Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198
Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported)
User contributions for Fdom5997 Fdom5997 continuously and not backing down in making unconstructive vandalism and personal attacks in multiple articles: Bonda language, Dolakha Newar language, Korku language, Gta' language, Santali language, including massive deletions of contents [1] [2] [3]. For most parts they accused me of changing the IPA consonant chart "it was already cited before you altered it" and then posted kind of intimidating messages with persuasive/non-engaging theme like "you’re lying, leave it alone!" "don’t undo it. You altered the info" "they did before you altered the information, shut up". it appears that they are not going to release their whatever info backking evidence while saying it also cited although I've put the sources in some cases, for many articles I cited valid sources and decided to improve (not alter, false language) the phonology sections for good. For example the Dolakha Newar language phonological IPA chart in version as at 06:15, 15 August 2025 is consistent with the linguistic material in Genetti, Carol (2007). A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019303-9. Page 33 (and following pages). For Gta', Santali, Korku, Remo(Bonda) consonant IPA chart, here the best source we can preview: Page 377 of Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 364–414. doi:10.1163/9789004283572_006. ISBN 978-90-04-28295-7. and Page 559 of Gregory Anderson The Munda Languages. Again, Fdom5997 moved page to page and launched sweeping vandalism attacks and threw out alot of inappropriate language is not something I could stand for wikipedia if this type of behavior doesnt get addressed. Thanks. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I said "I cited", however, for many articles I forgot to put the citation marker which shows precise page, although I might have put the sources for my improvements in the further reading or they already been there and just thought everyone are going to find and verify these information. Sorry, but that is my misktake in editing. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Manaaki teatuareo, When you report users at ANI, you must inform them on their talk pages. I have done that for you in this case. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @45dogs Thank you very much. I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined.
What is this suppose to mean? You have a global community here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)- I assume it's a reference to the Epstein list and its supposed coverup. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weird analogy to use here nonetheless Fdom5997 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm an American who watches the nightly news, I'm familiar with Jeffrey Epstein. But like Fdom5997 alluded to, it's a weird pop cultural reference to apply to this situation and I'm sure we have many editors on this platform who aren't well-versed in U.S. conspiracy theory lore. But thanks for providing the link, jlwoodwa, for those who want to look into it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weird analogy to use here nonetheless Fdom5997 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I assume it's a reference to the Epstein list and its supposed coverup. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Manaaki teatuareo these are all of the sources that were cited for each language article containing the phonological information, before you did your changes to the phonology. I have taken a look and viewed all of these sources online, and none of the info matched the info on the pages after you did the changes. And you also did wrongfully change the IPA symbols as well, that were also already used in the sources.
- I will list them here:
- Bonda language:
- -Swain, Rajashree (1998). "A Grammar of Bonda Language". Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute. 58/59: 391–396
- -DeArmond, Richard (1976). "Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gtaq Stressed Monosyllabic Vowels and Initial Consonants". Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications. 13 (13): 213–217.
- -Anderson, Gregory D. S.; Harrison, K. David (2008). "Remo (Bonda)". The Munda Languages. New York: Routledge. pp. 577–632.
- Korku language:
- -Nagaraja, K.S. (1999). Korku language : grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
- Gta’ language:
- -The Munda languages. Anderson, Gregory D. S. London: Routledge. 2008. p. 682.
- Santali language:
- -Ghosh, Arun (2008). "Santali". In Anderson, Gregory D.S. (ed.). The Munda Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 11–98.
- Lodhi language:
- -Linguistic Survey of India West Bengal Part-1. 2011. pp. 460–490.
- Dolakha Newar language:
- -Genetti, Carol (2003). Dolakhā Newār. The Sino-Tibetan Languages: London & New York: Routledge. pp. 353–370. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- @45dogs Thank you very much. I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything here that couldn't be dealt with by the protagonists on article talk pages. It is perfectly normal for different authors to use slightly different IPA sysbols for the same sound. Just discuss things and use dispute resolution if needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Says who? No it is not “normal” if that IPA symbol doesn’t represent its true phonetic value. To which the editor who changed the info on the pages, got it wrong. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I have taken a look and viewed all of these sources online, and none of the info matched the info on the pages after you did the changes No, all the sources you just copied straight from the pages without looking at them at all, even the sources' dates, versions, and authors' comments. People can see that Fdom5997 wasn't actually try to explain why their reverts and understand what I improved the articles, they keep removing everything just because they can. If wikipedia is some sort of undoing game back and forth that even adding newer more accurate sources is reverted, nothing could have been progressed and improved. The best Munda consonantal available up-to-date, whcih you removed and vandalized, is Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 364–414. doi:10.1163/9789004283572_006. ISBN 978-90-04-28295-7., dates 2014, which is newest. Remo language, Anderson & Harrison (2008) report no phonemic aspiration, but Anderson (2014) reports postalveolars affricatives tʃ, ts, dz. For Dolakhae Newar, Genetti, Carol (2007). A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019303-9. Is a 2007 full descriptive grammar invalid but a 2003 preliminary beta version? And you also did wrongfully change the IPA symbols as well, that were also already used in the sources. Because postalveolars are not palatals and the one that you termed as "symbols" are the transcription used by the linguists themselves based on standard International Phonetic Alphabet.Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, I actually did take a look and find all of those sources I listed online and did not “just copy them” as you insisted. And just because a source is “newer” does not necessarily mean that it is more accurate. And the sources that you’re citing are not as accurate as the ones that actually display the true phonology and the phonetic symbols as well. You cannot claim which source is “the most accurate” based on what you think it is. I read the source for Remo, and other Munda languages, but that was just a brief description of different phonemes, but it did not go into any phonological detail. And those postalveolar symbols are not the real phonemes of the consonants. Also, why would you insist your info on the symbols is “right”, if you then tell me that the symbols that I put (like how they were before you changed them) are the ones that are used by the linguists themselves? Wouldn’t that mean that your info is wrong because it is *not* used by the linguists themselves? Fdom5997 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Swisshalberd
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps complaining about what we do when we see vandalism way too much, all because he gets called out for edit warring, he spread his complaints over to my protection request, can someone please take a look, and investigate the actions further? 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Plus, he is also accusing other users for example the people reverting him including me of vandalizing and edit warring when I only reverted one time not more than that. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- 98.235.155.81, you are unlikely to get much of a response here if you aren't going to post some diffs that show the behavior you are complaining about. Editors need to see evidence that supports your claims and it's your responsibility to provide that. You also need to post a notiification on User:Swisshalberd's user talk page, letting them know that you started this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok then here he personally attacked me by calling me a propagandist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1307477971&diffonly=1. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- And here he accused me of "intimidating" him, while giving him a final warning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swisshalberd&diff=prev&oldid=1307477366#/search 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- And I notified them on their talk page, albeit in the "August 2025" section. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like User:Newslinger left them a strong warning. Since their violation was basically intemperate edit summaries and strong language, I'm not sure if any more action is called for here. I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- And I notified them on their talk page, albeit in the "August 2025" section. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- And here he accused me of "intimidating" him, while giving him a final warning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swisshalberd&diff=prev&oldid=1307477366#/search 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok then here he personally attacked me by calling me a propagandist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1307477971&diffonly=1. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- 98.235.155.81, you are unlikely to get much of a response here if you aren't going to post some diffs that show the behavior you are complaining about. Editors need to see evidence that supports your claims and it's your responsibility to provide that. You also need to post a notiification on User:Swisshalberd's user talk page, letting them know that you started this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Bullying by another editor
Hello, I wanted to report bullying I experienced from this user User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 who keep replying to me on talk page about Tate-La Bianca murders, but not with any constructive arguments, but mocking me and insulting because I disagree with their opinion on unborn child's status. They are even open they doing this because of political beliefs. I tried to end this discussion by citing wikipedia is not about politics but how sources refer to matter, but they keep presuming things about me and attack with things irrelevant to the topic of article or discussion. I even said to them they can go on my Talk page and have discussion there, but they keep continue to "moralize" me on article talk page. [4] [5]
Examples of their comments to me iclude:
1) accusations I want harm to women and that I have 'unhealthy obsession': "Blah blah blah, so many words that say nothing, so much emotion, so little sense or logic. Just know that your stance hurts women. " "No, it's not 'respect, accuracy, and compassion'. It's an unhealthy obsession with Sharon Tate coupled with a harmful desire to give personhood to fetuses at the expense of women everywhere. All women can go to hell as long as the long dead Sharon Tate's presumed wishes are "honored", as far as you're concerned."
2) despite me not using any religion argument ever, this person attack my presumed beliefs: "I just found out that because of your bold, relentless, and passionate championship of the Tate fetus's personhood, God has decided to retroactively go back to 1969 and save the life of adorable newborn Paul Polanski! In fact, the now 56-year-old Paul is coming to my house for dinner tomorrow night! He is so grateful to you for arguing him into existence! Congratulations! Your silly obsession with him actually accomplished something!"
3) Accusations of me being devoid of "sense and logic" and of being "emotional", despite me recognizing me own short-comings and citing wikipedia rules (relying on sources instead of beliefs): "Blah blah blah, so many words that say nothing, so much emotion, so little sense or logic. Just know that your stance hurts women. "
Moreover, I am led to belief this person is the same as User:Jersey Jan who was also insulting me and mocking my opinion multiple times few months ago on Sharon Tate's talk page. [6] [7] [8] Jersey Jan was using the same arguments: 1) Was accusing me of wishing harm to women: "you are not "pro-life". If you were, you would not want to see pregnant women dying in emergency rooms because anti-choice legislation makes doctors afraid to and/or unable to treat them. This could have happened to my daughter if she had had a miscarriage today instead of fifteen years ago, which is one reason I have no patience with those who call themselves "pro-life"." 2) Mocked the victim and my presumed beliefs
Jersey Jan also brought politics there and was resorting to personal attacks:
"However, in these dangerous post Roe v. Wade times, when pregnant women are in danger of dying because doctors are afraid to treat them, lest they be charged with "murdering" embryos and fetuses, I find it more important than ever to be correct in my terminology. A fetus has not been born."
"Go haul yourself down to Holy Cross Cemetery and Mortuary in Ladera Heights, California and stare and stare at the name "Paul Richard Polanski" and cry big tears and fall to your knees and be sure to bring a big bunch of roses. I don't know where you live, but your deep feelings for Tate's fetus should justify any amount of airfare, I am sure. Again, isn't that enough for you? Why the huge deal about putting "1 Stillborn Child" in Tate's info box on Wikipedia? You can still pray for the fetus every night before bedtime, no matter what's in her info box."
"Assigning personhood to fetuses is dangerous to all women of childbearing years, and you have been bending over backwards and twisting yourself into pretzels in order to redefine a fetus into an infant in this case. Your concern is the feelings of the dead Sharon Tate and the feelings of her immediate family, all but one of whom is dead now anyway. My concern is the well-being of and the lives of all childbearing women everywhere."
"Logic falls on deaf ears where you are concerned. At this point, my advice is to seek psychiatric help, because there has to be some abnormality in your psychological make-up which is causing you to be as invested as you are in believing that Tate's fetus was actually a stillborn infant. Probably something to do with a pregnancy you or your partner experienced, although of course I can't know for certain. Just seek help."
"I will do you a favor and assume that you are being WILLFULLY obtuse and that you're not just illiterate."
If so, that means they decide to suddenly continue topic, as they reply to post that I had written many months ago. I am not certain if they are the same person, but there are few tidbits they do, for example User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 acts as if we were talking before by using the same arguments and their first post to me sounds as if we had discussion at Sharon Tate's biography page, which we didn't, unless User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 is User:Jersey Jan. First post ever of User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 was: "Now neither of us got our perfect way on the Tate biography page. It appears a compromise was put there so let's leave it at that. But man you are annoying." Sentence implied this person was arguing with me back then and is the same as Jersey Jan.
I do not how to check this, but if you are able to trace IP to Jersey Jan, than please do it and give User:Jersey Jan a warning. I felt insulted by them back then but let them be - however, if now they continue to attack me after many MONTHS passing, then please, react. I am tired of this converstion, tired of being attacked, tired of being accused of "harming women", tired of being attacked and mocked for teating victim of murder with dignity and respect, and this person in not interested in bringing actual sources but continue to force their ideological beliefs on matter.
To be honest, I do not wish them to even be blocked, I just want someone to tell them clearly that their behaviour is inappropriate and gave them waring. User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 and/or User:Jersey Jan are entitled to have their opinion, but they should not doing political crusades on wikipedia and attacking person who has different stance. They should focus solely on argument, not on mocking me and my personal beliefs.
Edit: even if User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 and User:Jersey Jan are not the same people, User:Jersey Jan just attacked me personally again, so I definitely report them as my bully:[9].
- To quote them:
"You are anti choice. You try to hide it, but your last paragraph gives you away. "Unborn children are humans and deserve respect." THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE YOU ARE A FORCED BIRTHER. The fact that you are a Forced Birther is what triggers this obsession with Wikipedia calling the Tate fetus a person. Well, anti-choice/Forced Birthers disgust me, and the fact that some of them are female doesn't change that. Unfortunately, there are some female misogynists. I have personally known a few. But I digress. As a Forced Birther, YOU disgust me, and I don't care if this should be on your Talk Page and I don't care what happens with my Wiki account, I will say it and say it here. You disgust me. " - I said before I don't want them block - I changed my mind as they clearly are not able to respect other editor and despite many months passing from our last conversations, they continue to throw insults at me. Of course, any decision belongs to moderator(s). I just ask that wikipedia would not tolerate such behaviour. Moderators were previously tolerating their behaviour during discussion on Sharon Tate's talk page, despite my pleas to intervene. [10] [11].
- Please, do not repeat those mistakes. I have different views than my converser, but I tried explained them as gently and civilly as I can.
- From my side, if I ever overstepped personally myself when talking on my views, I apologize and I take full responsibility - however have in mind I was never calling my converser names, while they keep presuming my views and mocking me constantly.
--Sobek2000 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)-
- Sobek2000, while to did inform
onetwo users, you did not inform 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 of this discussion.I have notified them for you.--Super Goku V (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- @Super Goku V: No, you haven't. You created an IP "user page" in main space. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, fudge it.
Self-trout (Never trusting links again.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- No worries. I would've fallen for that too :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Still, thank you for the correction and for fixing my mistake. :D --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- No worries. I would've fallen for that too :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, fudge it.
- I did inform them, apparently it didn't work, because they are IP. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alrighty, first things first, I have amended my original comment so that this ends up clearer for those reading this in the future. After checking, I was wrong and you did notified two users: Jersey Jan and 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50. (Or 2600: (...) :3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50) In your post above, you talked about Jersey Jan and 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134. (Or 2600: (...) :BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134) So, these are two different 2600 accounts.
- However, this isn't a problem for two reasons. The first is that Fortuna has notified the 2600 account ending in "BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134", so we should be good with notifications. (At least, I think we are good.) The second is that the "3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50" account has also participated in the discussion at Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders. Specifically, they made this edit:
No, it's not "respect, accuracy, and compassion". It's an unhealthy obsession with Sharon Tate coupled with a harmful desire to give personhood to fetuses at the expense of women everywhere. All women can go to hell as long as the long dead Sharon Tate's presumed wishes are "honored", as far as you're concerned. I'm not mocking the death of the fetus. I'm mocking you.
This is relevant to this report, especially those last few sentences. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- Oh, I see. But it seems it is only one person, as they appear to continue same arguments with me. Maybe they changed IP... Anyway User: Jersey Jan Definitely attacked my later in comments. Please focus on the, if you are unable to reach IP accounts. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Probably a dynamic IP address. Yes, they seem to be the same. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. But it seems it is only one person, as they appear to continue same arguments with me. Maybe they changed IP... Anyway User: Jersey Jan Definitely attacked my later in comments. Please focus on the, if you are unable to reach IP accounts. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Super Goku V: No, you haven't. You created an IP "user page" in main space. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The behaviour of 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 (talk · contribs) is clearly not good, special:Diff/1306494269 is a definitely Personal attack. -Lemonaka 12:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I believe that sanctions might be needed here to deal with this. Unfortunately, I believe that some of that might need to be a Boomerang due to this chain of comments.
"However, wikipedia does refer animals by their given name, refer to trans people by their preferred name and it is only consistent to refer to children who died before birth but were recognized by their parents in the same way." (Sgv: After being asked by MilesVorkosigan to not compare the naming of animals with the names of people who are transgender) "Migh I suggest you not be offended for mere stating afacts? I solely drew comparison of legal situation. (...) I pointed that many trans peeople who did not legally change their name/gender are still recognize by wikipedia by their preffered pronuns, because that was their wish that wikipedia respects. (...) I brought animals solely to show that - unlike both trans people and unborn children - they are not humans, yet many of them are referred by their names on wikipedia and none has problem that it "humanizes" them. My goal was to show that wikipedia relies on how subject is referred by cultural text, regardless of their legal status. Just as Brandon Teena is refered to as "Brandon" and "he" despite fact he tragically was killed before he could legally register his status, and just as Wisdom (albatross) is referred by her given name despite fact she definitely NOT legalized this, there is nothing incorrect in referring to Tate's child by his name, whatever his legal status."
--Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- O gosh... this? What exactly offensive I said? I compared legal phenomenas with wikipedia's consistency. I did not call trans people animals, just like I didn't call unborns children an animals. I simply pointed to consistency that what matters in wikipedia is how relaible source refer to someone even if they are not legally registered uder this name. It was about legal status. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have debated over the last day if I should try another explanation of the issue after it had been explained at the article's talk page or to let the go unanswered. I decided to just keep it brief here. You have compared people who want to have a part of their identity match how they identify to beings who have no control over what they are called. I believe that is as simple an explanation as I can provide for why it was deemed offensive. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I apologized to that person the best way I could. Don't mind it anymore - if you need to give me warning or block, okay. Or maybe you can suggest me if I can do something more. Anyway, I just wish for matter I brought to continue. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not sure if you are specifically addressing me here or if the words "if you need to give me" just means everyone in general. If it is the former, I am not an admin, so I have no power regarding sections except suggesting and agreeing or disagreeing with a suggestion sanction.
- In any case, this does seems to have been resolved with one user being warned and with you receiving a restriction. Outside of taking the SOCKing concerns to SPI, which might or might not be a good idea with these circumstances, I think the best thing I can recommend to you is to let this drop and edit elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- O gosh... this? What exactly offensive I said? I compared legal phenomenas with wikipedia's consistency. I did not call trans people animals, just like I didn't call unborns children an animals. I simply pointed to consistency that what matters in wikipedia is how relaible source refer to someone even if they are not legally registered uder this name. It was about legal status. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I believe that sanctions might be needed here to deal with this. Unfortunately, I believe that some of that might need to be a Boomerang due to this chain of comments.
- Hello everyone once again, even if User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 and User:Jersey Jan are not the same people, User:Jersey Jan just attacked me personally again, so I definitely report them as my bully:[12].
- To quote them:
"You are anti choice. You try to hide it, but your last paragraph gives you away. "Unborn children are humans and deserve respect." THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE YOU ARE A FORCED BIRTHER. The fact that you are a Forced Birther is what triggers this obsession with Wikipedia calling the Tate fetus a person. Well, anti-choice/Forced Birthers disgust me, and the fact that some of them are female doesn't change that. Unfortunately, there are some female misogynists. I have personally known a few. But I digress. As a Forced Birther, YOU disgust me, and I don't care if this should be on your Talk Page and I don't care what happens with my Wiki account, I will say it and say it here. You disgust me. " - I said before I don't want them block - I changed my mind as they clearly are not able to respect other editor and despite many months passing from our last conversations, they continue to throw insults at me. Of course, any decision belongs to moderator(s). I just ask that wikipedia would not tolerate such behaviour. Moderators were previously tolerating their behaviour during discussion on Sharon Tate's talk page, despite my pleas to intervene. [13] [14].
- Please, do not repeat those mistakes. I have different views than my converser, but I tried explained them as gently and civilly as I can.
- From my side, if I ever overstepped personally myself when talking on my views, I apologize and I take full responsibility - however have in mind I was never calling my converser names, while they keep presuming my views and mocking me constantly. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I gave both registered accounts a warning because whether civil or uncivil, these debates about abortion should not be happening at all. Abortion is a designated "contentious topic" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Contentious topic designation) and the talk page discussion should have only been focused on improving the article, not debating with each other. The other editor was rude but no one should get pulled into political or moral arguments about personal beliefs on an article talk page. If there is a dispute about a factual point in the article, then start an RFC on it but when you find yourself drawn into a futile debate, disengage and work elsewhere on the project. It's not a matter of the editor who gets the last word "wins". Maybe you should both get a topic ban from this Talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sobek2000, you have made 33 edits to this article talk page. I think you made your points about your preference in this article and you can now cease editing there until other editors have a chance to digest those comments and respond. Repeating yourself will not serve to convince other editors of the rightness of your position. I'll also post a warning to Jersey Jan that they should be more civil and if you are concerned about sockpuppetry, you can file a case at WP:SPI. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Related, but as an independent and uninvolved admin I have p-blocked @Sobek2000 from Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders and will not hesitate to do the same for Jersey Jan if they don't heed @Liz's warning. Both of you and the IP editor need to move on. Star Mississippi 20:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- As I said in my reporting, I apologize for any overstepping from my side if I was giving too much personal opinions in discussion. I was never there to discuss abortion, however it was very hard not to answer to my converser when they were attacking my opinions and keept attacking not arguments I had written, but me as person. I made clear many times to my converser any stance - mine and my converser - are subjective and I am interested only in discussions about sources. The things I wrote was to show I do not care for politics and want to have productive conversation about this particular case. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sobek2000, you have made 33 edits to this article talk page. I think you made your points about your preference in this article and you can now cease editing there until other editors have a chance to digest those comments and respond. Repeating yourself will not serve to convince other editors of the rightness of your position. I'll also post a warning to Jersey Jan that they should be more civil and if you are concerned about sockpuppetry, you can file a case at WP:SPI. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Chronic disruptive editing by User:LeeKokSeng2024
- LeeKokSeng2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor has been reported for a series of chronic behavior problems. He had expanded Theodore Peterson into a rather poorly written article, while having zero idea about copyright violations and insisted on restoring an image uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons that he claims to be his property, which I had proposed for deletion. [15] [16] @MPGuy2824 had attempted to redirect the page but was similarly reverted. An AfD was set up to unanimous redirect votes but is not closed at the moment. [17] [18] [19] [20] More diffs of the editor's disruptive editing, including replacing images. [21] Blanking talk page in spite of multiple warnings on his behavior from multiple editors. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- It should be noted that per WP:BLANKING, the blanking of that user's talk page by that user is not prohibited by policy, as long as that talk page doesn't contain certain kinds of information. The exceptions to reversing the blanking of the talk page don't apply here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, didn't think of this policy. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak to the user's other edits wrt copyvio, but their creation of Theodore Peterson [22] using unattributed material from https://helloneighbor.wiki.gg/wiki/Theodore_Peterson#Background is a plagiarism concern rather than outright copyvio. It's an unattributed, verbatim copy of a user-generated fan Wiki that is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 I don't think that simply including an external link to the site is sufficient attribution. I pointed them to WP:FREECOPY
- Having said that, I have noticed other concerns with this user's edits. They call everything a WP:MINOR edit. Here [23] they added an unsourced middle name to a bio, while calling the edit a minor "spelling correction". Worse yet, they restored it, again calling it a minor spelling correction, with an unreliable source that does not contain the middle name [24]. This was after they had been warned for adding unsourced personal information, and pointed to WP:MINOR. I also undid them when they restored their preferred older version of a bio picture with the pointless summary "Thank you". Not only did they not follow WP:BRD, but they actually reverted all of the edits since their last edit [25], thus losing the intervening useful edits. I don't think this user is being intentionally disruptive, but this is disruptive. Meters (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- The bio picture itself is copyvio, given that he simply took a screenshot and claimed it to be his own work, without no regard to the game's copyright. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- My bad, didn't think of this policy. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Weird WP:AIV behavior
For the past 2 or so hours on this page, various IP users have been reporting inactive accounts and labelling them as "sockpuppets", despite the fact that the users that they were reporting had no activity for a long time, is there any information on what this is, this is confusing me a lot. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also most of the IP's involved with this weird situation have been blocked for being open proxies. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If they want to out their proxies by posting at AIV, perhaps we should just let them continue to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish appears to have it on lock.-- Ponyobons mots 17:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's vpngate, so essentially unlimited numbers. At least it'll only get worse when temporary accounts show up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Huzzah! Thanks WMF!-- Ponyobons mots 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I had my head wrapped around temporary accounts but I'm confused now -- won't the IP addresses of temporary accounts automatically be visible to (and presumably blockable by) administrators, similar to how they're viewable (and blockable) now? tony 18:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If there's a single additional click involved to get IP information, including ___location data, it'll create a huge additional time burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- T358853 will help somewhat ... * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I interpreted
Admins will automatically see temporary account IP information
(here) to mean it would already happen transparently without any additional work -- hopefully that task gets implemented sooner than later. --tony 18:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I interpreted
- Why are IPs being hidden anyway? It hasn't caused us any issues as far as I can recall, and it is very helpful when combating abuse. Is it one of those projects WMF embarks on now and then because they don't have much to do? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yup; as far as I can tell, the WMF has been working on this for years. The oldest thread on their updates page dates back to June 2021, and that thread even says "It has been a few months since our last update on this project." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Update: The oldest version of meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation (which was where the project was located before it was moved to mediawiki.org) is dated July 31, 2019. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The WMF's view seems to be that any barrier to entry is a problem to be solved, and showing an IP is a barrier that "puts people off" because it makes them "identifiable".
- Frankly as a non-admin who's had to deal with at least one grudge-bearing stalker on this site and edits largely in a niche area that attracts a higher than average proportion of disruptive-editing along with subtle and blatant vandalism that skews towards IPs, that "identifiability" (which amounts to a relatively broad geographic area) actually aids me massively in deciding where and when to raise an issue for admins to deal with as it allows you to spot likely repeat offenders with ease. Without that it's going to be a lot harder for me to for instance say "hey, this appears to be the same person editing across this /x range, it'll need a range block" or "this IP has appeared intermittently over the last several months on this page making similar disruptive edits" and instead rely more on overworked admins having to investigate far more themselves with each report because people like myself can no longer bring that contextual knowledge in initial report filings that greases the wheels.
- While I understand we should always assume good faith, the WMF's stance is extremely short-sighted because even while AGF there comes a point where you're basically reducing the barrier of entry to the point that, rather than attracting helpful casual edits, it just makes it too easy for both bad actors and well-meaning but incompetent editors to flood the project (in regards to the latter I think the growing issue of new users flooding the project with mass LLM edits already demonstrates the barriers are possibly already too low). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yup; as far as I can tell, the WMF has been working on this for years. The oldest thread on their updates page dates back to June 2021, and that thread even says "It has been a few months since our last update on this project." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I had my head wrapped around temporary accounts but I'm confused now -- won't the IP addresses of temporary accounts automatically be visible to (and presumably blockable by) administrators, similar to how they're viewable (and blockable) now? tony 18:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Blocking the TA will block the IP, no? Plus, we can look behind the TA and block relevant IPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The TA won't let you know if it's a VPNgate proxy, that person from Thailand that blanks obscure templates and policy pages, or another Jinnifer IP, informing your decision to block the IP for a week or a month instead of 31 hours. Any step that adds even a second iterated over the enormous amount of blocks placed will further strain the relatively few people lifting that burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wonder how long till a browser side user script pops up to auto reveal LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is already an option to have the IPs be auto-revealed, though you can only have it active for up to 1 hours. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 21:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I ment to just, always have that active LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is already an option to have the IPs be auto-revealed, though you can only have it active for up to 1 hours. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 21:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wonder how long till a browser side user script pops up to auto reveal LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- AFAIK, and what is implied by the FAQ, is that blocking a TA will merely autoblock the IP (i.e., only for 24 hours), just as how blocking a normal account doesn't automatically block the IP for the same length of time. OutsideNormality (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The IP's have been repeating the same behavior again, one of them has been warned on their talk page. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that was 23.245.238.246, warned by me. I don't know how to handle proxies - would somebody like to block them, in lieu of my milquetoast warning? Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC).
- Someone created a fake IP account 161,230.197.222i to do the same thing. Interestingly, there's a similar account 161,230.216.104i (and also 161,230.102.59i and161,230.162.211i) created a few months ago that was blocked as a MAB sock. It might also be an impersonator. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the proxies they're using I would say this is
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to MAB, though the behavior is a bit odd. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more and it could also be Salebot1, particularly considering 161,230.177.34i. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- If that's true, would MAB (linked to DarwinandBrianEdits) and Salebot1 be the same person? Looking through the archives, an admin had said "This is DarwinandBrianEdits / MidAtlanticBaby" in reference to some socks before they were confirmed to Salebot1 (comment). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, it's just that Salebot1 likes imitating other LTAs. Salebot1 geolocates somewhere in Russia (46.48.0.0/16) and MAB geolocates to Fairburn, Georgia (2600:1700:E8C1:740:0:0:0:0/64, 168.8.214.174/31, etc.) Both of them use VPNGate proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, it's just that Salebot1 likes imitating other LTAs. Salebot1 geolocates somewhere in Russia (46.48.0.0/16) and MAB geolocates to Fairburn, Georgia (2600:1700:E8C1:740:0:0:0:0/64, 168.8.214.174/31, etc.) Both of them use VPNGate proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- If that's true, would MAB (linked to DarwinandBrianEdits) and Salebot1 be the same person? Looking through the archives, an admin had said "This is DarwinandBrianEdits / MidAtlanticBaby" in reference to some socks before they were confirmed to Salebot1 (comment). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more and it could also be Salebot1, particularly considering 161,230.177.34i. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the proxies they're using I would say this is
- The IP's have been repeating the same behavior again, one of them has been warned on their talk page. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The TA won't let you know if it's a VPNgate proxy, that person from Thailand that blanks obscure templates and policy pages, or another Jinnifer IP, informing your decision to block the IP for a week or a month instead of 31 hours. Any step that adds even a second iterated over the enormous amount of blocks placed will further strain the relatively few people lifting that burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Huzzah! Thanks WMF!-- Ponyobons mots 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's vpngate, so essentially unlimited numbers. At least it'll only get worse when temporary accounts show up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If they want to out their proxies by posting at AIV, perhaps we should just let them continue to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish appears to have it on lock.-- Ponyobons mots 17:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Clarification About Temporary Accounts
|
I would like to know whether I have misunderstood, or whether maybe I do understand about the proposed temporary accounts. Am I correct that the WMF would like to provide a more welcoming environment for unregistered editors by increasing their anonymity? Am I also correct that some administrators and established editors are concerned by that idea because they would prefer to continue to encourage newcomers to register an account, in which case they can use a pseudonym, and be anonymous to everyone except Checkusers? So who really will benefit from temporary accounts more than from the existing ability to register an account and be pseudonymous except from Checkusers? Have I misunderstood something, or do I understand something that the WMF whiz kids have missed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
|
Even more questions about temporary accounts
More off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. Questions have been asked at more appropriate forums. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Say you have a suspicious temporary account causing disruption. You use the TAIV tool to reveal their IP address and it geolocates somewhere near a known LTA. Are you allowed to disclose their IP address on ANI or AIV? Their general geolocation? How about Wikipediocracy? Are we supposed to follow the same policy CheckUsers follow? The policy says that the TAIV right can be revoked if it's abused, but what constitutes abuse? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
This is so mind-numbingly stupid. Wikipedia's rigid compulsion with allowing people to edit as an IP has created this problem. Require registration and it goes away. But heaven forbid we should do something which contravenes something Jimbo Wales said 20 years ago. Change with the times or watch time create more tedious administrative tasks like this to deal with. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
|
Jalaluukhan still editing ECP space
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jalaluukhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jalaluukhan has been warned enough times to stop editing ECP areas such as Indian military history,[28][29] however, he is continuing to do that[30] and is move warring to move his articles back to mainspace.[31][32] THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
24.187.47.136
- 24.187.47.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.187.47.136 has been adding uncited information and removing cited information to multiple articles, reverting anyone who has removed any information they added ([33])([34])([35]). They are also removing warnings from their talk page ([36])([37]), telling editors to take issues up on other talk pages instead of their own. Furthermore, there was one edit where they referred to an editor as a "dumbass" ([38]), constituting an obvious personal attack. I was going to give them one more chance until I saw this, so I think something needs to be done now. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @ResolutionsPerMinute, the first couple I looked into, the IP editor had a clear reason for not including a source. Can you provide specific examples of them adding genuinely unsourced content? -- asilvering (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think the links I provided are specific enough. Please see WP:COVERSONG and WP:POPCULTURE. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I should also add that this user has once again reverted me on Turn Me On (Kevin Lyttle song) ([39]) for removing uncited infomation that violates WP:COVERSONG, so now they are starting to get into edit-warring territory, and looking at the page history, multiple IPs in the range 24.187.0.0/16 have been involved since February 2025. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
UPE-related SPA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per off-wiki evidence, the SPA @AlanRider78: is an Upwork freelancer engaging in undisclosed paid editing, mostly based in Mumbai but sometimes also in Punjab, India, who reports and deletes new pages for which he didn't get the job. I will not go into more details to avoid outing. He also has another Wikipedia user account with thousands of edits. The first thing he did was to post on Extraordinary Writ's talk page, listing very detailed SPI information, so this is obviously someone's sock. I have compiled detail off-wiki evidence to support these claims. Where do I send the off-wiki evidence, to paid-en-wp, ArbCom, or maybe the WMF legal team? He has infiltrated OTRS, so that one is not going to work. 115.97.138.181 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Andrew Stake - persistent unsourced additions, content removal and incivility
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Andrew Stake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reached his second level 4 warning - his first was for mass content removal on Saudia, and his second was for unsourced changes to Garuda Indonesia. He has previously reacted rather badly to warnings on their talk page, so beyond leaving warnings I've felt there's little point in engaging. Can this user please be reminded of the requirements of WP:V and WP:CIVIL? Danners430 tweaks made 12:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- And still it continues, even after the ANI notice was left on their talk page - removing sourced content, and replacing it with unsourced content. Danners430 tweaks made 12:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours, let's see if that gets his attention. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- And now an IP editor is reinstating their edits… possible sock? [40] Danners430 tweaks made 13:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Andrew Stake account has been blocked for 48 hours. Following their decision to use personal insults, I extended the block to 96 hours. I placed a further warning on their talk page regarding sockpuppetry and further personal attacks and abuse of their talk page privileges. Hopefully that puts a lid on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Please hide this edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shahid265&diff=prev&oldid=1307605962 Shanid265 made a legal threat on his talk page, and got blocked for it, can someone please hide this edit. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi IP, I just left you a note on your talk page. There's no reason to the remove it and actually doing so makes it less transparent. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks just looked at the message. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Removal of talk page material
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an uninvolved admin please look at User talk:Darth Stabro#Wikipedia talk:CATHOLICISM? I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the other party. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just add {{Talk page of redirect}} to the top of the page. That talk page has history that should remain on the page, not be masked by a redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a formatting issue, not one that calls for administrative intervention. Could it be discussed at the target page? Ultimately, I agree with Voorts but I'm sure you don't want an action like this reverted. But I don't know why you came to ANI about this dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- A good first stop would have been discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, rather than going from what looks like civil disagreement on a user talk straight to ANI. Concur with Liz and voorts on the practical elements of this disagreement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a formatting issue, not one that calls for administrative intervention. Could it be discussed at the target page? Ultimately, I agree with Voorts but I'm sure you don't want an action like this reverted. But I don't know why you came to ANI about this dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
User:GiantSnowman's renewed disruptive editing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In early July this year, a disagreement erupted about whether IPA pronunciation transcriptions needed to be sourced. Since such a thing is very seldom found ia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306407415&oldid=1306407310&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this], [https:on WP, my contention is that this is a general practice that has become acceptable. After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source. Many users do this. There was an ANI discussion about this, started by GiantSnowman, during which he was gently told off by other users for demanding references for IPA transcriptions; one user even suggested that I should be thanked for what I do. I wish I could point you at this discussion, but it was abruptly and unaccountably stricken from the record on 6 July sometime after 17:33. Since then – and until today – there has been no further disruptive editing. I thought the matter had been laid to rest. Today, however, this, this, this and this have happened, with GiantSnowman once again demanding a reference for an IPA transcription. I don't even know where such a thing would come from. How many sources would transcribe "Paco Pérez Durán" in IPA script? There would be very few sources that did such a thing — and yet there are very many IPA transcriptions in WP articles. The last ANI discussion had other users pointing out that as a general rule, IPA transcriptions don't need to be referenced. That is the way I always understood it, and I had been doing it for years until early July when this all began. If GiantSnowman were right, though, practically every IPA transcription on WP would have to be deleted just because it is not explicitly sourced. Would that make sense? I would like an end put to what I see as nonsense. Kelisi (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#Kelisi and IPA. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Like the previous discussion's conclusion, I feel like this is a content dispute not suited for ANI. jolielover♥talk 17:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- If it's worth mentioning in the article, it shouldn't be that hard to source. For example, the pronunciation of Saoirse Ronan's name is sourced. If everyone went around just posting best guess attempts at her name, it would be disastrous. This is why I added a source. WP:BURDEN allows people to challenge any unsourced content on Wikipedia. I know some editors consider it a huge imposition to provide sources, but that's how this website works. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, sources discuss how to pronounce her name because it's so frequently mispronounced. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- As an english-only reader. I'm not exactly able to read, what you're attempting to add, in the bio-in-question. Anyways, this is a content issue. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it is hard to source. That's the reality. Saoirse Ronan must be one of the few, then. I, by the way, am not an English-only person, speaking as I do three other languages. My IPA contributions are not "best guesses". I know these languages. Also, any reader who cannot read the "squiggle text", as I've had one fellow user call it (see here if you're interested), can easily educate himself — on WP. Kelisi (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you should reference how a name is pronounced. WP:BLP / WP:V apply. Why should IPA should be the sole exception to those core tenets?! GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Side note, but can IPA transcriptions be from primary sources like news readings? —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's me and some other (more talented!) editors we did it at Viktor Gyökeres - found 2 videos of him saying his name, and somebody else converted that into the (sourced) IPA we have there. GiantSnowman 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Except you used the Swedish IPA. His name is Hungarian. Schestos (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- He is Swedish by birth, if he uses a Swedish pronunciation of his name, that's his choice and something we should reflect. We don't IPA claim that all Americans with a "Vander..." name should pronounce it the Dutch way either. Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- My surname is Old English/Viking origins. Should I start pronouncing it like Beowulf? GiantSnowman 08:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you wish to. However for people with immigrant families I try to pronounce their names properly. Same goes for foreigners' surnames. Schestos (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, by "properly" you mean the way the subject pronounces it, because it's their name? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes Schestos (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes Schestos (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, by "properly" you mean the way the subject pronounces it, because it's their name? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you wish to. However for people with immigrant families I try to pronounce their names properly. Same goes for foreigners' surnames. Schestos (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- My surname is Old English/Viking origins. Should I start pronouncing it like Beowulf? GiantSnowman 08:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- He is Swedish by birth, if he uses a Swedish pronunciation of his name, that's his choice and something we should reflect. We don't IPA claim that all Americans with a "Vander..." name should pronounce it the Dutch way either. Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Except you used the Swedish IPA. His name is Hungarian. Schestos (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's me and some other (more talented!) editors we did it at Viktor Gyökeres - found 2 videos of him saying his name, and somebody else converted that into the (sourced) IPA we have there. GiantSnowman 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Side note, but can IPA transcriptions be from primary sources like news readings? —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you should reference how a name is pronounced. WP:BLP / WP:V apply. Why should IPA should be the sole exception to those core tenets?! GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it is hard to source. That's the reality. Saoirse Ronan must be one of the few, then. I, by the way, am not an English-only person, speaking as I do three other languages. My IPA contributions are not "best guesses". I know these languages. Also, any reader who cannot read the "squiggle text", as I've had one fellow user call it (see here if you're interested), can easily educate himself — on WP. Kelisi (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source.
This is the very definition of original research which is one of the things that we specifically prohibit in policy. IfMany users do this
then many users need to get slaps on the wrist for violating NOR. You are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)- At my talk page at the time of the earlier ANI, Kelisi made a number of outrageous claims including that "I happen to know that it is right" (NOR!) and "All Spanish pronunciations are self-sourcing" because "there can only ever be one correct pronunciation" (so all Spain speaks in the same accent apparently!) Editors with this approach/attitude should not be anywhere near IPA or even BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- In my personal experience it is false that all Spanish name pronunciations are self-sourcing, even disregarding differences of accent. One occasionally runs into Spaniards with idiosyncratic pronunciations. Example, sport climber Geila Macià Martín, who apparently pronounces the first syllable of her first name like the English word "jail" (not a sound a g should ever have in Spanish). Anyway, I am in complete agreement with you that all pronunciations should be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- David, the grave accent over the A and the pronunciation that you give for the first name suggest that it is a Catalan name. I don't touch those, as I don't speak Catalan. We are talking about Spanish-language names here (as in Castilian, not Catalan, Galician or Basque), not necessarily Spanish people's names. Kelisi (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even so,
there can only ever be one correct pronunciation
- and that pronunciation is verified by...? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)- @David Eppstein, Geila Macià Martín is Catalan, from Barcelona province, so there's nothing "idiosyncratic" about her pronouncing her name in Catalan. GA- in Catalan would be pronounced as a hard G, same as in English or Spanish. GE- and GI- will be pronounced either like the S in "leisure" / "measure" or the J as in "justice": the former sound isn't usually found in Iberian Spanish (though will pop up in Argentinian Spanish) and the latter isn't found. The pronunciation in Catalan will also vary across dialects, which supports Giant Snowman's point that this should be sourced. Valenciano (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I guess I did know that Sitges was pronounced like that too. So anyway, Spanish names are phonetic, except when they're really Catalan, or Basque, or Galician, or ... ? For outsiders it's not easy to tell these things (and maybe sometimes for insiders too); that's partly why we need sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein, Geila Macià Martín is Catalan, from Barcelona province, so there's nothing "idiosyncratic" about her pronouncing her name in Catalan. GA- in Catalan would be pronounced as a hard G, same as in English or Spanish. GE- and GI- will be pronounced either like the S in "leisure" / "measure" or the J as in "justice": the former sound isn't usually found in Iberian Spanish (though will pop up in Argentinian Spanish) and the latter isn't found. The pronunciation in Catalan will also vary across dialects, which supports Giant Snowman's point that this should be sourced. Valenciano (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even so,
- David, the grave accent over the A and the pronunciation that you give for the first name suggest that it is a Catalan name. I don't touch those, as I don't speak Catalan. We are talking about Spanish-language names here (as in Castilian, not Catalan, Galician or Basque), not necessarily Spanish people's names. Kelisi (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- In my personal experience it is false that all Spanish name pronunciations are self-sourcing, even disregarding differences of accent. One occasionally runs into Spaniards with idiosyncratic pronunciations. Example, sport climber Geila Macià Martín, who apparently pronounces the first syllable of her first name like the English word "jail" (not a sound a g should ever have in Spanish). Anyway, I am in complete agreement with you that all pronunciations should be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- At my talk page at the time of the earlier ANI, Kelisi made a number of outrageous claims including that "I happen to know that it is right" (NOR!) and "All Spanish pronunciations are self-sourcing" because "there can only ever be one correct pronunciation" (so all Spain speaks in the same accent apparently!) Editors with this approach/attitude should not be anywhere near IPA or even BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, it is hard to source.
No kidding. Tough luck all the same. For the entirety of Wikipedia's history, there's been a school of thought which has held that if for whatever reason meeting the burden of WP:V is hard, the provisions of WP:V can be waived. This curious notion is utterly unsupported by any policy or guideline. If an IPA rendition is challenged, and it cannot be sourced to a reliable source, it's exactly as liable to be removed as any other unsupported fact. Done deal. Ravenswing 19:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)- Noting that OR is not the only policy/guideline that discourages this. Adding complicated IPA symbols to the first sentence is also discouraged by WP:LEADCLUTTER. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll chime in to add that if y'all think it's hard finding sources for IPA pronunciations, try editing around the subject of classified military operations and units. There's no exception to the general verifiability rules there, either. Sometimes even something that's widely known may be at the mercy of having no verifiably published sources. But we're a living document, and with time, for any subject, even a lack of sources may change. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that OR is not the only policy/guideline that discourages this. Adding complicated IPA symbols to the first sentence is also discouraged by WP:LEADCLUTTER. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think that
The last ANI discussion had other users pointing out that as a general rule, IPA transcriptions don't need to be referenced
is an accurate reading of the previous ANI discussion, given that there were more comments along the lines of "Just because almost all IPA transcriptions are unsourced doesn't mean they shouldn't be sourced and cant be removed". As above so below 20:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)- Reading over that discussion carefully, I can see only three editors unambiguously stating that IPA transcriptions didn't need to be referenced. I am sure as hell not going to be okay with a core policy of Wikipedia being set aside on the say-so of three people. Ravenswing 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to have an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on whether challenged IPA transcriptions need to be sourced? Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say no. WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN:
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution
;Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source
IPA transcriptions do not, and should not, receive any sort of special carve-out from everything else on the encyclopedia with regards to our most core policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC) - Only if you're comfortable with two dozen other pressure groups demanding, within the week, their own carveouts for their own pet hobby horses. Ravenswing 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I only suggest it because of the implication that the practice has been condoned to this point. If this thread is enough to establish that that's not the case then there's no need to go further. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't think there's an issue here. There's no case for a special provision for IPAs. Yes, most IPAs are unsourced. But so are many statements in articles. The moment anyone challenges an IPA then, unless a source is found, it should go. What's so hard about that? That's just BAU isn't it? No need to create a special exception. The issue in this thread was different. Kelisi was arguing that as a Spanish-speaker he should be recognised as a sufficient source. That's clearly untenable an he seems to (below) have backed away from that, though I'm not entirely certain. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am just going to quickly chime in and say I agree that there should be no exception for IPA's in terms of needing sources, I generally leave them alone but have removed a few when it's been clear that it's not a WP:SKYISBLUE situation and people going around adding these are evidently not immune to disagreeing with each other, even though it appears to be a relatively small amount of editors, and in that case it's someone's original research against the other's. I have seen IPA's been added with sources, so it's apparently not impossible to find, it just might be that not every single subject is notable enough for a phonetic transcription, which I would guess a tiny amount of readers use or even understand. TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't think there's an issue here. There's no case for a special provision for IPAs. Yes, most IPAs are unsourced. But so are many statements in articles. The moment anyone challenges an IPA then, unless a source is found, it should go. What's so hard about that? That's just BAU isn't it? No need to create a special exception. The issue in this thread was different. Kelisi was arguing that as a Spanish-speaker he should be recognised as a sufficient source. That's clearly untenable an he seems to (below) have backed away from that, though I'm not entirely certain. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I only suggest it because of the implication that the practice has been condoned to this point. If this thread is enough to establish that that's not the case then there's no need to go further. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say no. WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN:
- Would it make sense to have an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on whether challenged IPA transcriptions need to be sourced? Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Reading over that discussion carefully, I can see only three editors unambiguously stating that IPA transcriptions didn't need to be referenced. I am sure as hell not going to be okay with a core policy of Wikipedia being set aside on the say-so of three people. Ravenswing 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Kelisi: 3 points which have mostly been already made above: (1) You aren't a reliable source regardless of your claimed expertise. The reason is obvious. (2) Because it may be hard to source, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be sourced. See WP:V. If you are challenged then you are not exempt from providing a source. This is a point I made in the previous ANI thread[41]. I already pointed out to you you incorrectly gave a madrileño IPA for Paco Pérez Durán where a cordobés one would be more appropriate. You were challenged. That's a good example of why your approach (aka OR) doesn't work: there is a risk that editors assume greater expertise than they actually have. (3) You've misrepresented the previous ANI thread:
during which he was gently told off by other users for demanding references for IPA transcriptions
. No. I don't see that. I and others found fault with your approach. The admin closing the thread pointedly said that editors should be careful "not to conflate their views on what WP:V should require with what it does require". If you want to exempt IPAs from WP:V you need to get over there and change policy because it doesn't say what you want it to say right now. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)- Fine, but if you think a cordobés IPA would be better, change it. I won't argue. I still maintain, though, that this business of requiring a source for every IPA transcription is ridiculous because it would mean that we would have to delete almost every one on WP, because it's so impossible to source them, and very few are. Kelisi (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, can we take this step by step? The first point is that will you accept that your statement "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source" is utterly wrong? That is such a gross infringement of WP:OR that it beggars belief that someone of your experience would make it. Secondly, will you accept that if your unsourced IPA edit is challenged (as GS and I have done) then you will not pursue it without a source? DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is somewhat relevant here. Challenged unsourced content must be removed, otherwise, it doesn't have to be removed barring BLPs, and by the same token the fact some unsourced content does exist doesn't mean every instance of that content doesn't need to be sourced. But more to the point: if something is, indeed,
impossible to source
then yes, it's true, it should not be on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fine, but if you think a cordobés IPA would be better, change it. I won't argue. I still maintain, though, that this business of requiring a source for every IPA transcription is ridiculous because it would mean that we would have to delete almost every one on WP, because it's so impossible to source them, and very few are. Kelisi (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will write an extremely brief comment because I am on holiday. I fail to see the difference between an editor who can read Kanji providing them for a Japanese name, or the Arabic script providing them for an Arabic name, and an editor who can read IPA providing them for a set language that they are fluent in. DeCausa, the madrileño IPA provided is not incorrect; whether or not a cordobés one is more appropriate has no bearing on that. You have a quibbles worth at most. Addendum: I don't see much value in it for Spanish, as anyone who can read Spanish doesn't need guidance on pronouncing it, and anyone who doesn't probably won't benefit from it. It's not like English, which has copious inconsistency. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- The point you are making is unclear. The madrileño IPA is not incorrect for a madrileño. Just as a Londoner's pronunciation of New Orleans is not incorrect for a Londoner. But so what? No idea what you mean by "anyone who doesn't probably won't benefit from it". That literally makes no sense. DeCausa (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- We should have sources for names in Kanji or Arabic. If you mean provide transcriptions, there are standard ways to transcribe these from one form to another. However, that is text to text, not text to pronunciation, which is a significant difference. There are Japanese and Arabic accents as well. CMD (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have never seen IPA listed for a Japanese word or name that doesn't follow a standard Tokyo accent, and would find it very strange to see someone changing IPA symbols to match (their idea of) the appropriate local accent. Squabbling over minor regular sound correspondences misses the point of having a pronunciation guide. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Little stranger than changing IPA symbols to match their idea of a standard Tokyo accent surely? CMD (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- This argument about Madrid v Spanish, Tokyo v Japanese etc is precisely why we need sources! GiantSnowman 17:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Standard pronunciation is academic consensus, at least a vague one, and you can see that in a well referenced IPA help page (e.g. Help:IPA/Japanese). You might find it to be OR/SYNTH to use a table like this to convert a name from kana into IPA, but I don't think that listening to an audio clip and transcribing the IPA with the same table is much different. Even more so if we go down the tabbit hole of arguing about accents and sound variations and, well really no two people on planet earth speak exactly the same way so lets rip them all out.
- I am not arguing in favour of unsourced IPA, to clear that up, I just understand that from Kelisi's point of view they are being told they are crossing a bright line where there isn't one. I don't think anyone has pointed out an error in the IPA they have added, but we've spilled a lot of digital ink discussing hypothetical errors they could make, which is unproductive. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is they are arguing no IPA need be sourced, because they're a native speaker. This both runs a cart right through WP:OR but is in explict contrary to WP:BURDEN, which is the problem here. It doesn't matter that
nobody has pointed out an error in the IPA they have added
; the IPAs are contested as being unsourced, and thus, per WP:V, must not be added back without one. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is they are arguing no IPA need be sourced, because they're a native speaker. This both runs a cart right through WP:OR but is in explict contrary to WP:BURDEN, which is the problem here. It doesn't matter that
- This argument about Madrid v Spanish, Tokyo v Japanese etc is precisely why we need sources! GiantSnowman 17:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Little stranger than changing IPA symbols to match their idea of a standard Tokyo accent surely? CMD (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have never seen IPA listed for a Japanese word or name that doesn't follow a standard Tokyo accent, and would find it very strange to see someone changing IPA symbols to match (their idea of) the appropriate local accent. Squabbling over minor regular sound correspondences misses the point of having a pronunciation guide. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment/question. I recently found out that sources aren't needed to write plot summaries for movies and TV shows. How is watching a movie to figure out the plot different from watching an interview to figure out the pronunciation of a person's name? Or watching a TV show/movie to learn how a particular name or word is pronounced? TurboSuperA+[talk] 03:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE. But the TL;dr for plot summaries is that the movie or TV show is the source and we are not commenting on it, merely summarizing it. WP:V does require a citation for direct quotes from such content, but that's the extent of that. I think for pronunciations it gets trickier as there is significantly less involved and far easier to be subjective (in a bad way). The risk of getting it wrong likely necessitates an actual source, though I'll defer to others who may be able to offer more detail for the reasoning (or maybe a MOS/PAG to refer to at least). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also,
watching an interview
orwatching a TV show
is honestly entirely possible - you can then cite the TV show or interview. As opposed to saying "I know Fooian, so I'm the source of the Fooian pronunciation, trust me bro" which is what's actually going on here. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)- Which is in fact what happened on the Viktor Gyökeres page, as mentioned above: the pronunciation is sourced to two YouTube videos where his name is spoken aloud, so presumably people have listened to that carefully and distilled that into IPA form. -- Oddwood (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also,
- See WP:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE. But the TL;dr for plot summaries is that the movie or TV show is the source and we are not commenting on it, merely summarizing it. WP:V does require a citation for direct quotes from such content, but that's the extent of that. I think for pronunciations it gets trickier as there is significantly less involved and far easier to be subjective (in a bad way). The risk of getting it wrong likely necessitates an actual source, though I'll defer to others who may be able to offer more detail for the reasoning (or maybe a MOS/PAG to refer to at least). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Kelisi Just to be crystal clear on this now that it's ran for a day or so and you've had a chance to see the objections and maybe gain some understanding you didn't have before:
- Do you agree that if you provide an unsourced IPA pronunciation and any editor challenges it, you'll need to produce a source or allow the pronunciation to be removed (until such time as a reliable source is hopefully found)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Kelisi (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- And the reason for this is WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN) and WP:NOR (especially the nutshell
Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
) and you will follow those and other WP:PAG going forward? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)- Yes, I will abide by the policies. Kelisi (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you agree that if you provide an unsourced IPA pronunciation and any editor challenges it, you'll need to produce a source or allow the pronunciation to be removed (until such time as a reliable source is hopefully found)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you could agree to these, I think it would help the situation and demonstrate your understanding. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Article-space p-block for Kelisi
P-block Kelisi from article space until they agree to stop willfully disregarding WP:V and WP:NOR. Your knoweledge of a language or topic has no bearing on whether information can be added to an article. Star Mississippi 01:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Retract my support per Kelisi's reply to Locke Cole which satisfies my concern of ongoing disruption. Star Mississippi 12:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)- This is a personal attack. There are many users who do what I do. Right now, I am working on a country map, sizing the type according to each town's or city's size. To do that, I look up WP articles for each one's population, and guess what — they all have IPA transcriptions, and not even one is sourced. It's a language that I don't know; so I am not the "culprit". Star, there are thousands of users at least who do this. What business have you singling me out? Kelisi (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG applies here, why is why the attention is currently on you. GiantSnowman 17:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wait @GiantSnowman should you open ANIs on every user that hasn't provided sources for the transcription? /s 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are other users who need a talking to - I've noticed @Schestos: doing the same thing. GiantSnowman 17:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Kelisi, if you want to source literally everything then an article would look like this:
- "Schestos[1] is[2] an Australian[3] Wikipedian.[4] He[5] is[6] best known for editing[7] articles[8] about soccer.[9]" Schestos (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:LEADCITE is your friend. Abiding by MOS:INTRO will limit the necessary citations to a handful, if that, typically (as most everything in the lead should be a summary of what is already in the body, the sources should be in the body itself). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why, out of curiosity, are you going to an absurd extremist position? No one seeks to do that. No one has ever sought to do that. The wording of WP:V references statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged." Anyone who would seek to "source literally everything" would find out at ANI the degree to which we take WP:POINT seriously. Ravenswing 03:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- In the extremely unlikely event that all (or most of the) 14 words are being individually challenged in good-faith, one can WP:CITEBUNDLE the sources at the end of each sentence. Left guide (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Schestos If you think that, you can propose changes to P&G at the Teahouse or the Village Pump. This isn't a venue for that kind of discussion. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are other users who need a talking to - I've noticed @Schestos: doing the same thing. GiantSnowman 17:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wait @GiantSnowman should you open ANIs on every user that hasn't provided sources for the transcription? /s 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG applies here, why is why the attention is currently on you. GiantSnowman 17:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is a personal attack. There are many users who do what I do. Right now, I am working on a country map, sizing the type according to each town's or city's size. To do that, I look up WP articles for each one's population, and guess what — they all have IPA transcriptions, and not even one is sourced. It's a language that I don't know; so I am not the "culprit". Star, there are thousands of users at least who do this. What business have you singling me out? Kelisi (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
References
- @Kelisi: that is not a personal attack. What Star Mississippi has expressed is the nub of the problem - not so much that you are adding unsourced IPAs but that you think that (in your words) "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source". That is wrong, wilfully disregards WP:OR and WP:V and is WP:TENDENTIOUS. You've seen from this thread that your position on this has no support and you need to confirm you won't continue to edit on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- You are completely disregarding my point: there are many users doing this but I am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well? Furthermore, what are you going to do about all the other IPA transcriptions, very few of which (almost none) are referenced? The logical conclusion of all those clamouring for transcriptions to be referenced would be A) blocking all the users who don't reference them, and B) the disappearance of almost all IPA transcriptions from WP. Would that make sense? Perhaps this matter ought to be arbitrated. It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles. Yes, it ought to be arbitrated. Kelisi (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am disregarding what you say because I've asked you the same question at several points and you've avoided answering. I am going to ask you again: do you continue to claim that "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source"? Because if that is still your position I'm going to add my support to this proposal. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced
No, there absolutely is not. The fact you are saying this means either you are refusing to or incapable of understanding what is going on in this discussion.at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles
They should be referenced. If they are contested, they must be referenced. But going around "tearing them out of articles" would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you for demonstrating exactly why this pblock is necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)there are many users doing this but I am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well?
If you believe there are other users whose conduct merits a block, you are free to identify and propose blocks for them after giving due notice. Left guide (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)- No, the matter does not need to be arbitrated; the only "tacit consensus" that IPAs are exempt from WP:V exists in your own head and in those of a bare handful of others. You have been around Wikipedia far, far too long to buy into the fallacy that core policies of the encyclopedia are subject to your unilateral veto, and I'm compelled to agree with The Bushranger that it's a terrible look for such an experienced editor. Ravenswing 03:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Kelisi
there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced
- Close, but not quite. From my understanding the tacit consensus is that IPA transcriptions can be added without a reference, but if another editor removes/challenges/disputes the unsourced transcription then it should not be added back to the article without a source or talk page consensus. This is standard Wikipedia practice for pretty much anything.
- Why editors are suggesting a block (which I !voted against btw) is because you keep insisting that a source is not necessary and that knowing the language is enough to be a source on the transcription. Those assertions are not only contradictory, they are false.
- You should stop arguing in this thread and let it take its course. Your efforts would be better spent at WP:RSN or WP:VP discussing what can be used as a source for IPA transcriptions, perhaps it can be expanded to include interviews, movies, TV shows and podcasts (I don't know, it's a possibility).
- Continuing to argue here, where everyone is focused on behaviour and not content, will only lead to your block or ban. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- You are completely disregarding my point: there are many users doing this but I am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well? Furthermore, what are you going to do about all the other IPA transcriptions, very few of which (almost none) are referenced? The logical conclusion of all those clamouring for transcriptions to be referenced would be A) blocking all the users who don't reference them, and B) the disappearance of almost all IPA transcriptions from WP. Would that make sense? Perhaps this matter ought to be arbitrated. It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles. Yes, it ought to be arbitrated. Kelisi (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Kelisi: that is not a personal attack. What Star Mississippi has expressed is the nub of the problem - not so much that you are adding unsourced IPAs but that you think that (in your words) "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source". That is wrong, wilfully disregards WP:OR and WP:V and is WP:TENDENTIOUS. You've seen from this thread that your position on this has no support and you need to confirm you won't continue to edit on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Everything requires sourcing. Nothing is excluded. Anything less than full sourcng for all claims is original research. I concur with Star Mississippi that the OP be P-blocked from article space until they demonstrate an understanding of WP:V and WP:NOR. TarnishedPathtalk 03:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nitpicking: Everything which is being challenged or is likely to be challenged requires sourcing. There are exceptions to what needs to be sourced (though I'm not opining whether this subject is one of them). tony 21:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- TY, for the correction. I should have stated it. However that this report started indicates that there was such a challange. TarnishedPathtalk 02:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Everything needs to be sourced"? So should we source the fact that Canberra is the capital of Australia? Schestos (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Everything that is removed and disputed needs to be sourced. If the majority of editors on the Canberra article talk page were unsure that Canberra is the capital of Australia, or there was a dispute over whether Canberra or Sydney are the capital, then yes, that information would have to be sourced. For things that don't need to be sourced, see WP:SKYISBLUE. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- So who is challenging IPA transcriptions of footballers? Pretty sure we all would agree that Kyra Cooney-Cross' name is pronounced /ˈkaɪrə/ not /ˈkɪərə/ (which is how Keira Walsh's name is pronounced). I bring this up because I did the tedious task of helping women's football fans pronounce the names of WSL players, and managed to transcribe every single player and manager's name only for a few (but not most thankfully) to be reverted. I will revisit this soon when this discussion has ended or when the season starts, whichever comes first since this discussion should be over by then. Schestos (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- A person being able to transcribe the names of all WSL players (some 30 nationalities and possibly 10–15 languages excluding varieties of English) must either
- have access to recordings of all these pronunciations (if so these can be cited);
- have more than basic knowledge of all these languages (if so this discussion applies);
- have minor understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet (second paragraph:
designed to represent those qualities of speech that are part of lexical (and, to a limited extent, prosodic) sounds in spoken (oral) language: phones, intonation and the separation of syllables)
.
- Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I know IPA. And it isn't really that hard to transcribe them all. Really only a couple are from non-European languages (other than Japanese). Schestos (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, you should not be adding unsourced IPA, and this discussion shows that. Continuing to do so in opposition to the clear consensus here is POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- There isn't consensus though. Schestos (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do not add IPAs without sources. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do not lie about their being common census. Schestos (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is pre-existing consensus which states that editors who unsourced content to articles (especially BLPs) will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 21:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Where does this include IPA? Schestos (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, please immediately retract the statement that I have lied about anything, since that is both a lie and a violation of WP:NPA. Second of all, if you do not understand that "do not add original research" is the rule by which we operate, please do not edit Wikipedia articles at all. There is no magic policy carve-out just because you really, really want to add your own original research to Wikipedia articles; the extremely limited carve-outs (like WP:PLOTSUMMARY) are explicitly written down, because the general rule is a general rule. --JBL (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- You and others said there was consensus that IPA needs sourcing when other users have pointed out that there isn't. I'm more than happy to look for videos of people saying their names and include them as sources. Schestos (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- If material is challenged and it isn't WP:SKYISBLUE, then it needs sourcing per WP:BURDEN if you wish to restore it. I won't weigh in on what qualifies as a reliable source for IPA, I'll leave that to other editors. But WP:BURDEN is policy, and you should have no problem complying with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Prior to your ridiculous personal attack, I had made one comment on this thread, which consisted of a single statement in the imperative; "oh when I said you lied I didn't mean you lied, I meant I disagree with someone else" is incredibly shitty behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- What even is this point of this discussion? Is it just to divide everyone? Schestos (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's to get though to you and others that you MUST source IPA. That is clear. GiantSnowman 08:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- What even is this point of this discussion? Is it just to divide everyone? Schestos (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- You and others said there was consensus that IPA needs sourcing when other users have pointed out that there isn't. I'm more than happy to look for videos of people saying their names and include them as sources. Schestos (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, please immediately retract the statement that I have lied about anything, since that is both a lie and a violation of WP:NPA. Second of all, if you do not understand that "do not add original research" is the rule by which we operate, please do not edit Wikipedia articles at all. There is no magic policy carve-out just because you really, really want to add your own original research to Wikipedia articles; the extremely limited carve-outs (like WP:PLOTSUMMARY) are explicitly written down, because the general rule is a general rule. --JBL (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Where does this include IPA? Schestos (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is pre-existing consensus which states that editors who unsourced content to articles (especially BLPs) will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 21:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do not lie about their being common census. Schestos (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do not add IPAs without sources. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There isn't consensus though. Schestos (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, you should not be adding unsourced IPA, and this discussion shows that. Continuing to do so in opposition to the clear consensus here is POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I know IPA. And it isn't really that hard to transcribe them all. Really only a couple are from non-European languages (other than Japanese). Schestos (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- A person being able to transcribe the names of all WSL players (some 30 nationalities and possibly 10–15 languages excluding varieties of English) must either
- So who is challenging IPA transcriptions of footballers? Pretty sure we all would agree that Kyra Cooney-Cross' name is pronounced /ˈkaɪrə/ not /ˈkɪərə/ (which is how Keira Walsh's name is pronounced). I bring this up because I did the tedious task of helping women's football fans pronounce the names of WSL players, and managed to transcribe every single player and manager's name only for a few (but not most thankfully) to be reverted. I will revisit this soon when this discussion has ended or when the season starts, whichever comes first since this discussion should be over by then. Schestos (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Everything that is removed and disputed needs to be sourced. If the majority of editors on the Canberra article talk page were unsure that Canberra is the capital of Australia, or there was a dispute over whether Canberra or Sydney are the capital, then yes, that information would have to be sourced. For things that don't need to be sourced, see WP:SKYISBLUE. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nitpicking: Everything which is being challenged or is likely to be challenged requires sourcing. There are exceptions to what needs to be sourced (though I'm not opining whether this subject is one of them). tony 21:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support p-block from article-space: sensible means of mitigating the policy-violative conduct chronicled in this thread, since the user appears unable or unwilling to do it themselves. Left guide (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*Oppose p-block: We don't block as punishment, we block to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I have little use for Kelisi's positions, as set forth in this ANI, but how does anyone figure that they are editing disruptively? They are not adding anything objectionable; they are objecting to the edits of others. That's certainly grounds for a trout slap and an admonition that V/NOR are not negotiable and that they do not constitute their own personal RS (and hasn't that admonition already been delivered?), but I'm at a loss as to how a p-block accomplishes any of that. Ravenswing 12:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Like The Bushranger below, that recent comment by Kelisi rattled me enough to withdraw my opposition to a p-block. Ravenswing 03:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose p-block. A warning/reminder not to reinstate disputed edits without consensus or RS should be enough. TurboSuperA+[talk] 17:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose p-block as above, but would welcome a firm warning to Kelisi about their conduct/attiude (BOOMERANG), and then we can consider a topic ban if they continue to be disruptive by adding unsourced IPAs. GiantSnowman 17:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Don't pblock This may be a bit premature, and per Ravenswing, TurboSuperA, and GiantSnowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.114.16 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose -- misunderstanding a policy, alone, does not merit a block. We'd block if there was a stated intention to proceed further, resulting in disruption, based on that misunderstanding knowing (or should-have-known) it doesn't align with broad community interpretation of a policy. I don't think that's what's happening here. Unless I'm misinterpreting the reason for the proposed p-block here, what I see is an insistence from Kelisi that their interpretation of policy is right and calls for further process-based exploration to get an outcome that they want. So long as that's not weaponized or disruptive, which I don't think this is (yet), it doesn't merit any sanction at all. This is just holding a strong opinion and advocating it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your POV makes sense @Swatjester and more or less using this as a reply all. The reason behind my proposal, which I'd self close if not for extant supports, is that I do think Kelisi is being disruptive and we're beyond warning territory. But happy to be wrong and to have them as a productive editor if they're willing to be one. Star Mississippi 01:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I wasn't going to !vote here because I can see the arguments as illustrated by Swatjester here, but this tipped me over the edge. The claim that
It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles
demonstrates that Kelisi is either incapable of understanding the discussion here or is willfully disregarding it. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC) - Oppose, Kelisi has indicated above that he understands WP:V and WP:NOR and that if any of his IPA pronunciations are challenged he will need to provide a source prior to restoring them. If the behavior starts again, we can always revisit this. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Support regretfully. I thought originally this was too much, but Kelisi's continued apparent defence of his position thatI missed that an hour ago (above) Kelisi said, in response to Locke Cole, he would going forward abide by WP:V in regard to IPAs. That takes away my concern. (Although I'm not sure why it's taken so long for him to say it). DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source
puts this into WP:TENDENTIOUS. Swatjester makes a fair point but I think it's pretty clear that Kelisi's intention is to carry on as he has been once the spotlight of this thread has gone away. He has said absolutely nothing about desisting. Instead he has doubled down. By the way, Kelisi, it's a total red herring that "others do it". I haven't in 15 years on this site ever seen any other experienced user claiming that they are themselves a reliable source for any Wikipedia content. You're not arguing WP:BLUE - you're just saying WP:OR and WP:V don't apply to you because of your "expertise". DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)- @DeCausa @Giantsnowman A bit of an off tangent, but if both of you really believe that IPAs need sourcing:
- 1. You honestly should open a discussion in WP:V or WP:VP for that to be explicitly be in policy, else a new/newish/out of the loop editor will think 'oh this town/city/whatever needs an IPA' and add one without a source.
- 2. If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs because I conjecture there will be a lot of them
2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's not how content policies work, you have it backwards; they apply to all content everywhere unless specifically exempted. By your logic, I'm free to add an unsourced music genre or building address just because the policy doesn't say I can't; it would be essentially toothless at that point. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that might be Kelisi's interpretation and many others. If it is enshrined in policy, at the very least there is a good basis rather than 'Even though it is not specifically mentioned, WP:V applies'. If there is a specific policy somewhere, they could say 'according to WP so and so you need to have a source for your IPA' 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718 (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- also see the thing that started this thread, if there was some kind of policy somewhere that IPAs need to be sourced, there would be no 'ifs' and GiantSnowman could have easily cited that policy and have them agree and stop with the IPA issues 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If only we had policies like WP:CITE:
Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged
and WP:V:four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material: material whose verifiability has been challenged,material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged
. TurboSuperA+[talk] 09:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)- But does it specifically mention IPAs? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I mean does it specifically mention IPAs as an example of material likely to be challenged? Without it being a literal part of polixy there would be issues like tis where people don't think it likely that their edits need sources and/or can be controversial 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I highly doubt people will challenge IPA, which is why this discussion is stupid. Schestos (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they are right now. I do hope that eventually y'all are gonna come into a consensus on whether IPAs should be specifically included in the 'things that you need to be careful of/an explicit inclusion' rather than an unwritten rule to have cited IPAs 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Nor does it explicitly, specifically mention that nicknames are liable to challenge, or that death dates are liable to challenge, or that birthplaces are liable to challenge, or that population demographics are liable to challenge, or about ten thousand other examples which are likewise liable for challenge. We really shouldn't have to have giant flashing red letters proclaiming that "any material" genuinely means "any." The simplest way to deal with those people who insist, despite precisely zero evidence in support, that there is an "unwritten rule" exempting IPAs from core policies of the encyclopedia is to say "Cut that out at once." Ravenswing 17:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. We don't need to specify everything that might be challenged, because everything can be challenged. Also I will note that
If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs
is incitement to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and is not good either. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. We don't need to specify everything that might be challenged, because everything can be challenged. Also I will note that
- I highly doubt people will challenge IPA, which is why this discussion is stupid. Schestos (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If only we had policies like WP:CITE:
- Oppose p-block because this is fundamentally a content dispute dressed up as a (distracting and unnecessary) behavioural dispute; well-intentioned attempts at improving an encyclopaedia should be discussed in the right venue, not punished; and in the whole of this very long discussion, not one person - not one - has considered our readers. Elemimele (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- It has been considered. The edit-warring at articles like Paco Pérez Durán has been a symptom of the issues germane to this discussion, and the lead of WP:EDITWAR policy says
Left guide (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Edit warring…causes confusion for readers
- It has been considered. The edit-warring at articles like Paco Pérez Durán has been a symptom of the issues germane to this discussion, and the lead of WP:EDITWAR policy says
Disruptive IP range over multiple years/ranges
2601:18F:980:FFE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I had just recently reported this IP range at AIV for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, particularly at The Chase (American game show). Upon looking further upon the history of the article Whoa, Be-Gone!, I believe this may be a larger scale issue:
These ranges, all within 2601::/20, seem to show many overlapping articles with the recently-reported range, and all have been blocked multiple times, as well as all been in edit wars with multiple users/across multiple articles. I highly doubt any range block on 2601::/20 alone would be way too massive, but is there anything else that can be done regarding this? And literally just now as I've been typing this all up, I've now come across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2601:18C:CC00:61A0:BCDB:E121:D39:529C, so it seems there's already been block evasion going on, and has now continued for multiple years. I'm not even sure if creating a report there would do anything, as the oldest report there was in February 2020. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like 2601:18F:180:4720:0:0:0:0/64 can be added on as well... more of the same overlapping articles, as well as more disruptive editing and edit warring, along with multiple blocks received on this range. Magitroopa (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just found 2601:18C:CC00:A659:0:0:0:0/64, 2601:18C:C400:E752:0:0:0:0/64, and 2601:18C:C400:5953:0:0:0:0/64- possibly the oldest 3 ranges (at least, from what I've been able to find...) Really not sure what much can be done here apart from blocking the /64 ranges as the pop up, but I very much highly doubt there is any range block that can be done that gets all these ranges and doesn't get non-disruptive IPs blocked as well. Magitroopa (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa, I don't understand what you're hoping for here. The three ranges you list have not been active for years. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- The listing of older IP ranges is moreso to show this isn't a one-time occurrence or anything, but has been ongoing for several years with the same behavior continuing on as well, even after multiple blocks across all these ranges. I had just been having trouble with the current range recently, and it wasn't until I looked into it further today that I found out they've been up to this across many ranges for sometime now.
- Would the most viable option be to just get a block on the current range, and for any future ranges, report at AIV referencing this ANI thread? Magitroopa (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Would the most viable option be to just get a block on the current range, and for any future ranges, report at AIV referencing this ANI thread? Magitroopa (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
BauhausFan89
- BauhausFan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We are stumped on how to proceed with an editor that insist their edits should be retained on multiple articles. They have been blocked previously in relation to these edits already. Thus have implemented slow edit wars to avoid being blocked in the same manner. It's become a time sink for stewards of these articles. Not only are we concerned about sourcing and the lack of attribution when copy pasting..... It's also the talk page demeanor of thinking the additions are great despite all the concerns raised. What is the best way forward here?
- Example of copy pasting of text without attribution and with very minimal sources. (This has been reinserted multiple times over a considerable period of time.) lastest talk about this can be seen at Talk:Germans#Very_large_addition_of_material_from_culture_article.
- At a related article we also have the reinsertion of their preferred text over an extended period of time. With no attempt to discuss the additions in months.
Moxy🍁 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I just aim to round out the article. the section culture of Germany is nearly non existing and was badly made up. I worked hard to round it out. Im happy to take cuts on my edits. but please keep a healty, well rounded cultural section up. the Nobel prize winner list is also standard on other wiki articles like Italians. I worked hard on the images there. please keep that in mind. I just want a well rounded, normal wiki article. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nobody is perfect, but put in slightly different words, the attitude here seems to be "If I make mistakes, feel free to fix them, but outright reversion amounts to a personal affront, because I know my reasons are of particular importance." That's not acceptable. Regardless of the degree to which the issues you identify are demonstrable to others and not part of a pattern of tendentious behavior (more on that in a moment) it's a real problem when both (1) you are liable to add long passages of unverified, undue and/or ungrammatical material to articles, AND (2) it becomes like pulling teeth to get that material off said live articles. That's simply not fair to others trying to collaborate with you on here.
- WP:V problems are serious, and when they build up they can cause quality articles to take on water until they're useless to our readers and embarrassing for us editors. It doesn't seem like you're taking verifiability seriously. I'm a grouch about the MOS, so I'm not going to say a word about it, because that is genuinely more of an area where editors can expect some help in-place as opposed to reversion whole-cloth.
- If no one else has told you why the Nobel prize winner list is also standard on other wiki articles like Italians is not itself a sufficient argument to override the concerns of other editors enough to eschew talk discussion and go straight to restoring disputed content, I'll tell you now: that mode of reasoning, when trotted out alone, is almost always insufficient and counterproductive. We need more specific reasons couched in specific site policies to establish dueness for such elements in highly crowded, manicured articles, or else it amounts to WP:ILIKEIT or "it doesn't feel fair that people presently have higher attention and scrutiny regarding this article than that one got", which we simply can't do anything about. Remsense 🌈 论 16:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
|
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- out for today. have a nice sunday. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can you pls review WP:AITALK Moxy🍁 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite frustrating when someone's LLM-generated reply doesn't even accurately recount the person's own behavior to date. Remsense 🌈 论 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- We all have other things to do....but this is the pattern of behaviour we are concerned about ...you are reverted - leave and then come back and just add it again somthimes months later. Moxy🍁 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you have a good understanding of what the policies you cite actually mean. For example, in this edit, you asserted that "The removal of the statement... should not occur without proper sourcing for the removal itself", citing WP:V. That's not how V works; citations aren't required for an editorial decision to remove a statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Over at Immanuel Kant, they revered back and forth 5 times or so during June (this is a typical edit) There was a talk page discussion, which showed their addition did not enjoy consensus support. Then about a month later they come back with this edit, adding the same disputed wording. Their follow up revert came with the edit summary
Im not part of any edit war. Im enriching the article and found a well fitting spot to write more about the massive imact of said work. Im not reinserting something at the same spot. if you dont agree with my edit, than its 1 vs 1. nothing more.
[42]. Looking at the diffs in question reveals that this edit summary is incorrect - it is the same content as discussed on the talk page and in the same place. It seems this pattern repeats on any other article where BauhausFan89's edits are challenged. I'll also note here that I collapsed an AI-generated response further up this thread. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Propose article space ban....Let's see if they had the capability of building consensus on talk pages without using AI generator replies. This will give article stewards the chance to explain how policies work and don't work and will allow article stewards to evaluate sources and help attribution for copy pasting.Moxy🍁 18:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Some sanction is needed for an editor who uses an LLM to post to a project page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I have issued an indefinite partial block to prevent editing to articles. Let me know if disruption occurs elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I don't understand the behavior of this editor, but it is very disruptive. A lot of their edits seem perfectly fine and constructive, but every week or so, they vandalize the article List of international presidential trips made by Joe Biden. These edits are additions of irrelevant nonsense mostly written in Vietnamese, and sometimes in English. I don't think it's a matter of their IPv6 being reassigned because they are all on the same IPv6 /64, and constructive edits are interspersed with these vandalistic edits. Examples of vandalism: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
They have made over 30 edits like this, dating back to January 2025. They have been warned multiple times on the talk pages of their various IPs but have never responded (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I have reported this here rather than on AIV because not all of their edits are vandalism. CodeTalker (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- After being notified of this discussion, the IP has vandalized the article yet again today. The edit was reverted by ClueBot. CodeTalker (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- And a day later they have vandalized yet again. I don't understand why no action has been taken yet on this report. It seems clear to me that there is a problem here. Should I report at Rfpp instead? CodeTalker (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- And yet again. It seems that their rate of vandalism has increased from about once a week to more than once a day since this report was filed. If this is not trolling, it is indistinguishable from it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would make this report to WP:AIV, make sure to note the subnet mask as you did in your original report here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I digged a little further and it looks like three other wiki's have recently blocked large subnets (up to /32) from this range for at least a day or two at a time, so it's not just affecting us. ASN 812 includes a large number of IP ranges, and these appear to be Rodgers Communications (Canada). For this range they apparently have 2607:fea8::/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'd recommend at least a 2-3 day block given that other Wiki's have recently blocked IP's from this range as well. @Discospinster: recently reverted one minor bit of vandalism from them. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- And yet again. It seems that their rate of vandalism has increased from about once a week to more than once a day since this report was filed. If this is not trolling, it is indistinguishable from it. CodeTalker (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- And a day later they have vandalized yet again. I don't understand why no action has been taken yet on this report. It seems clear to me that there is a problem here. Should I report at Rfpp instead? CodeTalker (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- The account is blocked for 6 months, so it should be resolved. Please report back if you see any other problems on that page, and if they change IP addresses, then perhaps RFPP would be the next best route. TiggerJay (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of User:AttackTheMoonNow affecting WP:ITNC
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow
Could the page Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and by extension Wikipedia talk:In the news please be indefinitely semi-protected? There is an long-term abuse issue surrounding User:AttackTheMoonNow that has been ongoing for a few months mainly on the aforementioned pages. This diff (posted under one of this user's many socks) pretty much sums up why the user in question is a major problem at the moment. BangJan1999 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sock blocked and tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: This isn't just one sockpuppet, it's an ongoing issue that has lasted several months and need a permanent solution to if there is one available. BangJan1999 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinite semiprotection for a page where we want IP contributions causes too much collateral damage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Is there another way of dealing with long-term abuse of this scale that doesn't cause "too much collateral damage" other than just blocking the socks as they arrive? BangJan1999 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly I am unware of any better option than playing Whac-A-Mole, until the disruption gets to be too great. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Is there another way of dealing with long-term abuse of this scale that doesn't cause "too much collateral damage" other than just blocking the socks as they arrive? BangJan1999 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinite semiprotection for a page where we want IP contributions causes too much collateral damage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: This isn't just one sockpuppet, it's an ongoing issue that has lasted several months and need a permanent solution to if there is one available. BangJan1999 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Please block Stardust Moonpie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also an obvious sock. --MuZemike 18:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with the case, what makes this one obvious? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- AttackTheMoonNow's manifesto seems to be disrupting ITN using new accounts and harassing the admins that block them. Based on when the account was created and seeing how their first edits were to ITN/C, I would say it's likely. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Looks like Bongeurodoom (talk · contribs) is spreading attacks about this on unrelated pages, probably another sock. - MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can't someone do an IP block of the usual IPs that these user accounts originate from? I don't know if that is technically possible but would seem like a way to stop this for now. Natg 19 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is common for abusive users to either 1) use unblocked proxies to create their accounts, which rarely have a range in common, or 2) to have a very wide range allocated to them (common with mobile ISPs), such as a whole IPv6/32 or IPv4/16. Izno (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- The WMF recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider. I wonder if we can use it to block whole providers (e.g. VPNGate) and cripple abusers temporarily. Also, I don't think ATMN normally uses proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider.
is not really what happened. They have access to another group that has some access to Spur (Maxmind AIUI). We get a very filtered view of that in the context of the IP infobox. What we do not have is a view of all of every range we might care about, and no way to drill into "look at all those VPNGate addresses". A Phabricator task for IP infobox views over ranges might be interesting, as might a separate task for "let me see all the VPNGate hosts you know about".- That aside, that doesn't fix mobile ISPs not caring in the slightest what their allocations are. Izno (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly is technically possible to block everything associated with an IP. I've twice been a victim of collateral damage on this account - the first time by a steward who didn't reply to emails, the second by a steward who email was closed. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do reports to mobile network operators generally do something? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- They make those operators' admins laugh for a few seconds before they get tossed into a filing cabinet three floors down in the door labeled "Beware Of Leopard". It's why WP:Abuse reports was so depressingly ineffective. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like real BOFH's. I do kind of get it though, unless there's some actual threat to their network there's not much incentive for them to care. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- They make those operators' admins laugh for a few seconds before they get tossed into a filing cabinet three floors down in the door labeled "Beware Of Leopard". It's why WP:Abuse reports was so depressingly ineffective. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- The WMF recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider. I wonder if we can use it to block whole providers (e.g. VPNGate) and cripple abusers temporarily. Also, I don't think ATMN normally uses proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It is common for abusive users to either 1) use unblocked proxies to create their accounts, which rarely have a range in common, or 2) to have a very wide range allocated to them (common with mobile ISPs), such as a whole IPv6/32 or IPv4/16. Izno (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Hide edits and revisions
Hey, would you be so nice to hide recent vandalic edits in my user talk page? Some are Spam (so it's your decision), but others are bluntly offensive. Pls also revdel at least the following entries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Much obliged. Virum Mundi (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Revdel done. The spam didn't need to be technically, but I didn't feel like tracing through which edits contained revdellable content and which didn't and none of them are useful so I hid the whole wad. For future reference please read the edit notice and don't draw attention to edits that should be hidden in a public place. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt action!
- I'll also keep in mind your indication for future cases (which btw is opposite of the one we have in the eswiki, where we encourage users to provide in the admin board with links to the referred edits, considered best practice and included in the form as a default field... so I guess every wiki is its own world :))
- Cheers. Virum Mundi (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing/ vandalism
UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I don't know if this is the right place or page to write this complaint... Anyway, I would like to draw your attention to the last edits in the Ceriantipatharia article [43] (starting with [44]) by editor UtherSRG, which represents obvious and completely open vandalism. The problem with his edit is, I hope, self-explanatory - removal of an extremely well-sourced text (almost a technical reproduction of sources) without any reason (his comment "last best" is no reason, it is a joke at best). I would also like to add that not only is UtherSRG's edit a textbook example of vandalism, but the original version of the article, to which he reverted, contains virtually no correct sentences (i. e. it contains laughable non-sense), which makes the whole revert even more wrong. This also shows, btw, that UtherSRG has absolutely no idea about the topic at hand.
A few days later, not having been stopped by anybody, he decided to be even more disruptive and removed the following well sourced and correct text [45] replacing it with an old version in which most of the text is mostly plainly wrong, outdated, unsourced, chaotic and completely infantile.
The reason for the above edits of UtherSRG was probably an attempt to get revenge (as absurd as it sounds) for this older edit in the tube-dwelling anemone article [46], in which he made another absurd revert with an absurd reason. The "reason" he gave in the comment was "Not an improvement". Such a "reason" means nothing at all (it just means "I don't like this") and can be written as a comment to virtually any edit or text in the world. The reality is that almost nothing substantial was changed in the article, and the little that was changed (adding headings, fixing one sentence etc.) was only "improvements".
Also note that on August 11, he even his revert in the tube-dwelling anemone article as a "minor" edit. I do not think that this what "minor" means. And again, this is open vandalism.
I don't know who UtherSRG is, and I don't have time to analyze his other (former or current) edits, but what is striking is that he obviously feels that he can get away with such extensive open vandalisms here. In fact, it is striking that he is allowed to edit anything here at all, because this exceeds any possible level of vandalism I can imagine.Temporatemporus (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, none of UtherSRG's edits that you have mentioned above are "a textbook example of vandalism" (see WP:NOTVAND), and given that UtherSRG is an editor with 200,000 edits, many to the area of taxonomy, I would suggest that edit-warring on articles with edit-summaries of "rv vandalism" is probably not going to go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the edits at Ceriantipatharia, Temporatemporus added ~31000 bytes of text, UtherSRG reverted, saying "rv - last best". Temporatemporus adds it again, is reverted with the same rationale, and then it is ultimately added again. During this slow, 17 day edit war, neither went to the article talk page to discuss the edit. The talk page for Hexacorallia (3rd diff from op) is also devoid of discussion between the two editors. There is no discussion on the talk page for Tube-dwelling anemone (4th diff) either. I also see no discussion on their user talk pages. This is a content dispute between two editors who apparently don't know that Talk pages exist... TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a content issue (at least not for 99 % of the text), because he did not remove individual pieces if information he considers wrong. Instead, he just removed professional well-sourced texts as a revenge for an edit in another article. He has no idea what he has reverted and has not even read it. And he has not even given a reason in the edit summaries. "[Revert to] last best" is not a reason. What and how do you want to discuss this? This is completely irrational behaviour.Temporatemporus (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong advice that I suggest you follow: go and read WP:BRD, then use the talk page of each article to explain why you think your edits are right, and stop edit-warring contested material back in to the article with spurious claims of vandalism (have you read WP:NOTVAND yet?). I have no idea whether your version or UtherSRG's version is "correct", but even if it's yours, you are going totally the wrong way about it. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed - note that accusations of vandalism that are unfounded (which these are) can be considered personal attacks. Also
removed....as a revenge for an edit in another article
is casting aspersions which is also a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)- Once again - he has removed tons of well-sourced completely indisputed content. Without even trying to invent a reason for this. If this is not vandalism, then what is vandalism in a project trying to write an encyclopaedia? Is this a joke? If I wanted to write a manual on vandalism in a project trying to collect sourced information, this would be the main example threre...Ans as for the revenge, just look at the edits in chronological succession, they are self-explanatory. Temporatemporus (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism would be if someone replaced the content with "ha ha bepis". This is a content dispute. Attempt dispute resolution. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Once again - he has removed tons of well-sourced completely indisputed content. Without even trying to invent a reason for this. If this is not vandalism, then what is vandalism in a project trying to write an encyclopaedia? Is this a joke? If I wanted to write a manual on vandalism in a project trying to collect sourced information, this would be the main example threre...Ans as for the revenge, just look at the edits in chronological succession, they are self-explanatory. Temporatemporus (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed - note that accusations of vandalism that are unfounded (which these are) can be considered personal attacks. Also
- Strong advice that I suggest you follow: go and read WP:BRD, then use the talk page of each article to explain why you think your edits are right, and stop edit-warring contested material back in to the article with spurious claims of vandalism (have you read WP:NOTVAND yet?). I have no idea whether your version or UtherSRG's version is "correct", but even if it's yours, you are going totally the wrong way about it. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a content issue (at least not for 99 % of the text), because he did not remove individual pieces if information he considers wrong. Instead, he just removed professional well-sourced texts as a revenge for an edit in another article. He has no idea what he has reverted and has not even read it. And he has not even given a reason in the edit summaries. "[Revert to] last best" is not a reason. What and how do you want to discuss this? This is completely irrational behaviour.Temporatemporus (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
This is worse than I thought. The normal reaction here should be - the user UtherSRG should be banned or forced to stop this type of behaviour, and then someone should be charged with checking his past edits to see how many other such sourced texts he has deleted without any reason. I was naive to think that this wikipedia has at least some mechanisms to prevent such disruptive deletions from happening and that someone will notice it and fix this after a few days. The opposite happened - not only did nobody notice and fix anything, but it is me who he is critized here (presumably for my choice of vaculabulary??). You do not seem to understand the extent of the problem: I have not checked, but I guess he has destroyed hundreds or thousands of articles and new users, because I can see here, that nobody notices anything and nobody cares. Temporatemporus (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Consider this a final warning regarding casting aspersions and personal attacks. Even if you were entirely correct on the merits of your position here, your way of going about it is entirely in violation of policy - being right is not enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Whatever the validity of the complaints or the possible overreaction by Temporatemporus, I don't think it reflects very well on an experienced editor like UtherSRG to edit war with rather meaningless edit summaries and without using the talk page either, and then not to even respond here while they are happily editing elsewhere. They have shown rather poor behaviour lately, including blocks where they were involved (the reversed block of User:SilverzCreations, but also dubious or way too harsh blocks of e.g. User:Steveragnarson or User:103.44.35.123 or User:181.2.118.245. They seem very relaxed about their own edit warring and involvedness, and way too happy to hand out long blocks to the other side. Looking at their most recent blocks, I have my doubts about the ones of User:Baloch Tribe (username block? Would we block user:Scottish people if they edited about Scotland?), User:102.182.139.25 (one warning, then two block, for making unsourced but correct edits?)
Their recent reverts include things like a rollback of this correct edit (see Cy the Cardinal), a final warning + revert for unsourced but correct edits[47][48]; an editor clearly and correctly explains their edit, but gets blindly reverted, recreating the worse version[49]; dubious rollback use against User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E (this needs a syntax correction but is an improvement over UtherSRGs version); this redlink removal is not rollbackable either); more dubious rollback use[50] (the IP was vandalizing, but that doesn't mean that months old edits by presumably a different person should be blindly reverted as well). This reversion of an extremely vague reference is not helpful and didn't warrant a warning. This was a completely incorrect rollback (didn't warrant rollback in any case, and the link that was removed was indeed incorrect, as it referred to the Saturn moon Titan)... This is all from the last few days.
A look at UtherSRGs recent reverts in general seems warranted. Fram (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- UtherSRG's reverts on Ceriantipatharia are simply unacceptable. To revert that much work with no more comment than "RV - last best" is nowhere near good enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
The blocks:
- Steveragnarson: Multiple reverts by other, well respected editors of a dozen or so edits on half a dozen articles, who warned them twice to stop. I blocked them for two weeks.
- 103.44.35.123: IP-jumper vandalizing Domo Genesis
- 181.2.118.245: seven warnings in a month isn't enough for you?
- Baloch Tribe: I should have blocked for multiple reasons. I chose the one that is easiest to come back from.
- 102.182.139.25: They'd had multiple warnings before and had a previous block. The vandalism was of a similar nature as previous, so when they continued vandalizing a few days fter being warned, I blocked for 2 weeks.
The reverts:
- Northern Cardinal: I could have done better here.
- Spot-tailed nightjar and Hydropsalis: not only were they unsourced, they were counter to the existing sources. These were not "correct edits".
- Great skua: Use of the singular for species is preferred and used in a great number of taxonomy articles. This article had a mix of usage. The user nudged the article to have a little less singular usage; I reverted and them went through the whole article to singularize.
- 2601:...:599E's edit broke the image. I reverted the breakage, but I hadn't even seen that it was broken because they had 2-3 dozen edits in a row that mostly were the removals of redlinks. Redlinks are not bad links and don't need removal. While a single redlink removal I would have said "red link not badlink" in the edit summary, bulk reversals are indeed rollback material.
- Carmen Hernández: I looked at the IP's edit history and this looked liked more vandalizing.
- Neanderthal extinction: I followed this up with a note on the user's talk page, explaining they should have tagged instead of removing.
- Kong (Monsterverse): Multiple editors reverting to the same version I reverted to, against an IP jumper
UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. This sounds like a case of WP:BOOMERANG back to Temporatemporus for casting aspersions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm opposed. There are legitimate concerns with UtherSRG's conduct. The NOTVAND issues with both Temporatemporus and UtherSRG are real, and it would be inappropriate to sanction only one of them. At least at this point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- They haven't responded about the edits highlighted by Temporatemporus at all, so I don't see how you can come to this conclusion? Fram (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Blocks:
- A new editor, User talk:Steveragnarson, gets a warning for an unsourced addition, and a level 2 warning for adding "commentary" to an article. And then you come along and give them a 2 week block for edit warring, about which they were never warned.
- "103.44.35.123: IP-jumper vandalizing Domo Genesis" If it's an IP jumper, they why would you block them for 6 months 3 months after the edit?
- 181.2.118.245: my mistake, I thought I had removed that from my list, no issue there
- "102.182.139.25: They'd had multiple warnings before and had a previous block." Yeah, from a year earlier. "The vandalism was of a similar nature as previous, so when they continued vandalizing a few days fter being warned, I blocked for 2 weeks." This isn't vandalism but factual information[51], and this is replacing one name of a ___location with another one; probably an edit that shouldn't have been made, but not vandalism or particularly problematic.
- The Leach's storm petrel situation is particularly problematic, as you seem to have been deeply WP:INVOLVED here, reverting this claim multiple times as "patently false"[52], protecting the article[53], and blocking the IP who added it, while all the time this was a correct, relevant, interesting fact. The IP even gave the source in their edit summary[54], all to no avail of course.
- Reverts:
- "Spot-tailed nightjar and Hydropsalis: not only were they unsourced, they were counter to the existing sources. These were not "correct edits"." Newbies often don't know about referencing, they only want to correct information. Simply reverting them (or worse, warning and or blocking them) is not helpful to the articles or these editors. It's not hard to check these, you immediately get this
- User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E; so you revert it all without any explanation in either the edit summary or on their talk page, leaving them wondering why they get reverted and more likely wondering why they would ever again contribute here?
- "Neanderthal extinction: I followed this up with a note on the user's talk page, explaining they should have tagged instead of removing." So you reinserted dubious, poorly sourced statements? Without even tagging it as disputed?
- "Kong (Monsterverse): Multiple editors reverting to the same version I reverted to, against an IP jumper" ??? The bad link was first added on 9 August[55], the IP removing it was reverted once[56], and then by you[57]. So there was just one editor reverting to that version, and most importantly the edit was 100% an improvement. A revert would have been bad, rollback was clearly worse. Fram (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Basically, you don't follow WP:BITE (and other rules), and I have no idea how you expect these editors to improve without explaining the issues and giving them the impression that you actually checked their edits and reacted based on the merit of the edit, and not based on some rules they don't know about or on some prejudice against IPs editing "your" articles. Fram (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
More WP:OWN/WP:BITE or just rather blind reverts:
- This article was tagged for copyediting in April, and was extensively edited for this and other reasons in the months since, until an editor put some final touches and removed the tag[58]; they got reverted[59] with the, er, not helpful edit summary of "not helpful".
- Unwarranted use of rollback on this and this and this
- More unwarranted use of rollback here where the IP edit matches the only source in the article
- More unwarranted rollback of an edit which looks like a well-crafted pure improvement[60]
All from last week, 15 and 16 August. Fram (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue to argue the individual points, as I don't think it's fruitful. I think you've incorrectly characterized many of these items. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG:, the concerns about WP:INVOLVED actions, at the very least, make this a WP:ADMINACCT issue. Given that I'd advise that you should likely
argue the indvidiual points
. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)- @UtherSRG:, not {{pint}}, we're (hopefully) not getting drunk here! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why not? :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, it's 5pm somewhere- The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why not? :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The fact is, there's a lot of actions we can discuss. I've made some mistakes, yes, but I also think some actions are being taken out of context or misrepresented. And on a very active account like mine, looking only at a cherry-picked set of actions and not looking at all the rest of the actions at the same time is futile. I will gladly discuss any single action, or talk in general about how I tend to approach things (and that can only be a "tend to" as every situation is unique), but debating back and forth on a group of items leads only to frustration on everyone's part. If someone wants to paint a picture of me, there's enough paint that any picture can be painted. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, let me sum up what I hear expressed about my actions in general. I block too soon and/or for too long. I revert too easily. I don't discuss enough. Have I missed any other general points? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- You've inappropriately labeled many good-faith edits "vandalism". You've used rollback inappropriately to revert those edits. You've edit warred with those other good-faith editors, which makes you involved, and then you've used other tools like protection and blocks inappropriately. You've missed at least a couple recent opportunities to absorb related feedback and correct course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's clearly room for improvement, as there is for us all. But I think you could go through the contributions of any active editor (50+ edits/day) and find mistakes. I'm not trying to minimize any existing problems but I'm not sure any of us could be scrutinized like this and end up with a clean rap sheet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's a strange way of framing this. Most of the edits are unrelated to reverting, the number of mistakes while reverting or rollbacking should be checked against the number of reverts and rollbacks. If someone would do 1 rollback per 200 gnoming edits, but all their rollbacks were wrong, we wouldn't dismiss concerns because it is less than 1% of their edits surely? Obviously that example is hypothetical hyperbole. But when I look at their reverts going on from where I stopped (somewhere during his 15 August edits), I see this (minor, but the other edit was helpful and in line with the remainder of the page), this (not relevant? Seems like a very useful addition); I have no idea why this was reverted, and this; I don't see why rollback (or even reversion) was needed for a series of edits where someone switched the order of two animals to be alphabetical:[61][62][63][64]... This is the vast majority of their reverts on the 15th and the 14th. it's the same pattern over and over again. I hope most admins and rollbackers don't have this level of mistakes, and if you do recognise yourself in this then perhaps you should change your approach drastically. Fram (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There's clearly room for improvement, as there is for us all. But I think you could go through the contributions of any active editor (50+ edits/day) and find mistakes. I'm not trying to minimize any existing problems but I'm not sure any of us could be scrutinized like this and end up with a clean rap sheet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- You've inappropriately labeled many good-faith edits "vandalism". You've used rollback inappropriately to revert those edits. You've edit warred with those other good-faith editors, which makes you involved, and then you've used other tools like protection and blocks inappropriately. You've missed at least a couple recent opportunities to absorb related feedback and correct course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG:, not {{pint}}, we're (hopefully) not getting drunk here! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG:, the concerns about WP:INVOLVED actions, at the very least, make this a WP:ADMINACCT issue. Given that I'd advise that you should likely
- Comment. My thoughts are pretty much what Fram says above. UtherSRG is familiar to me, I've worked in the same area as him in the past (although it's slipped my mind now which corner of the project that was... 🙄). And I've no doubt he's a conscientious and good admin. But it's also clear there's an issue here with inappropriate reverts and involved actions which can't be explained just as routine mistakes during prolific editing and which need to be addressed. I have no doubt that UtherSRG can do this, and there's no need for this to escalate any further, but @UtherSRG: let's have it here. I'd like to see a plan and commitment from yourself as to how you can do better in the future and avoid the issues here recurring. As an aside, it's disappointing that everyone was queueing up to criticise the OP at the top of this thread. Yes, nine times out of ten complaints against experienced editors here are wide of the mark, and yes, some of their terminology such as "vandalism" was unfounded, but I'd like to think we've moved on from the WP:UNBLOCKABLE era (if such a thing ever existed) and that we can treat each ANI thread on its own merits rather than the profiles of the editors. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wish I had a plan. If there were an admin training program, I'd take it. If there were an admin mentorship program, I'd sign up and ask for a mentor. The best I can do is say I'll slow down and try to put more consideration into everything I do. Other than that, I don't know. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- UtherSRG, do you view having the admin tools as a positive for your volunteer time here? After a few rounds now, where the commitments from you have all been of the (paraphrasing) "I'll be more careful" variety, it just doesn't seem to me like you're willing to put in any work on changing your admin conduct. I think it's likely that a recall petition might be started soon. Are you interested in taking concrete steps to avoid that outcome? For example, would you consider giving up the use of rollback, or holding yourself to 1RR, or staying away from the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" exception to INVOLVED? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, I can forgo rollback (I've found that the rollback can be disabled in some cases), I'll hold to 1RR, and reduce involved actions. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most of my rollback usage has been from the Watchlist. I've removed the rollback feature from the Watchlist. I'll now have to open a diff to have access to rollback, which will force me to see more of the edit before I choose to perform the rollback. I think this should be sufficient for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, I can forgo rollback (I've found that the rollback can be disabled in some cases), I'll hold to 1RR, and reduce involved actions. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- UtherSRG, do you view having the admin tools as a positive for your volunteer time here? After a few rounds now, where the commitments from you have all been of the (paraphrasing) "I'll be more careful" variety, it just doesn't seem to me like you're willing to put in any work on changing your admin conduct. I think it's likely that a recall petition might be started soon. Are you interested in taking concrete steps to avoid that outcome? For example, would you consider giving up the use of rollback, or holding yourself to 1RR, or staying away from the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" exception to INVOLVED? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wish I had a plan. If there were an admin training program, I'd take it. If there were an admin mentorship program, I'd sign up and ask for a mentor. The best I can do is say I'll slow down and try to put more consideration into everything I do. Other than that, I don't know. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
About the Original Post
I am aware that there are two subjects of discussion here, the edits by UtherSRG and the comments of the Original Poster, and I am aware that the discussion is now mostly about UtherSRG. So I am inserting a heading because I will be talking about the Original Poster, User: Temporatemporus. When you have fewer than 50 edits and state that the editing of an experienced editor, whether or not an administrator, is "open vandalism" and "a textbook example of vandalism", it appears that, almost as soon as you entered Wikipedia, you learned that 'vandalism' is one of the most serious allegations that can be made against another editor, but that you either didn't read the "textbook" of our policies and guidelines, or went through the motions of reading them without understanding. You then Yelled Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute. I haven't looked into the merits of the content dispute, but a conductcontent dispute is not vandalism. Disruptive and tendentious editing to "win" a content dispute is not vandalism. If you have both a real content dispute and a real issue about another editor's content, don't distract from the reality of your concern by Yelling Vandalism. You wrote: I don't know if this is the right place or page to write this complaint..
. The problem is not that you wrote in the wrong place, but that you made a wrong complaint, and that diverts attention from any real complaint. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here's an observation. The original poster (Temporatemporus) also gives off the vibe that they may have another account and is very familiar with inner-workings of Wikipedia. Their very first edit included: editing short description, using the right citation templates, using defined & named references (not the generic ones that Visual Editor generates, see their citation on Goette's book as example) and adding a category. Their 12th edit (and 7 days since account creation) is editing a template. And finding ANI in less than 3 weeks (and under 30 edits) and filing a properly formatted report, with diffs and everything, seems a bit too proficient for a brand new account. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, User:OhanaUnited. There are two possible explanations. One plausible explanation is yours, which is that the editor has more Wikipedia experience than their history shows. The other, which is my theory, is the assumption of good faith that an editor has rushed quickly into learning about Wikipedia and doesn't know as much as they think they do. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Or perhaps, they were editing as the IP 2A02:AB04:3132:4100::/64 and decided to create an account, as we encourage people to do. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @REAL MOUSE IRL Which appears to be more evidence of having previous editing experience (as an IP or under another account) or editing while logged out. First edit in this IP range is doing disambig on article page with {{about}} and second edit is removing a redirect page. How many brand new editors know their way around disambig and redirect page on their first day, let alone knowing how to remove redirects correctly in one edit? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- IPs are dynamic, editing as different IP addresses is not LOUTSOCKing. A new user knowing how to remove redirects is fairly common, it's not hard to figure out that deleting the line that says "#REDIRECT" removes the redirect... REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please read about dynamic IPs. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I know about dynamic IPs. My internet was on dynamic IP 15 years ago. As a former SPI clerk, I just wanted to flag that it gives off a weird vibe when a brand new account has far more knowledge beyond what a typical new editor exhibits. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @REAL MOUSE IRL Which appears to be more evidence of having previous editing experience (as an IP or under another account) or editing while logged out. First edit in this IP range is doing disambig on article page with {{about}} and second edit is removing a redirect page. How many brand new editors know their way around disambig and redirect page on their first day, let alone knowing how to remove redirects correctly in one edit? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras
Kabul madras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ever since Kabul madras has joined Wikipedia, he's been obsessed with trying to use this platform as a way to "disprove" the lineage of the Ba 'Alawi sada. One of the methods of trying to do so was using his own original research. I've first warned him about original research a year ago, and have been doing so ever since, but he refuses to listen. In this discussion, he didn't even seem to care that I warned him that I'm going to take this here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are there diffs you could post that show the issue? It would be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- feel free to review all my edits.I have never inserted 'original research' into the article. I have always used references that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If @Abo Yemen disagrees with what I have written, that is Abo Yemen's personal problem and an inability to accept the factual, sourced reality. I invite all of you, as an administrator, to act as the judge in this dispute between me and Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @45dogs: I'm currently outside so I am not sure how to provide diffs on the mobile app, but you can see their only 5 contribs they made today. They've been providing their own interpretations of DNA databases in an attempt to try and disprove the lineage. And instead of using the neutral and academic sources that describe the lineage dispute from both povs, he seems to only see the youtube videos that he's been watching and citing on this article as the only definitive truth. Kabul, trying to deny your edits on that article that are available for everyone to see is not going to work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [65]. The ref does appear murky though. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- yes, it's that one, thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Borgenland @Kowal2701,Yes, that is correct. That specific section is part of the article currently under a content dispute. It is entirely different part from the part that was agreed upon by consensus in the RFC. I have obeyed the consensus that was reached by RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [65]. The ref does appear murky though. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @45dogs: I'm currently outside so I am not sure how to provide diffs on the mobile app, but you can see their only 5 contribs they made today. They've been providing their own interpretations of DNA databases in an attempt to try and disprove the lineage. And instead of using the neutral and academic sources that describe the lineage dispute from both povs, he seems to only see the youtube videos that he's been watching and citing on this article as the only definitive truth. Kabul, trying to deny your edits on that article that are available for everyone to see is not going to work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RfC where everyone !voted against Kabul's position, I tried to explain but they continued to disagree [66] Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I closed that RFC on 7 August 2025 finding that there was consensus, except for Kabul Madras, to remove their statement that their lineage claim was being disputed. They are now at 2RR in edit-warring to insert the statement against consensus. Edit-warring at 2RR against a consensus adopted in an RFC in response to previous edit-warring is still edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- If User:Kabul Madras disagrees with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the close at WP:AN rather than edit-warring against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon I have not engaged in any counter-actions regarding the concluded RFC, and I am abiding by its outcome in accordance with Wikipedia policies. My subsequent edits were solely to the DNA analysis section of the article. These are two entirely separate matters. I would invite you to review the relevant edit history concerning the DNA analysis portion. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- If User:Kabul Madras disagrees with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the close at WP:AN rather than edit-warring against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the close of the RFC [67].
- Here are the most recent three insertions of the text that was removed by consensus: [68] [69] [70]
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- As you can see, these are two completely separate sections. The RFC addresses a section at the beginning of the article. I have fully adhered to the consensus reached in that RFC. Meanwhile, my most recent edit is in a different part of the article and deals with a separate matter. The issue that should be discussed here is whether my latest edit violates any Wikipedia policies. Kabul madras (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- "My disruption was removed from part of the article by a RFC. I'm adhering to the RFC by moving my disruption to another part of the article". WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a good thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- No i am not. It's completely different sentence , different topic, in different ___location from the article. Kabul madras (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- No i am not. It's completely different sentence , different topic, in different ___location from the article. Kabul madras (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- "My disruption was removed from part of the article by a RFC. I'm adhering to the RFC by moving my disruption to another part of the article". WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a good thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Kabul madras has just filed an arbitration case request. Left guide (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- noting here as I did there - I'm a named party as a result of my p-block and will not take any further admin action. However I also did not intend to beyond my (disregarded) warning not to bludgeon this discussion. Notice is probably unnecessary but for avoidance of any issue. Star Mississippi 03:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note here for the record that the arbitration request was denied and removed here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does this count as an aspersion? [71] Borgenland (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- it very much is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does this count as an aspersion? [71] Borgenland (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Topic-Ban and Partial Block
I propose that User:Kabul Madras be topic-banned by the community from Ba 'Alawi sada and its talk page, and partially blocked to enforce that topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please do not be hasty. I have already replied to your argument concerning the RFC. You are misinterpreting my position by concluding that I oppose the RFC. The current issue at hand is a completely separate matter from what was discussed in the RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The matter currently at hand is not separate from the RFC. The topic at hand is a subset of the topic of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please do not be hasty. I have already replied to your argument concerning the RFC. You are misinterpreting my position by concluding that I oppose the RFC. The current issue at hand is a completely separate matter from what was discussed in the RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I already applied the p-block, but leaving this open in the event there's support for a topic ban to dissuade moving the disruption elsewhere. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion is still ongoing, so how can you justify imposing an immediate block? Please re-read my arguments above. The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because your disruption has gone beyond the results of the RFC and honestly, you could have been blocked much earlier. Please do not bludgeon this discussion. Star Mississippi 00:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you keep saying "
The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC.
" you're just telling people topic ban is a justified, or worse even just a site ban. No one wants to have an RfC everytime you bring up a slightly different suggestion. While you might be right that the RfC closure didn't technically cover what you were doing, it's clear from the RfC discussion that there was substantial concern about anything related & in any case it's most definitely not "entirely separate". Perhaps there is merit to continue discussion of whether and what can be added elsewhere but definitely not edit warring. And that discussion needs to consider previous discussions including the RfC and any editor wishing to take part should understand basics like WP:OR, WP:RS and especially have some ability to recognise when issues are related rather than treat them as entirely separate when they aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nil EinneOf course I understand WP:OR and WP:RS. In fact, if you understood them, you would have first read all the references I cited there, before quickly justifying them as original research and unreliable sources, without a strong basis. Kabul madras (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I like how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've given your own interpretation (or in other words, done original research) of one huge ass family using a DNA database (Which literally has text along with a fucking
[citation needed]
tag copied from a Wikipedia article, not even making this up btw. See also: WP:CIRCULAR) of about two hundred people (mostly self proclaimed diaspora), but somehow you dont see that as violations of WP:OR or WP:RS? Those are some real WP:CIR issues right here. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)- What WP:CIRCULAR? Everything I wrote there already has references. It's clear that you didn't even read them, which is why you came to that conclusion. Indeed, accepting reality is difficult, especially for those who have been lied to by their ancestors since childhood. Kabul madras (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I dont have to read what al-Bantani (a person whose highest education level is the equivalent of a high school diploma) wrote. But I've read Muhajir & Alatas 2023 and As'hal et al 2024 (academic sources) and they gave an overview of this indonesian debate on the lineage of the diaspora claimants of Ba Alawi ancestry. None of them show al-Bantani's views as the definite truth. Indeed, those who consume propaganda from tiktok and youtube aren't here to build an encyclopedia. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- You know that almost no one or maybe actually no one in this discussion has Ba Alawi ancestry right? Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne this is awkward, but I do have Ba Alawi ancestry, although I found about it like a year ago since neither me nor my fam are really big fans of this ancestry stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- What WP:CIRCULAR? Everything I wrote there already has references. It's clear that you didn't even read them, which is why you came to that conclusion. Indeed, accepting reality is difficult, especially for those who have been lied to by their ancestors since childhood. Kabul madras (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:1AM, if all the experienced editors are telling you're doing WP:OR and not providing appropriate reliable source and after 157 edits you insist they're wrong and you're not engaged in OR & all your sources are perfect RS, guess who's almost always in the wrong? Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I like how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've given your own interpretation (or in other words, done original research) of one huge ass family using a DNA database (Which literally has text along with a fucking
- @Nil EinneOf course I understand WP:OR and WP:RS. In fact, if you understood them, you would have first read all the references I cited there, before quickly justifying them as original research and unreliable sources, without a strong basis. Kabul madras (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- And, ultimately, it is within the purview of an administrator to make such decisions without a "Mother may I" from ANI participants. Beyond that, it's not that we haven't read your arguments. It's not that we don't understand your arguments. It's that we don't agree with your arguments. The distinction is not hard to grasp. Ravenswing 05:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion is still ongoing, so how can you justify imposing an immediate block? Please re-read my arguments above. The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban from all Ba Alawi-related topics (e.g. Ba 'Alawiyya and Haplogroup G-M201, where Kabul attempted to do their POVPUSH) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support: +1 to "Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption." Ravenswing 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason to support the idea that this editor is helpful to the project in this area at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support I gave the editor a chance to think about what they're doing and show some indication they are starting to understand the problem with
the editorstheir edits. They didn't take it instead continuing to insist their behaviour has been great. Frankly I'm not sure they can be a productive editor anywhere but perhaps if they do edit an area they care less about they'll be better. Or perhaps it's the only thing they care about so they will abandon editing. Either way, it's clear them continuing to edit about the topic area is not going to be productive. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) 20:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC) - Support continnued IDHT including opening a premature arbitration request which is evidence of both IDHT and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Comparison of the Questioned Edit and the RFC
User:Kabul Madras says that what they were posting on 20 August is unrelated to the RFC and is a different matter. The RFC was about a statement that the claim of descent from Muhammad is being challenged, and consensus was to delete that statement. So introduction of a detailed analysis challenging the claim of descent is within the scope of the RFC. The most recent edit is an analysis that the Ba_'Alawi_sada clan and Muhammad's tribe belong to different Y-haplogroups. That is a challenge to the claim of descent, and that is what the RFC concluded should not be in the article. If they want to challenge the closure of the RFC, that can be done at WP:AN. At this point, if they want to raise questions about the interpretation of the RFC, they can do that in a close challenge, since they are blocked from the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I also have a question. Are Ba_'Alawi_sada claiming descent from Muhammad, or are they more specifically claiming direct patriarchal descent from Ali? Y-chromosome analysis doesn't prove or disprove descent, only patriarchal descent. So if I understand correctly, the recent edits are not only against consensus but are irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Both are claimed by them. The claim regarding Muhammad is based on a hadith, where Muhammad acknowledges that the descendants of Fatimah are his descendants. The claim regarding Ali is based on biological lineage records. Of course, Y-DNA only traces the direct paternal line of an individual, and their lineage records claim a direct paternal descent from Ali. If only you would all read the references used carefully, you would understand this easily. But alas, you chose to make a quick justification without proper review. There's nothing to worry about, the truth will emerge eventually on its own, even if not through me. Kabul madras (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- In case you didn't notice yet, we dont speak Bahasa Indonesia. Plus you've been ignoring 3 academic sources on this issue that clearly dont present al-Bantani's opinion as the definitive truth, and even if it were to be so, its still a WP:PRIMARY in this debate about diaspora. Either ways you are topic banned from this topic and you should not be discussing it anywhere on-wiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, User:Abo Yemen, User:Kabul madras is not topic-banned as of about 0340 GMT, 22 August 2025. They are partially blocked from the article and the article talk page. The topic ban request is still open. Also, if they were topic-banned, which they are not yet, one of the usual exceptions to a topic-ban is to discuss the topic-ban. They have the privilege of discussing the topic. (No one has the right to edit Wikipedia, but almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- oh thank you for pointing that out 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, User:Abo Yemen, User:Kabul madras is not topic-banned as of about 0340 GMT, 22 August 2025. They are partially blocked from the article and the article talk page. The topic ban request is still open. Also, if they were topic-banned, which they are not yet, one of the usual exceptions to a topic-ban is to discuss the topic-ban. They have the privilege of discussing the topic. (No one has the right to edit Wikipedia, but almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Of course I understand that many of you don't understand Indonesian, but Google Translate is available to solve that problem. Instead of using the tools at hand, you chose to make a quick justification. It's clear that al-Bantani's view is not the absolute truth, which is why I presented it as an alternative perspective in a neutral, unbiased, and impartial language. Unfortunately, this situation is similar to a majority of Ba 'Alawi in Indonesia who find it difficult to accept alternative perspectives on a given reality. Regrettably, at the grassroots level in Indonesia, the opinion is already different. Kabul madras (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- In case you didn't notice yet, we dont speak Bahasa Indonesia. Plus you've been ignoring 3 academic sources on this issue that clearly dont present al-Bantani's opinion as the definitive truth, and even if it were to be so, its still a WP:PRIMARY in this debate about diaspora. Either ways you are topic banned from this topic and you should not be discussing it anywhere on-wiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Soham S Shah
Soham S Shah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding promotional content to articles about Adobe products. Diffs: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], and [83]. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: The user is already blocked. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- The user has only been blocked, by @Lofty abyss:, for 31 hours. Was that intentional, Lofty abyss? Users who are here only for promotion, which seems to be the case with Soham S Shah, are usually indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
- I think you should extend to ban to "indefinite" because it appears that the account is only used for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I sometimes think, not sure if illusorily, that if such a temporary block is used that, perhaps, they'd get the message and stop writing in such a spammy manner, as in this case... many continue, as IPs often do after shorter blocks, but I often end up trying if there's a possibility (in this case they went from self-promotion, to promotion of others' products, for some reason, so I thought that, maybe, they might possibly stop promoting altogether, if temporary...) ~Lofty abyss 15:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- [Impressed.] There's AGF! Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
- The user has only been blocked, by @Lofty abyss:, for 31 hours. Was that intentional, Lofty abyss? Users who are here only for promotion, which seems to be the case with Soham S Shah, are usually indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
Complaint Regarding Administrator "sqncjs"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sqncjs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am writing to formally file a complaint revarding the administrator with the username "Sqncjs" on Korea Wikipedia. I believe this administrator has acted inappropriately in their role.
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the administrator known as “sqncjs.” It appears that this administrator has been deliberately damaging Wikipedia articles, which is contrary to the responsibilities and standards expected of administrators.
As evidence, I would like to provide the following link where such actions can be observed:
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EA%B4%91%ED%83%9C_(%EB%B2%95%EC%A1%B0%EC%9D%B8)
In light of this, I respectfully request that the Wikimedia Foundation review this administrator’s actions and consider whether it is necessary to revoke their administrator rights in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. EdgeGpt (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Possible disruptive editing / content deletion by User:StephenMacky1 on Anti-Romani sentiment article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Casper le fantome (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
User: StephenMacky1 Concern: Repeatedly deleting large sections of sourced historical content on Anti-Romani sentiment without discussion, leaving the article disjointed. Attempted resolution: Discussed on talk page, explained sources and relevance. Request: Administrators’ review for potential disruptive editing or vandalism.
- (Not an admin) Can I suggest you provide diffs to back up your claim, see Help:Diff. You might want to read WP:VANDNOT. You should also notify the other user about this (see instructions at the top of this page. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Long-term cross-wiki abuse (harassment, POV-pushing) by User:Il Nur
I am reporting User:Il Nur (Il Nur) for edit warring and refusing to engage in a constructive discussion on Talk:Bashkir language. What happened:
- The user replaced the general locator map (showing the ___location of the Bashkir language) with his own dialect map. His map is misleading because it omits one of the three recognized Bashkir dialects.
I started a discussion on the talk page to address this, providing sources. Il Nur responded, but after I posted a detailed rebuttal to his points, he went silent. My rebuttal is here: [84]
- After waiting over a week, I restored the general locator map. [85]
- Days later, he reverted my edit without any further discussion. [86]
This user is ignoring the discussion process and resorting to edit warring. This is especially concerning because this user is currently under a TOPIC BAN from all "Tatar topics, broadly construed". His argument for his map is that the third Bashkir dialect is actually a Tatar dialect, which means he is violating his topic ban by editing on this subject.
- Proof of his Topic Ban is in his own talk page archive: [87]
This is not just an issue on English Wikipedia; it's part of a long-term pattern across multiple projects. I request administrator intervention to stop this disruption. MR973 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like the topic ban is rather informal, it was agreed to when the editor was unblocked (see here) but I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz, it is not required for a conditional unblock to be listed there. What is required is that it is listed in the block log, which it is. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, thank you for that information, I didn't know that. But then, I don't handle many unblocks. But now I'll know where to look for any new topic bans. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz, it is not required for a conditional unblock to be listed there. What is required is that it is listed in the block log, which it is. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Il Nur, I tbanned you from "Tatar topics, broadly construed" when I unblocked you last November. Please immediately provide evidence that you have had this tban lifted. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering, The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme. If I had restrictions on Bashkir subjects, please indicate this. This participant, who has already been blocked in other projects for destructive activities, is stalking me for a file about the Bashkir language, which he does not like for political reasons. The Bashkir language file was created with reference to Bashkir linguists and the population census. The card promoted by the participant is not based on anything, it is without sources and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in violation of the rules and is subject to deletion. Il Nur (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- He has already tried to delete my map, which is based on reputable sources in another project, but they did not give it to him, now he has begun to bypass it and clean it from the articles. Which is a game with rules and destructive activities. The participant is trying to mislead, not all philologists and linguists recognize the third dialect and others distinguish only two dialects in the Bashkir language, which is confirmed by population censuses, all the sources that I used are listed in the file itself. I have already suggested that he create his own map based on other sources and add a file, but the participant ignores this. It seems to me that the participant is trying to push only his own guidance, ignoring others, for which he was blocked in another Wikipedia section.--Il Nur (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Il Nur, I don't understand how you can say that
The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme
. The word Tatar itself is used twenty-six times in that article. If you truly believed that this was unrelated, we can call this your first warning. Please cease editing on Tatar-related topics. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)- Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic? What other languages are related to the Tatar topic? Can this be confirmed by another administrator? I see that the article compares two languages using examples, and that the Tatar language is mentioned in a general template for Turkic languages. My map of the dialects of the Bashkir language has nothing to do with the Tatar theme or the Tatar language. If I don't understand something, can you explain it to me? And is there a way to restrict this user from contacting me, as I see that he is harassing me because he failed to delete the map on Wikimedia Commons. Il Nur (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering, I am an administrator in several small-language sections of Wikipedia, I support dozens of other small-language sections, organize international contests in them, participate in international wiki meetings and events, and share my experience. Just in the spring, I participated in the Wiki meeting in Tashkent and presented the experience of working in small-language sections and the experience of translating articles in the Bashkir Wikipedia. All my presentations are uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. I also have a bot that uploads thousands of files to the Wikimedia Commons under a combined license on the topic of Russia's small peoples. I also make and upload language maps of the dialects of these peoples, and no one else does this. This user is harassing me and engaging in destructive activities, for which he was blocked in another section where he was active and appeared immediately after the blocking of another destructive User:Ryanag. This may be a way to bypass the blocking, which is why he was blocked there. I am surprised that he is able to delete files based on authoritative sources from articles simply because he does not like them, as he was not allowed to do so in the Wikimedia Commons. I don't have the time or interest to argue with you, I just wanted to make the articles more illustrated, but it seems that someone doesn't like it. In the future, I will mark my files so that they are not used in your language section, and I will leave your project. Il Nur (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic?
I believe that already was explained:The word Tatar itself is used twenty-six times in that article
. Also, nobody 'deleted' anything from English Wikipedia. Removing the file from the page =/= deletion. Listing your credentials on other projects is irrelevant to English Wikipedia - what matters is what you do here.In the future, I will mark my files so that they are not used in your language section
I'm pretty sure you cannot do that - releasing the files on Commons allows them to be used anywhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)- As an aside, I'm amazed WP:DONTYOUKNOWHOIAM is a red link... The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Il Nur, if you can provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that this editor is harassing you, I or some other administrator can take action to stop that. No one will take action based solely on your description of events. Please be concise and clear so it's easier for us to investigate. As for removing files from articles, any editor can do this; that's a simple content dispute, and the way to handle that is on the talk page of the article. If there are two of you and you cannot come to consensus, you can ask for a WP:3O. But in this case, please don't - you need to avoid that article, because it is clearly covered by your topic ban. Edit something else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Il Nur, I don't understand how you can say that
- He has already tried to delete my map, which is based on reputable sources in another project, but they did not give it to him, now he has begun to bypass it and clean it from the articles. Which is a game with rules and destructive activities. The participant is trying to mislead, not all philologists and linguists recognize the third dialect and others distinguish only two dialects in the Bashkir language, which is confirmed by population censuses, all the sources that I used are listed in the file itself. I have already suggested that he create his own map based on other sources and add a file, but the participant ignores this. It seems to me that the participant is trying to push only his own guidance, ignoring others, for which he was blocked in another Wikipedia section.--Il Nur (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering, The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme. If I had restrictions on Bashkir subjects, please indicate this. This participant, who has already been blocked in other projects for destructive activities, is stalking me for a file about the Bashkir language, which he does not like for political reasons. The Bashkir language file was created with reference to Bashkir linguists and the population census. The card promoted by the participant is not based on anything, it is without sources and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in violation of the rules and is subject to deletion. Il Nur (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Large campaign for non notable individual on G Scorpii talk page
There is a consistent and coordinated attempt to shoe horn a non notable individual (who I will not name, as I do not want to give publicity to this person, that is what these users want apparently) by both IP and sock accounts. I contemplated blanking the entire talk page, but seeing as some posts include replies by good faith users, I do not know what to do here. Thanks for any help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G_Scorpii Plasticwonder (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- The lengths some people will go to for clout on the Internet...I've set up talk page archiving there. At the moment, threads older than 10 days will be archived, with one thread left on the page. Once it cleans out the old chaff I'll up those a bit. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, The Bushranger. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, it might take a little while before the archiving starts, per the notes regarding ClueBot III. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and archived the 5 year old threads using Archiver. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a note, it might take a little while before the archiving starts, per the notes regarding ClueBot III. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, The Bushranger. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely looks like it should be archived or blanked. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- If someone validly bought the star then it must have belonged to the person they bought it from before that. Who was that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Validly?" Ravenswing 00:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- They not be socks as much of fans of the same podcast. Secretlondon (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sock or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, it's the same. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- This business has been going on for five years, and has been from IP addresses and pop-up accounts. I know that article talk pages are only semi-protected in unusual cases, but this is an unusual case. Can the talk page be semi-protected? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it has reached the level that protection is necessary. Yes, there are a lot of posts, but they are spread out over years. If it was this many posts in a month, that might qualify but as is, it is pretty easy to manage. As much as I don't like Pending Changes, the main article would be a good candidate for PC protection, indef, as we don't know when the efforts will stop. I almost did it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's actually a good idea.
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if I am misunderstanding how pending review works, but it seems to allow me to unaccept the pending changes setting? Not sure if it actually effects the editing, though.(nevermind, doesn't affect things) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- What's the issue with Pending Changes? Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Read WP:Pending changes, which explains it in detail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's actually a good idea.
- I don't think it has reached the level that protection is necessary. Yes, there are a lot of posts, but they are spread out over years. If it was this many posts in a month, that might qualify but as is, it is pretty easy to manage. As much as I don't like Pending Changes, the main article would be a good candidate for PC protection, indef, as we don't know when the efforts will stop. I almost did it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
271rpm and systematic vandalism on the page Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 271rpm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Nib2905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The discussed RFC may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States#Rfc_on_the_the_contestation_of_Donald_Trump's_height.
The history of the page for quick access may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&action=history
@271rpm: has repeatedly reverted edits that mention skepticism of Donald Trump's height claims. They have said that "Girther movement by picture "evidence" is an agenda that has to be reverted." These reversions have included an edit by User:GlowingLava which presented the information as claims, not facts, and which included citations from reliable sources such as The Times of India, Politico and The Guardian. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&oldid=1306183165 Some of the references are listed below. There were a total of 10 sources on said edit.
"Trump's driver's license casts doubt on height claims". POLITICO. December 23, 2016. Retrieved 2025-08-16
Gabbatt, Adam (January 17, 2018). "A tall tale? Accuracy of Trump's medical report – and new height – questioned". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-08-16
"Is Biden taller than Trump? White House photo sparks height discussions on social media". The Times of India. November 16, 2024. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2025-08-16.
271rpm said in their revision comments of @GlowingLava:'s edit "You first need to reach consensus on the talk page."[1], it was pointed out by User:GlowingLava that simply mentioning a notable point of disagreement, without altering the main text, is a standard way to resolve editing stalemates and does not necessarily require prior consensus to be proposed. (Do not need to reach consensus, mentioning there is disagreement is not the same thing as changing the main number. This also solves the problem of the ongoing stalemate which is encouraged IIRC.) They reverted the revert.[2]
In response, 271rpm stated: "As long as there hasn't been a RfC on the subject, I will continue to revert you." They then reverted the revert.[3]
A request for comment was created repeating the above information. General consensus on the rfc was that the edits mentioning skepticism of Trump's height was appropriate.
@Rhododendrites: stated "This is a behavioral issue. 271rpm has not provided adequate reasons why multiple reliable sources should be removed multiple times, and I do not see that an RfC is needed at this time. "No consensus" is not itself a reason to revert. As it otherwise stood, we just defer to the official height provided by the white house, which -- when contested by so many independent sources -- wouldn't have even been appropriate before its relationship with basic facts became so shaky" and reverted the page to include information regarding skepticism on Trump's height.[4] 271rpm removed this and stated "I have provided the justified media criticism in an additional footnote, citing reliable sources. That should suffice; otherwise, it would undermine the neutrality of Wikipedia." Please check page history as there were a total of 9 edits by 271rpm.
@Aquillion: stated "No, the footnote and the article text are backwards. The White House is not a WP:RS; we cannot use them for unattributed facts in the article voice, and the claim is too "unduly self-serving" in this context to use as a direct citation. The Guardian, Politico, Times of India, etc. are WP:RSes and what they say should be stated in the article voice, not attributed with "by the media" - if anything is going to be reduced to an attributed opinion in a footnote, it's the White House's position. For something clearly controversial like this, we need to rely on WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing, ie. sources that aren't affiliated with or controlled by Trump." and reverted the page to include information mentioning skepticism of Trump's height.[5]. I added a slight clarification to the page. 271rpm reverted this to once again remove the information regarding skepticism regarding Trump's height.[6]
@TarnishedPath: stated "That said I agree with Rhododendrites that this RFC is not needed to deal with the a behavioural issue from one editor. Take it to WP:ANI."
At one point in the rfc 271rpm stated "Well, The Times of India is not reliable at all, they analyze photos of celebrities whose height is not known. Putin could wear 2-inch lifts, which he has done frequently." to which I replied "You are referencing an article not mentioned in this Rfc. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/power-move-trump-pulls-putin-pats-back-during-handshake-social-media-decodes-how-tall-putin-is/articleshow/123326511.cms The article has the sentence "This triggered theories that Putin uses lifts to increase his actual height". Th article cited by User:GlowingLava compares Biden and Trump. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/is-biden-taller-than-trump-white-house-photo-sparks-height-discussions-on-social-media/articleshow/115366485.cms." 271rpm continued to revert the page after providing this information and he ignored the fact that there were 9 other sources on the fact that there is skepticism about Trump's height.
271rpm has removed discussion of the skepticism 6 times.
This has happened on a separate occasion as showcased by this interaction of 271rpms page between 271rpm and @Walther16:. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:271rpm#%22Be_careful!%22 There is no any "original research" in the doubts I expressed. I only quote available academic paper sources. I would be happy if you strik your intervention, especially "Be careful!", that cannot be accepted here. See please the stature distribution quoted by I. Basu Roy, 2016. I will correct my intervention, in the parts considered not clear. Please do not eliminate it. Thank you. Walther16
Well, then you have to go on search for an admin who follows your agenda. I will continue to revert you! 271rpm
Not a problem: I will not intervene more. The article is embarassing and it is a wast of time if there is no collaboration. Farwell! Walther16 (this complaint is by Nib2905 who forgot to sign it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC))
- Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi apologies if the request for intervention is inappropriate. I was directed here by the user in the rfc and I am new to editing. Nib2905 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nib2905: In case you don't know, the edit war on that particular page about Trump's height has been going on since his first presidency, so this is not a new dispute; it's likely that there are very strong emotions at play here, so it's best to be careful when commenting. That said, this ANI thread is still likely relevant because the user in question is edit warring instead of participating in discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nib2905, your request was not inappropriate, though the way you've formatted it did make it a bit difficult to understand. Concise is best. I've partially blocked the editor from Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States for editwarring. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi apologies if the request for intervention is inappropriate. I was directed here by the user in the rfc and I am new to editing. Nib2905 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- As an aside I have noticed that 271rpm has also consistently done the same act on his old account Penultimatestride. User talk:271rpm#Contested deletion
- https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=PenultimateStride&page=Heights+of+presidents+and+presidential+candidates+of+the+United+States&server=enwiki&max= Nib2905 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306196045
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306276490
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306344610
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307467147
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307578789
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307607914
Todor Zhivkov date of birth as shown on his birth certificate - change of records - formal complaint against codenamed editor Stephen Macky1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I request that this email be recognised as a complaint.
I am contacting you concerning the Wikipedia article “Todor Zhivkov”.
| ANI is not a venue for arguing content matters or presenting biographical research |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The man who ruled Bulgaria for 35 years with an iron fist, Todor Hristov Zhivkov, was born on September 2, 1911, at 9 a.m. according to the Julian calendar, as shown by the document. In strict compliance with the LAW ON PERSONS /LP/ State Gazette 273 of 17.12.1907, in force from 01.01.1909, Todor Hristov Zhivkov’s birth certificate was meticulously drafted as a civil document and this fact seems not to have been known to Zhivkov, which is why he makes erroneous inferences and calculations based on his baptismal certificate. I am delighted to provide you here the link of the section named "Encyclopedias change of records" with the high-resolution file of the document that I have discovered and described in my book. Through careful examination, you will undoubtedly be convinced of its authenticity. The reference number of the document in the State Archives Sofia, Bulgaria, is: Ф. 420К, оп.3, а.с. 9, л. 63гр. Also there is my letter to the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica from October 4, 2024, and their records still show Todor Zhivkov’s incorrect birth date, a persistent factual error. It’s hard for the truth to emerge from the depths of deception, isn’t it? Across Bulgaria, this remarkable discovery was reported in the leading newspapers and news outlets: "168 часа": Защо Тодор Живков измества рождената си дата с 8 дни?https://www.24chasa.bg/bulgaria/article/10982042 Защо Тодор Живков измества рождената си дата с 8 дни?https://www.168chasa.bg/article/10951356 Тодор Живков е роден 8 дни по-късно от това, коетоhttps://novini247.com/novini/todor-jivkov-e-roden-8-dni-po-kasno-ot-tova_5888002.html In Bulgaria, the Gregorian calendar was introduced into civil life by Decree No. 8 of king Ferdinand I, according to which 31.III.1916 was immediately followed by the date 14.IV.1916 (State Gazette, issue 65, 21.III.1916) that is why Todor Zhivkov’s birthdate, according to the Gregorian calendar, falls on September 15, 1911. |
Following the dissemination of the news and required alterations to the records, Wikipedia editor codenamed Stephen Macky1 rudely responded, showing that:
“Did you reach out to any academic with this so-called finding of yours?”
“You are in no position to perform analysis of primary sources (including every editor here), including birth certificates. Unless this so-called finding has been published in peer-reviewed and academic sources, it is entirely useless.”
“I am simply gonna ask you to stop spamming the site and bothering us with your original research.”
There are no "superiors" here.
Having declared the above to me, he then immediately expunged the finding and the related factual details.
The essence of my query is: Is this your standard procedure for handling the data? Does Wikipedia provide information accurately? Is this the appropriate method for eliminating findings supported by evidence?
It is imperative, given your commitment to accuracy and trustworthiness, that this individual be removed from the editorial team due to demonstrated incompetence, rudeness, and abuse of Wikipedia policies.
Included are my letter addressed to Encyclopaedia Britannica and a high-resolution image depicting Todor Zhivkov’s birth certificate, acquired from the State Archives in Sofia, Bulgaria- find them here
Waiting to hear something from you very soon.
Because of the aforementioned, please make the adjustments to your records without delay. [Zhivkov]“Original Yoga - Superhumans"Encyclopedias change of recordshere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Deen (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- A few things.
First, this is not an email, nor is it something addressed to some higher-up, so you probably should work on your formatting of this complaint (and stay clear of any LLMs when doing so). You are also required to notify the user(s) being brought before ANI through a message on their talk page(s).
Second, nobody is gettingremoved from the editorial team
for reverting your edits, as they are acting in accordance to Wikipedia policies in doing so (see WP:OR, WP:V). With this in mind, it is you who is at fault forincompetence, rudeness, and abuse of Wikipedia policies.
In fact, it may well be the case that I am wrong and someone is getting removed, but that would be you. See WP:BOOMERANG.
Third, I am not a specialist in Bulgarian history and I do not know why this has not been picked up by mainstream outlets or academics, but as a very simple online search will point out, you have not exactly discovered anything that hasn't been around for a while. See, for instance, this reproduction of a 2011 press article in Bulgarian which includes a transcript and a scan of the document in question. It is scarcely believable that you did not perform a basic Google search of your 'discovery' to make sure that you were actually onto something new. As far as I'm concerned, yours is but one of the hundreds of daily attempts by individuals to squeeze in sleazy references to their works in articles, whether for an ego boost or for commercial purposes. I would suggest you find yourself an honest way to promote your book. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content and sourcing dispute, and not a matter for ANI insofar as the intended complaint goes. The help desk is probably better suited to resolving the questions concerning primary sources. @Boris Deen, I recommend that you take advantage of the mentorship that has been offered, since you appear to be misinformed concerning the structure of Wikipedia, its standards for acceptable sourcing, and its methods of dispute resolution, as well as our tolerance of personal attacks against editors who enforce those standards. I strongly advise you to withdraw this complaint and take the time to understand Wikipedia policies. In particular, you appear to have a conflict of interest on this subject, since it appears to be related to something that you found or published yourself - please read the no original research policy Your conduct here does not lend confidence that you can approach this topic from a detached frame of reference. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, you were required to notify StephenMacky1 of this discussion. I have done so for you. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, Mr. Deen will need to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines. To be honest, I did not even plan on getting involved much, which is why I told him to use the article's talk page. Anyway, as the editor pointed out above, it is not wise to spam the AI-generated content everywhere, from your user page to the talk pages of others, which appears to be a poor attempt in self-promotion. I have been nothing but honest with you. What you perceived as "rude" was simply me trying to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and perhaps Britannica by extension. Just because you published a book about something does not mean its content can be summarized here. As a self-published self-help book, it is of no use for historiographical or biographical matters. This was an unnecessary escalation of the situation, considering that I attempted to resolve this content dispute and invited other editors to give their input about the content. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've INDEFFed Boris Deen. Star Mississippi 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism to one article from what looks like an otherwise productive account
I have blocked RickStrate2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for persistent vandalism to Timothy Sands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has added vandalism to this article on four different occasions, two of which had an edit summary designed to deflect suspicion and make it less likely that the edit would get noticed and reverted. On this last occasion, it lasted for 4 days without being noticed. I have spot checked his edits and I'm not seeing anything incredibly blatant outside of this one article. I wanted to leave this here in case anyone wants to check other contributions or any admin thinks one week is too harsh (or too lenient?) --B (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) To avoid a situation where they wait a week and return without acknowledging what happened or made a convincing argument for why it will not happen again, would an indef block be more appropriate here? tony 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I might say "indef" too, but here we seem to have an otherwise productive editor who's seriously fucking around on just one specific article--so I agree with B. I don't know why they're doing this, but if this editor stops this stupid stuff they are a net positive, as far as I can tell. User:RickStrate2029 should really check their talk page and say a few words. If they don't, and/or if they continue on that article, they will be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe Pblocking may work? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I might say "indef" too, but here we seem to have an otherwise productive editor who's seriously fucking around on just one specific article--so I agree with B. I don't know why they're doing this, but if this editor stops this stupid stuff they are a net positive, as far as I can tell. User:RickStrate2029 should really check their talk page and say a few words. If they don't, and/or if they continue on that article, they will be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Taking this post at face value, a WP:PBLOCK from the one affected article would generally be the best solution imo. Left guide (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Disagree. If someone with 800 edits has vandalised a BLP more than half a dozen times, they don't belong here. I'd have indeffed them, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- 13 times if you look at their contrib log; they vandalized the page on March 4, but somehow evaded a warning despite it being very childish vandalism (self-sourcing to a Reddit post about their seemingly unknown joke?) and marked incorrectly as a minor edit. I don't see them ceasing as they use their record to continue it. Nathannah • 📮 18:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- That diff is particularly egregious. A fake claim that a living person killed someone is a gross BLP violation. They have been blocked for a week, and warned that they will immediately be indef'ed if they vandalize that article again. Meters (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- 13 times if you look at their contrib log; they vandalized the page on March 4, but somehow evaded a warning despite it being very childish vandalism (self-sourcing to a Reddit post about their seemingly unknown joke?) and marked incorrectly as a minor edit. I don't see them ceasing as they use their record to continue it. Nathannah • 📮 18:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Disagree. If someone with 800 edits has vandalised a BLP more than half a dozen times, they don't belong here. I'd have indeffed them, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Problem With User Changing Cited Information on Romani (Gypsy) and Traveller Pages
Hello,
I'm the recent editor for the Scottish Romani and Traveller groups page. I rewrote the article to reflect reliable sources and was awaiting feedback. My article was not perfectly written (I kindly accept rewording) but it was cited correctly from source material. Anyone can go and see the works cited and what I wrote and see the harmony.
The problem I have is that @Opala300 changed ethnic and ethno-linguistic terminology, which is absolutely valid, but when I tried to enter into discussion about changes and asked for citations and the source material they used, no reply. There is a lack of confirmed information on this page now which directly contradicts what is in the main Scottish Gypsy/Traveller academic literature.
Problems:
- @Opala300 taking part in discussions, including those surrounding terminology and ethnography. Very vague replies such as "Romani Lowland Gypsies are Romani, hence the name". This is very basic knowledge and shows unfamiliarity with the source material. I have attempted to point Opala300 in the correct direction with the sources used, some of which are free to read online, hoping to start a discussion. He seems to have ignored these sources completely and will not enter into discussion concerning them.
- Discussions that Opala300 has had with myself focus on reverting my edits rather verifying the material he has written. I admit, I reverted the page many times as I wasn't aware of the rule myself. This won't happen again on my part. However, when asked if Opala300 could cite the source material for the terminology and ethno-linguistic information they had written, there has been no reply on their part except about reverting. They avoid discussing their own information, much of which is uncited. Many of my citations from source material (going back as far as 1871) are now directly contradictory to what he's written. He has clearly invented terminology (see Border Romany).
- Multiple users on the Romani pages have tried to discuss the possible unreliable sources with Opala300 such as a possible Bengali element in Romani. Opala300 has reverted some of these edits without discussion which is ironic as they claim I'm doing this. See Opala300's user Talk page.
- Some of the undisputed source material, such as Kirk Yetholm Tinklers being called "Yetholm Gypsies", as seen in "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts (MacRitchie, 1894)", has been taken out. Opala300 operates under the very erroneous and mythical presumption that Romani and Traveller are two separate terms. This is true from a Roma perspective but it a different scenario in Britain. All source material was given for the term Traveller as used by Romani sub-groups (such as Damien Le Bas who uses the term Traveller) has also been taken out my Opala300. The citations do not add up and it looks as if Damien Le Bas is the citation for the term Border Romany (a terminology invention on Opala300's part). In my opinion, this why they took out Yetholm Gypsies (with its proper citation). They are clearly operating under their own personal (and common) viewpoints and not working with source material, even those such as GTR organisations in Britain, which you can clearly find online. I reiterate, "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts" clearly refers to Yetholm Tinkers as Yetholm Gypsies, I don't know why he took out properly cited material.
Even though I have taken on their viewpoints, such as the adjective "nomadic" being used as an adjective (not that it's incorrect but I should have cleared up the word used) and of which I agree and thank Opala300 for pointing out, Opala300 needs to either be reported or blocked from the Gypsy/Traveller pages. I am working with source material to represent Gypsies and Travellers and he is not.
If Opala300 does not cite the source of his ethnographic and ethno-linguistic terminology, can anyone help me? He's becoming a huge problem for those of us with proper source material on the Romani/Traveller pages.
Please refer to the Talk page for a more detailed view. Although I may have called him a fool, which may look bad on my behalf, it's frustrating that source material which is being correctly cited is being overturned by someone without any citations himself. I have a wealth of material (both physical and digital and some of which I cited on the Talk section) and have spent years finding these sources, only for someone without deep knowledge on the subject and without sources or citations to completely override the information and then indicate that I'm the problem because I haven't discussed my changes with other users. Ironically, Opala300 also hasn't discussed this with other users before editing it himself, and even worse when they can't cite their own sources for the information they have written. Ironically they label my cited information as "misinformation".
Thanks,
RomaniResearcher
(*I have notified Opala300 on their talk page) RomaniResearcher (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think you jumped the gun with this report. You only initiated a discussion with the editor today, so you should continue discussing and wait for the editor to respond. Editors are not available 24/7. This can be resolved without ANI. Instead of discussing about the conduct of each other, discuss only about the content. I would also advise you to avoid reverting each other while the discussion is ongoing between you two. If you really cannot resolve the dispute between each other, there are other venues that you can explore as presented in WP:DR. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, it definitely needs to be sorted by ANI. The user had the time to rewrite information and if so, they must have had the sources at hand to quote or cite. The fact that they aren't there shows that it's been written without source material. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated before you understand but they are NOT engaging in discussions, you need to read his Talk page and the Scottish Traveller page properly before you reply. They have done this previously with other user's information on other Romani-topic pages other than the one I edited. They are simply leaving small comments of their own accord without any discussion on the Talk page EXCEPT when he speaks of reverting to HIS information which is UNCITED. I do not know what you don't understand about that! RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, a little less of the weasel wording, please. You DID call Opala300 an "absolute fool" [88] and that does look bad. Beyond that, please read WP:OWN: whatever your credentials or materials (for which we only have your word that they're both superior to Opala300's), neither this nor any other Romani/Traveller-related article belongs to you, and your preferred edits are not by definition the only conceivable authoritative ones. And beyond that, any ethnologist or folklorist -- I admit to the latter, anyway -- knows full well that the research and study of these groups are famously patchy, with a great deal of disinformation, misinformation and myth, and claims and counterclaims abound. Ravenswing 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will word it how I please.
- Firstly, my credentials and materials are NOT superior to his, I made that very clear if you'd have bothered to read the discussion properly. I wanted to discuss the relevant material and see if he had any source material to back up his claims on the terminology - I don't know what you don't understand about this but I will rudely say: HE HAS NO CITATIONS AND REFUSES TO DICUSS THEM!
- The real problem, before you write another rude comment, is that he has taken out my CITED information, which is what Wikipedia is based on, and added his own UNCITED information which he refuses to give citations for. That's what the problem is, not me believing I'm correct or superior. Most of the article is my own wording which he has ridiculously re-edited without consulting the material CITED and which now doesn't make sense. As said, the citations can clearly be seen.
- I repeat, it's not that mine sources are superior, it's that mine are CITED from academia. He doesn't have CITATIONS. RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't shout. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RomaniResearcher, you urgently need to change your approach to wikipedia editing. Please do not shout, and do not dump giant, 5000+kb walls of text on individual editors' talk pages like this. This is a collaborative project that requires patience and communication. Please discuss the matter, collegially, on the article talk page. Remember to focus on content, not contributors. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read the discussion, thank you very much. (You do recognize, yes, that it is entirely conceivable to read the same things and come to different conclusions? Like, for instance, your insistence that the Romani and the Travellers are one and the same?) The rudeness and hostility of both your response here and on the talk page suggest that the problem here is less Opala300's than your own attitude. "[T]hese things are set in stone" -- having myself done a good deal of research into Romani culture, I'm taken quite aback, because critical consensus on most of these elements and aspects is anything but, and I'm rather startled you don't recognize that. "I will word it how I please" -- only if you're comfortable with being blocked for personal attacks. Ratchet the rhetoric down. Ravenswing 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy for my comments and edits to be erased from the page in question to be honest. It's almost embarrassing that I thought this place would use material sources but instead misinformation has been let slide because "my own attitude" is more the problem than the incorrect content. Although I value your replies and consider what you say, it is typical gaslighting on your behalf to avoid the discussion's real problem - misinformation and uncited source material.
- @Ravenswing Romani and Travellers aren't the same. The predicament is that Travellers is a terminology used by both Romanichals and Minkers, I added citations for the former and was in the process of gathering more. He took out the information concerning this terminology and the relevant citations as he believes Romanies do NOT call themselves Travellers, although the sourced material was there to read. He should have discussed the problems he had with the page and read the relevant sources rather than change it of his own accord. We could have discussed the various sources if he believed they were incorrect. I'm always up for falsifying my beliefs and if he gave his sources and they were correct, he could have made the page even better and it would have helped all of us. This did not happen. I enjoy collaborating and I'm awaiting future editors to bring problems to my own citations and information, provided the relevant source material is given so current and future editors can read it and approve that it is correct. I was awaiting Ike's approval of my own information and looked forward to his criticism. I value the criticism from Opala300 too, but the frustration began through lack of communication and no citations on his behalf for the new terminology.
- When discussing culture and folklore, you are correct. I'm interested in the complex debates about these topics and there are many theories. Everybody's contribution is needed. But when I say "it's set in stone", I'm referring to who-is-who and the languages they speak, the very basics. i.e Nawkens speak Cant, Romanichals speak Anglo-Romani. Yes, there are complex discussions of the origin and development of those languages, but who speaks them, of which Opala300's misinformation concerns, is not up for debate. This very basic information, X speaks Y, which harmonises in all source material and was cited on the page with the relevant links to GRT organisations and source material going back to 1871, is now being misrepresented from someone who will not discuss where his new found information is cited from. It's not that he's incorrect, he may well be correct, but we need the citations from Opala300 so we can put a stamp of approval on what he wrote. These citations are still forthcoming. There are serious blunders in there on his part without any citations of where the information is taken from.
- If you can't understand the above, I'd rather my posts and prior edits were deleted. He's taking out cited information and adding his own invented terminology without prior discussion with page editors.
- Hopefully you can see my predicament. You're letting uncited information slide and my cited sources are given the backstage. Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content. @SuperPianoMan9167 @Ravenswing @Asilvering
- I kindly ask that if I am blocked, please point me in the right direction so that I ask for my relevant posts and edits on the page in question to be deleted beforehand (if this can be done). RomaniResearcher (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content.
Content should be discussed in good faith (which means people should be open to the idea that they might be wrong and others right) on the article talk page. Maybe it would be easier to get consensus there if you didn't rely so much on sources that were over a century old. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)- I literally just said that. Did you not read the part where I said I was open to criticism and source discussion? That's why I'm on this website!
- Some of the sources used are a century old (1871, 1894, 1906) but they are echoed in the modern academic books that were also used as sources including recent articles and books by prominent professors such as Colin Clarke and Thomas Acton. Recent books by these authors were used.
- You're still not getting it; he has no sources. Older sources are better than no source. RomaniResearcher (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- YOU are still not getting it. You may be working under a misapprehension here; at ANI, we do not sort out content disputes. That's for consensus at talk pages. What we do here is sort out editor conduct. As such, an editor's demeanor -- here in the ANI discussions as well as elsewhere -- is very much pertinent, and yours as much as Opala300's. You are not immunized from scrutiny because you filed the complaint. Does it make any impression on you that the unanimous response you've received here so far, from several editors, is critical of how you are acting? Ravenswing 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RomaniResearcher, I will not
Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content.
I am an administrator, and it's the role of administrators on the Administrators' Noticeboard to deal with conduct issues exclusively. The content must be decided mutually between editors. That's how this encyclopedia gets built. If you do not want to build the encyclopedia in this way, you will be blocked until you reconsider. - Your posts and edits will not be removed if you are blocked. You have already released them to the commons. That, too, is how this encyclopedia is built. If you want to retain ownership and agency over your words, this is, I am afraid, not the place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm aware that content must be decided mutually between editors. I am upholding this and understood this before I created my user and became an editor.
- But,
- - When I reached out to discuss the content change with Opala300 in order to cooperate and understand the reasons for his doing so, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He took out confirmed, cited sources and added uncited content without discussion. As stated, this is perfectly valid on his part, nobody owns the page. However, when I raised questions on why the cited information was changed and if he could cite the new source for his newly written content and begin discussion concerning them, there was no satisfactory answer on the Talk part of the page. The 'rude' attitude you see from myself is the outcome of frustration due to no discussion. He simply reverted his newly written content (which he has done to other users on other Romani-topic pages) and the only reply we were given was short editing notes. There needs to be discussion on his part about what sources he is using to rewrite the content.
- Even after raising questions on the content he wrote, there's still no reply on his part. It is now 48+ hours since his content edit on the Scottish Cant page concerning the terminology of the ethnicity and we are still awaiting a reply for the reasoning for doing so and the sources used. This is the very reason I bulk-dumped on his own user Talk page, as there is a lack of communication on his part. Even a quick comment such as "I will get back to you" or "We can discuss this at X time" or "I believe your X source was incorrectly cited and/or shouldn't be used" would have been appropriate or even "My reasoning for this content edit was due to X source, which I will give evidence for". However, no reply. He must have had time to reply as he has been editing content.
- He seems to want to take an admin role concerning reverting but does not want to discuss the material which he wrote. He wants those like myself to be patience and await for other user's discussion (which I'm perfectly happy to do) but won't himself discuss his own content changes. I'm actually patiently awaiting his own discussion on the Talk for his own content changes. Again, his content revision and editing is absolutely valid and welcomed, but he must engage in discussion with other users on the page to reach consensus rather than change content and then refuse to engage in discussion on his reasoning for doing so, all the more as they are uncited and for pre-existing citations, they are now incorrect cited as he hasn't consulted the source itself. He is reverting his content changes even when his content is brought into question by other users.
- Please re-consider the issue. Repeating that "content must be discussed on the Talk page" and "content must be mutually decided by editors" is futile. I and many other users understood this before creating our users and have been following these principles closely. The sole reason I asked for help was that Opala300 isn't doing this very thing. He must engage in discussion concerning his content change and cannot revert to his content change, especially after avoiding discussion of his own content.
- Regards,
- RomaniResearcher RomaniResearcher (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RomaniResearcher, @Opala300 has been discussing this with you on the talk page. You called them an
absolute fool
and saidI will war with all of you until I get those citations
. Moreover, they have not been editing content since - their latest edits were to a talk page discussion with you. You have already completely lost control of this situation and continuing this ANI discussion will be counterproductive for you. Go edit something else for a while. If you choose to return to that article later, please treat your fellow editors much better than you have done. -- asilvering (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)- Opala has not been discussing it with me on the talk page. He has given one comment about reverting. He has given no comment on the actual source material he wrote. RomaniResearcher (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RomaniResearcher, @Opala300 has been discussing this with you on the talk page. You called them an
- Concerning your last comment, that is true. But when it comes to terminology and the who-is-who of the Gypsy/Traveller community, these things are set in stone and can be seen from various source material which harmonises. RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @RomaniResearcher you are behaving like a bull in a china shop. Please consider this a final warning, or you will be blocked. Please read WP:SME and take on board all the advice you've been given here. Star Mississippi 01:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by JPMorgan788
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not like filing reports here, but this has been going on for such a long time it has become disruptive.
Over the last 6 months, this editor (JPMorgan788 (talk · contribs)) has been most active on two pages: Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania and Mt. Lebanon High School. Both of these are local to me, with the latter article being my own work. However, this editor has been on what I would describe as a promotional crusade for these two topics.
I have warned them twice with other editors doing the same and their edits have been reversed multiple times. Here are some diffs of the disruptive edits in question, even occurring after being warned:
There are significantly more examples of this behavior but these four diffs show more or less what has been happening.
I am local to this town and while some of the information they are adding is in fact appropriate for an encyclopedia, it's the promotional tone that the editor seems to be unable to write without damages the articles. I appreciate the efforts to expand the articles but this is not the correct direction for it to go in. Thank you. CutlassCiera 21:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like this editor has ever posted to any kind of talk page. I've invited them to come here to discuss their editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've notice problems with this editor's edits too.
- The user is aware of their talk page: they left a reply there earlier this year [93], although their attempt at justification showed a complete lack of understanding of the problems with their supposed sourcing [94]. The user has been active for about one and one-half years, their talk page is littered with warnings, and while they are no longer doing blatant vandalism [95] they have never stopped adding unsourced or poorly sourced puffery (one of their very first edits was [96]). They continue to mark all of their edits as minor.
- I found it very interesting that without explanation they removed content from a neighbouring school's article [97] that was very similar to some of the material they were adding to their favourite school articles [98]. Meters (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've
Blocked JPMorgan788 indefinitely for disruptive editing, as they are continuing to edit in the same way without responding to user talk page warnings or participating in this noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Filibuster of Deletion Review of Lilyfield light rail station
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Willthorpe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lilyfield light rail station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Juniors Kingsford light rail station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review#25_August_2025
These two articles on light rail stations on the Inner West Light Rail line in New South Wales, Australia, were nominated for deletion on 16 August and 17 August, and were bludgeoned by User:Willthorpe. They were closed as Redirect by User:OwenX on 24 August 2025. User:Willthorpe has now appealed to Deletion Review. The appeal at DRV is too long, and Sandstein has said that an appeal to DRV should not be longer than the article (and I agree). The appellant's argument seems to be that there has not been a consensus because there is continuing discussion about the notability of light rail stations, but the discussion is mostly their own. Continuing discussion in order to prevent formal closure is filibustering in American and other legislatures. The filibuster is continuing because Will Thorpe is responding to nearly every post, just as he did in the AFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs additional discussion at this board, or any particular admin action. Admins active at DRV can if need be procedurally close an escalating or fruitless discussion, or it can just be allowed to run its course (the outcome in this case seems pretty clear). Sandstein 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- For once I agree with Sandstein. Just ignore the filibusterer(?) and they will probably go away. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- If comments are becoming repetitive, I think they can be hatted. It's done elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Largely agree with Sandstein; this isn't too atypical for DRV, and I think the regular editors and admins there are capable of seeing through it, and putting a lid on it if need be. Let the user have their day in court (DRV), and if it persists after the DRV is closed, then I think the conduct merits being here. Left guide (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any action that needs to be taken. You're allowed to (civilly) reply to comments you disagree with - even if you are in a small minority or objectively wrong. --B (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Worvandae
I would like to report Worvandae (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and excessive aggression. Despite multiple warnings, he refused to cooperate on pages Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng and Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party. He targeted me on other talk pages User talk:45dogs#Untitled, and Talk:Đại Việt in a defamatory manner.
Basically, he insists on reverting to the title Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party, a change made in 2022 by User:Betabum, a sockpuppet of a long-term abuser. For that reason, I suspect that Worvandae is most likely Betabum. Greenknight dv (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like there is an edit war going on right now at Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party. Is there a reason why you need to keep this page as a Redirect? Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz, I've discussed this on the main talk page, Talk:Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng, after reviewing the page history and sock behavior. It doesn’t need to remain a redirect; the sock was trying to split the page history. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've protected the redirect and the article. Please use the Talk pages for consensus and SPI if needed for their contact. Star Mississippi 02:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi, as shown in the links above, he accused me of being a Nazi and of fabricating information, while he himself spread false claims that neither the Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng nor a country named Đại Việt ever existed (!?) Such behavior was either irrational or deliberately libelous. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Clear WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Youzap22 is clearly WP:NOTHERE and the two "templates" they have created and spammed on talk pages should be speedily deleted. Electricmemory (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Electricmemory, don't forget to notify the editor of this complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an IP user (@70.178.233.123), who have been constantly vandalising Wikipedia pages by adding their own opinion, i.e: They changed the main Characters name in the Wikipedia page for DIABOLIK LOVERS from Yui Komori to "Clyde Tobi" on 18 October 2024 and even started a talk page to keep it that way because they wrote "I hate Yui!", dear administrators, please look into this user, Thanks. Yuzawakawa (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please report vandalism to WP:AIV, where you will likely receive a faster response. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Misleading dates by User:Lertaheiko
User:Lertaheiko clearly has problems with sources, especially when applied to dates. Essentially, their modus operandi is to add/modify the birth/death/reign/family dates of ancient historical figures, mostly Egyptians, in whatever way suits them best. This is achieved in various ways:
- simply by adding a made-up (unsourced) or at least deduced (original research) date, without a source (some examples [99] [100] [101] [102]);
- the same thing, but adding a "fake" source copied from elsewhere within the article that doesn't support the claim ([103] [104]);
- by modifying a sourced date, regardless of the information provided by the source itself, which they evidently can't (or don't care to) access ([105] [106] [107])
I should point out that this behavior has been going on for several months (since February at least) despite countless warnings and explanations on their talk page which the user seems to stop at after each last warning at least until the month expires. Lone-078 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
[108] [109] [110]: They were all in the 23rd Century BC category, added by @Udimu when they made the articles. Same with 204, but in the 26th Century BC category, added by @AnnekeBart. Lertaheiko (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- [111] In the note 1, 2503–2498 BC is listed as a possible reign date by 3 sources. Lertaheiko (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think all dates before the Middle Kingdom are a bit fiction. We do not know how long the First Intermediate Period lasted, so there is no way to have any secure dates before that. More precise dates in books are the opinions of authors, but another book will offer different dates. In my article I try to be broad as possible (for example justː 23th century BC) Udimu (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's precisely the problem: we barely know that a person lived in the 23rd century BC, yet the user considers a "floruit 2250 BC" fine. Too bad this is, as I've pointed out several times on their talk page, original research. Not to mention the recent disagreements regarding the ancestry of other ancient figures which, like the dates, are far from clear, but for the user in question there evidently can be no uncertainty. Lone-078 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I should say that all pharaoh Featured Articles, including that on Shepseskaf were written to give equal credence to all dates proposed by Egyptologists (and they easily differ by a century), so indeed Lertaheiko's edits are problematic for they assert one date over the others, even if this date is sourced. In general, in the lead and infobox we cannot be more precise than giving a broad time frame of around a century for any of these historical figures.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's precisely the problem: we barely know that a person lived in the 23rd century BC, yet the user considers a "floruit 2250 BC" fine. Too bad this is, as I've pointed out several times on their talk page, original research. Not to mention the recent disagreements regarding the ancestry of other ancient figures which, like the dates, are far from clear, but for the user in question there evidently can be no uncertainty. Lone-078 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Lertaheiko,
[i]n the note 1, 2503–2498 BC is listed as a possible reign date by 3 sources
ignores that a further 22 sources list other dates including four sources with 2523–2519 BC and three sources with 2472–2467 BC. The dates you prioritized are representative of barely 10% of the present HQRS corpus in that footnote. It is undue to give prominence to a small minority of sources in such a large corpus. The description '... in the late 26th to mid-25th century BC' covers all bar one source – which as an outlier places Shepseskaf in the early 24th century BC – and thus reasonably summarizes 95% of that same HQRS corpus. Separate, entirely unrelated note, welcome back to active editing Iry-Hor. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think all dates before the Middle Kingdom are a bit fiction. We do not know how long the First Intermediate Period lasted, so there is no way to have any secure dates before that. More precise dates in books are the opinions of authors, but another book will offer different dates. In my article I try to be broad as possible (for example justː 23th century BC) Udimu (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Vandalism on John Alite
WaterKing00 removed a huge amount of sourced biographical content and pretended like he made an update or improvement when all he did was remove negative information. [112] 2605:8D80:13B3:6911:25CC:5830:EFB8:2938 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
User:R2025kt reported by User:Mvcg66b3r
R2025kt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Continuing to use WP:PUFFERY in articles about non-notable people; reverted their own edit on WGAL three times so that they could "make space"; possible continued copyright violations. WP:NOTHERE? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The edit summary they've used several times,
Need to make space
, doesn't make any sense. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC) - The main problem here besides the incomprehensible activity is that the people aren't always notable and the content is facile. In working on hundreds of TV station pages in recent years, I've also been the principal culler of articles on non-notable broadcast journalists. Since I began logging XfD nominations in 2021, I've sent 29 different broadcast journalists to AfD (only one of which was kept and another undeleted without fixing issues) and successfully prodded 13 more.
- I'd like to note that Keith Martin (journalist) glosses over things that look like they generated surprising media coverage for a mid-market TV anchor ([113]. I have multiple newspaper editorials from 2003 on Martin. This is unusual and suggests to me that there is probably material for an article. Most of the national news correspondents look to be legitimately notable. But I suspect John MacAlarney, Jay Gray (journalist), Anne S. Herr, and others that didn't work at that high level would fail at AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- They seem to be a WP:SPA focused on news channel related articles, though admittedly that is a fairly broad category. All their edits appear to be within said category. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Self-reverts are not a violation of the 3RR. Repeatedly making and undoing the same edit is still disruptive though. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
There has been disruptive editing over the past few weeks from an editor who leaves an edit summary of "The end" in all cases. Here are the IP addresses that I have seen so far:
- User:2601:40:C883:49D0:80DF:3D2:B39D:E3C
- User:2601:40:C883:49D0:30A2:96D7:28A8:C537
- User:2601:40:C883:49D0:581D:3F83:4798:314E
Since all the IP addresses begin with 2601:40:C883:49D0, is it possible to block this entire range? Assadzadeh (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:/64 you'd be looking at the range 2601:40:C883:49D0:0:0:0:0/64. WindTempos they (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Assadzadeh, is there a problem with their edits besides leaving an unhelpful edit summary? Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- A quick perusal of their edits shows a mixture of nonsense, vandalism, possibly good-faith edits that nevertheless aren't constructive, and the occasional good edit. I have blocked the range from mainspace for a week. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I have a feeling that they'll be at it again after a week. Assadzadeh (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- If they do so, feel free to ping me on my talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have another on the wider range at Special:Contributions/2601:40:C882:3960:0:0:0:0/64 (the /40), so this is also block evasion now. Izno (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Izno I think that's 2601:40:C882::/47, and there's practically no collateral on it going back months. The ComCast range is stupidly big, but I wonder if they have regional ranges... Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comcast does. I didn't feel the need to drilldown to the specific range. Izno (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- In that case I'll block the /47 and we'll see how it goes from there. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comcast does. I didn't feel the need to drilldown to the specific range. Izno (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Izno I think that's 2601:40:C882::/47, and there's practically no collateral on it going back months. The ComCast range is stupidly big, but I wonder if they have regional ranges... Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have another on the wider range at Special:Contributions/2601:40:C882:3960:0:0:0:0/64 (the /40), so this is also block evasion now. Izno (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- If they do so, feel free to ping me on my talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I have a feeling that they'll be at it again after a week. Assadzadeh (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- A quick perusal of their edits shows a mixture of nonsense, vandalism, possibly good-faith edits that nevertheless aren't constructive, and the occasional good edit. I have blocked the range from mainspace for a week. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Assadzadeh, is there a problem with their edits besides leaving an unhelpful edit summary? Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Citation error
Trout for TonyTheTiger. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems that this edit introduced an error in the citations that I do not understand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- You added a ref to a 2020 article by Gopnik in a journal. There was already a 2020 book by Gopnik being called by multiple SFNs but now they're confused because there are two different sources that =gopnik2020. I'm not sure how to fix it, I avoid SFNs. (This is not an ANI matter though, WP:VPT or WP:HELPDESK would have been better.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Time-sensitive RfP (handled)
At 2025 Annunciation Catholic Church shooting. Posted request at WP:RFP[114] 30 minutes ago.
Does this qualify as an "urgent incident" to post here? Placeholderer (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Not really unless it involves severe behavioral problems.Yes, I see now that there are potentially severe WP:BLPCRIME violations involved. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC) You can report obvious vandals and spammers to WP:AIV. I do see that there may be some problems with people adding the name of the perpetrator. Please remember to assume good faith and know that not every IP is a vandal. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)- Also, pages are not protected preemptively. Most of the IP edits to that page are not vandalism as far as I can tell. They've been adding some unsourced content but they may not know that they have to add sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't BLP be a reason to have a low threshold for protection? Placeholderer (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- (I'd like to be able to stand up and get food after 2.5 hours stalking a highly sensitive page for unsourced content) Placeholderer (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to remind everyone that the "perpetrator" section may actually be a BLP violation as BLP protection still applies to the recently deceased. I would suggest that section be anonymized for a few days while the dust settles. We are a trailing indicator. Other than that I would suggest everybody lower the temperature on that page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I removed all mention of the perpetrator from the page for now. If disruption continues I would absolutely support page protection. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to remind everyone that the "perpetrator" section may actually be a BLP violation as BLP protection still applies to the recently deceased. I would suggest that section be anonymized for a few days while the dust settles. We are a trailing indicator. Other than that I would suggest everybody lower the temperature on that page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Expletives are tempting. For crying out loud, someone protect the page Placeholderer (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Now there's edit warring and misgendering going on. This is a lot more serious than I thought when I first replied to this discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- (I'd like to be able to stand up and get food after 2.5 hours stalking a highly sensitive page for unsourced content) Placeholderer (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't BLP be a reason to have a low threshold for protection? Placeholderer (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Page protected courtesy of CoconutOctopus Placeholderer (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ping me if it gets to the point autoconfirmed editors are causing issues but hopefully semi-protection for a week is enough for this to leave the breaking news and stop attracting everyone under the sun with an agenda to push. CoconutOctopus talk 19:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CoconutOctopus: Well, now we have edit warring about deadnaming going on. (I didn't think I would have to ping so soon.) A quick look at the talk page reveals that autoconfirmed editors are definitely causing issues. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- As one of the editors warring is an admin, I'll let the below ANI thread play out before any more protection. Sigh. CoconutOctopus talk 21:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would expect better conduct from an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- As one of the editors warring is an admin, I'll let the below ANI thread play out before any more protection. Sigh. CoconutOctopus talk 21:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CoconutOctopus: Well, now we have edit warring about deadnaming going on. (I didn't think I would have to ping so soon.) A quick look at the talk page reveals that autoconfirmed editors are definitely causing issues. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ping me if it gets to the point autoconfirmed editors are causing issues but hopefully semi-protection for a week is enough for this to leave the breaking news and stop attracting everyone under the sun with an agenda to push. CoconutOctopus talk 19:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Major WP:TEND and WP:OWN issues on J. K. Rowling
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a long post, you stand warned. I'm only focusing on the content I find problematic, because otherwise this would be ten times its size. I also only focus on comments because I'm not skilled in handling diffs right now and their own words tell quite the story. This is all about conduct, not content, as well.
For reference, I read this article to specifically learn about her transphobia, and went to the talk page when I found that it read like a puff piece. I've mostly been reading, with a few comments here and there.
So, for those who haven't been paying attention to the NPOV noticeboard or the J. K. Rowling talk page, there's been a long, ugly argument over whether it's NPOV or not as well as lots of back and forth about what is and is not the proper venue for discussing that. This would be fine, if not for behaviors towards certain contributors that are far less than optimal, and the fact that the article has serious WP:OWN issues, as noted in the first NPOVN discussion by multiple different posters ( 1, [| 2], [| 3], [| 4]), stonewalling as noted [| here], [| Loki agrees here] (reviewing ALL the literature over 5 years is ridiculous, considering how much there is, and seems more a WP:STONEWALL tactic than anything) and as [| SimonM223] noted, But I agree with Adam Cuerden that any movement of the article to more clearly articulate how her transphobia has been received is imposed with impossibly high bars. Incredible preconditions are set to even begin to discuss revisions to that language
.
There have also been numerous accusations of whitewashing, which have not really been addressed. For example, when talking about Beira's Place, the [thing seems to be an AboutSelf violation,] which was only responded to with WP:NORUSH Something may eventually be written
[|1] .
Now we're past the first NPOVN discussion, so let's move on to the article's talk page. To start, SandyGeorgia insists that Adam Cuerden read Pugh before he talks about making the article better fit WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which has nothing to do with sources like Pugh and everything to do with formatting. [| Here]. [| Here], Sirfurboy tries to argue that a court ruling is not transphobic, and gets out into the weeds in the name of saying in the opening paragraph that Rowling disputes being called transphobic. Loki The Liar notes that this comes off as an attempt to WP:STONEWALL [| here]. In the end, [| that discussion took over 10k words to remove three, due to what I personally perceive as stonewalling].
Further down, Sirfurboy offer a... unique view of NPOV ([[115]]), though I won't call it misbehavior, so much as an extension of why the stonewalling is occurring. Still writing as if NOTMANDY is policy or should carry much weight at all is definitely odd. And lest I be accused of only taking one side, Adam saying that just makes her views on the subject not worthy of consideration
about Sandy Georgia, [| here], also smacks of bad faith.
Yet further down, Sirfurboy describes the claims of Rowling being transphobic lazy vituperative epithets
to be excluded, despite their presence in reliable sources, ignoring the fact that there's no policy for excluding things that are mentioned in a considerable number of RSes because they're lazy vituperative epithets
to my knowledge. [| Here]. When I pointed out that that's not how RSes work, he said that it should stay excluded because Things that we can put in the article to educate the reader rather than punish the subject.
(and saying what reliable sources describe her as is not educating the reader?) [| Here]. It comes off as a whitewash.
Now, there are multiple mentions of an NPOV tag being added and removed on the talk page, even though none of the [to Remove] criteria were met, specifically, lots of discussion about the article's POV was still going on. Springee removed it at least once, according to my reading of the talk page. [| specifically, this comment]. Shortly after, SandyGeorgia called [| a good faith message by Snokalok] a WP:FORUM comment, which it does not look to be in the least and comes off as bad faith and an excuse to keep the NPOV tag off. She also seems to think that it having only one noted issue (transgender people), no matter how extensive it is, [| means that the pov template doesn't belong]. This is followed by Sirfurboy again saying [that all the sources should be read]. A bit down the line, SandyGeorgia [| says] Issues can't be fixed unless they are detailed and explained in a source-based discussion; the one issued used for placing the tag (a disagreement over one word) is unjustified, and has been discussed based on sources. TarnishedPath, what other specific content do you want addressed and what sources support your suggested changes/inclusions/etc?
, then [| rushes to get rid of the NPOV tag], despite the at the time ongoing NPOVN discussion.
I won't comment on the RFC, but in the section after it, Alalch E. offers a rather... unique reason for removing the NPOV tag. One that isn't supported by the criteria for removing it: That isn't good for the tag. The issue could go unresolved for years. The tag isn't getting resolved and it impacts the reception of the article with the readers, and many readers will be confused about why the article isn't neutral. We should remove the tag. The tag is for alerting the editors and all the interested editor and some more know about this issue. No further editors need to be alerted for a good while.
[| Here].
Someone also put a misleading header above one Adam Cuerden's comments, which he had to explain was not his [seems like a violation of the rule not to edit other people's comments as well.] Anyway, in that section, Springee again, against policy for when to remove the POV tag, [for it to be removed], and said it should stay off the article due to [consensus from a year prior, when issues with the article are being discussed NOW].
Current NPOVN discussion
Now let's move on to the current NPOVN discussion, found [[116]]. There are a few juicy tidbits of refusal to assume good faith that really should be looked at.
First up is DeCausa, with a massive WP:AGF violation [| here]. Everyone knows you've come here from a war zone looking for fresh recruits for your side. No one in their right mind (and neutral) would get involved on either side.
. Then [| berates Adam for bringing up an NPOV] dispute on the NPOV noticeboard. Sirfurboy accuses Adam of forum shopping for coming to the NPOVN to help resolve a dispute concerning NPOV ([| here]). These suggest a very outsider-hostile approach to this article, IMO, and are what inspired this ANI posting.
FAR behavior
Last but not least, the behavior on the FAR. There were several people calling for the FAR to be closed but none of them went anywhere and it's now in FARC. There was one personal attack by Adam removed [| here]. Down the line, SandyGeorgia seems to claim that, [| because Adam did not read a specific source], his commentary should not be considered fully informed (when have we required knowledge of a specific source in order to criticize an article, especially its structure?), then throughout the FAR talks about how people need to be reading specific sources while herself not engaging with other sources. 4Meter4, in a collapsed section, [to assume bad faith on the part of the delist side.] Not that Adam's comment directly above was cooling the temperature, either.
Now I'm off to inform everyone I mentioned above of this. Apologies if I miss anyone. What it boils down to is certain people's attitudes are crossing over into bad faith attacks and accusations, on top of tendentious editing and redefining policy to fit their own perspective (like saying we should exclude mention of her transphobia because they should only be Things that we can put in the article to educate the reader rather than punish the subject
. Not the content itself, except where it intersects. Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
Lover of lgbt literature (talk · contribs), Can you summarize who is doing the WP:TEND and WP:OWN in 500 words or less? this is too long to comfortably read, and admins are much more likely to respond if you can summarize this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why was I tagged into this? Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't want to participate in this discussion - if any admins have specific questions for me I will be available. Otherwise I'm going to stay out. Not my circus, not my monkeys. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Block User:Lover of lgbt literature from J. K. Rowling
The reporter generates dramatic tl;dr nonsense, distracts from serious work on a Featured article on its talk page with wikilawyering complaints about the stupid maintenance tag, isn't contributing anything to the work on the article, so please make them go away as soon as possible.—Alalch E. 15:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm still reading the giant block of text and diffs above, and we are jumping to a proposed WP:boomerang topic ban already? I have questions about if Loll is actually a new user or not as well, but if they truly are, then its a user with 26 edits that we shouldn't WP:BITE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Lover of lgbt literature: can you tell how you came to this forum? Most new users don't know about ANI and don't post on here like this with diff links. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Actually reading through this, though the post has links to diffs, it still seems like it’s written in the style of a newbie. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose please provide diffs for what you claim. Also a pretty vague rationale.
- jolielover♥talk 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Diffs not needed: User has 17 edits prior to this ANI, accumulated 8 through notifications + 1 for starting the ANI. So just looking at their edits through the contributions more than suffices. You can't mistake the edits. All of their edits pertaining to the J. K. Rowling article are disruptive: on the talk page, on user talk—wasting 8 editors' time by notifying them to read this tl;dr, and the tl;dr itself wasting other editors' time, including that of administrators. —Alalch E. 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While I don't think this ANI filing is focused enough to go anywhere, I also don't think it's nearly boomerang worthy. Loki (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This might be too unfocused to be productive (insofar as the drama board is ever "productive"...), but it looks to be a good-faith attempt to raise concerns about conduct issues and provide supporting evidence. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - My assessment is that they are a new editor who isn't fully aware of how we do things. It's a steep learning curve. TarnishedPathtalk 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose New editor who got in over their head. I think the correct action here would be for someone who would be viewed as sympathetic to engage them on their talk page and explain the issue and the problem with going right to ANI and offer some helpful guidance. LokiTheLiar are you up for it? Springee (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Abusive language
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not going to repeat the language used in this post and edit summary, but I trust we can all agree that it is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, Andy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Fortuna imperatrix mundi Are you sure this is the block log you intended to post? :D Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think he was pointing out that he learned that lesson the hard way. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Fortuna imperatrix mundi Are you sure this is the block log you intended to post? :D Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31 hours. Unacceptable. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Would you consider a revdel, also? Or simply archive the section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can be blanked. I don't think it reaches the level of revdel. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Would you consider a revdel, also? Or simply archive the section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing, I do believe that this revision above is considered bullying and a personal attack against you. But at least you're safe right now that this abusive content made by Duffbeerforme has been blanked already. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could another admin suggest to this user that reverting the perpetrator's deadname back into an article four times may not be the most optimal method of proceeding on this article. I have tried on their talk page, and have been rebuffed. They have also accused others of violating 3RR when they are the only person to have done so. Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is about the exact same article as the #Time-sensitive RfP (handled) section above. (sigh...) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted their last reinsertion of the deadname and left a talk page message to respect WP:ONUS and MOS:DEADNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- From their latest post on talk it appears that they are going to stop reverting. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- It, is still kinda concerning.from what I saw the reasoning for deadnaming was "it's absurd" which, is, it feels. Odd. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a trans Wikipedia editor, it is very concerning to me as well that an admin apparently thinks it is OK to ignore our deadnaming policy in this (or any) particular case. Funcrunch (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- It, is still kinda concerning.from what I saw the reasoning for deadnaming was "it's absurd" which, is, it feels. Odd. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- From their latest post on talk it appears that they are going to stop reverting. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted their last reinsertion of the deadname and left a talk page message to respect WP:ONUS and MOS:DEADNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- They also think The Times is a reliable source. Time for a desysop ASAP. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- They appear to be correct about that?
- The Times seems to think so.
- With the caveat, of course, that they’re UK-based and the subject of that article appears to be trans. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Times is considered to be a reliable source. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe there should be an RFC regarding articles in UK-based sources relating to gender given that those sources have grown significantly more critical of transgender people and their rights in recent years. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- IMO (again speaking as a trans editor), this is irrelevant to the primary issue at hand, which is the violation and then mocking as "absurd" the WP:DEADNAME policy here. Funcrunch (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK (I post off-topic comments more frequently than I should). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No objection to what you’re saying, just wanted to be clear that “using an unreliable source” shouldn’t be part of the discussion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Liliana also has compared the New York Times to Kiwi Farms [117] and has done this kind of thing several times. It's guaranteed to add heat to conversations that require light, unfortunately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- IMO (again speaking as a trans editor), this is irrelevant to the primary issue at hand, which is the violation and then mocking as "absurd" the WP:DEADNAME policy here. Funcrunch (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe there should be an RFC regarding articles in UK-based sources relating to gender given that those sources have grown significantly more critical of transgender people and their rights in recent years. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I find it weird they tried to defend their reverts on grounds "preserving the status quo". Given this is a current event it's hard to believe that is a serious argument, especially from an admin who's been around for 10 years. If material has been challenged (the deadname) they should've immediately gone to Talk to discuss why it was necessary to include per WP:ONUS.
- Between that and the resorting to calls of how "absurd" everyone else was, unless there's some kind of explanation of why they were so insistent on deadnaming and an apology I won't be surprised if a recall attempt is made in the near future. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty concerned that the majority of their deadnaming [118][119][120][121] took place after the gender-related CTOP notice was added to the Talk page[122] (and all whilst telling other editors to go to the talk page).
And then after being informed of MOS:DEADNAME, their first response was to double down and call the policyabsurd
. Nil🥝 00:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- This struck me as odd as well. After the reverts by two other editors and myself were undone almost immediately, with only a direction to the talk page (which at that point seemed to respect the policy pretty unanimously), I initially assumed we were dealing with a vandal. Discovering that the editor was in fact an administrator actively edit warring was surprising, to say the least.
- Now, they describe themselves as an inclusionist and recently had a similar dispute (diff) over Charles III's article, I don’t want to rule out that this may be well-intentioned but misplaced pedantry. Still, the way this unfolded leaves a bitter taste, especially given the sensitivity of MOS:DEADNAME. quidama talk 00:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Their talk page doesn't give me much hope, I did. After the pile-on, I made no more reverts, out of deference to the process, as wrong as it may be.
diff. @Ergo Sum: please explain how it was going against process to not adhere to MOS:DEADNAME. Because as it is right now, I would be in support of a recall if it came to that despite my misgivings about the recall system. What you are saying feels, transphobic. Even if someone was involved in a school shooting, as long as they were not previously notable under their deadname, we do not include it. Full stop. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment this unfortunate series of events is a clear case study in why BLP protections should be applied to the recently deceased. I sincerely hope the perpetrator section has been re-anonymized.Simonm223 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- They already do, and if you mean her deadname removed, yes, it has. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- see WP:BDP ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, seconding this comment above by LakesideMiners, in that the tone of this feels transphobic (or at the very least not very accommodating to existing policy). As someone who is new to Wikipedia, I definitely expect more of our admins. Mocking the deadnaming policy is not okay at all. Ergo Sum has a right to have a personal opinion on the topic, but there is no need to make those private thoughts so public and confrontational. 172.58.12.249 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not much of a fan of this edit they made earlier this month to the infobox of Donbas adding a Russian pronunciation either (rather than sourcing it, just summarizing that 'the article says that the region is majority Russophone'; why would a 10-year editor suddenly just forget about WP:CIRCULAR?), knowing the heavy sanctions in that topic area and how hot-button that article can get, and that nobody will revert them because they're an admin, so it's stuck. That and their simple refusal to apologize for this despite blackletter call-out for deadnaming and continuing to try to WP: their way out of this, trying to 'speak above' other editors (Preservation of the status quo ante during the pendency...plain English, please!) and the Charles III argument gives me no confidence in this admin and I agree with Lakeside that they need to stop before they're recalled. Nathannah • 📮 02:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any action taken against User:Ergo Sum on the grounds that they're an established contributor for over a decade and based on the precedent set with User:Horse Eye's Back. I'm not sure if User:CoffeeCrumbs is advocating for some sort of sanction against User:LilianaUwU for their adding fuel to the fire under the grounds of being a vexatious bystander or not. King Lobclaw (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- May I ask what precedent was set in the HEB thread? Since I wasn't here for it, I've spent the past hour or so skimming it, trying to make sense of it but it seems like the consensus there was that there was no consensus. quidama talk 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not certain what they’re referring to, but it definitely isn’t anything to do with an admin violating 3RR or WP:Deadname because they feel like it? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Huh, apparently this editor and their 148 total edits decided to non-admin close the HEB discussion as “no result”??? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not certain what they’re referring to, but it definitely isn’t anything to do with an admin violating 3RR or WP:Deadname because they feel like it? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- May I ask what precedent was set in the HEB thread? Since I wasn't here for it, I've spent the past hour or so skimming it, trying to make sense of it but it seems like the consensus there was that there was no consensus. quidama talk 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hard to believe that an admin is this ignorant about edit warring policy, leaving aside the extremely poor judgement about behaving this way over content known to be a hot button issue (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing an admin making comments like that makes me not trust their involvement in any trans-related topic area whatsoever. Doubly so because they are an admin and already seem to have made implied threats about using those powers on those they are in a disagreement with. SilverserenC 03:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is much for me to respond to above in the form of legitimate criticisms of my actions on the article in question (as well as many silly (and predictable) accusations as to my politics that I will not legitimize with a response). I will do so if and when it is appropriate; when that may be, I don't know, given that, as I have already stated on my talk page, before all this copious ink was poured out here, I already decided to withdraw from further editing on the naming question in that article, out of deference to the majority of editors who disagreed with my position. I write here only to respond to the preposterous falsehood that I "threatened" to use my admin powers on those I disagree with. I have no idea what you are referring to. I can only gather you refer to my statement where I indicated I would not threaten to block someone with whom I disagreed, precisely because that would be inappropriate. Ergo Sum 03:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with everyone else that an admin edit-warring at all, much less edit warring to violate a BLP policy, is quite bad. Loki (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
User:UrielAcosta's refusal to notify editors about SD
- UrielAcosta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UrielAcosta regularly nominates userspace and draftspace pages for deletion via G11 and U5. However, they do not notify editors that they have nominated pages for deletion. Four examples from today include:
- G11 nomination of User:Bamang Losik (user talk page)
- G11 nomination of User:Tim Phelps KC (user talk page)
- G11 nominated of User:Mohamedashan12 (user talk page)
- G11 nomination of User:StavrosPappasEditor (user talk page)
Beyond not notifying, I'd also say two out of four of these are extremely BITEY, given that they're brief bios new editors made on their userpage as their first and only edit.
I have left UrielAcosta multiple messages about this (see here), but they fail to respond. Deepfriedokra has also requested they notify editors, though received a response stating, "I do not, as it happens, notify everybody I tag ... nor am I in fact obliged to notify anybody
" (see here). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- They are not the only editor to omit notificatons and, what is worse, is that quite a few admins delete pages via CSD without posting a notification. Unfortunately, it's all too common. If they w only just use Twinkle for deletions, the program would take care of this automatically. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Those two bitey ones are extremely bitey, and I agree that editors should be notified of G11 taggings. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra. Thanks for pinging me to this discussion. Policy does not require that we notify page creators when we tag their work for speeding deletion. And certainly, an argument can be made against notifying spam bots and block evading sock puppets. However, new users who create promotional user pages and autobiographical drafts should be notified when they are not aware of our rules. Uriel Acosta does not notify those he does not consider worthy.
New users are not aware of our rules and do not intentionally break them. If educating, encouraging and retaining new users is important to us as a community, then yes, we all should notify them when we tag their pages for speedy deletion whenever possible. Also, I agree with what Liz said. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Noting related, more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#"Should" notify the page creator?.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not biting newcomers is a behavioral guideline - not some "hey if you do it great"- and I agree that two of the examples violate that expectation we have of veteran editors towards newer editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Auto-notification is why I use twinkle for CSD noms, although g15 hasn't been added to twinkles CSD yet (I have used g15 twice so far, once was a multi nom where g15 was the secondary criteria), and g8 of user talk:Example/sandbox also don't produce auto-notification with twinkle. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Noting UrielAcosta edits other Wikepedias and is thus sporadic on this one. It might be a while before he notices the ANI notice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't required to notify the creator, policy is clear on this. Usually, it is a good idea, but it isn't required. If a creator's only contrib is to create a bio on their user page, ie: using enwp as a webhost, then I don't see the harm in NOT notifying them. I generally do, but the complaint isn't coming from the editors here, it is coming from a 3rd party with no dog in the hunt. You might prefer they notify, but policy says it is fine. The reviewing admin can determine if input is needed from the page creator, btw. This is not an ANI issue as there is nothing actionable here, nothing clearly against policy going on, and should be closed as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Too true. The upshot is, feeling as I do about notification and education, if I see he hasn't, then I do. Most other admins do not, but that is their choice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown, I disagree that someone habitually biting newbies is not a matter for ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- A claim of "biting" solely for "inaction" is stretching the intent of the policy to the breaking point, and is entirely too subjective, as the actions are within policy. Even if it can be argued that this isn't optimal, that doesn't make it a sanctionable offense, taken by itself. I can't think of any time we have sanctioned someone for NOT doing something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Although failing to notify an editor that their page is being deleted might not be named within BITE, the essay does state that editors can avoid biting newbies by not nominating newly created pages for deletion. In two of the four cases provided above, the new editor's user page was nominated for deletion as spam, when the user seemed to be telling the community what they're interested in editing. Having your first edits deleted without explaining why is certainly BITEY. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- This was my interpretation as well. For me a large part of BTIE is that actions which might be fine in other contexts - actions like deleting a new user's userpage - feels different when someone is still learning the rules of the site and so we need to take extra care for those users. Inaction in this context would be not nominating the userpage for deletion. Instead UrielAcosta has chosen to take action and that choice carries with it some obligations when dealing with newcomers, so that we
Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- This was my interpretation as well. For me a large part of BTIE is that actions which might be fine in other contexts - actions like deleting a new user's userpage - feels different when someone is still learning the rules of the site and so we need to take extra care for those users. Inaction in this context would be not nominating the userpage for deletion. Instead UrielAcosta has chosen to take action and that choice carries with it some obligations when dealing with newcomers, so that we
- @Dennis Brown, at no point did I say that it was solely the inaction that was bitey here. Neither does Significa liberdade's original post. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- So are you suggesting a block, or is this an academic exercise? This is a simple case of a few instances of not notifying someone about a CSD, after they did one edit to spam their user page. It isn't always best practice but it is allowed. Simply telling them "you really should notify under most circumstances" seems sufficient, and that has already been done. Publicly spanking them further seems futile, abusive, and rather pointy for something that isn't even against policy. The ongoing RFC clearly indicates the consensus hasn't changed regarding this. Don't run off an active editor to "protect" a one time, hit and run editor that will probably never come back and see that his "webpage" was deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- The problem
isn'tis that this isn't "a few instances." Looking at their contributions, 30% of their last 50 edits are nominating userspace pages for speedy deletion as spam. Out of 15 nominations this week, they only notified two editors. Four of those speedy deletion nominations were declined, and only one was a case where UA had notified. I don't propose a block but this is clearly bitey behaviour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)- If they are wrong 1/3rd of the time, that is a different issue that hasn't been raised yet. I checked his last 50 edits, per your comment, and found only two instances of tagging a user page. Both were incorrect, so it could be a threshold issue, not a "failure to notify" issue. I'm short of time, but this quick glance, per your instructions, shows a possible problem that could have been handled by the admins who refused to delete via CSD, or anyone on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- These 5 tags to userpages were in the last 12 edits: User:Bamang Losik (not deleted), Draft:Tim Phelps (moved to draft), User:Mohamedashan12 (not deleted), User:StavrosPappasEditor (deleted), and User:Adarsh Sharmah (deleted). UA didn't notify any of these new editors. Additionally, we can talk about both issues: failure to notify and incorrect tagging. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- If they are wrong 1/3rd of the time, that is a different issue that hasn't been raised yet. I checked his last 50 edits, per your comment, and found only two instances of tagging a user page. Both were incorrect, so it could be a threshold issue, not a "failure to notify" issue. I'm short of time, but this quick glance, per your instructions, shows a possible problem that could have been handled by the admins who refused to delete via CSD, or anyone on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The problem
- So are you suggesting a block, or is this an academic exercise? This is a simple case of a few instances of not notifying someone about a CSD, after they did one edit to spam their user page. It isn't always best practice but it is allowed. Simply telling them "you really should notify under most circumstances" seems sufficient, and that has already been done. Publicly spanking them further seems futile, abusive, and rather pointy for something that isn't even against policy. The ongoing RFC clearly indicates the consensus hasn't changed regarding this. Don't run off an active editor to "protect" a one time, hit and run editor that will probably never come back and see that his "webpage" was deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Although failing to notify an editor that their page is being deleted might not be named within BITE, the essay does state that editors can avoid biting newbies by not nominating newly created pages for deletion. In two of the four cases provided above, the new editor's user page was nominated for deletion as spam, when the user seemed to be telling the community what they're interested in editing. Having your first edits deleted without explaining why is certainly BITEY. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- A claim of "biting" solely for "inaction" is stretching the intent of the policy to the breaking point, and is entirely too subjective, as the actions are within policy. Even if it can be argued that this isn't optimal, that doesn't make it a sanctionable offense, taken by itself. I can't think of any time we have sanctioned someone for NOT doing something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and just left a comprehensive message on his talk page, which should have been done earlier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. After no response to my first message and a non receptive response to my second, I gave up. Was not aware of the inappropriate taggings. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Noting he has not edited since 8/24. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- This seems a case of someone trying to do good things, they just don't know that their threshold is way too low and it is causing problems. At this stage, it is an education/experience problem, not a behavioral problem. Now that they have the information, they are responsible for knowing it in the future. If they ignore the advice, then the tools can be used, but if I assume good faith, I just see this as being too zealous, not an attempt to hurt the encyclopedia or push a POV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Noting he has not edited since 8/24. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. After no response to my first message and a non receptive response to my second, I gave up. Was not aware of the inappropriate taggings. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Kambojahistory adding WP:OR in articles
Kambojahistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor is adding original research in articles even after being warned by @MaplesyrupSushi:. See talk-page discussion, but then they again did it at [123] and [124]. The user has competence issues, which is evident from earlier editing behaviour as discussed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory_is_engaged_in_disruption_only Agent 007 (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- archive stopper 212.70.114.16 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Since their last ANI report, it seems that Kambojahistory has mostly edited talk or user pages, except for a few recent edits which incorrectly replaced the existing religion parameter with "Hinduism" based on what is apparently OR: [125], [126]. A topic ban from religion and castes might be an option, since the editor seems intent on introducing unreferenced and clearly contentious information, despite being warned against it multiple times. Elspamo4 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Legal Letter
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ChatBot_VT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted an interesting legal letter (also at their talk page), I don't know what the best method for addressing this should be but I was informed it should be brought here. I have notified the user [127]. Sophia∠θ pr′me 13:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Indef'd for legal threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if this one is a returning customer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- On another site (now defunct), we mods were firmly of the view that spammers and trolls should be compelled to adopt serialised usernames. Sadly, management disagreed. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't remember the name, but there was another account recently that was pasting the entire text of their edits into the summary like that, and was saying similar weird nonsense. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- On another site (now defunct), we mods were firmly of the view that spammers and trolls should be compelled to adopt serialised usernames. Sadly, management disagreed. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if this one is a returning customer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Racial slurs
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hun Narkphanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is likely a sock, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Starting a discussion at ANI nonetheless as reasons for blocking should also note the clear racial abuse purveyed by the user. First the user restored the pajeet page (a highly offensive racial slur), mostly created by their previous socks, then added the same slur to Rishi Sunak and now says it was just 'trolling'. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Gotitbro (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've issued a final warning regarding the addition of the term to the Rishi Sunak article, and the sock investigation is ongoing, so not sure we really need a thread here as well. Regarding the restoring of the pajeet Article, without particularly defending this user's conduct I think it should go through AFD rather than unilaterally being deleted or redirected when several editors have restored it. The sources in the article appear to confer notability and we don't typically delete articles purely because they are about offensive terms. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've indeffed. Zero tolerance for racial or sexual slurs. Inserting them into a BLP, even worse. They need to be very convincing in order to regain their editing priviledges. No warnings for this sort of behaviour, straight to indef (which remember doesn't mean permanent.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)