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.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

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)

Is there any doubt now of there being “enough support here to impose a topic ban”? All participants have been highly critical of the user, see no prospect of them ever engaging meaningfully or dropping the problematic behaviour and, in discussion of action, all support a topic ban, at least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

By my read, there is effectively no support for a topic ban - because the support is for an indefinite ban. Unless I'm misreading, everone who has mentioned at topic ban has at least made some acknowledgement that this is insufficient to fix the problem and an indef is inevitable. @Mutt Lunker, @Buidhe, @Svejk74, @Tiggerjay @The Bushranger, if we're at "enough is enough", could we get a clear proposal for an indef with formal !votes? My read on the discussion, even just the discussion that happened before Liz's comment, does not at all align with Liz's read that there's no evidence in support of a ban here. I suppose I could get out my rouge but I don't think I'll have to. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Certainly I would advocate indef. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure Liz and I are reading the same discussion. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I made my comment 12 days ago and gave my opinion at that time. Of course, that action doesn't stop anyone from having a different opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 15 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)

From User talk:Beeblebrox ([13]), by @Tvtonightokc

"As far as the communication issue goes, how do I go about addressing the issues with the three editors in particular who have problems with my writing style? Up until Sammi, Nathan and Mvcg66b3r began raising it in 2021, according to the archived messages, there wasn’t much issue with how I write articles (particularly in relation to those I’ve overhauled). I’m a bit more technical-minded writer when editing articles, hence why they come off “dense” as Sammi described in the 2022 message; however, I sometimes struggle to find appropriate wording for conveying information in paragraphs/sentences.

The time I started backing off editing local station articles was in February 2022, when my last station article overhauls (for Little Rock stations) were not only reverted within hours of posting, after a few weeks working on them, but a talk post to Sammi’s page by Mvcg66b3r was pinged to my notifications in relation with the opening statement, “He's at it again.” Neither of the three editors had made contact regarding my edits since 2022 (something Sammi personally acknowledged with her attempted contacts in the ANI), the prose issues they’ve long cited don’t fit the criteria for unproductive editing that would adequately necessitate such a block (even though it wasn’t the basis), and the reasoning for the ANI was based on assumptions as to why I rarely respond to communications with other users without proper context.

I’ve had issues (mainly with family) with being held to others’ standards, when they are standards I know I would have trouble meeting, and not being listened to when I express those reservations to the point where the person turns it into an argument that becomes unconstructive and personal. I’m also not very good at expressing myself or being social in general. It’s also difficult for me to be motivated to do certain things when it feels like those contributions are under-appreciated. I’ve improved my editing style from the overly basic level I used when I started to one that would seem more fitting of an encyclopedia, but I don’t know how to balance my style with the users’ suggestions." JarJarInks^{Tones essay} 21:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out how to reply to this, so excuse the delay. I appreciate that not every editor (or person, of course) is a social butterfly and that this type of engagement can be difficult. In hindsight, my frustration with the process and lack of engagement in prior attempts, which led me to go to ANI first, made me jump a step and maybe bring this up at the user talk page again, but I felt doing so would not result in any reply.

But I think editors can change and want to reiterate to @Tvtonightokc that I want to work with them, provide constructive criticism, and help them feel more confident about their editing. My email and Discord offers still stand, and they are genuine. I see the passion for the topic area, only buried beneath a proclivity to dense prose.

I also have to say that "He's at it again" from Mvcg66b3r was not a very good way to bring it to my attention. In my experience, while he has done a lot of really worthy cleanup work, Mvcg has struggled to read the room at times and occasionally takes things I say too far. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:09, 15 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 [14] another user by falsely accusing them of a WP:3RR violation and casting aspersions [15] 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 [16][17] and then placing revenge warnings [18]. On top of that, they refuse to acknowledge their content blanking behavior [19], and this isn't even the first time they've been warned [20] or brought to admin attention [21]. 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.[22],[23], finally he understood [24]
• As he reverted 5 times in that page ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29] 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” [30], 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 [31]. 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

[32] 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. [33] 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 [34]
• Previous incident:

1. [35], the issue has been solved and yes it was my fault.
2. And this [36]? 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. [37]

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 ([38] [39] [40] [41]) and Violence against Muslims in independent India ([42] [43]), both of which are contentious topics. Thankfully, their edits were later reverted by Ratnahastin ([44] [45] [46]). They've also been blanking content with vague and misleading edit summaries, like at Sheikh Mujibur Rahman ([47]), 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 ([48] [49]). Thankfully, their repeated attempts to push a particular POV were reverted yet again ([50] [51]). It doesn't stop there—they also tried adding POV-ridden honorifics at Islam ([52]), which got reverted ([53]), and made generic, non-consensus changes ([54]), which were reverted yet again ([55]). Another instance of them inserting unsourced, controversial content was at Lawrence Bishnoi ([56]), which, unsurprisingly, was later reverted. Their disruption extends to Dhaka–Bhanga Expressway ([57]), where the page has basically been hijacked with POV-driven additions and removals. They've also been issuing unwarranted warnings ([58]) 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 ([59]), 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 ([60]), 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!
• [61], Sadly, the images have been deleted, so I can’t comment on what they contained. Based on my edit summary [62] i think the image contained some information.
• [63] At the time, I wasn’t familiar with WP:MOS
• [64], 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.
• [65] What’s wrong with it? Isn’t he a terrorist-gangster?news Or do u want citations in short description?
• [66]DO u have any idea about this article? check news
• [67] 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 [68],

he himself tried to delete his report [69]

check what have i explained above [70] — 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)

[71] 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)

Unfortunately, this ANI isn't about me

Just to be clear so you're aware in the future, when you report someone at ANI your own edits may be scrutinized per WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 14 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 [72](please translate)
  2. Also ckeck this news [73]

  • 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 [74])

  what kind of reference is it that you restored [75]?????

  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. [76] — 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)

  That's one way to betray your friend 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:09, 14 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 ([77], [78]), I said him those on the article talkpage with properly mentioning his comments.[79]

  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 [80], Niasoh voted in his favour and replied him Done [81]
  • Cerium4B also notified Niasoh to help him to support him when he got into dispute with Varoon2542 [82] (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 [83]. 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 [84], 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! [85]

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) [86][87] and on top of that removing warnings [88][89]. Casting aspersions and passing personal remarks: [90][91] [92][93][94][95][96]. Making blatant POV ridden edits: [97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104] all of which were later reverted. Falsifying sources [105]. canvassing, tagging and vote stacking: [106][107][108][109]. WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IDHT issues: [110][111][112][113]. 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)

As someone who sometimes includes this information in an ANI report, it's not that I think it's problematic behavior but an indicator that they've 100% seen the ANI thread and choose to distance themselves away from the thread by removing it. It's just something to note that could mean something. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:05, 14 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 [114] 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 [115]
• Mujibnagar University was moved to Meherpur University same as above [116]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman University, Naogaon was moved to Naogaon University [117]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University was moved to Gazipur Agricultural University [118]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Shariatpur Agriculture University was moved to Shariatpur Agriculture University [119]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Digital University was moved to Bangladesh Digital University [120]
• Bangamata Sheikh Fojilatunnesa Mujib Science and Technology University was moved to Jamalpur Science and Technology University [121]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Pirojpur was moved to Pirojpur Science and Technology University [122]
• Jatir Pita Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Narayanganj was moved to Narayanganj Science and Technology University [123]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University was moved to Gopalganj Science and Technology University [124]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University was moved to Maritime University Bangladesh [125]
• Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Aviation and Aerospace University was moved to Aviation and Aerospace University Bangladesh [126]
• 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[127] all of this was fixed by @Utopes: [128]
• Gangachara Sheikh Hasina Bridge was moved to Gangachara Bridge, Rangpur [129]
• Bangabandhu Aeronautical Centre was moved to Bangladesh Aeronautical Centre [130]
• On 21 January,they moved Bangabandhu Island to Putney Island [131] citing a link to a reference entry at the Library of Congress [132] 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.[133] [134]. 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. [135]
• 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)

@Liz & @Asilvering,

• Page moves: I understand thta I should’ve made a discussion before moving those articles. But I noticed that the page reviewer reviewed those moves. If there were any issues, they should’ve reverted those and given me a warning on my talk page. I think those moves are not violating any Wikipedia policy.
• Accusation of using AI: Using AI isn’t a violation on Wikipedia but it is discouraged. Generally, I don’t use AI to contribute. I use AI to complete a citation from a URL. For example, the command -

  “make a Wikipedia citation from this (www….com) URL, use <ref… code”

  – But there I made a mistake by failing to set that citation in the matching content. If I had set the BBC news reference correctly, that wouldn’t be an issue to discuss here today.
• However: This contribution on the emergency movie was already reverted by an editor, saying the controversial section is discouraged. And they didn’t give me any warning when I added the controversy section. I didn’t try to edit-war to keep my contribution. So it shouldn’t be an issue here!
• Solution: If the page moves are a major issue, I’m requesting to revert those moves. Also, I’ll try to improve those pages as asilvering suggested.

Though this report is weird, but it is very educative.

If I have said anything wrong here, please forgive me. I’ll try to be more careful while contributing, and I can assure you of that! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not use AI to make citations. Period. There are tools on Wikipedia itself to help automate formatting of citations. LLMs are prone to mistakes and simply are not fit to purpose here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Noted…I will stick to that. Thanks for letting me know about this amazing tool! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I still don't think you get it, Cerium4B. You were brought to ANI. This is where editors come to ask for other editors to be blocked and lose their editing privileges. This discussion has gone on for 10 days! There are editors that want you to no longer edit here, at all. And you are still saying that I think those moves are not violating any Wikipedia policy? If there were not editors who disagreed with you, we would not be here discussing your editing. I don't see how much more has to be said so you realize there is a problem and you have to change your editing to accommodate editors who are having issues with you. This is your second chance, this is your User talk page message saying "This is a problem". Please take this seriously or you could be blocked next time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz,

This is not the first time I’ve been reported here. Also, I’ve reported other users here, so I know much about WP:ANI.

This report has lasted 10 days because Koshuris report was just a nothingburger! Then, the two users, Hanes & Nxcrypto, started to find my faults. If at first they could mention my faults, then we could have reached a result. But they didn’t succeed. Finally, Nxcrypto found my undiscussed page move and an Ai generated contribution (which was already reverted by a user on that article).

Above, admins have told me that those page moves are not a major problem. So, I’ve commented, “I think those moves are not violating any Wikipedia policy.”

In a recent comment, @Asilvering suggested me that there's no need to revert those page moves if I can add reliable sources that indicate that the names have been changed. And I can provide references. I will add reliable references.

Two users want a ban on me, Koshuri and Nxcrypto are supporting each other here, and they have a history of supporting each other. [136]

User EF5 is opposing Nxcrypto’s proposal, & Abo Yemen’s comment also sounds like an opposition to Nxcrypto.

However, I am apologising for all of my mistakes. I will never use Ai to make such contributions and will try to discuss before moving an important article. And trust me, all my contributions here are with the intent of helping Wikipedia. Thank you!

(I was reported here by Koshuri for my earlier contributions. When admins said the old ones are not significant, Koshuri tried to find my other faults, then those were also not significant. Since then, they have not been much active in this discussion. Then, Mr. Hanes also failed to provide evidence of my mistakes. Since then, they have been inactive here. Nxcrypto has been active since the first day. Finally, Nxcrypto have found those page moves and an Ai made contribution a violation, and he wants a topic ban on me. Koshuri is now supporting his proposal.) — Cerium4B—Talk? • 08:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no need to revert those page moves, if you can add reliable sources that indicate that the name has been changed, and you add some mention of it to the article. Then, they're perfectly fine. If you don't have any sources for the information, though, please do revert the page moves. Once reliable sources exist on the topic, then you can move them. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I’m noticing that other users have already made contributions to those articles. They have added reliable sources. They have mentioned former names(some of those institutions had multiple names) in the infobox and in the history section with reliable references. Anyone can check that. Also, I’m providing a reference here, which was recently gazetted by the government of Bangladesh, to make sure everyone that those names have really been changed. Check - () — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The point being, you need to add those sources before making moves, just to avoid this kind of problem in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, Thank you once again for your guidance. I will make sure to follow this in the future. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 18:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to pblocked Cerium4B from mainspace

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

---

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[137][138]. 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)

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

Proposal topic ban

The lack of response from Cerium4B to any of the concerns about his editing raised above is apparent. His announcement that he is currently busy in real life only when the above thread became more crucial is barely a coincidence.[139] I propose an indefinite topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (WP:ARBIPA) for Cerium4B. NXcrypto Message 07:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per my above rationale + Cerium4B disruptive page moves and problematic edits. NXcrypto Message 09:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop making illogical proposals and try to respect other users’ real lives. None of the accusations you have raised are major problems. Those pages were already reviewed by “page reviewer”s. If there were any issues, they would have reverted those and warned me on my talk page. If they had done that and I still didn’t follow their suggestions, then I could be reported here. But nobody has shown any issue with those moves; it’s just you all here trying to strike at me anyway! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@NXcrypto How is a ban from IPA topics helpful when most of his edits are Bengali-related? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support - The response from Cerium4B to this proposal only signifies his irresponsible behavior. Similarly, his response to Liz and Asilvering does not show if he understands the seriousness of this report. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that response. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you think so? His response is evasive at best. In better words, he is saying "I was correct, but if you think otherwise, ok." That does not give any confidence that we will not end up here anytime soon. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Besides the AI and moves, all of the "damning" diffs presented are from several months ago, I don't think this is neccesary (and the constant "proposals" seem like WP:BITING, but that's just me). E_F⁵ 00:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

Strict letter-of-the-law reading is also known as WP:WIKILAWYERING. Simply put, there is enough good faith explanations that it seems unlikely Awshort is directly hounding you, and more that you both have overlapping areas of interest & a disagreement on how to edit such topics.

You don't have to like each other, but there simply isn't enough evidence here to indicate harassment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don’t read the relevant policy to require proof of intent. Do you read it that way?

If so, that’s a nearly impossible standard to meet. Delectopierre (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've only just noticed this case here, but I am kind of an involved party, being the editor involved in the content dispute at Talk:Claus Spreckels. I have serious issues with Delectopierre's disregard for WP:NPOV in their contributions and their ongoing confusion about WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY sources and how these are to be used. But what I also find problematic, and this speaks to the issues on this page, is the tendency of this editor to be Wiki-litigious, being extremely obstinate when the problems with their contribution are pointed out, quick to revert other's edits, and engage in all manner of Wikilawyering to use challenge others on small points, ignoring big-picture concerns about NPOV and the primacy of secondary scholarly sourcing. Also, there's a tendency to quickly accuse other editors of WP:Civility violations while acting in a WP:BADGERing and provocative way themself.

I don't know the specifics of previous interactions between Delctopierre and Awshort, but I'm glad that since I posted to the NPOV noticeboard, there are now a few other editors who have looked at the Claus Spreckels article and have the same concerns that I do. For my part, I'm working on writing new material to replace what's currently in this section based on secondary scholarly sources, rather than being caught up in seemingly endless rounds of relitigating Wikipedia's most basic rules with this editor. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The referenced discussion is primarily a content dispute, and isn’t relevant to this post. But because it was highlighted up thread that on my first ANI post I didn’t respond to a content dispute on the last thread, I will do so here.

I find this rich coming from you.

In the discussion, you were warned by another user, and then by me, to ensure you were being civil. Your reply was that I should take it to a notice board, not that you would be civil.

Furthermore the assertions that the editors at the NPOV noticeboard were squarely on your side of the debate is not correct. They had some concerns with the language I added, which they modified and I did not contest. They also had concerns with the arguments you were making, yet you continued to make the same arguments.

The discussion led to your proposal of new language which I agreed to. Then you went way past that consensus and demand the entire subject be removed.

Delectopierre (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Delectopierre, you don't seem to understand when people speak gently to you, so I must tell you this bluntly. You are hounding Awshort by continually starting discussions here, rather than the reverse. I get that you have a mental illness (so, as a matter of fact, do I) but you can't expect co-workers at Wikipedia to provide the service that you should be getting from medically qualified people. Just stop. Now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an incredibly inappropriate comment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Omg. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

? Delectopierre (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Omg = Oh my God. I'm not too sure what that editor meant by that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems very (even incredibly) appropriate to me. What do you object to? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Your invocation of my psychiatric conditions and accusation that I use Wikipedians to treat said conditions rather than seeking professional help. I list my conditions on my user page in an effort to destigmatize psychiatric conditions. Your comments do the opposite. Delectopierre (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I invoked your psychiatric condition as something that some users might consider to be a mitigating factor in your defence, not to attack you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not consent to their invocation. It is inappropriate to do so for any user. Delectopierre (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Then I withdraw that part of my remark.Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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 [140]). 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 [141])

The user even removed @Srivin:'s edit at Rajendra Prasad filmography [142], although Srivin gave a reason for his edit [143]. The user additionally removed two films from Ali filmography although one has some sort of a source [144] [145] (I gave the timestamp that he came in the film here [146]). 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 [147]. 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 [148]) 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 [149]. 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 [150]). 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 [151]). 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 [152]), 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 [153]. 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)

The latest IP is 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:D9F1:A5:EDD1:D16E. Due to repeated attempts, it is best that this editor does not edit Taraka Ramudu. DareshMohan (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Went to rangeblock the /64 and noticed this range has been blocked before, for exactly the same behavior, the last for six months that expired in December. Blocked for a year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 14 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[154].
• 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.[155] -- 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 [156] where the wall-of-text currently sits at 83 comments
• February 11, they are still reading the same contested information [157]

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 [158] 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 [159] [160] 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 [161] 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[162]: "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"[163] around one week ago and Moxy wrote on this diff[164] 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"[165] 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%[166] 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[167] 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[168]), 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[169], 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[170]). 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[171] the way you rephrased it yourself on the article European Emigration[172] 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

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

---

• 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)

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 [173]. 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:

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

[175] 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 [176] 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.[177] 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 [178] [179] 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 [180] [181]. I'd note an article talk page discussion [182] had been started before you tried to approach an editor directly [183] (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. [184] [185] [186] 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. [187] 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)

unless they're on an iPad as I learned the hard way! Star Mississippi 22:20, 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)

Adam, AI produces slop. It happens to produce decently helpful responses sometimes, but it objectively, often, and relevantly in Bowen's case, produces annoying, disruptive, and tone-deaf slop. This is all Bowen is able to show for his interactions with other editors. NETNEGATIVE. BarntToust 21:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:AGF? I have no doubt that Bowen's actions fail WP:CIR, my argument was and remains that we should assume good faith and not jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion that the use of AI is intentionally disruptive and that it just might be an attempt by someone to communicate with the English-language Wikipedia community where they otherwise would not be able to. I don't think at any point I said Bowen shouldn't be sanctioned, that AI produced high quality content, or that other issues could be mitigated by the user's failure to understand. My issue is the apparent attempt to paint all use of AI as unacceptable. In my opinion, AI is undesirable but does have its legitimate uses. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, AI incidentally produces desirable content, ask everyone who needs a math or science equation solved. BarntToust 22:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't imagine it's intentionally disruptive, and I don't care whether or not it is, so who precisely are you accusing of "jump[ing] to unsubstantiated conclusion[s]"? Maybe, if you have nothing to say about the question "Is this editor editing in a disruptive way, or not?" it would be better not to contribute to a thread about that question. JBL (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

As long as they are focused upon subject under discussion, editors are free to contribute to a discussion on ANI regardless of whether other editors agree with their argument. In fact, they should be encouraged to weigh in in order to hear a variety of viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that asserting AI itself being wrong is an important inherent issue, and differentiating between the use of AI and the abuse of AI is important. AI should be looked at in cases such as these with disruptive editing as if it were the weapon in the context of an assault or murder. It's an important part of the discussion, but it is only the vice with which the subject of our discussion enacted their problematic behavior, which is the only thing we are charging at here. BarntToust 16:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support altough it's not about the LLM or the awkward English. They're being disruptive and show no willingness to change. The why doesn't matter. This is not a path forward. Star Mississippi 22:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Star Mississippi. User:Bwshen may well be an expert at something, but is certainly not at creating a verifiable encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per JBL's analysis. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

We really should make a rule for AI. I think it's noted in various places. but there should be an actual guideline. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to chime in on WP:LLM, but there's been a strong pushback from LLM proponents against making this even a guideline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef - It definitely seems like Bwshen is keywording conversations, which tells me they can't read/write English well enough to contribute here - and that's irrespective of chatbot use. The requests to only contact him via means that would out the person who did so and the disregard for our sourcing requirements and policies on sourcing oneself are also very concerning, but those are all ultimately trumped by their obviously poor command of English, which the chatbot can't mask. Bwshen, I strongly suggest you contribute to a Wikipedia that you can actually read, for your sake. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 15 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)

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 [188] [189], 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 [190].

And now they have resumed their disruption at Ahvaz by removing sourced info [191] [192] [193], 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 [194]. --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: [[195]], [[196]], [[197]]

Later deleted my attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page, suppressing discussion: [[198]]

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[199] and reached out directly to the blocking admin, @ScottishFinnishRadish on their talk page[200] 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)

The problem is that I can't reasonably engage in a constructive discussion with the user. I know that people did already point out to the user multiple times that sources being broken or only existing in an archived form is not a reason for their removal, as well as having exactly the same discussion I am supposed to be having with them this time, about the same sources, with the same arguments. All of this to no avail, so I have to assume malice at this time.

A user with the same tactics, styles and goals is MariamEQ (to the point that @Squasher even considered sockpuppetry). I spent months trying to reasonably debate this user, assuming good faith. In this case, a resolution of the discussion was impossible because the user constantly applied double standards to sources and seemed to have no idea of concepts like "relevance" or "neutrality of sources", exactly as Myna50, at times even regarding the same sources as Myna50 now. They also tried to argue that the concept of NPOV would mean that all of my edits would have to be balanced pro- and anti-Vishwananda (not the resulting article, the edits themselves). This is nearly impossible when editing an article that already has a strong bias. Again, the same arguments as Myna50. Myna50 is also apparently very aware of my conflict with this editor. I have no motivation to uselessly reformulate what others already said to Myna50 or MariamEQ, because I know that they know that I know that this will lead to nothing. Iluzalsipal (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There also have been multiple other users with suspected pro-BM conflict of interest whitewashing these articles.(for the second link, those that Bertramz mentioned)

As well as legal threats on the German wiki. This is also part of why I'm not assuming good faith regarding this user. Iluzalsipal (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Translated version of this comment by l3manja about the user:

Someone who threatens the (co-)author of a series of WP articles with injunctive relief via his lawyer and tells him not to disrupt the planned adaptation process of his organization with the help of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. surely cannot be very serious about cooperating with these articles. But this is exactly what happened here through Mr. Komalram's lawyer, Ben Herle. I have a copy of such a letter. From Wikipedia's point of view, this is quite absurd, it's hard to believe. Not everyone can afford an expensive lawyer and wants to spend years in court. And who is in the mood for a years-long edit war in which other and new Bhakti Marga followers take it in turns to play their part? The fact is that, assuming something like a compromise is reached, these people will never be satisfied with it, they will gradually try to do something like whitewashing. Iluzalsipal (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

What you post is disturbing but we can not take action about a post from 2023 on the German Wikipedia. If you can't assume good faith here then I suggest you don't collaborate with this editor. But unless there is misconduct on the English Wikipedia, we can't do anything about what happens on other projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 14 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.[201] It also appears to be a pattern of behaviour across other WP pages - see also Charles III [202] 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)

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.

So, that's an admission you were being WP:POINTy and disruptive just to lash out at someone else. You weren't being bullied, you were having a disagreement with another editor. And if you keep this up, you're going to wind up blocked from the wiki entirely. Instead of throwing a tantrum, take a walk, calm down, and come back when you're ready to collaborate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

An attack on someone's character is against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

You also claim my edits on William Fraser architect were disruptive.

You might want to retract that statement, as my edits there were reasonable. That is a personal attack. Ndiamar (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

None of my edits on William Fraser (architect) could be construed as vandalism of which YOU are implying. That is character assassination and a personal attack against me. Ndiamar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the Fraser talk page yet? Seasider53 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Calling your edits disruptive (they were) is not a personal attack. @Ndiamar this is a final warning or I'm going to expand your block. Star Mississippi 14:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point out your behavior in editing articles. You directly admitted you made an edit just to spite another editor, regardless of its validity. That is the essence of WP:DISRUPT. I suggest you stop digging a hole. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Character attack

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

---

User:HandThatFeeds has made accusations of character attack. Wikipedia:No personal attacks Claiming my edits to page William Fraser (architect) were disruptive when they were done accordingly to the same pretext as User:Seasider53. --Ndiamar (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a retaliatory filing for § User:Ndiamar, and I suggest it would be best to focus on that one discussion rather than to open another one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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 ([203]).

The editor was warned for personal attacks already by three editors, StephenMacky1 (10.02), Sadko (10.02), and myself ([204] on 10.02, [205] 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)

The fact that you still hide under "neutrality" despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for still trying to lie.

This has nothing to do with "Eastern European/Balkan" topics, I couldn't care less about them. You are deliberately and baselessly attacking an Orthodox saint, did you seriously think I would just turn a blind eye to your blatant anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox rhetoric. You even check my edits and went to revert them purely out of spite, such as the aforementioned Boris I of Bulgaria case. YOU are the one who is making this a national/ethnic problem, not me, and then pretending that you didn't cause the problem - absolutely abhorrent and revolting vault (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time. Thanks for providing another example how constructive editing using reliable sources is perceived as "attacking", and the Orthodox bishop isn't a saint, far from it, neither being a saint gives anyone a free pass. Only people who claim he's a saint is local Serbian church (which lacks sourced confirmation). I didn't check your edits, that and many other articles on early Bulgars/Bulgarian history are on my watchlist, and your edit was reverted by another experienced editor as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:44, 14 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)

I absolutely agree. He should be banned from editing pages relating to Orthodoxy since his Croatian background is in the way of politically neutral editing, as evident. His only counter-arguments to all this was that it was "uncommon" for a Bulgarian to be doing so, but it seems like he forgets that "there is no Jew or Greek." If you attack an Orthodox saint, you attack the Orthodox collective regardless of one's ethnic origin. Which is what he's doing, what he's been warned for and what he will continue to do lest he be stopped. vault (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Eimaivault, the editor Sawyer777 was referring to you, and dropped the notice at your talk page, not mine. Agreeing with them means you agree to be sanctioned. The continued personal attacks and baseless aspersions against me aren't helping your case. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Funny how editor in question donated a smoking gun for them to be blocked for xenophobic background aspersions. Borgenland (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

i'm not going to mince my words: i think you, Eimaivault, should be indefinitely blocked for nationalist POV-pushing, personal attacks, aspersions, and disruption. i eagerly await attention from admins to this thread. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

support indef block 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:35, 14 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 [206]. 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 [207], 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 [208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215]
• Clearly non-neutral approaches to the article and sources. [216][217][218] 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: [219][220]; 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: [221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238] ...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: [239][240]. They proceeded to drag these obviously unproductive discussions out further by objecting when they were eventually hatted: [241] 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? [242] 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 [243] 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)
• It is perfectly reasonable to argue that Elon Musk shouldn't be mentioned on the Oligarchy article. That's really not problematic behavior. Oppose the topic ban proposal that's emerged, but he should consider himself warned not to do stuff like raising that silly RS discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, given the comments from Big Thumpus below regarding hounding. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I asked an editor if they can assure me that they won't hound me, because I feel hounded. Can I not express that feeling?? This is a genuine question. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban because of the hounding comment 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:24, 14 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)

This may be the way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Would support this as well as a last chance if @Big Thumpus willing to comply. Star Mississippi 21:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ditto Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like it could curb the disruptive editing with the understanding that it is their last chance. I support. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If Big Thumpus is to be given WP:ROPE they need to understand that it will be a very short rope and that, if they continue to be disruptive regarding Musk-derived conspiracy theories about WP:RS standards that a block will be the outcome. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, can I have your assurance that you aren't going to WP:HOUND me going forward? I understand that you and I do not agree on certain things, and I very much want to discuss those things with you in good faith, but I do not appreciate continued insinuations that I am a peddler of conspiracy theories. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

My concern is with your disruptive editing. Please do not cast aspersions. I certainly have not hounded you. Statements like this make me fear we may be back here in short order if you continue editing disruptively at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Your requests that we adjust what we consider a reliable source based on the statements of Mr. Musk were beyond the pale. I am not entirely comfortable with you getting any WP:ROPE at all if I'm being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Are my feelings of being hounded by you invalid? Big Thumpus (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on this reply I continue to Support a topic ban an do not believe WP:ROPE is appropriate in this instance. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. I was willing to give WP:ROPE, but the continued aspersion-casting and accusations in your replies are deeply troubling. Where, in that reply, do you strictly refrain from ascribing motives to other editors? If you can't abide by your promises in this ANI, I certainly don't think you can do it on AP2 articles. I'm going to have to change my mind and support a topic ban. If you have truly improved your behavior after six months, it should be clear from your other contributions that you have done so. Consider it a chance to learn how to contribute constructively in other areas. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I asked a genuine question, because I feel genuinely hounded. I don't understand. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING has a very specific meaning - which, as you wikilinked to it, you should know. If you look at our edit history together you will note we've overlapped in very few places - Two of them - the page for Wikipedia Talk reliable sources and this page - are evident. I am a regular contributor to WP:NPOV/N and when you drill down you see that I did not edit on the same thread as you there. [244] On the other three pages we've both edited the distance between our closest edits is 5 days or more. Simply put I absolutely have not been following you around Wikipedia. As such your accusation of WP:HOUNDING is casting baseless aspersions. This is precisely the thing you promised not to do when you agreed to WP:FOC as a condition of a WP:ROPE decision. I was uncomfortable with WP:ROPE and was looking for assurances that you would also cease disruptive editing on the one page where we've come into conflict and you replied with a baseless accusation. I hope you find this answer detailed enough to explain why you got such a prompt and such a negative reaction to what you did. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats not a fun feeling, why do you feel hounded? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel hounded - maybe not according to the letter of WP:HOUND but at least by the dictionary definition - because Simon seems to be more determined to have me banned from a particular area of discussion than to actually discuss things with me. Practically everything I say is met with another accusation and call for action.

If I've agreed to the terms proposed by Springee, I think it's fair to ask for some reassurance that the editors who [strongly] disagree with me aren't going to take it upon themselves to police me from now on. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, that is the sort of comment that can make a new editor feel, right or wrong, attacked or at least being poked. Since agreeing at 20:06 13 Feb have they engaged in editing that is problematic? If no, then perhaps it's best to view this as a misunderstanding and move on. I will note that one can really dislike Musk while still feeling some of our coverage of the person is way over the top. Springee (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Stop with your conspiracy trolling and source misuse. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history it appears they have made no edits outside of this discussion since making a commitment to reform (see their 20:06, 13 February 2025 edit). Springee (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Tbh I think the lack of mainspace editing is a bigger issue. They seem to want to collaborate and engage in discussion a lot which is great, but most editors focus on mainspace and avoid discussion except only when it’s necessary, and aim to be concise and to the point in order to maximise the time they spend writing content i.e. in the mainspace. That is something that I think you can only really learn how to gauge through experience, so I’m sceptical of whether the above terms will mean we won’t arrive back here. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with that, many of the conflicts with Big Thumpus seem to come up when other editors are focusing on content and Big Thumpus wants to focus on the big (off-wiki) picture. I think its likely that if they did more mainspace editing then the quality of their talk page editing would improve, as it stands they have no idea what they're talking about because they've never done it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. @Big Thumpus, however this thread ends, I hope you will reconsider your approach on wikipedia. Everyone else is here to build an encyclopedia. You appear to be here to talk about building an encyclopedia, with the additional problem of having effectively no experience of the actual building part. Start building. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair warning and one TB should think about. I do understand that sometimes things like DUE are decided by trying to estimate the big picture vs what a particular source says. But focusing on adding non-controversial content while observing how editors work around controversial claims is a good idea. Springee (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, obv it’s a personal decision for them since it’s a bigger commitment. But tbh given their experiences here, especially the initial block and this thread, I wouldn’t expect them to particularly want to Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In all honesty, I am feeling pretty discouraged after that initial block and this thread. I feel genuinely uncomfortable expressing my concerns with NPOV/RS/editor conduct etc. which is a shame because those are fundamental aspects of the project and very much deserving of open-minded discussion. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You've been editing here for 2.5 months and made just over 200 edits, of which 11 seem to have been to articles; I don't think you should be giving lectures about what constitute "fundamental aspects of the project". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

...Do you disagree that NPOV, RS and editor conduct are fundamental aspects of the project..?

This is what I'm talking about, though. I can't even express what should be a pretty mild take without someone showing up to malign me. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that people who have nearly 0 experience in improving wikipedia are poor judges of the meaning and salience of our policies, and should not be lecturing other editors about their meaning, importance, or application (either in particular instances or in general). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting application of the word "lecturing" Big Thumpus (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus you are not helping your case here at all. I highly recommend disengaging and letting consensus form. Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

BT, the IP is right in that you haven't been here long so it's best to get a feel for how people effectively make arguments. It's not surprising that you feel discouraged. Wikipedia is the sort of place where swimming against the stream, especially in a contentious topic area, is likely to get you swatted if you don't strictly follow the written (and sometimes unwritten) rules. That said, one of the important skills (and one that's not easy to master for some) is knowing when to disengage. Those who say your comments here aren't helping your case have a point. So long as the comments stay here (and aren't attacking other editors) and your article/article talk page comments FOC then I don't think you have violated the commitment you have already made. If someone else shows up and says something negative about your editing, let it go. That will help show editors that you won't be defensive every time someone says something negative about your edits. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen, just don't feel you have to be defensive every time. Also, that initial block appears to have been an error since the analysis showed that you were not using multiple accounts (generally that's a no-no). Given that the sock puppet account (not to be confused with wp:SPA) block was found to be invalid, you have nothing to be sorry about. It was an error. Just keep your nose clean going forward. Springee (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban per Chicdat above, will give BT the opportunity to demonstrate that they're not an SPA by constructive editing in other areas. Brunton (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban - Their accusation of hounding after agreeing to a compromise nails it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:33, 15 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

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

---

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 [245] (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)

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

Accusations of lack of care/competence and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back

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

---

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:"[246] 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)

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

Problematic COI editor

User:BethNASEM is, as the username indicates, an employee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. She's been editing sporadically since 2020. Her employment is at least disclosed on her userpage (though not the way the COI policy dictates), but her editing has been quite poor. Beth was warned on the 11th about copyright violations at Long-distance Amtrak routes (since revdel'd). I happened to notice her edits to Rail transport, checked her user page, saw the copyright warning, and therefore examined her edit to rail transport. Lo and behold, it was a blatant copy and paste from trains.com. I left a message about this, and examined her recent edits. Sure enough, her edit to Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on the same day also contained close paraphrasing, though it was much less blatant and I had to dig a bit to find it. I followed up with a sterner message. She has not responded on her talk page.

I took a cursory look at her earlier edits, and found a paragraph on Gail Mandel was also copied and pasted from online. This edit was from 2020.

Beth returned today to make this edit to Leslie Richards. I checked the cited source, and Leslie Richards is not mentioned on the linked page or on the TRB staff directory. It turns out the edit wasn't wrong per se ([247]) but it is alarming that instead of citing this she just cited the about page which has no mention of Leslie Richards.

At this point we have a COI editor who has at least somewhat disclosed their COI, but is also violating copyright, misrepresenting sources, not using edit requests, and most critically not responding to talk page messages. I'm seeking at least an indef from mainspace to force communication, as right now I'm not confident Beth even knows what a talk page is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks in contentious area

User Envyforme, who since 2018 has not edited anything outside the topic of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., repeatedly attacks other users in posts that are 100% off-topic and ad hominem [248], [249] despite already having been warned [250]. Given the already contentious nature of the article and high tensions, repeated off-topic insults are not beneficiary. Given the lack of any other contribution to WP for seven years, everything about this user says WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. I have been attacked multiple times on this article because the underlying consensus of it is biased and not accurate. Proper news sources have been provided multiple times my users. Myself included. If every time someone has a disagreement on something, is the default to report it to an incident because you disagree? Seems pretty convoluted coming from me. Envyforme (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You were not reported for a disagreement, but for making ad hominem attacks unrelated to the discussion. I add your reply to the ANI-notice, as it provides further proof of your attitude to WP and other users [251]. It is concerning that you cannot tell the difference between having different factual opinions and attacking other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Envyforme:, do not cast aspersions on other editors. Focus on contributions, not conduct. And no, "Say that to them" is not an appropriate response when told this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

P Blocked from the article and talk although a good case could be made for a site block. @Envyforme this is not an invitation to be disruptive elsewhere or the block will be widened. Indef because they don't edit regularly enough for a time limited one to be meaningful. Star Mississippi 01:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

General disruptive editing by Littletpott

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

---

Littletpott (talk · contribs · count) has been making edits that are generally disruptive including the addition of unsourced trivia to pages and the creation of pages on non-notable subjects. They are not responding to talk page messages and have previously received a 31-hour block. I'm not sure if this is a vandal or just a WP:CIR case but it seems a longer or indefinite block is needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I wish you wouldn't talk about me like that. I don't like how it makes me feel. I'm trying my best to be a productive and educated member of the community and I don't have as much coding experience as you so this is really hard for me and I don't know why you call my coding or work negative without asking me why I do the things I do. If you don't like how I sound that's your fault. Littletpott (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Littletpott: I will assume good faith, but why are you only now responding after you have been previously warned multiple times and blocked for disruptive editing? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Littletpott seeing as they continued their disruptive editing/vandalism after the previous block by Peaceray (courtesy ping). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and if they can make an unblock request showing they understand why their previous edits were disruptive and that they can slow down, I would not be opposed to an unblock at a future date. Fathoms Below (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Unable to file a UTRS

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

---

Hi, myself @Churnalist47. First of all I apologize for editing without logging in but I had no other option. My talk page access is removed, my unblock request declined by an admin and I am unable to file a UTRS as they had asked me to. Please help me out.103.203.73.33 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC) My unblock request is as follows: I was blocked with no valid reasons and no proper investigation. I also wanted to add that if I get unblocked I want to work on the drafts Draft:Neha Harsora, Draft:Alisha Parveen, Draft:Shivam Khajuria, Draft:Ram Bhavan, Draft:Khushbu Rajendra, Draft: Ayesha Singh, Draft:Yogendra Singh (actor), Draft:Bhumika Gurung, Draft:Jamai No. 1, Draft:Simaran Kaur, Draft:Sayali Salunkhe, Draft:Main Dil Tum Dhadkan, Draft:Radhika Muthukumar and Draft:Priyanka Choudhary. I'm informing about my future projects now itself because I got to know that some of these drafts are controversial drafts and were earlier created by socks which is why I was blocked when I created Draft:Neha Harsora and Draft:Alisha Parveen. I would also like to work on Draft:Rajat Verma, Draft:Savi Thakur and Draft:Aleya Ghosh. I assure everyone here that I'm not a sock of any of the socks who previously created these drafts so I kindly request to consider my unblock request and kindly unblock me. I also want to inform that I would like to create these drafts following the article Kritika Singh Yadav which was created by the sock of Aleyammarockz which is User:Mycrushrajveer. I will be using Kritika Singh Yadav's article as my base because I just found that article is beautifully created. This is all about my behavioural editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.203.73.33 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Your UTRS appeal was declined six hours ago. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

United Airlines

Bringing attention to User:Norco3921's potentially disruptive editing patterns on the United Airlines page, particularly in the lead section. Besides making frequent minor edits, as evident in the revision history, the user has become defensive while attempting significant changes to existing content—justifying them with subjective claims of redundancy and poor writing. Some editors, including myself, have offered opinions regarding WP:MOS and WP:NPOV, while I suggested in good faith through the talk page and relevant tag that it is best practice to adhere to conventions across other airline articles for consistency and neutrality, yet the user continues to edit without substantively addressing these concerns. JCHL (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

JCHL, please provide diffs/links to edits that you found problematic. You have to lay out a case here, not just make accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is the United Airlines talk log for your review.

Article layout

Wanted to engage in a discussion with Norco123 and others in light of recent changes to the page.

The rewritten version of the intro excludes important details like the legal name of the company (required by style rules) and basic overview of the history of the company.

As to the history section, I agree that the way it existed wasn't ideal. It needs a complete rewrite. However, excerpting only the beginnings section of the History of United Airlines page isn't an acceptable solution. It may be well written, but it only covering the company history until the mid-1930s, missing a lot of critical modern history. Plus, it has a level of specificity too detailed for the mainpage.

I would propose either the history section is rewritten... or a nice summary section is written for the top of the History of United Airlines page. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the current two opening paragraphs, and a header and sentence that I incorporated into the edited opener. The previously poorly written and disjointed history section is currently just below the opening paragraphs so it is redundant and distracting from a simple and comprehensive description what United Airlines currently is, not what it was. I would think that is what the history section is for. And who says the history section in the United Airlines article has to cover all 98 years when there is a link to the comprehensive article, History of United Airlines? That is why I prefer the well written 'beginnings' paragraphs from the real history. If someone wants the whole history it is waiting for them one click away. I spent a lot of time editing the history, but still prefer the beginnings excerpt.

Extended content

United Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. United operates an extensive domestic and international route network across the United States and all six inhabited continents primarily out of its seven hubs, with Chicago–O'Hare having the largest number of daily flights and Denver carrying the most passengers in 2023. Regional service is operated by independent carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines. In 1997, United became one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today. Since its merger with Continental in 2010, United consistently ranks as one of the world's largest airlines; it is currently first by the number of destinations served and fleet size, and second in terms of revenue and market capitalization. Destinations and hubs As of January 2025, United Airlines offers nonstop flights to 217 domestic and 146 international destinations in 73 countries and territories across all six continents serving more international destinations than any other U.S. carrier. Do we need the tidbits about O'Hare and Denver in the intro? The Destinations and hubs header is above one clumsy sentence about destinations, a list of hubs and Alliances and codeshare agreements. A header such as Network might work, but this one in no way encompasses all the three sub-topics.

I spent a lot of time editing this mess (IMO) into the following paragraph along with a lot of other improvements (IMO) and RickyCourtney 'undid' them en masse (+16,877) with the following comment, "I largely disagree with these changes. Many of them are counter to the Manual of Style guidelines, and others just simply aren't an improvement." Here is my paragraph

Extended content

United Airlines is the largest airline in the world, offering the broadest network with the most destinations. It serves 217 domestic locations across the United States and 146 international destinations in 73 countries and territories on six continents. United’s extensive connectivity is supported by its seven major U.S. hubs, a partnership with five United Express-branded regional carriers, and 25 international airline partners in the Star Alliance, of which United was a founding member in 1997.

As for the title of the article is United Airlines without the Inc. None of Alaska, American, Delta, Skywest among others use their legal name in their Wikipedia articles opening paragraphs, It just reads better. I would love to see the exact style manual reference you are referring to as I couldn't find it in Wiki's style manual, but it is not a big deal either way IMO. Norco3921 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort but find it excessively promotional of the United brand. Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#ADVERTISINGwhich suggests that "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."

The paragraph begins with the statement "United Airlines is the largest airline in the world, offering the broadest network with the most destinations." While true, it should be noted that there is more than one metric in measuring airline size. More importantly, in an objective tone, the reader should only be introduced to the nature of United as a major US airline in the first line, consistent with other Wikipedia airline articles.

I suggest reverting to the former lead paragraph and making copyedits from there if necessary. JCHL (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What other metrics do you think indicate the size of an airline, and why would one mention an airline being 'major' when it is the largest? Market cap is not the size, but the value of the airline. Revenues come from things that have little to do with the size of the airline such as credit cards, oil refineries and wholly owned subsidiaries. Available seat miles are the most universally accepted metric, but when the same airline also leads in revenue passenger miles, airplanes and cities served I think calling it the largest airline is simply factual. I used United and Star Alliance references for up to date factual/numerical information, not promotional, but I replaced those with other references. Are corporate SEC filings considered promotional? Thanks for the feedback.Norco3921 (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "major" airline is one with >$1B/year in revenue. There are 57 such airlines including United with $56B and Sun Country with $1.06B. What a waste of the most important sentence on a term that has become almost meaningless.I reviewed the opening paragraphs of American, Delta and Southwest Airlines' Wikipedia articles and surprise, they all contain corporate 'fact sheets' like those that I previously used and replaced with others at your behest. I also rewrote the opening paragraph removing anything that could be considered 'promotional', I therefore request that you remove the Promotional Content warning from the United article. Thanks in advance. Norco3921 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So JCHL hasn't responded to my points here or my edits that removed anything that could possibly considered promotional. Instead he just reverted back to the meaningless (IMO) boilerplate first line. Here is his latest effort.

Extended content

"United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's largest airline in terms of fleet size and number of destinations served. United operates primarily from its seven hubs an extensive domestic and international network that includes more than 370 destinations in 75 countries across all six inhabited continents. Regional service is operated by contracted carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed in the late 1920s through the combination of several airlines, the oldest being Varney Air Lines created in 1926 by Walter Varney. He later co-founded Varney Speed Lines, the predecessor to the independent Continental Airlines which eventually merged with United in 2010. United is one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today."

Major is redundant when followed up my world's largest airline is in the very next sentence and the last sentence of the second paragraph is completely out of place. JCHL also didn't cite references that demonstrate the two metrics he cited. Norco3921 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not taken personally and would surely hate to see it descend into an edit war, but the same can be said with your recent mass edits to the lead without really consulting other editors' opinions.

As mentioned, there are established conventions to encyclopedic entries and the first line is there to state a fundamental, relatively stable fact. Qualities as dynamic as company figures can serve to augment the paragraph later, and without the "redundancy" it risks stripping things out of context and becoming promotional in tone. I have tried to accommodate your suggestions such as removing hub tidbits, but if you still feel the urge to edit I hope you can improve upon existing frameworks. JCHL (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me these established conventions that require the first line of airline articles to say it is a major airline instead of the largest airline in the world which doesn't change so often. As for consulting editors it is you who failed to address my talk entries, edits that removed anything that could be considered promotional or the citations I changed. You finally responded only now after I edited your problematic rewrite. Norco3921 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just documenting that you replaced the promotional warning without explaining what the issue was or discussing it here. I changed the opening sentence and removed the promotional warning. Norco3921 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my attempts to speak privately with JCHL, but he never responded.

Promotional or factual? What do you see as promotional about the United Airlines introductory paragraph? United Airlines is the largest airline in the world by number of airplanes, number of destinations and available seat miles as referenced and cited. Norco3921 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found another reference that I added showing United Airlines is also the largest airline by revenue passenger miles (RPMs). Norco3921 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention in this matter and sorry to bother you.

Norco3921 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime since the user is notified of this post progress has been made; consensus may not yet be reached but hopefully we can achieve that through further discussion. JCHL (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• I said "diffs" which are links to edits. I didn't recommend that you copy and paste a talk page here. Provide links to specific edits that are problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  The talk page has been copied by User:Norco3921. If helpful this diff is the beginning of the user's significant alteration of the lead section, deviating from existing content and stylistic convention across airline articles. They have also made very frequent edits since then. Again, in the meantime since the user is notified of this post minor progress has been made; consensus may not yet be reached but hopefully we can achieve that through further discussion. JCHL (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the final diff after my edits. I will try to find you what it looked like before I started editing.

Extended content

United Airlines is a global airline headquartered in Chicago, IL, serving 217 domestic locations across the United States and 146 international destinations in 75 countries and territories on six continents. United is the world's largest airline producing the most available seat miles and revenue passenger miles with the largest mainline fleet in the world.United’s extensive network utilizes seven major U.S. hubs, and partnerships with five United Express-branded regional carriers and 25 international airlines in the Star Alliance to extend its global reach. United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines beginning in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines, Varney Speed Lines.

Norco3921 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Here is the diff from before my editing.

Extended content

United Airlines, Inc. is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. United operates an extensive domestic and international route network across the United States and all six inhabited continents primarily out of its seven hubs, with Chicago–O'Hare having the largest number of daily flights and Denver carrying the most passengers in 2023. Regional service is operated by independent carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed by the amalgamation of several airlines in the late 1920s, the oldest of these being Varney Air Lines, created in 1926 by Walter Varney who later co-founded the predecessor to Continental Airlines. In 1997, United became one of the five founding airlines of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today. Since its merger with Continental in 2010, United consistently ranks as one of the world's largest airlines; it is currently first by the number of destinations served and fleet size, and second in terms of revenue and market capitalization.

Norco3921 (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Here is JCHL's version diff.

Extended content

United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's largest airline in terms of fleet size and number of destinations served. United operates primarily from its seven hubs an extensive domestic and international network that includes more than 370 destinations in 75 countries across all six inhabited continents. Regional service is operated by contracted carriers under the brand name United Express. United was formed in the late 1920s through the combination of several airlines, the oldest being Varney Air Lines created in 1926 by Walter Varney. He later co-founded Varney Speed Lines, which evolved into the independent Continental Airlines that eventually merged with United in 2010. United is one of the five founding members of Star Alliance, of which it remains a member today.

Norco3921 (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• your edits are spilling over into different topics on ANI. the reference table for united airlines isn't relevant to the dispute between abebenjoe and mvcg666b3r. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also, those still aren't diffs. See HELP:DIFF, particularly this section on how to link them. Copying and pasting makes it less likely that your posts will be read. EducatedRedneck (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Noting here that, for readability, I've collapsed the above "diffs" which are just copy-pasted source code from article versions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm posting (and slightly rephrasing) this again in case my above reply has been drowned by all the copy-pasting. Returning to my original concern, this diff is the beginning of Norco3921's significant alteration of the lead section, deviating from existing content and stylistic convention across airline articles. It had been followed by very frequent edits without first reaching consensus. In the meantime since the user is notified of this post minor progress has been made; I hope to achieve resolution through further discussion where appropriate. JCHL (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the place to start discussing would be the article talk page. I'll join the conversation, so it won't become a stalemate. I suggest this thread be left open; if issues persist, this thread can be revisited. If discussion resolves it, the thread will be auto-archived. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

References

User:Abebenjoe reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

This user just told me on my talk page to "leave my edits alone" and "you know less than me" re:CBHT-DT. Wikipedia is built on collaboration and this user is insistent on "owning" their edits. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Why yes I did, because @Mvcg66b3r keeps reverting and editing my articles that I'm the main editor on in local Canadian TV stations that they don't have specialized knowledge on. They have have been vandalizing the articles I edit. – Abebenjoe (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal, I was editing in good faith. I warned this user once on their talk page for attacking me and I would do so again if this keeps up. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You are a vandal. You edits are not in good faith. Abebenjoe (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

And you know that they don't have this knowledge for a fact, mmm? Come to that, how do we know for a fact that YOU have this knowledge, beyond your naked word? Regarding your claim that you're the "main editor" on these articles, I just took a look at the CBHT-DT Mvcg66b3r referenced above, where they have over twice as many edits as you, starting nearly three years before you did. Ravenswing 06:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed a lovely gem on @Abebenjoe's talk page that seems to be exhibiting ownership of the articles in question. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

... beyond the "Hello, never revert or edit my work"? Ravenswing 06:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

that was the one in question... Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r continously makes edits to my citation format and articles that I have have a specialist knowledge of. They do not have a specialist knowledge in the field of Canadian local TV stations. I do. For the past year, they have made reverts and edits of properly formatted edits and citations. – Abebenjoe (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just drop it @Abebenjoe. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Abebenjoe, you are not a main editor on any article, and the fact you claim to have specialist knowledge doesn't give you any additional privileges on those articles, or any others. You do not own content, and you absolutely do not get to tell any other editor never revert or edit my work. Your work can and will be edited by any other editor, which you agreed to when you clicked the 'Publish changes' button, regardless of those other editors' qualifications or lack thereof. Given your clear ownership attitude exhibited with that diff, and here, consider this a once and final warning regarding claiming ownership of articles. Furthermore, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which Mvcg66b3r's edits do not fall under - and accusing another editor of vandalism when they are editing in good faith can be considered a personal attack. Don't do that again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The actual disagreement around content and format should be taken to the talk page of the individual article or to the Wikiproject: Television talk page if it extends over a collection of articles and/or an RFC. Can we step back from the warnings and invocations of authority and start a talk discussion somewhere on the actual content dispute? Wellington Bay (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

10 hours later, nothing is started (noting for the records) I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Isjadd773 & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Socks tossed in the dryer. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. An IP address reported some inappropriate edits made by @Isjadd773: on my talk page, so I took the initiative to look at both those edits and his user page. Isjadd773 has been blocked three times, by administrators Daniel Case and Ponyo, for edits related to singer Chris Brown, and a quick look at his contributions reveals the rationale behind these actions. Despite the previous blocks, the user continues to attempt to mischaracterize Brown's ex-girlfriend as an OnlyFans porn actress and inflate Brown's sales figures. Additionally, he also continues to remove important information regarding Chris Brown's domestic violence cases and other well-documented controversies surrounding his personal life, along with the reported fact that he has fathered multiple children with several women. Given this behavior, I believe a permanent ban from editing the Chris Brown page is warranted under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.It's treeggax (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC) I would also like to mention that the IP address that reported this situation to my talk page has been harassing other editors to weigh in on the matter and has been blocked as a result.It's treeggax (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC) When reporting incidents of this nature, it's wise to maintain neutrality in order to not associated with socks who have previously used the same rhetoric for the so called problematic edits. But given that the user above is a sock of the blocked Italian IP who has actually has been harassing me and another admin in relation to these issue, I wouldn't expect them to maintain neutrality. They are also a sock of indefinitely blocked user Giubbotto non ortodosso. Despite this obvious sock I've responded below in point form to the issues: - "Despite the previous blocks, the user continues to attempt to mischaracterize Brown's ex-girlfriend as an OnlyFans porn actress" The wording in question used was OnlyFans content creator, not pornographic actress. It was supported by a secondary source (Complex) which is still present in the body of the article. It's subjective whether the individual should be categorized as an OnlyFans content creator in the lead. Currently it is not in the lead of the article. Per the edit history of the article, it can be seen that the editor who took issue with these edits was NoOneElseLovEe who also happens to be a sock of Giubbotto non ortodosso and It's treeggax and other Italian IPs, sharing the same location. - "And inflate Brown's sales figures" The "inflations" were also supported by secondary sources. They were not an unsourced additions. Granted it did become a content dispute, due to editors believing that the sales figures reported by secondary sources were inflated. This issue was discussed at length on the talk and I even start a discussion about it on the dispute resolution noticeboard to help resolve the issue. Nevertheless the issue remained unsolved and as a result the "uninflated" sales figure which I did not prefer was kept in the article and I did not contest it ever since. - "Additionally, he also continues to remove important information regarding Chris Brown's domestic violence cases and other well-documented controversies surrounding his personal life" - All relevant information regarding Brown's domestic violence cases as well as the controversies surrounding this personal life have been kept in the article. Interviews about his own legal issues are not appropriate for a legal issues section per WP:NOTADIARY. The information should be concise and focus on allegations, charges, verdicts, etc. Similarly trivial information about relationships is not relevant for the majority of users per WP:NOTADIARY. Again these are edits that the user above claims are problematic were also deemed problematic by Italy IPs who are socks of Giubbotto non ortodosso and their other blocked socks such as DollysOnMyMind and NoOneElseLovEe. - "along with the reported fact that he has fathered multiple children with several women." The information about the number of children he has was kept in the article as its a fact. The excerpt about the children being fathered with multiple women was removed. It's debatable whether this information should be kept. I personally find it trivial as explained in my edit summary per WP:NOTADIARY. Similar to the edit above, Giubbotto non ortodosso and their other blocked socks such as DollysOnMyMind and NoOneElseLovEe have also previously taken issue with the same edits. In this whole smoke and mirrors charade by t's treeggax recently started the following discussion 1 about the removal of information of polyamory. Comically, a few days prior the following Italian Special:Contributions/5.90.57.170, which whom t's treeggax has never interacted with started the exact same discussion 2 about the removal the removal of information of polyamory on the talk page of the user with whom I had a previous content dispute 3 with about inflated sales. Special:Contributions/5.90.57.170 also shares the same geolcation as the blocked Italian IP above and Giubbotto non ortodosso and all their blocked socks and IPs. So to conclude t's treeggax = Giubbotto non ortodosso. Isjadd773 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Your argument overlooks an important point: the user you're assuming I am is a devoted fan of Chris Brown, who tends to present an overly positive and uncritical perspective in the articles. In contrast, my intention in this discussion is to adopt a more critical stance. Your response fails to address the primary concern regarding your edits: they appear to completely overlook a neutral perspective on the convicted domestic abuser and polygamist Chris Brown. It's treeggax (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC) It's treeggax, this is quite a polished complaint to ANI from a two week old account. Have you been editing other Wikipedia projects? I also don't see that Brown has been married according to our article so please strike your comment about being a "polygamist". Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC) @Liz:The article does not mention this fact because Isjadd773 has made significant efforts to conceal it. However, various sources, including the Daily Post (Nigeria), have reported on his status as a polygamist. Just to let you know, I have primarily concentrated on editing the Wikivoyage platform, but I am now shifting my focus to Wikipedia, particularly in the area of legal issues concerning controversial figures such as Sean Combs, R. Kelly, and Chris Brown. I've noticed that fans of these artists often edit their pages in a manner akin to a public relations team. It's treeggax (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC) There has never been any content in that article referring to Brown as a polygamist and the source you mentioned above was never present in the article, much less removed from it. Isjadd773 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict) You have never edited Wikivoyage, at least not as this account. I've indeffed the user for disruption and a probable sock, either Giubbotto non ortodosso or someone else. Probably need to get a CU to confirm because if they are Giubbotto non ortodosso, they should also be globally locked. BTW, I noticed Drinking a l00t an even newer account who seems to be trailing behind treeggax making tiny edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PagePerfecter

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

---

Preious ANI The editor has resumed their (presumably) AI text additions marked as minor edits example a few days after the last week long block has expired, the user appears to not be communicating at all with 0 edits to user talk or talk space, last time @Black Kite: said they presumed the next block would be indef. As it appears the user is either unwilling or unable to communicate and is adding what is presumed to be AI/LLM text to BLPs can someone do the honours of indeffing them until they start commincating. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just for future reference, I think we can consider AI use confirmed based on their last edit [252], in which they accidentally copied and pasted too much of the text and included part of ChatGPT's next question asking whether it ought to provide more detail. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the typical AI sensation of having lukewarm maple syrup poured down the back of your neck while you read. On the one hand, on the other hand, platitudes. Narky Blert (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Users removing content

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) and
FaIsegod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The users is removing verified content in Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with reliable sources without reason. Nowhere does it say that you have to wait for an exclusive source to verify the attendance numbers at the tour places. Vazafirst (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Both sources provide estimates of attendance, not definitive counts of attendance. Normally, we would wait for the box office reports—either via Billboard or Pollstar, which are well-regarded, reliable third-party sources for this information, made beyond preliminary reports of estimates (which are generally not reported in tour date tables). Not to mention, user was notified in October 2024 of YouTube's notability as an inline citation, and as WP:YOUTUBE states: Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. I also think opening an AN/I at this juncture, when the reporting user never came to my talk page, the other user's talk page, or the talk page of the page in question to form some kind of other means of dispute resolution—which is suggested above. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Could we see some diffs/edits here so we know what you folks are arguing about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour. Vazafirst (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: 1275648427 (addition), 1275698921 (removal) (admittedly, summary could have been better—for that I do apologise), 1275699694 (re-addition/revert), 1275700924 (removal). Not once were I or Faisegod approached asking us to explain the removal (a.k.a. dispute resolution); instead, an AN/I report was made. |livelikemusic]] (TALK!) 17:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying those links. However, this looks like a content dispute/edit war over references, this should be discussed on the article talk page or WP:RSN (or even WP:ANEW), not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Albanian IP vandalism

• 79.106.124.128/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range of Albanian IPs has consistently tried to remove the same 20,000 or so bytes from List of Paramount Pictures films (2000–2009) over the past month (XTools list), alongside other disruptive edits. The majority of this range's edits dating back to October 2024 have been reverted, and many of the individual IPs have already been blocked previously. Some specific ones are listed below.

• 79.106.124.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.106.124.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously blocked)
• 79.106.124.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously blocked)
• 79.106.124.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.106.124.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.106.124.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously blocked)

(I previously posted this at WP:AIV, but it was removed after a few hours when no one acted on it). --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

IP 64's slow edit-warring and unresponsiveness

• 2601:5C0:4201:16B0::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above /64 has been removing the word "singer" from the ledes of several voice actor articles - specifically Miharu Hanai (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miharu_Hanai&action=history), Hitomi Sekine (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitomi_Sekine&action=history), and Misato Matsuoka (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misato_Matsuoka&action=history) - even after being reverted on the grounds that MOS:CONTEXTBIO should allow that word to be used in the lede, with their edits having no edit summary whatsoever.

While this seems to be a content dispute, the main issue is that even after my first warning and another warning for IDHT, they have engaged in slow-motion edit warring (as I warned here) and have been unresponsive to my requests that WP:BRD requires these changes be discussed instead of reverting, despite being warned that communication is required to edit Wikipedia. After I issued a final warning at User talk:2601:5C0:4201:16B0:4805:D9E5:C397:C22F asking them to go to talk to discuss per BRD, they reverted anyway without edit summary/discussing.

Since almost every edit from the 64 is mobile, this may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Therefore even if the edits were made in good faith, given their unresponsiveness and the fact this is about to reach 3RR (if not in spirit), a block should be issued on the 64 in order to help the editor respond to concerns. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've pblocked from mainspace with a link to this discussion in the block log, hopefully they'll find their way here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Persistent LTA of WP:WIKINGER on Barranca, Lima and its talk page

I notice starting around August 31 of last year. Bunch of IPs are adding sections entitle "History Behind The Stench" with the text that go like this: A characteristic feature of Barranci is the enormous stench of the air in the city, often compared to rotting meat, garbage dumps and manure. The city fell in 2017. Due to the migration of residents caused by the unbearable stench. It is estimated that in the 90s the population fluctuated around 170 thousand. Data from 2017 indicate the effects of mass migration of people co-created with the demographic decline. At that time, the number of 63,275 inhabitants was given. For this reason, this year is symbolically referred to as the year of the fall or destruction of Barranca.

Which is absolutely false. Later those IPs supported this claim with this sources, which is failed verification.

I later found out that they are socks of WP:WIKINGER which self admitted (Here). Almost all of the IPs are from Poland other than the proxies. The IPs are keep on coming back as soon as the protection on this page expires and I just keep on reverting it back as soon as they added it. I don't know what to do. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Miminity, one thing you could do is provide some IP addresses that concern you. That's a start. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank for responding @Liz: Here it is:

These are the one on the main page

• 2a02:a316:e1f3:cc00:dd8f:e249:57bb:b35b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.132.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.112.0.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.113.14.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.172.42.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Mastkodont (talk · contribs)
• 94.254.170.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.165.156.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.161.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.64.93.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are the one in the talk page

• 77.242.98.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.247.23.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 5.173.204.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.113.2.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 103.165.156.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.161.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.254.224.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the most recent one) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Barranca, Lima and Talk:Barranca, Lima have been semi-protected. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Ky01654

• Ky01654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really can’t tell what’s going on with this editor. They are non responsive to many warnings and notices on their talkpage. The latest is unexplained blanking of a draft several folks have worked on. AGF, they may not be aware of the messages sent their way trying to get them on track with community norms? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted their blanking and posted a notice on their User talk page. I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for? At this point, we might have to see how they respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

They've actually never used a talk page of any kind, so I'm going to p-block them from main and draftspace and see if that works. -- asilvering (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Historyk.ok personal attack and incivility

Historyk.ok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user violated WP:NPA WP:CIV. We had a disagreement over a content in the article, which I wanted to respectfully resolve. However, this user in his edit to the article responded to me with an anti-Ukrainian and antisemitic caricature in the form of emojis "🇺🇦✡️🤥". This is a personal attack on ethnic/national basis and isn't a respectful response. StephanSnow (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Calm down, it was a joke, it wasn't meant to offend you, and I don't understand on what basis you claim that the answer was anti-Ukrainian and anti-Semitic, it was just emoticons and was not supposed to have anti-Ukrainian and anti-Semitic motives Historyk.ok (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

So "it's just a prank, bro"? Sorry, that's not going to fly. As for what basis - it's blatant why that particular sequence of emoticons was selected, claiming ignorance is not a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so rude, I didn't know he would take it that way and I didn't mean to offend him in any way because of his nationality. Historyk.ok (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the StephanSnow and The Bushranger that it is unambiguous what that string of emoticons was meant to represent. Further compounded by the fact it wasn't a real edit, rather just the addition of whitespace to leave a comment. If you have a legitimate disagreement with the content of an article, take it to the article's talk page without the emoticons. I have reverted your latest edit as I can't see any legitimate reason why you removed the total combatants from the infobox. The totals given are the sums of the stated Cossack, Militia, Poland-Lithuania and Crimean Khanate strength figures. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Historyk.ok, the thing about jokes is that they need to be funny, and what you did was offensive and disgusting instead. I looked over User talk: Historyk.ok and saw quite a few warnings. Here is another warning for you: If you pull another obnoxious stunt like that, the consequences for you will not be funny. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I assure you that this will not happen again Historyk.ok (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It amuses me how most of the Wikipedians commenting on this submission failed to notice that this has nothing to do with personal or national attacks, he simply sent emoticons that we can interpret differently. Nihil novi nisi (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, you and Historyk.ok are both easily amused. Perhaps you share more than a sense of humor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You can easily check with Checkuser that he and I are completely different people if you don't believe it. Nihil novi nisi (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no other way to interpret "you are a lying Jewish Ukranian", especially when it is the only purpose of the edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Not what Bbb was saying, but you should WP:DROPTHESTICK so this section can be closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nihil novi nisi: sure, they can be interpreted differently... How do you interpret them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but perhaps this thread might be closed before more editors get in trouble? Historyk.ok has at least apologized and promised not to do this again. NewBorders (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Historyk.ok: I get that emoticons can be ambiguous to many people, but if its not meant to mean "Ukrainian, Jewish, Liar" what is it meant to mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. Just stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

this discussion has ended a long time ago but I don't know why it's still going on and I don't understand why you think it's nonsense, and I wrote it in pure irony Historyk.ok (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion isn't over just because you say it is. Either this is a competence is required issue - i.e. you are not competent enough to understand your actions - or it's deliberate obstinance trying to pretend you don't know what you did wrong or why your actions are offensive. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologized and understood my mistakes, what do you want next? Historyk.ok (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User:DragonofBatley - editing restrictions

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

---

User:DragonofBatley is currently operating under editing restrictions.[253] This edit, [254], of yesterday, breached those restrictions, and follows on from two earlier breaches.[255],[256] For wider context, in my judgement DragonofBatley has not participated in the clean-up exercise in a meaningful and systematic way. They have announced that they are leaving (twice), and their contributions around these announcements have been sporadic, and have also contained errors. More positively, in relation to the clean-up itself, solid progress is being made by a small group of editors who are familiar with the issues. I have notified DragonofBatley of this ANI referral. KJP1 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we're probably at the stage where we're going to have to bring in blocks. He's been given a lot of leeway—and copious advice—around the actual meaning of his restrictions and that he was not to edit anything outside those restrictions, but he keeps breaching them. I think we're now at the point where we have to say 'enough is enough'. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

And, sadly, even when editing within his restriction (ie editing an article he initially created), Dragon is not demonstrating that he able to edit competently: in this edit he gives us text like: For instance, in the 1901 census. The area had a housing occupancy of 212 but by the time of the 1951 census. The area had a housing occupancy of 430. and This pub was closed in 2023 after plans for a 90 bedroom care home was approved with a cinema was approved. In both cases we can see what he is trying to say, but he has not managed to write well enough to be acceptable for the encyclopedia. This suggests that other editors will always have to be on the lookout for his editing and clean up after him to protect our precious encyclopedia. Very disappointing. PamD 11:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow just wow. So i made a choice to actually improve Shire Oak and Sketchley but again I'm incompetent. I can't seem to do anything right on here. No matter what. You know what fine. I'm seeing no way through this and I didn't ask for restrictions. They were unfairly placed on me and editors decided I should do a mass five year worth of clean up over six months. Removing all my abilities to be an editor and contributer. You (Wikipedia) did that, not me. Your happy to bully someone with autism and learning difficulties. It's disgusting and I will not be bullied by anyone. You can claim it was not bullying but it is. Removing my editing and contributing. I didn't ask for this arrangement. I would have been brought here even if I didn't make the initial referral. It's unfair that I have to be subject to a mass cleanup of all my articles from day one over six months. And I have made contributions that I can see @KJP1 decided to not say. To multiple stations on the Cromford and High Peak Railway and some suburbs and areas. But I quit cause I lost my cat and a family member just yesterday. So I'm now being further bullied. And those breaches that were claimed were to link the stations and districts. Nothing more but I dunno. Clearly happy to block me cause I can see some have wanted that for sometime but i cannot win. I try to improve but not enough. Try to contribute but may as well not. I cant win either way on here. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

They were not "unfairly" placed on you. You have created a series of deeply problematic articles that other people are trying to clear up. There is a consensus from the community that this was the path that involved you in the clean up process. After all, why should others have to sort out your mess? As you broke it, the very least you can do is try and fix it. If you're not able to fix it, then you should not be editing here. The problems that PamD has posted do not show you have sufficient ability or competence to do even the most basic writing. No, this isn't bullying, so stop playing the victim card: you are putting more and more work onto other people - and they want to be able to get on with their own stuff, not have to clear up the rubbish you are leaving behind. The restrictions were simple enough for you to follow, but you've breached them three times in the last 2 and a half weeks and haven't involved yourself enough in the clean up process. Enough is enough. I'm ready to make a solid proposal to end this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the previous (very, very long) ANI discussion -- which you opened yourself, come to that. But having just read it, here's my takeaway from all of this: you knew you were restricted from making any articlespace edits except in cleaning up the messes you yourself made. The "choice" you made was to do so anyway. Many editors are on the spectrum. Almost all of us have had tragedies and losses in our lives. And we are all expected, all the same, without exception, to edit within a basic degree of competency, to keep from lashing out at fellow editors, and to follow the rules here. If you cannot be trusted to do that, if you're already reneging on the restrictions placed upon you less than three weeks ago, then it's time for sterner remedies. Twenty thousand edits and five years in, it's far past the time where "I try to improve" cuts it. Ravenswing 12:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: User:DragonofBatley is blocked

For breaching their editing restrictions three times, for not involving themselves in the clean-up process as required and for showing insufficient competence in basic editing, DragonofBatley is indefinitely blocked. They can appeal their restrictions in six months. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support: per my comments above. More than a dozen editors were sucked into the maelstrom of the prior ANI. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 12:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, sadly: Dragon gets it right in his second sentence above. He has not demonstrated enough care or competence for his editing to be a nett asset to the encyclopedia, despite his passion for it. PamD 12:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sorry to say, DragonofBatley is a significant net negative to the project at this time. A future request to be reinstated would be much more likely to be successful if DragonofBatley shows a significant, non-trivial, problem-free edit history on another project. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I am sorry that the efforts of a number of editors were not enough to achieve another outcome. KJP1 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Vandal/toll/sock back again

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

---

Regular readers of this page will know of the vandal toll sock who stalks my edits from time to time, leaving insulting edit summaries. The new variant this morning is Crucial Christian Crew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If the usual blocking action and redaction of the edit summaries could be taken, I'd be extremely grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Pickersgill-Cunliffe - much obliged - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Sock-puppetry

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

---

Hey, need checkusers help, i see some suspicious activities associated with this user -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesusisGreat7, The edits seems to be copyrighted and incidents of Sockpuppetry have been noticed! Christthesaviour (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:SPI. WP:COPYVIO explains how to handle copyright violations. --Yamla (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, you are required to notify the user before reporting them here (although, for that matter, not at SPI), and ideally provide diffs to show concrete evidence of the issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Christthesaviour created a SPI for JesusisGreat7, bur erred in its creation so that Christthesaviour is identified as a sock puppet of JesusisGreat7!!! See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JesusisGreat7. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

the account associated to be a sockpuppet of is User:Whatif222 Christthesaviour (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Cleared up at SPI and JesusisGreat now notified of the SPI. Part of the evidence is that User:Whatif222 was indefinitely blocked on 30 November 2024 and User:JesusisGreat7 started editing on the same date. so the issue is block evasion. David notMD (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wrong User:Whatif222 as per the block details was blocked on 25 November 2024, 5 days before the Edits started by the User:JesusisGreat7 Christthesaviour (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Death threats

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:103.204.132.116&diff=prev&oldid=1275191091

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:103.204.132.116&diff=prev&oldid=1275190416

110.224.88.150 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean... it's aggressive, and sounds like a threat of some sort...  Tewdar  17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be enough of a threat to warrant a block. It is caste warrior nonsense. Maybe we'll hear from the editor who made it when I inform them that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

//If you are angry with a vanniar, you can directly fight the vanniar in your village or town. I warn you that if you leave it and look for unnecessary work on Wikipedia, you will be in big trouble// This means that unknown user is writing hatefully on wikipedia about Vanniyar caste, that's why I said if you don't like Vanniyar caste, fight them directly. Don't leave it and use Wikipedia as a puppet.. I don't know where I used death threats in this. The only aim of that anonymous user is to write falsely and meanly about vanniyar caste.. check his contributions first.. Thank u.--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath: Doubling down on the threat is incredibly foolish. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The you will be in big trouble.. part sounds a bit comically threatening, I suppose. Perhaps you meant to say something else?  Tewdar  18:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not fooling anyone, they have written a fake story on Vanniyar Wikipedia page to fool us all. I also know all wikipedia rules, I am one of the tamil wikipedia admin. Thank u --Gowtham Sampath (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

//The you will be in big trouble.//I told you that if you write such false stories, you will be banned by Wikipedia admin..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath: The warning you left the IP is inappropriate. Don't issue such a warning again or you may find yourself blocked. You may know the "rules" at ta.wiki, but you clearly are unfamiliar with the policies here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, this sort of thing is not very nice. Perhaps next time though, you should say 'you will be blocked by one of our awesome admins if you keep doing this' instead of 'you will be in big trouble' and talking about fighting, hmm?  Tewdar  19:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

ok I will learn and understand the principles of English Wikipedia. thank u--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Lajoswinkler continuing uncivil behavior

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

---

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

Hello ANI admins. I'd like to get you aware of Lajoswinkler, a user who makes personal attacks, has a hateful tone, puts unnecessary bold text, makes moves without consensus, ruins Wikipedia's collaborative nature, accuses others without evidence, and is just not worth taking seriously anymore. Like, go through their edit history. Lots of uncivil comments and unwanted actions in just less than 200 edits. If they continue this behavior, a block might be worthy. Cullen and Drmies are already familiar with this disruptive behavior, but minutes ago Lajoswinkler's behavior got worse with this and this. Blocks are likely going to be warranted.35.136.190.243 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, they are blocked! Admins, could you please close this thread? There is no use in replying anymore, because the situation is resolved. 35.136.190.243 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would have been better to provide some evidence of the user's misconduct, but a rather cursory investigation was sufficient for me to indef the user. They're generally obnoxious and when challenged, double-down. Incapable of editing in a collaborative environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Wwew345t conduct at AfDs

(Disclosure, I was the one to implement the current mainspace block, and I have closed a number of the reality TV discussions over time. Aside from Involved, I think it's time for a larger discussion.)

The article block has helped with the disruptive recreations, and there are times where their vote has been correct before their AfD participation has devolved into bludgeoning, but Wwew345t's conduct has not improved and this is exhausting.

• Crystal clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (2nd nomination), especially this comment.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 24 (endorsed) shows that their opinion on reality shows is not aligned with community consensus, which was a continued issue on their Talk and at User_talk:C.Fred#M.

Since it appears consensus has changed with regard to supercenterians and therefore their interaction is less problematic there, I only propose a topic ban from reality TV actors and their related AfD discussions in hope that their editing elsewhere gives them the skills to eventually edit productively with regard to reality TV. Open too to other ideas. Note, I'm going to provide the AfD notice after so I have a direct link. Star Mississippi 18:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I changed my vote to a more policy related reasoning i do have legitimate concerns about george hos bias against those pages as he has been nominating those pages for deletion furthmore he us also bludgeoning the discussions Wwew345t (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I am also working on a draft of Tyson Apostol which I have been trying to improve Wwew345t (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I made an accusation in the wrong page which is why i have removed that the only thing im guilty of is not knowing where to report concerns about users which i now know i would like to point out my argument for keeping John Cochran (Survivor contestant) is based on the sourcing not the accusation I made and I am sorry for any inconvenience I will take my concerns about the nominater to the proper channels Wwew345t (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out when abother editor informed me that afds were not a appropriate place to voice concerns about editors i promptly apoligzed and removed the accusation from my afd vote the misconception started when i looked up what i should do if i have concerns about an editor and i have fixed said mistake Wwew345t (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the editor i made the accusation against is also parcipatcing in the bludgeoning of these afds Wwew345t (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)