Topic ban from the topics of Kansas and Missouri, broadly defined - Kansascitt1225: you were given a chance, and you've blown it very quickly with this POVpushing/right-great-wrongs behaviour (something I and others explicitly warned you against in the unblock discussion). Go and edit something other than Kansas City-related articles and show you can actually be a net positive on here. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support User needs time away from this area to demonstrate they can edit productively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, discussion here has convinced me to Oppose a site ban. I do think the editing issue is narrow enough that a Topic ban will suffice. Future editing problems can be dealt with on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban This demands a site ban, instead of just topic ban. The abuser has WP:GAMEd the system to infinity and beyond, and is WP:SEALIONing all the way to now. He absolutely did read the unblocking admin's warning, and is now gaslighting you with selective amnesia, weaponized incompetency, weaponized dishonesty, and DARVO. Some have repeatedly and willingly fallen for it, with reckless administrative abandon both in the unblocking and here in ANI, and we need an apology. You act like Wikipedia is a government and editing is a human right, but you still go completely off the deep end to defend the indefensible. The First Amendment wouldn't defend this without a ton of paid court staff, and then they all would lose the case. He never should have been unblocked; everyone should have been notified and the SPI should have been summarily discussed and at least linked there. He abused this very ANI thread by relitigating his WP:RGW rant here, and in the unblocking thread, and that's all being largely ignored here. He abused the alleged 1 year of WP:SO by abusing other websites like Reddit (where he confessed that he'd also been banned from Discord for the same thing) with floods of deleted sockpuppets and spammed posts to relitigate the identical rants, attack other redditors, and get banned there too. A topic ban would be complicit because Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and is WP:NOTTHERAPY for magically rehabilitating people's personal problems. I'd be surprised if anybody even read this whole thread, because few have directly responded, and nobody responded to my offer for private proof of the off-wiki abuse which includes one reddit moderator I know personally. Since unblocked, he re-demonstrated that he's a WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:SPA that is only interested in a super complex general topic where WP:CIR but is totally and unteachably lacking. In this very ANI thread, he violated WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, again as always before for six years, which is also blockable. I notified the Talk pages of @Yamla and Liz:, who I assume have ping disabled, and Liz had requested a followup on this thread. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Smuckola had previously included ChatGPT's responses to the above reports; I have removed them as unhelpful to resolving the situation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

{{subst:i*https://ibb.co/6chr8qCC Kansascitt1225 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)}}

• Support site ban per User Smuckola and as an observer of wiki project Kansas City, I must interject the observation of the blatant cycle of abuse KansasCit uses both inside and outside Wikipedia disguised as “but I didn’t know, give me one more chance baby. I will be better this time. I’m so sorry.” I was harassed in Reddit, though the user has no idea who I am on that platform. Once the user is out of chances with one particular admin, they will find a new admin who listens to their fake apology and let them ruin a few more articles and make a few more editors leave again, get another ban, then the cycle of abuse begins again with yet another new admin and, “I’m sorry Baby, I didn’t know, it will be different this time.” It is never ever different. In many years it has not ever changed. Within hours of a ban being lifted the user returns to breaking Wikipedia rules he was just warned banned for months about. User has been explained in every way, to a sickening number of times, I reiterate, not only in Wikipedia, he has been warned and banned in Reddit and on other platforms for the same grievances! It is recognized by all user is abusive and unchanging, unwilling to accept correction or learn. The abuse must end. User has been informed of what they do incorrectly and how to correct it and refuse. Please be the leadership we all need right now and say no for us all, stop enabling the abuse. Thank you. TheFactFairy (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheFactFairy, a cycle of harassing people off-wiki is something you should take to arbcom, not here. I'm not saying that to dismiss your concerns - if you and others have been harassed by this editor off-wiki we shouldn't be ignoring that here. But it's arbcom that can deal with the off-wiki evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you felt like I harassed you outside wiki in anyway I apologize if it was even me, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by harassing you outside of Wikipedia though. I realized the rules aren’t the Same on Wikipedia as other places and Wikipedia holds higher standards. On Reddit you can have multiple accounts and throwaways and it doesn’t really matter, unlike on Wikipedia . As far as the one more chance thing, this is actually the first time I’ve been unblocked on Wikipedia ever and I genuinely intend on following community rules and adding to the encyclopedia. user:Smuckola As far as DARVO I have a mostly peaceful life with little fighting and I’m def not a domestic abuser!! I am kind of bothered by the accusations tho. I wasn’t necessarily trying to make you seem like you were the “bad guy” or something in this situation, just saying I would hope that I could have a second chance and you wouldn’t assume bad faith of me after being unblocked. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey User:FOARP and User:HandThatFeeds I’m ok editing in other things to prove I can be a good contributor to Wikipedia. I must have been mistaken about what the main disruption was. I thought my main issue on my unblock was to not repeat the behaviors such as sock puppetry and edit warring and only editing one account. After my unblock, I used the talk pages on these articles instead of edit warring. I was genuinely trying to be cautious not to go back to those behaviors and be non disruptive. I explained in my unblock that I simply wanted to make clear there were more jobs in the Johnson county area and there was a higher density in those cities, with some having less single family housing. I don’t think these would have been looked at as disruptive if it wasn’t for my past behavior.

Looking at my past disruption tho, from before my block you may be correct that I might need to prove elsewhere that I can help the project. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban. This editor has been chronically problematic for seven years with a long, long record of sockpuppetry and axe grinding about their personal content hobby horse about a big city that they insist on denigrating and a nearby county that they insist on praising. Recently, the editor managed to get unblocked and immediately returned to the exact same pattern of bad city/good county axe grinding that led to their block. In retrospect, unblocking this editor was clearly an error and the error should be corrected by imposing a site ban. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. Support topic ban. Kansascitt did indeed go back to editing on KC in a problematic way, but they appear to have at least tried to seek consensus and avoid edit warring. Instead of being told why they were wrong when they tried to engage with @Smuckola on article talk, Smuckola rudely and summarily dismissed them. I've already addressed Smuckola's aspersions about the process of the unblock above. The long, rambling ChatGPT mess he posted isn't worth a response. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Unlike voorts, I don't see how sealioning and just asking questions on someone's talk page about still not understanding how their edits are problematic can mitigate seven years of sockpuppetry and an immediate return to the problematic behavior they were originally blocked for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  Kansascitt didn't ask questions on anyone's talk page. He posted on article talk after he was reverted by Smuckola. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Sealioning should be met with nothing less than a topic-ban, as it's a bad-faith effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. The fact that this user has had a myriad of issues in the past and went right back to the exact same shit after coming back from a seven-year ban (whose lifting is questionable given the sockpuppetry) means they never intended to act in good-faith to begin with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  What does your link to 3X have to do with anything? Kansascitt appealed the ban and the appeal was accepted at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (make the topic ban "Kansas and Missouri" instead of just "Kansas City"), oppose site ban. I don't see why we would site ban someone for pov-pushing when their pov is so apparently limited. Is there some reason to believe that they will push similar povs elsewhere if simply topic-banned? But also, I'll be honest: my AGF-meter runs real, real low when someone complains about how they haven't been notified to a specific discussion about an unban and casts aspersions about it being out of process for that reason - and doesn't notify any of the editors involved in that unban. I'll go ahead and do that for the ones who aren't already here: Deepfriedokra, Thebiguglyalien, Kenneth Kho, HouseBlaster. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, and also @Beeblebrox, who was peripherally involved in an earlier unban request that went nowhere because no one but @HandThatFeeds showed up to it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I'm quite pissed reading @Smuckola's egregious wall of text bludgeoning with insults and aspersions against admins, participants, and Kansascitt. In any case, I provided a review of the content at issue last time, they must not have read it before submitting a wall of text. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:VEXBYSTERANG might be due here. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster even caught them using ChatGPT to create a lengthy aspersions, which is way too tendentious for an experienced editor with 30K edit. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It was a mistake of me to go editing back in the same topic area as soon as I was unblocked. I thought my biggest issue was using multiple accounts and edit warring. I hadn’t used socks or edited the project in over a year. I would atleast hope I could get a topic ban so I could regain community trust elsewhere and make constructive edits. Possibly I just can’t see passed a certain biased on the KC rested pages idk, but the article saying the economy is being anchored by Kansas City Missouri seems strange to me when half of it is in Kansas. That’s just my perspective honestly Kansascitt1225 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, waiting their response on my talk page message [11] to decide topic ban I fully disagree that they are intentionally POV pushing, I think they are unaccustomed to due weight. I also notice that they ceased editing Kansas and Missouri when Smuckola confronted them in their user talk page, but Grey Wanderer still can't help but escalate it to ANI four days later, a total lack of AGF to me. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose topic ban They have made commitments below, it appears to me as I talked with them on their talk page that they are a good faith editor and able to listen. For example, they understand that due weight comes into play when adding information such as crime or car-dependency even if correct. For example, they are able to recognize after research that Kansas City is the largest city in Kansas City (MO)—Overland Park—Kansas City (KS) Combined Metro Area according to Census Bureau naming scheme, and made a suggestion that in my opinion addresses every concern: changing "anchored in Kansas City" to "the largest city is Kansas City". I think the commitment below 500 edits can be enforced by blocks, while the commitment between 500 and 1000 edits can be voluntary. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi I am taking the great advice of user:Kenneth Kho. I have read giving due weight on Wikipedia and understand to make the articles neutral and balanced and not adding too much about one specific idea or one pov. If I can avoid sanctions I will stay away from the topic at-least until I'm extended confirmed and have 1000 edits to show I can edit well and be collaborative. In the meantime I plan to familiarize myself with policies and edit things along the lines of Cars/automotive , cities outside of Kansas/Missouri, read interesting articles while fixing typos and edit articles about mountains, peaks and information on different skyscrapers (again outside of Kansas and Missouri) along with other interests I come across Kansascitt1225 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose SBAN, oppose TBAN on the grounds that KC1225 voluntarily edit somewhere else and show good edits. JayCubby 19:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban per Smuckola. And just looking at this user's recent edits to Kansas City, Missouri the subtle POV-pushing is very clear. Inserting "car dependent" in two different places in the article shows that the user hasn't changed motivations or modus operandi at all. Davemc0 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, Neutral on topic ban per HandthatFeeds and asilvering. I agree that the issue is narrow enough that if any sanction is to be applied, a topic ban should be enough to prevent most of the problems; a site ban is overkill. It also offers some WP:ROPE that the user can improve their editing style in a topic they're not problematic in. Per Kenneth Kho, I also noticed that KC1225 stopped editing Kansas and Missouri since the report opened, so that shows some signs that the editor is willing to listen to some advice. I also agree with HouseBlaster and voorts that Smuckola's now-deleted ChatGPT analysis was unhelpful. Perhaps another way to resolve the issue is some sort of interaction ban between the two users? Unnamed anon (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Return to behaviour from K1ngstowngalway1

I’m concerned about the return to problematic editing by User:K1ngstowngalway1, blocked by @Deb: on the 18th, per this previous ANI.

The accompanying issue of leaving no edit summaries has improved but to a still-paltry 21%, if from next to zero. That aside, they have resumed, to quote @DeCausa:, “to introduce tendentious POV edits based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with frequent misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. They WP:OVERLINK, often to concepts which are anachronistic or make a POV connection”. They swamp multiple related articles with similar passages of general material, often lifting passages wholesale from other articles, losing specific focus on the article subject. I think this may be partly of a more-is-better approach but suspect a significant WP:COATRACKING aspect, to advance some broader case.

The current main focus of attention is Alexander Cameron (priest). The summary for this edit baldly states the motivation “Cameron.. being promoted for Catholic sainthood is relevant… because an enormous amount of further research will be needed worldwide to confirm a life of heroic virtue and, far more importantly, to search for possible evidence of willful misconduct...”, clearly not the brief of Wikipedia. This is bolstered by the like of this and this campaigning addition.

Another current example, is here at Mass rock regarding large off-topic sections, with no direct mention of the subject, apparently coatracking supplementary material in pursuit of a wider campaign.

As before, the abundance and extent of edits makes it impossible to assess the editor's copious work.

This user will not take on board, from anyone, the problematic nature of their edits, cry persecution, and are evidently determined to carry on as before their block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

My "campaign" involves the quest for the unvarnished historical truth, which I have always thought was the whole purpose of the project. I have edited articles in the past, such as that of convicted murderer and rapist Fr Hans Schmidt (priest), even though he is a subject which makes my own religious faith and it's clergy look very predatory and evil. I have also added information to the article on Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair involving his role in exposing the violations of priestly celibacy, etc., by an 18th-century priest of the Highland District of Scotland. Such scandals are part of Catholic history, too, just as much as the life of those that are revered and I would never act to silence or cancel such stories on any account. Regarding Mass rocks, such secret altars, sometimes indoors and sometimes outdoors, existed on both sides of the Irish Sea, rather than merely in Ireland as often believed. Their locations are important, the stories attached to them in the oral tradition are important, even in cases where they cannot be substantiated or are merely folklore. Folklore is used in every culture to teach life lessons. If someone is deemed worthy by an approved Catholic organization to have their life story publicized and their Canonization as a saint encouraged and prayed for, then it becomes so much more important for the facts of their life to be investigated, firmly established, and set in proper historical context, even by those, like myself, who live an ocean away and do not belong to said organization. Let the chips fall where they may, let the search for the facts of history condemn or exonerate whomever it may. Unfortunately, sometimes pseudohistory, that is allegations rooted in the rewriting of the past to advance an agenda in the present, becomes so pervasive that it becomes official history. When this happens, criticism or the asking of hard questions about its claims are at risk of being silenced. Even in cases such as the official Whig history so harshly criticized, not only by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, but also by Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Celticists like John Lorne Campbell, one sees editors determined not to tolerate even scholarly writings and University Press texts that raise unwelcome questions. But if a historical narrative is strong enough to withstand critical examination, why are unwelcome questions, however carefully referenced and cited from Oxford, Harvard, and Yale history presses, being instantly deleted?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

One problem with your statement is that Wikipedia editors are not an investigatory body. It's not our job to investigate and publicize what we believe are facts but to source everything to mainstream, reliable sources. If you want to do your own original research on potential saints and their lives or promote a cause, I think that content is more suitable to a personal blog than a referenced encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the unvarnished historical truth is absolutely not the whole purpose of the project. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth; Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, to right great wrongs, or to advocate for The Truth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I seek, cite, and use verifiable sources from scholarly journals accessed on JSTOR and elsewhere, but they are being ignored and declared "unreliable" even when the authors are respected historians and scholars. I don't seek to promote sainthood causes but to write accurate biographies of the subjects and hope that others will research, too, and assist, rather than silence a subject that there is already an existing interest in.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe strongly in verifibility.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what this comes down to is that you haven't followed the advice given you previously. If you only did the edit summaries, that would be something. At the moment, you're giving others a reason to block you, and next time this happens, it's likely to be indefinite. So please take it on board, and do so immediately. Deb (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Investigation into recognition of potential sainthood should be left to the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints. It's literally their job. Narky Blert (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not seem to be going well on the "getting it" front with this user, particularly looking at the history of the last 24 hours at Alexander Cameron (priest). See also the talk page, at Talk:Alexander_Cameron_(priest)#Canonisation_cause and Talk:Alexander_Cameron_(priest)#Synthesis. The lengthy post in the former section has me baffled on many aspects but it is difficult to interpret anything other than it including a demonstrably baseless personal attack that I "...on the Catholic Church in Scotland, have often... delete(d) the existing sections on the many recent and similar scandals in Scotland", not that I'm sure what it means. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope it's OK to give a few comments. First off, I should say that I have only edited Alexander Cameron (priest) (which I came across via Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates), so have only had direct experience of K1ngstowngalway1's actions there; I can't comment on other articles. It's clear that they have a passionate interest in the topic, though with a somewhat partial point of view. Unfortunately that seems to lead them to write in a very prolix manner, with a dreadful amount of unnecessary detail, long quotations from sources, and sometimes surprising wikilinks that make the article very unwieldy, and in my opinion far too long.

I've slowly been trying to trim various parts this week, with some success, though K1ngstowngalway1 does then add bits back in. They seem to have a particular fixation on the case for Alexander Cameron's canonisation, and while I don't think any of the editors involved deny (a) that a relatively small group of people in Glasgow have been promoting that case, and (b) that it's reasonable to have a mention of that in the article, albeit that the sourcing is not stellar, K1ngstowngalway1 really does seem very keen to get as much (to my mind undue) detail about this in the article as possible (for example, the recent inclusion of a photo of the prayer card in question as a source), and has not responded in a terribly constructive way on the talk page, which is a pity.

My respectful advice to K1ngstowngalway1 would probably be to voluntarily take a break from editing articles in this area - after all, there are plenty of other places in Wikipedia that need attention from dedicated editors! - to remove some of the obvious tension from the current situation, and in future try a little harder to engage in good faith on the talk pages of articles when there's a difference of opinion with other editors. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

If we’re effectively talking about a voluntary topic ban, as the problem editing has been long term, over a fairly diverse range of articles, this does present a challenge to specify. As they are skating so close to an indef though, it’s a significant concession. Gaeldom, history, politics, religion, broadly construed? Any better way of defining it or anything to be added?

The user has been so resolutely combative, uncooperative and apparently incapable of appreciating what is problematic with their edits and behaviour, and continues to be so as these discussions proceed, I’m not optimistic for a positive response. We can but ask though. @K1ngstowngalway1:? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I do have a passionate interest in this topic and in many others. I also do have a specific writing style, but most people do as well. I tend not to engage in discussions because, believe it or not, I do have a life outside of Wilipedia. The main combat issue, by far, regarding Alexander Cameron has been whether or not the prayer cards regarding his Canonization cause is even allowed to be mentioned in the text. The Knights are also promoting Alice Nutter (alleged witch) for Catholic sainthood as well, as is mentioned in the article text and which has not been similarly resisted. I believe their campaign regarding Alexander Cameron's is a relevant fact and that its mention in both the introduction and the article text are important, whether one identifies as a Catholic or not. Other editors, particularly Mr Lunker, had repeatedly edit warred by deleting it, even after a very reduced mention, whose text was agreed upon in the Talk Page, was added by SunLoungerFrog, it was immediately deleted from the intro as well. I have not as yet attempted to restore it. The efforts of other editors, especially Mr Lunker, have come across less as responsible editorial policing and more like deliberate cyber bullying and trying to silence someone with whom they disagree ideologically, hence my repeated expressions of anger rooted in very deep hurt and frustration, as this has continued for a very long time. As a person with high functioning ASD, I have always found expressing myself clearly to be very difficult, which is also something I continue to work very hard to overcome. I have found, though, that there is also a deliberate effort to find reasons to discredit and negate the credibility and references of even academic historical journals and books as sources, such as the Innes Review all of whose articles carefully footnoted their sources, Oxford University Press books, John Lorne Campbell, Robert Forbes, Thomas Wynne's biography (which I wish had included source citations, as it would have made my life much easier), or even transgender historian Jan Morris' book The Matter of Wales. These references are deleted outright, rather than the text being summarized, which I would be okay with, particularly since learning recently to be aware of not using such lengthy quotes as in the past. Summaries are now being deleted, too. This is a deliberate effort to reduce certain articles, for which I have done considerably research and worked very hard, to the stub level, which suspect will probably be followed by a request to delete them outright. I've noticed recently that this has drawn MattLunker criticism on the Mass rock talkpage, even from other editors with whom I have had much lesser and shorter disagreements with in the past. The definition of "relevance" has been unnecessarily draconian, even information that is directly relevant to the topic, like the subjects immediate ancestry, is removed as "irrelevant". Wh K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

"I've noticed recently that this has drawn MattLunker (sic) criticism on the Mass rock talkpage, even from other editors"? A bold claim about the focus of criticism there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

While I have chosen to not similarly attack MattLunker or try to get him blacklisted over what seems to be our differing beliefs, his own actions and statements have come across as, "The facts are irrelevant. Your sources are irrelevant. I and my allies disagree with you, so we are going to silence you. Even if there are no problems with a source's credibility, we will create a problem. You are helping to stir up interest in subjects we consider opposed to our cause, so we will punish you and blacklist you." Does this project really wish to reward that kind of behavior or allow it to be normalized?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest a read of WP:1AM? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

K1ngstowngalway1, in case it wasn't clear as expressed above, that a specific question was put to you as a potential way forward, I'll restate it in summary: would you agree to a voluntary topic ban on articles regarding Gaeldom, history, politics, religion, broadly construed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe topic bans will provide any solution with this editor. The issues are in plain sight in statements by K1ngstowngalway1 in this thread: My "campaign" involves the quest for the unvarnished historical truth and I tend not to engage in discussions because, believe it or not, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. That's the essence of the problem: misuse of (or lack of) sources to promote "the Truth" (for "unvarnished" read excluding RS secondary source interpretation of primary sources) and refusal to discuss. This is not restricted to a specific article. It's across the board.

Jacobitism is an example. This revert is typical of their behaviour across multiple articles and topics. In it, there is citation of WP:PRIMARY (Aquinas, Magna Carta, Declaration of Arbroath) to support anachronistic/POV conclusions about an 18th century movement which through WP:SYNTH are then speciously cited to a 2010 "coffee table" popular history with wikilinks to concepts that have no bearing other than to support the POV in question (eg this unsourced anachronism: This and certain other Jacobite ideas, such as restoring Scottish devolution instead of centralised government, were staunchly opposed by the Stuarts themselves. The Jacobites remarkable prescience in being over 200 years ahead of their time in advocating any concept remotely connected to "Scottish devolution" is, of course, unsupported but, no matter ... it is the "unvarnished truth".) All the while, they edit copiously without edit summaries and when they are reverted they slow edit war to restore their numerous edits, but without comment or discussion on the talk page because they "do have a life outside of Wikipedia".

This user will be a time sink and will be regularly back at ANI until there's an indef. DeCausa (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The topic ban was an attempt at compromise, damage limitation and agreement upon action, having been suggested above, but I couldn't agree more. With the user's statements, there is no reason to believe that the modus will change even if focused on other topics. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Jacobites, whether they were ahead of their time depends on the which area and which thinker. As is stated in the article on the right of revolution and those related to it, the Whig party in 1688 most definitely did not invent the idea that the King is bound by laws and can be removed from power if he violates them. That is a much, much older concept in European thought and appears in everything from Viking Age sagas to the Medieval Scholastics like Aquinas. It was seen in practice over and over again throughout the post-Roman history of Europe. In other words, the concept of the divine right of kings is not something as old as often thought and in that regard, early Jacobites were NOT 200 ahead of their time. Other issues, such as religious freedom, minority language rights in the schools, and more localised government were not only Jacobite concepts at the time, but still are matters of political debate and conflict even today. Hence my resistance to an overly simplistic understanding of how the past has shaped the present world we live in. So, while I am willing to spend time focusing on some other subjects to lower the tension, but even if I were willing to agree to a permanent ban from editing everything even remotely related to those topics, I doubt it would do any good. I think your mind is already made up. Remember, this can just as easily happen to you as well.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

whether they were ahead of their time depends on the which area and which thinker No, it doesn't, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Scottish devolution. Remember that if everybody holds one position and you hold another, a wise man considers that maybe, just perhaps, it's him who is in the wrong and not everybody else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The overturning of the 1707 act of union and the restoration of the separate Scottish Parliament WAS a motivating issue for many Jacobites, despite the Stuart's opposition. Even if one does not wish to call that "devolution", it does involve a more localised government.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's akin to saying that a coot is a duck because they both swim and eat water plants. I'd strongly suggest you consider the first law of holes and stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Right now, reading over this complaint, I don't see enough support here to impose a topic ban, much less an indefinite block unless a patrolling admin wants to go rogue. But while that's my current assessment of the state of this discussion, K1ngstowngalway1, I think you only have so much WP:ROPE here. You have to listen to the comments here and on talk pages and adjust your way of editing or we will be back here and there might be more editors participating who think that your time here on the project is over. I want to stress that this is serious and you need to take feedback on board. I think this is a second chance but a return trip to ANI might not end in a stalemate like this.

And Mutt Lunker, I want you to give K1ngstowngalway1 some space and not look for a reason to return here in a week. No one can edit productively under constant scrutiny and if there are problems that emerge, consider letting another editor bring a case to a noticeboard. This is just my evaluation of this discussion thus far and the tide could turn depending on how long this is open. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

When an editor comes straight out of the traps from a block and makes literally hundreds of often sizeable edits, on numerous articles, over the course of a few days, a significant number of which have the hallmarks of what brought that block upon them, one would not have to actively excavate a reason to return to ANI.

The user tends to edit in fields which are of minority interest and might be regarded as fairly obscure, and thus lacking scrutiny, but it so happens that there is a significant overlap with my own field of interest. Signs of their return to problematic behaviour were popping up from their very release but I held off a full 5 days, in that knowledge, before returning here, in which time I and other editors had attempted repeatedly to engage with them on talk pages with either no response or lengthy tirades, citing ulterior motives rather than engaging with the specifics being highlighted; intial engagement largely being their repeated reversals at two or three articles that myself and other editors had been addressing, rather than the scrutiny by others of their post-block edits.

On occasions when this editor has tackled higher-profile articles, under the scrutiny of a greater number, such as Jacobitism, they have drawn more attention to themself but while they edit in more obscure areas, have effective free rein. Now that I’m familiar with their style, I am regularly encountering, by chance, problem material in my sphere of interest that bears their unmistakeable hallmark and that may have been in place for years.

If I’m being warned off from calling attention to current activity, at these low-profile articles they will just carry on, out of sight of most editors. I hope that others are minded to monitor matters.

There may be no clear consensus as to a course of action but I see nobody who doesn’t regard their behaviour as highly problematic or that believes they have been in any way responsive to those engaging with them. Their ongoing activities are a distinct net drain on resources, let alone what would be required to tackle the many articles blighted by their prodgious efforts over years. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban; I can't see that the user has learned anything from their recent block, and they make no effort to address the problems others have identified with their edits (eg overlinking to anachronistic and unhelpful concepts; reliance on low quality popular history sources and the like; a polemical and tendentious approach that is at odds with current (or even 20th century) academic views on Jacobite related topics, etc). Moreover by repeatedly blanking their talk page they seem to quite deliberately be obscuring evidence that these problems have been noted in the past, over and over again. Svejk74 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A topic ban would be better than nothing - but I still think that this is on tramlines to an indef. @Liz: I think you are being rather unfair to Mutt Lunker. He's simply highlighting a highly disruptive user. I also don't think describing this thread as "stalemate" is accurate. I can't see anyone saying anything positive about K1ngstowngalway1. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I interpreted @SunloungerFrog:’s advice to K1ngstowngalway1 as “a voluntary topic ban” but I wouldn’t wish to speak for them. Are they happy with that as a characterisation of this view, and as a potential solution? My suggestion of restriction was from “Gaeldom, history, politics, religion, broadly construed”.

K1ngstowngalway1 has themself responded to this suggestion with “I am willing to spend time focusing on some other subjects” but interpreting this as a formal acceptance of the imposition of a topic ban would be unwarranted without a more definitive response. @K1ngstowngalway1:, would you accept a topic ban on the specified categories? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I would not.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker a voluntary topic ban was just what I had intended, so you hit the nail on the head. However, I see that this is somewhat moot now. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Well, any voluntary aspect of it would be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If it was somehow unclear before, I’d agree there is now no indication of stalemate. All participants have been strongly critical of K1ngstowngalway1 and all four of those who have discussed a suitable course of action advocate at least a topic ban, voluntary or otherwise, though, from the user’s response, the voluntary element is evidently no longer an option. If there’s any debate, it’s between a topic ban or stronger action, not a topic ban or no action. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a CIR situation with the statement of Edit summaries are still something very new to me and I tend to have a longer learning curve at such new skills.[12], considering this issue of disruptive editing without using edit summaries goes back years, not simply days, weeks or even months, but years. It seems especially egregious that while promising to do better they simply refuse to use the option to require edit summaries before posting. I will admit they have improved their overall number of edit summaries, but still many are insufficient, and or still missing altogether, even on contentious edits. How many more year should we reasonably expect to be patient with this editor? TiggerJay (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

From their talk page, they have admitted prioritising their continued campaign of editing above compliance with these constant concerns regarding edit summaries, knowing they have been unable to set up their preferred device to force a summary (not, as pointed out to them, that that's any excuse for omitting them). They are adding more now but not heeding concerns that many are meaningless. Editing has slowed down but still features drip-fed slow warring, addition of unfocused, peripheral material and weird links. And I'd agree, CIR issues seem evident, including in otherwise harmless matters.

The brazen "I'm sure that edit summaries have likely come up before" highlights the 18-year, 21-thread rejection of engagement on this matter, but that goes for any and all matters (content, neutrality, sourcing...).

Whether it's intentional or due to capabilities, this refusal to engage or comply with people's concerns has gone on far too long and shows no sign of changing. Is there any way that this isn't an unshakable example of WP:NOTHERE's ""Little or no interest in working collaboratively"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

To be honest I think it's going to be hard to address the user's seeming favour for shortbread tin-style Scottish history, but edit summaries and the focus on adding as many links as possible, no matter how anachronistic / confusing / unhelpful, should be easier to fix - if the will was there in the first place, and I'm not sure it is.Svejk74 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this editor and frankly it seems like their goals and methods are not compatible with improving the encyclopedia. They occasionally make useful contributions but unfortunately they seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between critical history, Jacobite atrocity propaganda, and Catholic religious narratives—despite my efforts to explain. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

to clarify I support a topic ban or indef. This editor is not a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Tvtonightokc

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

I normally would not bring a user to ANI to resolve a topical dispute, but given that Tvtonightokc has never made a substantive comment on their user talk page and has not posted on anyone's user talk since May 2021, I unfortunately have no choice. Communication is required, and I feel this last-resort venue is the only place I can get it.

Tvtonightokc is an editor whose specialty is American television topics. I mostly encounter his TV stations work, but in general his writing has the same problem: I find it to be given to long tangents, undue weight, and jargon concerns. (To demonstrate this, look at KWTV-DT and then at KFOR-TV.) I am not the only one who has had this complaint: as an example, a talk page comment by a non-topic-area user on KOCB last year led to a substantial rewrite that reduced the readable prose size by 56.6%. I have raised this matter twice without any reply, in July 2021 and February 2022, and unfortunately nothing has changed. I just completed an overhaul of WDAF-TV which reduced its readable prose size by 40% and doubled the reference count, and that is kind of par for the course with the pages I work on where he was the majority author.

What brings me here is a comment that, for most users, I'd leave on their talk page: insertion of unsubstantiated-without-more-sourcing material into KTUL (a recently approved Good Article). Unfortunately, given Tvtonightokc's record of non-response to talk page messages including my own, I doubt my words will be heeded. I could see him as a productive editor if he were more cognizant of his style issues, as he usually leaves some reasonable references in articles he works on, but I regrettably have no choice but to bring this discussion to ANI in hopes that it becomes just that: a discussion, not a mere message in a bottle left to wash up on an ignored shore. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sammi Brie, I just want to be clear here on the purpose of this complaint, is it to draw Tvtonightokc to ANI where you can have a discussion about this problematic editing? Because it doesn't sound like you are seeking sanctions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz For now, yes. Their track record of not engaging with talk page discussions means I have to go to some lengths to get a response to this or any other issue. While their writing style frustrates me to no end (and it still goes on or is added to other pages), that's not the matter at hand. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm coming from the perspective of someone who has been heavily involved with projects and rewrites by Sammi Brie, in particular the sludge cleanups. While I have had many differences with other editors in the past, in every case, there was some dialogue undertaken in some way. TVtonightOKC's lack of responsiveness—if not outright ghosting towards people's concerns—has been a problem, and that he is not even acknowledging or commenting on something as legitimately serious as an ANI is very telling.

Like Sammi said, communication is required. It's one thing to be cleaning up article after article filled with needless sludge, cruft and unencyclopedic terms or words like "ironically" and "intellectual unit" in a topic field that was previously considered a backwater. It's another when an editor largely responsible for much of these problems in the topic field is seemingly unwilling to listen to constructive criticism and feedback. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Could I suggest a p-block from article space, with a link to this ANI discussion, to be lifted as soon as they respond? I've seen it done before with other unresponsive editors, and it's extremely effective. JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie They've responded with an explanation on their talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time since I started editing on Wikipedia in 2005 that I’ve been suspended from editing for any cause (including justifiable reasons cited under Wikipedia’s blocking policy; in fact, I’ve often addressed others’ infractions such as vandalism through edit reverts, and stylistic issues of edits made by other users by making corrections where necessary/plausible). I don’t receive many notifications about editing issues, and the issues with responding to other users are tied generally to 1) not checking talk page notifications very often (most notifications in the last few years deal with routine community updates and bot notices for things like orphaned images, consensus on article deletions, or fixable issues like article links that direct to disambiguation pages and CS1 errors), and 2) concerns about discussions turning into beefs that lead to similar or worse consequences for my account, particularly through no fault of my own. (I try to avoid edit warring as much as possible, and the only instances where I’ve tried to undo others’ changes of my edits due to disagreements, it never reached the point of a violation.) Unlike what Sami and Nathan perceived, this is not “ghosting”. Time and lack of notable activity does play a factor in keeping up with the talk page, and I usually focus on the editing process. TVTonightOKC (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tvtonightokc, sorry for the delay in responding. Today was unexpectedly busy for me personally.

I understand the balance between being comprehensive and also relying on citable information. In our field, it is becoming harder to manage that balance because there is less reporting on the local TV industry than there was even 5 or 10 years ago, let alone 25. In a field where local TV news viewership is declining and most media (and thus media reporting) is national in character, local newscasts can go on and live without being noticed by anyone that can be cited. This causes issues when writing about television to Good Article or DYK standards that generally demand a higher density of references. (To wit: when I worked on KQCW-DT, there was some material I wished I could keep and cite but was unable to do so.) This is the issue I hit with the KTUL edits in question, actually; there is no reliable source that can tell me what newscasts they air alone and what is merged with Oklahoma City, including the existing source in the article.

That said, being comprehensive does not mean loading a page up with tangential facts and excessive details that have little to do with the narrative at hand. When I work on one of your pages, it is a lot of this kind of material that tends to need clearing out. KWTV-DT, which I use as the "control" article when I explain your style to other editors, has lots of examples: "now owned by" for radio stations sold off decades ago (that have their own articles), weekend morning CBS newscast clearing, and material that is a bit of a detour from the overall topic. If you are not a subject specialist in TV stations, it can be a tough read. I appreciate that sometimes longtime editors, especially from the mid-2000s, have the most trouble keeping up with evolving encyclopedic quality standards. And I appreciate that, once that excessive material is pared back, there is often good material in there.

I would not have gone to ANI with virtually any other user, but it is not just me who has gone ignored at your talk page. In 2023, an editor asked your opinion on an article of theirs; there was no response. You also received substantive comments beyond mine on your talk page in 2022 (Special:Diff/1096718975) and 2021 (Special:Diff/1060310149) that never got addressed with replies. In fact, it is rather unusual for an editor to be active for 19 years and only have three edits (until this week) to their own talk page. I don't mind that an editor may focus on edits, but at some point, this encyclopedia is a collaborative (and therefore communication-based) project, and constructive criticism deserves a response. After the two prior attempts to discuss writing with you, when I had a matter that required your attention, I felt compelled to come to ANI as a last resort to ensure you participated in the conversation.

In that spirit, I'd like to collaborate with you, improve your pages, and provide sourcing. I may be frustrated with your writing style at times, but I am also open to helping you improve it. Feel free to send me an email or find me on WP:DISCORD. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User: Gandalfett edits on "Malaysians" keeps reverting my edits especially in the infobox title

Gandalfett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting my correct edits on "Malaysians" without stating any reason for reverting. In the info box title, it was originally written in both English & Malay word in both Rumi (Latin)"Orang Malaysia" & Jawi (Arabic) spelling "اورڠ مليسيا" , and then, I was going to supplemented/added it with other translations (in Chinese "马来西亚人/Măláixīyà rén" & Tamil "மலேசியர் Malēciyarkaḷ"). Second, in the "Languages" section of the infobox (originally displayed as: Malay & English), I supplemented/added it with Mandarin (alongside with Chinese dialects i.e Cantonese, Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew,etc.) & Indian languages (i.e Tamil, Punjabi, etc.), Third, there are other languages other than 3 originally displayed below as: Malayic•North Bornean•Melanau-Kajang•Aslian•Sama-Bajaw•Philippine, I was about add Murutic because its a language of the Tagal Murut & its sub-ethnics & Tidung people of the state of Sabah in East Malaysia, but THIS USER has been repeatedly reverting it to the following: "Orang Malaysia", "اورڠ مليسيا", "Malay, English", Malayic•North Bornean•Melanau-Kajang•Aslian•Sama-Bajaw•Philippine" without stating any reason. At the same time, I start a discussion on his talk page and remind him: "Hi, Gandalfett, I noticed that you reverted the edit without leaving any reason. The reason for that is Malaysian people consist not only Bumiputera (includes Malays, Orang Asli & Indigenous people's of Sabah & Sarawak), but CHINESE & INDIAN PEOPLE. You also removed the Mandarin, Indian Languages & Murutic in the infobox. To avoid continuation from edit war, Please refrain it (reverting) from doing so. But instead, please start a section on the talk page of the article, Thank you.", but what he/she did, he/she immediately never responded & erased my feedback/discussion. As I know that Malaysian people speaks not only Malay, but Chinese (i.e Mandarin & other Chinese varieties) and Indian languages (i.e Tamil, Punjabi, etc.), Malaysia is known for its diverse landscape, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural society. 49.149.103.174 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just checking, are you the same IP editor as Special:Diff/1273059394 and Special:Diff/1261227693? Because that summary reads like one of those "If you attack me you are (insert personal attacks)" comments on the internet. (Holy crap, this dates back to 2024!) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, this dispute seems to be half a year old. Yikes. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"Just checking, are you the same IP editor as Special:Diff/1273059394 and Special:Diff/1261227693? Because that summary reads like one of those "If you attack me you are (insert personal attacks)" comments on the internet. (Holy crap, this dates back to 2024!)" I WASN'T, THAT WAS FROM OTHER COMPUTERS (I've been in Internet cafe & my schools Wifi network) 49.149.103.174 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah,thanks for replying. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, 49.149.103.174,

I see that Gandalfett has unfortunately just erased your repeated messages on their user talk page instead of responding. But you still need to notify them about this post on ANI. The appropriate code is listed at the top of the page and displayed when you make an edit to this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What is ANI by the way? 49.149.103.174 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

...you're on it, and you posted your report about Gandalfett here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

49.149.103.174, I posted it on your behalf. But know that, in the future, you will have to take care of this yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

and also, keep on eye for his/her movements (Gandalfett) if he/she unleashes his/her stubborness by doing so (reverting it back again in the "Malaysians" section). I'm PISSED OFF with that guy & running out of patience! :-( 49.149.103.174 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've requested the full protection of the article, and it went through. This means the user in question cannot revert the article to their preferred version, and neither can me or you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic was started on the article talk page last year. Maybe you can join it and make your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

IP warned by me to stop WP:SHOUTING, because I had enough with trying to process all the bolded texts and caps lock comments. Talk:North Borneo dispute was the last straw for me. Replying on a 2008 topic to rename the article, just to... uhh, name-call politicians that oppose their views? I don't think that's appropriate... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to politely point out that there has been a misunderstanding. Gandalfett (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This has not been handled optimally. If an IP is forcing an edit through with various insults including one that was apparently redacted, locking the page to keep their edit in is a poor incentive structure. CMD (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It was presumably protected on The Wrong Version. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I had written a note about The Wrong Version, but deleted it as I didn't think it would be needed to point out civility issues. Clearly I was mistaken. CMD (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz for having another look. CMD (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Visaa11

• Visaa11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently here an IP (97.77.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) said that they are the blocked user Visaa11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Visaa11 has recently added a similar comment to their user talk page. Janhrach (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it was just a quote from the him that I was feturing on the sandbox due to it being very long that at a glance I would think it would be an unfinished article. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, notice those quotation marks. They are showing that it is a quote from the user. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

He also wrote that for a challenge I gaave him to write the longest sentence he can make. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also notice that this is a school IP and can be shared by many users. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@EldinHamza2011 may explain. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You contradict yourself; you said you thought it was an unfinished article. Janhrach (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I contradict myself too much. I wish I didn't, but that's just how my brain works. 97.77.82.187 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if what the IP claims is true, Visaa11 said they evaded their block (the english version of wikipedia where i am anonymous ⁊ everyone knows me by my IP address due to my original account which was called Visaa11 being banned due to “disruptive editing”), so at least prolonging Visaa11's autoblock is warranted. Janhrach (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I also saw a part after that saying that their block was unjusted and they were just contributing (which i think is stupid as i was just trying to contribute to wikipedia). 97.77.82.187 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Methinks 97* may be protesting a bit too much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked IP one week for block evasion or meatpuppetry. Special:Diff/1274499742 and Special:Diff/1274500286, four minutes apart, plus all the similar interests in their edits. The most charitable interpretation of IPs comment: He also wrote that for a challenge I gaave him to write the longest sentence he can make. would be meatpuppetry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Can someone revoke their Visa (TPA)? I see them writing a whole load of gibberish the previous day. Borgenland (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

What gibberish? 71.78.136.213 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

^--- This IP is obviously evading the block as well. Just resubmitted an article draft by Visaa11 and reverted their edits back into an article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

To admins: revoke Visaa11's TPA, please. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Visaa11&action=history. Janhrach (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from 97.77.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:PA by Cerium4B

• Cerium4B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting this concerning user who is not WP:AGF and is continuously showing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, along with threatening [13] another user by falsely accusing them of a WP:3RR violation and casting aspersions [14] by saying: Maybe you didn’t even notice what article that was. Honestly, I haven’t seen such carelessness from any editor on Wikipedia since I joined., which is just unacceptable. They've also been removing warnings [15][16] and then placing revenge warnings [17]. On top of that, they refuse to acknowledge their content blanking behavior [18], and this isn't even the first time they've been warned [19] or brought to admin attention [20]. Mr.Hanes Talk 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• The issue become a battleground because that user was reverting without checking what i have edited.[21],[22], finally he understood [23]
• As he reverted 5 times in that page ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Out of these, 4 were my edits & 1 was theirs). So I don’t think saying it is very threatening

  You’ve violated WP:3RR. I am suggesting you to restore all of my edits before I report you for violating the three revert rule

  Why did they performed 5 reverts in a single page? In his talk page It’s highlighted that he is an experienced editor, shouldn’t he be aware of WP:3RR?
• We met after contributing on article related to Myanmar. But he gave me notice about “Introduction to contentious topics about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan” [29], is it logical? Why didn’t he noticed that article was not related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. So he is not careful again. That’s why I said

  Also your this warning is totally wrong. It’s used for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Maybe you didn’t even notice what article was that. Honestly, I haven’t seen such carelessness from any editor on Wikipedia since I’ve joined

• I removed his first warning and in edit summary i said

  Please add a new topic

  I asked him to add a new topic about that, because he warned me in a previous discussion related to another user. I didnt think notifying that user would be a good idea!

so i asked him to add a new topic. But he reverted that too [30]. Then again I reverted that and said

I’ve requested you to add a new topic. Don’t notify other users that was a completed discussion. Also you are not careful. You are making mistakes

[31] Because I believed he again didn’t notice that I’ve requested him to add a new topic on that.

• As he violated WP:3RR, I’ve placed the 3RR warning. [32] It’s not a revenge warning.
• the article showed There were about 20 jews in Myanmar with a cn tag since September 2023. So I removed that section. Because I thought a individual section for Judaism was not necessary. And still believes that is not significant. That’s why i started a discussion on that article talkpage [33]
• Previous incident:

1. [34], the issue has been solved and yes it was my fault.
2. And this [35]? Please see that whole incident or edit history carefully!

— Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.Hanes, I noticed that you have reverted my edit on Islam in West Bengal, without explaining the reason or without any edit summary. [36]

Please explain me why have you done that. If that doesn’t create any issue on other articles like Hinduism in Saudi Arabia, why is that a issue if I add that to Islam in West Bengal??? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Cerium4B: The POV warrior

• Cerium4B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting serious concerns regarding WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, and WP:PA violations by this editor. They've been blatantly pushing their certain POV by adding unsourced content to 2002 Gujarat riots ([37] [38] [39] [40]) and Violence against Muslims in independent India ([41] [42]), both of which are contentious topics. Thankfully, their edits were later reverted by Ratnahastin ([43] [44] [45]). They've also been blanking content with vague and misleading edit summaries, like at Sheikh Mujibur Rahman ([46]), where they justified the removal with: People of Bangladesh haven’t accepted this., which is just a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At Hinduism by country, they kept removing content with the excuse Unnecessary data ([47] [48]). Thankfully, their repeated attempts to push a particular POV were reverted yet again ([49] [50]). It doesn't stop there—they also tried adding POV-ridden honorifics at Islam ([51]), which got reverted ([52]), and made generic, non-consensus changes ([53]), which were reverted yet again ([54]). Another instance of them inserting unsourced, controversial content was at Lawrence Bishnoi ([55]), which, unsurprisingly, was later reverted. Their disruption extends to Dhaka–Bhanga Expressway ([56]), where the page has basically been hijacked with POV-driven additions and removals. They've also been issuing unwarranted warnings ([57]) without addressing the concerns raised by Worldbruce at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantonment Public School and College, Rangpur. Instead of engaging in constructive discussion, they’ve made racial remarks ([58]), saying: The Kaler Kantho just a small local newspaper? 😂 Honestly, I believe Wikipedia should restrict foreigners from editing articles related to other countries. They ignored Liz's warning and kept posting nonsense ([59]), further showing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: @Liz Actually, I am talking about @Speederzzz. He is from the Netherlands. He said that Kaler Kantho is a small local newspaper, but it is a national newspaper in Bangladesh. Given the extent of their POV-pushing and disruptive behavior, they shouldn't be allowed to edit in the article namespace anymore. At the very least, a partial block is necessary, but considering their poor discussion habits, an indefinite block might be the only real solution. Koshuri ^(グ) 17:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan, What do you want to prove with these? These are my early edits after joining Wikipedia. Back then, I made many mistakes because I didn’t know Wikipedia’s policies.

However,

• what is unsourced about the 2002 Gujarat riots? The information about the deaths of Muslims and Hindus is still present in the article. I tried to highlight them, which I shouldn’t have done!
• [60], Sadly, the images have been deleted, so I can’t comment on what they contained. Based on my edit summary [61] i think the image contained some information.
• [62] At the time, I wasn’t familiar with WP:MOS
• [63], I added relevant content with sources, but another user reverted it. I thought he was more experienced So I didn’t engage in re-adding or edit wars over these changes because I knew I had no understanding of Wp:policies.
• [64] What’s wrong with it? Isn’t he a terrorist-gangster?news Or do u want citations in short description?
• [65]DO u have any idea about this article? check news
• [66] Here, I was overly rude when the most famous “school and college” of North Bangladesh was nominated for deletion. I reacted that way because I didn’t understand how Wikipedia works. I didn’t even know Wikipedia has admins 😆. However, I’m still upset with Worldbruce for nominating that article for deletion. But nowadays, if I need help, I ask Worldbruce or mention him for review.

Now, I’m much more familiar with Wikipedia’s policies.

But I don’t understand why you’re digging up these controversial edits. It’s normal for new editors not to edit like admins right after joining. I think even admins made mistakes when they first started.

I hope in future I’ll be an admin.😎

Now,
undoubtedly, I still make mistakes.

• But if anyone checks my edit count or general statistics—https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Cerium4B —you’ll see that 97.4% of my edits are live, and only 2.6% have been deleted.
• If anyone look at your general statistics—https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Koshuri_Sultan —only 67.7% of your edits are live. That means most of your edits (32.8%) have been reverted, compared to mine.

You are just harassing me here. I was about to create an article when I got this notification. More than an hour has been wasted defending myself against your report. I don’t know what you’re focused on, but please stop doing this to other users.
I just noticed that you were blocked for more than 200 days and recently got unblocked.
If any admin sees my reply, Im asking for a block on Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again for - randomly, intentionally harassing a Wikipedian. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, when Koshuri Sultan's name was Based Kashmiri, I believe he was blocked for sockpuppetry. Especially given your own history, Koshuri, I don't think it's fair to go way back into an editor's contributions to find mistakes when they were just learning about how Wikipedia works. Let's focus on recent edits from the beginning of 2025 (which I think some of these are). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right, Liz. I have learned from my past mistakes, which I can proudly say. But after taking a good look at Cerium4B's newer edits, which I just saw in the existed ANI above, it's quite clear that they are not leaving their past behind. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

What have you seen in the above ANI report?

When I explained him the issue [67],

he himself tried to delete his report [68]

check what have i explained above [69] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Good whataboutism. Unfortunately, this ANI isn't about me, and you've barely addressed the issue with a poor fauxpology. It's concerning that you want to greenlight your poor additions and disruptions just because they were made in the "past" (not that the newer edits are any better). That means you expect others to ignore your pretentious behavior and move on—but sorry, that's not how it works. Tracking your poor edits is nowhere close to harassment. You're only making your case worse. Please don't falsely accuse other editors of "involvement in harassment." Koshuri ^(グ) 04:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

[70] Your past is way worse than mine. (Disruption, vandalism, violation, edit wars, sockpuppetry, etc.) What if someone reports you for your past? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Uh again whataboutism, it's not helping you. Where do you see disruption, edit wars and vandalism in my past edits? In fact I have myself filed many SPIs and ANIs (I guess three) and in all I have a good strike rate (if we say informally), you don't need to waste your time in defaming me. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Apart from what has been cited here, I found Cerium4B to have falsified sources for adding false claims such as here where he claimed "film's portrayal of sensitive historical events, including the assassination of former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, has drawn criticism". It is not found in any of the source. It was removed after discussion and the rest of the content was already covered on the article. Cerium4B was not even present on the talk page. I believe a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA is justified. Capitals00 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Capitals00,

  • I haven’t falsified this, most probably Godi Media has changed their news. The news was like these -

  1. BBC News is covering everything [71](please translate)
  2. Also ckeck this news [72]

  • As i was not notified about that discussion, I had no participation…

  — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Indian Express is not a Godi media source. You clearly falsified that reference in this edit because it does not support your content. To say that you have to be notified of the talk page discussion even after you have significantly edited that article speaks of your irresponsible behavior. Koshuri ^(グ) 05:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Instead of judging what is Godi media, please review the news I’ve given. My contribution was based on news. If the news changes, I have nothing to do with that.

  Additionally, The Indian Express is not neutral enough on Bangladesh. check — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  How does it justify your falsification of the source? Your source for your claim is Chief Adviser's Press Wing Facts (Bangladesh). Now I am going to doubt your competence more than what I did before. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not sure if you r serious or joking with me here. According to the sources I provided above, you can check whether my additions to Emergency article was based on news or not. And later i have provided a news that proofs that Indian Express is not neutral on Bangladesh. Which is a type of godi media. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Cerium4B, I have some concern regarding your some recent edits. Could you please clarify why there is no need to mention this when the information is present in the citation? + could you explain why this is considered biased content as you claim while removing?
  I also wanted to know that why are you giving personal assumptions on an editor POV without solid evidence, as seen in your comment here : "So, Wikipedia should reflect your personal opinions now? You like Indians, so you left them out, and you have a problem with Bangladeshis, so you exaggerate their presence?" This isn't the way to do healthy discussion.
  And regarding this reply, could you clarify why you replied Done ✔️ after doing Keep vote if it wouldn’t be considered AfD vote canvassing? Well, I also voted on this and the article is nothing more than a promotional gebbrish. NXcrypto Message 10:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  @NXcrypto,

  First of all you should clarify why have you restored those edits. Anyone can see that those contributions are biased. (Requesting Admins to check this [73])

  what kind of reference is it that you restored [74]?????

  It is clear that the user deliberately exaggerated information about Bangladeshi nationals.

  If anyone checks the reference, the information about Bangladeshi nationals is not correct.

  You have not checked the edits or the citations, yet you have restored them. [75] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @Varoon2542: here who possibly added those census data and you ignored my query about vote canvassing. NXcrypto Message 13:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Niasoh notified me about that afd. After checking I replied him “Done ✔️“. Is it not allowed? And how is that a canvass? He had just notified me to check that. Did he ask me to make a keep vote on that afd?

  however, I didn’t know about wp:canvass, but when koshuri noted that, I checked but I don’t think It’s a canvass as he had just notified me to check.

  Moreover Niasoh did that to me, why are you questioning me about that? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pls don't make stories, you replied Done ✔️ after doing Keep vote on afd. NXcrypto Message 14:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is nothing to make any story on Wikipedia.

  1. On my talkpage Niasoh notified me about that afd.

  2. Then i have made some contribution to that article. edit history

  3. Then voted to keep the article

  4. then I replied “Done ✔️” to niasoh

  what is a makeup history? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:CANVASSING. Mr.Hanes Talk 15:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am highly unsatisfied with this reply. Why are you not accepting the fact that you did a canvassed vote on afd. NXcrypto Message 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am again saying that Niasoh notified me about that afd, After contributing to that article, i voted to keep the article. and then koshuri mentioned wp:canvassing, before that I didn’t have any idea about canvass.

  if niasoh made canvass, he should be questioned. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Now you are pinging varoon, it’s Okay.

  but you haven’t answered my question. So it’s clear that you haven’t even checked what was that content and just hit the rollback button!

  which is a clear violation of WP:ROLLBACK — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the content was cited. There are some difference between rollback and undo. And that's was undo not rollback. NXcrypto Message 15:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  +I would like to clarify that I have never misused rollback. My rollback log, available here, shows that all my rollback actions were appropriate. Please avoid making false accusations against me. NXcrypto Message 15:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I didn’t know that rollback and undo options are much different. Both work same.

  However you haven’t clarified why have you restored that… — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  You said

  “I also wanted to know that why are you giving personal assumptions on an editor POV without solid evidence, as seen in your comment here : "So, Wikipedia should reflect your personal opinions now? You like Indians, so you left them out, and you have a problem with Bangladeshis, so you exaggerate their presence?" This isn't the way to do healthy discussion.”

  Why don’t you see the whole incident???????

  As varoon said these ([76], [77]), I said him those on the article talkpage with properly mentioning his comments.[78]

  I’m not explaining these to you anymore. You should check everything carefully. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't the only time when Cerium4B and Niasoh have canvassed together. Cerium4B has notified him to join discussions where Niasoh has never edited or participated before.

  • Cerium4B started a move request here and asked Niasoh to join the discussion [79], Niasoh voted in his favour and replied him Done [80]
  • Cerium4B also notified Niasoh to help him to support him when he got into dispute with Varoon2542 [81] (Note: Niasoh never edited that article before) Koshuri ^(グ) 16:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Previously I’ve said I didn’t have any idea of canvassing. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Umm... I wasn't aware that this thread was still active. As far as I know, I had pulled this ANI since the main issue was resolved through discussion, but then I saw Yamla reinstating it [82]. So, I guess I should be involved here again. Seeing the concerns raised by many users above, I have to say that Cerium's past contributions closely resemble their recent ones. They've also been found involved in WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING with their co. recently [83], and their discussion behavior has remained unchanged throughout their Wikipedia career. Mr.Hanes Talk 15:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  If there was a violation of wp:canvassing, isn’t it niasoh who violated it? — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note that there was another section up the page regarding Cerium4B's editing. I have merged them so that discussion can be centralized, and at the more recent report as the old one was very further up the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Totally unexpected!

I have explained everything to you! [84]

now the admins will judge… — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea what is going on here. I see various confusing walls of text. Can you condense your complaint RE Cerium4B into 100 words, with links to diffs that clearly show misconduct? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Very well then @voorts, I'll try to summarise the whole drama in less than 100 words. Mr.Hanes Talk 18:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Cerium4B ANI (summarised)

Basically the user is being reported for persistent WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, and WP:PA, WP:CIR, WP:CANVASSING along with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Doing mass removals and additions (without consensus) [85][86] and on top of that removing warnings [87][88]. Casting aspersions and passing personal remarks: [89][90] [91][92][93][94][95]. Making blatant POV ridden edits: [96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103] all of which were later reverted. Falsifying sources [104]. canvassing, tagging and vote stacking: [105][106][107][108]. WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IDHT issues: [109][110][111][112]. Mr.Hanes Talk 19:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of these many, many diffs but just noting that there is nothing wrong with an editor removing a warning from their User talk page. It's surprising how often this comes up here when it is perfectly okay behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is still not helpful. Please provide recent diffs, not old ones, showing Cerium4B making problematic edits and then not accepting constructive feedback from other editors. Also explain the conflict. it's hard to reconstruct things when you say that Cerium4B is misrepresenting sources, and then you just link to a diff of adding a new section to an article; I'm not going to dig through sources to figure out what Cerium may or may not have misrepresented. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I opened a random selection of diffs from the above, and every single one was either a) from October of last year, or b) a complete nothingburger. If you can show, for each category of behaviour you'd like admins to investigate, diffs of 1) the unacceptable behaviour, 2) someone explaining why that behaviour is not acceptable, and 3) the behaviour continuing after that explanation, we'll be able to do something. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Voorts and Asilvering. Fewer diffs (you only need, I'd say, 3-6 is sufficient), but recent ones and relevant to the argument you are making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz and Asilvering: Upon further investigation into their recent contributions, I'm seeing a pattern of making undiscussed page moves citing vague assertions of their desired title being the common name and if not WP:OFFICIALNAME. On 16 January they went on a frenzy renaming institutions, places named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his daughter Sheikh Hasina to what they called "official" and "common names" after interim Bangladesh government had renamed them, although no discussion was done to determine whether they were common names as WP:OFFICIALNAME makes it clear that we do not just rename titles of article when a newly formed government changes them on whim.

• Sheikh Hasina University was moved to Netrokona University [113] citing this link after Bangladesh government had renamed the University.
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman University, Kishoreganj was moved to Kishoreganj University with the same rationale [114]
• Mujibnagar University was moved to Meherpur University same as above [115]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman University, Naogaon was moved to Naogaon University [116]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University was moved to Gazipur Agricultural University [117]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Shariatpur Agriculture University was moved to Shariatpur Agriculture University [118]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Digital University was moved to Bangladesh Digital University [119]
• Bangamata Sheikh Fojilatunnesa Mujib Science and Technology University was moved to Jamalpur Science and Technology University [120]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Pirojpur was moved to Pirojpur Science and Technology University [121]
• Jatir Pita Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Narayanganj was moved to Narayanganj Science and Technology University [122]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University was moved to Gopalganj Science and Technology University [123]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University was moved to Maritime University Bangladesh [124]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Aviation and Aerospace University was moved to Aviation and Aerospace University Bangladesh [125]
• Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College was moved to Bogra Medical College then to Bogura Medical College and then it was redirected to Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College[126] all of this was fixed by @Utopes: [127]
• Gangachara Sheikh Hasina Bridge was moved to Gangachara Bridge, Rangpur [128]
• Bangabandhu Aeronautical Centre was moved to Bangladesh Aeronautical Centre [129]
• On 21 January,they moved Bangabandhu Island to Putney Island [130] citing a link to a reference entry at the Library of Congress [131] while calling it the common name.
• Their recent mainspace edits have also been disruptive, on 24 January they inserted POV AI generated content into the article which apparently contained falsification of the source material.[132] [133]. Their response to these concerns right above from 8 February only speaks of their lack of collaborative approach. I think a topic ban from ARBIPA is justified. NXcrypto Message 13:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, as I’ve the right to move a page, i moved those according to the official change. Where discussion was needed i did a move discussion.
  These institutions were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members during her authoritarian regime. These names were totally confusing. We used to call the universities according to their District name, which are their present name.
  As the government neutralised the name of those universities, I changed them on Wikipedia. Before the official change, I didn’t do anything. Also the same thing did to other articles.
  Even today, the government has changed names of 11 more institutions which were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members. [134]
• Emergency movie: Yes, that was partially Ai generated. I used Chatgpt to complete the citations. And Chatgpt modified my speech. However using Ai to make contributions is not a violation. Using Ai is discouraged in discussion, As far as I know.
  You are continuously accusing me of content falsification. But I have provided other news, one from BBC. If you check that you will understand that my contribution was based on news. And I believe that Indian express has changed their news. The movie was made by a political leader of the ruling party of India. So it’s not impossible to see a news alteration by godi media.

— Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You moved them citing "official and common name", there is no requirement on Wikipedia that we must use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs in the title, you cannot claim that the rename is a common name when it was only recently done this requires discussion. Your weird page moves at Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College were also disruptive and had to be fixed by a page mover. "These institutions were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members during her authoritarian regime" - Read WP:RGW, Wikipedia is not a place for partisan editing.

AI use is discouraged and editors are told to exercise caution making sure that content does not violate guidelines. You did not cite BBC but The Indian Express which is not supporting your information. NXcrypto Message 16:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Medical College Is located in Bogra District. to make a redirect, i did that. It will help people. When they will search Bogura Medical College or Bogra Medical College, they will find the main article.
Unfortunately while doing the second move, I couldn’t move back to the main article. because there was already a redirect. (my first move). And I don’t have “page mover” right, so I couldn’t fix that. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

So, it seems when I look through this, it seems like the primary complaints, Cerium4B are undiscussed article page moves and using AI for citations and other content creation. While it might be true that most editors can move a page, if there are complaints about it, which there obvious are because we're discussing this at ANI, then you should be discussing mass changes like this. Can you change your editing practices in response to the problems pointed out, in good faith, by other editors?

I think what bothers me the most is not the article page moves, which were not warranted but can be reverted and rather using AI to form a citation which might exist for a long time before another editor thinks to check on it and finds that it is inaccurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If I missed some glaring problem here, I apologize but this is a very lengthy complaint. My comments were not an attempt to summarize what has been said but by what stood out to me in the most recent comments posted today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cerium4B, please do not use AI to generate citations for wikipedia. This puts you at risk of violating WP:V with your edits. You must base your edits on sources that you, yourself, have read. AI is also often very poor at maintaining WP:NPOV, and it can fabricate "facts", so it's not a good idea to use it for writing articles at all. You are working in and adjacent to various WP:CTOPs, and other editors have questioned whether your edits are pov-pushing, so you especially ought to avoid using AI.

These moves do not appear to me to be RGW issues. In particular, I find it disingenuous to say that These institutions were named after Sheikh Hasinas family members during her authoritarian regime is a partisan statement. It is simply a statement of fact. Nor is it an unacceptable statement of one's personal politics to use the word "authoritarian" to describe her. Our own article on Sheikh Hasina describes her government as "authoritarian", cites RS who call her a "dictator", and contains an entire paragraph on Bangladesh's diplomatic backsliding.

@Cerium4B, what is problematic about these moves, at least the handful I investigated, is that you changed the name without adding any kind of source for the information, and without writing anything about it in the article. So someone who comes to Shariatpur Agriculture University sees an article where, aside from the bolded first words, every mention appears to be of a different institution. There is no information at all about the name change to the current title. That's unhelpful and confusing to readers. Please don't make this kind of page move in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to pblocked Cerium4B from mainspace

In violation of WO:NPOV, WP:IDHT and for casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other good faith editors. They are WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia but for a specific WP:BATTLEGROUND cause. The series of personal attacks and casting aspersions along with POV pushing is extremely concerning. Their recent involvement in canvassing and irresponsible behaviour on talk pages further warrants a pblock from mainspace of English Wikipedia. Maybe they can prove themselves by contributing in bengali or simple Wikipedia.

• Support as proposer.Mr.Hanes Talk 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: While it is true that Cerium4B has been involved in canvassing for long time but he claims to have been completely unaware about canvassing[135][136]. The edit diffs related to POV-pushing & Personal Attack are month old. Given these factors, imposing sanctions at this stage does not seem justified. NXcrypto Message 10:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Struck per my above comment. NXcrypto Message 13:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Off-site harassment from Anatoly Karlin

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

---

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

---

Anatoly Karlin a writer for the far-right The Unz Review has just created an attack page about me on his website and is linking to it on Wikipedia. He links to this website here [137].

On his website he claims I am a banned user and many other absurd and false accusations. Some back story on this was put on my user-page last month [138]. I am already in contact with the the Wikimedia healthy and safety team who are investigating the off-site abuse from these far-right trolls but basically last year I made some edits on the Human Diversity Foundation Wikipedia article. After making the edits the members of this far-right group including its founder Emil Kirkegaard have been targeting me on and off-site, emailing me abuse and doing anything they can to try and get me banned. Their angle has been to promote an absurd conspiracy theory that I am a sock-puppet or meat-puppet of another banned Wikipedia user.

It should be noted that Karlin has strong links to the Human Diversity Foundation and has met the owner of it and has actively defended the organization on his social media. It is obvious he has been sent here by the HDF to continue this harassment campaign.

I have over 54,000 edits here, over 340 article creations. I am not a banned user, nor am I sharing an account. I appreciate if an admin can rev del Karlin's edit where he links to the attack page against me. Veg Historian (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Karlin linking to his website attack page that he has created about me in more edits [139]. This is severe harassment. Can an admin please look at this. Veg Historian (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This looks like useful background to this case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to unpack this a piece at a time. Anatoly Karlin did not out you as you linked to your offsite rational wiki identity here: Special:Diff/1251319916. Correct? That takes outing off the table.

PS: Others please jump in and help. There's a lot here to unpack. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have emailed the oversight Wikimedia team. Karlin has created an attack page about me on his website with various dox of a real life person, deliberately confusing my identity with this other user in an attempt to get me banned. The website also falsely accuses me of many things such as losing Noah Carl his job from Cambridge University and makes various legal threats. Veg Historian (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think accusing someone of being a sock of a banned user is a personal attack unless made at WP:SPI. That said I have no idea whether VH/PG is actually AngloPyramidologist. On the internet nobody knows if you're a dog. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems irrelevant, since it's still an attack page anyways. It should definitely not be allowed to be linked to. Silverseren^C 00:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, see here I have been on video call to the RationalWiki Foundation [140], [141]. These same HDF people tried to get me banned at RationalWiki after they spammed RW the same website attacking me, but they failed. No users on RationalWiki voted to ban me because I am not AP [142]. The Human Diversity Foundation and Karlin have been pushing the conspiracy theory I am AP in an attempt to get me banned. I have been harassed by these far-right group for quite a few months now. If you check the recent stuff at RW you will see that Captain Occam has admitted to writing some of the material on Karlin's website. This is all revenge from a group of far-right trolls against me for making edits on the HDF Wikipedia article. It is an organized harassment campaign and the WMF are well aware of it. The only contact I have ever had with AP is some emails about the founder of HDF, I disclosed these at the time. Veg Historian (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, Veg Historian is a responsible and trustworthy editor, and it looks to me like he is getting targeted just for having made NPOV edits. This edit: [143], comes as part of an RfD, where there are also some IPs taking part, and they seem to be acting on Karlin's behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I've read the outside article and looked at the postings here. It is disruptive for Anatoly Karlin to use an off-wiki page to address an on-site issue. This is like saying "look on Wikipediocracy to understand my concern". While not taking any side on the accuracy of the accusations, any such accusations should be addressed on-wiki or not at all. I will delete the links and refer Anatoly Karlin to either post here at AN/I or contact ArbCom for any concerns they have. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have left the following message on @SublimeWik's (Anatoly Karlin's) user talk page: If you have a concern about on-wiki behavior by an editor here, post about it on Wikipedia. Linking to an offsite page is disruptive, as it prevents proper discussion and review of your concerns. You can post about it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or contact ArbCom if you feel the information needs to be confidential (e.g., it would "out" an editor). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Note to others: so far, all I have addressed is linking to an outside site and the possibility of outing. I have not addressed whether this is inappropriate harassment deserving of on-wiki action, and obviously the other issues of off-site abuse have been referred by OP appropriately to Trust and Safety. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I've looked around and found other places onsite where there are links to purported "investigations" into VH that were posted by SW, and I've redacted those too. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To briefly address this entire discussion. I know Kirkegaard, but have no relationship to the HDF. I have only ever commented and edited on Wikipedia under this handle. I republished Ghost of Lomax's article on my website and linked to it here because it contains strong and important evidence about PG/VH's activities and likely identities, which I consider to be germane in light of (1) the accusations he constantly levies against me across this site - sockpuppetry; anti-vegan activism; being an associate of Richard Spencer; White Nationalism; etc., which themselves all originate from AP's writings on RationalWiki; and (2) his active involvement on pages and even redirects that somehow relate to me. I never made any legal threats (though amusingly, the individual known as AP *did* serve me a lawsuit a few weeks ago, albeit he retracted it soon afterwards). In any case, my goal here is not to get PG/HV banned - that is up to your own policing procedures - but to (1) give context to the inaccurate characterizations made about me at The Unz Review article (addressed in Talk pages - for a start, contra PG/VH's claims, I quit UR in 2021), and (2) more broadly question the legitimacy of PG/VH's involvement in topics that relate to me. SublimeWik (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

If you feel that content should be corrected, that's fine, but you should not be posting your theories about who other Wikipedia editors are, as a way of impugning their credibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I posted a correction request last March. At the most elemental level (objective facts), I do not blog at The Unz Review and haven't done so for 4 years. SublimeWik (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

By republishing Ghost of Lomax's article you are taking responsibility for its content and the consequences of posting it. If you want anything to be done, you need to properly put together evidence and either post it here (ANI) or provide to Arbcom. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have more uninvolved editors keeping eyes on The Unz Review. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This wasn't on my to-do list (see above), but OK, I'll summarize this evidence and post it to ANI when time permits later this month. SublimeWik (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Karlin knows the HDF founder and it is very likely he emailed him to come here. I am not AP nor have I met the guy; as far as I know he has no interest or involvement with veganism. Anyone can easily find AP online, he has a public internet profile. He is a bald man in his 30s. I look nothing like him and the video call over at RW quickly proved that. I did not create Karlin's RationalWiki article. All logs at RationalWiki are public and visible for people to see. I have been researching veganism and vegetarianism for over 25 years and I spend my life publishing on its history with several other academics. 90% of my edits on this website are on vegetarianism or veganism. I founded WP:VAV and I have improved 1000s of articles. A quick look at Karlin's Wikipedia account shows he is not a productive editor. It is obviously not true to say I am attacking Karlin on Wikipedia; I have been here many years. Until October last year when I edited the Human Diversity Foundation Wikipedia article nobody off-site cared about my Wikipedia account. I only have a handful of edits on the UNZ Review article. I reverted Karlin because he removed a reliable source.

Re the anti-vegan thing, here is what Karlin wrote on X.com "I am eating more beef, not just because it's healthy and delicious, but because I get a warm feeling, a real sense of pleasure, knowing that I'm voiding the efforts of some Green vegan loser in the West - as well as doing my small part to help Tropical Hyperborea along. The anti-vegan claim is accurate. Nobody has "attacked" Karlin by claiming he is anti-vegan. It is sourced to his own words. He says vegans are "losers".

If you check the UNZ Review, anyone can read Karlin's articles, example "Why Homosexuality Shouldn't be Promoted". He isn't a pleasant individual. If an experienced user wants to honestly criticize anything I have done I will listen but this far-right group doing these attacks against me and promoting these conspiracies about my account, are not trustworthy at all. It is just revenge campaign because I edited their article. I am not AP and I proved it but Karlin will not remove that misinformation from his website. He is attempting to blacklist my account by deliberately confusing my identity with this other banned user. As I have explained to the WMF privately about these attacks; this harassment for the last couple of months has been damaging my mental health. This nonsense is ruining my editing time here. Veg Historian (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Objection: I do not see how this is a relevant or productive tangent. That said, I do want to highlight one thing here: a a search of my Twitter account will reveal 10 mentions of "vegan" over my 16 years and ~80k Tweets there (one of which was positive, the rest mostly just neutral observations). In fact, I already noted this at the sockpuppetry discussion in a conversation that PH/VH initiated, and which I did not solicit. In any case, 10 mentions of "vegan" over 16 years obviously do not make one an "anti-vegan activist", but this does not stop PG/VH from claiming that I am one. Perhaps this observation is relevant to keep in mind as regards their other claims. SublimeWik (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not being honest. The Human Diversity Foundation that you are associated with is an anti-vegan organization (most of its members support the carnivore diet) and this is one of the reasons that they have also been attacking me off-site. Because you are directly linking to your X.com above. Here is another tweet from you calling vegans mentally ill and not rational. "There's a lot of mentally ill people amongst the vegan types (as you see in the comments). Most are not even truly rational, e.g. oppose eating things like shrimp and crabs (which have ant-level numbers of neurons)" [144]. In the same tweet you call vegan food "shit". You have directly called vegans "losers", "mentally ill", "not even truly rational" and vegan food "shit". If you are not an anti-vegan, nobody is. Let's not play this game because it is easy to refute anything you say. If you have something to say against my account, file it with Arb Com. This is a waste of time. Veg Historian (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

We can't control what happens at RationalWiki or X or a personal website. We can only affect edits that happen here. If you have worries about off-Wikipedia harrassment, you need to contact ARBCOM and/or Trust & Safety which it sounds like you have already done.

We have multiple editors claiming they are being harrassed, allegations that anonymous editors are not who they say they are but the fact is that we are all anonymous on Wikipedia. We don't know that editors are who they claim to be. The only place where it MIGHT be appropriate to associate a Wikipedia account with a BLP is at SPI and even there those statements might be redacted. I also think it is inappropriate to associate active accounts with LTAs of the past on a noticeboards or user talk page which I stumbled on earlier when I was looking into this case. This is definitely casting aspersions so please bring any suspicions you have to SPI and let a checkuser confirm them or say that these associations are unproven. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I can't tell from the indent who you are accusing of aspersions, but I think it's entirely appropriate to redact posts onsite, that link to supposed "investigations" offsite, that make unfounded accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Tryptofish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz I think you might not be fully aware about what is going on here. Anatoly Karlin has created an entire webpage about me on his website falsely accusing me of being a banned user and also accusing me of many other ridiculous things such as claiming I lost HDF employees their jobs such as Noah Carl. Carl lost his job because he was publishing racist research and there was a full investigation into him from Cambridge University, it had nothing to do with me. This is what I mean. This is a delibrate attack on me and is trying to blacklist my Wikipedia account with false and malicious claims.

What is creepy about this, is that I changed my Wikipedia handle to "Veg historian" recently because of Karlin's and the HDF's off-site harassment website. On the very same day (even a few hours) after renaming my account they updated their article with my new account Wikipedia name. All these people want to do is wreck my Wiki editing time here and destroy my life's work on veg history which they have threatened to do. Karlin is pretending to be the victim here but he hasn't explained why he has created this attack-page about me. I have no website on this individual and outside of Wikipedia I have never talked to him. I personally think Karlin should be sanctioned for creating this off-site attack page that mentions my Wikipedia account and then coming over here deliberately linking to it to antagonise me. Is this normal? Which other Wikipedia editors have to put up with this? I just want these people to leave me alone and go back to normal editing. Veg Historian (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I understand this, I've spent at least an hour looking into this case, reading that webpage, looking at contribution history of editors and sockpuppets who are blocked. I now know more than I want to know. I can see why this is distressing to you but it's unclear to me what you want to happen on Wikipedia because of activities that have happened elsewhere. Admins have no power or influence over what private people post on their websites. The only action I can see we can do is revision delete the link if it is posted on here. This is not dismissing what is happening to you, I'm just pointing out the limits of what we can do HERE, at Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess we could impose an IBan if the other editor agrees to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I am not expecting Wikipedia to do anything off-site. A UK police report against the "Ghost of Lomax" website has already been filed. The website is currently down and that is the reason that Karlin ported it word to word to his website. The owner Emil Kirkegaard (also a banned Wikipedia user) of the Human Diversity Foundation is the one who funded the "Ghost of Lomax" and a man is running it in the UK. It only has two writers - Anatoly Karlin and Captain Ocaam. The latter is also banned on Wikipedia. I personally think Karlin should be sanctioned for this harassment. He isn't just involved with it off-site, he is linking to the article that he is actively hosting on his website to intimidate me here on Wiki. Off-site these people are coordinating these attacks. I have been in communication with admins about it before and now they are ramping up their tactics. They were using IPs last year that were blocked, so that is why they are now using Karlin. Veg Historian (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't exactly one sided though. Veg Historian has openly edited (though he can hardly be considered a main contributor to) Karlin's biography on RationalWiki, which by Wikipedia standards is an egregious attack page (as many of their biographies are) that would be swiftly deleted if it were ever created here. Karlin has a right to be upset about VH contributing to an attack page that comes up prominently every time someone Google's his name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That said, Karlin has said many things off-wiki that could reasonably be construed to be a violation of WP:NONAZIS and it's really questionable whether he is here to build an encyclopedia (which VH clearly is). Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I only ever added well-sourced content to RW. For example here is one of Karlin's comments from the UNZ "Several years back, in San Francisco, a black woman tried to solicit money from me, and began haranguing me about my racism when I walked past her. I told the fat (N-word) bitch to fuck off in precisely that language. She lapsed into a sort of slack-jawed shock for several seconds, allowing me to walk away unmolested. Clearly she had never been spoken to from a position of white privilege" [145]. It can't be a crime to cite someone's own words. If WP:NONAZIS applies to off-site then this guy should be banned for the outright racist stuff he has been posting for years but from my reading of NONAZIS I think it only applies to what users write on Wiki. Veg Historian (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW if anyone wants to know what the "Ghost of Lomax" webpage that Karlin is hosting is referring to. It is Abd Lomax, a globally banned Wikipedia user who actually tried to sue the WMF foundation and lost. Imagine creating a website dedicated to a globally banned Wikipedia user and thinking he is a credible source. Veg Historian (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Veg Historian, why would you create a redirect for Anatoly Karlin which is the identity SublimeWik has claimed they are? And your target article is a company they say they don't work for any more. That is about as far as you can get from keeping your distance from each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Unz Review is not a respectable company. They publish holocaust denial and alt-right content. The redirect you are talking about was created in April 2024. In March 2024, Karlin was editing the article, removing WP:RS from it [146]. I created the redirect because he is clearly notable for his involvement with Unz Review. As of 9/2/2025 all of Karlin's anti-Semitic and racist blog posts at The Unz Review are still live [147]. In total he wrote for them for 15 years and authored 2300 articles. The redirect is clearly justified per notability criteria. It is not "harassment" to factually redirect his name to a magazine he wrote for 15 years, his involvement with the website is also supported by WP:RS. Veg Historian (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I was not arguing that there was no reason for this Redirect editorially. It's now being debated at RFD and despite the SublimeWik's objections it looks like the redirect will be kept. I just thought that if there was this much bad history between the two of you, if you are so worried about threats, then you would stay far, far away from everything having to do with this subject, not creating Redirects with their name. It wasn't your editorial judgment I was questioning, it just seemed like this situation was a headache for you so I don't know why you are keeping some ties with this person, this editor, their whole organization. If it was me, I would be keeping my distance and returning my focus to vegetarianism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I was only attacked from these far-right people since November 2024 (this was after I made some edits in October on their organization article). Prior to December 2024 this Karlin person was not attacking me; his main enemy is that AP user who is banned from here.

The redirect was made in April 2024. If you check my contributions they are nearly all on veganism and vegetarianism. I probably have less than 60 in total on any of this far-right stuff out of over 50,000 edits. I am trying to keep my distance and go back to normal editing but these people will not allow it. Karlin didn't publish that article about me today, it was put on his website about a week ago. Him returning to Wikipedia and pasting in the link on site is just another WP:Hound attempt. You are correct that I shouldn't have reverted Karlin today on the Unz Review and I should have just avoided him, but this guy is actively attacking me off-site, posting nonsense about me on social media and then he comes here to whitewash a Wikipedia article that mentions him. He is not a good-faith editor. Veg Historian (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, there was a lot to unpack here. I tried to explicitly nibble away piece by piece by my posts above, but thought I'd summarize my thoughts here, as it may be hard to follow piecemeal. Many accusations were posted above. I've only focused on those I thought were potentially actionable. And thanks to Liz for her experienced intervention here.

1. Is the linking of Veg Historian to their rational wiki name outing? No. Veg Historian posted the linkage on Wikipedia.
2. Is SublimeWik responsible for the content of the article they posted on their site even though it was originally written by another? Yes.
3. Is an off-wiki site an appropriate place to report a Wikipedia issue? No. It doesn't allow for proper accountability and discussion.
4. Is it appropriate to link to the off-wiki site reporting a Wikipedia issue? No. It is disruptive. Allows for casting accusations without proper process.
5. Is linking to that offwiki site actionable harassment? I haven't formed an opinion yet. I believe this is more suitable for a more-experienced admin to handle.
6. Who handles off-wiki harassment? Trust and safety is a good location. English Wikipedia admins have no ability to address this, with the sole exception of actions on-wiki that support the off-wiki harassment, for example, linking to offsite harassing posts.
7. Do we sanction people who off-wiki express hateful views? No, we hold people responsible for their on-site actions, not their internal beliefs. If they are able to edit here without being hateful they can remain. See WP:HID. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

While we are on this subject, I advise any admin to look at the history of the The Unz Review talk-page [148]. In March 2024, Karlin's comments have been hidden and striked. Was he trying to WP:DOX another user? I have sent a complaint to the oversight team today about Karlin (the links to his website he was linking to are still visible in the logs) but I had absolutely nothing to do with these other edits made in 2024 and I have no idea what that was about. Veg Historian (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To address the "discussion" since I left:

(1) As I stated, I have no relationship to the HDF and do not coordinate with them - if I am not allowed to make claims about PG/VH's identity here (well evidenced ones at that), why are their theories (purely speculative/projective ones) about me allowed to stand without challenge or censure?

(2) Please note that I did not initiate any of the interactions that I had with PG/VH here (e.g. see the sockpuppet investigation), and that's despite their verified record of hostile editing against me at both RationalWiki and on Wikipedia (setting up the redirect to The Unz Review which has major issues with balance). I think their claims regarding "harassment" should be viewed with this important context in mind.

(3) I would also like to note PG/VH continues to intentionally lie about the most easily verifiable things about my bio, such as my "anti-vegan activism" (= 10 mentions of "vegan" in 16 years on Twitter) and the length of time I spent at The Unz Review ("wrote for them for 15 years" - 2015 to 2021 is six years, leaving soon after it started hosting Holocaust denial from authors who are not me). I reiterate my view that this record of misrepresentation about things that are easily verifiable is important context.

(4) I will also like to note that I have made no personal attacks on PG/VH beyond linking to a well-evidenced investigation about their identity that I consider to be important context for their hostile editing against me and resumed campaign to have me banned. (As per above, I accept the explanation that normal Wikipedia talk pages are not the appropriate forum for that, and so will forward any such arguments to ANI once time permits). The converse has sadly not been true.

(5) While regarding this issue as irrelevant and off-topic in the context of this conversation, but since PG/VH insists on making it one without censure, some comments on WP:NONAZIS and adjacent claims - I am not a White nationalist, Neo-Nazi, or related (except to a small but SEO-privileged faction of RationalWiki individuals who have mined my millions of words of output including obscure Reddit exchanges with trolls for defamatory purposes). Writing blog posts about how Trump is bad and mocking MAGA on X (Ctrl-F "MAGA" or "rightoids" or whatever on my X) and espousing things like artificial wombs (in 2017) and synthetic meat etc. is not a typical WN profile. In fact I would say that if I am a WN and Neo-Nazi, then that would also describe Trump, Musk, and well more than half the US population. SublimeWik (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Note, it is easy to prove what Karlin is saying is false. He has been active on the far-right Unz Review for more than 6 years and was commenting on the website up until 2023.

• Why Homosexuality Shouldn't be Promoted "In other words, it’s a valid public health policy to make homosexuality culturally unattractive, as opposed to glamorizing it". Written by Karlin in 2013.
• Mussolini Did Nothing Wrong "From what I can figure out, though, he really didn’t do anything wrong – at least not substantially more so than any other countries at the time". Written by Karlin in 2019.
• Negrolatry, #BlackLivesMatter, and the West's New Religion, which claims "What you have in #BlackLivesMatter is an emerging religion, complete with its own pantheon of saints and martyrs and the latest iteration of what some have called negrolatry, or the Cult of the Magical Negro". Written by Karlin in 2020.

That is more than 6 years writing for the Unz Review.

If this guy isn't far-right, then nobody is. A peer-reviewed paper on The Unz Review Wikipedia article describes Karlin as a promoter rof "antisemitic conspiracy theories" [149]. It is not "harrassment" to link to a peer-reviewed paper. Karlin has also written in his own words that vegans are "mentally ill" and "losers". If he isn't anti-vegan nobody is. Unlike the attacks on me this user is doing off-site, deliberately confusing my identity with another user and writing harmful things about my account which are not true, all I have done is quote this users own words above. I have never attacked him. This user also says he has no involvement with the Human Diversity Foundation but has admitted in this thread to knowing the owner and there are photographs of them online together only last year at a far-right event (if needed I can email this to Arb Com).

Note this user has less than 70 edits here and is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. If no action is going to be taken against him for spamming in his attack page against me on site, then this should probably be closed and Arb Com can deal with it. Veg Historian (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The note to the 2013 article: "Republished from AKarlin.com by permission of author or representative"). My previous archives as an independent blogger were incorporated into The Unz Review in January 2015 - this is easily verifiable information.

There is strong evidence linking AP/RationalWiki to the Murphy article which the Jackson Jr. paper cites as an example of citogenesis (more details at the redirect discussion). My views on the connection between AP and PH/VH are known so I discussing this further seems redundant.

Correct, I know Emil Kirkegaard and met him and numerous other intelligence researchers at ISIR 2024 in Zurich (I don't hide behind anonymity and a forest of online aliases). ISIR is a "far right event" in the view of RationalWiki sectants but not of the political mainstream or objective reality. SublimeWik (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

At best this is stupid off wiki drama that should be handled off wiki. At worst this is User:Anglo Pyramidologist and User:Deleet sending proxies here to cause disruption. MartianTechnician (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard is a far-right person who runs the Human Diversity Foundation that was recently exposed by Hope not Hate [150]. Your claim to have met him "numerous" times is highly suspect.

SublimeWik, I am not AP or a banned or paid account. I have already proven I am not AP because I have been on video call [151], [152]. Other users at Wikipedia have also seen me through video call. I run a Wikiproject here dedicated to veganism and vegetarianism. I have dropped you an email. What is it going to take for you to leave me alone and stop harassing me off-site? Can we have a video call about this? I am on discord. You would quickly see I am not AP and this harassment campaign you are doing off-site is unpleasant. I want to resume normal editing at Wikipedia (I have over 340 article creations here and this year another 100 to be created), you are ruining my editing time here. Veg Historian (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an admin would talk to Sublimewik about these continued unproven allegations of sock-puppetry that has continued to make in this thread. I have been here a long time and I take Wikipedia very seriously. If there is a sock-puppet allegation the correct place for this is WP:SPI. It is obvious Karlin will not file there because he has no evidence I am a sock and this is just a WP:Hounding and an attempt to blacklist my account with negativity. These repeated false claims of socking are clearly a violation of WP:NPA. Either open an SPI or cease making these false allegations please. Veg Historian (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have neither the desire to interact with you any more than I must, nor any good reason to, because a video call per se can't prove or disprove sockpuppetry. I do not consider republishing a sourced investigation off-site to be harassment. More to the point, off-site "drama" is probably not germane to this discussion, as several editors have pointed out. I have agreed with the editors that any future concrete allegations of sockpuppetry will be made through the official channels reserved for this, namely ANI or Arbcom. SublimeWik (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't accept the equivalence. Zero evidence of me acting on behalf of Kirkegaard beyond my acquaintance with him has been provisioned - just empty allegations from someone who has demonstrably lied about me multiple times just within this thread. Beyond the laughable notion that I have no reason to dispute the redirect on my own name/Wikipedia's coverage of my work at The Unz Review beyond serving some hypothetical agenda of Kirkegaard. SublimeWik (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You have been unable to show any "lies" I have written in this thread. As a historian everything I cite is well sourced. You said you have only written for the UNZ review for 6 years, I easily proved this false by citing a homophobic article you wrote on the UNZ Review in 2013 [153]. You still made comments on the UNZ review as late as 2023. You said you have never criticized veganism. On your own posts which were cited, you have called vegans "mentally ill", "losers", "not truly rational" and vegan food "shit". You have provided no explanation to why you have written these offensive things. When I ask you about that you deliberately avoid explaining.

You say there is "zero evidence" of yourself acting on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard but you admitted in this very conversation you have met him "numerous" times. You are not acting in good-faith. Your Wikipedia account has less than 70 edits and you have never contributed here. If you had any evidence I am a sock-puppet you would have posted an SPI by now. The fact that you do not want to go on a video call to talk about this shows that you definitely have something to hide. If no action is going to be taken about your off-site harassment that you were linking to on here; then an admin should close this. I will not respond to you again. And well done, you have wasted 5 hours of my editing time today by making all these false allegations. Veg Historian (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I explained, repeatedly, that I wrote for The Unz Review from Jan 2015 to Oct 2021; earlier material was written for my personal blog, which was copied to UR's archives when I joined (see the note at the bottom of such posts, "republished by permission of author or representative". Your allegation that I wrote for UR for more than a decade are false, have been proven to be false, and yet you demonstratively continue to insist otherwise. Your specific allegation was that I am an anti-vegan activist; activism presumably presupposed something more than a disparaging Twitter shitpost once every 2-3 years. I am not an anti-vegan "activist" by any sane definition of "activism". I did not say that I met Kirkegaard "numerous times"; I literally wrote, "met him and numerous other intelligence researchers at ISIR 2024", a conference that you calumnied as a "Far Right event" (if so ETH Zurich hosting such an event should be a major scandal and you should complain to their management). Though I fail to see how this has relevance to anything even if I was Kirkegaard's roommate - as if I have no legitimate interest of my own in what my name brings up on Wikipedia. SublimeWik (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

We are very much at the do not engage level, Veg Historian. You presented the ANI thread and the evidence, that was all that is needed. Getting drawn into arguments with SublimeWik in this thread isn't helping your argument, it is letting them draw you down to their own level to make you look bad too. Please stop engaging right now. Silverseren^C 18:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

+1. --JBL (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to have a lot more to say, but I want to strongly endorse what Silverseren just said and JBL also endorsed. VH, please stop engaging with SW in this thread. Both of you, stop addressing one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• In the exchange above, VH referred to some talk page comments, at Talk:The Unz Review, by SW, that were oversighted. I've looked to see what this was. The oversighting was done by Primefac, beginning with an edit by SW, and here is a permalink to the first "clean" version after the redaction: [154]. It's quite clear what was basically going on there. SW posted an "Article Correction Request" that was similar to what is there now ([155]), with a part that reads: "The RationalWiki article in question was mostly written by (Redacted)." It doesn't take a genius to figure out who SW was referring to, and it's plain to see it was oversighted. This was in 2024. And I feel it is very concerning that SW did that, and apparently is continuing to do it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned about some IP accounts. Above, I linked to this RfD. It was started by an IP, then joined in by another IP who volunteered that both IPs were the same. SW, obviously, has been a registered account for quite a bit longer than that, but it wasn't SW who initiated the RfD; he only started commenting there later. And there has been a history of both IP addresses being involved in editing about Unz, Karlin, or related SPIs: [156], [157], with one IP address recently being blocked: [158]. It looks to me like there is something more organized than just the SW registered account going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  As someone who has been a rationalwiki editor for a while, this is probably an lta there that loves to instigate drama whenever he gets the chance to based on his writing style and the fact that the ip geolocates to florida like the ips at rw.

  MartianTechnician (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  If you see the earlier edits they were editing an lta page about that lta’s involement in rationalwiki, so this is very likely the same person that instigates drama involving any rationalwiki editor. MartianTechnician (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Folks, STOP! The complaint initially brought up here was addressed. I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of the issues underlying this, but there are limits to what can be done here. And addressing disparate issues (e.g., LTAs, sockpuppetry, article fairness) in a single thread is confusing and decreases the chances of useful action. For example, if you have concerns that an LTA is active, open up a new thread to discuss that.
Furthermore, a number of the issues being brought up here are not appropriate for AN/I, particularly since this is not a useful place to address them. For example, if you have concerns about sockpuppetry, bring it up at SPI. If you have concerns about rational wiki, bring it up there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can block me if you want, but I definitely think it is within ANI's scope to address what SW has been posting onsite, and whether it violates our harassment policy. So no, I'm not stopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying the postings are inappropriate for ANI. I'm saying that this individual thread has gone out of control. This thread now has a large number of different accusations by different parties that are all interleaved with one-another. Note my comment in a single thread is confusing and decreases the chances of useful action. If you want to discuss on-wiki harassment, start a different thread and hope that we can keep the discussion focused on the topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, I really do. A big part of the problem is the wall of text created by the two combatants. If one strips that away (I don't feel empowered to hat it, but you or another admin could), this gets a lot less complicated. VH has told me at his talk page that he agrees to no longer edit anything about Unz, and I made this edit to the page: [159], which should presumably satisfy SW. One could keep this ANI thread open a bit longer, to see whether SW really accepts it, as well as if any other admins are able to add any useful information, and if the problems don't clear up, I will open a new thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long: [160]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The simple solution to the ip instigator is to not feed the troll. He has already dwindled down activity at rw as a result of people realizing that he feeds off attention. MartianTechnician (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

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

• Post-close note: SublimeWik has been indeffed for violating the harassment policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Harrasment by Awshort, Round 2

I posted this thread which did not lead to any action.

The same user, Awshort, has now begun reverting my edits on an article that they have no history of editing, nor do they have a history of editing any article even remotely related to the subject.

This is clearly harrasment: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

Diff just now.

Again, Awshort has no history of editing the article nor any history of related articles. They made this comment soon after I created a thread in DRN about an unrelated disagreement. The Spreckels talk page comment included the the line "Here from NPOV noticeboard" thereby giving themselves plausible deniability to wikihound me. They have zero user contributions on the NPOV noticeboard, and zero contributions to the article or related topics, which leads me to believe they were actually there from following my user contributions to harass me.

Diffs from first post, pasted below for your convenience: Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:

• 1

• 2

• 3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.

Delectopierre (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This article appeared Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Claus Spreckels: Accusations of slave ownership more than a week ago; Awshort commented on the article talk-page five days ago, indicating that’s how they found the discussion (very plausible). Awshort’s read that your changes do not have consensus on the talk-page also seems correct. You should spend less time trying to make this article say what you want and more time understanding the (very sensible) objections of other editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1175#Wikihounding by Awshort, this discussion thread ended with Awshort listing some problematic edits made by you and reverts or changes they and other editors had done to address some of the problems. You never responded to the list that they posted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Funny, that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You never responded to the list that they posted

They posted content disagreements, that, in each instance, had editors on each side of the discussion. I didn't reply because the list Awshort provided was about content and this board is for behavior. Furthermore, I posted problematic behavior from Awshort on the talk page for the article previously at issue, and they didn't respond.

But what do either of those facts have that have to do with Awshort's harassment? Delectopierre (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Awshort commented on the article talk-page five days ago, indicating that’s how they found the discussion (very plausible)

I find it highly implausible that of their 977 edits, 0 are on NPOVN, and the first time they follow the NPOVN to a thread just happens to be the thread that I'm participating in, very soon after I posted at DRN. For a point of comparison, Awshort has left 53 comments on the BLPN, a board they have stated they follow.

Awshort’s read that your changes do not have consensus on the talk-page also seems correct

The changes they reverted were not changes discussed on the talk page or NPOVN; rather they were changes that occurred during those discussions. In point of fact, I manually reverted them as they were made without consensus. Awshort then reverted my reverts, in a topic area they have zero history of contributing to.

You should spend less time trying to make this article say what you want and more time understanding the (very sensible) objections of other editors.

I have much to say, but this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue. If you'd like me to reply to this part, just let me know.

Delectopierre (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP has the right of it, that's what you should be doing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Also seems worth noting that Awshort self-reverted several minutes before you opened this thread. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious what relevance that has, in your view? I wasn't aware of it as I was posting this thread. Delectopierre (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well, if you weren't aware, when you file a complaint at ANI, the behavior of the filing party (that's you) is being scrutinized as well as the editor being complained about (in this case, Awshort). Believe it or not, many editors come to post complaints at ANI when they are actually responsible for more disruptive editing than the editor they are complaining about. We can't take the comments of the filing party as being true and accurate, we need to see evidence and also hear from the other party. We don't rubber-stamp complaints and sanction other editors just because someone asks admins to do so.

So, the fact that Awshort had posted about your editing history and that other editors had to revert your work is just as worthy of consideration as your complaints about Awshort. This is how ANI works and it's also why we advise editors, especially newer editors, not to come to ANI because the outcome can be unpredictable and you can find yourself hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I am well aware of WP:BOOMERANG.

We can't take the comments of the filing party as being true and accurate, we need to see evidence and also hear from the other party.

I am not asking you to take my comments as true and accurate, I have provided evidence.

So, the fact that Awshort had posted about your editing history and that other editors had to revert your work is just as worthy of consideration as your complaints about Awshort.

What does another editor reverting my work prove? There are countless reasons something could be reverted, and I could have posted the same list in reverse -- from my perspective. But again, what would that prove?

Look, I'm not suggesting I'm perfect; far from it. I try to follow the rules to the best of my ability. If there are rules I broke that I need to answer for, then I will do so. That said, when someone harasses me - according to the behavioral policy - I am going to report it. Delectopierre (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, actually my question wasn't about your edits being reverted it was that in the last discussion, which you refer to, the discussion ended when Awshort asked you a question that you never responded to. That was the only point I was making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Again, I didn't reply because -- from my perspective -- Awshort's comment was about content. Was I incorrect in my assessment or in my decision not to reply? If so, would it be helpful to reply here, now? Delectopierre (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspended a content dispute at DRN brought by Delectopierre involving Awshort, because I don't want to try to mediate a content dispute between two editors when one of them also has a conduct dispute with the other editor. This is the second report of harassment at this noticeboard by Delectopierre against Awshort. We appear to be looking at an editor who does not like another editor. If we (the ENWP community) close this report without action, we may see another such report in the future. I don't have a strong opinion at this time as to whether we should take any action on this report, or whether we should allow this report to be closed without action, and expect another report at some time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  We appear to be looking at an editor who does not like another editor

  My response to this is that I do not like Awshort's behavior toward me. Delectopierre (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, I'm not sure what action you would propose but so far, no administrator has thought that any action was warranted in this ongoing personal dispute.

I don't know if you realize it, Delectopierre, but I doubt there is a single editor on this project that doesn't have a rocky relationship with SOME other editor on this project, some editor (or maybe many editors) that they don't like or have no respect for. And yet, they find a way to continue on doing work on Wikipedia despite their ill-will towards another editor(s). If we blocked editors simply because they drove another editor crazy, well, we wouldn't have any editors left here to contribute. And, believe it or not, there is probably some editor out there that feels the same way about you that you feel about Awshort. I know there are editors on the project who don't care for me but we don't bring each other to ANI, we ignore each other instead and keep on doing our best work.

Of course, if there is serious misconduct, then that must be addressed but the fact that no admin has taken action yet on the two ANI threads you have started is a sign that, right now, no action is likely to be taken and your time would be better spent on other work. Now, I'll stop lecturing you and responding to this discussion. I advise you not to start a third ANI discussion on this subject unless there is serious, obvious misconduct. Happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Liz - I thought that any of various actions might be in order, such as a caution to Delectopierre, and I am satisfied for now that you have provided it, if he heeds the caution. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: - I have a house walk through today that is taking up all of my spare time, but I will reply shortly after it is completed on this topic. If I could ask that it stays opened until I have a chance to do so and at least present my side, would that be okay?

Also, I had sent you an email on Jan 30th regarding advice on DP and how to proceed going forward. Your status said that you were busy in real life so I didn't ping you on your Talk Page, but I wanted to disclose it.

For full disclosure to anyone else, the message had in part

However, I don't want to automatically give up on DR since I feel it looks bad to automatically go to ANI over conduct while in DR , as well as wanting to follow proper procedure in the hopes that this user could learn from it. Long term, they seem like they could be extremely beneficial as an editor if they would stop doing original research and follow policies. Do we have any kind of mentorship program, or places like dispute resolution that could possibly help the user understand policies a bit better? Noticeboards seem like a last resort so I'm trying to find a middle ground to help them while also making sure they understand that how they are following policies may be problematic and showing how to correctly follow them.

And @Robert McClenon:, thank you for your help wkth the prior case. I never got to thank you but i appreciate your attempt at helping us both as well.

Awshort (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If I’m to be cautioned, it only seems fair that I get an explanation as to how Awshort’s behavior does not meet the definition of wikihounding.

As I read the policy, their behavior meets each element described on the policy page. Delectopierre (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive IP changing Dari to Persian and other POV edits

There is a disruptive IP constantly replacing Dari with Persian in Afghanistan-related articles, along with other POV edits. They make a large number of these edits at once then return the next day to restore these edits and make new ones from a new IP. See for example this edit by 5.123.116.228 to provinces of Afghanistan. The same IP has went ahead to do the same to the articles about the provinces. The edits seem to be mostly coming from 5.123.0.0/16 and 5.124.0.0/16 but I am not sure if a range block is feasible here. I also requested protection for Hafizullah Amin but they are still disrupting many other articles. They have received plenty of warnings before e.g. User talk:5.124.47.26, but they are still continuing the same behavior. Mellk (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Still ongoing. Mellk (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Vinnylospo

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

---

(Report moved from WP:AIV). Vinnylospo is a long-standing editor and has a long-standing problem with adding unsourced material to articles. They have been blocked twice before for this and their talk page is filled with warnings from multiple editora that stretch back over nearly a decade. They are unwilling or unable to abide by WP:V and no amount of requests, warnings and blocks appear to make any difference. Today they went on a spree of adding Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump to hundreds of articles, the vast majority of which don't even mention Trump, let alone have the sources to justify this category. This is after receiving a final warning for adding unsourced material just over a week ago for this edit to David Lynch which is not just unsourced but actually contradicted by the sources in the article. Eight years after they were first warned about adding unsourced material to article they continue on, and will do until they are stopped. Opolito (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Editing restriction

Vinnylospo (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from directly (un)categorizing articles, appealable to the community in six months.

• Support as proposer. It seems like the bulk of Vinny's edits involve adding categories to articles. Routinely, those categories appear to be non-defining characteristics (such as adding Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump to random hotels Trump has stayed at) or without support in reliable sources (such as the David Lynch example). I hope that in six months (or longer), Vinny can make careful, sourced edits outside of categorization and use edit requests to propose the addition of sourced defining categories. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support thanks Voorts, that seems like a good approach. Opolito (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support clearly WP:NOTHERE. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Given the variety of the talk page warnings, this may not be quite enough, but I'm not familiar with the other behaviour. The unsourced categories, however, is clearly a recurring problem. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support This editor clearly lacks the competence and/or the willingness to categorize correctly. This is a chronic problem with Vinnylospo that goes back years. The notion that the fact that Trump spent one night in a hotel is a defining characteristic of that hotel is ludicrous. For amusement, read (or watch) George Washington Slept Here. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Instructions unclear. Categorized George Washington Slept Here under presidential travels of Donald Trump. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support I tried last fall, User_talk:Vinnylospo#Moratorium_on_category_creations, got empty platitudes, behavior continued. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

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

---

Ryke001 (talk · contribs) was warned about inserting WP:UNDUE content at 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision without consensus per [161], [162] and [163]. After I reverted them for reinserting without consensus they proceed to do a hit and run on my TP [164] which they deleted while I explained everything and simultaneously edit-warring on the page again [165] and [166]. Borgenland (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that said user has a tendency to wipe off warnings on talk page, which although permitted, raises questions on WP:IDNHT given that they revert almost immediately. Borgenland (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

When this user finally did try to go to the talk page to seek consensus for their desire to mention Aeroméxico Flight 498, they twice removed opposing comments. Here and here. I warned them twice and I believe they stopped but it seems the undue content is not the only issue here. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

They wiped off a message on my talk page that I had replied to. Definitely WP:UNCIVIL. Borgenland (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Also appears to be edit warring at Five Nights at Freddy's 4. See [167]. Borgenland (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Indef'd from mainspace until they respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

And then they almost immediately removed the block notice. They know where to find us if they want to talk about their edit warring and other issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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

The IP from France needs to be partially blocked

Dubbed at the "IP from France" (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP from France) This user blatantly reverts other user's edits without discussion and re-adds edits that they think is right. Their main mistake is that if two people of the same name acted in a film (one with a Wikipedia page and one without), they will falsely add the film's name to the person with the Wikipedia's page name.

They falsely added two films that Senthil was not a part of here. That was a different person named Master Senthil.

Several times at Nadigai, the IP repeatedly removes all mentions of Rajendra Prasad (actor) and Jeewan Kumaranatunga although both are in the film (full film on YouTube if you have Google Account [168]). Google Translate can easily translate the credits and show you of their existence in the film and they actually appear in the film if you watch the first ~20 minutes of the film. (Sri Lankan actors in the film were previously supported by this iffy source [169])

The user even removed @Srivin:'s edit at Rajendra Prasad filmography [170], although Srivin gave a reason for his edit [171]. The user additionally removed two films from Ali filmography although one has some sort of a source [172] [173] (I gave the timestamp that he came in the film here [174]). Now you might be wondering, why this information isn't sourced, well us editors of Indian origin are editing primarily in the language that we know, and well I haven't checked Gangvaa credits for Ali, but he is in the film [175]. We are scrambling left and right for reliable sources that we will add the second we find it, and I know that @Kailash29792: can support me on this. It is irksome to have your edits reverted multiple times. See the pages I listed under the proposal section.

Evidence that the IP edited the page

1. There is a film (on a Telugu actor's page most likely) that isn't in italics
2. The word début is on the film.

Sadly the IP stopped doing either of these two which makes spotting harder.

Proposal

The IP from Île-de-France (don't intend to dox, but for just geo-locate blocking purposes [176]) should not be allowed to edit the following pages:

• Nadigai
• Rajendra Prasad filmography
• Senthil filmography
• Ali filmography
• Jeewan Kumaranatunga

Without a doubt, the IP will be back to edit one or more of the five pages listed above, so we should ideally stop them in action.

Well, you might be wondering which IP range is this editor on. Well, its simple, check one of these pages. This is an example of what this user's IP might be close to [177]. I wish I could find the latest IP that this editor edit, so I can verify all of this IP's edits and undo all of the false ones. I know that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, but this user is from what it seems adding every unknown 80s films to Telugu actor Wikipedia pages from some unknown database.

Pinging all concerned editors that can help. @Archer1234: (from the first noticeboard link above) @Ravensfire: (from the Indian cinema taskforce [178]). At the Indian cinema taskforce, Kataariveera supported my claims.

In short, this IP makes me feel like my time here is ultimately wasted as they are undoing my edits and not responding on their talk pages (for at least one of the IP addresses, I went to their talk page but by then they were not active). DareshMohan (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: Ali is indeed credited in Gangvaa (thank god the credits are in English [179]). What is boggling to me is that France isn't even listed as a place where Telugu people are significantly present (see Telugu diaspora and [180]), then if this user is somehow French maybe I can excuse their edits. DareshMohan (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

IP accounts can be "spoofed", DareshMohan, so that they aren't accurate for determing the location of the IP editor. We have one LTA who is always editing from IPs that geolocate to South Korea or Japan and I'm 100% sure they are not based in those countries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What? Telugu people can live in France! France is a civilised, decent, modern country, except for the fact that some of them eat horse.—S Marshall T/C 01:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Latest IP is 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:F52B:57D2:BE16:F582 [181]. IP edited Senthil filmography. DareshMohan (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I support DareshMohan and feel this user must be dealt with. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked User:2A02:842A:1BF:1901:F52B:57D2:BE16:F582 but they are likely to jump to a different IP address. Maybe we can get some help from an admin who deals with range blocks if that is appropriate here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The /64 range has been blocked several times, the last in June 2024 for six months. If this person resumes after 31 hours, I think a long block on the /64 is warranted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, rsjaffe, I've been an admin for 8+ years and I still don't "get" range blocks. I'm worried about shutting down Wikipedia access for neighboring states/countries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're using Twinkle to block, just tick 'Block the /64 instead'. With IPv6 addresses a /64 range is virtually always the same user, so no need to be concerned about destroying the Tri-State Area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I'm going to take your word then that it is safe to range block up to /64 unless I hear otherwise. Thanks for the advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Only on IPv6 addresses, but no problem! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Matter of fact, I never block less than a /64 on an IPv6 address. That's equivalent to the block of a single IPv4 address. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The latest IP is User:2A02:842A:1BF:1901:D9F1:A5:EDD1:D16E. DareshMohan (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Fake nobility information

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

---

• Eloise95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has inserted fake information about a specific person having some "nobility titles": many similar accounts (likely from that same person) have been blocked from the Spanish Wikipedia (see: [182]). The information inserted by these accounts is always regarding the same person, with his fake titles, or adding unsourced relationships to the Rothschild family. Thank you, James2813 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @James2813 Eloise95 has not been active here on enwiki since November 2024. And yeah, I find his edits here are problematic, as he has contributed in Spanish language[183][184]. NXcrypto Message 07:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  They've made 8 edits and, as stated, hasn't been active here for months. What is urgent about this situation that causes you to file a complaint at ANI? I think this can wait until and if the editor ever returns to editing on this Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Fake nobility information, and more

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

---

The false information that was reported hours ago, has been again added by user Priscila96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears to be the same person, as he not only has tried to mantain the fake information regarding his nobility titles and relationships, but also has added unsourced and original content about supposed colaborations with David de Rothschild [185] [186]. Thank you, James2813 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

James2813, have you tried talking to the editor before heading straight to ANI? Also, this might be another account of an earlier editor that went by Eloise95. They aren't blocked so this wouldn't be block evasion but I was wondering if they seemed similar to you. But, first, I'd post a notice about Wikipedia policy first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I missed seeing that this report was related to your earlier report which makes my comment less than helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@James2813: if you believe someone is socking, please go to WP:SPI. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Any admin should act on these legal threats. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Danny5784 continuing to be NOTHERE

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

---

I started a previous ANI thread regarding Danny5784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having issues with notability, sourcing, and copyright. It resulted in a one-week block for socking, but didn't end up addressing the larger behavior issues. Those issues have continued since the block expired - in the last two weeks, he's created 36 user sandboxes about non-notable topics (bus garages and individual buses). None of these are remotely suitable to become articles; many are exact recreations of articles previously deleted for lack of notability. He seems to be using his user sandboxes as a personal wiki rather than actually drafting anything suitable for mainspace. Many of the sandboxes are also copyvios; compare User:Danny5784/New Jersey Transit Wayne Garage to the CPTDB wiki.

His unproductive editing is not limited to userspace - he's created two templates ({{accessible}} and {{WiFi}}) and Category:New Jersey Transit fleet apparently for his sandboxes. At this point, this is a NOTHERE/CIR issue - the few positive contributions he makes do not outweigh the degree of supervision that is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Lavalizard101, Voorts, Ponyo, The Bushranger, Liz, Stuartyeates, and JPxG: who all commented on the previous thread. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that Danny5784 created a sockpuppet account under the name of Toyota683 to try and sway the opinion on the ANI thread, which was later confirmed. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like someone raised the issue on Danny5784's user talk page, but there wasn't any mention of blocks, which would make an indefinite block kind of abrupt in my opinion. At the same time, creating a walled garden of Wikia-style content isn't really helpful. Has anyone even pointed Danny5784 toward alternative outlets? That might be something to try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC) edit: OK, I did so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I did suggest some alternate outlets back in January. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've indeffed as not here. They're clearly using Wikipedia as a web host for their NJ transit drafts (including on individual busses) and does not appear to be willing to change their behavior after being warned repeatedly. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by IP on adjacent /64

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

---

Range 2601:602:9700:EFC0::/64 has been blocked multiple times for vandalism with the latest block lasting one month in December 2024. In January 2025, the same editor (based on the same edit summary pattern of article subject is AWESOME or caps lock edit summaries) popped up on an adjacent /64 2601:602:9700:690::/64 and continued their vandalism spree. Requesting another /64 range block or a broader range block depending on the potential for collateral damage. Parksfan1955 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP is also using 24.22.131.125, so I have blocked them for 3 months. I have blocked 2601:602:9700:690::/64 for 3 months also. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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

AK942000's civility

• AK942000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently got into a tiff with AK942000 over adding uncited information and original research to articles, particularly The Bravery (album) and Smile Like You Mean It. I have explained to them multiple times that they need to cite what they put into articles, but they don't understand, insisting that they have done more research than I have simply because they claimed to have looked around and patched information together from what they found. That doesn't take away the fact they have refused to cite their sources and may have violated WP:SYNTH in the process. Furthermore, when I explained to them on their talk page that what they were doing was violating Wikipedia policy, they posted a message on my own talk page where they referred to me as a "snobbish elitist", "insufferable and self-centered, and nitpicky", and "holier-than-thou", claiming I am "abusing my power". I don't find that to be very civil conduct. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

AK942000, what power do you think is being abused? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

ResolutionsPerMinute's Abuse of Power/Removing paragraphs/record dates in Music Articles

And once again Res, unfairly removing valuable information from pages (Like An Honest Mistake, Smile Like You Mean It, The Bravery (Album) will get you backlash (especially when other pages for their release dates/recording date also have no citations like Jenny Was A Friend Of Mine or Hot Fuss). It is when you're actively and repeatedly removing bits and pieces of the articles even when the cited sources in question literally have proof or hint when it was recorded and the release date, is where I have a problem. If you want to contradict yourself several times by removing paragraphs, and recording dates, and saying "uncited" sources but then not provide sources for other songs/release dates, then I have every right to call you out on the hypocrisy and your behavior. Sometimes the citations in question also don't even link to anything. --AK942000 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@AK942000: a single editor is not responsible for all material that has ever been added to Wikipedia over decades. You, however, are absolutely responsible for the content you add to articles. So, from this moment until the end of your Wikipedia editing days, ensure that you include reliable sources when adding or changing article content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I am also warning you against edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

tamperging of pages about lists of coups

On the articles “list of coups and coup attempts by country”, “list of coups and coup attempts” and “list of coups and coup attempts since 2010”  a user by the name tgeorgescu (and possibly a few others) has been editing the articles to claim some some very recent political events are indeed coups, as well as some historical events, even tho there is nothing to corroborate these claims.

These include:

The 2019 Bolivian political crisis

The Romanian Revolution

The Abkhazian Revolution

Euromaidan

Claims by Serb Prime minister Vucic that there was a coup against him in 2024

Claims by Slovak Prime minister Fico of a coup against him

The 2024 Bangladesh Revolution

Coup allegations in Georgia

Accusations that the president of Romania is doing a self coup

All of these edits seem to be done for the purpose of a specific political agenda. I talked to Georgescu about his inclusion of Euromaidan, stating that it was a common argument of russian propagandists to paint it that way. he responded by claiming a revolution and coup are the same thing. I childishly responded by telling him to fuck off and that he was a tankie (disgraceful on my part). He kept repeating his claims in response.

A few days Before I learned of Georgescu’s edits, I noticed some vandalism of these articles, and then uprgraded the protection level for the last two articles I mentioned before. This has not worked. I contacted a user named Vrotsky who thanked me for an edit the other day, about the situation. He said the following:

"Hello, dear user. Yes, I've noticed the addition of controversial content to the various coup d'état wikilists - and it's much worse than it seems. These lists are recently receiving massive edits by IP users and sockpuppets. And it goes far beyond Euromaidan - they've added content about the Arab Spring revolutions, the 2000s-2010s 'Color Revolutions' and modern protests to the list. I'm one of the users who is trying to preserve the page's neutrality, but a lot of content was added in a short time. Well, there are several ways to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. In this case, you can use the WP:Coup argument or start a session on the article's talk page. If you suspect a user is making disruptive edits or vandalism, you can report them. A common behavior of this type of user is to reinsert deleted content without providing an explanation."

Another problematic user is Cobra Portugal, who is making the same sort of edits and only replies in Portugese when questioned about this.

I request that Georgescus and Cobra Portugals edits in general be reviewed, and for them to be banned. Sorry about the wall of text Bird244 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the user Vrotsky does not appear to exist. However you are required to properly notify tgeorgescu and Cobra Portugal if you raise them at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I found them - Vrostky - my apologies for the typo. Technically you are required to notify them too. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I notified all three. will georgescu and cobra portugal face sanctions for their actions? its clear what angle theyre going for with their edits. Bird244 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately not my responsibility to decide (I'm not an admin, just an experienced editor who watches several noticeboards) so I really cannot say if they will face sanctions. I will say I have worked with tgeorgescu on many articles in the past and calling them a vandal is unlikely to be a winning strategy. They're an experienced editor who generally does good work finding a neutral tone in articles about Eastern Europe. And your edit - which led to this dispute - was deleting a significant amount of sourced material, and not just in relationship to Ukraine. I would suggest you should definitely try collaborating with them rather than expecting they're going to pull a tban or a block for a few edits you didn't like. OTOH Cobra Portugal insisting on communicating in Portugese on en.wp is a bit more problematic. I would suggest they would do well to read WP:ENGAGE and, if they don't feel comfortable editing en.wp in English they should consider participating in the Portugese Wikipedia project instead. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I will say that [187] this is inappropriate language to use toward another Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

And please don't accuse people you disagree with of "absurd vandalism" without providing evidence. That is more likely to result in sanctions against you rather than them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

the evidence is in the edit history for all the pages I mentioned. Bird244 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

No. It's not. That's the problem. You came here and said that tgeorgescu was vandalizing these pages and then when we go and look what we see are them defending the inclusion of sourced statements and you deleting sourced material, insulting them, swearing at them and telling them to shut up. So, as it stands right now, no. They aren't the problem here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that calls for a 4im which has been delivered. I strongly suspect this whole thing is going to WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a mention: I did not say that a coup and a revolution are the same thing, just that they are not mutually exclusive. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Bird244, if you file a complaint at ANI or AN (or any noticeboard), you can't just point to an editor or an article and make accusations or it could BOOMERANG on you as a personal attack. You have to lay out an argument, presenting "diffs" or edits, illustrating the problems you see, citing policies and guidelines that have been violated. You can't expect the editors who visit ANI to go find the evidence to support your argument, that is your responsibility as the complaint filer.

Look at other cases on this noticeboard and see which have been resolved and which are still open and you'll see what is necessary for an admin to take action. The policy violations have to either be unambiguous and obvious (to other editors, not to you) or you have to lay out a detailed complaint so that others can see what you are arguing is true. And remember, making accusations without providing solid evidence can be seen as casting aspersion which can result in a sanction for you. This fact is one of the reasons we advise editors to try to reach an agreement on article talk pages rather than heading to ANI because the results here can be unpredictable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Sidebar: Ever since the whole DOGE/Musk purge and whatnot started, the article List of coups and coup attempts has been receiving a lot of attention. The article has been tagged since 2022 with This list has no precise inclusion criteria as described in the Manual of Style for standalone lists, which has been a point of debate recently with disputed content. I started a discussion on the talk page about the Inclusion criteria, which could use some extra eyes and opinions if anyone is interested in participating in the discussion. Kinda seems like the few of us participating are just talking over one another and getting nowhere on a consensus about the disputed content and the inclusion criteria. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, is this a formal RFC because that would bring more participants in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we should let the discussion I opened go a little bit longer before starting a RfC, but you may be right, a formal RfC might be what is needed. It's complicated in more ways than one. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue is that an RFC generally posits one question editors respond to. But a broader discussion can tackle many more aspects of a subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

i probably shouldve written it the same way you just did. also, i noticed some unusual edits made by IP accounts that were similar to ones made by people I mentioned earlier. Bird244 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse editors, especially editors who've been editing for more than 10 years, of having sockpuppets, you better have more evidence than just your suspicions or you could be guilty of making a personal attack. Given what you've just said, I think it is more likely that the IP was copying content than that an experienced editor was using a sockpuppet. The cost of sockpuppetry is high (automatic block) and the chances that an editor who has made tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of edits would create one just to make a random comment is extremely low. It has happened in the past but it's quite rare. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thesanas and Pooja Hegde

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

---

• Thesanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pooja Hegde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This starts back in November 2024 with User:Thesanas (account created that October) requesting GA review on Pooja Hegde. Total of 587 edits with 331 being to that page and an additional 29 to that talk page. Note that user is currently canvassing others and relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Pooja Hegde. Their edits were reverted by another editor on November 15 and they then started an edit war which I then got involved with here. More edit warring here, here, here, here, here (now into December 2024), here, here, here, here, here, and here. User was reported for edit warring which resulted in protection on the page, yet they went right back to it after the protection was reduced starting in February which includes edit warring here and here. Their edits are promotional and the majority of the time include unreliable sources and churnalism. They have been warned and told to use the talk page per WP:ONUS at least a dozen times yet still continue to bludgeon the consensus process. Would recommend a block as they are WP:NOTHERE, or in the very least a topic ban to stop the disruption. I am done editing the page so would also request someone who is not involved to review the page for promotional tone and sourcing.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've partial blocked Thesanas from editing the Pooja Hegde article. They are a single-purpose account insistent on adding promotion and puffery to the article. If the disruption spreads to other articles, the scope of the block can be revisited.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

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

AWU, again

This is really escalating out of hand. I thought that this matter would be over after they were indefblocked for the most recent time. I have just compiled contributions for the past five years for AWU.

Their first account, Another Wiki User the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was created in 2020 and has 11 edits, all to user space, most revdeled, and then they abandoned their account. Account 2 Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created shortly after, also in 2020. Another Wiki User the Guest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked to match block on their main account. Account 3 Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created in 2021, also got blocked same reason. That account was recently unblocked and then it was reblocked. AWU did try an improper fresh start at FF25 YT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but got quickly blocked as a sock.

I would say this matter would be over, right now, but I just discovered Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 4th, created during the period account 3 was unblocked from enwiki on Meta-Wiki. While I was initially patient with this user, I am now convinced that there is going to be a much, much bigger headache for us in the future.

As I anticipate a game of infinite whack-a-mole, I would propose that Another Wiki User be formally banned from editing the English Wikipedia. Their inability to exercise self restraint, combined with both their sporadic editing over the past five years and unwarranted silliness, has demonstrated that they not only do not understand the reasons for the block, but that if not formally banned, they will just keep on creating new accounts and coming back. I thought it would be over once they were unblocked and then reblocked, but no. If they are not formally told that "hey you are no longer allowed to edit English Wikipedia", I think they will just continue. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Weak oppose. It's unlikely any admin is ever going to unblock AWU (unless they can show that they understand what it means to edit productively, in which case I don't see why a single admin shouldn't be allowed to unblock), they haven't edited since being reblocked, and AWU4 has never logged into en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they rise to the level of an LTA or editor who has caused massive damage to the project over years to be considered for a community ban. But that's my opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with you but I have found something a bit more. Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 1st Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 2nd Special:CentralAuth/Another Wiki User the 3rd. For 3 and 4, the accounts were created on Meta, 3 long before the disruptive behavior started and 4 while 3 was unblocked with the condition "no edits to project space".

I do think in this case it is looking more like a WP:CIR fail and actual naivety than any bad faith, but the result is the same. A user that thinks that Wikipedia is a game is going to bend the rules and whatnot to get their definition of "fun" rather than contribute meaningfully and seriously. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 01:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing, WP:3RR and WP:TE by previously blocked IP user: 31.164.184.21 / 194.38.172.194

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

---

Ongoing WP:TE, disruptive edits and edit warring by IP account.

Diffs (from the last hour or so): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... And there will probably be more before I finish writing this.

Warnings here, here, here, and here.

The user had a two-week block before for edit warring here. They previously expressed that an article on slavery in the Spanish Americas was "pro-British", while making personal attacks on another editor, and they have a pattern of making similar claims and removing or rewording material about Spain in relation to slavery. Consider these diffs, and the insertion of "as the rest of the population did". They have also complained (sometimes using a different IP and replying to support themselves) about a slave narrative being "literature", even though the discussions have not found consensus for that, and RSes treat the source as reliable. They are deleting the same source again.

I suspect this is a case of WP:NOTHERE, since they don't seem to want to follow policy or engage with other editors. Lewisguile (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: 31.164.184.21 has been blocked based on a notice at WP:AIV led me to see disruptive editing & a violation of WP:3RR. Since this editor was previously blocked for 2 weeks, I have blocked this editor for one month. Peaceray (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. I hadn't spotted that previously. Lewisguile (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

194.38.172.194 has been blocked in the past but is not currently blocked and they haven't edited in a few days. They geolocate to the same country as the other IP. I'd return if they pick up where 31.164.184.21 has left off. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

User circumventing AfD

• Palakpatels952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilu Ilu (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Ilu Ilu was draftified on February 5, 2025 after the conclusion of a deletion discussion. User circumvented the results by moving it back to mainspace on the 10th. I moved it back to draft today. I asked user why and they stated they were unaware. However, now that they were made aware, they moved it back to mainspace as Ilu Ilu (2025 film). I don't want to edit war by moving it back. Would suggest protection on the page and moved back to draft based on the AfD outcome until the film is released and meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I closed the AFD that led to Draftification (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilu Ilu) and it was wrong to put this back into main space without going through AFC. But when I look at the AFD again, there were comments like this Draftify: until release.... in 2 weeks posted on January 29th and another editor also said to Draftify until release of this film. So, while this editor didn't handle this process correctly, I think the rough consensus is that this article would be acceptable in main space after the movie had been released. I definitely wouldn't edit war to keep moving it back to Draft space. If you are deadset, I'd start a second AFD rather than edit war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it will likely be notable once released and there are reviews. But, that is in no way a reason to circumvent AfD discussions. Otherwise, why have the discussion? It's a waste of time. I am not going to edit war which is why I am here. I would ask that an admin enforce the AfD finding. There is no need for a second AfD when the first just ended five days ago. The behavior by the user is indicative of the bludgeoning that takes place in that space which is frustrating. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear, the film has not yet released. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It is UPE behaviour. Please start a new Afd to get it deleted. It is promotional advertising and breaks the Terms of Use. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is now again here with new title Ilu Ilu (2025 film). Moved from draft space to the main space by the same user. GrabUp - Talk 12:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And moved back again. It needs to go through AFC because its notability is not obvious. Many of its "RS" are advertorials. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Really should eventually be at the original Ilu Ilu page title, not sure if Palakpatels952 is playing name games to see if people will "overlook" that it previously existed but there's no reason for a disambiguation there. Ravensfire (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with the "eventually." Just wish these paid sock farms would stop bludgeoning the process. Moving to a disambiguation is just another sign of their likely UPE.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus

• Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White Mexicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others...

Pob3qu3 has been disruptively editing articles related to White Mexicans for several months, and other related pages attempting to insert a fact about the percentage of "White Mexicans" into these articles. The current problem is that they are performing OR/SYNTH and using WP:CALC improperly, but moreover fail to acknowledge the consensus against them regardless of the venue, and exhibit WP:BIT and WP:IDHT often falsely claim that we agree with them.

• December 26, Remsense (talk · contribs) reverted (diff) and they began a talk page discussion with this user[188].
• December 27, I (Tiggerjay (talk · contribs)) first became aware of this user and reverted their reintroduction of this information (which had previously been reverted several times but never 3R).diff and placed a notice on their talk page about edit warring.[189] -- that began a 24-comment talk page section about CALC & SYNTH issues.
• December 29, Netitas06 (talk · contribs) raised concerns over at Talk:White_Mexicans which includes 65 comments
• During most of January, they avoided this specific topic and edited more generally
• January 28 Grayfell (talk · contribs) posted a notice over at WP:NORN [190] where the wall-of-text currently sits at 83 comments
• February 11, they are still reading the same contested information [191]

What makes this difficult is Pob3qu3 filibustering style of communication which turns even the most basic conversation into a wall-of-text, rehasing the same positions over and over again. They also provide citations in edits and talk discussions, but the source of the problem is that the citation does not say what they claim that it does.

It should be noted that during this attempt at AGF discussions, Pob3qu3 filed a dubious SPI report about several of us [192] which was promptly rejected for what it was looks like opening a SPI to win a content dispute to me. This is the third time they've used SPI as a cats paw for in edit disputes [193] [194] TiggerJay (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Given this enormous discussion at NORN which you just asked to be closed two hours ago, Tiggerjay this looks a little bit like forum shopping although that discussion was focused on the article and this one seems focused on the editor. I'm sure it will very much be a similar discussion though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, closure was actually requested back on Feb 7th and then asked again earlier as you mentioned. However as you stated this is more about behavior. Continuing to edit while NORN is ongoing, hijacking’s conversations on other users talk pages, falsely claiming consensus is in their favor, and then a dubious SPI filing … is reflective of their longstanding poor behavior. TiggerJay (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I will have a look—see my question at Talk:Mexico#Contentious. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that this reads like forum shopping, specially when I've proposed to take the issue to third opinion or similar venues before as can be seen here [195] instead, Tiggerjay and others have been threatening with getting me sanctioned which doesn't feel right. Tiggerjay's main talking point is that "there are other editors that disagree with me" but as far as I know, Wikipedia is not about votes, is about sources and following policy. Tiggerjay also says that "the source of the problem is that the citation does not say what they claim that it does." but lets check the source, which is the entry of Mexico's ethnic groups on Encyclopedia Brittanica[196]: "Mexico’s population is composed of many ethnic groups, including indigenous American Indians (Amerindians), who account for less than one-tenth of the total. Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population." we also see that there's one pie chart in there that closely resembles what the entry says, specially it says that "other" amount for 31%, and Brittanica says Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population. so I don't see how its an issue to say that White Mexicans are about 31%-32% or "one-third" or why Tiggerjay, Grayfell and others claim "that the source does not say that" specially when Grayfell changed himself the figure of 32% on the article of White Mexicans to say "one-third"[197] around one week ago and Moxy wrote on this diff[198] that "People of European descent (“whites”) and.other imagrate groups make up approximately thirty percent of the population" as a proposal to write the source to the article (he later started claiming that "the source does not say that" too), as can be seen, they've previously acknowledged that the source does indeed say at least 30% so am I on the wrong for wanting to keep it on the pertinent articles?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that at ANI we look at editor behavior so please focus on those points and not the content dispute. We're not going to rehash the discussion at NORN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. I just thought that it would be better for my defense to fully cite the source right here as its interpretation is central to the conflict, as can be seen hours ago Grayfell reverted me claiming that "Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't say that"[199] but there are diffs on which Grayfell himself acknowledges that Brittanica does indeed say that White Mexicans are around "one-third" or 32% or 31%[200] which sums up the last week of conflict. This is also related to Tiggerjay writting on his report that I'm "falsely claiming that they all have agreed with me" which I assume aludes to diffs I've presented on which editors such as Grayfell acknowledge the Brittanica's figures so its not true that I'm making any false claims when I say they have acknowledged those figures before as the diffs are right there. Pob3qu3 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

That diff is not a 'gotcha', it's not coordinated conspiracy as the SPI implied, it's just editing. I changed the wording to avoid false precision and then later realized the source doesn't support the attached claim.

There is no smoking gun here. Multiple editors have tried to explain the deeper issue (mostly about OR). Pob3qu3 has ignored us, or tried to make it about a specific content issue, or misinterpreted what we've said. The end result is filibustering. The NORN post was my misguided attempt to break this cycle. Looking at various talk pages, this has been going on a while. It looks like Pob3qu3 only edits this topic area, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell The NORN dispute wasn't even about Brittanica originally, that issue was brought later on and is when the discussion started to spread out, you say that you've realised that "the source didn't say that and decided to fix it" but you aren't the only one here that acknowledged its content, Moxy acknowledged at least "Thirty percent" too[201] and this was after the conflict about the inclusion of Brittanica have already started (Moxy made those comments on February 3 and you first removed the 32%/one-third figure on February 2[202]), which means that he reviewed the source carefully. In fact what Moxy wrote was his proposal of how to summarize the Brittanica source so it could be introduced to the article, we discussed a little about it[203], I agreed with Moxy in general, but I wanted "thirthy one" like the pie chart says, not thirty, he also wanted to include Asian immigrants in the 30% to which I pointed out that Brittanca makes clear that the "other" group is composed of Significantly White Mexicans but then he never touched that proposal again (this was his last reply in the matter[204]). I don't think it can be said that Moxy misinterpreted the source because like you currently claim you did. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, Pob3qu3 has ignored us, or tried to make it about a specific content issue, or misinterpreted what we've said. This is another example of that. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I just almost textually cited another editor, I don't think I'm misinterpreting him. I also proposed that you restored the Brittanica source on the article of Mexico[205] the way you rephrased it yourself on the article European Emigration[206] so I honestly don't see how I'm ignoring you, I just don't want highly reliable sources to be removed from the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Is English your first language cuz you seem to misrepresent what people keep saying? Moxy🍁 22:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Johnnynumerofive

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

User Johnnynumerofive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made multiple disruptive edits related to the deletion of references to official minority languages, related to Balkan topics where more strict guidelines implementation may apply. Despite initial attempts to assume good faith, the user has shown no interest in engaging in constructive discussion. Instead, they have continued to push a nationalist point of view, implying conspiracy theories, and disregarded the community’s efforts to address the issues raised. The user has been provided with guidance through their talk page, as well as relevant policies and discussions (e.g., WP:Serbia and edit summaries), but has refused to engage productively. This behavior raises concerns about potential disruption or trolling, and further attention or action may be required.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have diffs of examples of this behavior? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for not listing it directly. It primarily includes various settlements in Vojvodina such as Zrenjanin, Šid, Subotica, Novi Sad, Sombor... To simplify, I will use the case of Novi Sad. In 2015 minimal community agreement was reached to include minority languages in infobox when they have co-official status Check here and the appropriate usage in infobox was clarified on this instance. We did not deal with other legitimate cases where there is a large minority speaking population (even majority minority) but specifically with cases where relevant local, regional or national authority grants some language official status. Vojvodina is exemplary case in Europe when it comes to minority languages protection policies, yet, it is occasionally target of nationalist POV pushing both on Wikipedia and beyond. This is relevant context. In case of Novi Sad, the local statute defines 4 official languages (Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Pannonian Rusyn) so I reintroduced Hunagrian name here (12:43, 30 January 2025). Johnnynumerofive removed minority names with This edit (23:51, 5 February 2025). Believing it was honest misunderstanding I reinstated it Here (21:02, 8 February 2025). I followed it with comment on editor's talk page Here ( 21:09, 8 February 2025). I received short, almost rude reply Here followed by removal of names from the article Here (02:30, 9 February 2025). At that point I noticed we are potentially entering disruptive cycle so after I reinstated established practice Here (08:16, 9 February 2025) I asked what the editor in question actually disagree about Here (08:19, 9 February 2025) followed by my request for imput from WikiProject Serbia Here (09:17, 9 February 2025). The discussion developed on editor's talk page where I want to point out my effort to explain the current situation with this Edit and you should check the whole exchange on the talk page where you may want to check the most recent comment which raises my suspicion of troll behaviours since the community concensus was in fact explained earlier. In the meantime I received feedback from the WP Serbia as well. I finally reintroduced minority languages with additional references yesterday with this Edit here after all of this to be followed by clear rejection from the involved editor (after all efforts) to engage in constructive contributions (See Here). In this light (especially of this last edit), I do believe certain measures may be justified since there is clear unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Unwillingness? My last comment on the talk page discussion shows the exact opposite. Please review more diligently prior to such an accusation. Thank you. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the policy link as well as an answer to the question on it's uniform usage. I said I woll gladly revert my own edits once a discussion is had on those queries. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are asking for since you were familiarised with the existing community consensus (2015 RfC & Technical clarification) multiple times on your talk page, in edit summaries and via discussion on WP Serbia. Additional flexibility and patience was shown towards you as a new user yet you refuse to engage in constructive dialogue, you clearly go against the established consensus without explaining your rationale and most recently, you claim that there is a discussion justifying removal which actually does not exist in edit summary (exactly the opposite is the feedback you received). All of this while implying some kind of conspiracy against Serbia etc. I urge you therefore once again to restrain from disruptive nationalist POV-pushing while also raising this report here to avoid any direct edit conflict as much as possible and to bring the attention to the issue we are facing.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't implying conspiracy, just noticed it wasn't being applied uniformly. I will revert my edits, but this is obviously a contentious topic. I have a feeling I am not an outlier with my point of view. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind. They have been reverted already. Cheers. Johnnynumerofive (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If we are now able to enter more productive and constructive phase I think this report should be disregarded. As for different opinions, everyone is of course entitled to one and I have my own (I would for example prefer much more inclusive approach). Topic of (ethnic) minorities rights and visibility is somewhat contentious (as it was beyond Wikipedia throughout 20th century) so it is certainly good to engage in dialogue if you want to change some current standing compromise agreement.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Wasting our time by often making uncited changes without edit summaries

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

---

• Guy Without Name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As far as I remember this is the first time I have started a discussion here as previously when I have asked for blocks it has been obvious vandalism. This is not obvious so hopefully this is the right place.

Perhaps if @Guy Without Name: was blocked for a while they might stop making changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&diff=1275019700&oldid=1274994037 which I just reverted.

They have been editing for a year now and I see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Without_Name that they have been warned many times already.

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Ukraine is described as a developing country three times (twice in text and on the first map) on the related page. You should discuss it on Talk:Ukraine. Orange sticker (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Orange sticker. It is problematic that the vast majority of Guy Without Name's edits do not include an edit summary, though. They have previously been warned about misleading edit summaries (February 2024) but I don't see any warnings for not using edit summaries so I have given them one. I do not see anything warranting a block at this time as Chidgk1 suggests though. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 14:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adam Black OK then let’s close this off and hope they take notice of your warning as it is not a big problem for me as we very rarely edit the same articles. Am I allowed to CLOSE THIS myself? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit DTTR, Chidgk1 has been discussing this and other issues there for at least a month. CMD (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that now. @Guy Without Name hasn't taken part though, and it seems common among mobile-only editors to not leave edit summaries or respond to talk page messages, is this a known UI problem? Orange sticker (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs for the latest on this. It still seems to be happening many years after it was flagged that the majority of people use phones now. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Thanks I did not know about these messaging problems on mobiles. However @Qflib already asked them last year to use edit summaries, so I thought what was the point of me asking too. From what @Guy Without Name has written on their talk page they are obviously a native English speaker and understand how to use the talk page. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis What does DTTR mean please? There is nothing political or personal about this because as far as I remember we have not interacted before. And they made the same change to Russia which someone else reverted thus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=next&oldid=1270864987

And I don’t think you can blame technology as about a quarter of their changes are commented, but sometimes misleadingly for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1997_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1274123370 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh scratch that last as I see now they just made a mistake rather than deliberately misleading Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Any time an editor gives you initials like that, you can usually add an "WP" to it and then see what WP:DTTR means. But it's Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I now understand @Guy Without Name was not cleverly vandalizing as I first suspected but is merely sloppy. They sometimes copy info from other Wikipedia articles without saying where they get the info from. So it looks like vandalism when the other article is wrong. So please could this complaint be closed. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit war

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

---

I have no idea how this process works, but reporting user "Bridget" for edit war. A well sourced statement has been added to the Li-Meng Yan article but she keeps removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify the person about this discussion. I have done so for you. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also the person who broke the WP:3RR brightline was you Ecgberht1 - not Bridget - so you are the one edit warring. To insert a non-WP:MEDRS into an article about COVID [207]. Multiple other editors have reverted you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, nobody broke 3RR on Li-Meng Yan, but Ecgbehrt is at three reverts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, you seem to be on Li-Meng Yan a lot. And you're claiming that her theory that COVID-19 escaped from a lab in Wuhan is correct. The well sourced statement has sources that actually contradict what you are trying to say:

[208] The agency made its new assessment with “low confidence,” which means the intelligence behind it is fragmentary and incomplete.

[209] Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the best solution here might be a page block for Ecgberht1 from editing Li-Meng Yan. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions I think an outright WP:NOTHERE block is more appropriate. They're here to right great wrongs and spread disinformation as can be seen throughout their edits, and they get argumentative when challenged and put it all down to political bias. Canterbury Tail talk 16:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would not oppose if people agree it's that severe. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wp:boomerang 66.206.125.114 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ecgberht1, don’t revert again, as you then will break the WP:3RR rule. There is a contentious topics editnotice on that article visible when you edit it, and now a contentious topic notice on your user page. Please review them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Continuing to ignore consensus when editing a page can result in sanctions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding information about the subject individual and supporting it with valid references is not "contentious" unless it bumps up against zealots who don't care for the truth. Do whatever the f you want. Wiki is lost. And you people are lost. Read the "incidents". They all float one way. Like "vandalism from a cult member"? Seriously?

I won't be back here. Ecgberht1 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that after making this comment, Ecgberht1 did actually "be back" - reverting yet again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring and ignoring my warning about consensus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ravenswing's Fifth Law: "The nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is lose gracefully and move on. Those who do not tend to wind up at ANI." You wouldn't be the first ten thousandth person to declare that Wikipedia is doomed on the sole basis of you not getting your way in a content dispute, but it's happened to all of us many times over. Ravenswing 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Given their comments on their talk page following the block, I've extended the block to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Bwshen may well be an expert, but insists citations aren't always needed - also COI issues

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

For instance, saying " fyi. If the information is undoubtedly common knowledge to your intended readers, you usually don’t need to provide a citation. This was a significant news event in the United States.]" They had a long discussion with me asking for a zoom, etc.over this issue. An example is [210] They seem to be an expert in their field but don't understand original research, eg User:Abecedare reverted them on Chaos theory here with the edit summary "none of the cited sources support link to "chaos theory", which is not synonymous with chaos". See also their discussion with User:William M. Connolley almost two years ago.[211] They have a history of self-citing and have now been given a COI warning. They've posted a list of their publications here If needed I will try to find time to show the issue of self-citing. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Per your request, references have been provided. Discussions are included on talk pages. Thanks! Bowen (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

fyi.

Regarding [277], the discussions are provided below the Table, where citations are included. Additionally, as per your request, the references have been reused in the discussions.

Regarding [278], please also refer to the following paper for further information. (They cited our work, indicating that they agree with what was discussed.)

Can the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings Shift a Tornado into Texas—Without Chaos? by Yoshitaka Saiki and James A. Yorke

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/5/821

Further discussions are more than welcome. Bowen (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

btw, here are my original responses:

===

It’s 8:40 a.m. in California. I’m working on it. If readers follow the news, they should be aware of the information. Bowen (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three references have been added. fyi. If the information is undoubtedly common knowledge to your intended readers, you usually don’t need to provide a citation. This was a significant news event in the United States.]

=== Bowen (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If readers follow the news... this is not a valid excuse for failing to or refusing to provide a reference. For example, here in the United Kingdom almost all of us know that the labour party won the July 2024 election because it was all over the news but we'd still expect it to be referenced. Recent events fall out of memory after a few years. I couldn't remember who was elected to my constituency in 2015 without checking the Wikipedia article. Additionally, Wikipedia has a global audience; something that was widely reported in the United States may not have been elsewhere in the world. In general, when your contributions are challenged by another editor you should provide a reliable source or it may be removed at any time. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As mentioned earlier, two references were included in the original version, and three additional references were added per request. More importantly, discussions were moved to the talk page (while references remain). Additionally, in one of the provided examples, citations were already included in the Table, and discussions have been added below the Table. Bowen (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Simply put, additional references were provided upon request. The primary concern is that the editor did not believe the discussion (or what happened) suggests the butterfly effect. Bowen (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to respond to one of the original statements: “They had a lengthy discussion with me, requesting a Zoom meeting and other relevant information to address this issue.”

First, at midnight in California, a request was made to add additional references (to support the discussions about the impact of Emanuel’s blog). By 9 AM in California, three news articles were provided as references.

Secondly, I noticed that the requester (the Editor) may not fully comprehend butterfly effects and chaos theory. I aimed to provide some background information to help them understand what happened indicates butterfly effects. To facilitate discussions, I checked if it would be appropriate to have a virtual meeting. Unfortunately, the Editor did not prefer this option. Therefore, I accepted suggestions to discuss the matter via talk pages. In the meantime, discussions have already moved to the talk pages.

I’ve already posted related discussions under the DeepSeek article, replacing “butterfly” with “significant” as shown below: DeepSeek#Impacts

For further discussions, I’d like to suggest the following:

(1) Please feel free to make suggestions on the above.

(2) Please leave your comments regarding whether the events indicate a butterfly effect.

Thanks very much! -Bowen Bowen (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to add a brief note to facilitate discussions.

(a) Following Emanuel’s blog post and the recent release of DeepSeek models, several events unfolded. To ensure the accuracy of the information presented, sources reporting on these phenomena, such as stock price fluctuations, are provided.

(b) Initially, the fourth paragraph interpreted these phenomena as a butterfly effect and the original essay was posted under Chaos Theory. However, acknowledging the concerns raised, the related discussions were moved to talk pages.

(c) Since the main argument revolves around the interpretation of these phenomena, the phrase “butterfly effect” has been replaced with “significant effect.” The revised version is now posted in the subsection titled “Impacts” under the DeepSeek article.

If you find any inaccuracies in the provided references, please feel free to leave comments here. Bowen (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the above 21:26, 11 Feb post tests at 100% ChatGPT created. BusterD (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD, please test this comment by Bowen, which reads:

Please provide specific details about any issues in the current version of the post so that we can make it easier to improve its quality, readability, and other aspects. Your collaboration is greatly appreciated.

It sounds very robot-y to me. BarntToust 02:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Let’s concentrate on enhancing the quality of the content that is posted (or removed). Bowen (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Whatever else, please stop asking editors to contact you by Zoom, email or other offsite methods over content disputes on en.wikipedia. If you're unwilling or unable to collaborate on the English Wikipedia itself then it isn't the place for you. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Please provide specific details about any issues in the current version of the post so that we can make it easier to improve its quality, readability, and other aspects. Your collaboration is greatly appreciated. Bowen (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What post? What I saw is at the time I commented your had replied above about Zoom but with no indication you understood that suggestion was not a good idea. And you had started threads on two different editor talk pages [212] [213] where you suggested email as an alternative. In fact your reply to me above still doesn't make it clear you understand you should not generally be suggesting Zoom, email or other offsite manners to resolve content disputes. And you also have the weird use of plural in reference to yourself here. Further I noticed this yesterday but didn't bother to comment: You said "Therefore, I accepted suggestions to discuss the matter via talk pages. In the meantime, discussions have already moved to the talk pages." As far as I can tell, you've never touched a single article talk page in your entire time here. You have been discussing stuff on editor talk pages but while this isn't necessarily wrong, it's generally undesirable for discussions concerning the content of specific article, especially discussions about active content disputes. Even more when your posting more or less the same thing to multiple editor talk pages (per the earlier diffs). So perhaps not surprising both editors told you to stop doing this in some fashion [214] [215]. I'd note an article talk page discussion [216] had been started before you tried to approach an editor directly [217] (mistakenly on their user page instead of their talk but I can accept the redirect might have caused confusion). So you could have simply joined that existing article talk page discussion instead of trying to start all these user page discussions. I appreciate the boundary between editor talk and article talk page discussions isn't always clear and you were approached on your talk page but in light of the various factors I mentioned and also that the other editors are experienced, an article talk page discussion is clearly the right approach IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A revised version of the content was indeed posted on my talk page, created by others. (My talk page has very few items, so it shouldn’t be hard to find the revised version.) However, I’ve noticed that some people may not have the time to read the revised content and understand it. Despite feeling discouraged, I must acknowledge the reality. Bowen (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bwshen Can you confirm that you have read and understand WP:SYNTH? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. We’ve provided the original article by Emanuel and the news articles without any additional interpretations. We simply stated that the blog and models played a significant role in triggering such an event (e.g., price drops). Please review our discussions to confirm this point. Bowen (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We've provided the original article We simply stated Please review our discussions Is there a reason you're referring to yourself in the plural here? Wikipedia accounts are required to be used by one person and one person only. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

In single-author journal articles, “we” can be used. Thanks. Bowen (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a journal article. Is more than one person using the Bwshen account? Schazjmd (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand now. From now on, I’ll use “I” to refer to myself in our future discussions. Please let me know your thoughts or concerns about the version of my post. I appreciate your input very much. Bowen (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I need to clarify something specific: I am the sole individual who uses this account, and I regularly monitor its activities. Bowen (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Bowen, your use of English is very strange here, if you are the only person using this account, you shouldn't have to "monitor" your own edits because you, supposedly, are the only one editing. For example, I don't monitor my own edits because I'm the one editing with it, I don't monitor myself. I don't think English is your native language and many of your responses sound like they have been written by AI, not a person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. I’m not sure why writing style here is important. The primary reason I added that sentence was to emphasize that it’s less likely for others to use my account. (Could you please review the entire discussion and find anything that is directly relevant to the content of the revised post?) Bowen (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I’ve reviewed the rules. Please read our post. I hope you’ll agree that the report only documented the events that happened without any interpretations. Please let us know your comments on the post. Bowen (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Bwshen, you are using the terms "we" and "our" excessively when referring to your account's edits and actions. This terminology indicates the "Bowen" account is operated by multiple people. As Bushranger pointed out above, you must address this. BarntToust 22:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, in single-author journal articles, the pronoun “we” can be used. I value your questions. Do you have any specific comments or concerns about the (now removed) version of my post? Let’s collaborate to enhance the quality of the content. Bowen (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I am quickly gaining the impression your words are either AI generated or poorly translated.

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, Bwshen, and you are doing well to not operate as if the place is. BarntToust 23:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem if you're using a translator, BTW, but the way you type is idiosyncratic in a way that sounds robotic. BarntToust 23:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I’d appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on the content. Thanks. Bowen (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The community would appreciate it if you were able to recognize Wikipedia as Wikipedia, not a "single-author journal article", and as a place where discourse happens in-house and not in a Zoom meeting or email. BarntToust 23:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Note the WP:SELFCITE process and that yes, you can plagiarize from your own work yourself. Ensure this when adding content. There, I'm discussing the content as you have requested. BarntToust 23:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I’m using “I” to discuss this with you. (Please let me know if this is the official rule on Wikipedia.) Also, could you please provide a specific example to support your statement(s)? Bowen (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBURO. I don't think 'don't use "we" to refer to yourself' is written down in any policy or guideline for many reasons including it's something that so rarely comes up. However it arises naturally from several issues. One is that sharing accounts is forbidden and using "we" causes confusion over that. But the other is that using "we" to refer to yourself as a single person is simply not normal in most English communication. It might sometimes be used in single author journal articles but that's a specific case and even there isn't universal. [218] [219] [220] In fact F. D. C. Willard was used because "we" evidently would have rejected for a single author paper for the journal that author planned to submit it to. Nosism described in limited detail where it might be appropriate. The one which generally applies to journal articles is pluralis modestiae but that doesn't apply to most or all of your comments. There is zero reason why you should be including the reader in your statements. E.g. it's you who wants to "make it easier to improve its quality" of your comments not the reader. The editorial "we" is also discouraged by some style guidelines point blank e.g. [221] Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's focus on the content of the post. Thanks! Bowen (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You may want to focus on the content (and I think you have repeated that about a dozen times) but editors here are more concerned about your behavior and use of AI. You can't control a discussion on ANI no matter how many times you repeat yourself. And you still never answered User:EducatedRedneck's question to you (see above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did I need to use AI tools for this? My initial intention was to document the events that transpired. Bowen (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, since I’m not a native speaker, I would greatly appreciate some assistance with both the content and wording. Thank you very much! Bowen (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, thanks for acknowledging this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Bwshen for a week to stop his disruptive editing in the hopes that he will think about the advice he's been given and come back without posting the same lengthy demands for detailed answers in multiple locations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope he also stops citing himself in articles when he comes back.. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And perhaps they'll stop using LLMs to respond to talk page discussions. BusterD (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And maybe he'll better adhere to the process of conducting on-wiki content disputes on-wiki, and not by Zoom or email. BarntToust 12:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

I have looked through a sample of Bwshen's contributions over the years, and it seems to me that all of them belong to one of three categories: (1) self-citations, (2) edits to articles that do not improve the encyclopedia, and (3) talk-page edits that show no sign of understanding of any issue any other editor has raised with them. (And I agree with BusterD that these seem to be largely if not entirely machine-generated.) The latest exchange on my talk-page and their unblock request are clear examples of the latter. Does anyone see any sign that Bwshen has made any attempt to read any of the policies they've been pointed to, or any comprehension of any substantive point that's been raised? Given their tiresome and time-wasting behavior, I ask that the block be extended to indefinite. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Support indef - I looked at their talk page alone and thought "this Bwshen fellow is a clear cut CIR failure", but I didn't want to start this thread myself, assuming principles of give em' enough rope; upon further thought, I can tell where this editor is going, and it's going down an indef road anyhow. Best to get things over with now. Thanks, JBL. BarntToust 19:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

notice that the text that Bwshen is copy-pasting from the LLM has slanted apostrophes, a possible sign they are using AI to generate their nonsensical replies, as normal human-operated keyboards usually return regular, straight apostrophes. I mean really, no human being would respond with "I don’t believe so" when their literacy in English is questioned. BarntToust 20:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Support indef for total failure to grasp anything about Wikipedia's guidelines, policies or purpose after multiple editors have tried to explain. Their talk page is full of AI slop. They have not shown willingness to learn a thing. Having the block expire in a week just means we'll be back here again in eight days. As the comment above says, let's get it over with now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The failure to get the point together with other policy violations (e.g. WP:SELFCITE) may warrant a longer block, but as far as I'm aware there is no prohibition on the use of LLMs/AI in talk pages, the only policies I've read apply to articles. And I can hardly blame the user if they are using AI; Copilot is built into Edge and Aria is built into Opera, I'm constantly getting popups and tooltips asking if I want an AI tool to help me. English is clearly not their first language and to my mind they have at least been trying to communicate with the rest of the community either with machine translation or an LLM. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And I can hardly blame the user if they are using AI... Well, I can. They weren't just polishing up their English (the motivation for which is understandable, even though it's still bad because it obscures whether they are actually understanding anything). As far as I am concerned, using LLMs as a source in the year 2025 is itself evidence of lacking required competence, or even basic information literacy. And that's what they were doing, appealing to LLMs as evidence that their claims are correct: I consulted two AI LLMs, and they both agreed on the interpretation of the butterfly effects. They replied to a comment saying that a random YouTube video is not a reliable source with a wall of ChatGPT slop. I see no communication attempts, only repetition. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

LLMs can be used in two ways: by people with skills, expertise, and discernment, who can give meaningful prompts and easily judge what parts of responses are valuable, to make their workflow more efficient; and by people who lack those skills, to produce mountains of trash with very little effort and no thought. The second use is not explicitly banned because obviously it is impossible to word such a prohibition to distinguish these cases, but also because the behavior is a violation of WP:DE (and perhaps other guidelines). I am naming the particular kind of disruptive editing; saying "but I don't see 'writing AI-generated slop explicitly listed anywhere'" is pointless bickering for the sake of bickering (in the absence of an affirmative answer to the question in my post). --JBL (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

wp:AIRBUD. No rules say "No AI", but if doing something no rules say nay to causes issues, well shoot. We're here on ANI now. BarntToust 21:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Deceptive article re-creation

• Victorįä Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To my knowledge, this person's name is never spelled this way, which it makes it appear that the article was deceptively recreated by Alicampabelle after the Victoria Larsen deletion debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and draft at the deceptive title. There's currently a draft at Draft:Victoria Larsen that I've left alone. Although, does anyone else think the image at that draft article looks AI-generated? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it at first glance, but the usual tells aren't there (hair looping back on itself, uneven pupils, mismatched earrings etc.)

I think this is a genuine - albeit very heavily edited - photo. There are a lot of very similar images when you search her name online, things like her hairstyle & the background are almost identical so they're probably from the same photoshoot. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Think I found the original here. Same earrings, same hair, same dress. Definitely not own work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

In the old days, when a photo looked "off", you just assumed it was air-brushed. Then, you just assumed it was photoshopped. Now, my first instinct is AI. You're both probably right, probably not AI. Anyway, PMC nom'd it for speedy on Commons, and I've removed it from the draft article. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean to be fair, a bunch of image enhancement tools now use some form of ML or other stuff often called AI. So images like that might very well be AI generated. In this case, since the photos were from a professional shoot I don't know if such tools were used or more traditional editing but it's possible they were since I think such tools are getting pervasive. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Pretty obviously non-notable, a win at that very minor pageant does not make one notable, the draft could be deleted with no issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't judge draft articles based on notability. If we did, BOOM!, most of the drafts would be gone. However, if you find it to be promotional, then deletion is a possibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Which it really isn't. Eight sentences, written in a dry neutral voice, everything sourced. I'm certainly unsold on the subject's notability, but there's nothing promotional nor peacock-ish about the draft. Ravenswing 07:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Reporting User:Tewdar for inappropriate actions and Personal Harassment

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

---

I am reporting User:Tewdar for persistent harassment and inappropriate behavior:

Edit 1: Special:Diff/1274724838 - Followed me to multiple articles to revert my edits without discussion

Edit 2: Special:Diff/1274876797 - Followed me to multiple articles to revert my edits without discussion

I request administrator intervention to address this harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydigitalexperiment1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You have failed, as is pretty clearly written at the top of this page, to warn the user. I have done so for you. JayCubby 19:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

lol  Tewdar  19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mydigitalexperiment1, you've made questionable removals of huge swathes of sourced content in articles. Tewdar isn't the only editor who has reverted your edits. It is standard for an editor who has reverted a questionable edit to check the other editor's history to see if they're making similar edits on other articles; that is not harassment or inappropriate behavior. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently not a fan of black people - among other things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Floq, That could be construed as such, but I'd prefer MDE1's added image to the previous version because it depicts better the subject. Yes, it was there before, but the characterization of this user as a racist a stretch. JayCubby 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at their other reverts ... definitely a vibe. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, mind not my previous statement one bit, for the trend has now made itself manifest to yours truly. JayCubby 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:Boomerang for a maybe racist? Say it ain’t so. 2601:540:C700:130F:9683:C4FF:FE1D:7278 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

African admixture into Europe? Say it ain't so...  Tewdar  19:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Quite a lot of other things! Mind you , I do have a history of personal attacks or harassment, as my block log clearly demonstrates . Please , be merciful to me, AN/I...  Tewdar  19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned to be honest. Threads like this, where a request such as Will closing admin kindly block Wikipdeia moderator [[user:Tewdar|@Tewdar]] for personal actions and inappropriate harrasment ? rarely go well. Cheers. JayCubby 20:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, there might be socking involved, concerning Bursanton account. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Pansykon too?  Tewdar  20:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I opened up the sock drawer and Mydigitalexperiment1, Pansykon, Tesktron, Hurthston, Bursanton, Mydigitalexperiment7, Mydigitalexperiment6, Mydigitalexperiment5, Mydigitalexperiment4 and Mydigitalexperiment3 all fell out.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've also blocked Mydigitalexperiment2 who hasn't edited since 2022 but made the same type of edit. Hopefully this puts an end to their digital experiment.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

(Watchlisting User talk:Mydigitalexperiment8, on a wild hunch....Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC))

I reported the complainant for vandalism yesterday (?), but they just got given a crappy level 1 warning.  Tewdar  20:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

To quote The Bushranger, “socks, socks everywhere.” Seems like the biggest case of boomerang in a while. 2601:540:C700:130F:9683:C4FF:FE1D:7278 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism

Notifying of IP vandalism across a range of Formula One articles, from several similar IPs: 2601:201:8A80:45B0:21A3:ACA1:9ECD:F000, 2601:201:8A80:45B0:B456:9EEB:7B8C:EE80, 2603:8000:12F0:A60:89C8:90DF:36F5:E464. MB2437 20:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

While the first two IP addresses are similar, the third appears unrelated and has already been range blocked (2603:8000:12f0:a60::/64) by Ad Orientem. The IPs in the range (2601:201:8a80:45b0::/64) have also only made a total of 9 edits, one of which is to a user talk page replying to a warning, in the past day. Based on this, it doesn't seem like chronic, intractable behaviour or an urgent problem at the moment. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

PayamAvarwand

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

Severe WP:COMP / WP:IDHT issues at Ahvaz, failing to comply with this projects policies despite persistent attempts made in the talk page [222] [223], which even lead to attacks by PayamAvarwand (eg This is obvious that you are a narcissistic sick person), which in turn resulted in their block [224].

And now they have resumed their disruption at Ahvaz by removing sourced info [225] [226] [227], as well as making more personal attacks; I am spending my time, I'm not drinking beer and feel I'm the god of wikipedia. . The beer part is due to my userpage saying "This user drinks beer.", which this user apparently finds funny to mock, and which isn't the first time they have done that [228]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Can anybody explain me, what the problem is?

If you follow our today messages, you will see, I was trying to follow the Dl2000, and this -HistoryofIran interfere himself and magnifys my changes and tells me: "You understood nothing,"

I don't think that it's wrong to replace the old numbers with new ones or add an image! What is the problem?

update the information and clean it from junk information and data has nothing to do with sourced info.

He has humiliated me, some weeks ago, and I answered. That was all. PayamAvarwand (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems like there was productive discussion on Talk:Ahvaz a few months ago, why did that stop? I will say that the tone of those discussions was unfortunately, adversarial and fault-finding rather than collaborative.

I realize, HistoryofIran, that it must feel at times that you are repeating yourself over and over again. You have brought so many problematic editors to ANI/AN, you could get an end-of-the-year bonus. But I see PayamAvarwand as still a relatively inexperienced editor who could benefit from editing instruction provided in a educational way. Is that a possibility? I'd like to see if this relationship could be turned around and we could retain both editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And PayamAvarwand, stop insulting other editors. I can see you were frustrated but personal attacks can lead to a block just as fast as disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Sure thing, I can give it one more try. I'll give PayamAvarwand some instructions about their recent edits at Talk:Ahvaz. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

User who keeps making disruptive edits after the controversials

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

---

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

This user keeps making disruptive edits with me, such as Short n' Sweet, 333, "Lost Your Faith" articles and also Sockpuppet, which was not true, after I had a beef with his best friend @1, @2.

Please check this distruptive user, thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Unjustified accusations and contributions removal

Dear administrators, I would like to report disruptive behaviour by User:LeontinaVarlamonva.

Repeatedly removed my constructive contributions without justification and falsely accused me of being abusive and engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence: [[229]], [[230]], [[231]]

Later deleted my attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page, suppressing discussion: [[232]]

I request assistance in addressing this issue. Thank you. Tahomaru (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It appears at @LeontinaVarlamonva is accusing you of being a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Ping909 in the edit summaries[233] and reached out directly to the blocking admin, @ScottishFinnishRadish on their talk page[234] who at least initially believes that you are not a sock. LeontinaVarlamonva should be cautious about casting WP:ASPERSIONS outside of a formal complaint without specific evidence at a formal WP:SPI report. With the good faith assumption that you are not connected with the Ping909 account, you absolutely did the correct thing by trying to first discuss it on their talk page and then bring it here. TiggerJay (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt somebodys feelings. These pages have been targeted by users who seem similar so I was basing things on that. My initial step was to contact administrator with specific information, so it's not like I just had only suspicion and nothing else. Thank you for referencing WP:SPI report channel. I will finish my conversation with administrator and based on his recommendation may open report once I gather more information.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva I see that the edit summary you gave here was rm threats by abusive account. I cannot find any threats in Tahomaru's talk page message, other than saying If this issue is not resolved, I will have no choice but to seek assistance from Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes or administrators. - I cannot see how this is problematic as editors are entitled to use appropriate dispute resolution processes if they can't reach a reasonable compromise on their own. Perhaps a bit premature to mention it in the initial comment, but I would not agree that it could be construed as a threat. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant by "threat". It seemed harsh that newly created account suddenly knew all these encylcopedia rules and was already trying to intimidate me (or it seemed) by saying I would be reported. That's why I may have overreacted and removed it while being upset about it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I admit that I could have handled it more appropriately. The way my posts were repeatedly deleted without discussion or proper justification was very frustrating and I assumed that @LeontinaVarlamonva is unwilling to communicate with me at all. I apologise for acting out of frustration and I remain committed to resolving this issue. Tahomaru (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

While it is slightly unusual for a new editor to know about Wikipedia policies in detail, it is not in itself suspicious. All of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are transparent and publicly viewable by anyone, and many people edit or otherwise interact with Wikipedia anonymously prior to creating an account. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

While I understand that you contacted an administrator regarding your concerns, I would like to point out that you deleted my posts without discussion or explanation beforehand. This made it difficult for me to address your concerns or correct any potential misunderstandings.

Regarding your comment about my knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, I believe it's important for all editors to familiarise themselves with the guidelines to contribute effectively. While I may not have been editing here for long, I have taken the time to study Wikipedia's policies to ensure my contributions are constructive and in line with community standards. Tahomaru (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Part of the reason is I have spent lots of time engaging with some users in the past and didn't want to make more time commitment doing the same for an account that may be blocked as fraudulent account in a few hours or few days...It didn't seem like good investment and I jumped trigger in heat of moment.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that to deal with fraudulent accounts must be frustrating, and I don’t blame you for how things have unfolded. If you're open to it, I'd be happy to close this report and bring the discussion back to the talk pages where my posts were deleted, should you restore them. Tahomaru (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I will take recommendation from TiggerJay and do report on WP:SPI so that its official and I don't base things on just my suspicions. I'll let them do rest.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Since @LeontinaVarlamonva has opted for officially submitting their report on WP:SPI, I take it that their decision to delete my posts was unjustified, and I will restore them. If it is agreeable, I consider this issue resolved. Thanks to the admins for looking into this. Tahomaru (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend that since the SPI investigation is pending that you refrain from reintroducing those edits directly in article space. As a suggested alternative, you can use the WP:EDITREQUEST process on the article talk page, presenting specific changes with proper citations. TiggerJay (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll respect that. It was mainly the talk page posts that were deleted anyway. Tahomaru (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

* Courtsey link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benga502 § 12 February 2025 TiggerJay (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

user:Faster than Thunder and biting/completely unsupported claims of policy

• Faster than Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Faster than Thunder has repeatedly reverted my well-sourced edits on Darren Beattie without any policy rationale, other than a completely unsourced claim that "Racism is not a valid thing to include in the lead of an article; state anything related to racism in its own section". They have also declined to discuss or participate on the talk page before making these controversial reverts, and now is involved in edit-warring with me. I will not make another revert but this is part of a longer-standing pattern dating from 2022 of hostile editing patterns towards other editors. 66.131.254.204 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Your edits violated WP:BLP by adding a contentious label that is not mentioned in the sources that you cited. Faster than Thunder was correct to revert. This is a content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It was this edit that was under dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It is wrong to use contentious, libelous labels like "racist" without adequate citation. In fact, contentious labels should not be in the article lead at all, even with citation. Controversial content like this goes in its own section (or subsection), but it must be cited adequately. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 03:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

An amicable resolution

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

---

While I recognise that users like Tim riley and SchroCat (I consider them among my inspirations here) are experienced, it is somewhat disheartening not to have my suggestions acknowledged and to be ignored simply because some of my contributions to their articles (at PR and FAC) were deemed "pettifogging, nitpicking, unhelpful, and tiresome." I may be younger than most other users here, but being excluded from reaching out to them feels unfair. I harbour no ill will towards them; all I seek is for them to continue guiding me and to include me in their discussions. I hope for an amicable and fair resolution to this matter, as I believe I have done nothing wrong to warrant such treatment. MSincccc (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Tim riley has politely requested MSincccc to stop posting to his talk page. Since then, MSincccc has posted numerous times to TR's talk page demaning that TR engage with him. Some of these have been deleted from the page. Users have no right to force other users engage with them. This harassing behavior is very concerning, and this ANI posting seems very inappropriate to me. MSincccc needs to calm down and turn to other things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers Please do not misinterpret me. I only posted twice after being asked by Tim not to post on his talk page, and both were "requests." I asked him to inform me of his reason for barring me from approaching him in the future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Can you clarify precisely what urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems you want addressing? It might also profit you to read WP:BOOMERANG, depending on how soon you withdraw this notice. Having continued to post on Tim's talk page after being requested not to... and having promised not to do this last July.

Noting in passing that Catherine Middleton was 42 last June. The issue here is clearly over eagerness rather than malice, although whether the result of either differ is up to the community, of course. Serial (speculates here) 18:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers and @Serial Number 54129 This is unrelated to the recent conversation. I recognise that users have the right to decide whether to engage with another user. I will not post on either of their talk pages in the future unless absolutely necessary.

However, this pertains to how the two users mentioned have repeatedly undermined my contributions. I have no intention of harassing anyone, nor do I hold any ill feelings towards anyone. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

how the two users mentioned have repeatedly undermined my contributions Could you provide diffs for when that has happened? Schazjmd (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Take this discussion for instance: Wikipedia:Peer review/For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)/archive1

• Only my last comment might have not suggested an improvement. The rest of them were implemented in the article and yet I was not acknowledged.

Furthermore, this was what Tim wrote:

I cannot say how irritating I find these pettifogging, nitpicking, unhelpful, tiresome interventions from this editor are. I do wish he would find something better to do with his time in between school lessons. Tim riley MSincccc (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

”The rest of them were implemented in the article”: that’s just not true. If you come to ANI you need to be truthful with your evidence. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat Except for the one which I have striked out and the one which I did not insist upon. MSincccc (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. False again. And please stop pinging me.

And you’ve decided to open an ANI case against me because I didn’t “acknowledge” a review? Give me strength... Can this be closed off with prejudice for wasting people’s time? There’s nothing to report and no action needed, except that MSincccc needs to stop pestering people and to understand that when people say ‘stop’ or ‘no’, they need to take that on board and not keep annoying them further. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, MSincccc. You mischaracterize that PR discussion. Your comments were mostly style comments which were NOT consistent with the MOS, for example MOS:VAR or MOS:ENGVAR. Most of your comments were not accepted. Moreover, there SchroCat requested that you stop pinging him, yet you continued to do so. (BTW, please stop pinging me here. I am watching the discussion.) You also demanded that he respond to your suggestions and renewed your demand only a couple of hours after you made the suggestion. Wikipedia discussions customarily give people a week to respond, and not everything needs a response. If your comment is deemed useful it will be implemented. If you are having some kind of meltdown, I would suggest that you take a wikibreak. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2. It is unclear what you want to happen as a result of this post. Wikipedia only deals with sins of commission, not with sins of omission. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This filing needs closing and MSincccc needs to be told to back off. Their behaviour towards User:Tim riley, and towards User:SchroCat, has crossed the line into harassment and that is the only chronic, intractable behavioural problem we have here. MSincccc - you cannot compel other editors to engage with you, through ANI or through any other means. When they have made it abundantly clear that they don't want to, you need to step back. Not doing so constitutes disruptive editing and that will likely have consequences. KJP1 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Khaled29803 clearly WP:NOTTHERE

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

---

Khaled29803 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTTHERE and all that they do is vandalize articles with Saudi nationalism. See Special:diff/1270059395, Special:diff/1270232135, Special:diff/1275382130 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef block. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Myna50: Interest conflict and removal of sourced statements @ Bhakti Marga

For context: Myna50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other users with very similar editing styles have a longer history of disruptive and biased editing at the German version of Bhakti Marga (organisation) and Vishwananda . User Bertramz accurately described it as a "carefully dosed strategy to attrition editors by removing critical content which consists of removing individual critical information at intervals of days and replacing it a little later by hymns of praise". Myna50 has already been topic banned on the German Wiki for these two articles, as well as another user who uses exactly the same style. Now, they try to start exactly the same thing again on the English version of Bhakti Marga, removing well-sourced content while placing extremly long-winded and absurd paragraphs in terms of content on the discussion site. Their statements show, if viewed from a very benevolent point of view, at least a complete unfamiliarity with the way how sources work on Wikipedia. For example, they are trying to get a source from the well-known German newspaper FOCUS removed because (!) it is only available in an archived form. However, they want to keep a "source" that is obviously, plain and simply a statement from Vishvanandas attorney team. Because of the history of these users and articles in the German wiki and because all these issues have already been pointed out to Myna50 multiple times in German, I have a very short fuse. Iluzalsipal (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Iluzalsipal,

First, we have no influence over editing on the German Wikipedia. If you have concerns about editing on that project, please bring it up there on the article talk pages or a community noticeboard.

As for the English Wikipedia, it looks like Myna50 has made ONE edit to Bhakti Marga (organisation) and ONE edit in 2025 to Vishwananda although they edited that article more extensively last year. And, to their credit, they have started discussion on both of those article's talk pages, one of which you have participated in and the other you have not. I recommend that if you are concerned about these two articles on this project, you participate more in these discussions so you can reach a resolution on the points of disagreement or you can take your dispute to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. But we aren't going to involve ourselves in a dispute occuring on another Wikimedia project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I do see that Myna50 has only been blocked from editing the article Bhakti Marga (Religionsgemeinschaft) on the German Wikipedia. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in these discussions here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Ndiamar

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

Editor was warring with multiple editors at Brisbane (history) about their inclusion of an unsubstantiated population claim. I warned them to stop doing so. They decided it was worth prodding William Fraser (a previous DYK article), and removed several passages of information from that article with edit summaries of false claims (see that article's talk page). They canvassed on my talk page for other editors to partake... in... the... prod...?

Several warnings have been given to the user. Seasider53 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I came across this editor following their efforts to add "the storming of capital hill" to an Australian page - 1996 Parliament House riot without citations, despite repeated promptings.[235] It also appears to be a pattern of behaviour across other WP pages - see also Charles III [236] and suggests an unwillingness to work collaboratively on the project. Nickm57 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll note for the record that Seasider53 brought this to my attention on my talk. I think this looks like an obvious case of disruptive retaliatory editing, and I've asked the user about it on their talk. I noted that Seasider53 was welcome to post here, as I was am about to log off - no worries if another admin wants to deal with it based on the previous behaviour, or if we decide to wait until they respond. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ndiamar has gotten three User talk page messages over the past few hours and hasn't edited for the past 10 hours so I'd like to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's fair - let's give them a chance to explain themselves, and get their head around how things work here. But to be clear, I think that rocking up at a random article that was created by an editor you're in conflict with, PRODding it, stripping it of content and sources, and then logging out, is not cool. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. What I wanted to see is whether or not the editor received the message being sent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)They started spamming templates all over Seasider53's talk page possibly in an attempt to recruit people who want the page deleted into this discussion. (Special:Diff/1275421655)ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked @Ndiamar from User Talk for 31 hours for disruptive user talk page editing (undoing @Seasider53's edits on their own page) and canvassing other users (see edits on @Seasider53's) page. It looks like they're getting disruptive on mainspace as well, but I'll leave that for now as the urgent situation is the user talk pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You might consider changing that to a block just from User talk:Seasider53 as I'm not sure whether or not this block allows them to respond on their own User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll reset it to one page. I'm pretty sure a user-talk partial block does not prevent editing their own user talk page, but not 100% sure. I'll get an answer later, but for now, just block the one user's talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We just did a test on test.wikipedia.org. user-talk partial blocks do not block the person from editing their own talk page. I'll leave the block limited to User talk:Seasider53 for now, but can extend it to all user talk space if needed, while preserving Ndiamar's ability to edit their own talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for testing that out, rsjaffe. I wasn't sure about it either. I haven't seen many namespace blocks where the namespace is User talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae was a great help in the test. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a repost,

It doesn't matter now anyway I've been blocked.

I have been one of the most prominent editors in regard to Queensland city/town articles; fixing up multiple lead openings on Cairns, Townsville, and Brisbane. Rockhampton, Mackay, and Bundaberg were done practically by me alone, of which I brought them into B-Class. I spent hours doing them.

My edit on Brisbane opening was in regard to the 'South Bank and its extensive parklands is the most visited attraction in Australia, with over 14 million visitors every year."

Note that it was referenced, what Seasider objected to was the claim "most visited attraction". However, I explained to Seasider that I have looked at the numbers of every major landmark in Australia and none come close to the visitor numbers of South Bank. Hence why I thought it was grossly unfair for him to undo my edit. He sent me the above message out of the blue. Please stop. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Which I assumed was trolling, because he gave no prior objection as to why he was undoing my edit he only gave an answer after he sent that. And I believed it constituted an attack on my character as an editor, as well as unaligned with Wikipedia regulations.

I don't apologise for my edits to William Fraser (architect. Did I know he created that article? Yes, I was giving him the same respect he was giving me by showing his hypocrisy. Half of what was on that page was poorly referenced, or with broken links, or made hyperbole and uncited claims.

Also take into account the numerous other editors who have also claimed to have been "targeted" by Seasider53, and or have claimed poor treatment from him. I have no such claims made about me, I am not disruptive, I take consideration to others edits and the valuable efforts they make toward Wikipedia.

I however, will not be bullied. If he wants to try to intimidate me I will give him the exact same treatment right back.

Regards, Ndiamar (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Addendum; I am saddened that I was blocked without being given a chance to first reply here. I do have responsibilities that means I can be away from my computer for many hours or days at a time. But I feel despite the high level of work I offer to Wikipedia, this block has left me rather defeated. I don't care what your decision is at this point, you've made it clear you'd rather support a bully who openly has other editors claiming the same treatment from him as I've recieved. Just ban me then, you win.--Ndiamar (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ndiamar: if you were inactive then the only block to ever affect you was the one for Seasider53's talk page. There were no reason for you to be posting there anymore so the blocked should not be something to care about. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand your frustration @Ndiamar but you're displaying conduct here that is entirely out of alignment with collaborative editing, which is needed for Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOR to understand why your research on attendance is not appropriate and cannot be used in an encyclopedia article. While an essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is applicable here as what you, or I or any other editor knows is irrelevant if it hasn't been reported on in reliable sources. How are you going to change your editing now that you know that? Star Mississippi 18:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Eimaivault clearly WP:NOTTHERE

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

The user is WP:NOTHERE, tediously and disruptively editing the article of Nikodim Milaš which prevents constructive editing of the article, without edit summary (24.01), then claimed to be removing "nonsensical Croatian pseudohistory" (25.01), and then a WP:POINT deletion of a whole reliably sourced section "due to spreading obvious historical bias" (12.02).

In the edit of Boris I of Bulgaria called me "you dumb ustashe" (10.02, ustashe=nazi, fascist). On the talk page of Milaš's article made three edits in which called me a "moron", accusing me of spreading "Croatian ultranationalist nonsense from their delusional 'historians'" (none of the cited Croatian academic authors and sources have anything to do with ultranationalism and even nationalism as such, neither anything cited is ultranationalist and nonsense, on the contrary, are very significant facts), "sources were baloney" (would be argued that isn't capable of recognizing WP:RS but it's merely simplistic discriminating POV), to be of "purely Croatian sources, not a singular outsider to confirm Ustashe superstitions" (complete ignorance of cited Serbian historian Tibor Živković, also later cited Sabrina P. Ramet an American academic expert on modern Yugoslavian history, and Emil Hilton Saggau), that Milaš's "just stating normal Orthodox takes" (which are everything but normal, and indicating user's own personal opinion shared with Milaš, whose many claims were Greater Serbian pseudoscientific propaganda which became even more popular during the late 1980s-early 1990s breakup and bloody war of Yugoslavia), among others.

The user claims to be a Bulgarian, and not to be spreading/defending Greater Serbian propaganda, yet seems completely the opposite, has typical WP:DUCK behavior and expression of someone whose a Serbian ultranationalist (and is atypical for Bulgarians), so the user either is one or someone interacting with such community and points of view, which essentially doesn't make any difference. Also, suddenly showed up an IP from Canada (sock?) on their talk page targeting me with made additional aspersions ([237]).

The editor was warned for personal attacks already by three editors, StephenMacky1 (10.02), Sadko (10.02), and myself ([238] on 10.02, [239] on 12.02), and were explained where to introduce and familiarize themselves with Wikipedia and editing policy, to no avail. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I also warned you not to spread Croatian ultranationalist propaganda, and yet you did. I also told you that I would delete the section if you did not provide any evidence outside of blatantly biased Croatian sources. In the same warning by Sadko, he literally mentions how you were insulting him on multiple other occassions, and others have alredy been called out for your behaviour by not just the aforementioned user. When we added in proper sources to that subject, you merely said "Well Serbian Orthodox Church is not a heccin reliable source!!!!!!" Now tell me who will more authentically interpret the words of an Orthodox saint - the church to which he belonged, or a bunch of papist, franciscan pseudohistorians who are obviously conspiring against him and making out to be an "evil archvillain that spread 'le Velikosrpska propagada'"? In short, you are a huge hypocrite that has no self-awareness of his actions, you frequently object with logic that would automatically dismiss your own claims, and you have a holier-than-thou attitude on top of all of that. Yes, it was wrong to insult you, but you are obviously editing with anti-Orthodox rhetoric in mind, which is why you shouldn't be allowed to edit Orthodox pages to begin with. Stick to your croatian pages, like Luka Modrich or something. Leave the aforementioned pages to us. vault (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just... am without words, thanks for providing another great example how Eastern European/Balkan topics are an WP:OWN nationalist battleground (at least were more in the past but fortunately admins blocked and/or banned most of such editors), and the amount of pressure neutral editors have to experience and endure simply because of not being of a specific nationality. In case of their block or ban, sincerely fear further backlash against me in one way or another, but am without any other option, I cannot and won't tolerate anymore personal attacks and vandalic reverting.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

i have dropped a CTOP notice on their talk page, but the diffs outlined here as well as their response directly above me is unambiguous evidence that they are here to push a certain POV & attack anyone who disagrees, and not to improve the encyclopedia... if this isn't worthy of sanction then i don't know what is ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Odd claims by Pbritti

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

---

Pbritti gave the lie to three full professors at [240]. Two of them have named chairs. The claim Cited sources do not support the claim "false attribution" for all four Gospels (though verify such terminology application towards Matthew and, to a lesser degree, Mark) is bogus.

"I have not dealt at any length with false attribution here, even though it affects a number of the writings of the New Testament (the Gospels, 2 and 3 John), not to mention later writers (Pseudo-Justin, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo-Chrysostom, and on and on). In many instances the attributions may have been made in full cognizance that there were no real grounds for making the ascriptions (the Gospel of Matthew); in other instances they were probably simply made by mistake (Pseudo-Justin)." From the WP:CITED book by Ehrman. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

So, this is a content dispute? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The claim that my edits fail WP:V could be seen as gaslighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid tgeorgescu is bringing a content dispute to ANI again. Besides not exhausting discussion options on the talk page—a discussion I'm engaging in—they've repeatedly gone off-topic in the discussion. Considering that the source they first inserted said that the term "false attribution" gives a false impression, I challenged their position. If they want to discuss it, they're welcome to continue doing so. Not sure that's gaslighting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I'm talking about Cited sources do not support the claim. It's either a mistake on your part, or if you mean it, it's gaslighting. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

gaslighting People keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. I really don't think that they are "manipulating [you] into questioning [your] own perception of reality". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

But the WP:RS do WP:V the claim. So their claim is patently untrue. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your first stop—instead of confirming whether your uncertain interpretation of my words was accurate—was ANI? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Your words seem patently untrue. I cannot construe those words in any other way. So those words are either WP:ASPERSIONS or trying to pull the wool upon my eyes. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Incivility

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

---

Very incivil and juvenile (and contentless) comment by User:Pogorrhœa on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1275440444. There are a lot of such comments there, but I think that was one of the worst. Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to notify Pogorr of this thread on their talk page. I've done this for you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)We alerted them literally at the exact same time. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've gone back and edited my comments in that discussion to comport with WP:CIVIL. There weren't "a lot" of them, there were three (3). I was uncivil, yes, I admit that; I was aggravated by the yucky tone of some participants—including yours (1, 2); you give every appearance of having decided to play self-proclaimed cop, guns a-blazin' in response to petty infractions. At the very least, you're not helping lower the temperature any. Why, just look at this ANI post of yours. Per RUCD, you could've tossed a note on my talk page saying "Hey, be civil!", and the result would've been the same: I would have gone and edited my comments. But nope, you went directly to hauling me up on charges. Seriously? C'mon. Maybe engage a little less. Maybe have a cuppa tea and a biscuit and a few deep breaths. The sun will rise in the east tomorrow, whether or not the world knows how upset you got at a line of words on a screen. Pogorrhœa (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Pogorrhœa, I can see you are trying but you still sound patronizing. I understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but I'd try to use a more formal language in discussions and write less like you are posting on social media. Often incivil language comes when editors use a very casual approach like they are posting on Twitter when, to tell you the truth, "stuffy" is more appropriate for an encyclopedia like this little project of ours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Liz. Pogorrhœa (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think, going back a step, the best advice I can give is don't edit current affairs on Wikipedia, unless you are prepared to ignore your edit being reverted or commented on. This probably goes double for anything related to Trump executive orders. It's the best way to avoid the approach of angry mastodons. In any case, I don't see any other administrative action, other than to just chill out a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord ought to redact/strike their comments as well. They were clearly uncivil. Beyond that, as someone who has living relatives who vividly remember their experience under "colonial overlords", perhaps the OP ought to be more careful in their interactions. King Lobclaw (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the solution for the heat on Talk:Gulf of Mexico is the same one I proposed on the article talk - a moratorium on discussions about putting "Gulf of America" in the lede to support aggressive clerking of new threads and to allow the archiving of existing threads complaining about the consensus coming out of the recent RfC. The problem, as it stands, is that the people who want Gulf of America in the lede don't seem to want to acknowledge that the RfC found a consensus against inclusion. This is not helped by the fact that many of the people commenting there are new editors who don't seem to understand much about how Wikipedia works. This is leading to a lot of fraying patience. Let's just lock down this settled matter and enforce the extant RfC. We don't need to entertain a forever-argument. We also don't need to be disciplining people over-much for losing their cool. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Bias and NOTHERE by Big Thumpus

Big Thumpus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since being blocked for trolling and successfully appealing the block, Big Thumpus has demonstrated time and time again why the block should not have been lifted. Every edit they have ever made has been pushing a far-right agenda. At a discussion on WT:RS, Thumpus promoted the far-right conspiracy theory that all mainstream media outlets were funded by USAID to support the Democratic Party, and when the discussion was predictably WP:SNOW-closed, started a discussion to try to overturn the SNOW-closure. Simonm223 hit the nail on the head by commenting that Nearly all you've done since you joined Wikipedia is complain that sources, Wikipedia as a whole and other specific editors are biased against the US Republican party, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Most recently Thumpus edit-warred with Willondon on Oligarchy to remove a paragraph describing Elon Musk as an oligarch (Full disclosure: as I added those sentences, I suppose I am INVOLVED on that but so be it.) and then argued with Willondon and I on the article's talk page. A look at their xtools pie chart indicates a worrying sign of mainspace being fifth – a clear sign of an SPA. Thumpus does not seem to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for their RGW campaign to whitewash Wikipedia of negative coverage of Musk and Trump. I await administrator comment on this matter. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Well since I've been mentioned I might as well comment. I wasn't going to pursue AN/I about Big Thumpus largely because if I started AN/I tickets about every POV pusher in the AP2 topic area I'd never get anything else done. The best thing I can say about Big Thumpus is that they rarely edit in article space and so most of their disruption comes down to being frustrating to deal with at noticeboard and talk pages. Ultimately I think that they would benefit from a broad topic ban on AP2 to encourage them to engage with Wikipedia in a more productive way. I might also consider a WP:NOTHERE block as Big Thumpus contributes nothing significant to the project and is frustrating to collaborate with but, considering their edit history, these two actions might have the same net result anyway. I was not aware of them edit warring at Oligarchy but that would be, imo, an escalation of prior bad behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the Oligarchy topic I can see a good faith argument for removing the Musk information as it's very specific and RECENT for what is meant to be a very general topic article. No other section mentions a specific person so why is Musk specifically mentioned? Why not the various Russian oligarchs? Also, Chicdat, it appears that you were casting aspersions with this talk page comment, "You appear to be very clearly an SPA created to push Musk's POV.". True or not, that comment should not be made on an article talk page. While a lot of edits outside of mainspace may be POV pushing, it also could be an editor who is simply not engaging in edit warring. Based only on the evidence here I don't see that BT has done anything wrong and may be correct in terms of the Oligarchy article. Before anyone suggests I'm a Musk supporter, an editor previously suggested I shouldn't be allowed to !vote on Tesla topics due to my support for TSLAQ topics and Musk's actions here. BT isn't going to be a successful editor if they don't learn about sourcing etc but talk of AP2 bands at this point, given the evidence here is unwarranted. If there is more evidence my view may change but currently, based only on the USAID question and the questionable inclusion of Musk in a high level topic article, I don't see the issue. Springee (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:DUCK here, not aspersions. A review of Big Thumpus' edit history clearly indicates that they do little else. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. There is aspersion-casting and there is calling a spade a spade. Look at BT's contributions and tell me where my comment was incorrect. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Please review FOC. If you feel the need to identify editors as garden implements, do it on user talk pages or here, not in the article space. What you did in no way made your arguments stronger but it did increase the temperature in the discussion. This is especially true in cases where the material you added can reasonably be viewed as POINTY. Springee (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

By your argument, thousands of administrators have casted aspersions by adding the {{spa}} template to a talk page, which is commenting on the contributor. Nevertheless, as you have been here for 17 years and have hundreds of edits on extremely controversial talk pages, I will defer to your judgement and drop the stick. Clearly you've encountered SPAs before and know how to deal with them. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Tagging an edit on the talk page as SPA is one thing. Accusing editors of pushing a Musk POV moves past that. Also, the tag generally helps when dealing with RfC where a lot of !votes might be accounts that are recruited etc. Dismissing a reasonable argument with SPA is likely to upset the editor in question. Heck, I would be personally very insulted if someone accused me of carrying water for Musk! :D Springee (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw this edit last week and thought "well, there's an editor who is going to be disappointed with the outcome". However; 196 edits, and of those only 11 to mainspace, and most of those are either reverts or have been reverted since. I'm pretty sure that I've lost some IQ points reading the WP:IDHT arguing at WT:RS and WP:NPOVN. That, with the additional of negligible useful content, is by definition heading towards WP:NOTHERE territory, and BT would be well advised to not continue on that course. Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see a problem with lifting the block. The original block was for sockpuppetry, not trolling, and I don't think that was demonstrated. It may well be appropriate to institute a topic ban or a community-sanctioned block for behaviour, but that's a different matter. --Yamla (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think we're dealing with the unfortunate result of a poorly structured block. A block for trolling might have been preferable but what we got was a block for socking from an editor who, despite their issues, appears not to be a sock. However I do think, if other editors are reaching the end of their patience with Big Thumpus too, that it's time to take some action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to let this play out as it may, but I think jumping right to accusing people of being SPA's when they haven't been editing the encyclopedia for a significant amount of time is hasty. If anyone cares to fully peruse my edit history they might find that I've made some oddball edits to random articles and even started a draft of a mainspace article. Plenty of editors here engage within a certain topic area for some time, because it's prominent in the news or some other reason, and then go on to do the same within another topic.

I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia articles and genuinely think everyone has done a great job in most areas, so of course sometimes it's hard to find anything to edit.

I will also add that I've tried my best to WP:DISENGAGE when other editors express strong disagreement, especially when said editors seem to have a history of bringing people to ANI or at least threaten to. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think jumping right to accusing people of being SPA's when they haven't been editing the encyclopedia for a significant amount of time is hasty is a carefully-crafted non-denial. Zaathras (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say. Do I need to explicitly state I am not an SPA to be taken seriously? Big Thumpus (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No, you need to stop being disruptive at places like Wikipedia Talk:RS and edit somewhere that isn't the AP2 CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The only way I would take you seriously is if you said "I am a SPA" because that would demonstrate some self awareness... You do appear to be a single purpose editor focused on a very narrow subset of contemporary American politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

BT, that you are here means you are probably not handling things in a way that will work over the long term. Based on the originally presented evidence I don't see a than being reasonable. However, it would be best to listen to the concerns as well as see how others work in contentious spaces. Your views, right or wrong, are going to make you a minority on many Wikipedia topics. I would suggest looking to see how other editors are effective in such cases. Springee (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree outright but I also think it's fair to note the history of who started this thread. Wikipedia undeniably has some issues with how contentious topics are handled and I think it's critically important that majority voices are not constantly lobbying to have minority voices restricted or banned from participation. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Your concern is valid but if people are talking tbans you are likely not handling it in a way that will work in the end. If you want to make an impact on various topics, vs just getting voted off the island, you need to stay cool, bring evidence (typically RSs) and rational arguments. If you run into a wall such as what you are seeing at Oligarchy, don't edit war, don't personalize it. Make your best case on the talk page. Sometimes you won't convince people even when you are "right". I'm those cases you can decide to accept it or use the various dispute resolution tools. The RfC is a powerful one. It's not uncommon that a local consensus is overturned when a RfC gets uninvolved editors to weigh in. It's also, typically, more definitely as an involved party assesses the consensus on the end. It is frustrating when others sign motives to your actions that aren't true to your intent but don't personalize things. FOC is always a good rule. Springee (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand, and I appreciate your thoughtful input. I will do my best to abide by it. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't see a than being reasonable at this time. However that doesn't mean carry on as is. Springee (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add to this that yesterday, NME Frigate started a discussion at Talk:Elon_Musk#Should_Musk's_juvenile_antics_be_mentioned? about, well, adding Elon Musk's juvenile antics to his article. Big Thumpus responded with an ad hominem attack on the user's perceived bias, and responded to me pointing that out by saying they AGF while demonstrating that they don't. I started a discussion at User talk:Big Thumpus#Editorial bias and they show no sign of acknowledging this problem, continuing to malign RS. I believe that, at best, this user needs some mentoring. If that doesn't work, a topic ban from AP2 might be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think an AP2 topic-ban is clearly called for. Some of the issues with them include:

• Blatant misuse of sources. See [241], where they take a source that overtly says that the conspiracy theory they were pushing in that discussion (that news sources were being funded by USAID specifically to defend and push the interests of one American political party over another) was false, and tried to present it as evidence that it was true. Note that the "sheepish correction" they talk about is this: While Politico LLC did receive funds from USAID and other government agencies, the money was not for grants but payment for subscriptions to its publications. The article is extremely clear, so there is no plausible way to interpret this, in good faith, as supporting Big Thumpus' position; their usage was a gross and clearly deliberate distortion of the source in promotion of a conspiracy theory.
• Constant aspersions towards other editors. They try to word these in a "friendly" manner (clearly aiming for WP:CIVILPOV) but they've nonetheless constantly crossed the line, regularly questioning the motivations of other editors by implying that they're being driven by personal beliefs. These include [242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249]
• Clearly non-neutral approaches to the article and sources. [250][251][252] Stuff that may have seemed meaningful in the lead up to the election, but after Trump's win feels more like sour grapes and mudslinging. Or this and this, arguing that the Associated Press platformed opinions-as-news that many would consider "far left" or at least directly serving the interests of politicians considered to be "far left" and saying they should not be used in a neutral encyclopedia. Characterizing the Associated Press as supporting the far left and saying it ought to be unusable as a source, in particular, is so bizarre that I feel it breaches the presumption of good faith - either it's trolling, WP:POVPUSH efforts to shift the overton window without regard for sourcing, or represents a WP:COMPETENCE issue so severe as to be indistinguishable from these things.
• Attempted canvassing: [253][254]; note that the only editors they replied to in this way were ones who agreed with them.
• Extreme bludgeoning; especially when it came to the discussion of NPOV templates on the 2024 US Election article, they made countless comments that were essentially the same two or three arguments over and over with almost no variation, even after being repeatedly informed that the discussion was already well-past the point of being a WP:DEADHORSE: [255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271][272] ...and more. Note that all of this is a single dispute over a single NPOV template on a single article, where the presence or absence of the template has already been discussed to death for months prior. Further bludgeoning can be seen in the multiple reliable sources discussions discussed above, including one where they suggested that we should reweigh our entire spectrum of sourcing based solely on the above conspiracy theory: [273][274]. They proceeded to drag these obviously unproductive discussions out further by objecting when they were eventually hatted: [275] A refusal to drop anything, in any context, unless they're directly forced to do so is characteristic of almost all of Big Thumpus' editing in the topic area.

These are not the sorts of things that the AP2 topic area needs right now. --Aquillion (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• I’ll note that in my interactions with Big Thumpus I’ve found him well reasoned and relatively civil. Sorry but the accusations of far-right and NOTHERE are complete jokes unless there’s a lot I’m not aware of. He has bias, sure, but so does every single user here. Technically we’re supposed to all be individually NPOV but that isn’t always feasible and having people of different POVs collaborate is an important step towards NPOV. My advice to him would be to find something that interests him outside of high traffic American political articles and contribute to that and the mainspace . See Talk:Donald Trump/Article bias forum if you still doubt whether he’s HERE. A topic ban is uncalled for imo

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Big Thumpus isn't being discussed at this board for being a conservative. They're being discussed at this board because of their POV pushing, refusal to drop the stick and competence issues. Basically they're wasting a lot of peoples' time and are frustrating to edit with. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And their main contribution to that "article bias forum" that I found was a WP:CRYSTAL claim that academic sources in 50 years would vindicate their POV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not at all their “main contribution”?? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I discounted the several suggestions of imposing a 6 month lag on Wikipedia reporting anything Trump does as being entirely in the wrong place for a discussion of article bias. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose if it had been my time he’d wasted I would’ve had less sympathy. Agreed the status quo is untenable. Maybe at most a temporary topic ban and a stated commitment to mainspace editing? I still think this report is a bit of a joke Kowal2701 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The accusations of time wasting confuse me a bit because WP:DISENGAGE exists. I'm genuinely sorry if other editors don't enjoy working with me, and my goal is to collaborate, but there's no obligation to engage with me or a deadline to meet in order to end a discussion. I've seen a lot of discussions on Wikipedia carry on for months or even years; most of my concerns have revolved around WP:RECENT and I really do think there's a chance that the people who disagree with me now may have a different opinion at some point, but it might take years. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a circumstance under which I would bend WP:RS policy to the whims of any American governmental administration. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not what I was suggesting - but I wanted to discuss it with you and others over there, not on ANI. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Then what's this? [276] Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ignore your question but - is this the best venue to discuss it? I'm genuinely asking. I want to discuss it in good faith, which is why I started that thread on the talk page of RS. I didn't think it would receive such immediate backlash; I wouldn't have started it otherwise. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from American politics and current events, broadly construed. The very first thing mentioned here, about starting a discussion claiming that a US government agency was funding left-wing media in the USA to attack the Republicans political parties is just so over the top and absurd, that there's clearly personal issues here that make it impossible to rationally edit in this topic area. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I feel strongly that that is an oversimplification of my concern Big Thumpus (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  And yet, the description fits, in a nutshell. Such a suggestion is so completely beyond reality that I think that you need to step back and deal with your issues. Or at least stick to other areas. Have you considered WP:LACROSSE? They always need help. Nfitz (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  But it's not what I said, though. I did not say "left-wing media" or "Republicans", and that was purposeful because I would approach the situation similarly regardless of the political tilt. Thank you for the WP:LACROSSE suggestion though, I hadn't seen that. I used to play so maybe I can help. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's fair - I've adjusted my text accordingly - and I note in one example you showed (which didn't seem to show any US agency involvement) you highlighted media supporting right-wingers such as Cheney. Still the right or left isn't the issue here. It's the wild and very unusual claim you made in the first place that appears to be more a personal conspiracy theory than any sourced fact! Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban don't know what else to say. Do I need to explicitly state I am not an SPA to be taken seriously I'm going to paraphrase Rob McClenon here and say "Then stop acting like one". Regardless of the merit of the prior block and unblok, Big Thumpus is being entirely disruptive. There are many fora in which they're welcome to discuss their opinions on US Aid, Trump, Musk et al. This is not one of them as it's disruptive. Star Mississippi 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, this sort of conspiracy theory trolling [277] is just too wild. Hopefully they can contribute in a more productive way in other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per ROPE. BT probably feels rather attacked right now and that is a great way to trigger an editor into making bad choices. That said, BT, if you want to continue in this topic space I would suggest you publicly commit to 3 things. 1. You will WP:FOC and strictly refrain from ascribing motives to other editors. That means no suggestions that someone is motivated by anything other than improving the article content. For example, it's one thing to, politely, suggest a particular edit would make an article appear like an attack article. It's quite another to suggest that was an editor's intent. 2. You will bring RS evidence to support your views/concerns. Take the recent USAID thing. Having a source for your concern may have been helpful. If you weren't able to find a source then it's a good sign this may be a nothing burger. 3. No edit warring. If your edit/reversion gets rejected you can use the talk page but you won't restore a disputed edit. If you agree to those things, which shouldn't affect your ability to argue a POV then I think any tban would be punitive vs preventative. If you don't think you can't stick to those rules then I can see the preventative argument. Springee (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I can 100% agree to those things and understand the community's concerns Big Thumpus (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Tomford1010

• Tomford1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account solely exists to vandalize the article on Emily Reid, removing sourced claims and inserting unsourced claims and claims to have a personal connection to the subject. There hasn't been any press on this actress choosing a stage name that spells her first name differently, but that hasn't stopped this account from changing it constantly. Even if the registry of Juliard would be concidered enough to change it, the way this account goes about this is totally unconstructive and aggressive. 1Veertje (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

They have multiple accounts that have done this for a while now •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You may want to create an SPI for this user. They have one other account Tomforx which has a very similar editing pattern. That and the multiple IPs that do the same edits as well. Conyo14 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Tomford1010 for 72 hours for edit warring and persistently adding unreferenced content. I will look into the other editors. Protection of the article may be required if disruption persists. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Notatall00

Notatall00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Called me an "Islamic fundamentalist" just because I opened an RM here, called @Joshua Jonathan a "White Christian supremist" and in the same message said "Wikipedia is all about making perception." They have been engaged in disruptive editing and have an ongoing SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loveforwiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

From Notatall00's talk page: "😂😂😂 Actually you should have blocked, not me. You are Propogandist with your deep state. But alas, Wikipedia has been taken over by leftist and isIamists like you. Who always search the item which suits them." Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ohh so you have a whole gang of IsIamists and Christians fundamentalist. Wow.
Whole Wikipedia is propoganda site of far lestists. Works to build narrative. -from the same talk page [278] (now deleted). Never seen someone commit wikisuicide live before 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I showed them the door out cuz us deep states ఆ run Wikipedia i have been having too much fun on Wikipedia. •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

called me a pedo(what the fuck?) here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hrs for personal attacks. After the block, they can apologize, and explain how they will work in a collaborative manner. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  they clearly wont •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I dont think that they are going to work in a collaborative manner anytime soon (at least using this account (intentionally worded)), esp with a history of saying: you seems to be born from poop -here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just yanked TPA from this. They're welcome to behave like an adult when unblocked, but I find that unlikely. Star Mississippi 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

cyberwolf and Abo Yemen, it's best if you don't play games with trolls and egg them on. They were going to get blocked, you don't need to encourage them to dig themselves into a deeper hole. Your time is more valuable than that. Plus, by repeating their personal attacks, even ironically, you could find yourself in trouble. Remember, Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore to which I'd add "Report". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Accusations of "lack of competence" and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back

Following an AfD close they weren't happy with, Horse Eye's Back confronted me on my Talk page. Initially civilized, the exchange culminated with the following: Your reading of your fellow editors arguments lacks the care and competence I would have expected. If I see it becoming a problem with your closes in general and not just a singular lapse in judgement I will escalate the issue. Have a nice day..

I spend a considerable amount of time and effort closing some of the most contentious, complex AfDs here. I do not appreciate having my competence baselessly questioned, nor having my closes dismissed as a "lapse in judgement". Short of an overturn at DRV, I'd ask for that offensive remark to be stricken out by Horse Eye's Back. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No... It culminated in "What wild, baseless accusation, or implied threats? I've been polite and civil, I've expressed empathy for the tough job you had in making the close due to the confusing nature, I have not accused you of anything I have simply pointed out that your closure is not of the quality I expect from an admin closure (perhaps your extended absence has caused you to fall behind in terms of best practices) and I've clearly explained why I think so with specific examples. Individually it is not an issue, but if its part of a pattern it would be... And following appropriate wikipedia procedures is not a threat." and I remain willing to take back anything that you still think is a wild, baseless accusation, or implied threat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that I have amended the title from "Accusations of "lack of competence" and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back:"[279] because while one of those is a direct quote the other isn't and presenting them together like that implies that both are direct quotes, thats the sort of thing I mean by a lack of care/competence... I don't even disagree with the close's outcome, it was within what was reasonable bases upon what was on the table it was just wanting in that instead of addressing the core arguments made by either side it sniped at the weakest tangents of one side of the argument in a way which massively overemphasized their importance to the outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your change of the title. Please refrain from editing other people's comments here. If you wish to contest the accuracy of my claims, present your own side, rather than edit that of others. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The quote isn't "lack of competence" it is "Your reading of your fellow editors arguments lacks the care and competence I would have expected." Regardless it is struck... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, avoid needless speculation on why, in your eyes, an editor's action may not be up to your standards. I haven't reviewed this closure but OwenX is known in AFDLand to take on some of the most thorniest and most complicated AFD discussion closures for which I know I'm grateful. You can disagree with a decision without making judgmental comments about him as a person or admin. WP:DRV is really the place for this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is obvious that trust has broken down between the protagonists here, so this issue can only be decided at WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• De-escalate I always appreciate OwenX's detailed closes and willingness to close complicated messes. I similarly don't recall having any issue with HEB before which is why I found their confrontation of OwenX surprising. My comment at Owen's Talk stands, but I do appreciate HEB's striking of some of their comment. Take the contentious close to DRV if there was a procedural error, otherwise just time to move on. Star Mississippi 21:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not touching that discussion with a ten foot pole, which is why I didn't close it. But even if it was overturned at DRV, the comment was still out of line. Humans make procedural errors (not saying this one, just in general), that doesn't mean there's a problem with the closer's conduct. Star Mississippi 21:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! I now see this matter as closed. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)