Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Anon editor is making unhelpful edits bordering on vandalism |
|||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1186
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE -->
==
{{User10|Aaron geo}}<br/>They've been editing Indian film related articles and very persistent in addition of uncited/unreliable box office figures into articles for a while. They were blocked last week for 31 hours by {{u|Ad Orientem}} but resumed disruptive editing right after end of block. Their talk page is littered with warnings and notices, and seems like a [[WP:ROPE]] to me. I suggest a topic ban from film articles or a longer block.<span id="Benison:1745725286236:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]] · [[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 03:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_geo&diff=prev&oldid=1286405540 Personal attacks] too.<span id="Benison:1745725409909:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]] · [[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
::Can you translate that, {{u|Benison}}? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], it goes like "hey you Beni, you've been saying you will block me for a while now. If you block me, can't I survive on my own, you sneaky pig?"(roughly from [[Malayalam]])<br/>Not the first guy to call me that and I don't care, but NPA is applicable.<span id="Benison:1745728274045:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]] · [[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 04:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::Yeah, {{u|Benison}}, that was an unacceptable insult, but it was just before their 31 hour block. Their only substantive post-block edit was to cite the [[Times of India]], which is admittedly a poor source for show business content, but not really a blockable offense, I don't think. Other administrators may have a different view. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Mr I have been doing my job efficiently and correctly,editing many articles from past two years. I was editing the collection of the movie after carefully observing many trackers figures, who are closely working in the movie industry. Many of my edits were reverted by Beni because of unnecessary reasons. [[User:Aaron geo|Aaron geo]] ([[User talk:Aaron geo|talk]]) 06:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::::hey beni stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself [[User:Aaron geo|Aaron geo]] ([[User talk:Aaron geo|talk]]) 06:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Aaron geo}}, are you aware that the [[Times of India]] is a dubious source, especially for show business topics? Have you read [[WP:TIMESOFINDIA]]? Are you aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are required to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] regarding your fellow editors? Are you aware that it is unacceptable to call another editor a "sneaky pig" in any language, and that you should communicate in English on the English Wikipedia? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah I am aware of all of this and also I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia. [[User:Aaron geo|Aaron geo]] ([[User talk:Aaron geo|talk]]) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Aaron geo}}, that remark is a ''[[Non sequitur (fallacy)|non sequitur]]'' which is not responsive to the substance of this discussion. Please try again. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia. [[User:Aaron geo|Aaron geo]] ([[User talk:Aaron geo|talk]]) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Aaron geo}} You have still not answered Cullen328's questions. Please do so. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:┌───────────────────────────┘<br/>@[[User:Aaron geo|Aaron geo]], Your response is awaited, please.<span id="Benison:1746041745558:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]] · [[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 19:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::::[[WP:ICTFSOURCES]] is pretty straightforward and crystal clear in terms of the sources to be used in Indian film articles. The table there has been rewamped (by me last year), even color coded, so that even newbies can understand and use those wisely. Additionally, notices and hidden text also has been places in the articles to guide the editors on using reliable sources. But Aaron geo conveniently ignores it all, as clearly evident from their edits. They have been [[User_talk:Aaron_geo#Uncited_box_office_changes|notified]] of it earlier too. I'm almost assuming a [[WP:CIR]] here. — Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]] · [[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 10:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy [[User:Aaron geo|Aaron geo]] ([[User talk:Aaron geo|talk]]) 06:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Rewamped? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 10:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::[[User:EEng|EEng]], Revamped*. I had changed the layout of the entire table and color coded it for easier understanding last year. Thanks.<span id="Benison:1746543602104:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Benison <small>([[User:Benison|Beni]] · [[User talk:Benison|talk]])</small> 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::::::::Too bad. ''Rewamped'' would be a great word for something. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*Given their lack of response, I have pblocked Aaron geo from articlespace until they acknowledge the concerns about their editing and address the questions posed above. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''C-Ban''' given their replies here which are merely highlighting the broader issues. (I.e., that they're currently blocked from editing article space, which is the [[WP:EDITOR|one thing we are here to do]] and is thereby ''literally'' prevented from [[WP:NOTHERE|being here to help]], ''or'' their "sneaky pig" comment from before the block, ''or'' the mass of unsourced additions. All of which is sufficient to indef over anyway, I suspect.) But responses such as {{blue|stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself}}, {{blue|I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia}}, {{blue|i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia}}, {{blue|i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia}} and {{blue|Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy}} are not just what Cullen328 (very politely, I think!) called ''non sequiturs'', but uncivil, aspersive and frankly tangential to the point of baffling incomprehensibility. Either this is for their amusement, or there is a language barrier; in any case, either we are being trolled or WP:CIR applies.{{pb}}I see no upside to our allowing this user to remain part of the community, and as far as preventing future disruption and saving editors and admins a ton of time and trouble, a whole lot of reasons ''not'' to. ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*I think that the existing block placed by Bushranger is going to be adequate here.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
== IP editor User:46.97.170.73 violating BLP, bludgeoning, deleting other peoples comments, POV-warring, violating NPA/being extremely hostile and may be a sockpuppet ==
{{Atop|I really, really don't understand the desire to continue an official CBAN discussion about someone for days after they've been indeffed and done horrible things as a sock, when they would never be unblocked unilaterally by any admin ever, and whose socks will always, always be blocked when discovered. Seems like a waste of electrons. But in order to make this thread go away and save everyone from themselves, I'll make it official: yes, '''of course''' there is a consensus for a community ban for DotesConks. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{IPlinks|46.97.170.73}}
This IP editor [[User:46.97.170.73]], upon loading Wikipedia on their browser immediately went to [[Donald Trump and fascism]] and started to push that Donald Trump was a fascist, neo-nazi, called his presidency "a regime", and said the article was not neutral because it didn't discard the sizeable majority opinion that no, Donald Trump is not doing what Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini did. They also claimed in later comments that "Consensus has been reached that Donald Trump is a fascist" and claimed that there were no sources (which is a lie) that said Donald Trump was NOT a fascist. Beyond that, they have stalked the talk page and commented on anyone dissenting to argue and regurgitate the same talking points. On their talk page, they have been warned for deleting peoples comments to engineer Support for calling Trump a fascist. Soon after, they received a second warning for citing that people were "whinning about the show" as a reason to discredit a reliable source (Forbes) because it did not say what they wanted it to say, basically "Donald Trump is a fascist, neo nazi, racist, antisemite and hes the WORST person EVER!111111!1111!!!!". This is a clear example of POV-warring and pushing. Once they were confronted, they immediately became extremely hostile and told them to "drop the stick". <s>Given that he knew what [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] was, and given that he started editing only 2 months ago, this could be a good sign of a sockpuppet operated by someone who wants to engineer the talk page discussion to call Donald Trump unequivocally a far-right fascist. Some other good signs that they could be a potential sockpuppet is that they immediately went to the [[WP:TALK]] pages instead of editing, which is the normal behavior for new accounts/IP editors. New editors and IP editors aren't aware of how Wikipedia handles content and articles and think there is no discussion page, but this IP editor knew instantly the talk page was the way to discuss what information should be put in an article.</s> [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 18:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:The IP editor has been editing for 2 months now in the Donald Trump space, and given that IP addresses (dynamic ones, at least) change every few days or sometimes up to 2 weeks, I believe he is operating on a static IP which means it won't change and so blocking him will put an end to this disruptive behavior for good. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 18:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]], you have failed to provide any diffs here. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]] I have to do something really urgent and important personally, can I provide them here later? It will only be 2 to 3 hours. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 19:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]], sockpuppetry is a serious allegation. Do you have evidence of this?<span id="EF5:1745781127954:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 19:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
::@[[User:EF5|EF5]] @[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]] Their behavior: <br>
::Note: I've highlighted the important parts and WP policy violations. <br>
::'''- As soon as they start to edit Wikipedia, they go onto the TALK page and almost never is [[WP:BOLD]]
::- Knows a lot of Wiki "slang"/insider words
::- Knows a lot of essays''' <br> <br>
::His first edit was to [[Talk:Invincible ignorance fallacy]] and it was a comment bashing Christians and '''said quote "describe atheists poking holes in their faulty theological reasoning.".''' Extremely hostile to Christians, unrelated comment, and Talk pages are for improvements of the article, not a discussion (Which is ironic given what he would do later). Then in the last part of the comment '''they say "POV pushing"''', such a phrase is almost never used outside of Wikipedia. A new IP editor would not just immediately know where the talk page is, and much less Wiki slang. The diff is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invincible_ignorance_fallacy&diff=prev&oldid=1275709545
::This diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1279246913 further proves that he is not a new user.''' "Coatrack" is exclusively used on Wikipedia'''. <br> <br>
::Then in multiple diffs '''they censored comments that did not align with their personal views''', which is a blatant outing of their plan to POV war over articles. They also claimed it was inappropriate/violation of WP policies when the comments are clearly not a violation and are simply good faith comments about improving the Snow White (2025 film) article.
::In total:
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283293340
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283293786
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_White_(2025_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1283307218
::They also '''edit-warred''' on the talk page over censoring comments and '''accused them of being trolls''', and cited [[WP:DENY]] as an essay as to why he was "permitted" to remove these comments. <br> <br>
::Heres more examples of POV pushing:
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283571069 <br>
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283476697 <br>
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Tesla_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1283416479 <br> <br>
::They claim that '''reliably sourced''' citations that say there is far left terrorism is just a "myth" and "fantasy". <br><br><br>
::<big>Now onto my initial report, here are the diffs that prove my report:</big>
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287217422
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287213487 (This could violate '''No personal attacks''' as they accuses without proof that User:Simonm223 non-neutral)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287158284 (Blatant disregard, if you search you can find multiple scholarly/experts claiming Trump is not a fascist, and many news sources from Vox to NYT has published articles - though later deleted them that said very blatantly that Trump is not Hitler or Mussolini).
::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf&diff=prev&oldid=1286895569
::<br> <br>
::'''And finally... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&diff=prev&oldid=1287652014, another comment that they removed while accusing the editor of being a troll and again citing [[WP:DENY]].''' '''Remember that they were warned for this already and became extremely hostile to the editor who warned them'''. If you look at the comment, its pretty clear that the editor was '''NOT a troll''' and were simply sharing their thoughts. Its safe to say that an indef block is needed before they get their way. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 22:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:I'm getting rather fed up with allegations that a new user must be a sockpuppet because they know what they are doing. I read about things and knew what I was doing before I dared edit Wikipedia, and I'm sure the same goes for lots of other people. And, of course, the user may have edited without logging in, like the OP. As regards this particular case, Doanald Trump may or may not be a fascist; whether we say he is should depend in what reliable sources say, not Wikipedia editors. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've seldom understood why a new editor needs to be chopped down because they have a handle on Wikipedia rules; I wish they ''all'' did that kind of homework. Nor, from their vast experience of less than two months on Wikipedia, am I quite willing to grant DotesConks an unearned status as a sage, canny veteran who knows all the ropes. (Nor, with DotesCokes sporting a "Greater Israel" map on their homepage, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, do I think they have much business worrying about the political extremism of ''other'' editors.) [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 01:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Phil Bridger}}, I agree. Regardless of this new editor's less-than-ideal behavior, failure to enforce [[WP:BITE]] is an ''existential'' threat in the long-term. It's too easy to get away with and I believe we need stricter anti-[[WP:BITE]] measures across the board. I'd be interested if someone wanted to hash something out. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 02:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::What would your thinking look like? -- [[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]) 14:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|I'm getting rather fed up with allegations that a new user must be a sockpuppet because they know what they are doing. I read about things and knew what I was doing before I dared edit Wikipedia, and I'm sure the same goes for lots of other people.}}
::Agreed. It should be considered a violation of protocol and civility to imply a new user who isn't a moron on the basis of being new is a problem. Between Google and knowing how to ask a LLM where to look and find information on Wikipedia rules and process, it's not like this is exactly rocket science. It's not easy... but it's not like the esoteric mysteries of the universe or something. -- [[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]) 14:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:The OP has passionately presented little evidence this IP is coordinating with other IPs or accounts. In reading the post, I see a lot of undue bolding (which doesn't inform accusations of sockpuppetry) and a clear disapproval of the ip's positions on talk pages. I do see a heap of unproven assertions. I'd be unwilling to block (or even further warn) based merely on the evidence presented. ANI is not generally the place for registered accounts to complain about differences with ip editors' opinions in talk. (The proper venue is the article talk page ''where the ip is doing precisely that.'') [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 00:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:BusterD|BusterD]] Its behavior alone that makes me believe this IP editor is not a newbie. Also my main report is not about sockpuppetry, its about his behavior which is pretty severe. Edit warring over removing comments and personally attacking multiple editors while bludgeoning talk pages is something blockable. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Frankly, you're just not qualified to make that assessment. Typically a new user should focus on content, not user behavior ''because they don't have the requisite experience to keep them separate.'' See [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. DotesConks's report (and talk page edits) demonstrate a frequent tendency to personalize disagreement as opposed to freely discussing issues head on. It's always apparently somebody's fault, and that's not how we work here. This is getting to be a real [[WP:CIR]] issue. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]], this is an IP editor. I'm not sure why you are so focused on trying to show that they "aren't a new user". That's not how IPs work. You've been asked by a few different editors now to focus more on content and less on the administrative side of this site; please take their advice. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Indeed - I'd suggest they go and do that before a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] comes around. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] I'm just upset that this user gets away with acting like he owns the Donald Trump article and tries to make the article force the viewpoint that Trump is a neo-nazi and far right even for fascists. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 02:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::What you call me "acting like I own the Donald trump article" consists of mostly 6 edits, most of which is me talking to [[User:Simonm223]]. I deleted exactly one comment from [[Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism]]. A comment that said, and I quote: ''"Shut up troll. And drop that thesaurus to come off like an intellectual. You're embarrassing yourself."''. I am quite honestly baffled that your most damning evidence, is me deleting a bad faith comment that is deliberately inflammatory. I have been called before admins for less combative language. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.73|46.97.170.73]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.73|talk]]) 10:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|BusterD}}, I agree that the socking accusation was inappropriate, but it's a [[red herring]]. The provided diffs still demonstrate [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] violations that shouldn't be ignored because of how the report was framed. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 02:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], I checked a handful of them and the only thing that seemed particularly inappropriate was the removal of talk page comments for [[WP:NOTFORUM]] reasons. Is there something else I missed? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::The inappropriate removals for sure, but I also believe that the "Now onto my initial report" diffs demonstrate attempts to {{tq|carry on ideological battles}} per WP:BATTLEGROUND and is becoming a [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] issue. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hm. I don't know - their comment, {{tq|Your list here shows 1 ambiguous and 1 NO article post-insurrection versus 11 YES articles. That is a blatant consensus}} appears to be accurate. Advocating that we take the position held by 11/13 of the best sources sampled is what I'd expect ''any'' editor to do. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you read the actual thread instead of just my comments, you will realize that I was not having an ideological battle. [[User:Simonm223]] and I were on the same opinion. I don't think deleting a personal attack from another IP user count as an "ideological battle" either. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.73|46.97.170.73]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.73|talk]]) 10:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Regarding my removal of the comments for [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] reasons, that very same comment is now collapsed for both [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] AND [[WP:PERSONALATTACK]], by someone other than me. The editor that initially restored my deletion of the comment claimed that even though other editors agreed with me that the comment in question was inapropriate, the fact that I gave [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] as a reason somehow puts me in the wrong. At least two people tried went out of the way to start a fight with me over it. It was weird. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.73|46.97.170.73]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.73|talk]]) 10:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::The IP editor actually persuaded me that the page had some NPOV issues I had not previously noticed. They're staying on topic and being reasonable about things like the limits of scope for article talk. On the other hand, Dotes Conks regularly makes forumy posts encouraging [[WP:OR]] such as arguing for comparing the records of Trump and Obama. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1287672731]. The IP's argument, while not politically expedient and while it may be a hard pill for some to swallow, is grounded in [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]]. This is more than can be said for Dotes Conks who has taken the IP's statements very personally. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:To clarify, no I am not a new user. I have been on talk pages under various IPs for over 4 years. You can check the edits done on the entire IP range to verify, most of them are likely to belong to me, including my long history of insistence against creating an account, as well as two previous ANIs from 2020 and 2021, that I've been a subject to, which have concluded with the decision that no action was necessary. I am pointing this out right now for the sake of transparency. I'm not using sockpuppets or any other forms of ban evasion. If I get banned that's the end of it, and a case could've been made back then.
:The same thing cannot be said about this instance.
:I have refrained from the sort of behavior that has led to those incidents ever since, in fact I tried to minimize my involvement in topics related to contemporary american politics, which is why on [[Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism]] I eventually stepped back from pushing the site-wide changes I requested, as I'm not the right person to request something of this scope.
:As anyone can clearly verify, my insistence on wikipedia referring to Trump as a fascist is in line with how reliable sources talk about him, which is in line with site policy.
:Furthermore, You can read the comments I deleted with the [[WP:DENY]] justification, and judge for yourself if they sound like they're made in good faith. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.73|46.97.170.73]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.73|talk]]) 09:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::You keep talking about "reliable sources" calling Trump a fascist. What are these "reliable sources" you speak of?
::In any case, I personally think you should be banned anyways for aggressively pushing your political agenda everywhere, regardless of your sockpuppetry. It's strange that some random Romanian person is so personally invested in US politics, though... [[User:DeadKom|DeadKom]] ([[User talk:DeadKom|talk]]) 11:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I reviewed all the peer-reviewed [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] presently being used at [[Donald Trump and Fascism]] and the overwhelming majority of them either called Trump fascist or demonstrated that Trump's government demonstrated characteristics of fascism. Most of the ambiguity on that page comes from over-reliance on journalistic accounts and statements from prior to January 6, 2021. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|Simonm223}} The debate is whether his political philosophy/activity should be considered fascistic or right-wing populist. The [[Donald Trump]] article currently describes him as a right-wing populist but having been described as fascist. Distinctions include asserting legitimacy with reference to democratic principles vs disregarding democracy as a form. If you are looking at [[WP:BESTSOURCES]], these are what needs to be engaged with. It is already a form of POV for Wikipedia to have an article on [[Donald Trump and fascism]] and not [[Donald Trump and right-wing populism]]. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 12:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Is this not something that's better discussed on the relevant talk pages? [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.73|46.97.170.73]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.73|talk]]) 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::It can be, although questions of POVWARRING relevant here can hinge on content questions (e.g. are you going against a scholarly consensus). [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::And there is no legitimate evidence of the IP POVWARRING here. As I have said, they have been reasonable, and frankly, persuasive. On the other hand Dotes Conks should likely face some sort of boomerang here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed on my end, especially about a boomerang. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 13:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::(Non Admin) In case of boomerang, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DotesConks&diff=prev&oldid=1282530493 the previous block] from spaces like this for an indication of prospective mileage. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 03:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::(Non Admin) Also to consider for boomerang and namespace blocks, the past need for oversight at [[WP:COIN]] for the edit ''after'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1284823206 this diff]. This shit is very [[WP:CIR]]/[[WP:NOTHERE]]. I can't even provide diffs for this event because it concerned investigating another editor off-Wiki, and [[WP:OUTING]] of course. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|It's strange that some random Romanian person is so personally invested in US politics, though...}}
:::I might recommend you reconsider pursuing this thought. I don't know where you think that rabbit hole goes but I don't think you're going to get any kudos for bringing up editors' ''possible'' nationalities (unless they've openly stated such somewhere) as if it changes what they're allowed to edit. [[User:GabberFlasted|GabberFlasted]] ([[User talk:GabberFlasted|talk]]) 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but what is this? [[Special:Contributions/DeadKom]] This account was created today and all contributions consist of responses made specifically to me, including two posts that just say "Source" and this one here accusing me of sockpuppetry and calling me to be banned. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.73|46.97.170.73]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.73|talk]]) 12:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Anyone up for an SPI? Obviously not for you, 46.97, but DeadKom and Dotes maybe, just maybe, are the same person.<span id="EF5:1745847628982:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 13:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::(Not a checkuser.) DeadKom was active during a time-of-day that Dotes has never been active. I would be surprised if he was a sock of Dotes. I wouldn't be surprised if they were a sock of some user/IP out there though. [[User:GabberFlasted|GabberFlasted]] ([[User talk:GabberFlasted|talk]]) 14:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::(Non Admin) Looks like you might want to ask for 2 global CUs if you go that route. FYI Dotes was the subject of a previous SPI on behavioral grounds (with specific CU requested) and closed after the requested CU without closer comment on behavior. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
=== Action against the OP? ===
*'''Comment:''' When a user brings a complaint at AN/I, they are putting their own actions up for evaluation. This applies even to myself, of course.
:For easy reference, {{user6|DotesConks}}
:I spent a few hours today reading every one of [[User:DotesConks]]'s 806 edits (plus 50 deleted edits). It would be generous to characterize this account as created by a very young person; I'd prefer to use the adjectives inexperienced and un-consequenced. Based on my reading, they seem to think en.wiki is primarily a place where they may insert and defend their ''opinions''. Unfortunately their opinions seem to be mostly in contentious topics (AP and IPA) where others frequently disagree. As one vivid example of the problem, DotesConks's userpage display of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_map_of_Greater_Israel.png this fanciful map] is the ''only such utilization'' on English Wikipedia. DotesConks is certainly welcome to their deeply held opinions; they are welcome to support them, argue in favor of them, and display them on their userpage. But Wikipedia is not primarily a place for personal opinions and their defense; rather wikipedians endeavor to create workproduct based on assertions proven by reliable sources. At the same time, other contributors (like those above) are allowed to draw their own conclusions about this user's opinions.
:In their account's very first contribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed&diff=prev&oldid=1278790282 they claim 272 edits made under an ip address], and ask those edits to count towards advanced permissions; this was largely ignored by the responder. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed&diff=next&oldid=1278889167 DotesConks "purged" the thread] instead of allowing it to archive. At MfD DotesConks is somewhat intolerant of opinions other than their own ([[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peristome/UserBox/GodMMAtheist|1]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster/religion|2]]). As a newbie, they are often quite bad at predicting outcomes at AfD ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland Norway Lines|A]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Caplen|B]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_supports_Saddam_Hussein&diff=prev&oldid=1282364475 C], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men.com|D]]). They chose to involve themselves in the WP/ANI controversy by suggesting the Foundation merely [[Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation#Ignore_court_ruling|ignore judges' rulings]]. They edited quite a bit in CT territory prior to the automatic application of extended confirmed status in early April. They editwarred at [[The Heritage Foundation]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1282962657 3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1282962876 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Heritage_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1282977169 5]), [[Antitheism]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antitheism&diff=prev&oldid=1282989296 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antitheism&diff=prev&oldid=1282990168 7]), and [[Ideological bias on Wikipedia]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283041931 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283042617 9], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283042845 10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283149817 11], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=1283152909 12]). Recently they've been [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1252#h-How_long_do_middle-class_drafts_wait_until_review?-20250416234000|pestering Teahouse]] because nobody wants to review [[Draft:North Korean defection methods|this draft]] and promote it to mainspace.
:I could go into quite a bit more detail, but I'm personally satisfied that this user is a net-negative. I'm not satisfied the user is here for any reasons but their own (which by itself wouldn't be a problem). I'm more of the opinion they cannot restrain themselves from doing the pedia harm. I'm proposing (at the very least) an indef CBAN from all WP and WT spaces. I'm prepared to pblock them from such spaces myself, but IMHO the user has a right to dispute my evidence. I'm interested in what others make of my diffs and links. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:BusterD|BusterD]] All of the stuff you've described above is what new Wikipedians tend to do. In the long run I don't envision myself to be a net negative and what I instead envision is that if I stick around long enough I will eventually be able to put my differences aside (also caused by me growing up and becoming older) and eventually the negatives will be outweighed by the positives. I never claimed or put off the impression that I know what I am doing, infact I think I've done the opposite. It still stands today and what I envision in even just 3 months from now is that I will be a net positive to this encyclopedia. Also I do not see whats wrong with supporting Israel. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I just want to push back against the idea that most new editors are initially net negatives. That is not the case. Most new editors show some humility and some judgment and some willingness - no, I guess better described as a strong desire - not to mess up all the time. We don't even notice them, because they don't show up on our radar constantly. I haven't looked into this enough to know if it applies to you, but if you're the kind of person who thinks you're probably going to be a net negative for the next 3 months, then I think we should remove you now, as quickly and painlessly as possible. Your goal should be to stop being a net negative in the next 5 minutes. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I will try my best to, but I can't really demonstrate it if I am blocked. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 22:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' sanctions, up to an indef. Excellent summary above (though even most admins can't see suppressed edits whose transgressions I described generally above). I agree and think WP and WT pblocks would be a great start. But Dotes will probably still earn a site indef for DE with enough time/rope. As an IP, after getting three "final" warnings, and just before registering an account, Dotes said "{{tq|Oh and I want to be able to vanish easily}}". If he does request vanishing, I hope that's rejected out of hand. Cheers. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting Dotes' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DotesConks&curid=79384528&diff=1288178341&oldid=1288064415 ragequit here]. Since the SPI, it's getting more and more indistinguishable from [[User:Antny08|Antny08]], who also ragequit, had serious BLP and POV problems being unconsequenced, and had right-wing sock [[User:Amber Solace|Amber Solace]] (admin specs required to see the revdel right-wing fantasy userpage), but maybe the beliefs and reaction are just more common than I thought. Here's hoping he actually quit (but we all know it's actually unlikely). [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*::DC has been indeffed. See Knitsey's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Knitsey-20250501001900-Urgent_attention thread below]. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]]•<small>he/they</small>•([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm aware. Thank you @[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 01:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indefinite block or community ban''' I have been watching this editor for about a month now. I consider them a net negative and do not think that will change. I've seen many of the edits BUsterD refers to above when they were made, and notice the map of Greater Israel on their userpage. Enough is enough. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*:A confirmed sock of theirs posted to my talk page that they will celebrate my death and “ When people like you are in the dirt (mentally ill), Christ will finally come back. Trump and Elon, even if they are not cs are still doing good for this country. God Bless. God punished you by giving you parkinsons. This is what ATheists get. Heil Trump!. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*::See also their Wikimedia Commons contrives, where they decided to add 950,000 bytes of junk to my talk page, and overall were just being racist and disruptive on several talk pages. <big><sup>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Tornado|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::contribs*, mobile source editing is heck on Earth so I can’t fix it at the moment. <big><sup>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Tornado|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BusterD's assessment; the OP is demo demonstrating most of the behavioral issues they ascribe to the anon. Floquenbeam's comment and their response suggests that, yes, we can look forward to more of this in the future if it isn't stopped now. The OP is unsure how they can demonstrate they are a net-positive to the project while blocked; the answer is at [[WP:Standard offer]]. ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 09:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' some sort of sanction. I have been keeping an eye on this editor since I created an archive page for them in an attempt to help them stop blanking their talk page. The constant warnings, lack of AGF, and edit warring in numerous CTOPS aren't a good look for being [[WP:NOTHERE|here]]. Some additional recent behavioral examples include pov-pushing in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism#Trump_fascism? this thread] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-left_politics&diff=next&oldid=1286169587 this edit].
:I was also concerned, for lack of a better word, by the "Greater Israel" map, (the one currently present on their userpage being the second version of such map on their userpage) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DotesConks&diff=prev&oldid=1286299134 here] and arguing about RFK Jr.'s article/politics in a previous [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DotesConks&diff=prev&oldid=1283045230 talk page discussion]. They were warned by the discussing editor to "{{tq|tread lightly on such pages}}" related to him as they mentioned being a supporter, and tried to push the discussion to email. [[User:Sarsenet|Sarsenet]]•<small>he/they</small>•([[User talk:Sarsenet|talk]]) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The user's response has been to publish [[Draft:Vape crisis in the United States]] this morning as if there were no concerns from other editors about their prior edits. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 11:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' either an indefinite block on [[WP:CIR]] grounds or, at minimum, a topic ban prohibition against editing in literally any CTOP. Apologies for the indentation - had to use the reply function as the pagination appears to be broken when trying to edit directly. And I would honestly point to the draft @[[User:BusterD|BusterD]] references above as ''another'' example of [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*:In light of the vandalism spree last night I'm changing my !vote to '''Supporting a CBan''' - this supersedes my previously preferred suggestions but I do also still support more lenient handling over nothing if a CBan is found to be overreach. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*Not super familiar with this person or their previous activities, so it's a bit too soon for me to opine on whether a block is justified, but I was scoping their recent contribs after skimming this article, and just wanted to note this edit to their sandbox: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DotesConks/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1288058818]. I've since revdelled the edit for serious unsourced BLP violations, so that link is admin-only. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 13:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a community ban or indefinite block based on their overall contributions to the community and the project. I began lightly monitoring their edits when they, without prior discussion or seeking consensus, moved [[It – Welcome to Derry]] to [[It᠄ Welcome to Derry]], because it "looked better" while using a non-unicode character in the article title. They then moved [[It᠄ Welcome to Derry]] to [[It꞉ Welcome to Derry]] again because it "aligned more properly". This unnecessary series of moves created work for myself and for the editor who fixed it. DotesConks seemed unfazed by the fact that using a non-unicode character in the article title was [[WP:TSC|against policy.]] Granted, a minor issue compared to some of the other things this editor has been involved in, but it annoyed me enough that I've kept a light watch on their edits since, and I have not seen any notable improvement in their editing style or their behavior with other editors. In fact, I'd argue I've seen their behavior become worse with time, especially given some of the examples provided by others above. <b>[[User:GSK|GSK]]</b> <small>([[User_talk:GSK|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GSK|edits]])</small> 14:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
**<s>Weak oppose indef as I want to see if they'll really stick by their {{tq|I will eventually be able to put my differences aside}} promise, but only if the "eventually" part is changed to "immediately".Support CTOP TBAN per Simon.</s> (Nevermind, see below).<span id="EF5:1746024929777:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
**:While I think that an indef on [[WP:CIR]] grounds (which could be revisited if Dotes Conks could show competence somewhere like Simple English Wiki) would probably be an appropriate remedy I do think, as I think about it, that a strict topic ban from contentious topics would stop disruption, as disruption has been mostly in CTOPS or administrative pages in conflicts related to CTOPS, and would grant Dotes Conks the grace to demonstrate they can edit in a manner that is not net-negative. This would be pretty significant constraints considering the scope of our various CTOPS but would give them some latitude to demonstrate improvement and growth. As such, while I'd support either measure, if it comes down to one or the other, I think I'd prefer the TBAN. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
**::[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], nevermind, <b>strongest possible support for formal CBAN</b>. Was going fine till the "heil Trump" and "Wikipedia is biased", this user is just here to stir up the pot.<span id="EF5:1746059499869:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 00:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
**:::"Heil Trump?" Yeah, [[WP:NOTHERE]] '''CBAN''' it is then. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
**::::Wow and some remarkable racism that may need to be revdelled too. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
**:::::<small>{{ping|EF5}} you should strike your original !vote using < s >< /s >. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
**::::::Sorry, was [[sloth|sleeping]]. Fixed.<span id="EF5:1746106829444:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 13:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
*Leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see a [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1252#AFC_drafts_never_being_reviewed_again|second thread about draft review times]] in that same Teahouse archive when [[Draft:Illinois Education Association]] has a bullet pointed section copy-pasted directly from [https://www.wifr.com/2025/03/27/large-majority-illinois-residents-believe-public-education-is-right-report-shows/ the source], including the obvious error {{tq|"62% support pension reform to allow those in the Tier 2 pension system to retire before the age of 6"}}. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*Well that escalated quickly. '''Support CBAN''' after they [[WP:PRAM|decided to throw their toys out of the pram]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*I '''support''' a CBAN. Richly deserved. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 12:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC).
*'''Support''' Apologies for the vulgar comment, but to quote [[Jim Cornette]]: "Thank you, fuck you, bye". No place here for an editor like that. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Yep. Bye, Felicia. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 17:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per The Bushranger. We can AGF only so far, and we should not give anymore good faith to be squandered by an imploding editor [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN''' per above. I tried to extend good faith after the initial indef, even leaving them a message about the standard offer, but further review of their contributions has thoroughly disgusted me. Their conduct goes against the [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] guideline in every way (not counting the outright vandalism), and even outside of my own disgust towards the political views on display, they are [[WP:NOTHERE]]. No-brainer CBAN, in my book. [[User:JeffSpaceman|JeffSpaceman]] ([[User talk:JeffSpaceman|talk]]) 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN''' - This is the slowest all-CTOPs% speedrun ever. That doesn't make it any less disruptive than when someone does it in a matter of weeks; if anything it makes it even worse. The vandalism spree comes across more as Guy Fawkes jumping off the gallows than anything. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support [[WP:CBAN|Site ban]]''', having seen the page-move vandalism. We might as well formalize this as a community ban just so that they don't make a frivolous unblock request. And thanks to Steward [[User:AntiCompositeNumber]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
=== The original report ===
The other stuff made in the report is debatable, but I think most people involved in this thread agreed that edit warring over censoring legitimate comments and then claiming they are trolls is a violation of NPA, EW, Talk page guidelines. The comments are perfectly reasonable, such as this comment which the IP editor censored and said [[WP:DENY]]. I do not see anything wrong with this comment and I'm sure neither do you.{{Quote|I don’t think you can bluntly say that the MAGA movement is [[Far-right politics|far right]] or [[Neo-fascism|neo fascist]]. Trump collaborated with Afro-Americans, Muslim Americans, this is not xenophobia, fascism or far right rhetoric. He’s definitely right wing, no doubt about that. But not far right.
[[Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:4F25:FA00:7D73:B377:C31E:8251|2A06:C701:4F25:FA00:7D73:B377:C31E:8251]] ([[User talk:2A06:C701:4F25:FA00:7D73:B377:C31E:8251|talk]]) 02:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)}}
As far as my recollection gets me, this is a violation of Talk Page Guidelines, NPA (by saying they are a troll when they are reasonably not), and in earlier diffs which are linked above they edit warred over removing other comments, were warned for it and then did it again. It is also this action by the IP editor that led me to believe they were POV pushing, they only censored comments that defend Trump not being Hitler but it does seem like that is debatable so I will not comment further on it, but understand that this is my opinion and the conclusion I have reached. At the very least for all of this, censoring multiple comments after warning, making personal attacks, and edit-warring (they said in this thread that they have been on the site for 4 years now and so should be aware of the [[WP:EW]] policy) they should receive a warning but it should really be higher given not only their actions but their knowledge of Wikipedia. Newer editors, like me are held to a lower standard because they simply aren't aware of all of the Wikipedia policies. [[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]] ([[User talk:DotesConks|talk]]) 22:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq| Newer editors, like me are held to a lower standard because they simply aren't aware of all of the Wikipedia policies}} isn’t necessarily true - as a newer editor, it’s your job to still adhere to policies. “Being new” doesn’t give you a free pass to be disruptive. — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 23:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::In fact it's ''not true at all''. I'm honestly struggling not to just indef on the spot here. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:::OP starting off by including a link to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] is supremely ironic at this point. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd call the link illustrative. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 01:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I think it ''should'' be true; I think we should be far, far more patient with new editors than we tend to be. But boy am I ever struggling here. @[[User:DotesConks|DotesConks]], you can't have this both ways. You can't accuse other editors of being too clueful to be new and then fall back onto "I should be held to a lower standard because I'm new". You can't call someone a pov-pusher while you're baldfacedly paraphrasing their position as {{tq|"Donald Trump is a fascist, neo nazi, racist, antisemite and hes the WORST person EVER!111111!1111!!!!"}}. You're asking everyone else to extend you grace and good faith, and you're not offering any of it yourself. I agree that it was wrong to remove that particular IP comment for [[WP:DENY]] reasons. But for Pete's sake, get the stick out of your own eye. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>To be entirely fair, being more patient and given more leeway doesnt' mean 'held to a lower standard', but a good point. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)</small>
*Not sure where to put this, but I've indeffed DotesConks. The ragequit wasn't the biggest problem - they went on a vandalism spree.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
=== Urgent attention ===
{{atop|1=Block applied by Bbb23. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}
Urgent block required. {{U|DotesConks}} adding some homophobic/transphobic changing, page moves etc, account may be compromised. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 00:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks {{u|Bbb23}}, [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 00:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Knitsey|Knitsey]], see above, I doubt it's compromised. Was the "ArthurN_____" page move vandalism also deleted? Would revert, but my UV decided to give up on the spot.<span id="EF5:1746059235877:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 00:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Yeah, I saw that after I posted here. I've had enough of foul people tonight. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 00:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm near certain they're just [[Ragebait|ragebaiting]] us knowing that many of us here are democrats. Good block.<span id="EF5:1746060009912:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;"><b>EF5</b></span>]]</big> <sup><small>([[User talk:EF5|questions?]])</small></sup> 00:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::This isn't an airport; there was no need for him to announce his departure. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 00:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Note this was closed despite the ongoing CBAN discussion. I assume rsjaffe missed that and have requested they revert their closure or reclose reflecting the (unanimous after 24+ hours) cban. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::Reverted close to allow cban discussion to continue. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 12:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*Requesting closure of the cban discussion before this rolls off the page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Disruptive editing from Wlaak ==
*{{userlinks|Wlaak}}
Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at [[Syriac Orthodox Church]]. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. The situation, from my point of view:
*Wlaak made a number of edits to the "Name & Identity" section earlier this month, which was partly reverted. A quite long discussion between Wlaak and three other editors was ongoing, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1285911281 this] being the last version for a while.
**Note: Among these three other editors, one have been in a dispute (DRN, ANI) with Wlaak prior to this. And so have I.
*I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928 a comment] on the recent additions, suggesting that most of it was [[WP:OR]] (or irrelevant). I further suggested that [[WP:RS]] secondary sources would be preferable. One of the third party users (i.e. not involved in similar disputes before) agreed;
*I reverted most of it suggesting that new proposals should be discussed first (while avoiding [[WP:SYNTH]] and relying on secondary [[WP:RS]]).
*Wlaak restored it.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292 I clarifed] that my initial comment served as a suggestion and notified all users involved; both [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion|third party]] users agreed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286594907&oldid=1286591683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563] and one added further suggestions, which I agreed to. I once again suggested that any new proposals should be on secondary [[WP:RS]] discussed first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286744356&oldid=1286742824 here].
*Wlaak restored it again, '''which is disruptive behaviour in my opinion'''. [[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] ([[User talk:Shmayo|talk]]) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Pinging @[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]] and @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] as the users that if I recall correctly have tried to meditate the previous versions of this dispute. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 21:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
*As Sesquilinear says, I tried to mediate an earlier version of this dispute. This is a content dispute that is worsened by allegations of conduct, and I think that the allegations of conduct are persistent enough that they are a conduct problem. I usually start dealing with a content dispute by asking the parties what specific paragraphs and sentences they want to change in an article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). I will ask that question at this point. If there are straight answers, maybe progress can be made toward resolving the content dispute. If there aren't straight answers, then maybe we should consider a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] again. What exactly does each editor want to change in an article (or leave the same)? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Hi, again:
*:I want the section '''to remain as it is''' and not be removed because the statements from three consecutive Patriarchates, Mor Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and a 2015 Publication from the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, represent the official position of the Syriac Orthodox Church, not private views. The Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod, which is the highest authority in the Church, and his statements define the Church’s religious, spiritual, and administrative matters ([[Syriac Orthodox Church#Patriarch|see the article]] itself), hence they are more than relevant to be included in the section. Primary sources are valid to use here because they are clearly attributed according to [[WP:ACCORDINGTO]], and they concern the Church’s official definition of its own identity. <u>I was adding secondary sources as well to strengthen the section</u>, but this process has been halted because two ANI cases, one of which was reopened after being closed, were filed against me instead of following the normal process through a Request for Comment.
*:If there are concerns about [[WP:UNDUE]], additional sourced material about the Assyrian identity can be added, as I stated on the talk page. The article already mentions the use of the Assyrian name by parishes in America, the ethnic composition including both Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians, and the former neutrality stance of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, hence I asked another editor to provide the source of a Assyrian favorable position. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]], this is going rather beyond @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]]'s ask, at least as I understand it. To understand what the content dispute is, we don't (yet) need to know the whys and wherefores, explanations of anyone's behaviour, or any of that. At this point we're just trying to understand what the basic terms of the argument are. "I want the section under the heading Foo to say 'blah, blah'." "I want it to remain like it was in diff x." "I want to add this particular quote to this particular section." That sort of thing. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Asilvering]] - First, you have correctly restated what my usual question is. Second, it is true that [[User:Wlaak]] went beyond answering my question. However, they did answer my question in the first sentence, and so the extra words can be disregarded. They did say that they want to leave the article as it is. I haven't seen a concise statement by [[User:Shmayo]] as to what they want to change in the article. They have said that maybe [[WP:ANI]] rather than DRN or RFC is the forum that they want, but I don't understand what they are saying is either the content issue or the conduct issue. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*:::Aha okay, sorry @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] for misunderstanding. In that case: I want the section <u>to remain as it is right now</u>. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]], I brought this to ANI as a conduct issue (which I attempted to highlight in bold). My intention was not to discuss the content of the [[Syriac Orthodox Church]] article here; if content discussion is necessary, the other editors should be notified as well. In my initial post, I provided links containing my suggestion for the section "Name and identity": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292]. To summarize my suggestion, if still relevant to this case: 1. Merge or remove content related to "stance" of Aphrem I Barsoum, depending of relevance. If relevant, it should solely be based on secondary [[WP:RS]]. I agree with the third-party editor, who suggested that "statements" from individual patriarchs is not relevant and should be excluded. 2. Remove paragraphs concerning the "stance" of the other two patriarchs (per [[WP:NOR]] and suggestion from third-party editor). 3. If anything, it should include the Synod's statement (without [[WP:SYNTH]]). 4. Rely on secondary [[WP:RS]], avoiding any further [[WP:OR]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1286743556 This] version should serve as basis. [[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] ([[User talk:Shmayo|talk]]) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Note:
*A [[WP:TBAN]] was suggested [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Proposal|here]] less than a month ago, but closed with no consensus. The user has also been recommended not to edit within this topic area [[User_talk:Wlaak#Gaining_experience|here]].
[[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] ([[User talk:Shmayo|talk]]) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
*:See the previous closed ANI filed, no consensus was reached for you to delete everything in the section. I took in feedback from the three other.
*:the other editor who I was in a dispute with unarchived the ANI, he was initially in favor of my edits, in which he himself contributed to and added a quote which you were against.
*:the edits i had made was in no sense rejected by the other editors until you came, I worked with the feedback given, hence another editor then said ''"Thank you, it looks much better."''
*:you came in, gave feedback in which most was incorporated, your points were:
*:to remove "stands as the latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity of the Church's faithful" ([[WP:SYNTH]]), <u>this was done.</u>
*:you said to merge the paragraph of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I and to remove the quote, in which two editors (me and the other editor who unarchived a ANI) agreed upon having, nevertheless, this was <u>done as well.</u>
*:despite this, you came back a few days later, without the intent to help implement your own feedback, but to delete nearly the entire section, which had no consensus whatsoever, i then restored it. that is not disruptive editing.
*:you said to highlight the Holy Synod statement, <u>this was also done.</u>
*:you also made feedback on using WP:RS, in which has been incorporated in the first paragraph but stopped after the other editor had unarchived a settled ANI for the third time, being disruptive and halting the development of the section.
*:5h ago, a reply to the article was made stating ''"I am proposing for a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|WP:RFC]], It seems we are '''unable to establish consensus''' regarding this, any inputs from a third party editor would be really appreciated."'' indicating that there was no established consensus for you to delete the entire section, this was said from the editor you quoted to have agreed with you, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563 this], he stated it would be better of without the quote, which was done.
*:you took the other editors words as a final say, with no chance at discussion nor reasoning, what you and one other person agrees with, is not consensus if the other parties object to it or haven't agreed with it.
*:you also said that you'd have to file for a RfC, not a ANI, this is not fitting and is a unnecessary process which could be handled with a RfC.
*:i'd want to request a TBAN on Shamyo as well, not out of revenge but since if these are the grounds for him to request a TBAN on me on, I feel there is a lot of ground in which Shmayo should get a TBAN, I must note that out of awareness to WP:NPOV, a TBAN should be on both parties.
*:you have been accused of having been anti-Aramean name on following, see [[User talk:Shmayo#Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion 2|this]], [[User talk:Shmayo#Repeated removal of Aramean|this]], [[User talk:Shmayo#Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion:~:text=dispute%20for%20article-,Notice%20of%20Dispute%20resolution%20noticeboard%20discussion,-Repeated%20removal%20of|this]], [[User talk:Shmayo/Archive 1#October 2008|this]], [[Talk:Arameans#Shmayo%E2%80%99s pushing POV|this]], [[Talk:Arameans#Shmayo pushing POV !!!|this]], and [[Talk:Arameans/Archive 1#Arameans are Assyrians|this]] (goes back all the way to 2008). Looking at your global contributions, it all seems to be on Aramean-related articles, and not in a way of contributing with edits but rather only objecting in talk pages, filing ANI's etc. this raises doubts whether if your objection is with the content or the Aramean ethnic identity.
*:for any third party admin or resolver, please see the archived thread (by another editor who has been opposing the Aramean name, both him and Shamyo being Assyrian WikiPedians per their user talk pages) in which I detailed my defense/response, see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1287490212 here].
*:the Syriac Orthodox Church just got its peer-review review and constantly involving me in ANI's (only filed by Assyrian WikiPedians, Shmayo and the other editor) is disruptive and hinders me from contributing to, in this case, the peer-review. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:this is not a Aramean vs. Assyrian related topic, it is a Church and I am not compromising the Assyrian name for the Aramean name, which the warning was about (see the warning issued by admin on ANI you referenced).
:a TBAN was not closed without consensus, majority was against and latest comment was "Any sanction should be two-way." since the other editor had POV and following Aramean related edits, please refrain from twisting things. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::While it's true that the latest comment stated that TBAN should likely be two-way, I'll note that such a ban, had it happened, would have been "The Levant, [[WP:BROADLY|broadly construed]]"; topic bans are generally broadly construed in order to avoid such arguments over whether an edit "really" counts. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]], I find this statement of yours somewhat disingenuous when I find an extended discussion about whether the article should or shouldn't be in [[WP:Assyria]] on the talk page. (If this was brought up in the previous ANI thread, my apologies for overlooking it in all the diffs.) This is absurdly tendentious behaviour and I'd like to commend {{u|CF-501 Falcon}} in particular for handling that with far more patience than I would have been capable of. I cannot believe that whether a particular article ought to be in a particular wikiproject was nearly the question of ''an RfC''. If the editors of a wikiproject say the article is in scope, it's in scope. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::already discussed in article page [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*I have reviewed the history of [[Syriac Orthodox Church]] to try to determine why [[User:Shmayo]] is alleging disruptive editing or other conduct issues by [[User:Wlaak]]. I don't understand what the issue is, unless Shmayo is claiming [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of [[Syriac Orthodox Church]] and so considers four reverts in two weeks to be disruptive. I have not read through all the details of the discussion on [[Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church]], nor the details of what was being reverted. I have seen enough to see that there is a content dispute, and that there has been some reverting that hardly comes anywhere close to being an edit war. Is [[User:Shmayo]] just throwing spaghetti at a wall, or can they state concisely what they think has been the conduct issue? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::Reviewing the few diffs that I provided in my original post would have been useful to determine what I refer to as disruptive behaviour. I never mentioned an edit war; I do not want to engage in one. Now, what I consider disruptive or tendentious:
::*I listed my suggestions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292], endorsed by [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion|impartial editors]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286594907&oldid=1286591683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563], but was reverted twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286222895&oldid=1286217815] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286747680&oldid=1286743556]; user ignoring [[WP:CONSENSUS]].
::*The user is [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT]]; fails to understand why other editors are stressing [[WP:NOR]], the few example I gave were quickly "corrected", which obviously is not the point here.
::*Views edits as [[WP:USTHEM|taking sides]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1286882756],
::If the diffs provided in my first bullet does not indicate disruptive behaviour or [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing, I have nothing else to add here. [[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] ([[User talk:Shmayo|talk]]) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:::See the current version, what you got consensus on was to remove the quote, which was done. I had challenged the removal of all other Patriarchates and argued for why they are important, the article itself states that the Patriarch ''"is the general administrator to Holy [[Synod]] and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."''
:::I may be new to WikiPedia, but what you and one other editor may agree on, with me disagreeing and others not participating in said question is not consensus.
:::Although, the thing you seem to have had one person to agree with you on (the removal of Patriarchates) seem to not have gone by the other editor who stated: ''"<u>Alright. That's okay,</u> now the next paragraph which starts with "Although the church is not ethnically exclusive..." needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."''
:::Your removal had no consensus, yet you pushed it, we were fine with it until you came and brought this to attention which later was implemented (quote, RS) and were set to move to the next paragraphs until you and the other WikiPedian part of your project, what I find disruptive, constantly file ANIs. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]], I agree with you that the diffs do not look particularly bad. I think you will change your mind once you read the discussion on the talk page. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
*I have reviewed the discussion at the article talk page that [[User:Shmayo]] and [[User:asilvering]] have advised me to read. I agree that [[User:Wlaak]] is pushing a [[WP:POV|point of view]]. That doesn't answer the question of what should be done next. [[User:Shmayo]] has also asked that question without answering it. They wrote: {{tq|Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI}}. Why not try RFC? Not every case of [[WP:POVPUSH|POV pushing]] requires sanctions. I haven't reviewed the past record in sufficient detail to determine whether Shmayo is also pushing a point of view, except that their choice to go to [[WP:ANI]] without attempting a content dispute resolution is in itself suggestive that they would rather make allegations than present [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]].
*I am cautious when a filer apparently prefers to discuss conduct before making an effort to resolve the content dispute. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::Recurring disruptive behaviour should however, which I think is the case. [[WP:Third opinion]] is a way of solving a content dispute. I did recommend DRN or RfC as a next step, one answer suggested ANI, and I agreed that it was probably right to report what I believed was disruptive behaviour. One user (excluding opinions expressed elsewhere) seems to agree, whereas your assessment of it is "POV pushing". Is there any outstanding question for me as the filer? [[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] ([[User talk:Shmayo|talk]]) 09:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::what is disruptive? four reverts in two weeks is not disruptive, this is the second ANI regarding this article, with no development, a RfC would be better, what is disruptive here in my opinion is the fact that there has constantly been ANI's filed preventing one from further developing WikiPedia.
:::@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] even on the [[List of Aramean kings]] article, Shmayo seemed to have deleted the entire article stating no sources are referenced, instead of trying to put sources, (similiar to the Syriac Orthodox Church, where he deleted the entire section of Aramean mentions) he decides to delete the entire article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Aramean_kings&diff=1272178126&oldid=1259140763]
:::constant removals [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tur_Abdin&diff=prev&oldid=1157132837][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrians_in_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=1079412266][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram_Rehob&diff=prev&oldid=1274245611][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Assyrians&diff=prev&oldid=1077069195](even images of Arameans are removed), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&diff=prev&oldid=1083627117][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mhallami&diff=prev&oldid=1100344975][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nouri_Iskandar&diff=prev&oldid=1193390949](even removes Syriac mentionings), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BCtersloh&diff=prev&oldid=1277386874], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrians_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=1067841992], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Mourad&diff=prev&oldid=912012123], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0dil&diff=prev&oldid=890153438] of Aramean mentionings throughout Aramean-related articles, [[User talk:Shmayo/Archive 1#October 2008|since 2008]] is disruptive. (these are just the ones taken from his talk page)
:::how long is Shmayo going to get away with this? 14 years and counting. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]], please consider this from the perspective of the other editors for a moment: they've been carrying on as normal for quite some time, and then suddenly you appear and start dozens of extremely wordy pov-pushing arguments. It's not them who are being disruptive. This isn't a statement about the issue at stake - it's entirely possible that you're correct on the merits in this content dispute - but how you've gone about it. I've suggested it before and will reiterate it: you will have a ''much'' better and more successful time trying to get anywhere with this dispute if you walk away from it now, gain more editing experience out of this topic area, and return to it later. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::english is not my first language, me wording things in a manner of what you think is POV is not my intent, i am not pushing any <u>edits</u> that are POV, although i can understand that you feel i am pushing POV in talk-pages.
:::::when did i "suddenly" appear? if you are talking about to WikiPedia, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it is, in my opinion not "pov-pushing". everybody pushes a POV, it seems as the POV-pushes from Shmayo and the other editor is of no interest to you? does this only apply to me?
:::::i have been carrying on, i left the changing of Assyrian to Syriac (not even Aramean), as you warned both of us in the previous ANI to, however, even me going to a Church article, improving what was already stated, not compromising any names, i still get followed by other parties.
:::::i am geniounly curious, do you not see the suppression of the Aramean name on WikiPedia?
:::::if you are seeing this as POV, then certainly it is not one-way, but rather two-way.
:::::i am not so active in the topic anymore, i am only maintaining the articles (if i see any POV edit as in the case remove/compromise certain names, i revert and advise to go to talk page), other than that i am working on my draft. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::can you cite some of my words which are "extremely wordy pov-pushing", i am curious to see how it looks like/what to not push/write. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 18:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]], look how ''long'' your comments are. Whether you intend this or not, the effect is to basically wear down everyone else involved in the discussion until they go away and you "win". As for pov-pushing, {{tq|for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it}}, given the contours of this dispute specifically, is a clear expression of pov-pushing. (In most other topic areas, "this topic is neglected on wikipedia" is not pov-pushing.) Again, for all I know, your pov ''is'' systematically undervalued on Wikipedia and this needs to be addressed, but "my cause is righteous" is not a good defense here. See [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. I strongly urge you to go work in another topic area for now. You're picking up a lot of bad habits from working in a contentious topic, and I'm increasingly worried that you will be indefinitely blocked or community banned. You cannot fix the problem of Aramean invisibility on wikipedia if you are blocked. Please reconsider your approach. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::okay, thank you for your understanding. i will refrain from further edit any articles (if not reverting obvious changes that compromise one name for the other, if that is allowed).
::::::::i will stick to working on my draft and see other topics i find interesting [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*I've been following this discussion from a distance and have glanced over Wlaak's contributions while this report is in progress. The user seems to have an unusual tendency to eliminate or replace any mention to Assyrians with their own [[WP:OR]], often ignoring [[WP:RS]] that support Assyrian identity. A clear example of this occurred just several hours ago as a matter of fact: Wlaak removes a reliable academic source that distinctly supports Shamoun Hanne Haydo's Assyrian identity (see the referenced source, I checked it [https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ3UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58]), replacing "Assyrian" with "Syriac" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&diff=1288461529&oldid=1288402743] by citing unknown websites as a main source such as [https://www.kemalyalcin.com/yazilar/suryaniler-seyfo-ve-semun-hanne-haydo/]. Apparently Wlaak has been engaged in this tendentious erasure of Assyrian in the article since March, indicating this behavior is not new or even limited to this specific article if you look at their contributions in general. It's not just English Wikipedia either; I know these are different projects, but it's telling that in one project they've been blocked for similar editing patters like in en-wiki [https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Bidrag/Wlaak], and in another they apparently tried to remove mention of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide article there [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrische_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=69256637], [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrische_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=69256847]. Wlaak’s main focus of editing in en-wiki/elsewhere within various articles is basically to erase the word Assyrian and replace it with Arameans or Syriacs.
:On the whole, I'd say with certainty that this a tendentious [[WP:SPA|one purpose account]] mostly dedicated to erasing Assyrian mention, violating policies in the process such as [[WP:OR]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:WEIGHT]] and so on. I don't think this topic or even Wikipedia in general benefits from Wlaak's contributions, in fact, it's the opposite. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac. [https://www.kemalyalcin.com/yazilar/suryaniler-seyfo-ve-semun-hanne-haydo/] is a Turkish source writing of his biography book, it is actually the website of the author of the book about him [https://www.librarything.com/author/yalcinkemal]. I have not erased the term "Assyrian", regarding the Dutch page, I was restoring a undiscussed move, or at least that is what I thought, we discussed the matter on my talk page and it seems as it was not a discussed move only done on 27th of March but goes back further than that, the reason I did not see the earlier version was, as a editor pointed out on my talk page, it was mistakingly labeled "minor", thus I oversaw it. No worries, I have no issues with leaving it as it is.
::Since my warning, I have not compromised any names in favor of the other, you using the article Shamoun Hanne Haydo is absurd to me, I was reverting what a specific user (dedicated to war-related articles between Kurds and Assyrians) did on the article, he had previously been blocked as a sockpuppet and compromised the Syriac name for the Assyrian one, by removing the Syriac sources for the Assyrian ones. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{talk quote|Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac.}}
:::That's just not true, I don’t know how else to say it. If you check the article history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&action=history&offset=&limit=100], you'll see that Haydo's background has always stirred up reverts among users; it’s never really been settled. There are no recent sock edits in the article as far as I can tell, you can't revert somebody for socking if they aren't an active sock. The reliable modern scholarly source I pointed out supports an Assyrian background [https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ3UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58], you can't deny this.
:::@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] I wonder what others outside this topic think of Wlaak's response above, is it encouraging to you? Because I personally see reoccurring red flags which isn't helped by their recent behavior; apparently (and Robert McClenon seems to have seen this) Wlaak has been taking strange ownership of articles and then lecturing users on their talk pages in a really condescending way. It’s just cringeworthy to read Wlaak's comments in this discussion ([[User_talk:Miaphysis#ANI_dispute_on_section|link]]). It's also odd how they lecture about "consensus" during that discussion when they think it aligns with their perspective, yet in the same breath, they have no problem altering long-standing consensus versions of several other articles without having a consensus. Lastly, Wlaak also appeared to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren,_Midyat&diff=prev&oldid=1289149074 canvass] a single edit IP to vote in a discussion Wlaak opened (btw the discussion is again about the same subject they're so adamant to push [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_6#Syriacs]). Doesn’t all this raise some eyebrows? Are we sure we want to give this user that much rope, only for them to likely end up in ANI again? [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 06:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::One is allowed to edit an article, after it having been edited to Syriac, per the majority of sources (and now a academic source), it was later changed by another editor using a pro-Assyrian website (Hujada) as source and one other source, overlooking the majority of sources stating Syriac.
::::What ownership? I noticed for 30 minutes edits from a IP came in after a edit from a Wiki User, it changed the lead, the Name & Identity etc.
::::"Canvass", no the IP asked if there is a possibility of changing the redirect, I informed him that there is a open discussion regarding it... what's wrong with that?
::::All this feels like a coordinated attack on me, few hours after you commented your first comment, another editor with a brand new account came a few hours later and accused me of harassing him via mail... [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 10:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Alright you just refuse to accept any wrongdoing whatsoever, at any rate, I don’t plan to have a pointless back and forth with you seeing the rest of [[WP:Bludgeoning|bludgeoning]]. I don’t know any of the users in this discussion btw, and for you to make “coordinated attack” accusations based on no real evidence is disappointing but not surprising, to me at least. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Nobody is free from having done wrongs, both parties in this ANI are guilty of wrongdoing. You also accused me of "soliciting votes" from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren,_Midyat&diff=prev&oldid=1289149074] but failed to include that the IP asked if he could change the redirect, in which I said if you are in favor of it, there is a discussion, is that soliciting votes? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AG%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren%2C_Midyat&diff=1289132341&oldid=1289105485] [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|1=Socks gonna sock. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}
:I have edited the article under a previous account I lost the password for. This user was extremely disruptive and emailed me with harassing words. how do I report this? [[User:TheLiberalWikiEditor|TheLiberalWikiEditor]] ([[User talk:TheLiberalWikiEditor|talk]]) 04:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::Are you serious? What article are you speaking of and what name was your account under? I just recently got a wiki-mail and I have not contacted anyone via that email apart from the Arbitration Committee. Can you share what I allegedly said? I am more than happy to prove that I have not emailed you anything, these are extreme accusations!
::Your account is brand new, literally created today and throwing these accusations. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 09:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]], my advice is to respond no further about this alleged harassment, and let arbcom deal with that if necessary. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::okay, thank you [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:TheLiberalWikiEditor|TheLiberalWikiEditor]], you need to email [[User:Arbitration Committee]] with this kind of thing. Please do not post about it here. Obviously, Wlaak will be completely unable to respond to these allegations on this board; please don't put them into that position. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
===General disruption in the topic area===
Could I ask participants in and watchers of this topic area more broadly to provide what they think are the <5 most single contentious articles in this topic area? I don't mean "ones currently being disrupted" or "ones currently involving Wlaak". I am quite sure that what {{u|Wlaak}} wrote above, {{tq|these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic}} is true, and, given that, it's strange that there hasn't been an arbcom case or discussion about community sanctions in the topic. It would be helpful to see the "most contentious" or "most disrupted" articles as context. Not most important/critical - I'm looking for the ones that make the clearest case that this topic area is problematic. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you, [[User:asilvering]], for asking the editors to identify the specific topics of contention.
:If I understand correctly, [[User:Shmayo]] has been given bad advice that is wasting their time and the time of the community. They appear to be saying that they were considering [[WP:DRN|DRN]] or [[WP:RFC|RFC]] because they have a combination content and conduct dispute, and were advised to try [[WP:ANI]] instead. When a case is filed here at ANI without previous attempts to address the content dispute, it often ends up with an exchange of unpleasant posts and no conclusion, and that is what has happened so far, four days after filing, because RFC has not been attempted. I already said that [[User:Wlaak]] is pushing a [[WP:POV|point of view]]. It appears that [[User:Shmayo]] is also pushing a [[WP:POV|point of view]]. I don't think that it is time to [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] both editors. I think that it is time to try RFC. Maybe Shmayo doesn't know that the issues are to put in an RFC. If so, maybe they should try DRN. If there is a deadlock over a content dispute, DRN will often ask questions designed to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. I think that Shmayo was almost right in trying either DRN or RFC until they were advised to try ANI instead. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:I think that if this matter were to go to ArbCom, ArbCom would, among other things, define a [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]] area, maybe '''The Levant''', broadly construed. So maybe the community should impose a community [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]] area to avoid an ArbCom case. So I agree that the editors should follow the advice of [[User:asilvering]] in trying to define what the area of dispute is. Either that, or RFC, or DRN to formulate the RFC. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::"The Levant" is what I'd use if I had to tban or conditional unblock someone, to be sure I'd gotten the whole range of issues, but I think the community could probably come up with something more restricted, like Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac topics, which is an absurd mouthful but probably covers everything. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:I am not sure if this is about me receiving a topic ban or not and if I am writing my own sentence, I hope not. But the topic would be most fitting in the Near East, as this includes basically everything regarding this topic. The Levant is very limited, most places of origin amongst all groups is far from the Levant. I am not too educated about this matter (disputes, TBANS etc.) and if "Near East" is a valid one, but that is what I would identify it as. [[User:Wlaak|Wlaak]] ([[User talk:Wlaak|talk]]) 21:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:I did not say that I would support a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]]. I implied that I would support a [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]] status. I already opposed a topic-ban once before. A topic-ban is necessary if efforts to resole the content dispute fail. There have not been adequate efforts to resolve the content dispute. I will support a [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]] declaration as a way of demanding that the parties try to resolve the content dispute. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], the article "[[Arameans]]" was semi-protected during 2023 due to persistent disruptive editing. It usually attracted a high number of IPs. Other than that, I don't think there is any article that stands out in particular. Articles about places and persons (and organizations/institutions, like in this case) are all subject to the dispute. [[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] ([[User talk:Shmayo|talk]]) 12:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Hey there, having viewed the ANI from the sidelines I wanted to give an answer. I think "The Levant" as a topic of contention is too broad and would have to factor into account other unrelated topics involving certain groups, countries, people, etc. The topic I would define as contentious would fall under the banner "Assyrian naming dispute", since it is prominently disputes surrounding Assyrian, Chaldean, and Aramean identities.
:As [[User:Shmayo|Shmayo]] said above, articles about anything that ties back to Assyrians are all subject to dispute. But I think there are a few articles that stand out, which I've listed below:
:* [[Arameans]]
:* [[Shamoun Hanne Haydo]]
:* [[Defense of Azakh]]/[[Defence of Iwardo]]
:* [[Turoyo language]]
:* Basically any Assyrian village in Mardin/Tur Abdin
:* [[Tel Keppe]]
:[[User:Surayeproject3|Surayeproject3]] ([[User talk:Surayeproject3|talk]]) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
== User:Stevencocoboy ==
*{{userlinks|Stevencocoboy}}
I am once again bringing [[User:Stevencocoboy]] here for continued [[WP:CIR]] and [[WP:IDHT]] violations.
I previously reported this user [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1178|here]] on January 27th. I'm not going to relitigate that report again; interested editors can read the archive for the history of this situation.
Stevencocoboy's inadequate grasp of the English language continues to be problematic. He has repeatedly reverted edits to the <nowiki>{{Medals table}}</nowiki> templates on numerous figure skating articles on the grounds that they are against the rules of the template or something like that. Honestly, I don't understand what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_de_France_(figure_skating)&diff=prev&oldid=1287936271 this edit summary] was even supposed to mean: ''"I know but accept wiki rules IS NOT any problem and it will more better. It's not a revert reason"''. Stevencocoboy was allowed to continue editing after his previous visit to ANI on the promise that he would cease his disruptive editing. I am not sure how re-ordering the coding of templates so as to make them more difficult to navigate and maintain is supposed to be beneficial to anyone. I have tried to explain that the template does not require the data to be entered in any particular order and will still display properly, yet here we are. I don't know if it's [[WP:CIR]] and [[WP:IDHT]] or both. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 11:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have already answer many times, I'm following [[Template:Medals_table#Example]] edit the medal information. It's definitely not disruptive editing and many medal tables are following the example. Thanks. [[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] ([[User talk:Stevencocoboy|talk]]) 11:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Bgsu98}}, can you list some examples (with diffs) where this user has been disruptive since the last discussion closed? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stevencocoboy has re-ordered or reverted the data in numerous templates] despite being advised that the order of the information's entry does not affect how the template displays. The idea was to make the templates easy for future editors to maintain without having to continuously hunt for a particular country, or reshuffle the data based on the accumulation of medals. I honestly think he believes the template will only display the data in the order it is entered. The explanation ''"it will more better"'' fails to explain how ordering the data in a difficult-to-navigate format will make anything better. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 12:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Could you maybe explain this to him in simple English? What I see here → [[User talk:Stevencocoboy#Figure skating templates]] is very wordy and includes the word "hell". ("The template does not require the data to be entered in any particular order." ← Nice, but maybe too fancy for him to comprehend.)<br />The issue is so minor... Blocking him for this would be too much. I can't believe he won't stop if asked politely and explained what he is doing wrong. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I left a message to him: [[User talk:Stevencocoboy#Template:Medals table]]. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Actually, {{u|Stevencocoboy}} is right. He is just following the example shown in the template's documentation ([[Template:Medals table#Example]]):
<pre>{{Medals table
| caption =
| host =
| show_limit =
| remaining_text =
| flag_template =
| event =
| source = <ref>[http://wuni15.sportresult.com/HIDE/en/MedalTally?sport=00&medalKind=DefaultSports Medal Tally]</ref>
| gold_FRA = 7 | silver_FRA = 4 | bronze_FRA = 4
| gold_GBR = 5 | silver_GBR = 5 | bronze_GBR = 5
| gold_USA = 5 | silver_USA = 3 | bronze_USA = 2
| gold_AUS = 3 | silver_AUS = 5 | bronze_AUS = 7
| gold_RSA = 3 | silver_RSA = 4 | bronze_RSA = 3
| gold_GER = 1 | silver_GER = 3 | bronze_GER = 3
}}
</pre>
--[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 02:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
<small>(Pinging participants from the previous AN/I discussion {{ping|1=Liz|2=guninvalid|3=rsjaffe|4=HandThatFeeds|5=Bgsu98}}.)</small>
Stevencocoboy is a prolific editor, makes many positive contributions, and almost never uses edit summaries, which makes it very hard to evaluate his overall record. To answer [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]]'s comment above, yes I have seen disruption since the last AN/I discussion closed. Here is a chronology:
* Sept 21 2024: In the first sentence of [[Christina Carreira]], Stevencocoboy erroneously changes Carreira's nationality from Canadian-born to American.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=1246790916&oldid=1246399702]
* December 16: Knowing nothing about the history of the article, I notice the first sentence of [[Christina Carreira]] is incorect and fix it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1263368555]
* January 26 2025: Stevencocoboy changes Carreira's nationality from Canadian (correct) to Canadian-American (incorrect).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1271859666]
* January 29: Stevencocoboy says on AN/I, {{tq| I'll focus update a result only from now, the others I'll not continued edit because grammar mistakes is my main problem. I feel sorry for guys. I have a promise in here and if I break my promise, you can block me whatever you want.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1178#User:Stevencocoboy]
* February 21: I notice Christina Carreira's nationality is wrong again and change it to Canadian.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1276865292]
* February 21: Stevencocoboy again changes Carreira's nationality to Canadian-American, with edit summary {{tq|See [[Piper Gilles]]. I think Canadian-American more better than Canadian xxx who complete for the United States}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1276866156] At this point he has broken his AN/I promise, reverted others three times to add a serious error to the first sentence of a BLP, and given a bizarre irrational rationale for it. (I think his argument is that since we correctly describe a different skater, [[Piper Gilles]], as having dual citizenship, we should add a second nationality to this skater too regardless of what citizenship she actually has.)
* February 25: In the first sentence of [[Deanna Stellato-Dudek]], Stevencocoboy erroneously changes Stellato-Dudek's nationality from American-Canadian to American[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deanna_Stellato-Dudek&diff=prev&oldid=1277518986] without an edit summary. This too broke his AN/I promise.
* February 26: I give him a vandalism warning for his edit to [[Deanna Stellato-Dudek]]. He replies, saying {{tq|Hi there, I've receive your message and you said that I'm vandalize [[Deanna Stellato-Dudek]] pages. You're so funny and I think you have a mistake. I'm not vandalize because I'm not seen the references with that she has Canadian citizenship. But it doesn't matter, she born in U.S and her hometown also in U.S. She also has U.S citizenship. But don't worry, I'll not change anything and I agree American-Canadian is best edit. But I strongly disagree with you said that I'm a vandalize in wikipedia. Thanks.}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clayoquot&diff=prev&oldid=1277703756]
I don't know if he has done anything this egregious since then or if he has further broken his AN/I promise. I don't know exactly what should be done here but I think something should be done. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 03:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:Despite Steven's promise to not edit prose any longer, he did just that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_and_Maia_Shibutani&diff=prev&oldid=1288370821 today]. He also does not seem to understand the basic principles of [[WP:BRD]], as he skips the Discuss portion and goes directly to Re-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_of_Finland&curid=74200237&diff=1288358161&oldid=1288280615 over and over]. This edit summary – ''Again and again, It's definitely NOT disruptive editing and we can following Template:Medals_table#Example to edit, no rules specified we must alphabetical listing. If you think it's difficulty, you can abjuration and let the other user to edit. Thanks.'' – is incomprehensible. Again, if he cannot adequately communicate in English, he should not be editing on the English-language Wikipedia. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 10:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_and_Maia_Shibutani&diff=prev&oldid=1288370821 this], I only add the medalists which major event they won at junior level (add the result), so I didn't broke my promise. Changing nationality because I can't see references in first time, I think it's mischief but after I found that and I'll stop change it. It have nothing to do with grammar problem. You can viewing edit history, I've only update results, included U.S sport team, U.S sport men/women, some sport championships result. etc. Thanks. [[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] ([[User talk:Stevencocoboy|talk]]) 11:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::This sentence – ''"At the junior level, they are [[2009 World Junior Figure Skating Championships|2009 World Junior]] silver and [[2009–10 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final|2009–10 JGP Final]] bronze medalists."'' – needs an article after "are", but it is not a serious issue and one I wouldn't have otherwise brought up. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:Also, with regards to the matter that I brought up here originally, he acknowledges on his talk page that he understands that the template will automatically sort the data regardless of how it is entered, but still chooses to overcomplicate the coding for... reasons? ''"I know the template sorts the lines automatically by medal count, but following Template:Medals_table#Example edit the information did not wrong and no rules specify we can't listing in the order."'' [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 10:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::That's unfortunate. I guess {{u|Stevencocoboy}} doesn't understand that he may soon be blocked on the English Wikipedia and that's it, finita. Given his "intermediate"/"lower-intermediate" English language skills, it will be very hard for him to get unblocked. Could you maybe try to convince him to stop? As {{u|Clayoquot}} has noted, Steven is a prolific editor and makes a lot of useful edits. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::This has been a long-time problem and I didn't bring him here the first time without exhausting all efforts and my patience first. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::As have several other editors (yourself included). [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have an idea. You can just propose to change the [[:Template:Medals table]]'s documentation and show it to him. (After all, currently it does say to order the countries by medal count.)<br />The talk page seems to be active: [[Template talk:Medals table]]. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 11:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have started a discussion about whether we should consider changing the examples in the template's documentation. Here: [[Template talk:Medals table#How about a change to the examples?]]. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] blocking an editor indefinitely is a last resort. We generally try discussion, warnings, short blocks, and restrictions on reverts first. On the one hand we have to consider the impact on other editors (I hear Bgsu98's comment about their patience being exhausted) and the risk to content (particularly biographies of living persons). On the other hand we want to to give individuals chances show they can succeed and we want to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 15:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I looked into history a bit more and I'm unhappy to see that [[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] is commenting here. [[user:The Bushranger| An administrator]] proposed that MC be given a one-way interaction ban from Bgsu98 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#h-User:Bgsu98_mass-redirecting_articles_about_major_figure_skating_competitions-20250419212700 one week ago]. MC, I strongly recommend that you stop commenting on anything to do with Bgsu98. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 17:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@[[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]], regarding your changing of skaters' nationalities, I'd like to know what you would do differently in the future. If you open an article and the nationality of the subject looks wrong to you, what will you do? After seeing the issues that people have raised here regarding you repeatedly reverting, do you plan to do anything differently the next time another editor reverts you? [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Clayoquot}} Don't worry, it's a single incident. I'll not often editing about nationality information. But in the future, if I have a question, I'll open a discussion in talk page and ask the other users opinions first and we need waiting for a consensus. Also I will not revert while the next time another editor reverts my edit. I'll open a discussion too. Thanks. [[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] ([[User talk:Stevencocoboy|talk]]) 03:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] I just showed you above that you added erroneous nationality information in four separate incidents, and you're stating it was a single incident. This is concerning. It's good to hear you plan to use Talk pages when you have concerns. If you think there is consensus on the Talk page to change a person's stated nationality, what would you do? [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 22:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
{{Ping|Bgsu98}} I won't argue with you anymore. I have a suggestion. Both alphabetical and in the order can acceptable. If the medal table already using in the order, keep using in it. On the contrary, if the table already alphabetical listing and you can keep going to edit. For example, you recently make a new table in [[Rostelecom Cup]] and already alphabetical listing, so I will accept and won't change it anymore. Do you agree the suggestion? Also {{Ping|Moscow Connection}} you can give some opinion. Thanks. [[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] ([[User talk:Stevencocoboy|talk]]) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:All of the Grand Prix events will maintain an alphabetical listing since I was the one who added the tables. The championship events that were already in place can remain as they are. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 05:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Bgsu98}} Okay, so it means you agree my suggestion, right? [[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] ([[User talk:Stevencocoboy|talk]]) 05:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::That's what I said. The articles which already used the template (Worlds, Europeans, Four Continents, Junior Worlds, etc.) can keep them as is. The articles where I added the templates (all of the Grand Prix events, for example) will maintain the alphabetical listing. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 05:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Bgsu98}} It's great. Thank you very much. [[User:Stevencocoboy|Stevencocoboy]] ([[User talk:Stevencocoboy|talk]]) 05:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Just noting that I have a question avove for Stevencocoboy that has not been answered. There are at least three issues to address: 1) tendency to edit war, 2) writing prose in English, and 3) understanding source material. Regarding #1, I think I see above a commitment above to discuss instead of reverting. Regarding #2, I am unclear on whether Stevencocoboy plans to keep to his earlier commitment to refrain from writing prose. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 20:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
== Misleading Editing and POV-Pushing by USER:Varoon2542 ==
{{userlinks|Varoon2542}} has been making biased POV edits on articles, primarily related to demographics. his edits are unsourced, and when reverted or brought on talk page, he typically ignores discussions. After several days weeks or months, he returns and reinstate the same content. I’m giving just few examples-
*In this edit, Varoon2542 added a reference mentioned [[Bangladeshis]] in reference instead of adding source in the reference - “[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1230154601]”
* Unsourced biased information, targeting [[Bangladeshis]], [[Bengalis]] & [[Muslims]] <br>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1230154010], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1230907662], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1250159446]
*After some time/months he again restored those - <br>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285863176], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1273463994], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285664547]
*He repeated the same edit in another article [[Religion in Mauritius]] article, again using the content and mentioned Bangladeshis in reference instead of adding source in the reference - <br>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1287396221]
*He also restored a previously removed false claim without any explanation in the [[Hinduism in Bangladesh]] article -<br>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=1287396827]
*he has had ongoing content disputes with other editors, particularly with user @[[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] on the Mauritius article. Even after discussions on the talk page, he returned later and reinstated the same content multiple times. See, what Largoplazo has said about his activity [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritius&diff=prev&oldid=1285686777]
These are deliberate disruptions. he might have any personal problem with Bangladeshi nationals but on Wikipedia it’s not acceptable. At this point, a block is necessary to stop these. '''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 21:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:This is amusing
:On the [[Mauritius]] article
:Once it was clear that there was a dispute on two issues, I brought them on the talk page
:i) On Bangladeshi migrants in Mauritius
:After taking all opinions into consideration, I was the one who wrote this paragraph
:"In 2022, the number of Bangladeshi nationals and Indian nationals had respectively risen to 1.21% and 1.19% of the total resident population with Bengali now spoken at home by 1.18% of the population. Non-Mauritians make up 2.62% of the total resident population"
:It now refers to the disproportionate presence of both Indian and Bangladeshi nationals in Mauritius
:I also decided '''not to''' state that Bangladeshis had skewed religious figures because even if I firmly believe so, for obvious demographic reasons, I have no definitive proof of it
:I don't mind removing that statement from the [[Religion in Mauritius]] article
:I edited the [[Hinduism in Bangladesh]] page once
:None of the edits are contentious
:The presumed persecution of Christians in India fills a quarter of the introduction of the [[Christianity in India]] article. I never tried to remove it given that it is sourced
:I don't understand why the presumed persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh is being removed given that it is equally sourced
:ii) On the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Mauritius
:Like I've repeatedly stated. I '''was not''' the one to mention LGBT rights in that section
:For years, the criminalisation of same sex sexual intercourse was mentioned there
:Then, after decriminalisation, the statement was updated
:I '''merely''' rewrote it in proper English
:It's only then that Largoplaza removed it
:I didn't understand his logic given that LGBT rights are mentioned in the relevant sections of most country articles
:We both tried to encourage others to give their opinions on the subject but noone seemed to care
:iii)
:I'm being presented as a bigot by someone who's profile page is '''conspicuously''' politicised as "Ultraconservative Propalestinian Bangladeshi Muslim" and who is enlisting Largoplaza, who once told me he was a "gay jewish man", to block a gay atheist from a hindu background
:This situation is a textbook example of what "irony" is
:[[User:Varoon2542|Varoon2542]] ([[User talk:Varoon2542|talk]]) 01:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::With this statement, "{{tq|someone who's profile page is '''conspicuously''' politicised as "Ultraconservative Propalestinian Bangladeshi Muslim" and who is enlisting Largoplaza, who once told me he was a "gay jewish man", to block a gay atheist from a hindu background}}", you have made it worse by giving religious and ethnic angle to this dispute. [[WP:HATESPEECH]] is not allowed here. [[User:Shankargb|Shankargb]] ([[User talk:Shankargb|talk]]) 02:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I find it quite ironic that you are accusing me of hate speech because I pointed out possible reasons why I was being targeted due to my perceived ethnicity and religion
:::I believe in neutrality on Wikipedia and someone who has the kiswa of the Kaaba on his profile page makes me uncomfortable. I find it oppressing.
:::Can you please review the edicts of Cerium4B before passing judgements on me ?
:::Were his or her edicts acceptable ?
::[[User:Varoon2542|Varoon2542]] ([[User talk:Varoon2542|talk]]) 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Hang on -- are you ''seriously'' asserting that you feel "oppressed" by the mere fact that Cerium4B displays a picture of the kiswa on their own user page? Even presuming you can draw an inference from that (there are many non-Muslims, myself among them, who find Islamic decorative arts striking and beautiful), it is just as acceptable on Wikipedia to self-identify as a Muslim as it was for you to self-identify as being from Mauritius. To say this in the very same response as you objecting to being accused of ethno-religious hate speech is the real irony here. If you find the mere presence of Muslims on this encyclopedia uncomfortable and oppressive, then I suggest Wikipedia is not the best outlet for your energies. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::::That's in addition to the breach of AGF inherent in implying that displaying the kiswa creates a presumption of non-neutrality in one's edits. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|I didn't understand his logic given that LGBT rights are mentioned in the relevant sections of most country articles}} I explained my logic at length in response to exactly that observation of yours, I think at least twice in our direct conversations. I also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1285941800 explained it in my ANI submission] of a couple of weeks ago. I don't know what there is not to understand about it, but neither continuing to act as though I hadn't explained it nor declaring to me, like an untalented mind-reader, that my explanation wasn't my ''real'' reason for my actions was justified. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 02:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|I also decided not to state that Bangladeshis had skewed religious figures because even if I firmly believe so, for obvious demographic reasons, I have no definitive proof of it}}. Proof has nothing to do with why it didn't belong there. "Skewed" is a biased word, in this case suggesting that there's some value that that statistic "should" have, and blaming those darn Bangladeshis for making the figure larger than that. I explained that to you when I removed, which wasn't the first time it had been removed. You then restored the entire passage, and ''then'' edited out the "skewed" on your own; I thought you'd decided to concede my point. Now you say that wasn't why you removed it and imply that if you had "proof" (whatever that would consist of), you'd restore it. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 02:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*Varoon restoring POV content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goa_Inquisition&diff=prev&oldid=1286514742] based on misrepresentation of sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goa_Inquisition#c-Ratnahastin-20241228060700-CapnJackSp-20241228052800] for which there exists no consensus on [[Goa Inquisition]] while using edit summaries such as "{{tq|The use of the term "polytheist" instead of "hindu" is a relatively common hinduphobic slander used by monotheists. Not that there's anything wrong in being a polytheist.}}". Also adding irrelevant content such as names of members of Bollywood families to [[Nepo baby]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepo_baby&diff=prev&oldid=1287393614][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nepo_baby&diff=prev&oldid=1287393614] with any basis. Lastly with their comments here "{{Tq|I'm being presented as a bigot by someone who's profile page is conspicuously politicised as "Ultraconservative Propalestinian Bangladeshi Muslim" and who is enlisting Largoplaza, who once told me he was a "gay jewish man", to block a gay atheist from a hindu background This situation is a textbook example of what "irony" is}}", I think an indef block is in order. [[User:Shankargb|Shankargb]] ([[User talk:Shankargb|talk]]) 02:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*:The terms "polytheist" or "pagan" have historically been used as derogatory slander against Hindus
*:Are you seriously denying nepotism in Indian cinema ?
*:Why do I feel that you aren't entirely unbiased ? [[User:Varoon2542|Varoon2542]] ([[User talk:Varoon2542|talk]]) 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varoon2542&diff=prev&oldid=1285930609|{{tq|Those suffering from paranoia should seek therapy. I don't lurk, I've got a life and unlike you, I'm not obsessed to the point of reverting edits within minutes. That actually says more about you.}}] (by Varoon2542, 16 April 2025) is pretty off. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:Wrong link, try this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varoon2542&diff=prev&oldid=1285930609] [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks, that's the one. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*This is outside of my wheelhouse so not commenting on the ''overall'' issues, but as Varoon2542 has made multiple personal attacks, blocked for 48 hours. No objection if any other admin can look more into this and upgrade it to indef. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Why are the admins not looking into this case? '''[[User:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:darkgreen;font-family:Papyrus;">— Cerium4B</span>]][[User talk:Cerium4B|<span style="text-shadow:-4px -4px 20px;color:red;font-family:Papyrus;">—Talk? •</span>]]''' 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::it's a volunteer project, even the admins are volunteers. You need to provide a concise, very clear report of wrongdoing if you want this to result in any action.
*::The problem is that there's not going to be a large number of admins familiar with the particular disputes around Bangladeshi politics and society. So it's harder to comb through to figure out what's going on. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
== Behavioral patterns of Gino's disruptive edits without providing any reasons ==
{{userlinks|Gino March}}
Recently, I call the attention that Gino March's continuously removed all the acquired programming aired on its Philippine television and movie blocks excluded — without providing any exonerated evidences. As soon as I monitoring the abusive behavioral patterns, he also declining all of their responses without any additional evidence and he tried to unexplained content removal using [[MOS:TVINTL]] and [[WP:NOTTVGUIDE]] rule, unless there is a notable and verified sources. Until now, no response has been made since he did not communicate the talk page articles as he violated under [[WP:ONUS]] policy.
First, the potentially concerns on his talk page, he mentioned to me in a sarcastic way due to engaging [[WP:EW|edit war]] as {{tq|Removing personal attacks and threats}}. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gino_March&diff=prev&oldid=1264749171] Although the admin warns about his [[Special:Diff/1264762360|disruptive behavior]], his comments substantially [[Special:Diff/1265241943|blanking]] without generate any neutral consensus. I have no idea why he continued to [[Special:Diff/1265241463|neglected me]] in a nonsense threat.
The second evidence follows that Gino's edits are massively remove the draft programming before it redirect to the original ___location ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_GMA_Network_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737909][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_ABS-CBN_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737934][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Heart_of_Asia_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=1286744450][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_TV5_(Philippine_TV_network)_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737958]) and all of the television drama series and other related Philppine TV channels were also unnecessary without providing any additional evidence in [[MOS:TVINTL]] as major content removal of these edits: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Ki_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1266184767][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_Sister&diff=prev&oldid=1266184887][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ngayon_at_Kailanman_(2018_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1265248193][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%27s_Up_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=1264757580][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Queen&diff=prev&oldid=1286764741][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTV_(Philippine_TV_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1286743489][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movie_Central_(Philippine_TV_channel)&diff=prev&oldid=1286740793]
So, I here to report this behavioral actions due to the massive disruptive and uncontroversial ways before he comes back in a persistent reversion. <span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Icarus58|<span style="background:#327EE4; color:#A188FC; padding:2px;">✴️Icarus</span>]][[User talk:Icarus58|<span style="background:#A188FC; color:#327EE4; padding:2px;">The Astrologer✴️</span>]] </span> 09:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't understand your grammar and reading comprehension Icarus (a.k.a. HurricaneErl 2022) but from what I'm reading is that your report is made of [[false accusation]]s and [[gaslighting]] in order to continue reverting all my edits and disregard my style of editing in Wikipedia. Also, as per [[Wikipedia:NOTWALLOFSHAME|WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME]], ''users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page'', and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icarus58&diff=prev&oldid=1264700512 you were already informed of that rule by another user], but you chose to ignore it by simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icarus58&diff=prev&oldid=1264703107 accusing me of personal threats and violating the rules]. I think you are demanding for my attention is because you're telling me to stop editing. -[[User:Gino March|Gino March]] ([[User talk:Gino March|talk]]) 12:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::So I learned that your report was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glenn23-408649&diff=prev&oldid=1287725579 copy-pasted] from an IP user called [[Special:Contributions/2001:4453:62B:4300:683B:15DC:A61D:20D7|2001:4453:62B:4300:683B:15DC:A61D:20D7]] (which is part of the long IP range of [[Special:Contributions/2001:4453:0:0:0:0:0:0/32|2001:4453:0:0:0:0:0:0/32]]) at Glenn23-408649's [[User talk:Glenn23-408649#Question please the revert of Gino March|talk page]], and I read the conversation has a poor grammar. -[[User:Gino March|Gino March]] ([[User talk:Gino March|talk]]) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::That's unfair manner. As stated in admin last time at your talk page, it seems that you'll engaging in a edit war and did you notice that some of the unexplained content removal without providing any additional evidences are also restored. Likewise per rule of [[MOS:TVINTL]]: {{tq|... do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that carried a series outside the country of production... Editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, if reliably sourced.}} So, why did you accordance of the message from Accireroj without any observation? Until now, you didn't response from any users can mentioned an important manner (especially me) and blanking without providing any neutral consensus as a reason. Although the [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] has been made to false me in a wrong attacks and significant threat as you didn't accepted, [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:ONUS]], and [[WP:BURDEN]] have applied as a violation of the rules (including your disruptive editing and behavioral patterns). <span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Icarus58|<span style="background:#327EE4; color:#A188FC; padding:2px;">✴️Icarus</span>]][[User talk:Icarus58|<span style="background:#A188FC; color:#327EE4; padding:2px;">The Astrologer✴️</span>]] </span> 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Note: I did it as copy-paste, but I paraphrased clearly to understand my grammatical correction as inclusion for your report. So that, if you didn't stop any repeatedly behavioral patterns and seeking any disputed content, you will entirely block indefinitely by the admin. Apologize as my confusion. <span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Icarus58|<span style="background:#327EE4; color:#A188FC; padding:2px;">✴️Icarus</span>]][[User talk:Icarus58|<span style="background:#A188FC; color:#327EE4; padding:2px;">The Astrologer✴️</span>]] </span> 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is no point in explaining all the issues to you over and over again because it doesn't make sense and it's very useless to communicate with you. You're only wasting your time reporting for nothing. Leave me alone! -[[User:Gino March|Gino March]] ([[User talk:Gino March|talk]]) 14:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Gino March|Gino March]], those evidences that you've violated repeatedly in accordance of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies must understand your actions carefully before you can respond this in a neutrality manner. This is not wasting my time for reporting for nothing and debatable, it is an opportunity to report you as a big mistakes and to resolve in a particular issue that you've dealt within your behavioral actions made afterwards for generating a clearer consensus. <span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Icarus58|<span style="background:#327EE4; color:#A188FC; padding:2px;">✴️Icarus</span>]][[User talk:Icarus58|<span style="background:#A188FC; color:#327EE4; padding:2px;">The Astrologer✴️</span>]] </span> 15:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_GMA_Network_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737909][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_ABS-CBN_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737934][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Heart_of_Asia_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=1286744450][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_TV5_(Philippine_TV_network)_acquired_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1286737958]) and all of the television drama series and other related Philppine TV channels were also unnecessary without providing any additional evidence in [[MOS:TVINTL]] as major content removal of these edits: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Ki_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1266184767][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_Sister&diff=prev&oldid=1266184887][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ngayon_at_Kailanman_(2018_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1265248193][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%27s_Up_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=1264757580][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Queen&diff=prev&oldid=1286764741][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTV_(Philippine_TV_network)&diff=prev&oldid=1286743489][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movie_Central_(Philippine_TV_channel)&diff=prev&oldid=1286740793]
<s>I went through all of the diffs:
The first 6 diffs (in my comment) are definitely against Wikipedia norms and policies. Redirects have to be discussed, they can't be put in place on an existing article. Also could be classified as edit warring.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Ki_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1266184767] This diff however is where it becomes interesting. The corrections to text are against Wikipedia policies but the removal of the very long list of ratings seems in line with [[MOS:TVINTL]]. The policy states that ratings should be summarized as much as possible and a long list of each year and how the ratings of said show fluctuated aren't really in line with MOS. This diff could definitely have been resolved on the article's talk page. <br>
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devil_Sister&diff=prev&oldid=1266184887&diffonly=1] In this diff, the citing of again [[MOS:TVINTL]] was wrong here. The content was already very short and a summary of what happened but I think we should extend a hand of good faith to this user and assume he understood the policy to be something different or just saw it as unnecessary waste.
As for the other diffs, they are disruptive and so I would support a TBAN (as I think they have the opportunity to become a valuable contributor) until the editor can get their act together (both editorially and behaviorally given this thread). [[User:LowerUpperCase|LowerUpperCase]] ([[User talk:LowerUpperCase|talk]]) 04:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)</s> <small>sockstrike. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
:Thank you for giving a consideration. The violation in terms of Gino's behavior is not communicate with other users and the warning issues decline. In case not to communicate the talk page articles itself is also an [[WP:ONUS]] guidelines. [[User:Icarus58|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to bottom,#D1C1F2 65%,#CEFAD0);color:white;text-shadow:0 0 3px black;font-weight:bold;padding:4px;">Icarus 🔭</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Icarus58|📖]] • [[User talk:Icarus58|✎]] 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
== User:Nathannah ==
{{atop|1=Forest missed for trees, forest relocated, racist OP blocked, time travel neither confirmed nor denied. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}
While disputing the reversion of an edit I made on [[Australian Natives' Association]], I was accused of "denialism", "white supremacy" and of being a "Nazi" by this user.
Further, this user felt it necessary to close the topic that I had raised on the article's talk page to allow for dispute resolution and further clarification. On top of this, several edits that I had made (that had remained for some months without issue) were all reverted by this same user.
While my area of editorial interest does pertain to controversial topics, I believe my edit was in line with Wikipedia policy and that the actions of this user represented a misuse of privileges.
Thusly, I have decided to raise it here so as to mitigate any further attempts at edit-warring. [[Special:Contributions/114.77.179.191|114.77.179.191]] ([[User talk:114.77.179.191|talk]]) 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:One warning and you're off to ANI? I expected just a general response on my talk page after my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Natives%27_Association&diff=prev&oldid=1288291112 warning on the talk page] so either you think you have a strong case against me for an IP, or more likely you've used another IP here before and know your way around noticeboards.
:Behavior suggests silent [[WP:RGW|righting of great wrongs]] from 114, including this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Days_in_Europa&diff=prev&oldid=1247250588 removal of content] questioning [[Days in Europa]]'s album cover, getting all up in arms because the [[Apollo]] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo&diff=prev&oldid=1230192624 mentioned LGBTQ+ themes and categories involving such], and using a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_First_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=1248567401 racist slur against a Muslim editor] on [[Community First Bank]] (and scared them off, which is highly egregious). However, this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swastika&diff=prev&oldid=1248025845 this alternative talkpage view of] [[Swastika]] without a read of an FAQ is undeniably revisionist, while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice&diff=prev&oldid=1249727866 this replacement] of the lead image in [[Justice]] of the [[Nuremberg trials]] with a generic image of a Justitia statue (as you can see, which there is no dearth of in the article with four others) highly suggested denialism.
:I strongly warned you in expectation that you would either cease those edits or discuss them on the talk page. Instead you've taken them here, and you have just pointlessly escalated something you can immediately stop by your hand and instead shone a large spotlight on your history. So before you continue, I strongly urge you one more time to stop and edit [[WP:N|neutrally and within our guidelines]]. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 01:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::I have raised this matter at ANI due to concerns over the conduct of Nathannah, whose actions appear to be focused more on questioning my personal beliefs than engaging with the content edits I’ve made in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
::Wikipedia’s core principles are clear: edits must be based on verifiable information and neutrality, not on personal or ideological motivations (see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:AGF). The content I’ve removed or modified, particularly in relation to the Australian Natives' Association article, has been made with a strict commitment to these principles. Specifically, I removed a line that sourced the GPAHE, a partisan advocacy group that does not meet the reliability standards set by Wikipedia. This edit was made to enhance neutrality and ensure that only reliable, verifiable sources are included. At no point did I remove properly sourced content or add unreliable material.
::It is concerning that Nathannah has prioritized assumptions about my personal views over the actual substance of my edits. The accusation that I am attempting to shield a “racist group” from criticism is a misrepresentation of my intent. My motivation in editing is to ensure that articles reflect reliable sources and adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality standards—not to defend any ideological position. This is a matter of following Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines, not advancing any personal viewpoint.
::Furthermore, Wikipedia explicitly disallows any edits motivated by ideological bias or personal beliefs (WP:NPOV). I urge that this be taken into account when reviewing Nathannah’s claims. The suggestion that my edits are driven by an ideological agenda is a misunderstanding of my actual practices. My aim is simply to maintain a neutral point of view, increase accessibility, and improve the article's accuracy; not to promote personal beliefs.
::Regarding the incident involving the insult, I recognize that I may have responded inappropriately to one edit made in a language that wasn't English. While I do not recall the specific interaction, I acknowledge that my response was uncivil. I regret the comment and apologize for any offense it caused. I will make a conscious effort to handle such situations with more patience and professionalism going forward.
::I strongly encourage all parties to focus on the merits of the content and the adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than on baseless and potentially erroneous assumptions about an editor's beliefs or motivations.[[Special:Contributions/114.77.179.191|114.77.179.191]] ([[User talk:114.77.179.191|talk]]) 03:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::...I'm just going to note that this makes my [[the lady doth protest too much, methinks]] senses tingle. The style and wording are the sort that are usually indicitive of an editor who isn't as innocent as they're claiming (as seen [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Response to Mischaracterization and Baseless Accusations|further up the page right now]] in fact). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::LLM-dash much? [[User:Aydoh8|Aydo]][[User talk:Aydoh8|h8]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aydoh8|[what have I done now?]]]</sup> 04:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I am trying to ensure my position is not misunderstood nor mischaracterized by writing as articulately as possible. Forgive me if it is too verbose. [[Special:Contributions/114.77.179.191|114.77.179.191]] ([[User talk:114.77.179.191|talk]]) 04:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::The problem is not that it's too verbose. It's that it's too robotic. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I didn't even register that. It just really struck me as having the same vibes as the comment I linked to (not saying they're the same editor at all, to be clear. Just absolutely the same feeling from them). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The comment is both too robotic ''and'' too verbose. The reason the edits have the same vibes may be that both come from the same LLM, rather than the same editor. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's a pity the IP didn't use AI for their edit summaries as well, they rarely come up with racial slurs even when prompted to do so. The IP user should be blocked per [[WP:BOOMERANG]], racist insults are not tolerated here and AI is as welcome as gonorrhoea. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 08:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The evidence presented by Nathannah is pretty damning regarding the clear POV editing around nazi stuff and the racist slurs against other editors are beyond the pale. Is an IP block going to be effective to deal with this disruption? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm assuming the 'racist slur in an edit summary' is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_First_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=1248567401 here]? That was eight months ago and, as this is an IP, it's uncertain if they're even the same editor. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have apologised for making the remark, and so we can be sure that they, or the AI they fed a prompt into, has accepted responsibility. All racial slurs should be treated equally, and we know that if they had used a more widely known slur, it would be an immediate ban.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 12:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not so sure now that this complaint was written by AI. Would any LLM have come up with an abomination like "thusly"? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I was going on vibes alone, but I've run it through gptzero just now and it's 100% confident. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, if an AI like gptzero says that it was written by AI then it must be right. I'm a mere human, so it's not my place to question it. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Frankly I'm not too comcerned whether the account POV pushing in a pro-Nazi fashion was using ChatGPT or not. The racist comments and POV pushing are rather more alarming. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::The IP should have been blocked for that racist slur right off the bat. [[User:King Lobclaw|King Lobclaw]] ([[User talk:King Lobclaw|talk]]) 12:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Funny how AN/I misses the forest for the trees sometimes. IP blocked 1 year. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 12:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Is there nobody who can block them quickly? It is clear they have used racist language, it being 8 months ago shouldn't make a difference.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 13:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Is negative 47 minutes later quick enough?{{FBDB}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 13:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Seems reasonable, but I'm not sure about the physics of it.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Whatever the physics or timey-whimey or whatever, a reasonable block, and the behavior of the IP was still right in the wheelhouse, Bushranger. They could've just stopped but tossed the boomerang at me and now have a year off. Thanks, Tazmin. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 21:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Rockawaypoint and Vikings ==
{{atop|{{noping2|Rockawaypoint}} is [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from Vikings, broadly construed, per community consensus. [[User:Sennecaster|<span style="color:#01847D">Sennecaster</span>]] ([[User talk:Sennecaster|<span style="color:#800A7C">Chat</span>]]) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Rockawaypoint}}
Nearly every edit by {{u|Rockawaypoint}} has been an attempt to [[WP:PUSH]] for the existence of a Viking colony in [[Cape Cod]], [[Massachusetts]], and also for those Cape Cod Vikings as the historical basis for the [[Vinland Sagas]].
In the past, some scholars had a similar view. They were limited largely to literary analysis. The first hard archaeological evidence for the Norse exploration of modern-day Canada was found in the 1960s. Perhaps because of this, Rockawaypoint has
* Replaced or added out of date sources.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1265097046][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1269313847][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&diff=1287255346&oldid=1287251622][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1264814200]
* Misrepresented the contents of more modern sources.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1265964573]<sup>[https://dai.mun.ca/pdfs/quarterly/TheNewfoundlandQuarterlyvolume84no2Fall1988.pdf ref]</sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vinland#c-Rockawaypoint-20250428033900-Rockawaypoint-20250428004100]<sup>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/48612649 ref]</sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vinland#c-Rockawaypoint-20250425173900-Simonm223-20250425161500]
* Cited content to sources with an opposite or unrelated conclusion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&diff=1288290456&oldid=1288223549]<sup>[https://www.academia.edu/72107450/II_36_Mental_Maps ref]</sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&diff=1288111604&oldid=1287700835]<sup>[https://archive.org/details/vikingsnorthatla00fitz/page/230/mode/1up?view=theater&q=straumfjord ref]</sup>
Despite multiple editors explaining how their reverted edits violate Wikipedia policies, Rockawaypoint personalized these disputes as problems with:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1266515259&diff=1266518316 Carlstak]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1266538797&diff=1266539119 Moxy]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1287354899&diff=1287357662 Simonm223]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norse_colonization_of_North_America/Archive_4#c-Rockawaypoint-20250108182900-Doug_Weller-20250108175000 Doug Weller]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1264518874&diff=1264582007 Mediatech492]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1267369744&diff=1267377499 Donald Albury]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1287709966&diff=1287712753 "The other editors"]
[[User talk:Rockawaypoint]] contains a variety of warnings, and the talk pages linked in diffs above contain extensive discussions about content. After a period of raising concerns on talk pages, they have begun a [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Rockawaypoint/0/Vinland slow motion edit-war] in the [[Vinland]] article.
In their most recent post to [[Talk:Vinland]], they state [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVinland&diff=1288366329&oldid=1288327553 'I will try once more to rewrite the lead to the article to better report the true state of the Vinland debate... NO resolution exists today, and New England theories are still valid. If the edit I make is quickly reverted again, it will be time for "dispute resolution."'] I am not sure what the best solution is, but this has become clearly disruptive, [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 05:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARockawaypoint&diff=1288368748&oldid=1288141055 notified] {{u|Rockawaypoint}}, but not the editors he has been in conflicts with, to avoid any appearance of [[WP:CANVASSING]]. If anybody reading this thinks they should be notified, feel free to do so. I just think it could easily come off as inappropriate for me to make that call, [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 05:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::Looks like this has been going on since December 2024, and they are adamant about their preferred version, despite consensus being against their preferred version. I don't know if dispute resolution is the best solution, but if the disruption continues, then a pblock should be considered as a reasonable solution.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm very involved with this [[WP:SPA]], so you might want to take my words with a grain of salat, but what I see is [[WP:Tendentious]] editing and [[WP:Bludgeoning]]. DRN won't work as I'm one of the main participants and am not going to waste more time debating with him. You can also see some of my warning on his talk page. He also created [[Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe]] purely to push his pov. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Also heavily involved here and, yeah, talking to Rockawaypoint about this issue is somewhat like talking to a brick wall. They're so convinced that their POV isn't being sufficiently represented in articles that they have become very combative in their communication style - a lot of bold text and underlines - and absolutely won't stop putting variants of "most scholars think l'Anse aux Meadows is too far north to be Vinland" in the lede of the Vinland article. They cherry-pick quotations and prefer referring to sources from the 1980s and previous and they have become quite short regarding the suggestion that, for instance, statements made by an archeologist in the 1980s is superseded by statements made by the same archeologist in 2019. I honestly don't know what to do with this editor. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Using bold text and underlining is simply 'emphasizing', not declaring war. And yes, Birgitta Wallace did write in 1986 that it was '''''"...impossible to equate northern Newfoundland with Vinland."''''' Many other researchers agreed with her 100%. Like Einar Haugen, Erik Wahlgren, Magnusson and Palsson, Carl O. Sauer, Stuart Brown, etc... But what makes it now "possible" to equate northern Newfoundland and L'Anse aux Meadows with Vinland?? Sorry, but Birgitta Wallace had it right in 1986, [see page 300, "The Norse Atlantic Saga", Gwyn Jones, 1986 edition]. The Vinland debate has been underway for over 180 years. Many of the 'older' sources are still valuable and worth being 'cited' today. Kirsten Seaver thought so too. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 22:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:Oh brother. I'd pblock from [[Vinland]] (which, for the record, ''does'' already quite clearly mention the New England theories) but it looks like this affects things far more broadly. Accordingly:
:'''Propose TBAN from "Vikings", broadly construed'''. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 09:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:The gist of my argument was that we need to make a clear distinction between sites supported by clear evidence (such as L'Anse au Meadows, and the Greenland colonies), and those sites (or alleged sites) with no confirmable evidence to support them. Rockawaypoint's position seems to be based mainly on the opinions of what he calls a "Consensus of Scholars". This steers us well into he area of [[WP: OR]]. Scholarly opinion does have its place, but it cannot be equated with documented facts. Sometimes we just have to admit that we do not know the answer to certain questions. [[User:Mediatech492|Mediatech492]] ([[User talk:Mediatech492|talk]]) 10:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::Is this meant to be a support or? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::Carl O. Sauer stood firmly behind the southern New England "school," and he is remembered today as the, - '''''"...dominant intellectual figure in twentieth century American Geography."''''' He believed "Leifsbudir" was in Buzzard's Bay, Massachusetts or farther west. See his 1968 book "Northern Mists" and then try to name a better judge of Vinland's most probable ___location, geographically speaking of course. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
'''Support''' per my comments above. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:''''Support''' lets see if they can edit in some other area in a positive manner. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 10:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
'''Support''' per my comments above. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' RockawayPoint has resumed editing [[Vinland]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinland&curid=32545&diff=1288417492&oldid=1288346870] - this edit is far better than their average although, again, it's very much from the "Vinland must be found through strict textual interpretation of the Sagas" POV. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I asked them if they were going to just edit and not comment here. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Good to see another editor has changed the first paragraph to remove the suggestion that Newfoundland is Vinland. The key sentence there now reads, - '''''"The name appears in the Vinland Sagas and describes a land beyond Greenland, Helluland, and Markland."''''' Great, that is neutral. Why did it take so long? [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 23:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
'''Support''' The editor's disruption has gone on long enough. Their alleged "consensus" of scholars is not a current state of consensus reached by said scholars, but an aggregation of comments made by the various commentators in a range stretching over the last half-century. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 14:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban from Vikings broadly construed. We do not need POV pushers whe refuse to accept consensus and insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson are highly respected today. I believe their book from 1965, "The Vinland Sagas" is still in print today. It is cited often, even today. On page eight they say that the "majority of scholars" had inclined to the view that Vinland was most probably in New England. They emphasis that point on page 42. This was AFTER the discovery at L'Anse aux Meadows had been taken into careful consideration. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::Do you plan on addressing your disruptive behavior, which is why you were brought to this noticeboard?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 23:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't agree that my behavior was "disruptive" at all. Many of the other editors were very uncivil, even rude to me. It's pretty clear that some of those editors are Canadian and are probably concerned that so many earlier academics placed Vinland in the USA. Vinland's ___location is still a major controversy, all by itself. But the cross-border tug-of-war has really made it worse. I've been tagged a 'problem' here, probably by people who hope to see Vinland always remain a Canadian 'possession'. But the evidence... all of it... points farther south. It's "in the literature," old and new. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 23:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Do not [[WP:ASPERSIONS|cast aspersions]] on the motivations of other editors. That's [[WP:NPA|not allowed]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh my! For the record, I am a U.S. citizen, and have spent a grand total of maybe two weeks in Canada, and I am not aware of any credible evidence that any Vikings reached any part of the United States. I think you need to apologize for that claim made without any evidence that editors are being swayed by American patriotism. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 00:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Anti-American, to be correct, but- - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I stand corrected. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What rubbish. Everyone knows that Canadians are descended from the Philistines [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE#t=2m33s]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::They are not. All Canadians know they are descended from [[Prince Madoc of Wales]]' sex-starved crew, no matter what our misinformed article says. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 15:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I had little interaction with Rockawaypoint, but they appear to be out to right great wrongs, and to be unwilling to engage with the community in a productive manner. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm more than willing to engage in a productive manner. Yes, I do feel strongly about certain things and I'm pretty sure something has been said about people NOT being 'out-of-line' for feeling that way about articles on Wikipedia. In the past twenty-four hours someone edited the first paragraph, and I'm very happy to see the change. If you don't think there is any credible evidence linking Vinland to New England, you are forgetting that the reports of wild grapes in the sagas are considered to be "evidence", and wild grapes do NOT grow in Newfoundland. Nor do butternuts. The butternuts found at L'Anse aux Meadows are taken today as "proof" the Norsemen reached an area were butternuts grow. They only grow inland in New Brunswick, not on the Atlantic coast. But they do grow near the coast in New England. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::ANI isn't a forum to argue content, it is concerned with editor conduct. Please address your conduct, we're not going to adjudicate content. You've already made inappropriate speculative accusations about people you assume are Canadian on this messageboard. Now is the time to stop digging a hole. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 02:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'd say my "conduct" has been extremely "civil", considering the "charges" leveled at me.
*:::I've been accused of using "out-of-date" sources, but now I've cited '''''Gisli Sigurdsson, 2018,''''' in a sentence that was deleted. He is the citation for the very next sentence that follows the deleted sentence, and it still 'survives.' It that is ironic. '''''Sigurdsson''''' is also plainly naming Cape Cod and "...a river in New England," as a possible answer to the Vinland problem. This is the kind of "current" up-to-date information I believe should be in the very lead of the article. I'm patient, and civil about it all. And will remain that way. I hope everyone else will too. Some very nasty things were directed my way. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 02:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::''What'' "very nasty things"? Your conviction that you've behaved with perfect propriety is at odds with the aspersions you cast farther up the page. A strongly held belief doesn't entitle you to deflect or ignore criticism. Civil criticism of your edits isn't a personal attack. This is a collaborative project. and I see little evidence of any willingness to collaborate. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 03:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I'm not ignoring the criticism, I'm dealing with it in a civil way. Did you notice earlier I had said I was happy to see the revision in the first paragraph? Isn't that evidence of a willingness to collaborate? [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{ping|Rockawaypoint}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288487404 this] is very much '''not''' {{tqq|dealing with it in a civil way}}. It's the exact opposite, in fact, and you need to strike those aspersions. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Looking at Bushranger's link, and being a ''native of southeastern Massachusetts,'' I'm fairly offended at the premise that one must be Canadian to find the Vinland = Cape Cod theory to be threadbare as hell. For what it's worth. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 13:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I find the butternut thing funny since I live north of New Brunswick, near the coast, and have a massive butternut tree in my yard. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Never mind that where butternuts can be found ''today'' have any bearing on where they may have been found a thousand freaking years ago. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 18:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I mean yeah. My tree is outside of its "native range" but butternuts are very hardy trees that, as long as they don't get diseased, will grow in basically any well-drained soil in North America, including Newfoundland. And European scholars often forget that east-coast forests were ''managed'' forests and the Mi'kmaw Confederacy, who did some forest management ''was in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick''. As such, notwithstanding my tree, I have a healthy skepticism for historians insisting there must have been no butternut wood available in Newfoundland 1000 years ago. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::This is not the place to discuss "content"', but since you just did, it's a good time to call your attention to this by Birgitta Wallace, - "The suggestion that the limit for butternut trees stretched farther north during the warmer temperatures of the 11th century (Perkins 2004:59) is probably unrealistic... A greater fluctuation then 2<sup>o</sup> C would be required for a significant change [in regions]." Journal of the North Atlantic, 2009, Vol. 2, page 125. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Tell that to my tree in my yard. Which actually sums up the actual POV difference between us. I prioritize material evidence over textual interpretation. That's it. No patriotism necessary. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::{{u|Simonm223}}, you likewise have a perspective on the issue here, it's a valuable one and could lead to some good content in the article, but i don't think some of your comments are very helpful. I see {{u|Moxy}} has pointed you towards [[Annette Kolodny]]'s ''In Search of First Contact'' and that would probably be useful. I think you should read carefully tho and pay attention in particular to the section in chapter 2 "Where Was Vinland, and Who Were the Skraelings". [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I have pointed out repeatedly at that article talk that reliable sources should supersede anyone's POV, certainly including my own. The main reason I have even discussed my personal POV to the extent I have there is because of Rockawaypoint mischaracterizing it as patriotism or fear Vinland might be in the United States. I explained that my POV was actually skepticism of the sagas as an historical source basically to set the record straight. I do not have objections to including work by Kolodny on the page; I have objections to giving priority to work from the 1980s and earlier as subsequent archeological work at l'Anse Aux Meadows has caused many archaeologists such as Wallace to change some of their perspectives. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::But Wallace's change of perspective and conclusion in "L’Anse aux Meadows, Leif Eriksson’s Home in Vinland" is the opposite of your skepticism: {{tq|This is a case where archaeology can be used to test the sagas. The Vinland sagas may contain a greater grain of reality than we thought...}} Anyway your perspective i was thinking of was that [[Talk:Vinland/Archives/2025/February#Interesting_source|you began here]] and it should be reflected in article content and Kolodny would probably help. Anyway i think i'm off to read read [[Farley Mowat]]'s ''Westviking'' and ''The Farfarers''; what a treasure as a storyteller he is and somehow i've neglected these two. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Agh. Mowat is seriously fringe. But if you read his article l you know that. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::The material evidence, - pollen analysis at L'Anse aux Meadows, showed no '''''"...traces of the Norsemen, no traces of either agriculture of any kind or of any exploitation of the arboreal <mark>vegetation</mark>."''''' "The Discovery of a Norse Settlement in America" Anne Stein Ingstad, 1977, page 316 [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::So, what happens now? I don't think the sources I've used can be disregarded or dismissed as out of date. [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 01:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::The purpose here is to deal with your behavior, not to decide what content goes into the article, a fact you've been steadfastly ignoring and have not addressed. [[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]] ([[User talk:Carlstak|talk]]) 01:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Also, this is the same type of continued misrepresentation of sources and usage of out of date sources, that is resulting in the string of reverted edits.
*:::::::::::::{{pb}}
*:::::::::::::What conclusion does that 1997 source come to? [https://archive.org/details/discoveryofnorse0000ings/page/12/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22Vinland+should+have+lain+on+Newfoundland%22 I arrived at the conclusion that it seemed likely that Vinland should have lain on Newfoundland. (Ingstad 1977, p. 12)"] The section {{u|Rockawaypoint}} quotes above is about a specific boring point "East of House F". So what does that section of the book conclude ''about'' Vinland? [https://archive.org/details/discoveryofnorse0000ings/page/295/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22certainly+deserving+of+the+name+Vinland%22 "this part of the country is certainly deserving of the name Vinland in the Old Norse sense of the term ''vin'' - meadow or grassland. (...) the Norsemen would have had no difficulty in finding 'wineberries' other than genuine grapes. (...) Thus the vegetation today does not render either of the two above interpretations of the name Vinland unlikely from a botanical point of view, (Ingstad 1977, p. 295)"] [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii|talk]]) 14:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::As Rockawaypoint has still not struck their aspersions above, they have been given a level 3 warning for not assuming good faith. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Isn't all this supposed to be on the Vinland 'talk' page?? But since RJJ has brought up Newfoundland again here it must be said that it is well established "in the literature" that Newfoundland has been rejected as "Wineland" by the larger academic community for many reasons. The "Pastureland" argument has also been thoroughly rejected, over and over again, by highly respected scholars such as Einar Haugen, Erik Wahlgren, Carl O. Sauer, Kirsten Seaver, Birgitta Wallace, etc... Trying to defend the "Pastureland" argument today reveals a lack of knowledge about the true state of the Vinland controversy. Helge Ingstad's efforts to convince people the "Pastureland" idea was correct fell flat with most academics. If you would like citations, they can be easily provided. So, who is really using out of date sources? [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 16:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::<small>Is there a [[WP:OWB]] about scare quotes? If there isn't, there should be. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
*:::::<small>There is [[MOS:BADEMPHASIS]] which expresses "disapprobation".</small> — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 03:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::<small>If it wasn't an unnecessary pile-on, I'd almost be inclined to support on the scare quotes alone, a practice for which my feelings run stronger than mere disapprobation. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 13:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
*::::::I feel that so-called "scare quotes" have been given a "bad rap". [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{u|EEng}}, are you speaking "tongue in cheek" again? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' topic ban broadly construed. I see no indication in this thread from their replies that they are going to change their behavior if they continue to edit in this area. All I've seen is more arguing about they are right, casting aspersions, and [[WP:IDHT]].[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 06:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. {{u|Rockawaypoint}}, taking a charitable reading of your comments I believe that you are on the correct side here with some aspects of the content. The article probably would have been improved by taking account of your perspective. But your approach is not collaborative and has no chance of convincing other editors. Supporting here to let you know that this is about behavior and not content. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 11:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think a topic ban is a good solution here. The editor is fairly new, has only been here 6 months but talk is full of disagreement. Perhaps Rockawaypoint doesn't realise that physical evidence always takes precedent over literary analysis in intellectual consensus. Either way relying on outdated sources and berating multi editors who are trying to fix the problem is not cool. {{ping|Rockawaypoint}} If your fixated on this, for example if it was a childhood book that affected you deeply, then you need to reconstruct yourself. I know when I came in here, I had a whole load of preconceived notions that were found to be bollocks and I abandoneded them in light of reality. You need to do the same. Hope that helps. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I will continue to place great faith in what Carl Sauer said about the Vinland debate/controversy, even though he has been dead since 1975. He was firmly in support of southern New England as the true ___location of Vinland. Look for his 1968 book "Northern Mists." He believed "Leifsbudir" was in Buzzards Bay or farther west. Then, in 2018 in his "Mental Maps" study Gisli Sigurdsson, respected Icelandic academic, names Cape Cod and "...some river mouth in New England" as a possible site described in the Vinland Sagas. So, the New England theories can be said to still be in the running. Your mention of the childhood book is interesting, considering that Carl Sauer is still remembered today as the "dominant intellectual figure in twentieth century American Geography." What will you be remembered for? [[User:Rockawaypoint|Rockawaypoint]] ([[User talk:Rockawaypoint|talk]]) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Can an admin please go ahead and impose this topic ban, or block this editor for continuing to cast aspersions. Asking someone what they will be remembered for, as if they have never contributed anything of value to society or their work or their family, etc. in what I believe is a snide and mocking manner, is totally uncalled for.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::Agreed, also for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288760944 this comment]. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 19:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== AfD war between BangladeshiEditorInSylhet and Somajyoti ==
*{{userlinks|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}
*{{userlinks|Somajyoti}}
There's currently an AfD war of sorts of articles related two Bangladesh going on between two editors, @[[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] and @[[User:Somajyoti|Somajyoti]] in which both nominate a mass of articles for deletion that the respective other editor has written or supports. Examples include: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Adarsha Shikkakh Federation|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student abuse at Islamic University, Kushtia|3]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhatra League's guest room practice|4]]
Both editors have broadly failed to explain why the sourcing situation warrants deletion of these articles, and generally resort to claims of lack of notability with zero source analysis, [[Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|claim that other articles on related topics don't exist]], or that other articles on related topics have also been deleted.
This should usually be resolved with on the respective AfD pages, but this concerns a large number of articles, and appears to be a personal feud more than an AfD issue. Nominating such a large number of articles while failing again and again to provide a proper rationale is disruptive. One of the editors, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, has also voted on their own nomination while obscuring their signature on (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FStudent_abuse_at_Islamic_University%2C_Kushtia&diff=1288426701&oldid=1288420659 here]) and in at least one case has then changed their signature again afterwards when this was pointed out by another editor (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2021_Sunamganj_violence&diff=1288445301&oldid=1288440574 here]).
This editor is also currently investigated for sockpuppetry (see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|here]]). While anyone can request such an investigation, I think this weighs heavier in light of their recent behaviour. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 19:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you, [[User:Cortador|Cortador]], for bringing this matter to the Administrators' noticeboard. I have observed that the behavior of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet has not been constructive. The AfD nominations by Somajyoti appear to be natural, whereas the subsequent AfD "war" initiated by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet seems retaliatory rather than organic. For this reason, I believe Somajyoti’s AfDs should remain open to allow for natural resolution, while the AfDs initiated by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet should be considered disruptive and treated as per [[WP:Vandalism]] by being closed. We can find the retaliatory nature of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet in a sockpuppet investigation. I initiated a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|sockpuppet investigation]] based on reasonable grounds. In response, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet filed a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Owais Al Qarni|counter-investigation]] against me, which was promptly closed by [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]. I am not certain whether these actions alone justify a block, but they do, in my opinion, constitute vandalism.–[[User:Owais Al Qarni|<span style="color:royalblue">𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢</span> <span style="color:red">ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ</span>]] 20:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::I nominated for deletion with valid reasons several articles created by [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] such as schools ([[Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College]], [[Bangladesh International School & College (Nirjhor)]], [[Nirjhor Cantonment Public School and College]], [[Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College]]) and parties ([[Bangladesh Popular Party]], [[Bangladesh Social Democratic Party]]). But shortly afterward [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] started writing nonsensical absurd things and created discussion pages in the Article for Deletion claiming that the good articles I created should be deleted making bizarre accusations, behaving strangely, <span style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;color:#16a085;border-bottom:1px solid #16a085;padding-bottom:1px;font-weight:500;">[[User:Somajyoti|Somajyoti]]</span> <span style="color:#2c3e50;font-size:90%;">[[User talk:Somajyoti|✉]]</span> 20:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Could you provide Diffs of said nonsense and claims "that the good articles I created should be deleted making bizarre accusations"? [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 21:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::No need to give diffs. If you go to the articles mentioned in my previous comment and check the discussion for article for deletion there, you’ll find my reasons written. Just look at a few random ones if you don’t want to go through many, and if you think the reason is “not good,” then mention that here. <span style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;color:#16a085;border-bottom:1px solid #16a085;padding-bottom:1px;font-weight:500;">[[User:Somajyoti|Somajyoti]]</span> <span style="color:#2c3e50;font-size:90%;">[[User talk:Somajyoti|✉]]</span> 21:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not asking because there is a need for them. I'm asking this because some people (such as myself) don't have the time to cut through the underbrush to find what it is you're talking about.
:::::That, and providing diffs and links to the intended comments will help in preventing misunderstanding, since I don't know exactly which examples you're trying to bring up. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 21:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you '''do''' need to give diffs. Notice the orange box at the top of the edit window. {{tqq|Also, please provide...explanatory diffs}}. Don't toss out an accusation without direct evidence. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ah, I thought that only applied to the original ANI post. Sorry. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ping|Shovel Shenanigans}} Remember, when you bring an issue here to the AN/I board, the onus is on you to show that there is in fact a reason for the admin corps to care about it. We admins dislike having to investigate issues in which claims are made but no evidence is provided, and since we are not bringing up the issue as far as most of us are concerned the absence of evidence is proof that we don’t need to concern ourselves with it right this exact second. Accordingly, every little thing you can do to show us that there is in fact a problem helps, and the gold standard for that is providing specific diffs that clearly and unmistakable demonstrate that not only is there an issue, but that attempts to resolve it have thus far been unsuccessful and therefore admin intervention is in fact needed. The more you can show that you’ve tried and failed, the more apt we are to move to help. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 02:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet has sent out apologies to two people involved ({{Diff2|1288485553|1}}, {{Diff2|1288485808|2}}) so I personally think no action is required for now. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] going forward; don't retaliate against valid/rationale AFDs/investigations relating to you by creating ones that do not have valid rationales and really are only there to 'get back' at the other person. I also have to urge them to not use different signatures as it is quite confusing and looks like another person replying; stick to one. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since they said they swap from their username to their real name from time to time ({{Diff2|1288445301|3}}). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, if you're feeling sad/angry from real life issues, I don't think you should be editing on a platform like Wikipedia to feel better, as it's a social platform and you'll inevitably have to interact with other users. I'd recommend just taking a break and reflecting on yourself. The mass AFD'ing with no valid rationales is disruptive though, and if this continues I feel like a temporary block from the process is warranted. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 03:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
* It looks like a feud. But it is actually not any feud or revenge afd war. I believe it was some misunderstanding. I want to indicate some incident and situation here. First, {{no ping|Somajyoti}} nominated [[Bangladesh Mosque Mission]] for AFD. The page creator was {{no ping|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}. The reason Somajyoti showed for AFD was "Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami" ([[Special:diff/1287679785]]). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet replied with "And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it" ([[Special:diff/1287753827]]). If I am not wrong, it was the first AFD of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's article by Somajyoti. You can clearly see that their relation was okay and not dramatic. Later Somajyoti nominated AFD for BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's another article. The reason showed was "A school in Dhaka. There is no point in writing an article like this because there is nothing special about this school" ([[Special:diff/1287681781]]). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's response was "Yeah funny, "there is nothing special", then why don't you add something special? hmm? Even just check, I'm not asking you to be a robot, I'm just telling you to check, and please explain how this is a valid argument and instead of saying "instead you should answer how this is...", aren't you also a Wikipedia contributor or are you only focused on AfDs?" ([[Special:diff/1287756077]]). It is clear that BangladeshiEditorInSylhet took it personally and Somajyoti failed to clarify his reason and communicate clearly (because as you know "nothing special about this school" doesn’t say us anything about notability of the subject). Then what BangladeshiEditorInSylhet did was proposed [[2017 textbooks criticism]] for deletion, page created by Somajyoti. Notice the reason he gave "Countless similar pages with reason and importance contradicting with author Somajyoti's view in discussions that also deserve to be deleted, it is also irrelevant and insignificant compared to other similar pages and subjects unless disproven" ([[Special:diff/1287945901]]). It is clear that the comment of Somajyoti was still on his mind and that maybe led him to propose 2017 textbooks criticism for deletion. I reverted and cancelled the proposal tag as the reason he showed doesn’t make sense. And then BangladeshiEditorInSylhet brought 2017 textbooks criticism to AFD ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 textbooks criticism]]). I think they both still have to learn more about Wikipedia world and onwiki interaction. Somajyoti maybe didn’t consider the ways he could deal these things effectively, and BangladeshiEditorInSylhet maybe took the incident personally that led him to this state. [[User:Mehedi Abedin|Mehedi Abedin]] 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*: Yes, Mehedi Abedin, first of all if there was any misunderstanding, i sent an apology/request to understand what happened, to Owais Al Qarni and Somajyoti, and about the AfDs, The first AfDs were done by Somajyoti now I didn't nominate his articles for revenge but after examining the pages, the exact argument he gave on those AfDs contradicted with his contributions (Read [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Mosque Mission|1]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh International School & College (Nirjhor)|2]] or more), and a sockpuppet investigation by Owais Al Qarni which provided no good evidence, names and who deleted a draft later is not proof, I already gave a full explanation on that page against his claim and I proved that I am not a sockpuppet, if i was too rude, please notify, And i was already angry because both I had lots of tasks to do and I had to go to [[Mymensingh Sadar Upazila|Mymensingh]] and come back the next day, which was already tiring and after these AfDs and Sockpuppet investigations popping up, and from prior experience, not many really supported me in discussions, if so, probably 1 or 2 but not enough, so after finishing my homework and assignments, I just argued for a long time and I may have made mistakes related to AfDs which I meant for [[Good faith]], i did not mean to be involved in disruptive editing, A temporary block is not needed, I'll try to calm myself down and read Wikipedia policies, after such AfDs and sockpuppet investigations in which you have to constantly be alert and responding even if you're in the right, I realized that I got too angry probably, if anyone knows how to deal with anger issues, please explain. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk🗣️]]) 12:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:: I'm also trying to fix my signature and the AfDs in which I put my previous signature, I am replacing with my current signature, such issues related to Signature will be solved. [[User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet]] ([[User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet|talk🗣️]]) 09:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
== Communication issues with Cullen328 ==
{{atop
| status = withdrawn
| result = by filer. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
This is my first time posting here, so I apolologise in advance if I have done anything incorrectly. I am also very anxious, given the issue in question.
I am raising the issue of @[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] repeatedly dismissing multiple people bringing to their attention that their communication style can come across as rude, defensive, dismisssive, and threatening. I want to be clear that I do not think Cullen is especially egregious, but after dismissing almost every complaint against their behaviour, there is a clear issue with communication and being unwilling to take feedback.
After seeing some issues in the responses user Valorrr had given at the Teahouse, I went to message them about it and saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valorrr/Archive_2#c-Cullen328-20250502073200-WP:Teahouse#Question_about_political_BLP a message] from Cullen. I felt the message was somewhat harsh, which would be counter productive, so I sent them a message on their talk page requesting that they are a little gentler with new users in the future. I thought this would be fine, but instead it somehow turned into a lecture with them getting defensive, and them telling me about their disabled wife and child, which was very confusing.
Looking at their talk page, I saw that users bringing up issues with Cullen's communication style, and them getting defensive about it, was a common pattern. I understand that written communication can easily be misunderstood in regards to tone, and hold no issues with a user than unitentionally comes across as aggressive. But I feel Cullen's consistant dismissmal of all concerns relating to their communication is an issue.
These are only from this year.
User @[[User:Wikitekt|Wikitekt]] said [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Wikitekt-20250411094300-Feedback they had felt threatened by Cullen's choice of words] and Cullen's repsonse was to say "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250411193700-Wikitekt-20250411193000 my comment was not threatening to you]" and to dismiss the users explanation that they were gently trying to give constructive feedback by saying "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250411182400-Wikitekt-20250411164500 I have received all of the feedback that I need from 331dot, an editor who actually understands what is going on]"
When user @[[User:Jersey Jan|Jersey Jan]] said that they had felt threatened by Cullen, Cullen was again defensive and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250412023100-Jersey_Jan-20250412010600 dismissed the matter].
When @[[User:Ghost writer's cat|Ghost writer's cat]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Ghost_writer's_cat-20250421080100-Cullen328-20250421073100 explained that they had felt personally attacked and that Cullen often came across as prioritising "having to be right" over civility], Cullen dismissed the idea they have done anything wrong and told the user to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#c-Cullen328-20250421082300-Ghost_writer's_cat-20250421080100 "Please take your energy and please do something useful"]
When @[[User:Chess|Chess]] told Cullen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_107#c-Chess-20250223235200-I_think_you_could've_handled_Tdkelley1_better that they had handled another user poorly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_107#c-Chess-20250224024700-Cullen328-20250224020500 also here] Cullen did not consider they had done anything wrong, and only said "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_107#c-Cullen328-20250224032300-Chess-20250224024700 I think that you are reading into my comments things that I did not say and did not intend]
All I want to come out of this is that Cullen328 begin to take feedback seriously rather than getting defensive, and make steps to improve communication with other users. [[user:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#70A67A">-- NotC</span><span style="color:#396340">hariza</span><span style="color:#0D2311">rd</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#0D2311">🗨</span>]]</sup> 08:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:In all of the interactions that {{u|Notcharizard}} points out, I carefully explained my perceptions of the disagreements and responded to every concern. I encourage people to read the entire discussions in context. Notcharizard responded to me telling them that my wife is disabled and one of my sons is disabled by comparing me to a racist spouting the [[I'm not racist, I have black friends]] cliché. I do not consider that tactic to be civil or productive. I am happy to hear from other editors. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 09:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:If you truly meant that last line, you wouldn't be posting about this ''at ANI''. Users who have...let's say 'unfortunate encounters' with an admin have a poor opinion of that admin. Details at eleven. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean. [[user:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#70A67A">-- NotC</span><span style="color:#396340">hariza</span><span style="color:#0D2311">rd</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#0D2311">🗨</span>]]</sup> 09:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I mean if you only wanted them {{tqq|to take feedback seriously rather than getting defensive, and make steps to improve communication with other users}}, you wouldn't open a ''lengthy'' report on the biggest drama board on the project where you take chronic problem editors to be sanctioned. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see - thank you for explaining. I am being honest about my intentions, there are sincerly no tricks or attempts at drama on my part - I am only wanting help. After looking at the different boards, I thought this was the best option based on the descriptions given. As I said, I have never used ANI before, and did not thing of it as a "drama board". I just wanted other voices and assistance in the matter in the discussion as my own messages to Cullen were not getting anywhere. [[user:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#70A67A">-- NotC</span><span style="color:#396340">hariza</span><span style="color:#0D2311">rd</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#0D2311">🗨</span>]]</sup> 09:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I believe that the fact that I responded repeatedly and politely and at length in each of the conversations that Notcharizard linked to is evidence that I do take feedback seriously. I am not perfect but I try my best. As an administrator, my goal is always to facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia, and sometimes that includes unpleasant conversations with various people. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at each of these, especially my commentary on the behavior of Valorrr, since that is the fresh situation. I feel strongly that basic competence is required of Teahouse hosts. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Notcharizard|Notcharizard]], Valorrr has been warned several times to learn more about wikipedia editing before they try admin-adjacent roles or helping other editors. They're also clearly weaponizing disability justice vocabulary here. Really quite extraordinary to say that the word "competence" is an ableist slur. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Having looked into this - yeah, Notcharizard, the post you originally posted about on Valorrr's page is a nothingburger. It's something any admin would have said. It's ''milder'' than things many admins would have said. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*I think we would need a very good deal more cause to consider taking to task an admin who regularly bends over backwards to engage with editors, and who "takes communication seriously" well beyond the point where most would just throw up their hands. Cullen is essentially AGF on legs, but unsurprisingly even he has a bullshit threshold. These complaints seem baseless. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 10:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*Reopening this, which was previously closed by a non-admin closer within two hours of the discussion being opened. Don't do this, folks. How are editors supposed to express concerns with administrators if we shut them down as soon as they're begun? {{u|Notcharizard}}, if you'd like to ''withdraw'' this discussion, we can close it. I won't make a recommendation either way, but you may be about to find out why others think of ANI as the "drama board". -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]] thank you for this, i appreciate you not dismissing me. i would like to withdraw, and i appreciate you giving me the choice. [[user:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#70A67A">-- NotC</span><span style="color:#396340">hariza</span><span style="color:#0D2311">rd</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Notcharizard|<span style="color:#0D2311">🗨</span>]]</sup> 06:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*As this has been reopened I'll say what I typed in earlier but was pre-empted from posting by the close. I have always found Cullen to be a delight to work with. I remember once that he said something that could have been interpreted as a very mild admonishment of me. I thought about it and came to the conculsion that I deserved a much stronger admonishment. I find nothing in the original post or his talk page that changes my opinion of him. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
* Any active admin's talk page is going to be filled with complaints about their decisions; it's the nature of the job. An admin active on ANI, as Cullen has been for a long time now, is going to attract that much more ire. An essential quality of any active editor on Wikipedia is a thick skin, and a lot of them don't have that. For my part, I know Cullen to be an incredibly dedicated admin, and how in the blazes he keeps his cool as much as he does on this drama board is a mystery to me. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Part 3 ==
{{Userlinks|Newsjunkie}}
This is the third report that is going to be made on this user. Clearly, she is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. After getting involved in these reports from @[[User:Butlerblog|Butlerblog]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Disruptive_editing_and_slow_edit_warring_against_consensus], and @[[User:Wound theology|Wound theology]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Renewed_edit_war], and filing a false unsigned report against me[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Claiming_consensus_when_there_are_only_two_involved_and_personal_attacks], she has not changed her behavior or her editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Official_website/Amazon_release_info_as_Link/References_at_Thomas_&_Friends]. She continues to edit war and mainly mess up with references, including adding unreliable references (one from a pirated YouTube channel)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunnyside,_Queens&curid=1796865&diff=1288629031&oldid=1288595418], and when complained about it, will [[WP:BLUDGEON]] the talk page discussion with [[WP:WALLSOFTEXT]], or edit war to her preferred version with all of the unreliable sources. She's not going to change her behavior. Those page blocks are not enough. Given her continued pattern to add unreliable sources, [[WP:REFCLUTTER|WP:REFCLUTTERING]], and bludgeoning when complained about, even when getting blocked from 3 pages, a sitewide block is requested. [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:I just replaced the Youtube link in question to an authorized source. MoviesAnywhere is owned by movie companies and you can only view the clips in question if you buy the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunnyside,_Queens&diff=next&oldid=1288629031 In the recent case I started a discussion and have not done any edits since and have made arguments based on Wikipedia policy. I believe the user above is making it personal and is somewhat intentionally following my edits on different pages as they have also been warned about. Also the issue with the Amazon reference is not that is unreliable or unverified, as the discussion has showed, but a question of notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NacreousPuma855#c-Butlerblog-20250427132900-(Hopefully)_helpful_advice [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 23:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:HOUNDING]] "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, '''or correcting related problems on multiple articles'''." I have been trying to correct their problems, however given their history, it is clear that they haven't learned from their past behavior. [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 23:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::When I did a Request for Comment related to a CBS page, the user above also clearly posted the insubstantial/ unhelpful comment "this is how you got blocked from the main article in the first place. It’s over and done with now." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS#c-NacreousPuma855-20250426235300-Newsjunkie-20250426172100 [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 23:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::The comment was based on their previous edits to [[WP:OWN]] the article, given their block log, it was the exact same changes that caused them to get blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&diff=1284132515&oldid=1284131139]. I'm not a bad guy, I'm just looking out for certain pages, though I do get confused sometimes when I have a disability. [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 23:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::It was a helpful comment. You just don't realize it. This sort of behavior is {{em|exactly}} how you got blocked. [[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 10:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, I didn't think it was helpful to that particular discussion in the moment. But clearly, at this point there is a pattern here that is not changing. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 12:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Let's close off this portion as socks and discussion about the socks. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 06:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}
{{hat|Obvious socking}}
:'''Oppose''' - Stop being so [[WP:BITEY]] and just calm down. She is here to build an encyclopedia. You are violating so many Wikipedia policies that you should be banned. [[User:SoundsLikeBITW|SoundsLikeBITW]] ([[User talk:SoundsLikeBITW|talk]]) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Strong oppose''' - You have no idea what your talking about. I know her in real life, shes a good friend and works collabritevly. [[User:CyclingDemocraticEncyclopedia|CyclingDemocraticEncyclopedia]] ([[User talk:CyclingDemocraticEncyclopedia|talk]]) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Strong oppose''' - This is [[WP:HARRASSEMENT]]. Support per the two users above. [[User:LawcraticWong|LawcraticWong]] ([[User talk:LawcraticWong|talk]]) 19:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - You have no idea what your saying. Please stop harassing her. Your a man, you should know better. [[User:Extracommissary|Extracommissary]] ([[User talk:Extracommissary|talk]]) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Those four accounts that are opposing are sockpuppets and possibly AI bots. [[User:NacreousPuma855|NacreousPuma855]] ([[User talk:NacreousPuma855|talk]]) 19:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Strong oppose''' - Not only do you violate nearly every single policy in the book, but then you harass an innocent woman. Can you not get any worse? [[User:LangramCommunion|LangramCommunion]] ([[User talk:LangramCommunion|talk]]) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:<del>{{Non-admin comment}} Hmm... Five accounts.. all created today... all who's first edit are these replies... [[WP:DUCK|I wonder who this could be?????]]</del> [[User:Worgisbor|<span style="color:purple;">'''Worgisbor'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Worgisbor|congregate]])</small> 19:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::Did not think we had a [[Joe job]] on our hands. [[User:Worgisbor|<span style="color:purple;">'''Worgisbor'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Worgisbor|congregate]])</small> 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:<s>Support</s> NOTHERE indef. I couldn’t be more blatant in sockpuppeting if I even tried. [[User:EF5|EF5]] ([[User talk:EF5|talk]]) 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I did not make these accounts! I don't know the person. I am open to a checkuser investigation to investigate this. I believe I am being set up. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::See the TzarN64 ANI further down on this page. The exact same thing happened and those sockpuppets weren't found to be hers (or well, they likely weren't, as established by a CheckUser). I'm not convinced that these sockpuppets are Newsjunkie's but rather someone else entirely. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 19:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::Ignore the sockpuppets. Probably a [[Joe job]]. Make a judgment absent the puppets. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I see. Horrible time for me to go on mobile, disregard my vote. I’ll take a second look in about ten minutes. [[User:EF5|EF5]] ([[User talk:EF5|talk]]) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Dear God, the exact thing happening below also happened at the TzarN64 ANI (several new accounts being made solely for the purposes of disrupting the discussion). Initially, those were suspected to be her sockpuppets, but then it was found to likely be a [[Joe job]]. Now I'm suspecting that this is a flat out disruption attack on ANI as a whole by someone that isn't Tzar nor Newsjunkie. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I did not make these accounts! I don't know the person. I am open to a checkuser investigation to investigate this. I believe I am being set up. [[User:Newsjunkie|newsjunkie]] ([[User talk:Newsjunkie|talk]]) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Checkuser requested. I'm pretty sure that you had nothing to do with the sockpuppets. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The investigation is under [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TzarN64]], though TzarN64 is probably not involved. That's just where all the accounts are currently. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== More of a non-responsive LTA (May 2025) ==
{{IP|45.49.236.6}} is the LTA previously described in these reports:
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#64.189.18.X%2C timewasting and serial disruption|Sep 2024]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#64.189.18.X resumption after 1-month timeout|Oct 2024]]
*: {{IP|64.189.18.0/24}}
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Return of disruptive serial comma%2FAmerican English LTA|Feb 2025]]
*: {{IP|172.102.80.174}}
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#Continued presence of non-responsive LTA|Mar 2025]]
*: {{IP|2603:8002:BF0:14A0::/64}}
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#More of a non-responsive LTA (Apr 2025)|Apr 2025]]
*: {{IP|76.33.223.20}}
*: {{IP|45.49.236.6}}
Their behavior is identical to that briefly summarized in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Return of disruptive serial comma%2FAmerican English LTA|Feb 2025]] report. They were most recently blocked on this IP for 1 week, with several prior blocks having been performed by [[User:Star Mississippi]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Some diffs of continued behavior as stated in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Return of disruptive serial comma%2FAmerican English LTA|Feb 2025]] report:
:*{{tq|"Serial comma militancy"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lake_Erie&diff=prev&oldid=1288505668][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=1288507346][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Red_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=1288644731]
:*{{tq|"Pigheaded insistence on the use of American English regardless of context"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raid_on_Port_Dover&diff=prev&oldid=1288508371][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Droege&diff=prev&oldid=1288644594]
:*{{tq|"Indiscriminate, arbitrary removal of maintenance tags"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Colt_AR-15_and_M16_rifle_variants&diff=prev&oldid=1288495824][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lake_Erie&diff=prev&oldid=1288505668][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fullerton,_California&diff=prev&oldid=1288507904]
:[[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 10:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I forget these things aren't instant recall for others upon comparing contribution histories. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 10:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::of course, and if anyone is keeping track then may as well add that {{user|45.49.246.117}} appears to have been the same lta, active from from 2024-12-10 to 2025-01-07. [[Special:Contributions/fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four]] ([[User talk:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four|talk]]) 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::If either of you have a moment and want to save a responding admin some time, it would be helpful to list the specific IPs involved and the date ranges of the disruption for each. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 15:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Oh, good call. I've grafted a fuller list into my original post. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
== Editor intimidation and gatekeeping over West Side (San Francisco) article ==
*{{userlinks|Scope creep}}
*{{articlelinks|West Side (San Francisco)}}
I'm reporting a pattern of aggressive and unilateral editing from [[User:Scope creep]] regarding the [[West Side (San Francisco)]] article. The article was moved to draft without discussion and over my objection, which violates WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I moved it back per policy.
Since then, the editor has:
Repeatedly removed large portions of content (historical timelines, geographic listings, school names) as “unsourced” despite most of it being either verifiable or WP:BLUE-compliant.
Made misleading accusations that the article was “machine generated”
Issued warnings threatening to take me to ANI if I restore content they personally deem unworthy
This behavior feels like WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's interfering with collaborative editing. I'm happy to discuss article content on the Talk page and improve sourcing—but this editor's intimidation is preventing fair development of the article.
I’m requesting neutral admin attention and oversight to ensure policy is being followed.
I spent months developing this article in my sandbox before publishing. It was carefully written, well-sourced, and created in good faith. It does not deserve to be gutted based on exaggerated or false allegations by a single editor acting without consensus.[[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Content that does not have an inline citation may be removed by anyone, at any time, without discussion or notification. Looking at their edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_%28San_Francisco%29&diff=1288461700&oldid=1288432603 here] I don't see any referenced content being removed. Directly threatening to take you to ANI over unsourced content is not on, and I can't opine on whether it is in fact human or machine generated, but the {{tqq|[removal of] large portions of content}} is entirely within policy and reasonable. Once it's removed in good faith as unsourced (which it was) restoring it ''requires'' the use of inline citations. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for the response. I’d like to clarify a few important points.
::While I understand that any content without an inline citation may technically be removed, Wikipedia’s own guideline at WP:BLUE provides an important exception: “Uncontroversial knowledge, especially when easily verifiable by checking other Wikipedia articles or common sources, does not require inline citations.”
::The sections that were removed included:
::A historical timeline based on well-documented events (similar in structure to the one found at [[Presidio of San Francisco]] which also lacks inline citations for most historical entries)
::A listing of public schools located in the neighborhoods discussed
::A geographic breakdown of neighborhoods commonly referred to as the "West Side"—information that is supported by several citations already present in other sections and clearly aligns with how sources define the region
::These removals were not about removing contentious, unsourced claims—they involved basic civic and geographic facts that are both non-controversial and verifiable.
::I understand and support the need for verifiability. That’s why the article already includes a number of high-quality citations. But requiring an inline citation after every sentence, even those making uncontroversial and well established factual statements goes against both the spirit and letter of WP:BLUE.
::Finally, I agree that threatening to escalate to ANI over content that is clearly being discussed in good faith is inappropriate and discourages collaboration. I welcome further editorial discussion on the article's talk page and am happy to add inline citations where truly necessary, but I don’t believe wholesale removal of non controversial information was appropriate. [[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 06:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::As a point of comparison, the article on the [[Westside (Los Angeles County)]] follows a nearly identical structure and intent to my article on West Side (San Francisco). It outlines a loosely defined region, lists neighborhoods commonly associated with it, and provides general geographic and civic context—without requiring inline citations after each neighborhood or point. The sourcing expectations being applied to my article seem to go beyond what is expected of similar articles, and the uneven enforcement of citation standards here feels both arbitrary and unfair. [[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 06:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I see your still complaining about standard processes. Your [[Westside (Los Angeles County)]] article is much better sourced and it not an identical structure. You can't have new mainspace articles that is 50-60% unsourced and then complain about when its drafted. You took the decision to move it back to mainspace not me. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 09:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::WP:BLUE is an essay, while [[WP:V]] is policy, which is pretty clear - All content must be verifiable. '''The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and it is satisfied by providing an [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you choose not to fulfill that requirement, then unsourced content can be removed by any editor.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:BLUE]] is concerned with things that are obvious to everyone, not just those who live in or near San Francisco. I, along with most other readers, had not heard of West Side in San Francisco (or indeed most other districts of that city) before. We are the people you are writing for, not those who already know the subject inside-out. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::The article was reviewed as part of a [[WP:NPP]] sprint thats on the moment. I forget to click on it. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 09:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I just read that [[WP:BLUE]]. I'd not seen it. Its highly subjective and gives bad advice to any new editor who is just scanning it. It needs to be rewritten or deleted. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 10:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I want to respond briefly to a few points that seem to be getting lost in this discussion.
:::::::The West Side (San Francisco) article was developed in good faith over a period of months, based on reliable sources, with the goal of documenting a region of the city that (while loosely defined) is widely referenced in civic, journalistic, and academic contexts. The article includes citations that support the basic definition of the west Side and references to the neighborhoods commonly included in that classification.
:::::::A major point of contention appears to be the historic timeline. The information in that section includes events like the Spanish-American War, the founding of SF State, the founding of Golden Gate Park, and the opening of institutions that have been in operation for over a century. These are not obscure claims, they are well established historic facts. There is no reasonable expectation that every date or event in such a timeline should be accompanied by an inline citation. Articles like [[Presidio of San Francisco]] (which i did not create and have nothing to do with) and many others on Wikipedia contain timelines of historical milestones with no inline citations because they are summarizing general knowledge, not introducing novel claims.
:::::::If someone wants to challenge the inclusion of a specific item, I’m open to providing sources or trimming where appropriate. But wholesale removal of non controversial information without even a talk page discussion is not reasonable, and certainly not necessary to satisfy WP:V.
:::::::Frankly, this is nitpicking at its finest... If the article were asserting a controversial political position, or inventing new definitions, I could understand the level of scrutiny. But this is a regional overview backed by NUMEROUS citations up front and internally linked references. The neighborhoods, institutions, and landmarks mentioned align with what’s cited in the body, and with how other Wikipedia articles describe the same areas.
:::::::The expectation that every item on a regional or historical list (no matter how obvious) must be followed by an inline citation seems to be selectively applied and inconsistent with how other ___location based articles are treated. If there's a consensus here that certain parts need more sourcing, I’ll address it, but let’s not treat general civic or historical facts as though they’re controversial theories requiring a footnote per sentence. [[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We are talking about ''this'' article. We can't clean up the whole of Wikipedia here. Stop trying to be consistent. If we were to be consistent all the time then we would have to edit millions of articles at the same time. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_(San_Francisco)&oldid=1288432603#Historical_Timeline unsourced timeline]. I see at least a dozen entries on that timeline that I don't know about and certainly don't consider "well established historic facts", and I would expect an inline citation to verify those facts. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia read by an international audience, that may not be aware of those ''well established historic facts''. If there are citations in the body of the article that can be used, then use named refs, and put inline citations to the timeline.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I also wanted to add that sometimes when I am creating a new article, I have looked at other similar articles for structure/style/layout ideas, but if that said article was lacking sources or inline citations, I didn't take that as a cue that I could do the same, and not use inline citations.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm starting to get hints of a [[WP:CIR]] issue here. I thought this was simple case. Every sentence on Wikipedia in mainspace needs a reference per long established consensus. There is no argument under any circumstances that negates that consensus at time. That is our core function to reference information so its verifiable. Building an argument on some indeterminate state of the project is a falsehood. Your effectively advocating for editor control of the content your writing, essentially deciding what is what. That is [[WP:OR]]. Your deciding what is need referenced and what doesn't. There is no cogent argument there. You need to careful here. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I’ve already said I’ll add inline citations where needed. That doesn’t justify blanking entire sections including historically well established events like the creation of Golden Gate Park or the Mexican-American War without even distinguishing between what’s verifiable and what’s not. That’s not collaborative editing, it’s overreach.
:::::::::::Claiming that inconsistent application of citation standards is acceptable because “we can’t edit everything” is exactly the problem here. I’m being held to a stricter standard than multiple other regional articles that use similar structure and tone including Westside (Los Angeles County) and Presidio of San Francisco, and no one wants to acknowledge that. That’s selective enforcement.
:::::::::::And to ScopeCreep specifically: vague threats like “you need to [be] careful” and tossing around WP:CIR are is not just inappropriate, it crosses the line into intimidation. That kind of rhetoric has no place on Wikipedia and reflects the exact problem here: one editor instigating conflict, acting as gatekeeper, and then using threats to discourage further participation. I’ve followed process and cited policy every step of the way. I won’t be bullied off the project because someone doesn’t like having their actions questioned. [[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 18:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|I’ve already said I’ll add inline citations where needed.}}
::::::::::::They are needed wherever unsourced content has been challenged and removed, so please go ahead and do that. If you want to start a wider discussion about 'inconsistent applications of citation standards', then please free to initiate that discussion elsewhere, as ANI is not the place for that discussion. This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and in my view, you have failed to demonstrate that any sanctions are warranted for the behavioral issues that you have raised.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 19:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Understood. I will move forward with improving the article, including adding inline citations where appropriate. I'm not resisting that step.
:::::::::::::That said, I want to make it clear that the issue I brought to ANI was not just about the citation standards or content removal. It was about the behavior of ScopeCreep, who has continued to escalate inside this very thread, most notably with a veiled “be careful” comment and the invocation of WP:CIR to suggest incompetence. That’s not collaborative editing, and it’s not appropriate conduct especially on a noticeboard meant to address behavioral concerns.
:::::::::::::I respect that you may not view this as sanctionable behavior, but I disagree that it should be brushed aside. ScopeCreep has shown zero interest in engaging constructively, and his tone toward me has been arrogant, hostile, and personally targeted from the start. If this is considered acceptable editor behavior within dispute resolution forums, then that’s a separate issue worth discussing.
:::::::::::::Regardless, I’ll continue working to improve the article. But the conduct I’ve experienced throughout this process should not be normalized. [[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 19:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::ScopeCreep is not always right (that is an impossible standard), but in this instance he is. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well, ''almost'' impossible -- see [[User:EEng#correct]]. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Scopecreep's editing here is pretty clearly in violation of [[WP:V]] ''as a whole''. Removing non-controversial material because it doesn't have an inline citation isn't how it's supposed to work.
:::::::::::"Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source '''depends on the material and the overall state of the article.''' Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added" (my emphasis). And "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 21:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Leaving aside everything else here, I'd like to note two things. {{tqq|Wikipedia’s own guideline at WP:BLUE provides an important exception: “Uncontroversial knowledge...does not require inline citations.”}} Once material is challenged and removed for being uncited, it's no longer uncontroversial. Also, several of Goldrock95's replies in this thread carry the hallmarks of [[WP:LLM]] use. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::If calling someone a robot is your rebuttal you’ve already lost the argument. [[User:Goldrock95|Goldrock95]] ([[User talk:Goldrock95|talk]]) 23:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Saying "you've already lost the argument" is the last resort of somebody who's lost an argument. Also I wasn't rebuttal-ing you. I was pointing out the simple fact that you have been blatantly using LLMs to communicate here, which is seriously frowned upon. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
: The article is almost entirely synthesis and should probably be deleted at [[WP:AFD]]. The appeals to how much effort you have put in are not an argument to keep this article. I'm not sure the draftification was appropriate, but it has been un-done; continuing to argue about it here is simply a distraction from the multiple severe problems with this newly-created article by a new editor. [[Special:Contributions/217.180.228.155|217.180.228.155]] ([[User talk:217.180.228.155|talk]]) 00:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see how scope_creep violated [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]]. Articles can be boldly moved to draftspace without prior discussion, and editors can object to that move and return it to mainspace. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 21:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I think this section should be closed, we don't need more meta-conversations/discussions about the article. Please discuss the article on its talkpage. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 14:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
== User:MILAN2875285275 has been repeatedly pushing unsourced viewpoints that are disruptive ==
This report is about {{Userlinks|MILAN2875285275}}
When going through all of their main space edits we see the following:
===[[Battle of Radwan 1828]]===
This page was created by them and is based on only one questionable source (yazidis.info) that is too close to the subject and also doesn't even exist anymore. This and other reasons like a very POV language and controversial statements have led me to start a deletion discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Radwan 1828|here]].
The event probably never even happened and the article accuses Kurds of many crimes against Yazidis.
This article was also moved to main space by them even though it was rejected 4 times. (see their talk page)
===[[Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914]]===
This article was created by them too and has also been nominated for deletion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914|here]] because it is based on only one questionable source and questions the Armenian genocide while favoring the Ottomans.
This article was also moved to main space by them even though it was rejected 2 times. (see their talk page)
===[[Battle of Sharfadin Temple]]===
Here they've changed the narrative from a Kurdish victory to a Yazidi victory multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1288633795 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1288031564 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1287348918 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sharfadin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1287331857 here] contrary to what the sources say.
They discredit the Kurdish forces (Peshmerga) and claim that the local Yazidis actually won the conflict.
===[[Adi ibn Musafir]]===
Here they tried to change the subject of the article from Sunni Islam to Yazidism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_ibn_Musafir&diff=prev&oldid=1287373487 see here]
===[[Yazdânism]]===
Here they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yazd%C3%A2nism&diff=prev&oldid=1288658219 draftified] an article made in 2006 for some reason although I'm not sure whether this is due to their "Yazidi supremacist" standpoints seen in the other edits or just a coincidence since the article seems to have some issues and mentions Yazidis.
Overall I feel like they're not here to build an encyclopedia but are instead trying to promote their unsourced or even made up viewpoints. Most of their edits seem disruptive.
[[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]] ([[User talk:Laura240406|talk]]) 05:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]], when you see someone editing in a contentious topic, disruptively or otherwise, it's really helpful if you can check if they've already received contentious topics notices. If they haven't, please hand them out. I haven't looked into the actual edits here, but I've just given out the two relevant CTOP warnings. Also, I note that they've tried to remove the AfD notice from [[Battle of Radwan 1828]] (but were stopped by the edit filter). @[[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]], pinging you in because I see you've dealt with this editor once already. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 15:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:I discovered this via the AfDs. It doesn't look good. There have also been suspicions of sock/meat puppetry [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali|here]]. The SPIs didn't find any technical proof but I'd be amazed if there wasn't something fishy going on here beyond mere POV. Even if there isn't, the POV is bad enough. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
== Chetsford Lying. ==
{{atop
| status = content dispute
| result = other editors of lying when they simply disagree with you is going to ''become'' a conduct dispute if you keep it up. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 07:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
Hello,
@[[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] has lied several times about sources being cited in [[Draft:Christopher Mellon]] and its [[Draft talk:Christopher Mellon|talk page]].
Recently, @[[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] made AfD nomination on the [https://archive.ph/mwthk original Christopher Mellon article]. The article was deleted.
I [[Draft:Christopher Mellon|redrafted the article]], and it was rejected by @[[User:BuySomeApples|BuySomeApples]]. Nevertheless, I solicited BuySomeApples' help, and we put in a bunch of work to vet suitable sources to satisfy [[Wikipedia:SIGCOV]]. Throughout this process, Chetsford was commenting on our drafting and sources (and in some cases [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288276727&oldid=1288229029 actively lying] about whether sources had been used in the previously deleted version).
Based on a reference in my re-drafting efforts, I suspect Chetsford then put in an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sol Foundation|AfD nomination for The Sol Foundation]]. I suggested that this article should be '''kept''' in the AfD discussion, and I believe this attracted the attention of @[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]].
Very Polite Person then asked if he could help with the drafting of the Mellon article, and I agreed. They [[Draft:Christopher Mellon|redrafted and submitted the article]] in a day.
Chetsford then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288537313&oldid=1288512298 commented on the draft], suggesting that it should be rejected on the basis of "SIGCOV problems." He listed out 9 sources that he deemed to have these problems.
Very Polite Person's redraft was met with a rejection from @[[User:Bonadea|Bonadea]], with a justification of "Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome."
In response to this, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288635827 written a rather large comment] documenting Chetsford's mendacity in his "source evaluation." Here is the part that details his mendacity:
Regardling "Chetsford's source evaluation" of the recently submitted draft, here are the '''falsehoods''' that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288537313&oldid=1288512298 he wrote] in '''bold''', with my refutations in plain text:
'''"7. [https://www.space.com/ufo-report-military-dod-to-congress-next-month Article] is about flying saucers; Mellon is briefly quoted in it speaking about flying saucers - [[WP:SIGCOV]] "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV''' This article never once mentions "flying saucers," nor is Mellon "briefly quoted in it speaking about flying saucers." The article details Mellon's past positions in presidential administrations, and how Mellon gave declassified Navy UFO videos to the New York Times, resulting in their "blockbuster story" about the [[Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program]]. It also describes his "60 Minutes" interview and includes his assertion that UAPs are a national security issue. This is significant, reliable, independent coverage of a high-profile individual in the UAP disclosure movement.
'''9. 12 page [https://web.archive.org/web/20250503002342/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596867.pdf article] on a piece of legislation mentions Mellon once ("Christopher Mellon, Cohen’s staffer, later said: [quote]") - [[WP:SIGCOV]] "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV''' This is demonstrably false. Mellon is mentioned three times, but even if that weren't the case, one mention would still evidence the claim that: "In interviews with Joint Forces Quarterly, Mellon in 2002 discussed his time and memories working in the United States Senate." Regardless, here are THREE mentions that show Chetsford's outright telling of falsehoods:
On page 44: "Christopher Mellon, Cohen’s staffer, later said: “One thing about Senator Warner that I always admired . . . is that he maintained an open mind. He was willing to change his point of view based on new evidence and information. Senator Warner might go into something with a great deal of conviction on one side and argue furiously, and yet as new information would come to light, he always listened.”
On page 45: "Looking back at the committee’s work, Mellon said: “It was an example of good government. It is the memory I would like to have of the Senate. There weren’t parochial motives that I was able to discern. Members were motivated by national security considerations. People were dedicated; everybody was engaged; they were working with a great deal of vigor, energy, and commitment. Issues were decided on the merits and substance. It was the kind of experience that makes you want to go into government and be involved and participate.”
On page 46: This process strengthened the bill and achieved consensus. Mellon compared it to forging a sword: “Warner and the Navy were the hammer, and Goldwater, Nunn, and the staff were the anvil. Warner kept firing in these amendments and concerns and objections to provisions. In a way, they helped to strengthen, sharpen, and harden some of the provisions and forged the bill in a hotter fire.”
'''10. Mellon is briefly mentioned in two short sentences in this [https://archive.org/details/darkterritorysec0000kapl/page/n1/mode/2up?q=mellon 360 page book].''' False. Mellon is mentioned in THREE sentences that do justify the claim "In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, author and journalist Fred Kaplan wrote of Mellon's involvement during his Senate career with the National Security Agency and J. Michael "Mike" McConnell, former Director of National Intelligence, and Mellon's research into the NSA's budget." Nevertheless, the important part is that Mellon cracked the NSA's books and revealed their meager budget "for programs to penetrate communications on the internet." This led to McConnell assuring "the Senate commitee that he would beef up the programs as a top priority." This content can be read on page 36 of the book:
"McConnell feared that the NSA would lose its unique luster—its ability to tap into communications affecting national security. He was also coming to realize that the agency was ill equipped to seize the coming changes. A young man named Christopher Mellon, on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff, kept coming around, asking questions. Mellon had heard the briefings on Fort Meade’s adaptations to the new digital world; but when he came to headquarters and examined the books, he discovered that, of the agency’s $4 billion budget, just $2 million was earmarked for programs to penetrate communications on the Internet. Mellon asked to see the personnel assigned to this program; he was taken to a remote corner of the main floor, where a couple dozen techies—out of a workforce numbered in the tens of thousands—were fiddling with computers. McConnell hadn’t known just how skimpy these efforts were, and he assured the Senate committee that he would beef up the programs as a top priority."
'''12. Mellon is mentioned in one paragraph of [https://web.archive.org/web/20210427234352/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously this article] on a congressional hearing; a large portion of that paragraph is a direct quote from him - [[WP:SIGCOV]] "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV''' Again, a falsehood. Mellon is mentioned in FIVE paragraphs, and perhaps more important than Mellon's direct quotations are the implications of his work: Were it not for Mellon, Kean would not have been able to break her New York Times story and the UAP-related provisions in the 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act would not have been added. Additionally, the article highlights that Mellon has confirmed that the"government possesses stark visual documentation" of UAPs. Nevertheless, here are the five distinct paragraphs where Mellon is mentioned:
On October 4, 2017, at the behest of Christopher K. Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Leslie Kean was called to a confidential meeting in the bar of an upscale hotel near the Pentagon. She was greeted by Hal Puthoff, the longtime paranormal investigator, and Jim Semivan, a retired C.I.A. officer, who introduced her to a sturdy, thick-necked, tattooed man with a clipped goatee named Luis Elizondo. The previous day had been his last day of work at the Pentagon. Over the next three hours, Kean was taken through documents that proved the existence of what was, as far as anyone knew, the first government inquiry into U.F.O.s since the close of Project Blue Book, in 1970. The program that Kean had spent years lobbying for had existed the whole time.
After Elizondo resigned, he and other key AATIP participants—including Mellon, Puthoff, and Semivan—almost immediately joined To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science, an operation dedicated to U.F.O.-related education, entertainment, and research, and organized by Tom DeLonge, a former front man of the pop-punk outfit Blink-182. Later that month, DeLonge invited Elizondo onstage at a launch event. Elizondo announced that they were “planning to provide never-before-released footage from real U.S. government systems—not blurry amateur photos but real data and real videos.”
On Saturday, December 16, 2017, their story—“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program”—appeared online; it was printed on the front page the next day. Accompanying the piece were two videos, including “FLIR1.” Senator Reid was quoted as saying, “I’m not embarrassed or ashamed or sorry I got this going.” The Pentagon confirmed that the program had existed, but said that it had been closed down in 2012, in favor of other funding priorities. Elizondo claimed that the program had continued in the absence of dedicated funding. The article dwelled not on the reality of the U.F.O. phenomenon—the only actual case discussed at any length was the Nimitz encounter—but on the existence of the covert initiative. The ''Times'' article drew millions of readers. Kean noticed a change almost immediately. When people asked her at dinner parties what she did for a living, they no longer giggled at her response but fell rapt. Kean gave all the credit to Elizondo and Mellon for coming forward, but she told me, “I never would have ever imagined I could have ended up writing for the ''Times''. It’s the pinnacle of everything I’ve ever wanted to do—just this miracle that it happened on this great road, great journey.”
The point of using the term “unidentified,” he said, was “to help remove the stigma.” He told me, “At some point, we needed to just admit that there are things in the sky we can’t identify.” Despite the fact that most adults carry around exceptionally good camera technology in their pockets, most U.F.O. photos and videos remain maddeningly indistinct, but the former Pentagon official implied that the government possesses stark visual documentation; Elizondo and Mellon have said the same thing. According to Tim McMillan, in the past two years, the Pentagon’s U.A.P. investigators have distributed two classified intelligence papers, on secure networks, that allegedly contain images and videos of bizarre spectacles, including a cube-shaped object and a large equilateral triangle emerging from the ocean. One report brooked the subject of “alien” or “non-human” technology, but also provided a litany of prosaic possibilities. The former Pentagon official cautioned, “ ‘Unidentified’ doesn’t mean little green men—it just means there’s something there.” He continued, “If it turns out that everything we’ve seen is weather balloons, or a quadcopter designed to look like something else, nobody is going to lose sleep over it.”
In June of 2020, Senator Marco Rubio added text into the 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act requesting—though not requiring—that the director of National Intelligence, along with the Secretary of Defense, produce “a detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting.” This language, which allowed them a hundred and eighty days to produce the report, drew heavily from proposals by Mellon, and it was clear that this concerted effort, at least in theory, was a more productive and more cost-effective iteration of the original vision for AATIP. Mellon told me, “This creates an opening and an opportunity, and now the name of the game is to make sure we don’t miss that open window.”
In addition to all these falsehoods, @[[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] frequently implies that coverage about a topic not "significant or in detail" based on what percent of a source it constitutes or how long the source is. This is fallacious. Coverage can be significant and in detail even if it is a small portion of larger work or even if the source is subjectively short. All of Chetsford's arguments to discredit a source based upon proportionality and length should be discounted, especially given that Wikipedia ''does not'' have specific guidelines for SIGCOV on the basis of proportionality and length. Arguments based on proportionality and length are a mere attempt to misconstrue the relevant facts of the matter—Those being the ones cited in a given source, regardless of the source length or what proportion of the source is relevant. Attempts to discredit the significance of a source based upon proportionality or length are strawman arguments that draw editors into a quagmire. Chetsford makes arguments of this kind in all of the above cases and more. It is a complete misrepresentation of [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria|WP:BASIC's]] statement that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." In fact, you can find Chetsford outright denying this principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288214004&oldid=1288213827 here], when he responds to my assertion that "I also think these establish his notability, especially when taken together cumulatively."
So, in sum, Chetsford has told several lies that make writing and editing articles very difficult. He also misrepresents critical basic criteria that should be understood for proper sourcing.
Thanks so much,
[[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:So the TL;DR I get here is that UFO - wait, sorry, [[WP:FRINGE|''UAP'' enthusiasts]] get mad when their pet phenomena are held up to actual scrutiny and sourcing requirements. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::Anger has nothing to do with it. Brute facts do. Lying is incivility per [[WP:ICA]]. [[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 05:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Reply from Chetsford.''' This appears to be a continuation of this [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#IP_editor_WP:NOTHERE]] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#I've_been_banned_from_reverting_a_Wikipedia_page_back_to_its_original_status_before_it_started_being_brigaded.] previous discussions at ANI (and voluminous similar threads spread across ANI, article, and admin Talk pages across the project). In broad strokes, UFO believers recently became incensed that I nominated [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Mellon|Christopher K. Mellon for deletion]] and have started organizing on X and Reddit after convincing themselves I'm IRL either the former director of the CIA editing WP, or a CIA-controlled AI trying to suppress the truth of flying saucers and so forth (e.g. [https://x.com/Duke87242518/status/1916405510581997921], [https://x.com/YouThrall/status/1916943675646742580], [https://x.com/GoodTroubleShow/status/1917016886417699099], [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOB/comments/1k6k04t/harald_malmgrems_wikipedia_page_is_being/], etc.). I was even recently the topic of the first two hours of [[Coast to Coast AM]] [https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2025-04-27-show/]. UFO leaders appear to have convinced their community that, despite me running the CIA or something, I can still be doxed, desysoped, banned from editing WP by an act of Congress, and sued to death for RICO Act violations. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIboIo8z6bg]. (There seems to be some overlap between Ufology and [[pseudolaw]] in this respect.)<Br/>In any case, the last two weeks of accusations are of similar word count to this one so it's no longer really feasible for me to reply to each of them point by point. However, I think I've addressed the crux of this in the (I think) identical complaint this editor filed at the Tea House [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1288662371] and I'm happy, as always, to address specific questions otherwise. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 05:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Frankly, who you are is irrelevant to whether your statements are factual or not. In the case of the statements I have cited above, they are not. This is [[Wikipedia:ICA|incivility]]. ''Why'' you refuse to address your incivility is not my concern. [[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 05:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::*I previously apologized to you here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1288662371] for any offense I caused by referring to aerial vehicles purportedly piloted by space aliens or interdimensional etheric entities as "flying saucers" rather than "UAP"s. I truly will endeavor not to do that in the future if I am aware you are a participant in a discussion. Please also consider this a blanket apology for anything else I have said that may have inadvertently offended you. I follow this space somewhat, but only lightly, and it can be difficult to keep up with your community's preferred terminology from moment to moment. But I will try to do better. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 05:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::*:Per [[WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL]], please strike through each of your lies and apologize for each. [[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 06:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm not going to do that. Calling a "UAP" a "Flying Saucer" isn't a lie anymore than calling an "Escritoire" a "Desk" is a lie. I offered you a perfunctory apology for no other reason than to assuage any personal offense you may have experienced. And I'm happy to do that as it takes ''de minimis'' effort on my part. But I'm not going to reorganize reality itself to accommodate you. This is the best offer you're likely to get. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 06:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::If that were your only lie, I ''might'' agree with you. But you've lied at least five times (as documented in the post above). The fact that you have "no other reason than to assuage any personal offense" indicates that you truly have no problem with lying and are indeed committed to the mendacity that is specified as uncivil in [[WP:ICA]]. You put effort into telling lies, now please put effort into [[Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments|correcting them]]. Facts are important for an encyclopedia. [[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You wrote a 2,126 word thesis. I simply don't have time to reply to ever pronunciamento I've received in the last week. But I'll look at one additional of your claims beyond the ''referring to UAPs as Flying Saucers is a lie and your are guilty of lying'' claim. You write {{xt|"[Chetsford wrote] 12 page article on a piece of legislation mentions Mellon once ... This is demonstrably false. Mellon is mentioned three times"}}. I affirm my statement. Mellon is mentioned once. There is a narrative mention and two attributed quotes. The fact that I wasn't referring to ''surname counts'' by the word "mention" should have been self-evident since the context of the discussion was SIGCOV which isn't established by drop quotes. Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the rest of the treatise doesn't get any better and bow out of this discussion. I wish you the very best in all your endeavors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 07:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, at worst, Chetsford is guilty of counting sentences incorrectly and not using Ben.Gowar's preferred terminology. Most of this looks like simple disagreement on an issue. I'd suggest as suitable penance that Chetsford be made to re-read this entire rant a second time, at least if that does not conflict with Eighth Amendment caselaw.
:All this should be hatted, though I guess Ben.Gowar can make a second filing, with clear diffs of explicit ''lies'' and without the whole Manifesto-ization. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 06:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::Tax fraud is is just incorrect counting too. Lies are lies. Chetsford chooses to quantify statements as an indicator of significance. Then he lies about the quantity to downplay the signficance. As you point out, he is guilty. [[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 06:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:The world has really gone topsy-turvy when a believer in little green men accuses someone who is trying to put him right of lying. This should be closed per [[WP:DNFTT]]. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 06:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::You have not presented a sound argument. Either Chetsford made false statements or he did not. I claim he did and provided evidence. [[User:Ben.Gowar|Ben.Gowar]] ([[User talk:Ben.Gowar|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ben.Gowar}} wrote at the beginning of this saga {{tpq|I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples.}} But the draft was declined, not rejected. Should I start a new thread about that called "Ben.Gowar Lying"? I could but I won't. This whole thread should be used as the the basis for a low budget [[Unidentified flying object|UAP]] science fiction screenplay called "The Attack of the [[WP:TLDR|TLDR]] POV Pushers!" [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*{{reply|Asilvering}} personally, I think repeatedly calling other editors liars already constitutes conduct abuse warranting a block. They've done it several times already. ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 10:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*::They were blocked 48 hours by Cullen328 for general ABF and personal attacks. Their response was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289158230 wikilawyer]...after responding to the block with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289011140 this]. Given the repeated flippancy and personal attacks ''against the blocking admin'', I've upgraded to indef. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
== 180.150.37.178 - disruptive editing, WP:OWN and personal attacks ==
{{atop
| result = IP blocked for 2 weeks by {{np|Bishonen}} {{nac}} [[User:Agent VII|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#7d4440;">Agent</span> <i style="color:#0f0000;"><b>007</b></i>]] ([[User talk:Agent VII|talk]]) 17:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|180.150.37.178}} has been making repeated changes (such as {{diff2|1288490638}} or {{diff2|1288197517}}) where they introduced grammatical errors into articles. Some of their edits are {{diff2|1288545081|perfectly good}} and useful, but they react very badly to being reverted on other points, both on their talk page and in edit summaries. I can’t even list their talk page diffs as there are now too many - but purely as an example - {{diff2|1288681410}} which I think is more than enough! [[User:Danners430|Danners430]] ([[User talk:Danners430|talk]]) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Oh yeah. No amount of good faith edits make up for such personal attacks. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 13:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:This IP editor, unfortunately, seems to have ''no'' ability to work collaboratively with others, and it's clear that merely being warned is a futile gesture. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 14:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
*Note also edits disallowed by a filter. I've '''blocked''' for two weeks. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC).
{{abot}}
==
{{atopy
| status = PARTIALLY BLOCKED
| result = {{np|DelphiLore}} is blocked from [[Malabar Muslims]] for 2 weeks by {{np|Doug Weller}} for false allegations on others' editing. {{nac}} [[User:Agent VII|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#7d4440;">Agent</span> <i style="color:#0f0000;"><b>007</b></i>]] ([[User talk:Agent VII|talk]]) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{vandal|Koshuri Sultan}} – On {{No redirect|:Malabar Muslims}} ({{diff|Malabar Muslims|1288682080|1288681440|diff}}): I am reporting Koshuri Sultan for a pattern of disruptive and biased editing on the Malabar Muslims article. Their repeated edits lack proper discussion, context, and edit summaries, and are damaging the accuracy and integrity of the article. This ongoing behavior constitutes vandalism and violates Wikipedia's collaborative standards.
I request an immediate review of their editing activity.
[[User:DelphiLore|DelphiLore]] ([[User talk:DelphiLore|talk]]) 06:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:For a long time, {{u|DelphiLore}} is removing content on [[Malabar Muslims]] by personally attacking other editors as "vandal" or their contributions as "vandalism" without ever providing any explanation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1288447383][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1257530131][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1288682822] Back in November, they were warned by {{U|Bishonen}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DelphiLore&oldid=1288682281#Please_answer_this_question,_and_the_questions_above] to respond but they haven't done so and are back to making the same type of reverts. They are misusing the word "vandalism" elsewhere too.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Kerala&diff=prev&oldid=1288605308] [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:#FFB6C1;background:#000;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(グ)</sup></span>]] 06:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:DelphiLore is now blocked from [[Malabar Muslims]] for 1 week by Doug Weller.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DelphiLore&diff=prev&oldid=1288705891] [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:#FFB6C1;background:#000;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(グ)</sup></span>]] 10:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== RaSriAiem defending their removal of my talkpage comments ==
{{userlinks|RaSriAiem}}
I tried to start a discussion about following Manual of Style at Talk:Miss Earth 2025 per BRD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiss_Earth_2025&diff=1283916764&oldid=1281008226]. RaSriAiem (a beauty pageant SPA according to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/RaSriAiem/0 xtools]) summarily removed my thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiss_Earth_2025&diff=1283947181&oldid=1283916764], without notifying me. When I discovered this, I civilly notified them on their talkpage that it's unacceptable to do this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaSriAiem&diff=prev&oldid=1288740151]. Ironically, the material they deleted included documentation of my prior attempts to identify and seek consensus on the MOS topic at hand.
Unfortunately, now RaSriAiem is defending their removal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARaSriAiem&diff=1288744784&oldid=1288740151]. I've made some responses on their talk why that's still unacceptable. But I think they need another person (administrator) to come in and have a look at their disruptive concept of what editing here is all about. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 16:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:RaSriAiem|RaSriAiem]]: you cannot remove other editors' posts from article talk pages. Period. If someone reverts your edits, you discuss them on article talk. You don't delete the other person's comments. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'd like to be sure they understand that if they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaSriAiem&diff=prev&oldid=1288757079 reject participation] in discussions that build consensus, and feel {{tq|I have other things to do than to join in any discussion}}, then they can't in good faith a) revert against consensus or b) complain about other users' edits in line with consensus. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 19:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Left a note on their talk page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Bri|Bri]]@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] I truly mean it when I say this “I already understood everything from the discussion on my talk page”. And again, I sincerely have real-life responsibilities outside of Wikipedia — my job, spending time with friends, and taking care of my family. These are real obligations, not excuses.
::::Let me emphasize again: I already fully understood what I did. But it was you who brought my actions here (which I do acknowledge), and you are still asking me to respond again — and again. Isn’t that a bit excessive, considering that you already spoke to me on my talk page.
::::I’ve already acknowledged and understood my actions. So what exactly do you want from me now? The same explanation I gave on my talk page? Or something else?
::::Because if the point was to make sure I understood that I shouldn’t have removed the comment — then yes, I already understood that clearly since yesterday. [[User:RaSriAiem|RaSriAiem]] ([[User talk:RaSriAiem|talk]]) 06:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
==Block evading sockpuppetry==
{{atop
| result = Well, that was easy. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
* {{userlinks|Johnnynumerofive}}
* {{userlinks|Docholliday11}}
* [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Edit warring over linking "Serbian" and "Serbia"]]
Johnnynumerofive has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikola_Jokić&diff=prev&oldid=1288784049 declared themselves] as a sockpuppet of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Docholliday11&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=500 indef-blocked Docholliday11]. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked by Zzuuzz, and I've tagged them. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Request for discussion closure ==
{{atop
| result = Wrong venue for close request. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 02:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
Can someone close the RMs on [[1925 tri-state tornado]] and [[Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025]], and the two RFCs on [[WT:WEATHER]]? They’ve been at CR for weeks and no one seems to be interested in closing. [[User:Marus893|Marus893]] ([[User talk:Marus893|talk]]) 22:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:[[WP:AN]] is where you should post this, I believe. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::Close requests should stay at CR. Editors should stop trying to skip the line at AN or AN/I. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Help requested ==
About a month ago, around a hundred of my edits were reverted by {{u|FlightTime}} who claimed that they were improperly sourced, even though they all had reliable sources to the United States Census Bureau. FlightTime warned me I would be blocked, but when I asked for clarification, he removed the message. I asked at the help desk, and a user suggested it could be because the two references were cited at the end of the section instead of after the individual paragraphs/sentences they were referencing. ([[Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 66#Edits reverted]])
Just now, I asked FlightTime again for clarification, and asked if a specific issue was the problem. However he didn't identify what the problem was, simply directed me to [[Help:Referencing for beginners]] (although I was already doing what was stated on that page), and told me I was wasting his time. ([[Special:PermanentLink/1288818653#My edits]]) I would like to restore my edits, but I also do not understand what I am doing wrong and would like some help from an admin so I don't get blocked. [[User:Player001eliminated|Player001eliminated]] ([[User talk:Player001eliminated|talk]]) 22:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:I haven't looked at your edits, so I can't tell you the problem (and AN/I is not the place for that; the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]] or Help desk is), but FlightTime's response to you was quite [[WP:BITE|bitey]] and not [[WP:civil|civil]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::I did already ask at the help desk. The main response I got was
::"Player001eliminated, your version at [[Special:PermanentLink/1284665793]] seems good to me. (I'm assuming here that it accurately represents the sources that it references.) But in its FlightTime-approved state (for which I'm assuming ditto), it's not wrong, just unnecessarily dated." (the "FlightTime-approved state" refers to the article before I updated it)
::I mainly want to restore these edits. I can make changes to them, if there's something wrong with them. But I don't want to get blocked. [[User:Player001eliminated|Player001eliminated]] ([[User talk:Player001eliminated|talk]]) 22:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::You've done nothing wrong and won't be blocked. I would like FlightTime to respond to my point above. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I apologize for being "bitey", all I was trying to do is inform the user on proper editing. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 23:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Without any reasons to the contrary, I'm going to begin restoring my edits, but with the suggested changes made (putting sources after each relevant paragraph). [[User:Player001eliminated|Player001eliminated]] ([[User talk:Player001eliminated|talk]]) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
== Terrence Howard ==
{{atop
| result = Kittycat not so funky now. Indefinitely blocked by User:Ingenuity. {{nac}} ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{user|Funkykittycat}} is the indeffed {{user|Politicalscaffolder}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=1288207157][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Howard&diff=1288828172&oldid=1288827820] [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 23:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1288829499&oldid=1288829435] lol [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 23:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:I must be so old. Nerd is a compliment at my age. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 23:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Knitsey|Knitsey]] We rule the world, except the seven seas because the salt water is bad for our precious computers. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 23:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::*Mobile.
:::[[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 23:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:TzarN64 ==
{{atop
| status = Banned
| result = TzarN64's [[WP:3X]] ban was lifted following AN discussion at [[Special:Diff/1282704798]]. It didn't work out. Clear consensus for an indefinite [[WP:CBAN]]. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 05:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|TzarN64}}
{{user|TzarN64}} was [[Special:Diff/1282706161|recently unblocked in March]] with agreement to a [[WP:1RR]] restriction (see [[Special:Diff/1073778331|this revision]] for their original block). Since then, Tzar has gotten into a slew of arguments against other users to the point where I would consider it flat out harassment. The most important instance of this is most likely their behavior towards {{user|Freedoxm}}, where if you check the page history and archives of [[User talk:TzarN64]], you will find several examples of him and other users (mainly {{user|Sergecross73}}) asking TzarN64 to stop engaging with him. This includes [[Special:Diff/1288592095#You_need_to_stop._No_kidding.|unsolicited user/talk page edits]], [[Special:Diff/1287876400#New_message_to_TzarN64|warning template abuse]], and [[Special:Diff/1288624620#New_message_to_TzarN64_2|targeting/reverting their edits with no explanation given]]. And though not related to their interactions with Freedoxm, they have also been noted to be [[Special:Diff/1287334333#GA_nominations|potentially misusing the GAN process]]. There is an entire [[User:Tarlby/ANI drafting space|ANI report draft]] made by Freedoxm and {{user|Tarlby}} about their interactions with Tzar, which especially suggests their continued problems with the user (note that I do think that making a public ANI report draft is a bit of an odd choice, but its whatever).
Now what here exactly pushed me to create this discussion? Not that long ago, this user uploaded two files for use in the [[Steve's Lava Chicken]] article. I did not believe that they met [[WP:NFCC]], however, so I [[Special:Diff/1288835397|took both of the files]] to [[WP:FFD|Files for discussion]]. Almost immediately after the discussions were made, Tzar proceeded to [[Special:Diff/1288835936|redirect the article with no explanation given]]. I then proceeded to revert the redirect since, well, literally no explanation was given. Then they [[Special:Diff/1288836075|redirected it again]] (note that this violates their 1RR restriction), until I ultimately restored the article again. They then [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve's_Lava_Chicken|took it to AFD]]. I strongly interpreted that nomination for deletion as likely one made out of spite or desire for revenge, and I still think it is that. Maybe I could've worded it in my comment there a bit better, I am willing to concede that, but nothing else about this whole situation suggests to me that it is anything but that. Also note that they violated [[WP:DTTR]] by [[Special:Diff/1288838132#May_2025|flat out accusing me of edit warring]] over the whole situation. As far as I am aware, I do not believe that any of what I did in this situation is edit warring based on the fact I attempted to encourage the user take it to AFD instead of redirecting it, and therefore, attempting to gain a consensus. They also [[Special:Diff/1288840325#May 2025|falsely warned]] {{user|Cukie Gherkin}}, a well experienced editor, for editing talk page comments. To my knowledge, Cukie did not do anything of the sort. I firmly believe that this user is not suited to be on Wikipedia, given their violation of their 1RR restriction and clear immaturity towards other editors. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 01:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::Summary of the below content in case it is confusing in some way: [[Special:Log/SinXEqualsX|Several]] [[Special:Log/MiiWiiU|potential]] [[Special:Log/Ezprocasnita|sockpuppets]] have responded to this discussion to not only attack me by accusing me of doing things I never did (misgendering) and call for me to be blocked instead, but also [[Special:Diff/1288859917|attempt to prematurely close the discussion]] (the wording of the threat also kind of confirms that it is a sock of Tzar). One even called Freedoxm Tzar's friend, which is completely false and possibly downright defamatory. [[Special:Diff/1288860681|Hell, one of the sock puppets even threatened Freedoxm]]. Also, in case it was not clear enough by my initial post, I am '''endorsing a re-block''' <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 04:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse re-block''' - I have been trying to guide this editor in the right direction for weeks now, and they simply won't change. Im at a complete loss. They require constant babysitting, and it's nothing but [[WP:IDHT]] responses. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 01:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*:@[[User:Sergecross73|seorge numbers]], you've made a strong impression, at least: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-TzarN64-20250505012600-Asilvering-20250505012500]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse partial re-block for the following pages:''' Especially since they reverted an edit by me, at [[Syria]], without explanation, I am supporting an indefinite block for editing all user pages and talk pages sitewide and all ARBPIA articles. In addition, Tzar shpuld also be stripped of her rights of Twinkle and other warning gadgets. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 01:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse partial re-block''': Please see [[User:Tarlby/ANI drafting space]]. –[[User:HirowoWiki|'''<span style="color:black;">Hiro</span><span style="color:blue;">wo</span>''']][[User talk:HirowoWiki|'''<span style="color:red;">Wiki</span>''']] '''([[Special:Contributions/HirowoWiki|📝]])''' 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Involved comment''' I'll note that Tzar also broke 1RR on my talk page a little while ago (<strike>I'll link diffs in a minute</strike> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tarlby&diff=prev&oldid=1283632607] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tarlby&diff=prev&oldid=1283635912]).
:[[User:Tarlby|<span style="background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarlby''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Endorse partial re-block''': It's always tough when it's an editor who clearly ''wants'' to improve the encyclopedia but is always getting their own way. Any area not blocked ought to be quite explicit, such as suggested by Freedoxm, in order to avoid inevitable boundary pushing. Tip of the hat to Sergecross73, who has made laudable efforts trying to keep TzarN64 o nthe right path. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*:Suffice it to say, if these sudden new accounts are related to TzarN64, I'm for [[WP:INDEF]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Support re-block''': TzarN64 has continued to GAN a clearly unready article ([[Talk:Mario Kart 7/GA1|Mario Kart 7]]), despite the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TzarN64&diff=prev&oldid=1283144611 warning] of Sergecross73 about her GAN activity. Although that in itself does not merit a block (in my opinion merely a topic ban from GA), taken with the evidence provided by NegativeMP1, is indicative of a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] mentality. I would usually support only a topic ban or partial block, but considering that Tzar has already been blocked before, it would be less effort for other editors for her to be blocked, as it is time-consuming to monitor her edits to ensure that she is obeying the topic ban. [[User:Grumpylawnchair|Grumpylawnchair]] ([[User talk:Grumpylawnchair|talk]]) 02:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*:That's not even the worst of their GA activities. After their [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wii U GamePad/1|GA was delisted a week later due to concerns about article and review quality]], i strongly recommended they hold off on working on the area until they understood the standards better, and recommended they not work with inexperienced reviewers that couldn't catch their mistakes. A few couple weeks later, I caught them asking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RenkoTheBird&oldid=1286599151#Request an editor with less than 300 edits to their name to review a GA], on a GA nom that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_3D_All-Stars&action=history was quickfailed for not meeting basic criteria]. This has been a recurring theme; I can't trust them because they say they understand issues, but then proceed to make the same basic mistake just a little later like this. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Support re-block'''. Eregious abuse of GAN process. When told that editors who have significantly contributed to articles should be the ones nominating them, they proceed to inflate their edit counts on those articles without actually addressing the quality concerns, which feels like [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]]. Also with the failed Mario Kart 7 nomination they proceeded to ask elsewhere [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_Kart_topic|"any ideas how to fix it?"]] to the chagrin of the editors who reviewed and left behind feedback. If they weren't even reading the feedback on their poor GANs, how are they expecting to improve? --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 02:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' - In addition to Tzar's block endorsement, I will also support the stripping of her EC rights, page moving rights, GAN nomination rights, and GAR rights. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - Having arguments is normal consensus on Wikipedia. Freedoxm is a friend of TzarN64, its just regular disputes between friends. Also please [[WP:AGF]] and put your eyes in her shoes, she is autistic and has a hard time understanding other peoples POV. She is [[WP:HERE]], just confused. [[WP:DTTR]] is not an official policy, so it doesn't count in this AN/I thread. This sets a dangerous precedent where kids are banned on editing Wikipedia because of their "immatureness", you have never experienced what being a parent is like. Finally, you misgendered her. Its a she, not a they. If anything, you should be blocked for accusing a kid that just wants to improve Wikipedia in her own style and then proceed to misgender her. [[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]] ([[User talk:Ezprocasnita|talk]]) 03:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]] ([[User talk:Ezprocasnita|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ezprocasnita|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{#if:|A [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations|sockpuppet investigation]] is open at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}]].{{sp}}|}}</small>
::{{yo|Ezprocasnita}} May I ask who you are proposing to block? Also, I find it a tad suspicious that out of the two edits you've made, one was creating your userpage and the other was this comment, espicially since this is regarding a user with a history of sockpuppeteering. [[User:Grumpylawnchair|Grumpylawnchair]] ([[User talk:Grumpylawnchair|talk]]) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::MiiWiiU and SinXEqualsX down there both each have only one edit, which is their comments to this ANI thread. Forgive me if I'm being hasty, but I think this is all too convenient for this not to have sockpuppeting involved. [[User:Grumpylawnchair|Grumpylawnchair]] ([[User talk:Grumpylawnchair|talk]]) 03:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree. This could be socking to turn around opinions. I will start a SPI if necessary. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Freedoxm|Freedoxm]] Please don't do that. [[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]] ([[User talk:Ezprocasnita|talk]]) 03:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'll do it if you continue to call @[[User:TzarN64|TzarN64]] and I "friends". I find it ironic and disrespectful. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::you don't need to start an SPI, its obvious to everyone its socking.
:::::Any admin who comes across this will send down the ban hammer soon on all of these. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Grumpylawnchair|Grumpylawnchair]] My old account was hacked into, but I talked with TzarN64 a lot. Was just hoping to give an opinion on her. [[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]] ([[User talk:Ezprocasnita|talk]]) 03:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I am not a friend of Tzar, nor have I had ever met her IRL. I will dismiss this opinion as blatant. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - Support per @[[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]]. Misgendering is pretty severe but looking through her contributions, shes here just being slightly disruptive. Give her a year or two and she'll shape up. [[User:MiiWiiU|MiiWiiU]] ([[User talk:MiiWiiU|talk]]) 03:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:MiiWiiU|MiiWiiU]] ([[User talk:MiiWiiU|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MiiWiiU|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{#if:|A [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations|sockpuppet investigation]] is open at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}]].{{sp}}|}}</small>
::@[[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]]: Wdym "Slightly disruptive"? I've heard enough of this. Period. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Speedy close/Strong oppose''' - Support per @[[User:Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita]] and @[[User:MiiWiiU|MiiWiiU]]. [[User:SinXEqualsX|SinXEqualsX]] ([[User talk:SinXEqualsX|talk]]) 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:SinXEqualsX|SinXEqualsX]] ([[User talk:SinXEqualsX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SinXEqualsX|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{#if:|A [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations|sockpuppet investigation]] is open at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}]].{{sp}}|}}</small>
:'''Oppose''' - Reviewing this thread, it becomes clear. TzarN64 is here to build an encyclopedia. Can we have sanctions against the OP? [[User:GreatXprtOnRiemann|GreatXprtOnRiemann]] ([[User talk:GreatXprtOnRiemann|talk]]) 03:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)<small>— [[User:GreatXprtOnRiemann|GreatXprtOnRiemann]] ([[User talk:GreatXprtOnRiemann|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GreatXprtOnRiemann|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{#if:|A [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations|sockpuppet investigation]] is open at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}]].{{sp}}|}}</small>
::Tzar, this behavior is unacceptable. Please, go with grace, otherwise it's going to be much more difficult to someday return to editing if you're ever permitted to return. [[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]] ([[User talk:Cukie Gherkin|talk]]) 03:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse re-block''' - the blatant [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|socks]] above show someone who is not here. @[[User:TzarN64|TzarN64]] recently created, less than a day old accounts are very easy to spot, and they never randomly show up in [[WP:ANI]] unless someone is piloting them. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 03:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Probably pointing out the obvious, but all three of the sole oppose stances are from editors with 1-2 edits to their name. Pretty clear what's going on here. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yup. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:[[Special:Log/SinXEqualsX|SinXEqualsX was made 7 minutes ago]]. [[Special:Log/MiiWiiU|MiiWiiU 9 minutes ago]]. [[Special:Log/Ezprocasnita|Ezprocasnita about 18]]. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 03:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::[[Special:Diff/1288859917|Attempted close by another likely sockpuppet account]]. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I see. @[[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]], since you're an admin, can you speedily close this and quickly block Tzar? It's clear that this is [[WP:SOCK]]. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I've contacted a Checkuser fyi. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarlby''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 03:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Also consider [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TzarN64]]. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 03:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd like it to be a community block, which appears to be inevitable, as the only opposing parties are just Tzar socking. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Can you not just block her and wait for the de jure ban after? [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:NOTBUR]] surely applies here [[User:Tarlby|<span style="background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarlby''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 03:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::Don't forget [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheSageofContributing TheSageofContributing], which was also created today to prematurely close out the thread, delete comments, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freedoxm&diff=prev&oldid=1288860681 post a threat at Freedoxm]. --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 03:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I made a new comment at the top of this discussion to try and summarize the chaos and confusion from all of the sockpuppet talk. I have also now noted the threat that the sock puppet posted on Freedoxm's talk page - thank you for linking the revision. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 04:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::This sure got weird quickly. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - If socking and result turning continues, I will opt for a full block, indefinitely. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 03:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - They used one of their socks to post a threat to Freedoxm's talk page, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freedoxm&diff=prev&oldid=1288860681 you better watch your back]". Unforgivable. Supporting indefinite block. --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 04:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Same. Forget my previous opinion, I am supporting not just an indefinite block, but a ban. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*If it was just the OP report, this could be allowed to play out. Given they have [[WP:DUCK|very obviously]] used ''multiple'' socks to disrupt this discussion, TzarN64 has been indefinitely, fully, blocked. Sock blocking {{in progress}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
**Socks blocked. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
***{{ping|Freedoxm}} I'd suggest self-reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TzarN64&diff=prev&oldid=1288870843 this edit] as it smacks of [[WP:GRAVEDANCING]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
***:{{done}}. My sincere apologies, even to Tzar. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 04:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
**:Don't forget {{vandal|GreatXprtOnRiemann}} [[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
**::{{done}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*TzarN64's original block had to be appealed to the community at [[WP:AN]], so just to be clear, folks supporting a reblock above, you're effectively supporting a CBAN, are you ok with that? Given the socking, I assume the answer is yes, but I wanted to be sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], yes, I support a CBAN. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Well, the user is already blocked but yes I 100% support a CBAN. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Yes, I'm aware. If a CBAN wasn't on the table I'd just close the thread as dealt with, but since it looks like we have consensus for a formal CBAN I want to double-check that before doing the extra paperwork. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::Ah, got it. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 04:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarlby''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:i assume this was already [[WP:LASTCHANCE]]. it seems unlikely they should get another. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*::They're young. The community is pretty sympathetic to "I was young and stupid, and now I am less young and less stupid". But that will take a few years, I think. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes. Down the road, an unblock is a possibility, but we're talking a long time. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
* The user is [[User_talk:TzarN64#Hold_on?_What?|currently pleading on their talk page that they are not responsible for the accounts that were made solely to disrupt this conversation]]. I want to believe them now that I see their desire to want to disassociate with the site in the Teahouse discussion, so maybe it's possible that they were framed. Only a CheckUser will be able to confirm which side is correct here. Regardless though, I still think that an indefinite CBAN is in order here. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 04:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:I was hit by an edit conflict to say the same thing. We should have a checkuser 100% confirm the socking. If not? I still think a CBAN is appropriate. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarlby''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 05:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:[[Special:Diff/1288879573|Another one of these new accounts has attempting to vandalize this discussion]] and then proceeded to [[Special:Diff/1288879701|threaten me on my talk page (I think?)]]. {{ping|asilvering}} can you please deal with this one? <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Nevermind, they got blocked already. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 05:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::The CU has come back as inconclusive, which in my opinion means the likelihood that the socks were Tzar herself is lower than the likelihood that they were specifically created to harass her along with everyone else. I don't think that fundamentally changes the direction of this conversation, though. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*::::Looks like the exact same type of socking is happening [[WP:ANI#Part 3|at an above thread]]. This is more evidence it's not Tzar who's socking but just some random guy disrupting the whole page. [[User:Tarlby|<span style="background-color:black;color:cyan;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''Tarlby''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tarlby|''t'']]) ([[Special:Contributions/Tarlby|''c'']])</sup> 19:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Yep. [[User:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#011236">Freedoxm</b>]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">talk</b>]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|<b style="color:#025f96">contribs</b>]]) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse re-block''' as it seems a lost cause for the editor to move forward. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Sergecross73-20250505030700-Grumpylawnchair-20250505021300 Sergecross73's observation about the editor's GA issues] really hits it home with illustrating the problem. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#1D2570;">'''B'''arnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">'''T'''oust</span>]]</span> 22:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
===Closure===
Without wishing to re-open the above, I'll add a postscript here.
TzarN64 posted [[User_talk:TzarN64#Hold_on?_What?|an appeal]], requesting that the multiple socks in the above discussion be checked by CU. This has now been done: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TzarN64#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments|the results]] came back inconclusive to TzarN64, although confirmed to each other (I hope I've interpreted that correctly).
Other than that, the appeal says {{tq|"Let it be clear I do not want to get unblocked"}}, therefore I have declined it procedurally.
I'm not sure from the above discussion whether TzarN64 is CBANned or just plain vanilla blocked, which presumably matters in case they change their mind about unblocking or return later for a clean start. Any thoughts?
As for the socks, they should obviously remain blocked, whosever they are, but should they be retagged (they are currently showing as suspected TzarN64's), in light of the inconclusive CU? --[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:To me, it looks like there's a pretty solid consensus for a CBAN regardless of the identity of the socks. Only the socks objected to taking any action. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:I interpreted the discussion as supporting a block and @[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]]’s action as a block. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. I just don't want this to be seen as a voluntary thing. I know how this editor operates. In a couple days/weeks, they're going to come back and say "Well, I've learned a lot in this time, I'm ready now" and then revert back to the same problematic behaviors. Its been a recurring theme since the last unblock. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been looking through the policies and don't find an answer to this: If an editor is conditionally unbanned and violates the conditions, is the reblock considered a reban? Otherwise, I'm in favor of opening up a new discussion specifically to !vote on a new siteban. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I assumed it was - otherwise, I don't understand how it would be considered "conditional" in the first place. Generally speaking, if conditions are given and not upheld, you revert back to the original status. If you don't keep your part of the bargain, the deal is off. That sort of logic. That's only my general understanding though, its not like I have an explicit [[WP:COMMUNITYREBANSTATUS]] clause to cite or something. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Rsjaffe|Rsjaffe]], it was my intention to clarify that regarding the ban with my post to the topic. Would you mind unclosing the above, so we can close it with a CBAN with the correct paperwork, etc? I'm sure she'll appeal eventually, and future admins will certainly appreciate having things spelled out clearly for them. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Note that TzarN64 posted (and then self-reverted after being questoined about it) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TzarN64&diff=prev&oldid=1288998773 this]. Note that I had already reblocked to reflect only the disruption in the block rationaile, since the socking proved to be an apparent joe job, but to be fair that could have been missed, but still, {{ping|Sergecross73}}'s prediction seems to have been on the money, aside from its timeframe. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, we went through the same process every time I warned them they weren't ready for a given venue (like GANs) - they'd make a comment of acceptance, and then completely go back in their word days/weeks later. As you say, this time was much faster than usual. On a related note, I'm also very concerned by their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATzarN64&diff=1288961624&oldid=1288961255 plan to just get community banned for a for a while], on multiple levels. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think that's a concerning plan. It's basically what we tell people in general: come back later and apologize. That's the heart of [[WP:SO]]. I don't think anyone would take an unban request to the community after only six months, anyway. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think they understand how big a deal it is to get banned or indeffed, or how hard it is to get it reversed. In my experience, the failure rate is pretty high. Meanwhile, Tzar seems to talk about it very casually, like one would talk about taking a Wikibreak. I've been telling them for a while that if they didn't change their ways, they were on track to get reblocked, and they just shrugged me off. To each their own, but I find it to be a concerning approach. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 01:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with Sergecross73 their message is a little concerning. The first part "{{tqi|My original plan was to just to get CBanned for awhile}}" is not something we ever tell editors to do, because it's not acceptable. No one who wants to edit here productively should having being cbanned as part of their plan. The end part of their statement is a little bit better but still concerning or at least confusing "{{tqi|then to do a common offer and start a fresh start on a new account. Then, I’d avoid doing the same mistakes that got me into this ANI in the first place}}". While staying way for a while then asking for the [[WP:Standard offer]] is generally recommended for anyone with a cban i.e. is perfectly fine, a [[WP:fresh start]] is not valid for someone who is banned. They did say "do a common offer", but even if they were unbanned as part of the standard offer, a fresh start with a new account is still unlikely to be acceptable at least without clearly linking it to their old account. Even without a formal one account restriction limitation, receiving an unban and abandoning that account and using a new one, no matter how careful you are to not repeated the previous problems, it's still a problem IMO. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
*Closure reverted. Now that the dust has cleared and the socking has stopped, I have reverted my closure so that an orderly BAN closure can occur. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 17:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== AnonymousPurpose mass copied content from the Federal Reserve History website ==
{{atop
| status = BLOCKED
| result = Indef blocked for mass copyvio [[User:LunaEclipse|<span style="color: purple;">🌙'''Eclipse'''</span>]] (she/they/all [[neopronouns|neos]] • [[User talk:LunaEclipse|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LunaEclipse|edits]]) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|AnonymousPurpose}} has repeatedly copied content from the Federal Reserve History website and created articles with it:
* [[Charles N. Shepardson]]
* [[John Mitchell (central banker)]]
* [[David C. Wills]]
* [[Ralph W. Morrison]]
* [[Albert Strauss (central banker)]]
* [[Philip E. Coldwell]]
* [[Philip C. Jackson Jr.]]
* [[Milo D. Campbell]]
* [[Joseph A. Broderick]]
* [[Ernest G. Draper]]
* [[Edward H. Cunningham]]
* [[Wayland W. Magee]]
* [[John Thomas (central banker)]]
* [[Edward L. Norton]]
* [[David M. Lilly]]
* [[Charles Partee]]
* [[Jeffrey Bucher]]
* [[Menc S. Szymczak]]
* [[G.H. King Jr.]]
* [[John K. McKee]]
[[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]] ([[User talk:Laura240406|talk]]) 04:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:looks like the user has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169558131 blocked] forever now [[User:Laura240406|Laura240406]] ([[User talk:Laura240406|talk]]) 04:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== An attempt to bypass the current discussion ==
{{atop|1=It did, in fact, not require intervention from the admins. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, [[WP:AIIMAGES]] is clear "Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace" but <u>with specific criteria and exceptions</u>, It doesn't mean that all these images should be removed and there are already many of these images allowed in articles. I added an image that expresses the atmosphere of one of the traditions, this atmosphere has no specific form or shape and therefore my image does not distort any facts and is subject to the exception that the policy talks about, I also stated that the image is AI and I did not mislead or claim that it was an actual image.
when a user objected to the image I opened a discussion '''[[Talk:Sham Ennessim|here]]''', but now (user:Adamant1) wants to remove the image by force (he removed it twice) and does not respect the current discussion, he talks about the image being inappropriate and it is also clear in his contributions that he is against AI-images, Ok this is his personal opinion but your opinion should not be imposed by force on everyone. Now This user insists on bypassing the discussion and remove the image by force, and the issue requires intervention from the admins. [[User:Ibrahim.ID|<b style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:green;">Ibrahim.ID ✪</b> ]] 08:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:I notify the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288898346 here] --[[User:Ibrahim.ID|<b style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:green;">Ibrahim.ID ✪</b> ]] 08:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I don't understand why this has been brought here. The discussion on the talk page has not finished, and content under discussion is usually removed until that happens. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Indeed. And given that there are two images in the arz.wiki article that could be used instead of a non-realistic AI image, I don't see that there is any reason for it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The talk page discussion is finished, it has been closed, with the AI image rejected for inclusion.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 11:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I told Ibrahim.ID that this isn't a place where the exception would apply since the article isn't about AI or AI generated images and there's alternatives anyway. They clearly weren't able to get the point though. Oh well. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|talk]]) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== SolderUnion ==
[[User:SolderUnion|SolderUnion]] was created only 15 days ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SolderUnion&target=SolderUnion&offset=20250503190153 1]) and has ever since been engaging in disruptive behaviour on a large number of articles, with [[wp:personal attacks]] and aspersions, [[wp:editwarring]], and POV-pushing. Although disruptive newly-created accounts are pretty common, I just found out that in the past few days their behaviour has only deteriorated, with the user making accusations, personalized to other experienced editors or vaguely to the wikipedia community as a whole, about serving alleged agendas or generally working in bad-faith:
[[Special:Diff/1288633709|diff1]], [[Special:Diff/1288716658|diff2]], [[Special:Diff/1288614901|diff3]], [[Special:Diff/1288614730|diff4]], [[Special:Diff/1288626671|diff5]]: {{tq|There are additions [...] added by a group of nationalist. There are on purpose because there are many and every time have pro Greek national agenda.}} when they -ironically- reported an old editor for vandalism. [[Special:Diff/1288633709|diff6]]: {{tq|...If you don't revert especially this edit I will use it as evidence against you.}}, <small>(update)</small> [[Special:Diff/1288922815|diff7]]: {{tq|This is totally propaganda and will be used as evidence for a collusion of people that promote Greek nationalistic agenda.}}
Aside from their [[User_talk:SolderUnion|talkpage]], they have been warned several times for the editwarring (e.g. [[Special:Diff/1288631137|diff8]]) as well as the attacks and accusations. (e.g. [[Special:Diff/1288715509|diff9]], [[Special:Diff/1288719655|diff10]]). They have exhibited this behaviour in a number of -completely unrelated- articles/talkpages, such as [[Rum millet]], [[Macedonia (ancient kingdom)]], [[Epirus]] etc., where the only thing in common is that they are all one way or another Greek-history-related, and always accompanied by accusations. In fact, it appears that disruption in Greek-related content is almost always the intention (even in a random edit [[Special:Diff/1286577193|here]]), which makes me wonder whether the user is [[wp:nothere]] for anything else. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for example, when discussing in the article of [[Arvanites]], they brought up a completely unrelated edit by [[User:Remsense]] in [[Alexander the Great]] from nearly a year ago (!) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArvanites&diff=1288804455&oldid=1288801385 diff11]), I guess trying to justify their accusations <small>(in that edit Remsense, along with other editors, had in fact merely reverted another newly-created edit-warring account)</small> The user generally appears to be familiar with older edits, for example, they seemed to know that [[User:PericlesofAthens]] had made a certain edit 8 years ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=1288713958 diff12]), which along with the large recent activity in a span of days, is somewhat suspicious. [[User:Piccco|Piccco]] ([[User talk:Piccco|talk]]) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Anybody know of any previously blocked Macedonian nationalist accounts with an interest in history as a vector of propaganda? If so I'd suggest a checkuser might be appropriate here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] Yes, I do have something in mind. Although the user has also been involved in other articles (nearly all of them Greek-history-related), I also believe they are actually Macedonia-focused. [[User:Piccco|Piccco]] ([[User talk:Piccco|talk]]) 23:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The edits seem uniformly someone who is POV pushing that Macedonians are not Greek. It's pretty obviously a nationalist account. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Piccco|Piccco]] Hello! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm unfortunately far too busy with actual work and [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustus/archive1|an FA review]] of [[Augustus]] to deal with all of this unserious monkey business by silly sock puppet accounts, so I appreciate your due diligence here in documenting it. The "editor" in question just left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PericlesofAthens&diff=prev&oldid=1288823606 this rosy little message] on my talk page, which I'm sharing here if you'd like to add it to the pile of offenses they're busy piling up. Cheers. <strong>[[User:PericlesofAthens|<span style="color: blue;">Pericles of Athens</span>]]</strong><sup>[[User talk:PericlesofAthens|<span style="color: #0000CD;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:I would kindly ask any admin to check my contributions carefully. All my contributions are supported by sources. I'm new here and don't know how actually wikipedia works. If I've been disruptive I would like to apologize and I promise I will not engage in any [[wp:personal attacks]] and [[wp:editwarring]] [[User:SolderUnion|SolderUnion]] ([[User talk:SolderUnion|talk]]) 13:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::I would recommend becoming familiar with (at very least the basics of) how Wikipedia works before making substantial edits. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. Sorry. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 15:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:I made it perfectly clear this editor needed to drop their paranoid delusions of a Greek nationalist conspiracy if they wanted me to keep spending time engaging with them and their questions. They clearly have no other reason for being here than said delusions, though. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment''': Clearly a [[WP:NOTHERE]] case. Looks like a sock of banned {{user|HelenHIL}}. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 04:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] Not a huge surprise. I see they've also been making a rather unnecessary concerted effort to 'kick up dust' (so to speak) about cited sources over at [[Talk:Ancient Macedonians]] as well. This is a multipronged effort at POV-pushing across multiple articles, all with the same theme. <strong>[[User:PericlesofAthens|<span style="color: blue;">Pericles of Athens</span>]]</strong><sup>[[User talk:PericlesofAthens|<span style="color: #0000CD;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
'''Follow-up''': It appears that after a day and despite the user's promise to avoid the aspersions, their rhetoric largely remains the same, notably: {{tq|I have very strong suspicion (would say rather I'm certain) about a particular group of people that are active in wikipedia for many years and silently promote their agenda. Little by little they have made big changes...}} ([[Special:Diff/1289117142|diff1]]). Meanwhile, as another editor noted ([[Special:Diff/1289131752|diff2]]), the part of the article that the user refers to as alleged product of wikipedia propaganda had been in fact written by a Turkish editor (!). In the same reply, the user mostly talks about the article of the Ancient Macedonians, itself clear [[wp:canvassing]] ({{tq|Please check Talk:Ancient Macedonians...}}), something completelty unrelated to the article of [[Rum Millet]], further confirming the initial "nothere" suspision, as their main motive is seemingly to disrupt any Greek-history-related article. I haven't looked more into their replies, because my time is limited, but I'm reporting some cases that stand out. [[User:Piccco|Piccco]] ([[User talk:Piccco|talk]]) 22:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see anything on [[Talk:Ancient Macedonians]] to be canvassed ''to''? There's a discussion, but no RfC or other "!vote" thing there. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:there's also this edit on the Ancient Macedonians talk page trying to start an entirely tenedentious debate without any specific reference to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Macedonians&oldid=1289171987 [[User:Golikom|Golikom]] ([[User talk:Golikom|talk]]) 07:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
== Passyii copyvios and potential COI ==
{{atop
| status = Socks whacked
| result = Bunch o' spammy socks blocked, see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HydroDoesWhackyStuff]]. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 17:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|Passyii}}
Reporting user for continually uploading copyvio pictures, potential COI, and not engaging with others' feedback or the automatic warning messages.
I previously put up a notice at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Passyii and Hydro0721 edits|the conflict of interest noticeboard about them and another user]], but it's been 9 days with no reply there and this user has continued uploading copyvios and making posts that seem like likely COI to me.
For evidence of copyvio pictures, see their talkpage; littered with deletion warnings. For recent copyvio pictures even past all the deletions, see [[:File:Priz-V.jpg]] and [[:File:Mave-metaverse-entertainment.jpeg]]; while before the user simply didn't upload any appropriate license (which led to the automatic deletions), they recently started putting up fake rationales to try and bypass the automatic deletions.
For potential COI, see my post at the COI noticeboard (linked above). Meanwhile, they've continued making pages that are possible COI. [[Draft:SpinX Games]], [[Draft:Metaverse Entertainment]]
This user has been warned multiple times for their behavior, but has engaged with none of the warnings or efforts at discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Passyii&diff=prev&oldid=1286335719][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Passyii&diff=prev&oldid=1286637255][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coway_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1286725947][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coway_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1286726262]
Getting tired of dealing with this and waiting for the discussion on the COI noticeboard to resolve while this user keeps causing issues. Would save us a lot of effort to just block. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Actually may as well include the other user I reported at the COI noticeboard as well in this. I strongly suspect they're related; have collaborated on multiple articles together.
:{{userlinks|Hydro0721}}
:This user has edited a very similar range of pages ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coway_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1287397366], [[Draft:SpinX Games]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netmarble&diff=prev&oldid=1279514577]). They've also been warned about COI but have ignored feedback. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydro0721&diff=prev&oldid=1278883115][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydro0721&diff=prev&oldid=1287435642] [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::It appears to be a lot of promotional editing revolving around [[Netmarble]], its personnel, and the companies it has ownership interests in: [[Coway (company)]]; [[Jam City (company)]]; [[Kabam]]; [[Draft:SpinX Games]]; [[Draft:Metaverse Entertainment]]; [[NCSoft]]; [[Bang Jun-hyuk]]. 80 of @[[User:Passyii|Passyii]]'s 83 edits are of those topics, all of @[[User:Hydo0721|Hydo0721]]'s edits are. I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about this. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 18:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::OK, I have reviewed the issue further and have pblocked them from Article and Draft space until we get a better explanation. I have invited them here to discuss. I see ignoring the requests concerning COI, probable undeclared paid editing, copyright violations (by @[[User:Passyii|Passyii]]), probable meat- or sockpuppeting. Again, interested to hear from them. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:Noting that I have just gutted [[Draft:Metaverse Entertainment]] as it was largely stapled together from other sources. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 08:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{userlinks|JulieBole}} made 10 small edits to get autoconfirmed and then created an article for one of Netmarble's games in mainspace. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackpot_World&oldid=1226357830] There's likely a lot more SPA editors around this topic.
::ETA: Hydro0721 is probably {{u|HydroDoesWhackyStuff}}, blocked last year for spamming on Netmarble's articles.
::ETA2: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HydroDoesWhackyStuff|SPI opened]], but I'm betting a lot of this is meatpuppetry. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 09:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Mass Deletions Across Projects – Conflict of Interest by an editor ==
{{hat|reason=Hatting this given it's fundamentally compromised by being a copy of an LLM output. (Note that the original report looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1289029846#Mass_Deletions_Across_Projects_%E2%80%93_Conflict_of_Interest_by_an_editor this], various modifications have been made to prevent it breaking the ToC and removing icons etc.) The editor is welcome to file a new report using their ''own words''. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 04:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello,
I would like to raise serious concerns regarding a pattern of cross-project deletions and speedy deletion nominations initiated by [[User:Osps7]] (Osama Eid), which appear to be motivated by personal bias against a specific individual: Abdulrahman Thaher, a TV director and public figure.
From available records, more than 20 articles and pages were deleted or nominated for deletion across multiple language Wikipedias and sister projects. The deletion summaries and comments were nearly identical and included the following repeated claim:
> "The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria."
> — [[User:Osps7]]
These justifications contain problematic elements:
* Assumptions of identity and intent without presenting verifiable diffs.
* Subjective claims about popularity and recognition which violate [[m:Assume good faith]] and are irrelevant under notability guidelines.
* Accusations that the subject paid or coordinated with news sources to write about him — serious claims presented without evidence.
* Misrepresentation of [[m:Cross-wiki content translation|cross-wiki content translation]] as “spam”.
This rationale contains assumptions, personal opinions, and lacks a policy-based foundation:
* Notability is determined by [[en:WP:GNG|WP:GNG]] and [[en:WP:SIGCOV|WP:SIGCOV]], not by local popularity or social media following.
* The pages were supported by multiple reliable, independent sources.
* Translating content across Wikimedia projects is a legitimate and encouraged practice when sourced properly.
* Alleging that someone wrote about themselves, without presenting diffs or clear evidence, is a violation of [[en:WP:AGF|WP:AGF]] (Assume Good Faith).
Even more concerning is the tone used in one of the user's comments, revealing clear personal animosity:
<blockquote>
"Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter.
The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him.
Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories?
He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online.
So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories?"
— [[User:Osps7]] (May 5, 2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdulrahman_Thaher
</blockquote>
These statements demonstrate personal bias, reliance on unverifiable metrics, and a lack of neutrality in applying Wikipedia's policies.
;Challenging the Claims
'''❌ Bad Faith Assumption:''' Repeated accusations that the subject “asked others to write about him” or “coordinated with news websites” are serious claims that lack verifiable evidence and violate [[en:WP:AGF|WP:AGF]]. Wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes or speculation.
'''✅ Notability Standards:''' The subject has received coverage in reliable, independent sources, including news articles, interviews, and listings on databases such as [[en:IMDb|IMDb]], [[TMDB]], and others. This clearly satisfies [[en:WP:SIGCOV|WP:SIGCOV]] and Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines.
'''❌ Cross-wiki Spam Accusation:''' Translating or adapting content from Arabic Wikipedia to English (or other languages), when properly sourced and neutral, is not spam. It is a legitimate contribution, especially when the subject is notable in their region.
'''❌ Personal Bias:''' Comments like “he is not known in Palestine” or “has no followers” are subjective and not aligned with Wikipedia's neutral and evidence-based notability criteria. Reliable independent coverage, not search metrics, determine notability.
;Pages Deleted
* [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher fr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher pt.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher id.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher ms.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurahman_Daher tr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עבד_א-רחמן_דאהר he.wikipedia – עבד א-רחמן דאהר]
* [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔 zh.wikipedia – 阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔]
* [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قالب:عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – Template:عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قائمة_أعمال_عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – قائمة أعمال عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
;Pages Nominated for Speedy Deletion
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
* [https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبدالرحمن_ظاهر fa.wikipedia – عبدالرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر arz.wikipedia – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/압두라흐만_다헤르 ko.wikipedia – 압두라흐만 다헤르]
* [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Абдулрахман_Дахер ru.wikipedia – Абдулрахман Дахер]
* [https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Əbdürrəhman_Zahir az.wikipedia – Əbdürrəhman Zahir]
* [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher de.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher es.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://ha.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher ha.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
* [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher nl.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/अब्द_अल-रहमान_ज़हीर hi.wikipedia – अब्द अल-रहमान ज़हीर]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher_filmography en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher filmography]
* [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikiquote – Abdulrahman Thaher]
* [https://ar.wikiquote.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikiquote – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Abduddaher Commons – Deletion requests: Files uploaded by Abduddaher]
;Request
I respectfully request the following:
* A review of the deletion actions and nominations initiated or supported by [[User:Osps7]].
* An investigation into potential conflict of interest or misuse of admin/editorial rights.
* Restoration or undeletion of at least one page so it may be discussed by the wider community in a neutral venue.
* Unblock [[User:Abduddaher]] who contributed to translating most of these pages, to enable him to engage in discussion, commenting and improvement.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[[User:Maxpro2025|Maxpro2025]] ([[User talk:Maxpro2025|talk]]) 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:<small>Ah, that sweet smell of [[WP:LLM]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)</small>
::The emojis are somehow worse then the LLM [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 03:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::Also a bit odd that the OP is a new account that has made virtually no other edits apart from this and articles relating to the artist in question. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 04:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Can you do it again, but in your own words? [[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">☎</span>]] 03:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
== User:Lietuva lietuviams69 and antisemitism ==
{{atop
| result = Definitely [[WP:NOTHERE|not here]] and now the other kind of [[WP:BLOCK|not here]] [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 08:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC) [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 08:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|Lietuva lietuviams69}}
Clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. At [[Jonas Noreika]] they have have been edit warring in order to remove "Nazi collaborator" from the lead (they probably reverted while logged out as well) and then they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonas_Noreika&diff=prev&oldid=1289057428 wrote] in the edit summary: {{tq|i have noticed you have edited articles with israel wars.... Meaning you are a jew..... Calling everyone a nazi was promised to you 3000 years ago wasnt it?}}. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 08:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 08:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Wow, okay. Get this guy the ''fuck'' out. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 08:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Return of disruptive block-evading editor at IP range 2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 ==
* IP range being reported: {{userlinks|2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64}}
* Previous AN/I thread from December 2024: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64_=_block_evasion_of_166.182.0.0/16|"2601:18C:8102:2FC0:0:0:0:0/64 = block evasion of 166.182.0.0/16"]]
Hello Wikipedia admins. This is a second report of the IP /64 range user above, who was blocked for 1 week in December 2024 after the first AN/I thread I filed against them (linked above). They were blocked due to evasion of the block on the [[Special:Contribs/166.182.0.0/16|166.182.0.0/16]] range, which still remains there to this day. Although the 1 week rangeblock of the /64 has expired a long time ago, looking at the range's contribs history there are zero good faith edits nor any edits that are not this long-term disruptive person. Today they have returned to make yet another round of disruptions to their favourite TV show related articles.
Evidence diffs:
* On article A: [[Special:Diff/1160108380|diff]] by still-blocked /16 from June 2023, [[Special:Diff/1262432954|diff]] by /64 from Dec 2024, [[Special:Diff/1288926178|diff]] by /64 from 5 May 2025
* On article B: [[Special:Diff/1262432942|diff]] by /64 from Dec 2024, [[Special:Diff/1288926106|diff]] by /64 from 5 May 2025
* On article C: [[Special:Diff/1160108295|diff]] by still-blocked /16 from June 2023, [[Special:Diff/1262432962|diff]] by /64 from Dec 2024, [[Special:Diff/1288926100|diff]] by /64 from 5 May 2025
Thanks! — [[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 09:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
== Conflict of Interest - Mass Deletions Across Projects by an editor ==
{{atop
| result = Nothing actionable for this (en.wp) noticeboard. {{nac}} ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 18:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
=== Concerns Regarding Deletion Pattern and Potential Conflict of Interest by [[User:Osps7]] ===
I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding a serious pattern of deletions and deletion nominations across multiple Wikimedia projects, all seemingly coordinated or initiated by [[User:Osps7]] (Osama Eid), targeting a single individual — a TV director and public figure, Abdulrahman Thaher. The actions appear to stem from personal bias and involve misuse of administrative or editorial influence.
Across at least 15 Wikimedia projects, more than 20 articles and files related to this individual were either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. The justifications provided are near-identical and raise serious concerns. One such justification he copied and pasted on pages is:
''"The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria."
— [[User:Osps7]]''
This reasoning reflects personal opinion rather than a policy-based approach:
*Wikipedia's notability is assessed based on [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:SIGCOV]], not local popularity or social media presence.
*The articles were well-sourced with multiple reliable references.
*Accusations of self-promotion lack concrete diffs or verifiable evidence, violating [[WP:AGF]].
*Cross-wiki translations of valid content are not considered spam and are encouraged, especially with neutral tone and citations.
Furthermore, a comment from [[User:Osps7]] illustrates the tone of the deletions:
<blockquote>
"Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter. The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him. Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories? He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online. So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories?" — [[User:Osps7|Osama Eid]] (May 5, 2025)
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdulrahman_Thaher</ref>
</blockquote>
===Challenging the Claims===
*'''Bad Faith Assumption''': Repeated accusations that the subject “asked others to write about him” or “coordinated with news websites” are serious claims that lack verifiable evidence and violate [[WP:AGF]]. Wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes or speculation.
*'''Notability Standards''': The subject has received coverage in reliable, independent sources, including news articles, interviews, and listings on databases such as [[IMDb]], TMDB, and others. This clearly satisfies [[WP:SIGCOV]] and Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines.
*'''Cross-wiki Spam Accusation''': Translating or adapting content from Arabic Wikipedia to English (or other languages), when properly sourced and neutral, is not spam. It is a legitimate contribution, especially when the subject is notable in their region.
*'''Personal Bias''': Comments like “he is not known in Palestine” or “has no followers” are subjective and not aligned with Wikipedia's neutral and evidence-based notability criteria. Reliable independent coverage, not search metrics, determine notability.
This language clearly reflects personal bias, relies on non-verifiable metrics, and misrepresents Wikipedia’s standards for notability.
=== Affected Pages ===
'''Pages Deleted:'''
* [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher fr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher pt.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher id.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher ms.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurahman_Daher tr.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עבד_א-רחמן_דאהר he.wikipedia – עבד א-רחמן דאהר]
* [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔 zh.wikipedia – 阿卜杜拉赫曼·达赫尔]
* [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قالب:عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – Template:عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/قائمة_أعمال_عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikipedia – قائمة أعمال عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
'''Nominated for Speedy Deletion:'''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
* [https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبدالرحمن_ظاهر fa.wikipedia – عبدالرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر arz.wikipedia – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/압두라흐만_다헤르 ko.wikipedia – 압두라흐만 다헤르]
* [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Абдулрахман_Дахер ru.wikipedia – Абдулрахман Дахер]
* [https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Əbdürrəhman_Zahir az.wikipedia – Əbdürrəhman Zahir]
* [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher de.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher es.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://ha.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher ha.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher]
* [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Daher nl.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Daher]
* [https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/अब्द_अल-रहमान_ज़हीर hi.wikipedia – अब्द अल-रहमान ज़हीर]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher_filmography en.wikipedia – Abdulrahman Thaher filmography]
* [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Thaher en.wikiquote – Abdulrahman Thaher]
* [https://ar.wikiquote.org/wiki/عبد_الرحمن_ظاهر ar.wikiquote – عبد الرحمن ظاهر]
* [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Abduddaher Commons – Deletion requests: Files uploaded by Abduddaher]
=== Request ===
I respectfully request:
*A review of all deletion and nomination actions made or influenced by User:Osps7.
*An investigation into potential abuse of tools or conflict of interest.
*Restoration or re-evaluation of at least one deleted page so that the community can discuss it neutrally.
*Transparency about how personal judgments like “lack of followers” or “search interest” are being weighed in editorial decisions.
*Unblocking of User:Abduddaher, who translated many of the affected articles, so that he may take part in the review process.
[[User:Maxpro2025|Maxpro2025]] ([[User talk:Maxpro2025|talk]]) 13:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sorry is your basis for asking for Administrator intervention the fact that this editor has made 2 AfDs on en.wp and done a bunch of stuff on other wikis? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Maxpro2025|Maxpro2025]], please read [[WP:LLM|this essay]] on LLM usage on Wikipedia. While not a policy, it gives you a good idea of how the community treats LLMs. <big><sup>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Tornado|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 13:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:The English Wikipedia has no authority on any other languages Wikipedias. You can't ask here for help there. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I still feel like this is written with a LLM. I'm not sure if you're fluent in English, but even if you aren't, I feel like using a translator and explaining in your own words is much more helpful. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 13:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::While I don't agree with @[[User:Osps7|Osps7]] regarding the deletion of the article at en.wp this is an entirely spurious AN/I complaint, notwithstanding the obvious LLM usage and I would recommend Maxpro2025 withdraw it. Furthermore AfD is within the Israel / Palestine CTOP which means Maxpro2025 should not be touching it as they are not ECR status. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Cross-wiki abuse is dealt with at [[meta:|Meta]], not the English Wikipedia. And, as others say, don't use LLMs. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:This appears to just be a slightly better formatted repost of [[#Mass Deletions Across Projects – Conflict of Interest by an editor]] from above. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{tq|Across at least 15 Wikimedia projects, more than 20 articles and files related to this individual were either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. The justifications provided are near-identical}}
Even though every language's wikipedia is independent, I'm strongly in favour of consistency. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 14:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Huh? How does this argument make sense? I think the individual is notable beyond doubt and it's quite silly to still be arguing contrary when there is significant coverage for MULTIPLE things he has done. Checking the pages which have been deleted, it seems like all of them were without an AfD process. I don't know the policies or guidelines of every wiki, but reviewing some of them:
:* .pt got deleted for being "cross-wiki spam" - even if the creator was blocked and was mass-creating the article across various wikis, is that seriously not allowed when the subject is clearly notable? Like, if I began creating articles for [[Brad Pitt]] across wikis where he doesn't have one, would it be reasonable to block me? The AfD demonstrates he's notable beyond doubt (there's even some kind of report analysing the impact his detention had and the subsequent reaction of the general public)
:* Most other wikis (ms., id., tr. etc) deleted for not being notable - I feel like in most of the cases, there was a lack of a source review determining notability. I've seen none that went through an AfD process, and I would like to challenge the deletions, except I don't know the languages.
:* he. got deleted because the creator got blocked. Again, I believe him being blocked is irrelevant in this scenario when the subject is genuinely notable.
:Even tho I disagree with the deletions, I'm aware I don't know their policies, and it could have been within their right for all I know. Anyway, English Wikipedia has a different set of notability requirements, and thus we should follow that. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::I also want to add not all deletions were just an article on him, some were of templates and articles such as "list of works by..." In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulrahman Thaher filmography|the English equivalent]], I voted to merge onto the main article, since I don't think his works are substantial enough for an entire new article yet. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 15:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
This does appear to be a coordinated deletion action. And while authoring your own page (if that is indeed what occurred) is strongly discouraged in many ways, it isn't an argument or reason for deletion. And even our article has a ton of proper news sources about him and his work, as does all the others I'm seeing linked above. So, beyond OP's use of LLM to write this (bad OP!), this does seem to be a real issue. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 14:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:The only things in scope for EN.WP are the two AfDs on our project and I would not call two AfDs, even poorly conceived ones, particularly disruptive. If someone wants to raise an issue at Meta that's up to them. This is not the appropriate venue. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I agree, it is rather odd to nominate every single article about a subject for deletion, when the person definitely appears notable. For instance, their article on the Arabic Wikipedia was created in 2011, so it isn't like this person popped up yesterday. I also (well, personally) believe the subject is notable beyond doubt and genuinely don't get how one can think otherwise - their detention did cause quite a stir, and they've directed and acted in several TV shows and movies which are also noteworthy. Nonetheless, this isn't a problem for the English Wikipedia. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
This should be closed immediately and with no action. I closed the editor's original report [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1289047980 yesterday] and [[User talk:Maxpro2025|clearly directed]] them that they were welcome to post here using their own words. To repost the LLM tl;dr complaint almost without any changes a second time is disappointing. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 18:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
{{abot}}
== User:Faster than Thunder - warning done out of poor faith ==
{{Userlinks|Faster than Thunder}}
I have received a warning in [[List of rider deaths in motorcycle racing]], being accused of 'adding random content' when all I have done is broke some entries off into new sections and altered red links into an interwiki link. This warning is done out of poor faith, in my opinion. [[User:SpacedFarmer|SpacedFarmer]] ([[User talk:SpacedFarmer|talk]]) 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Okay- have you notified them of this discussion as required, and what administrator action are you seeking? Have you attempted to discuss this with them? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:The vandalism warning comes off a little strong, but this is not fundamentally an issue for ANI in my opinion. Especially without any real discussion between the two users. [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 18:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:SpacedFarmer|SpacedFarmer]], can you really assume those edits were done in poor faith without actually talking to them? See [[WP:AGF]]. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color:#fff">Gommeh</span>]] <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">➡️</span> [[User talk:Gommeh|<span style="color:#fff">Talk to me</span>]]</span> 18:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::I agree this isn't ANI-worthy (assuming it's an isolated incident), but why tell SF to AGF but not say anything to FTT?
::{{ping|SpacedFarmer}} I don't think that warning was in bad faith, I think FFT just didn't understand what you were doing. {{ping|Faster than Thunder}} looks like you made a mistake, and in any case a level 4 warning was too strong. An apology wouldn't hurt. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::AGF was supposed to be directed at both of them, sorry if that was unclear. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color:#fff">Gommeh</span>]] <span style="letter-spacing:-2px">➡️</span> [[User talk:Gommeh|<span style="color:#fff">Talk to me</span>]]</span> 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
== User:Imdeadinside12 ==
*{{userlinks|Imdeadinside12}}
[[User:Imdeadinside12]] has been completely [[WP:COMMUNICATE|ignoring]] their own talk page, never even making an edit on it and rarely use the edit summary. In addition, this user is constantly going against [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources]] using unreliable sources and going against other Wikipedia rules, such as [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:OR]] and many others especially constant reported [[WP:DIS|disruptive editing]]. I mean just one look at this user's talk page shows a mile long list of warnings from editors like myself which have gone completely overlooked and ignored. There also seems to be a level of [[WP:CIR|incompitency]] regarding this users edits as stated before. I have been biting my tounge for a while, however I am tired of having to revert edits and check over any discrepencies this user has caused, they've been editing Wikipedia longer than I have and yet refused or ignore basic things all edits are require to do, thus I had no choice but to bring this here.
Examples (all are within past 6 months):
*[[WP:COMMUNICATE]] - [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Imdeadinside12] and see talk page.
*[[WP:NOTNEWS]] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&oldid=1273938864] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&diff=prev&oldid=1272489200]
*[[WP:OR]] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1283639102] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271673048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271829380] (latter 3 are the user's edits being reverted, to which the user kept changing them)
*[[WP:PW/RS]] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1283639102] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&oldid=1273938864] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&diff=prev&oldid=1272489200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Savages&diff=prev&oldid=1274547086] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271284543] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271673048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271829380] (latter 3 are the user's edits being reverted, to which the user kept changing them, also same as [[WP:PW/RS]] but cover the same Wikipedia rule)
*[[WP:DIS]] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxanne_Perez&diff=prev&oldid=1276261304] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IShowSpeed&diff=prev&oldid=1285135182] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobee_Minor&diff=prev&oldid=1287649381]
*[[WP:CIR]] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxanne_Perez&diff=prev&oldid=1276261304]
[[User:Lemonademan22|Lemonademan22]] ([[User talk:Lemonademan22|talk]]) 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Imdeadinside12}}, I have no interest in professional wrestling so I will not comment on the subject matter, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project so you need to communicate. If you do not do so then you are likely to find yourself blocked. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::okay i understand i edit for fun and i dont have the time to check my talk page all the time but i'll do so going forward i apologize for any inconvience but i will add that getting upset at me for not using the edit summary is little bit ridiculous cause no one that ive seen uses it or barely does so i dont understand why i am being singled out on this matter [[User:Imdeadinside12|Imdeadinside12]] ([[User talk:Imdeadinside12|talk]]) 21:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I believe [[Help:Edit summary|this]] may be enlightening, along with this quote from that page.
:::"According to the [[Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Through editing|consensus policy]], '''all edits should be explained''' ''(unless the reason for them is obvious)"'' [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 22:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Secondly, when reverting an edit, an edit summary is highly recommended.
::::"It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when [[Wikipedia:Reverting|reverting]] (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::If you don't have the time to check your talk page (what, it takes a few ''seconds!''), you surely don't have time to make mainspace edits. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
== User:Adamant1 ==
*{{userlinks|Adamant1}}
I think this user violated [[WP:CIVIL]] Policy and attack me, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288898298 created] a discussion here and notified the user in his talk page according to instructions, But in an uncivilized manner he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288989059 reverted the message] and call me "trolling" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288989110 he do it twice], then he responded to the discussion in a harsh and disrespectful manner, This is not a proper way to deal with other users, this is something that clearly violates the Universal code of conduct and I think the admins should intervene according to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Blocking policy]] --[[User:Ibrahim.ID|<b style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:green;">Ibrahim.ID ✪</b> ]] 23:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
== Inappropriate talk page refactoring ==
{{U|CallumC.Gurney}} is inappropriately removing content from [[Talk:Hospental Castle]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHospental_Castle&diff=1289182593&oldid=1289182309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289181536][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289179924][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospental_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1289163486])after consensus was reached against their preference and they were informed multiple times ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CallumC.Gurney&diff=prev&oldid=1289173411][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CallumC.Gurney&diff=prev&oldid=1289180418]) that their refactoring was not acceptable. [[User:Cerebral726|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> ''Cerebral726'' </b>]][[User talk:Cerebral726|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">''(talk)''</b>]] 00:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked for 31 hours from editing the talk page. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::I do wonder if that’s sufficient given {{diff2|1289181195|this comment}} on their talk page in response to another editor? [[User:Danners430|Danners430]] ([[User talk:Danners430|talk]]) 06:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
== Article name warring by User:HIBUDDYYY ==
{{atop
| result = BYE BUDDYYY. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
The only edits of {{userlinks|HIBUDDYYY}} thus far have been warring over the name/description of [[Grenada station]]. This includes 6 edits changing the name/description ([[Special:Diff/1287573813|1]], [[Special:Diff/1287575906|2]], [[Special:Diff/1287575929|3]], [[Special:Diff/1287683156|4]], [[Special:Diff/1287698012|5]], [[Special:Diff/1287729905|6]]) despite my repeated explanations that a requested move was the proper venue, a [[Special:Diff/1287868942|nonsense comment]] when someone else filed an RM, a [[Special:Diff/1287738292|rude response]] after I filed an AIV report, and now a [[Special:Diff/1289172211|contrary-to-consensus move]] after the RM was closed as not moved. I do not believe this editor has any intentions of productive and collaborative editing, and I think a block is needed. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 00:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Joseph77237 is [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==
{{Userlinks|Joseph77237}}
This editor has some 600 edits, more than 400 of them to [[Preterintention]], their creation. Their edits to the de-wiki version of this article have all been reverted, and they are indefinitely blocked from it-wiki. Most of their talk page edits (eg at [[User talk:Joseph77237]], which is worth a read) have been to describe other editors as being vandals (see also [[Special:Diff/1245797340]], in which the supposed vandal is yours truly), and to complain when other editors very patiently attempted to explain various matters of policy, why they reverted, etc.
He is incapable of collaborating ({{tq|This way of working is not my style}}, [[Special:Diff/1244691906]]), and has repeatedly and over time expressed his opposition to [[WP:5P3]] and the foundational idea of "anyone can edit". Examples: {{tq|ok. But I don't agree: the 5 pillars of Wikipedia should be interpreted through the criteria of official hermeneutics: "literal", "systematic", "teleological", "logical", "rational" etc.}} ([[Special:Diff/1245816264|September]]), {{tq|I don't find it rational that Wikipedia's specialist entries are written without having the relevant academic qualifications and expertise}} ([[Special:Diff/1271906055|January]]), {{tq|a Wikipedia article written by someone who is not a lawyer is insane}} ([[Special:Diff/1289073481|today]]). These are all from [[Talk:Preterintention]].
He has [[Special:Diff/1245797340|several]] [[Special:Diff/1271710632|times]] [[Special:Diff/1237260269|declared]] he is done editing Wikipedia. I think we should help him make good on this promise, by means of an indefinite block. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support indef CBAN'''. Preterintention has been brought to WP:LAW several times now. See [[Special:PermanentLink/1289184872#Preterintention]]. I was unaware of the conduct issues. Based on the evidence, Joseph seems to be a cross-project SPA focused on presenting his [[WP:OR|theory]] of preterintention. His editing is not compatible with a collaborative project. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:: "Cross-project SPA" is an accurate description. Joseph, a native Italian speaker, has contributed exclusively to articles about this topic (or directly related topics) in at least eight languages, [[User talk:Joseph77237#Your interests here|listed & linked here]] at his Talk page, some of which are Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Somali. One has to presume AI is being used in at least some of them (asked [[User talk:Joseph77237#Your interests here|here]], but not answered). He also has stated that he will not contribute to any other topic ([[Special:Diff/1288770488|diff-1]]) and that legal topics are or should be restricted to attorney editors ([[Special:Diff/1288877210|diff-2]], [[Special:Diff/1289073481|diff-3]]). [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Motion Seconded'''
:This guy has said so himself, he is incapable of following basic Wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 02:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:seems like a [[WP:CIR]] situation as well. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:Be interested in hearing what he has to say before we rush him to the exits. With that, yeah, [[Citizendium]] has already been tried, and it was an abject failure. Perhaps Joseph77237 would like to see if [[Encyclopaedia Britannica]] thinks his "expertise" is worth anything? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 02:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] offered to mentor him to avoid this very situation, and this was the response: [[Special:Diff/1288933534]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::Given that he has remained extremely consistent in his views over the past year, I don't really expect to hear anything from him that he hasn't already said. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support CBAN''' per [[WP:CNH]] and [[WP:CIR]]. Wikipedia isn't a place for [[WP:CPP|civil POV pushing]]. [[User:Aydoh8|Aydo]][[User talk:Aydoh8|h8]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aydoh8|[what have I done now?]]]</sup> 03:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
*{{ping|Asilvering}} The links you put to September and January don't go to the quotes they're referencing - may want to check that? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
*:sigh. Thought I already ''had'' fixed them. I will never remember that regular diffs work differently from the ones with "oldid" in them and you can't copy diff #s out of the URL bar half the time. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I took [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]]'s advice and wandered over to read said talk page and noticed Joseph77237 had made a comment when logged out and then repeated it logged in. That IP, 95.75.78.144, has made significant contributions in the user's topic areas of interest - way beyond the occasional 'Oops, forgot to log' - FWIW. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
: Not sure which contributions you mean, but the two anons I am aware of that belong to him are {{user|88.58.91.18}} and {{user|95.75.78.144}} but I believe the IP contributions I saw were before his first edits under his registered account. There are two other IPs with similar patterns, but they are from Stockholm and Dusseldorf so may not be him. I doubt we will get to the point where we need to dive deeper on this, but ping me if we do. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
== User talk page ownership of an ArbCom-banned user ==
I came across a currently banned-by-ArbCom [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|user's talk page]] where multiple editors [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl#You can come back|left messages]] urging her return. As an individual who suffered from this banned editor's behaviour, I left a note stating my reasons opposing her return and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1289168423 swiftly reverted] by {{u|Fortuna imperatrix mundi}} because my comment was not in support. Fortuna also wrote in edit summary that {{tq|...You wanna do that, it's welcome at the Dramah Boards.}} While restoring my comment, I told Fortuna that they can't only allow one-sided "support" comments and remove any that oppose their views. Fortuna [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1289174678 doubled down by reverting again] and in the edit summary stated {{tq|...yes, I make that call.}} I believe Fortuna's behaviour met the definition of [[WP:OWN|user talk page ownership]] and also violated [[WP:TPO|talk page guidelines]] on removing other user's comments. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 02:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not sure how this is an example of a {{tq|chronic, intractable behavioral problem}}. [[User:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: blue; color:white; padding:3px">'''''MiasmaEternal'''''</span>]][[User_talk:MiasmaEternal|<span style="background-color: black; color: white; padding:3px">☎</span>]] 02:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::If an editor foolishly says "take it to the dramah boards" while reverting that's basically them ''agreeing'' that there's a behavioral problem somewhere, so escalating to ANI seems reasonable in such a case. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:A user talk page isn't a discussion forum; it's a venue for communicating with the editor. If I were to go over to your talk page -- however justified I thought I was in doing so -- and posted "Stay away and don't ever come back," I would be [[WP:TROUT|troutslapped]] so hard I'd be seeing flounder in my sleep. That's in essence what you did. User talk pages are not the proper venue for opposing appeals of ArbCom actions. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:It doesn't seem helpful to put critical comments on a former editor's talk page. And formatting that page so that it seems to solicit bolded iVotes also seems less than ideal. - [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 02:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC) (non-objective non-admin)
:A) Negative messages aren't a good idea and skirt [[WP:GRAVEDANCING]] rules. But B) "Positive" messages are also not a good idea, at least the ones that pretend that a banned user was purely innocent. It would be wonderful if ''all'' sanctioned editors could come back with permissions restored, but this requires them acknowledging they may have done something wrong. Telling such editors that actually everything was fine and they can come back no problem is going to ''reduce'' the likelihood of a successful appeal, not increase it, by suggesting "hey it was all haters and I don't need to change at all" is a viable appeal. (But if people want to give bad advice, I guess they can... just don't be surprised at the result.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:It's a circling the wagons sort of thing where a long-term editor is defended by a large group of people, no matter the terrible things they do. That entire talk page should be blanked. The past two years of the archive with similar material should be blanked, imo. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. The page curation that's happening is troubling, it seems that positive messages are kept front and center while routine notices are deleted immediately even though BHG had auto archiving set up. At one point folks were even being admonished for leaving routine AfD notices. I didn't think it was worth the drama to pursue it when it happened to me, but selectively deleting negative comments is a bridge too far.
::Frankly if BHG does return so editing, it would be a huge pain in the butt for them to dig up all of those notices from the history instead of having them in an archive. At the very least we should ask that editors refrain from tampering with the page. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 05:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:Telling Ohana to take to the drama board was a recognition that they had an issue. They had already reverted once, and as unseemly as posting criticism to someone's page who cannot defend themselves is, edit warring over it would have been worse (not that it got that far of course). So better discuss here than there. The bottom line is that, whether editors should be expressing such support on a user page or not, there's nothing codified against it (and can you imagine even trying to get consensus for a prohibition like that?). Editors support each other via talk page messages; that's what they do. But it's not WP:AN/U. If BHG ever decides to return, that will involve an appeal to ArbCom, and that will be the chance for everybody to express their bolded-or-otherwise opinions, in a forum designed for it and specifically one where all parties can comment. I also think that BHG is experienced enough that if she does ever do so it will ''not'' be because a handful of editors said it was OK. I respect that Ohana had a bad experience with her. I also think that when you have a bad experience with someone, it's best to ignore them. But I don't think it justifies... it's been called ~gravedancing, I compared it to poking the bear (from the safety of the other side of the bars!). ''[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna,]] [[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Imperatrix]] [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Mundi]]'' 09:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:I think [[User:OhanaUnited]] behaved with incredibly poor taste by attacking BHG in a venue where she cannot reply. I told him so on his user talk page, he replied that he's "entitled to [express] my opinion on that page just like any other user". Well, maybe, but it seems to me to be him applying "the letter not the spirit", rather like his failure to notify me of this ANI thread even though I am obviously somewhat involved. Yes, he's entitle to attack someone who cannot defend herself, but it I think to do so shews bad taste, bad judgement (he must have known it would create drama, perhaps that's why he did it), and an unpleasant attitude to his fellow humans. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 10:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
== A Disruptive Editor that keeps violating Wikipedia Policies. ==
User @Reeshavp is appending honorifics to the names of several college and university chancellors, presidents, and other esteemed figures. Despite prior warnings and further advisories, they persist in this inappropriate practice. As evidenced by their recent edit made on May 7, 2025 and majority of their edits, their disregard for warnings must be addressed and rectified. '''[[User:VeritasVanguard|Veritas]]<span style="color:darkblue;">Vanguard</span>''': <span style="color:green;">''"Seeking truth in every edit"''</span> 04:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:VeritasVanguard|VeritasVanguard]] Please provide [[H:DIFF|diffs]] demonstrating this behavior. [[User:Opm581|<span style="color:#00c0c0;">Opm581</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Opm581|<span style="color:#83D27A">(talk</span>]] <span style="color:#E77979;">|</span> <span style="color:#68AAE8;">he/him)</span></sup> 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::These are only the some that I found. This user edits many pages adding honorifics to every page where there are not even when they know it is against the wikipedia policy.
::{{diff|I. K. Gujral Punjab Technical University|1288660140|1288462163}}{{diff|Christian Medical College Vellore|1289204873|1289204755}}{{diff|Dr. B. R. Ambedkar State Institute of Medical Sciences|1289204164|1277223954}}{{diff|Panjab University|1283219914|1278678762}}{{diff|Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences|1288582703|1283207382}}{{diff|Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College|1285919768|1283796815}}
::'''[[User:VeritasVanguard|Veritas]]<span style="color:darkblue;">Vanguard</span>''': <span style="color:green;">''"Seeking truth in every edit"''</span> 04:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
== Anonymous user being extremely disruptive ==
{{atop
| status = Duplicate
| result = Looks like you’re getting your answer at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Anonymous user being extremely disruptive]], where you also posted this. One venue only. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 06:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
}}
This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.106.2.164, is being extremely disruptive.
They continuously make edit, claiming something when it’s not true, and then gets upset when edits get reverted.
They’re also attacking me.
They don’t appear to be stopping anytime soon.
If I was in charge, I would block them for disruptive behaviour and edits (but of course I can’t and never will). [[User:Dipper Dalmatian|Dipper Dalmatian]] ([[User talk:Dipper Dalmatian|talk]]) 05:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:
@[[User:ModSkeptic]] started disrupting the page [[Battle of Qaqun]], deleting reliable sources, adding unsourced things and stating: '''Your article is based off of speculative interpretations, Michael Prestwich and Marc Morris are not primary sources or eye witness accounts. They are 21st century writers. The Chronicle of the Templar of Tyre is a first hand eye witness account of the what happened at qaqun.''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Qaqun&oldid=1288996746]
In the talk page they began using personal attacks against another user who opposed their edits, stating: '''Chronicle of the Templar of tyre is more valid than any if your sources as is the report from Arab sources, there is no mention of a rout. you are obviously a Muslim, attempting to appear as the winners all the time. Stop spreading false information.'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Qaqun&diff=prev&oldid=1289134946]
Additionally, there was another new account created a day ago which is [[User:SwordAndScroll]] mentioning exactly what ModSkeptic said. Here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SwordAndScroll]
The user doesn't seem engaging in fruitful discussion on talk page and keeps vandalizing. [[User:عبدالرحمن4132|عبدالرحمن4132]] ([[User talk:عبدالرحمن4132|talk]]) 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||