Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125

User:Nyxaros


At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games there was a discussion of User:Nyxaros's edits, and there was a wide consensus to start a conversation about them here. User:Nyxaros has a consistent history of ignoring consensus and making personal attacks against editors. They simply does not at all appear willing to be part of a community here, and just wants to do their own thing. Examples of their problematic behavior include: after making an edit against the consensus at Don't Worry Darling and getting reverted, instead of participating in discussion, they instead chose to leave passive aggressive edit summaries. Other times they left uncivil edit summaries include: "that's sad for you", calling another a "disruptive editor", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANyxaros&diff=1052834270&oldid=1052824164&diffmode=source "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article. Nice."], called another editor smartass. Leaving a message saying Next time, see if the user you're pinging has any previous relevance or knowledge of the topic in question. Otherwise, you are wasting both parties' time." They have stated "I don't see the problem with a little bit aggressive replies from me on my talk page months or years ago to statements that attack me, such as Saying that "rotten" is not "negative" is stupid, and if you think that, you should be topic banned from film articles." Pinging GlatorNator, Tintor2, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, ProtoDrake, soetermans, and JOE  who have all also expressed concerns about their behavior. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "That's sad for you" is in response to the user that stated that what I think is "stupid" and if I think that I should be "topic banned" from film articles. I've already talked about that on WikiProject Video game articles discussion where you continued to prolong this issue about my talk page history insted of talking about the problems of Ada Wong page. "That's sad for you" is the only recent reply among the ones you name it as "uncivil" as others happened long ago. I have already admitted that I was wrong for "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article." from two years ago was bad on my part. Instead of improving the article, you are bringing messages from the past and wasting everyone's time. It seems my talk page history is more important for you than improving any article. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not dealt with Nyxaros besides the Video Game Wikiproject talk page, but there is clearly a WP:NOTHERE issue. Even as Nyxaros is claiming they did nothing wrong, they are still being insulting to other editors in real time. Example is "get over it" as a response to another editor's comment on their actions. Their talk page shows they consistently deleted legitimate issues brought up by other editors sans response. Being unable to take criticism from others is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Get over it" is not an "insult". I linked WP:GETOVERIT and WP:STICK. If you think these two pages are "insult"ing, you can discuss about them elsewhere. "Legitimate issues" that you are claiming have been all resolved. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right before that, you had also linked "mind your own business". Wikipedia is a community, not a solo endeavor. If numerous people found your actions deleterious enough to discuss, maybe start soul searching instead of lashing out at people for butting into "your" business. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, in addition to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:STICK, if you also think WP:BUTTOUT ("mind your own business") is insulting, you should discuss it on another talk page. ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You certainly have interesting ideas on what isn't an insult. "Get over it", "butt out" etc. are inherently rude quips that would make someone insulted both in private and in public. It may be you aren't socially aware of this for some reason, but that doesn't change it being unfit for Wikipedia. Competence (in being able to interact properly) is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping, I'm a relative outsider here, having not had direct interaction with Nyxaros. I have seen the stuff presented above, and been observing the WikiProject discussion. My opinion is that their editorial tone displays a stubborn refusal to take part in reasonable discussions and a passive-aggressive stance that is potentially damaging to editors and to the website. A bit that stood out was in a reply, where their edit summary was "really sad", which seems like a red flag to me given the discussion's context. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I genuinely think it is really sad that instead of improving the aforementioned article, editors presented so-called "uncivil" edit summaries from me years ago and try to make it relevant to now and that page. I don't know why finding such a situation sad (or upsetting, or frustrating) is considered a red flag. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The point being raised here is to do with conciliatory and civil attitude and tone. Which, given recent comments, is something you lack in both historic and contemporary interactions. I may have feelings of irritation over some thing or feel a close connection to pages, but I try not to use frequent quote marks and edit summaries that take on the tone of personal attacks. Looking at this and other responses, I feel that some kind of block is necessary for all sides. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block per above. Nyxaros' failure to respect WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as well as their refusal to respect consensus, is definitely within WP:NOTHERE territory. Every interaction I've had with this editor has been unpleasant, to say the least. Will point out that when I was in a dispute with Nyxaros at The Suicide Squad (film) in 2021 (discussion here), in which they faced unanimous opposition but continued to edit war anyway, I wasn't the only one who thought their behavior was ANI-worthy.) JOE BRO 64  20:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at your incident has shown me more problematic behavior they have committed in the past: They edited an essay to better suit their argument in an unrelated discussion. That may not be against any rules, but is definitely a red flag. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not remember you and I still do not understand what you want to achieve by claiming that I have a "serious problem" and my alleged "refusal to respect consensus" or "consistent uncivility" from long ago. The Suicide Squad (film) talk and Wikipedia:Review aggregators talk issues have been resolved in the Arbitrary break section almost two years ago. "If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away." "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia." ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support of indef block. It's kind of hard to believe that they've been here for so long, acting as they've done. Take for instance this. Removing a standard notice about adding an incorrect image, calling a "disruptive editor". No discussion, no AGF. Or a reply like this: "This message and the edit summary is not a pleasant read, especially in terms of grammar..." Completely undeservedly rude behaviour. At the discussion at WT:VG they sounded like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with the most baffling remark "Yes, they happened on my talk page in the past", as if somehow that would mean it's acceptable behaviour to be an uncivil troll. I'd urge admins to take a look at their talk page history, as it's filled with these interactions. Competence is required and they utterly fail to be a competent civil editor.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have called me "uncivil troll" and "troll-ish", while taking quotes (some of them out of context) such as "This message and the edit summary is not a pleasant read, especially in terms of grammar." and calling them "undeservedly rude". Replies from months ago is not helping to this discussion, but your behaviour and stance against me is definitely rude. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your point-by-point reply to everyone commenting is again WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I call a spade a WP:SPADE, I call an uncivil troll an uncivil troll (as in troll (slang). soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You repeat what you wrote more than me, which makes it look like WP:NOSPADE, and you are still required to be reasonably civil. Calling someone "troll" over and over doesn't help to resolve this discussion as everyone can clearly understand your thoughts. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record, I didn't write anything "uncivil" to anyone recently. On the contrary, I received responses that say I don't know what I am doing for 11 years, I am supposed to get their "consent" for my edits (expecting me to solve the problems I identified), I have a "serious problem", I am "uncivil troll" and my "normal behaviour" includes "troll-ish" actions. They opened Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games section to talk about the past and accuse me instead of talking about the problems and the edits on the Ada Wong page which has had intensive IP activity lately. Blame is attributed to me (as in my responses 2 years ago, which started with "Had the audacity..." and I already I was wrong at that time), but they see the right to make an uncivil attack on the person they accuse. Trying to reopen discussions that have been closed for a long time by linking them here, instead of constructively criticizing and discussing the Ada Wong article and my edit summaries, they found it appropriate to attack me in the style of "you had this wrong, you are troll" and in some cases, to misrepresent the past resolved situations. If they had taken steps to help the article, the issues would probably have been resolved by now. ภץאคгöร 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the issue is with you and your attitude towards your fellow editors. But I guess you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT?. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Their replies to this thread really exemplify their problems. If several established editors, most of whom have little to no interactions with me in the past, raise concerns about my edits, and no editor has defended me, I would want to have a discussion about what I seemed to be doing wrong, which is not what they're doing here. They seem to not understand the difference between calling out problematic behavior (something that we're encouraged to do) and personal attacks. Their comments that even having this discussion is a waste of time that should be spent editing articles shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Despite responding to every comment in this discussion, they have not addressed their behavior on their talk page, which has raised many concerns. I definitely feel that they need to be indefinitely blocked untill they're able to demonstrate that they realize the problems with their behavior. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 14:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not want to vote on whether we should ban him or not, but I would like to say that my experience interacting with this editor has also been unpleasant. He often uses edit summary to make snarky comments about other editors, which is highly inappropriate. This edit summary in particularly shows how hypocritical he is when he also left comments like these and . I also want to point out that there is another discussion about this editor's behaviour in the past as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course everyone should call out problematic behaviour, but is it really relevant to now? All you're doing is trying to revive long-dead debates ("problems", "edit summaries") that do not reflect the reality of now by taking some of them out of context. My edit summaries, "uncivil" or not, has nothing to do with now. So I don't quite understand the purpose of your repetitive comments just to argue and punish me, and don't see the point of getting an editor banned for past activities especially if most people actually forgave and forgot. A month ago an admin called me "stupid" and at the end, we were somewhat able to find common ground on the article and improved it instead of talking about rude behaviour and heating the argument for days. I didn't care much about it then and definitely don't now because both parties moved on because everyone makes mistakes. For this reason, I remind that I think it would be more ideal to spend the effort spent in this discussion on the page in question in order to improve the encyclopedia. That's just my opinion. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. I do not know anyone here, and I collaborated with a very few editors here and there. I don't expect anyone to make a defense and I don't know why a defense should be made or how editing summaries can be defended as they are often open to interpretation for everyone. ภץאคгöร 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't like your comments being scrutinized, maybe change your attitude, huh? The point of looking up your old comments is to show it's a consistent pattern, not just an incident or two. I also just noticed, Nyxaros was blocked twice in 2019. "...for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL" (WP:CIVIL) - no suprise there I suppose. In June last year, tried talking to you. Your response: not taking the time to properly reply, but reverting to an earlier revision and leaving "You are not using quotes and being "repetitive", not me" as an edit summary. If that's also too old for your taste, your snarky (or "troll-ish", if you will) edit summary "that's sad for you" reacting to  was a little over three weeks ago.
 * At no point have you taken responsibility for your words and actions, not then and not now. Instead of talking this through, or heaven forbid, you apologising to another, you're suggesting we go improve Wikipedia instead. But you seem to forget (ignore?) that fundamentally, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As your many instances of arguments and warnings show, working together is something you seem incapable of. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't write anything about not liking my comments "being scrutinized" anywhere. Another misleading thing about my comments. NinjaRobotPirate's incident was already explained above (and on the WikiProject Video games section before), which is the one with "stupid". I clearly do not get your point (and do not actually care at this point as this discussion became a strange loop and a vicious circle than anything else) even though I explain the incident clearly you still try to come up with your own version of things for the long-dead edit summary incidents as someone who was not even involved in them. ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess one of the problems is that while you don't rememeber us, sadly we remember you and your behaviours, and how your edit summaries, while "open to interpretation for everyone", offended most people. I can forgive and forget if you are actually a changed person, but that is not the case (obviously). Through these discussions, we realize now that these are not singular incidents. You have always been rude and uncollaborative, both in the past and present, ultimately suggesting that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. OceanHok (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "We" is not "most people", is it? You are taking your time to write paragraphs here, saying same things and trying to create different interpretations even though I explain them and most people just do not care enough to join this discussion as they have better things to do. There is literally not single evidence of showing my "rude and uncollaborative" behaviour now. I'm going to write it hopefully one last time that the last issue that is somewhat related to this discussion happened almost a month ago when an admin called me "stupid" and wrote that I should be "topic banned from film articles" becuse I wrote "rotten" doesn't mean "negative", and I replied "That's sad for you", which I thought was really upsetting and sad. Instead of arguing, both parties edited the page and moved on. Simple as that. (One minor point, by the way: it's unrealistic to expect anyone in any condition, anywhere in life, to magically "change" for anything all of a sudden.) ภץאคгöร 11:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree it's unrealistic to change all of a sudden. But it's been years. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My stance was originally more neutral, but if you're seemingly implying that you can't change your ways, when the complaints here are about you being uncivil and unpleasant on a collaborative project, well, that's harder to overlook. Do you really find it so difficult to just be nice to other people? Sergecross73   msg me  15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention to make any insinuation. I no longer wish to respond to what I think has turned into another (inconvenient/ill-founded) embodiment of the "I like pancakes." "So you hate waffles?" argument and is therefore protracted, as I think I have already made myself clear enough in the messages above. ภץאคгöร 16:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty removing content with misleading summaries
User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty has been removing content from pages and giving misleading edit summaries. For example:, , ,. Sometimes, no edit summaries are given for content removal at all :. User:User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty's claims of "misrepresentation of source", "not in source", and "WP:NOTRELIABLE" are not credible. The cited sources are not misrepresented and cited material is indeed represented in the sources. I can provide quotations from the sources if needed to illustrate that the contents removed are in fact a true representation of the cited sources. Additionally the claim of sources being unreliable is not true, as I explained:. I have attempted to explain to the User about misleading edit summaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kalu_Dada_from_Thathri_Kutty&oldid=1143429207), but they have dismissed it with no explanation. This editing is WP:TENDENTIOUS and disruptive. Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He was warned over using misleading edit summary over this same article just last month over the same edit that he is still repeating. Some sanction is clearly needed. Dympies (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I see that Talk:Shaikhs in South Asia is nearly virginal, so I'm surprised that we're here already. This looks to me like a dispute about the reliability of certain sources in one particular article. I think your first response should be to demonstrate that the sources are reliable, using the talk page I linked rather than AN/I.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Misrepresentation of sources even after being told about it in edit summaries at least deserves a deeper look on this noticeboard. Also, a response from the reported user should be read before deeming this to be a content dispute. Dympies (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Use. The.  Talk.  Page.If you had used the talk page before coming here you would be in a very strong position.  This previous incident shows that this user has a history of failing to engage on talk pages, so a sanction on them would have been quite a likely outcome if you had done that.  But at the moment all you have to show is this user removing content with an edit summary challenging the credibility of the source, and without more, that is not sanctionable misconduct.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing me here with the OP. I am not the one who filed the report. While I understand your approach, we are seeing people justifying blocks over far smaller  offense in above sections. The information is supported by the mentioned sources. Check it. Now when the reported editor has engaged in edit warring and  misrepresentation of sources even after warning, then a sanction should be requested too. Dympies (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I was using "you" in the plural, to refer to the OP and those who agree with them. I'm sorry if that usage caused any confusion.  I think the circumstances in the other case to which you refer are entirely different.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I had previously attempted to warn them about misleading edit summaries, but they dismissed it. This behavior is not limited to Shaikhs of South Asia, but at Jinnah family the user has summarily dismissed a reliable, well published, on-topic source with no explanation. Another example on another page of blatant removal of sourced content with a misleading edit summary is here, even though the source clearly supports the content "for zina to be unjustified due to the difficulty of establishing the crime according to to the requirements in the Qur'an, which states four eye witnesses of sound mind and upright character are needed to prove zina." Another example can be found here , despite sources "he was married to the daughter of a Turk" and "The Spanish traveler, Pero Tafur, wrote that in 1438, at the time of his visit to the Trapezuntine court, Ioannes IV was married to “a daughter of a Turk” (Letts, 1926,p.131) and Kuršankis (1976, pp.124-125) suggests that she was probably a daughter or sister of one of the khans of Salkhat, most likely either Hajji Girey or Devlet Berdi." Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Replacement of the entire lead of eight biographies by IPv6
User, with no edits before today, has replaced the entire lead in eight biographical articles of French statesmen or politicians in 28 minutes. Maybe we need to welcome them with a special barnstar created for the occasion, and instant adminship! Or, could it be...&lt;spooky font>Chat GPT?&lt;/spooky font>

IP replaced the lead of Charles de Gaulle on 7 April at 01:52 (diff). In my opinion, (read: "I have not the slightest effing tiny little doubt in my mind") these have all been generated by Chat GPT. (I've been experimenting a fair bit, and I recognize the style pretty easily, now.) The CDG lead is pretty good, but it doesn't necessarily summarize the most important points in the body of the article, and I'm not convinced everything in it is already covered in more detail in the lead, where references can be found.

I've raised a discussion at Talk:Charles de Gaulle, reverted IP's edit at the CDG article, and reverted several other of their edits (as have Manticore and Galobtter; thanks!):


 * Jacques Chirac
 * Charles de Gaulle
 * Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
 * François Hollande
 * François Mitterrand
 * Alain Poher
 * Georges Pompidou
 * Nicolas Sarkozy

(So far, nothing else of interest in 2600:1702:3650:9050:0:0:0:0/64.)

Finally, the larger issue of LLM use at WP is an unsettled one at Wikipedia, and I'm aware of the growing body of discussion both here and elsewhere about it (see the tip of the iceberg here), so I thought this should be brought to the community's attention as soon as possible.

For starters, a question: I plan to revert any edit by this user that smells of LLM to me, and I'm getting pretty good at spotting it, but that's a pretty iffy reason, policy-wise. I trust myself, but you don't necessarily need to agree, and if there's a good reason not to follow my plan, please weigh in. The more important question, of course, is the more general one. This may also be of interest to ; feel free to add others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with User:Mathglot's position. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I read two of them, Charles de Gaulle and Nicolas Sarkozy. These edits are summarizing the summary and significant introductory content is lost from the leads. This is automated dumbing down and a clear degradation of our content. I favor an immediate indefinite block from article space for any editor who pulls a stunt like this. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! I looked at what happened to Mitterrand: replacement of nearly all the factual summary by bland grammatically-correct blurb that could have been written about anyone from the pope to the florist at the end of my street, the sort of deceptively-correct cosmetic-English that AI is good at producing. There is no way it was an improvement; there is no way AI can improve in a situation like this, as it must either summarise (which had already been done) or look beyond the text (in which case it needs to support itself with referencing like any other editor). But fundamentally, if a person is capable of writing half-way decent English they don't need AI to rewrite leads, and if they aren't capable of writing half-way decent English, they can't assess the AI's writing. And we need honesty from our editors: if they cannot admit they aren't a human, what editorial ethics do they have? Elemimele (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A-Admit I'm not a human?... I'm definitely a human, beep boop. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another reason to ban all LLM use on Wikipedia. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this definitely furthers the case for banning LLM use on Wikipedia. Even though the edits were fairly obviously detrimental, and completely changed the leads of high profile leads, they still took hours to revert - I can only imagine how much easier it would be sneak in referenced content that looks perfectly reasonable but is totally made up/full of AI hallucinations and factual inaccuracies. Galobtter&#39;s sock (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Banning LLMs might be useful in dissuading already established editors from using them, but what would that do when it comes to IPs like this one? They're not exactly well-versed with our policies, and most don't care to be. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  10:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW: based on their editing history, this editor is clearly User:President of Switzerland. They were blocked for 31 hours last month, see User talk:2600:1702:3650:9050:E969:B1EA:947:E5C5.  This recent attempt at “summarization” involved replacing the intro with verbatim quotes from the body. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm less worried about the lead rewrites, which are not too hard to spot, than with the ability to fake sources, or to generate fiction with real sources. Consider this snippet for example, and tell me what you see:

''This wikicode is copied verbatim from a Chat GPT response. It took me about five refinements to get it to use inline ref tags with citation templates, and I stopped before telling it about reusable ref names, so here's what it generated:'' Clotharperic was a Frankish king who reigned over a kingdom that covered much of modern-day France and Germany in the late 6th century. He was the son of King Clotaire I, and upon his father's death, he inherited a significant portion of the Frankish kingdom. Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples. He was also a patron of the arts, and under his reign, many magnificent works of art and literature were created. Despite his successes, Clotharperic was not without his detractors, and his reign was marked by political turmoil and assassination attempts. Nevertheless, he remains a significant figure in Frankish history, and his legacy continues to be studied and debated by historians today.

Clotharperic was a Frankish king who reigned over a kingdom that covered much of modern-day France and Germany in the late 6th century. He was the son of King Clotaire I, and upon his father's death, he inherited a significant portion of the Frankish kingdom. Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples. He was also a patron of the arts, and under his reign, many magnificent works of art and literature were created. Despite his successes, Clotharperic was not without his detractors, and his reign was marked by political turmoil and assassination attempts. Nevertheless, he remains a significant figure in Frankish history, and his legacy continues to be studied and debated by historians today.

(The footnotes link to the references, but I didn't teach the bot about named refs.)

Chat GPT turned the tables on me, because I was expecting a mix of real and faked references, as I've mostly seen in the past, but these are all real (usually I ask for a lot more than one paragraph, so maybe that's why). The interesting thing here, is that king Clotharperic is a figment of my imagination (zero hits in Google, but that may change by the time you read this ), and Chat GPT "sourced" it anyway with real references. If I had picked a real king, and the bot gave real references, who is going to check them? This is what really worries me, because if an editor doesn't identify bot usage in an edit summary, I just don't know how we're going to discover it. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in WP:ANI. Which was about ChatGPT and fake referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is what concerns me: We can unequivocally ban the use of ChatGPT or LLM on Wikipedia. That is the easy part. Writing a policy, having the community agree upon it, is comparatively easy to what will be the real challenge - enforcement and identification. The IPv6 showed its hand pretty early by hitting all eight of the aforementioned articles within half an hour, but we will have a harder time sussing out those edits that are introduced with more stealthy or considered approaches that I won't expound upon due to WP:BEANS. And any editor that is determined enough won't give a damn what our written policy is1. Moreover, as the software improves (and it will improve), the line is going to increasingly blur to where we run the risk of friendly fire against good-faith editors whose edits may bear a passing resemblance to ChatGPT. So far our ability to discover AI edits is based on intuition and pattern recognition, all forms of inductive reasoning and, as says, very little deduction due to lack of prima facie evidence. Because of that, I wonder what a "no LLM editing" policy accomplishes other than just expressing our collective outrage. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Footnote 1: One alternate solution is to outright ban IP editing on Wikipedia as a result of the heightened risk of LLM-editing created by having such a wide attack vector, but I don't see this happening ever, and certainly not for this reason. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been advocating that for years, but no matter how much evidence and argumentation is put forward that doing so would be beneficial to the project, it doesn't seem as if it's ever going to fly here, unfortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Detection is definitely a big problem. But I think a "no LLM editing" policy would at least make sure that good faith users know not to use LLMs to generate text for articles - and we have always relied on there being a lot more good-faith editors than malicious ones. Right now I'm seeing a wishy-washy approach from the community (at least the one that is outlined at WP:LLM) that doesn't seem to acknowledge the risks involved, and seems to think that humans are actually going to meaningfully verify what the LLM writes (which would take longer than writing the text by yourself).


 * (as a side note, I just saw this article about how ChatGPT invented a sexual harassment case against a professor - scary stuff.) Galobtter&#39;s sock (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think an expression of collective outrage could be a good thing. If the unethical products of a toxic industry are going to drag down our attempt to use the Internet to educate humankind, we might as well be angry about it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, WP:LLM was written in a fantasy land where the only people adding LLM content to Wikipedia will be those who are so conscientious about double-checking and revision that they could start their rough drafts by throwing the bloody I Ching and still end with a respectable article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact I'd say almost by definition those using LLMs to create content are those least likely to (or to even be capable of) double check the content. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I once uncovered a decade-old WP:HOAX biography. It was well-written and entirely plausible; but contained one tiny error which may not even have been such when it was posted: it linked to a DAB page. The problem was that I could find no evidence that several of the key references (all print-only, no later than C19, and in an accessible language) existed. My emotions after completing the investigation were mixed: satisfaction at a job well done, admiration for the hoaxer's skill, and something approaching fury that I wouldn't get that hour-and-a-bit of my life back. The thought of mass-produced articles of that kind fills me with horror. Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The ultimate answer to that may wind up being significantly tightening the minimum requirements for article creation. Not at all what most veterans would prefer, and not within the scope of ANI -- that'd be a site-wide RfC -- but this is downright an existential threat to the encyclopedia.  All we need is for the media to start trumpeting how Wikipedia's being written by chatbots, and the encyclopedia's credibility is gone for good.   Ravenswing      01:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy, but from memory More Random Walks in Science ed. R. L. Weber (1982) contains two fictional biographies which made their way into a printed encyclopedia.or compendium, whose editors adopted a very stuffy attitude when they found out they'd been taken in (compare the Sokal affair). They were of Jean-Marie Litre (a simple-minded French aristocrat executed during the Reign of Terror, whose name is commemorated in the litre) and of Luis Herrera Torsión (a Spaniard tortured by the Inquisition, whose sufferings gave their name to the torsion balance). They were very obviously practical jokes to anyone who actually read what they said, rather than being written to deceive. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree about a site-wide Rfc (possibly with some preliminary discussion, to narrow the Rfc question before we start), and I don't think we should wait too much longer to attempt it. How do you feel about WP:VPP as a venue? Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's certainly where it should start, I believe.   Ravenswing     13:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to contribute; feel free to ping me. Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, please also ping me. But – but – I know we'll be backing a losing cause when it comes to consensus. At my last unscientific check, ⅓ of editors who expressed an opinion don't think that AI/LLM is a problem at all, ⅓ of editors think AI/LLM is useful, and ⅓ of editors wish the issue would go away until they've had time to think about it properly. Add that to the current 60:40 inclusionist:deletionist ratio and we're on a hiding to nowhere. Nevertheless, even some doomed battles are worth fighting. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's much too pessimistic, especially as pro-ban editors are more likely to comment than anti-banners, and the issue has received a lot of publicity recently. We also need a process for reverting suspected AI additions. Do the sites produce the same content when asked twice? Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's received a lot of publicity recently, but we've still, on this page right now alone, had two otherwise unobjectionable established editors go to ChatGPT, type in a question, post the answer to a new article here and then not understand at all in any way why this was a problem – despite the disclaimers and the publicity and the news articles and everything else. They thought a chatbot was 100% spot-on Wikipedia material. And then a third of the people responding to this had no problem with this but were unhappy with the editors being blocked from mainspace because they meant well. We're on a hiding to nothing in trying to get consensus. Even the no-AI-please warning templates (uw-ai1 etc) got pushback from established editors saying that this "deletion on sight" policy was bad and they would prove so by posting AI/LLM articles to mainspace themselves. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod They shouldn't, no. They will tend towards producing similar content, but unless they start caching ChatGPT and BingChat answers for popular questions (I don't believe they do this, but perhaps I am wrong, in which case I would appreciate being corrected!), the answers are newly generated each time. Using specific phrases in "prompt hacking" can duplicate weird hacks to a certain extent, but not typically exactly. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which makes it a thousand times harder because it means there's no common phrases or giveaways we can use to filter out the AI-written content (yet, anyway; if we're lucky there's certain word strings that the AI likes to use that might make it possible to flag its writing, but I suspect we would need a lot more data to see if that's how it works.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if we find some strings that current models are more likely to output, within a couple of years there'll be completely different models that don't behave the same way, so it would be a very temporary solution. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  02:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At this rate, it's more like "within a couple of months". -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Block request for Editor MVM
jojo@nthony (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . This user is constantly adding promotional/glorifying content to articles related to Nair Service Society, despite multiple warnings.
 * Editor MVM also moved an article in order to add honorifics to the title. MVM hasn't responded to any of the messages on their talk page. Perhaps an admin could block them from article space until this editor engages in discussion? Schazjmd   (talk)  15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked from articlespace until they start engaging. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late to point this out but for the record, the editor in question has still not been notified about this discussion. I've notified them. Something something big red box something something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Obsession to create an article on an institution
Someone, or multiple people seem to have a desire to create a Wikipedia article about the Bihar Engineering University in Patna.

There's currently 2 duplicates at BEU Patna and Bihar Engineering University, Patna, and Bihar Engineering University has been repeatedly deleted. There's also two drafts at Draft:Bihar Engineering University and Draft:Bihar Engineering University 2.

It appears that User:EG2009TU, User:Amarjeetkr97, User:R7461867442 are collaborating, or WP:SOCKPUPPETS, to create an article on this university. Also, User:GargAvinash has edited one of the drafts.

I'm not an expert of sockpuppetry or editors who are determined to create an article, despite all opposition, so I'm asking for advice from admin(s). –  City Urbanism  🗩   🖉  14:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bihar Engineering University has been salted against recreation, after being moved to draftspace by User:Liz. I've just salted Bihar Engineering University, Patna myself, and prodded BEU Patna as non-notable. The only remaining potential problem now should be that there are two drafts, but I'm not sure that matters, as long as they don't emigrate to mainspace again. And of course there remains the possibility of creating yet other spellings (I won't suggest any examples, per WP:BEANS). And yet other socks.. sigh. As for obsession, such obsessions usually come about because of paid editing. It all comes with the territory, I'm afraid. Thanks for watching, CityUrbanism. If you should happen on more versions, feel free to contact me directly. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC).

Unfair treatment.
Please see: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.232.88.19" at the bottom. Can someone please tell me if this guy is right and not just out to get me and if he is right specifically why he is right? He just posts links to entire articles as an explanation but not what part of it he thinks I am not following. Totally unfair and uncool. As far as I know I am totally within the rules here and I was totally on topic. I was literally agreeing with something someone else wrote on there and my comment was basically similar to another comment posted there but that guy got to keep his comment and I was not. This is totally unfair! And then he gets cross with me when I ask for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.88.19 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, sorry if wrong place to complain, please let me know where to file the complaint if this is wrong place. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * People just love taking me to ANI You've failed to notify me of this discussion per the bright red notice at the top. While that's technically moot now since I'm aware of this discussion it's still something you should do. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did. Read the comments at the bottom of the thing. I told you that I posted it here and even provided a link 47.232.88.19 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually read it a bit more carefully. The notice says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.". You did no such thing. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did! Look at my talk page where you were scolding me. I directly replied to you with a link! 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about I actually bold the relevant part for you. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." Not the person who is reporting's talk page, the user who is being reported's talk page. You never gave me any notice on my talk page. In fact, I didn't have any talk page notice regarding ANI today until User:Tails Wx came along and added it (only to revert themself since I was already aware). I think you need to take some time and read things completely so you actually understand what you are being told. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Cut me a break. Clearly I was trying to notify you, but apparently misunderstood the word editor to mean myself. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what Blaze stated? When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Pings aren't sufficient, see this discussion. Tails   Wx  18:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the IP understands that, judging by what they're saying --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mk. Just a clarification, to the IP, I'm sorry if I was a bit bite-y. Tails   Wx  19:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference between U|ScottishFinnishRadish's comment and your comment was that ScottishFinnishRadish was discussing the article, and you were discussing Mr. West. ScottishFinnishRadish's comment was made in December, and was discussing the categories at the bottom of the page.  If you check the current categories, Mr. West is no longer included in Category:American neo-Nazis.  You came along 3 months later and made a comment that did not address what should or shouldn't or is or isn't in the article, rather expressing your thoughts on West as a person. That's the difference. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this characteriazation. I was basically repeating what he said. IT wasn't even my own opinion. I was seconding someone else's. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And the page actually still says he identifies as a nazi. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. If a topic is still kept up does that mean it could still have possibly been solved? I thought it meant it was still an open discussion. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While a discussion that hasn't been closed properly (via the various methods at WP:CLOSE) can still be replied to, if there haven't been any responses in a while (usually around 7 days/1 week for most things) then it can be safe to say that the editors have moved on and there's no need to reply. If you think there's a good reason for you to make a comment feel free to do so (there's technically no official policy or guideline against necroposting, tho I myself don't see it as very constructive depending on how long ago the last reply was) so long as it isn't actually closed. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, was correct. Please read WP:NOTFORUM  Catfish   Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, but they've already "skimmed" that page, and their takeaway from it was that random forum-like comments are fine and tu quoque is a valid position to argue from. So that's us told. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The IP is apparently unaware that the official WP position is "new editors can fuck right off". I'm sorry you went through this, IP. There are a lot of smug editors here who enjoy throwing their weight around, because they're too cowardly to quote "NOTAFORUM" to User:ScottishFinnishRadish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And you were the person I was agreeing with by the way. But apparently me posting that I second your opinion is against some as of yet unknown rule. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this was intended as sarcasm. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am NOT being sarcastic. Sorry if it came across like that, but I was not being sarcastic. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to your comment. I'm referring to User:Floquenbeam's. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey but while you are here, can you actually explain, withOUT getting cross with me, why others who had similar comments were given a pass, but for me my first comment was immediately flagged and removed? You referenced a bunch of article on policy, but did not actually mention which part of those articles you thought I was in breach of. From what I read, I think I am within the rules. Also, I've recently encountered something called wikilawyering. I think that this whole thing counts as lawyering. A small comment being attacked with this much force? I mean I feel like you are basically telling me that I just can't participate period if I have to second guess every single thing I have to say. I wasn't disrespectful at all and was totally on topic! 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was sarcasm in the sense that we probably shouldn't act like new editors can fuck right off, but it was serious about you doing an extremely poor job of interacting with this editor, and Catfish Jim and Trey Maturin didn't help either. If someone had told the IP editor what ONUnicorn took the time to tell them, above, I doubt we'd be where we are now.  Just because the comment wasn't helpful doesn't mean we need to edit war with them and then refuse to explain. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP was referred to the policy page in question, agreed that they had read it (and then said they'd skimmed it) and what they took away from reading/skimming the page was that they were right and should head to a drama board and attempt to get sanctions against the person who pointed them to the page. I'm sure we can simplify most of our policy pages down to a single paragraph in order to make them graspable, but should we? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretend you don't know much about WP. Now follow this link: WP:NOTFORUM.  You didn't do it, did you, because you think you know what it says, but humor me. It links to the middle of WP:NOT; a giant, sprawling catch-all page.  The fact that it links to a specific section of that page is not obvious to a new editor; you have to know what the shortcut box means, and you have to know to look at the right margin to see it, you have to know how it applies to your situation. The section in question isn't highlighted, it's just floating there mid-page. Add to that the fact that, frankly, this is an edge case of NOTFORUM at best; you could make a case that it applies, and a case that it doesn't apply. It's OK to link to NOTFORUM at first, because there are only so many hours in the day.  But when the IP politely said they didn't understand, they got nothing but attitude.  We see hundreds - probably thousands - of comments like the IP's comment every day, many by more experienced accounts, and many actively harmful, instead of this harmless "me too" comment.  Personally, I think it harms WP more than it helps to remove a harmless comment like this. I don't know why Malerooster chose to revert this particular comment, but at least they were polite about it and left a welcome template.  I really don't know why Blaze Wolf chose to edit war with the IP about this one, and answered with more useless bluelinks and templated warnings. Established editors forget to notify people every day, but we're spending multiple paragraphs yelling at the IP they didn't do it.  The IP did not ask for a sanction, but you're righteously indignant, convinced that they did. This is all just an example of the smug "new editors, especially IP editors, can fuck right off" attitude you're displaying. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is unworthy of you, Floq. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, struck, but that was like 5% of my post. And rude or not, unwise to say out loud or not, it is honestly how I feel about the response here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was a bit short and shouldn't have answered the question as put, as a binary choice (I agree, it did come across a bit WP:BITEY). I doubt is just out to get the IP. I would be happy to offer some mentorship to the IP.  Catfish   Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh wait. I thought Scottish was the guy who wrote this comment. Scottish was the guy I was agreeing with. But still thanks regardless. 47.232.88.19 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like we have a WP:BITE problem here. IP47 was mistaken about how Wikipedia talkpages work, but instead of having it explained to them they were reverted and templated. I don't really blame BlazeWolf in this circumstance, I'm sure that page gets a lot of nonsense. But we should try to remember that West's page is probably a magnet for new editors especially now, and we should probably avoid reverting comments just because they're not fully relevant. Reversion of talk page comments should really only be for blatant trolling, vandalism, BLP vio etc. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. So you're saying we should keep talk comments that violate WP:NOT, which is policy, if it isn't obviously vandalism? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really hate pointless comments that much you could've hatted it, we generally frown on deleting other people's talk page comments after all. But since it didn't get in the way of any ongoing discussion and the editor cannot be expected to be aware of any of the applicable parts of WP:NOT, and even apologised in their comment for not being aware of the rules ahead of time, the better approach here would probably have been to just leave it be and place a welcome template at the IP's talk page.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that WP:NOT says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines" (emphasis mine) but that doesn't mean that reverting and warning is always (or even usually) the best option. When a comment in a discussion seems to be made in good faith, or a new editor doesn't understand how talkpages work, it is often a better option to reply and explain to them. Lots of people come to high profile talkpages to troll or spam, and removal of those is fine. With someone who might become a real editor we try to be a little more flexible with how strictly we enforce the rules. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you really arguing in defense of biting the newbie? Chalk me up as one agreeing that this could have been handled a good bit better, and that there is no frigging useful reason to keep on taking swings (tacit or otherwise) at the IP?   Ravenswing      20:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not entirely clear to me what part of WP:NOTFORUM the IP address here violated. Can someone point it out to me, and explain how the IP violated it? Shells-shells (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish, and it seems I've been mentioned a lot in this section. It's likely that I've removed more talk page posts per NOTAFORUM and SOAP than everyone in this section combined, and I would have let that stand, or if I had removed it and was reverted, starting a discussion explaining why I had removed it. In my view, NOTAFORUM/SOAP is a tool to cut down on talk page disruption, rather than a bludgeon to police talk pages. I've been seeing it used a lot more often lately, and in some pretty dubious situations, e.g. after another editor has replied, and I think editors should really think about whether it is disrupting the talk page, rather than a bit FORUMy, before invoking it. Also, the IP agreed with me, so they can't be all bad, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, also I don't think necroing an old section is disruptive on it's face. Plenty of talk pages are slow enough where a few passersby will comment in a section over a year or more and eventually it will demonstrate consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence why I said depending on how long ago the last reply was. To me if someone replies to a post that hasn't seen activity in 10 years that's not all that constructive to me (usually it should be archived by then but some pages probably aren't frequented enough for archiving to be useful). ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not constructive is different from disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread is of the "tense" and "strong feelings" variety. 61.8.194.45 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we agree to close this thread with a general advisory that we should make an effort to be a little more lenient with IPs and new editors when they are attempting to contribute in good faith? The essay Don't come down like a ton of bricks seems especially relevant here. Nobody has suggested any sanctions against either Blaze Wolf or IP47, so it seems like our time would be better spent elsewhere. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! The messages on their talk page can help them! Tails   Wx  18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, please could we close it with a specific advisory directed at the relevant editors? This is a teachable moment.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I support either outcomes here. I myself would only remove talk page comments that are unambiguously vandalism or disruptive, and I don't see how the comments that were being removed here fit that category at all. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Y'all need to do it like this: User talk:CEvansMCO —Alalch E. 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4,138 bytes...sigh. Tails   Wx  12:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Meet you in the middle at 3.3k? —Alalch E. 13:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Joking aside, I agree with S Marshall. Support closing with a balanced specific advisory. —Alalch E. 13:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How about something along these lines? &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 02:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I used to welcome newcomers before I ever warned them. I stopped after I read something (I don't recall where) that said that welcoming didn't really do much to increase editor retention or something. So I stopped because I didn't see much of a point. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think a specific targeted/logged warning is necessary here. Most of the issues mentioned above (edit warring etc) don't really seem relevant to this circumstance. Regarding the Welcoming issue, it may or may not increase editor retention in the statistics, but can be a nice thing to do and takes up very little time especially with Twinkle. I think if I could give you a message to take to heart, it would be that most people (and by extension, most new Wikipedians) are genuinely trying to do the right thing and be a good person. Wikipedia is a Byzantine nightmare of complex policies, guidelines and other conventions that us veterans know but aren't even written down anywhere. If you see somebody who is technically breaking the rules but looks like they might be doing it because they don't understand the rules and are doing the best they can, it can be more helpful to leave them a personalized note explaining what they did wrong and how to do it right than dropping templates or ALLCAPS links to our (very long and dense) policies and telling them to read it. It costs nothing to be nice. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, holy run-on-sentence, Batman! The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I mean, the microcosm of this entire issue is in the first couple comments. The entire purpose of the "Put a notice at the persons talk page when you start a section about them" rule is to make sure people are aware they are being discussed. It is mind-boggling to me that you would respond to a new editor doing their best to make you aware of this (while already being aware of the discussion!), with "ah ah ah, you didn't do it at the right page! resubmit the forms, please." We don't have rules for the sake of rules, we have them for REASONS. When an editor, especially an IP!, attempts to follow the spirit of the rule in good faith, if not the letter, continuing to argue with them about shows that you need to take a step back and re-evaluate why you're enforcing this rule. Is it for the benefit of the wiki and its users? Parabolist (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's something that is required at ANI. If I hadn't said it someone else would've. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well done proving the point. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple misunderstandings there. The rule exists and for a reason. The IP (mistakenly) assumed that making an effort was enough and that Blase Wolf was going "over the top" on strictness or wrong in saying that it wasn't met. Blase Wolf responded by more pointedly saying that they were correct and what needed to be done differently. I would have done the same, albeit probably with a bit more explanation. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But in this case, it WAS enough. Blaze Wolf was already aware of the discussion. If the person is already aware by other means, why bother enforcing the rule in this case? What is the benefit, and if the only benefit is "well they'll know next time", that is absolutely not what happened here. Its not a huge deal, but the fact that Blaze Wolf above still doesn't understand the point I'm making is the problem here. We don't have rules simply to enforce them. An IP coming here to complain about what they perceive as byzantine rules being used against having their concern be immediately set aside because they didn't file their form in the right bin is a user who is not being served correctly by ANI. Parabolist (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding. I only noticed this happened because I have ANI on my watchlist. If not then I never would've know. We have rules for a reason. Their concern wasn't set aside. I never even said that just because they didn't notify me correctly their concern was invalid. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, just because it was enough in this case, doesn't mean the rule gets to be ignored. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? That's my point. They even told you that they made a good faith effort to do so, just not on the right page! ANI is the last port of call for users having trouble. So many threads by new users start with a veteran user chiding them over this, all the while never actually addressing the topic of their problem. You saw it, you were aware of it, and you responded solely to chide them for reporting you incorrectly, and then arguing with them about it, never once addressing the issue at hand! There's a lot of reasons ANI has the reputation it does, but this one specifically is one everyone here can personally work to make better. Parabolist (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make sure they understood why I was arguing with them. I didn't see a need for me to respond myself since from my point it seemed like a waste of time and energy arguing further. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If your attempts to be helpful to new and IP users include "I think you need to take some time and read things completely so you actually understand what you are being told." you should probably leave that to another user not in conflict with the filer. Think about their experience from their perspective. Would you have found your responses helpful or friendly? Parabolist (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * BW, That's something that is required at ANI. If I hadn't said it someone else would've. Or possibly what a lot of people would have done with an editor with a handful of edits is say, "IP, you're required to notify the editor at their User talk:Blaze Wolf; I have done that for you." And from the discussion at their talk, they make a very good point. They made a single short comment agreeing with someone, so you just pelted them with policy? Valereee (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we want to close this or are we just going to continue telling me that my behavior was wrong? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 21:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you could do the decent thing and say "Yes I admit my behavior was not ideal, I shouldn't have done that" instead of digging in and then this whole thread of conversation will go away. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to dig in. It honestly just feel like you guys just keep piling this on top of me. Yes I understand that I could've done better but you don't need to keep telling me that I should've told them something else. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 22:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally this is the first comment that you've made that acknowledges the validity of the complaints, and you didn't even make it to the end of the sentence without switching back to defensiveness. If you want people to take the view that you understand the complaints, recognize their validity, and will take them to heart, you should try saying things that indicate that (instead of being defensive and making excuses).  [This advice is extremely generalizable -- e.g. my spouse and I have improved our marriage by adopting less defensive modes of communication in the face of perceived criticism, and we don't even edit an encyclopedia together.]  --JBL (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to add to this discussion that anyone who was involved in this incident who also has rollbacker rights should know better than to revert anything other than blatant vandalism on a talk page since they have been quizzed extensively in order to get those rights that they have read all the documentation regarding the use and privileges of those rights. I understand people can get swept up in a kind of "righteous indignation" about being over zealous with the rules, and make mistakes, as I myself have done, but we must acknowledge them, and learn from them, then grow from there. Huggums537 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC) I would also like to add to my comment that just because someone did not "technically" use the rollback feature specifically to do a reversion does not exonerate them from anything since owning that right is proof that they have educated themselves on which reversions are considered best practices. So, whether they did or didn't use the tool is really just a technicality since there is evidence they should still know better either way. Huggums537 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another thing I would like to add is that it is very hard to assign any blame to Blaze Wolf for their actions when I found out that just recently a related ANI discussion was closed in their favor, which might give the false impression that these kinds of reversions are appropriate when they really are not. It should have been more clear the OP was actually blocked for being NOTHERE and a sock, and only two admins did that correctly in that discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Viktor Sublime
Would someone kindly have a word with, who's been repeatedly down-casing the names of dog breeds, continuing to do so after he received a polite warning about MOS:BREED from and a follow-up message from me. I can't take any action myself, for obvious reasons. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also left an edit warring warning. Cullen328 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I've just soft-warned them for overly-close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. I think all of their remaining edits will need to be checked. Meters (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Recent edits checked. I'm afraid there's not much left of his contributions. Meters (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW this looks like a relatively new user and most of their edits appear good faith to me, if admittedly problematic. I think there are enough warnings at this point. Carpet bombing talk pages can sometimes drive off even well intentioned editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The last post on his page was my soft copyvio notice. Copyvio is not something that could have been ignored. Meters (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I agree that he thinks he's right – this isn't vandalism. But it's becoming quite disruptive, see, for example. Yes, he's had enough warnings, but he didn't hear them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Now blocked x 48 hrs. This user looks like they are just thumbing their nose at the community. I've issued a Final Warning so the next block, if needed, will be an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan's big fan in Mexico

 * Personal life of Lindsay Lohan
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive

Someone using various IPs in Mexico, likely User:Andrewbf, has a long history of disruption in pop music articles. Another IP popped in today to restore a large mass of contested text at Personal life of Lindsay Lohan. The Mexico IPs previously involved in this behavior include 200.68.161.254, 189.174.19.198, 189.172.38.3, 189.174.17.233, 189.174.21.221, 189.172.25.229, 189.172.49.152 and 189.174.9.87 during May–July 2022, resulting in blocks and the article placed under semi-protection. I would like to propose a wide rangeblock on Special:Contributions/189.172.0.0/16. There would be surprisingly little collateral damage from such a block; about 95% of the edits at that range are clearly from the same person over the last four years and probably further back. Note that this person also uses other IP ranges such as Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:8020:426A:0:0:0:0/64 as may be seen in the history of the article Speak (Lindsay Lohan album). Their typical style is to make many small changes in a row, saving after each one. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked the range; I found no sleeper accounts. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fabulous! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous back and forth
Can't somebody just do something about this ? Someone is continuously adding a sidebar to this article through several IPs. There is already an image so it is violating MOS:SANDWICH. I already both reported the IP and requested the protection of the page and nobody did anything. Super  Ψ   Dro  19:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I think the "part of a series" sidebars are helpful. Maybe move the map down? Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, moving the map will take it to a historical period it is not related to. It would ideally be next to text talking about the period the map is about. I think I will just have to remove it as I'm skeptical anything will come out of this. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Trolls Band Together unsourced material by IP


The IP keeps adding unsourced material without finding a reliable citation. CastJared (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely pageblocked the IP from Trolls Band Together. They are free to discuss their proposed changes at Trolls Band Together, as long as their requests are based on reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Harassment
User:Arborbids is WP:NOTHERE and harassment per this diff on my talk page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal Threat by User:Yeen3002 on Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania
, probably also a case of WP:NOTHERE although they do have a handful of prior edits. Stuart98 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this deserves a block if only for confusion between criminal and civil law. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef by Bbb23. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Redaction needed
See email address in comment and edit summary  // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, but in future please report things like this to the Oversight team. stwalkerster (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Pushing information not related to article
user:Khirurg is pushing information not related to the article of Vurg, the information and sources he is adding are linked to an individual and not to the article page which is for a region. And that only to mention the ethnicity which is of personal nationalistic interest of the user. And he is not refering to the talk page as i suggested. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @RoyalHeritageAlb, it looks like a content dispute that neither of you have discussed on the talk page yet. Try that first? Schazjmd   (talk)  21:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The information seems relevant and well-sourced as far as I can tell. The other user has not explained their reasoning in the talkpage. Yet since they are the ones objecting to the content, the onus is on them to explain why in the talkpage. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No matter how well sourced an information is,(and i am not disputing that), it does not belong to the specific article. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Numerous small, at best pointless, edits to many articles
is making numerous small, at best pointless, edits to many articles. Adding or removing a comma here or an apostrophe there, putting a full-stop after "see also", that sort of thing. No edit summaries. Does the behaviour ring any bells? THanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked out the user's most recent three edits and didn't see anything of concern. If you have a specific example I'm confident several of us would check it out.  Have you noticed any harm or policy violation, or just editing preference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of their edits are simply incorrect and have had to be reverted. I have left them a final warning per WP:CIR. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I trust you. I only looked at three and gave up when I didn't see a specific example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

user:Northheavensky's Reluntact to Communicate and Unwillingness to Accept Agreed Consensus
user:Northheavensky is reluctant to communicate and accept the agreed consensus on the talk page.

Talk:Songket User:Ckfasdf and I had actively discussed on the talk page for days and we had agreed on NPOV for the page Songket

user:Northheavensky is reluctant to communicate or accept the agreed consensus by making the below edits:

- no reason for reverting was provided

- the user wrote "Stable version, radical changes without consensus, the source is still in doubt". This is a baseless accusation and has been discussed. We literally cite the same existing source, in the same book and had already reached a consensus on the talk page.

- no reason for reverting was provided

- no reason for reverting was provided, except "restore". MrCattttt (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The discussion on the talk page doesn't cover all the edits that the OP has made, though. Meanwhile, some of the edits by the OP (some of whose previous edits have been revdeleted by User:Diannaa for COPYVIO issues) appear to be in some cases poorly sourced and many of them remove sourced material.  Therefore, I have fully protected the article in its current state (which appears to be pretty close to the long-standing version before the OP started editing it) so that an actual consensus can arise. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle
A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article (see this ) and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary. I told him you should not do this but I don't think he'll listen this. If ther some problem in writing he should tag it for CE, its not ok to remove properly sourced material. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Rock Stone Gold Castle's writing is borderline incoherent. Some recent examples: Also by Vimal pan masala product 'Vimal' allegedly advertise its lots of products those have harmful things such as tobacco. 1, umpire, match referee suppose to panalise teams which bowl overtime but only one time the umpire gave panalty to a team following this rule in 12 happened so far 2, but they not use to tell audience through ads that you could lose money, suffere financial losses 3. All their contributions look like this. I think a WP:CIR boomerang might be appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say we're well over the borderline here. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've just moved Draft:Vimal Gutkha to draft because not only is it of a poor standard of writing, but there actually is zero information about the actual product apart from a controversy about their advertising. And as for this, whether it's notable or not, it's not understandable.  I think Rock Stone Gold Castle should probably consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language in which they are fluent. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you found any grammatical mistakes, you should tag it by 'clean up', ce tag. There are lots of editors, they can edit it. Sometimes mistakes happen but you should understand that, not everyone's 1st language is US English. You should not discourage other editors. You moved I written article to draft space, but you should ping me about it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. It is not reasonable for you to create unintelligible gibberish and to then expect others to try to figure out what you meant and make it intelligible. It would be far better for you  to edit a Wikipedia written in a language in which you are proficient. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, it is not hijacking to remove unintelligible text and otherwise bring the article in line with the expectation of the English Wikipedia. I think you owe the other editors (such as  ) editors apologies for your accusation and thanks for the improvements they have made. The question of your continuing on Wikipedia hinges on your net effect on it and the time of other volunteers. And that hinges in part on your ability to collaborate with those users. Best --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, it was not hijacked, my bad. Did you noticed that i also wrote ? in title of the discussion because I also wasn't sure. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how it works. I see that you've submitted Draft:Vimal Gutkha again despite the fact that it's got at least ten spelling and grammar errors in the first section alone. You cannot keep introducing errors into the encyclopedia and expect others to tidy up behind the fact that your language skills are not adequate to do this.  Also, this appears to be a removal of sourced material for no good reason; the fact that the material is historical is irrelevant - we document the history of competitions.  What's going on there? Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please use civil language, don't accuse others for errors. We are humans, errors can happen, no one is perfect in this world. If you found some grammatical mistakes, you can help WP to fix them, otherwise no one is forcing you to do it. You are removing properly sourced material just because of 3,4 errors? You should tag it for ce, should give a chance to me to do its clean-up. Your talking like your perfect and never done any mistake ever. I am also editing in good faith. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No-one is saying you're not editing in good faith, but there is a difference between a few minor errors and an article which is very difficult to comprehend because of the level of errors in it (we're not just talking 3 or 4 errors here - as I said, there are ten or more in just the first section of that draft article). In the second case, you should be correcting the majority of those problems before introducing that material into Wikipedia. Meanwhile you appear to be removing properly sourced material from articles like the IPL example I pointed out above... Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not hijacking to remove bad content and clear violations of WP:NOTADVERTISING. And that's before we get to the fact that this user also ignored my polite request to revert their nomination of 2023 Indian Premier League for a GA when it met almost 0 of the GA criteria (Talk:2023 Indian Premier League), and they did the same for the 2019 IPL article. And I've had to fix spellings at least 5 times in the last few days after they edited. And they're trying to keep lots of unencylopedic fandom on the 2023 IPL page. It's getting frustrating, as this user appears to be a case of WP:NOTLISTENING. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the edit I did not worthy to keep, you can remove them or open a discussion in concerned article's talk page and wp is a free space anyone can edit it.
 * About GA nomination, I did it in a good faith. I was never nominated articles for GA review before, I did in last weeks. I did not know how to take back GA review, so I didn't and i did not read your message to take back it. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. I was trying to add some missing piece of the puzzle, in Good faith. If someone think it's not should be there then okay. I know WP work this way. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, A editor seems hijacked Surrogate advertising article and did undo my edits without telling genuine summary is just incorrect. There is a clear and correct edit summary given: Broken english and inappopriate listing of brands, both of which are correct, valid reasons. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for advice sir. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sidebar I find what I see here incongruous with an an editor with accepted GA notification's on their talk page and more than eight thousand edits. Is something amiss?--  Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see several failed GA nominations, apparently due to repeated failure to understand the criteria. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * vielen dank -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You got it right, I didn't awarene about the guidelines for GA nomination. Now I understand it, we can't nominate article for GA which have tags for CE etc. We can't nominate a stub or small article. See I know now guidlines. Don't worry I'll read rest of the rules for GA. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As an example, this is what I had to do to a short section added by RSGC to make it into intelligible English. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No one doubts your good intentions. The question is whether your grasp of English is sufficient. I have a basic level of  understanding German, and I am well aware that my knowledge of German is not sufficient to edit the German encyclopedia. Practicing to learn a second language is great, but I'm not sure that  editing an encyclopedia is the best method. (And thanks  for taking the lead in this.) --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've stumbled upon some of 's edits and have reverted them due to being written poorly, almost to the point of incomprehensibility. While good intentions are nice, I agree with some of the assessments above that their ability to write at a level of English needed to contribute constructively to articles is lacking. In another thread below, suggests that they should probably be partially blocked from mainspace at the very least, and I am inclined to agree. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu  <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 08:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to yours and other so called experienced, native English speaker editors pressure, I am feeling stressed. So I'm taking a long wikibreak. At the end I'll tell you just one thing, please don't bully good faith editors. Be more tolerant and inclusive. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As indicated numerous times, we have no doubt of your good faith. However, as other editors have opined, your English skills do not appear to be a sufficient level for building encyclopedia articles. I am sorry if you feel stressed or bullied by these statements, but it is simply an observation based on your edits to date. Given your desire to contribute, my advice is that you instead edit a Wikipedia project in a language in which you are more comfortable communicating at a more formal and technical level. <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 15:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Obvious WP:CIR issues. However, I'm currently of the opinion it's mostly due to English comprehension and not an inherent inability to understand policy. Having seen many others with similar grasp of English, I do think it's possible to mitigate with the right experienced editor to interact with them and teach them the ropes. Some of the articles I saw were definitely of the salvagable quality, so I might try and interact with them and see if I can convince them to try WP:ADOPT or similar. They seem to be good faith enough an editor that I think limiting to a subset of editing could be the right solution Soni (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Rock Stone Gold Castle again (was: Abuse)

 * Previous ANI discussion above Sections now merged - this is the section above this
 * ...and note this as well

A IP editor here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1119932337?diffmode=source￼ vandalised a sports person page by writing abuses in it. The IP should be banned from editing to prevent future disruption to the wp project. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You should report incidents like to to WP:AIV, you'll get faster action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That edit happened in November of last year.  Furthermore the IP hasn't edited since then. Why are you reporting it now?  Didn't you make a report above that turned out to be about appropriate reversions of your additions using badly mangled English?  Are you trolling us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your most recent article creation Book My Show. As was indicated in the previous discussion above, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors.  I don't have the patience or the time to correct everything, but assuming that all your other 12 article creation are as badly written, it'll take editors a fair number of hours to clean them all up.  Personally, if I were an admin, I'd be more inclined to block you indefinitely and nuke all your articles, but I'm sure more reasonable heads will prevail.  In any event, you should probably be partially blocked from mainspace at the very least. After all, WP:Competence is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beacuse, I found it yesterday. I saw a tweet in which a man was complaining that, couple of crickters article have abuses. So I immediately gone that article, so who did it and reported him here on AN/I. Tell me did I done any mistake. Its an example that I'm an editor with honesty and good faith. Do you understand that language, who dirty abuses that IP written on Joshua Little article. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I replied you, why I reported him so late, please read. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for serious problems, especially long-term and ongoing ones, not for reporting 2 bad edits made 5 months ago which were immediately reverted, and then the vandal never edited again. Reporting a problem that has already been fixed and hasn't continued wastes everyone's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Let It Be InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some ambitious soul should merge these as the first is still open. I'm afraid this is yet another WP:CIR episode related edit by OP It may go beyond English comprehension.
 * -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sections merged. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So they just posted this talk page message in response to a perfectly valid edit (that was missing an edit summary) that's relatively easy to figure out. Yes there's definitely a competency issue here and now they're harassing other editors unnecessarily with incoherent talk page complaints. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The irony of RSGC berating another editor for wasting their time is rather splendid... Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Why I'll bother anyone, what I'll get from it? I am volunteering in WP project. Why you reached on such a extreme point. WP guidlines also say that experienced editor should consider Good faith  of others. If you found any mistakes you can fixed them, if you don't want, then just tag them. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, editor, you alligations are baseless. My intention wasn't to bother anyone. I'm contribute wp in Good faith, you all the guy should be more tolerant towards non English speakers. WP is a global projects, Anyone can edit. My language is not that bad. Mistakes sometimes happens, but I'm honest and I'll avoid them in future. I myself report many editors at AN/I, who vandalised or broke WP rules. WP don't say that when we open an account that, we'll prohibit you from contributing if you did an error. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have already been assured that no one doubts your good faith, and we are quite tolerant here of editors at many levels of English competence, but it is simply the case that your English skills are not sufficient for you to be creating articles here. You demonstrate that in your articles, and you demonstrate that in every comment you post. It is not true that, as you write, your "language is not that bad": it  is  bad. Not to put too fine a point on it You cannot write English well enough to write for an English language encyclopedia .  This is not a blog, or a personal website in which simply getting the gist of what you want to say across to the reader is sufficient.  You  must  be able to write in English with encyclopedic quality, at least as well as a student in secondary school, and preferably better than that.As several people have pointed out, there are Wikipedias in other languages, and probably one in your native tongue.  Please take the advice that has been offered to you, and create articles for that encyclopedia, and keep your activities here to those things that don't require you to write in proper and coherent English.  We're happy that you want to volunteer to help, but you're not helping here, you are  hurting  English Wikipedia.  Your native language Wikipedia will almost certainly welcome you with open arms, so please transfer your desire to create articles there.I am sorry to be so blunt, but you clearly are not catching on to what you're being told.  If you don't stop creating articles, or even expanding existing articles, it is inevitable that the choice will be taken out of your hands, and some administrator will block you in some manner.  It would be so much better for you to simply accept the advice that numerous long-time editors have given you, and leave of your own accord.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting :Rock Stone Gold Castle| is taking a wikibreak.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that Rock Stone Gold Castle has been editing heavily, with no slow down, since they put that Wikibreak notice on their userpage. So it means nothing and appears to be more of a tactic to avoid scrutiny than anything we should pay attention to. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 00:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Welp. I guess I can be the bad guy and ask if we want to block them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only done a spot-check of their non-creation edits, but I do think that their article creations are bad enough to justify a block from creating articles in mainspace, or moving them from draftspace, if that is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I done any vandalism? No. WP himself say in Copyediting that you should help do ce to new, and less experienced editors in writing 'What they ment and what they mean'. I am taking long wp break beacuse, its editing affecting my studies, health and social life. I am a busy boy, I have lots of stuff to do in real life. I know lots of editors of WP are obsessed and Wikiholic, I don't want to be like that, Best of luck for your further with WP. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I want to tell you very politely, that harsh word like you recently used caused me stress, I previously said, I'm saying again, WP is a global project and you should encourage people from every walks of life to contribute. Be inclusive, be friendly and polite, try to understand others, give them chance to improve, you should guide less experienced editors like me. Nowadays WP is becoming very toxic place, I don't want conversation with toxic people. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Given this editor's continued poor edits (e.g., this, despite their alleged wikibreak), I have blocked them indefinitely from editing the Article namespace. Enough is enough. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 04:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely going to take a long wiki break, beacuse WP editing affecting my other daily jobs, I am a student, I know Wikipedia editing cause a addiction and I want to go away from wp, I want to be a outsider, I'll just read like a normal guy, will don't try to interfere in it. I know there are lots of people are doing editing here, if I didn't edit, WP will run absolutely fine. I just came to check messages. I read your history, you are experienced editor and experienced bad things during 2010, but that doesn't mean now, you harras timid boys like me. I hope you'll edit WP for your entire remaining life, just like you did since 2007. Do whatever you want to do man but don't trouble others. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Arjuna Wikipedia page includes a Bhagavad Gita spoiler in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph.
Hello, thank you for consideration.

I am reading Bhagavad Gita. I did a google search for the character Arjuna. I clicked the Wikipedia page for Arjuna. I was immediately exposed to a story spoiler of Bhagavad Gita.

I am not making the case that story spoilers should not be included on Wikipedia, I understand that this is allowed. But, putting this information in the third sentence of the first paragraph seems like a disservice to a curious reader of Bhagavad Gita, who decides to do an internet search of a main character. I'm making a case that is reasonable. This information about Arjuna placed in the third sentence of the first paragraph goes beyond encyclopedia purposes. Because it forces a spoiler upon the reader as soon as they start reading the page. This information might be appropriate if it was somewhere in the middle of the page or had some type of chronological order, but the third sentence of the first paragraph seems inappropriate.

Perhaps this is not intentionally malicious, but it's hard to imagine how the location of this information on the Arjuna page does more good than harm.

Would it be appropriate for me to go across Wikipedia, and insert story spoilers into the third sentence of the first paragraph of various pages? I think this would not be appropriate. This would be acting in bad faith and would do more harm than good. So, why is this acceptable on the Wikipedia page for Arjuna? I have checked other encyclopedia websites. No other encyclopedia website seems to include spoilers like this in the third sentence of the first paragraph.

So please, consider that specific details of who Arjuna killed in the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia page, are not super necessary for encyclopedia purposes. Whether intentional or not, having this information in the third sentence of the first paragraph is discourteous to readers of Bhagavad Gita. It robs readers of a piece of the story, by exposing them to this information prematurely.

If this information is removed from the first paragraph, it harms no one. If this information stays in the first paragraph, it might negatively affect other readers like me, by exposing them to a spoiler in the first paragraph of the page.

It would be reasonable if this information was in the middle of the page, or had some type of chronological order. But it's current location seems inappropriate and unnecessary.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJHans (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion of an article's contents should be discussed on that article's talkpage. You should be aware, though, that Wikipedia does not avoid spoilers, even if the concept of a spoiler makes sense is the case of a 2000+ year old text. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @MichaelJHans, I think you may have come to the wrong place. The appropriate place to address your issue would be the talk page of the concerned article. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the concept of a spoiler makes sense for a piece of literature that is over 2,000 years old, the article's talk page would be a better venue to discuss this, as there appears to be no administrative action to be taken here. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 06:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * --Jahaza (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a "sock puppet" situation. There is 1 IP address that made the same edits as me. So 1 IP address is me before I made this account.
 * "Nestofbirdnests" is not me, but I did defend them, because I thought maybe they were just a rational person who understood my perspective. MichaelJHans (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, Arjun doesn't kill anyone in the Geeta. It's a philosophical work presented in the form of a dialogue between characters who are in the middle of a battlefield, but the battle has not yet begun. The sentence you speak of would be a spoiler for the Mahabharata but you've already spoilt it by reading the Geeta first which is select chapters from the middle of the book. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Spoiler is a content guideline. So-called "spoilers" are permitted on Wikipedia, but trying to remove spoilers is not permitted. We do not cater to the superstitions or tender sentiments of stage actors and magicians, or various religions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol. I guess that does make me feel better if it's not included in Bhagavad Gita.
 * It's likely I would have spoiled what happened one way or another before reading Mahabharata, by looking up information or videos online related to the topics. Thanks. MichaelJHans (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, not really sure if "likely", maybe possible. Either way, the info is in my memory now so I'll never know. Valid consolation. Thanks again. MichaelJHans (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Frodo and Sam destroy the One Ring, but then pass over the Sea, Winston Smith is broken and loves Big Brother, and Yossarian learns that Orr has escaped to Sweden and follows after him. Oh, and Jesus is crucified, buried and and then disappears, presumably having risen to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God, and Soylent Green is people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You forgot Vader is Luke's father and Bruce Willis's character is dead all along. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 09:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Canterbury Tail Bruce Willis is dead while he's driving that air taxi?  That's impressive. David10244 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why was Hans Gruber so worried? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Air taxi? I thought he was driving a sled. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken AAAAArgh!  Why did you spoil the ending of the four New Testament gospels? I haven't finished reading them yet. David10244 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <puts down Soylent Green wafer, discreetly pushes it to one side> — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 10:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait on... I'm planning to re-read my absolute favourite book a third time in the hope that this time round, Lata will marry Kabir. Does this mean she still gets married to Haresh? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(Reopened) After reviewing this a bit more I have opened an SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Nestofbirdnests  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  13:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: the SPI has no been closed as no action. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

'Adem Sopaj from the Republic of Kosova' and his edits on the Visa Requirement pages
Adem Sopaj from the Republic of Kosova has been editing the "Visa requirements for [Country] citizens" pages to move or add Kosovo to the 'Visa requirements' section. This section only lists member states of the United Nations. Kosovo tends to be listed on the 'Dependent, disputed, or restricted territories' section, although not every "Visa requirements for [Country] citizens" page has that section.

He was warned in January 2023 about editing Visa requirements for Montenegrin citizens and Visa requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens without citing a reliable source.

He has commented on the talk page of users who revert his edits. On mine, he used personal attacks as part of his response to the edits I reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTu25 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, ! You didn't notify the reporting editor of this ANI discussion, I've done so for you. In the future, please keep this in mind for future ANI reports! Thanks! Tails   Wx  17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Adem indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Mastergerwe97 against a fellow editor.
Per the diff at Special:Diff/1149540808.

- L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Another personal attack at Special:Diff/1149541405. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  21:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for 48 hours for violations of the no personal attacks policy.  I note this is his second block for violations of that policy, the first being in May of 2021 by .  Both blocks seem to involve a dispute with the same editor, .  I would like to see some community discussion of the possibility of an WP:IBAN between these two users. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ONUnicorn I'd also suggest revoking their TPA, they literally told be to "Be a fag". - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  21:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I might recommend IP blocking as this person made the same edit. Conyo14 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IP edits from the same IP they were using should already be autoblocked. I will note that in one of the edits containing a personal attack, they did try to cite this source, which was published today (though they did so in the edit summary instead of in the body of the article). If the date was announced today and is being reported, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the IP is someone else who just happened to see the announcement and is trying to update the article. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim to be the same person using a VPN to change IP in this edit summary. Article needs protection. - MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has only had one true disruptive editor. Although his actions may be in good faith, his persistence did require a block. That being said, there aren't too many IP's or other users making constant edits that we can't handle. If this editor comes back with a vengeance to continue his disruption, only then would I recommend protection. Conyo14 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Conyo14 yes, fortunately they seem to have ceased. I agree that a protection is in order if they return. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  22:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

On their talk page, they say Be a fag then. Be a faggot. Fuck this website and fuck you cunts. This is a standard default to homophobia and bigotry upon being censured up with which Wikipedia should not put. Can we extend their block to indef in general principles of basic human dignity, please? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 22:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Trey Maturin, chiming in. Just for clarity to this discussion, I'd like to say that I'm heterosexual, but even with that, it's still an egregious personal attack. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Those comments are never acceptable anywhere. Auto indef with talk pages access removal. And done. I will always indef for any transphobic, homophobic, sexist or racist attack comments. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much also, and I'm aware that those words should not be used that way even with heterosexuals. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with indeffing and removing talk page access. Until they can learn to not attack other users (let alone, based on race/gender/sexual orientation/etc), they should not be allowed to edit. Not just because it's disruptive, but also because hate shouldn't be allowed a platform. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not heterosexual, but either way that shouldn’t matter: white people should be offended by use of the n-word, cis-males should be offended by the use of misogynistic words and straight people should be offended by the use of the f-slur. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you there. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) -  22:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Wikipedia has no room for that kind of hatred. Conyo14 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Taishonambu spreading classified info?
I gotta admit, this is a new one: has seemingly shared classified info to United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I can't really link diffs in case my suspicions are right, and I'm completely baffled as to what should be done here. Should it be suppressed/revdelled, or am I overreacting? Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 06:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Whatever classification level this info is, it's now on my flash drive, and I'm driving to GRU HQ. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 07:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And tried to put it back.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 08:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I might be missing something, but aren't they posting what secondary sources are gleaning from these "leaked" documents, and not straight from them? And don't we kinda do that all the time? //Edit To be clear, I completely understand the caution on your part, though. Ostalgia (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/Use of classified documents seems to be the only guidance I can find on the matter; and that 12-year-old discussion seemed to arrive at no consensus on what Wikipedia's policy should be on the publishing of information ultimately gleaned from classified documents. It basically kicked the can down the road to WMF's legal team to handle.  I don't know that they ever did.  If anyone else finds more information on what Wikipedia policy is on the matter, that may help here.  I have no opinion otherwise, since without guidance, we don't even know if what Taishonambu did merits any response from us, so long as they didn't break any other Wikipedia policies (such as edit warring, etc.)  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, I don't see anything else that can be done. As I said, I came here out of an abundance of caution, so to know it isn't explicitly forbidden is relieving. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would be strange if WMF's legal team considered reporting on leaked classified information as illegal, considering New York Times Co. v. United States is still the law of the land. Masebrock (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more complicated than that. That was about a civil action to attempt enforce an executive order to stop them from publishing.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a similar situation a decade ago involving Wikimedia France: classified documents related to fr:Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute were leaked, covered in secondary sources, and these sources were added to the article. It culminated in a Wikipedia admin being arrested to threaten him into deleting the article, but unsurprisingly Wikimedia France stood by him. (The article was then translated into Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station).
 * So I'd be very, very skeptical if this was actionable, and I really don't see any reason to exclude material just because it's classified. Since it's covered in reliable sources, and it's due, we should cover it. DFlhb (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone know what the copyright status of classified documents is in the US? Are they PD as government documents? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All works of the US government are de facto public domain, classification plays no part. A bonehead FBI official filed for a copyright on a torture manual in 2013, under his own name, resulting in a fully-redacted version available to anyone with a library card. While the FBI was simultaneously fighting the ACLU on its release. Bit of a tangent, but the relevance is in that MJ article, there are several quotes by experts on copyright status of secret documents. Zaathras (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We have plenty of articles on classified leaks that contain the leaked materials themselves, for example Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Legoktm (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They would not be copyright, but I would only include them as sourced through a reliable third-party source reporting on them as to avoid any interpretation or claims that a WP editor brought the information on their own to WP. NYTimes will routinely cover this stuff, for example, so speaking to the classified contents through the NYTimes filter is good. M asem (t) 02:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to remove/hide/suppress leaked classified materials, as long as it meets our criteria for inclusion (mentioned in reliable sources, etc.). We have plenty of articles that discuss classified leaks and their contents (in fact, we need more). Given that major publications are discussing their contents, security through obscurity arguments regarding their inclusion on Wikipedia have very little ground to stand on. Legoktm (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed the memo, this is not a project dedicated to upholding the United States' interests. This material is widely reported on, and pretending otherwise just makes Wikipedia a less useful resource. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Provided that the information is reported on in reliable sources, then I don't see a reason to exclude unless there is like a legal order from the US government or something. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oversight needed on United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Per WP:BEANS and WP:DENY, oversight is need on United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is useful information the Russians can use on there. Per WP:IAR, it should be oversighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.136.104 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See Requests for oversight for the correct place for such a request. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia is supposed to help and support the U.S. government in regards to its foreign policies? 121.136.51.26 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not helping the US government, that's the law. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you claiming that it is U.S. law that Wikipedia must oversight leaked classified information? Because that's not correct at all. Legoktm (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But the sources that are mentioned published that information, and they have not been shut down because they are legitimate institutions. How is this different for Wikipedia, since it is journalistic in nature in terms of being a place to document basically everything? Should the information on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) be removed too since they were obtained illegally?
 * Your argument is a bit confusing because Wikipedia itself did not obtain the information and is just reporting. From your user profile, it says you are Canadian, so how does this "law" apply directly to you? Wikipedia is not violating any laws here, the people who illegally obtained it are. 85.156.70.128 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Added information was from secondary sources reporting on leaks, if I got it right. So it's already on the Internet for everyone to see. Oversighting it serves no purpose. Also, at least one of those scary Russians (me) already got their hands on the info. It's too late now. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I usually appreciate tongue-in-cheek snark and sarcasm, but let's not make light of what's happening. Your country is currently committing genocide. So, yeah, Russia is pretty scary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Assigning collective guilt to entire country for actions of some shitty prez and his cronies is pretty scary too. You scared the shit out of me, so I'm off to drink vodka with the lads, have a nice day. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comments here are in exceptionally poor taste. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the comments being responded to be of even poorer taste. Oversight is now responsible for denying Russia access to information on widely reported intelligence leaks? Making a comment like your country is currently committing genocide is ok now? Should we start saying that to any Chinese editor? What about immigrants from China that retain their citizenship? How is that not a personal attack? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The request for oversight is dumb and will be handled appropriately by the people responsible for that. There is no personal attack in the above, just a reasonable bristling at someone making light of an awful situation in a way that is both crude and unconstructive.  If a Chinese editor were to make dumb jokes about the situation in Xinjiang with no constructive purpose, I would not be surprised to see people bristle.  --JBL (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont see anywhere anybody made any joke about the situation in Ukraine, rather a joke about how important it is to scrub any evidence of leaks that are widely reported on to stop the Russians. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am happy to agree to disagree on this point; however unambiguously the person who decided to make the discussion about Arado was Arado themself. --JBL (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Long term disruption, edit warring and general incompetence by Eni.Sukthi.Durres
. See recent history at ; ; ; ; ;. That's just the last week of edit warring and complete comfort allowing others to mop up their poor writing. No indication of accountability. As an example of their issues editing English Wikipedia, see Stiven Shpendi, where the text has enjoyed little or no correction from others. That's just one article. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * are you the king's servant which I mentioned at "that edit summary" which you asked why? Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Eni.Sukthi.Durres' contributions don't look that great.


 * Stiven Shpendi:
 * Cristian Shpendi:


 * —Alalch E. 22:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See also Cristian Shpendi and numerous edits to Myrto Uzuni, Arbnor Muçolli and at Agon Muçolli. These, too, are small samplings. Also the determination to restore this right after another editor began tidying up. The first question is how someone with these linguistic challenges has been entrusted to write at English Wikipedia for nearly ten years, and then why they haven't been blocked, given their responses by way of interaction. At any rate, there's a decade-long trail of edits like this left in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC) To answer my own question, they hadn't edited much in the course of a decade, until this year, when the issues of language and behavior became obvious. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted 's readdition of the content mentioned above at Stiven Shpendi. (I agree that Cristian Shpendi is just as bad.) After looking through their other contributions and reading their comments at talk page here, I'm concerned about their ability to edit collaboratively and with a level of writing that is expected. This edit summary doesn't inspire confidence. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu  <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 09:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I knew we were going to end up at ANI sooner or later--unless an indef block would have come first. And such a block wouldn't be unwarranted, considering the level of incompetence, disruption, harassment, and childish namecalling coming from this editor. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I saw your interaction, and took a quick look at their edit history. Bringing it here was not a difficult call. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kinu @Drmies "you were blocked thrice, you can be blocked, you must be blocked unwarranted" ¿Qué te pasa amigo? you talking only for block, you have to be so arsh in wiki? You guys bear in mind that I'm not from an English-speaker country, I'm from Albania a small and not very developed country and i just want to work here with additions and updates information for anything related with my country's national team, you don't like my long content, it's excessive you shorten it, you couldn't ok remove it, but DO NOT revert all edit including useful correct part, because I feel offended then. What you pretend to do here on wiki, you will expell anyone who isn't professional in this work and what you win, we are few persons here not millions so instead of throwing away our work, you improve it, thank you both. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the English Wikipedia, so it's kind of obvious that you need to be able to write English if you're going to write here. I don't think we're arsh, whatever that is. If you come here and your writing is not up to snuff, and you're wanting other people to help you, you could ask nicely instead of acting like ... well I think everyone knows what I mean. I'm not L1 either and if someone corrects my English, I swallow my pride and thank them. But in the meantime I will make sure that my edits are explained properly in edit summaries, and verified by links to reliable secondary sources. If you can't do that, then there is no net benefit to your contributions. If you actually can do that, if you provide properly verified and relevant content, and you are humble enough to realize that you can't be a dick when someone corrects your English, and you actually try to improve your written English, then we would love having you. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on this screed, I have to say that your level of English is not sufficient to constructively edit this encyclopedia. (This confirms that.) Given this, I'm partially blocking from the article namespace. If anyone disagrees or feels that additional sanctions are reasonable, they are welcome to implement them. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 01:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kinu if you partially blocked me for however not vandalising articles only exaggerating with information, then what you gonna do to someone who mention d*ck as the king @Drmies did it above, as you can see. I've been for almost a decade here and I never offended someone like this way, but this kids doesn't know how to face problems but instead use their own "accent", how about to meet face to face like adults you little princ, but without knifes or swords since. So you admin. what you gonna do with that, I'm waiting for your answer, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When you're in a hole, you should stop digging. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe an arsh hole? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 12:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice threat. Now blocked indefinitely sitewide. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 02:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

125.235.238.149‎‎: possible CIR and meatbot issues
This IP mass added auto-archiving to 59 talk pages, probably in violation of WP:MEATBOT since they do not appear to have consensus. Myself, have asked them to stop. It is hard to tell from their replies because their English is not great, but I think they intend to continue.

The archiving settings they were using are not the standard archiving settings recommended at Help:Archiving a talk page, and can potentially archive every section on a talk page because they are setting minthreadsleft=0. In recent edits they may have fixed this, I see a couple diffs where they stopped doing this.

They are also setting algo=old(365d).

Attempts to communicate with them are difficult because their English is not great. I cannot understand some of their replies.


 * Teahouse
 * User talk:125.235.238.149

Does this need admin intervention? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the archiving edits by this IP, many of its other edits have been to add "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." to years-old Talk page comments that were not signed at the time. This is a negligibly useful activity - albeit not as harmful as disrupting archiving - and represents more evidence that this IP is not here to improve the encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding unsigned to unsigned comments seems useful to me, as long as it's accurate. That's not disruptive, unlike the issues with their archiving. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @David notMD Please don’t add "Preceding unsigned comment added by…" including new archive formatting in one more time, I just clear an consensus to wait an new edit with made going to new everything is done to stop archive formatting. That’s an not small case. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your native language? Are you using Google Translate? I honestly cannot understand most of what you write. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, I using some words in discussion was closed in 7 minutes in Teahouse but actually, the languages is Vietnamese is an translation from English and now can be added to the English language and this is an encyclopedia not in Vietnamese, this is an English Wikipedia. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please write your own English-language text directly, without using translation software, if you can write English at all. A beginner's mistakes are easier for native speakers to understand than the mistakes made by something like Google Translate. You may want to return to editing the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia instead of the English-language one. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As it's been two days without further feedback from, and they are continuing to set up auto-archiving without getting a consensus first, and I and at least one other editor have acknowledged having trouble understanding their messages, I think we'd be content to see an unambiguous statement from them that they will refrain from setting up archiving on any additional pages without getting a consensus on the respective Talk page prior to doing so, as discussed in the third paragraph of Help:Archiving a talk page.
 * If the IP cannot or will not agree to this, then I would in turn propose that they be banned from archiving any Talk pages in the future. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, time to get another way edits not make archive formatting and I agree do this, I wouldn’t be banned archive in the near future and for some reason, I don’t get to be banned from editing Wikipedia and not making into trouble understanding their messages, I come to edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia first before returning to English Wikipedia since I not make archive again. @Doniago if IP address not install non-standard automatic archive, I want to edit some more and stop archive right now to turn off set up archive bot and if revive my IP address, not to make archive formatting, please do so if wanted to let you know. And one more thing, if edits another articles in the next time, I want to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia before returning to English Wikipedia to edit with some articles if I can. Thank you, I want to edit and understand an consensus policy. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don’t add archive formatting without getting consensus to make sure I apologize for any inconvenience in the one more time. I’m sure IP address will continue to add another article. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After 2 days not make feedback, I added 1 article in Vietnamese Wikipedia and since bonus add minor content to get an consensus, I never made archive again and if edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia again, I want to make useful contributions instead of archive formatting in one more time. If want to edit another article to update the counter and score, this is a good way to keep IP continue and never made archive again. Lastly, tomorrow not sure want to make archive and keep get consensus first and if go home, I want to make another way to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia instead of English Wikipedia first. Thanks! 125.235.238.149 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae, The IP geolocates to Vietnam. Bgsu98   (Talk)  22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

IP added archiving to a page while this ANI is in progress diff, and (for me at least) their responses are unintelligible so it is hard to assess if they plan to stop. Might be time for a sanction. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, @Novem Linguae if working hard to stop add archive bot, I can do it with another article, if final results is here and today, if I not add archive to multiple pages. Sources said:"If can clear an consensus policy first, I making to added new articles instead of archive formatting and can be clear to changes IP address and if go home not makes archive after unblocked on 26 days ago, I won’t be able to do it again until clear an consensus policy first to added in the next articles." Postscript: If I continue to added and not violate in MEATBOT when set up archive bot, your IP address will continue right now. Might be in 1 more time. If can to be results if today not to make works in the next talk page archives. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bgsu98, This IP address is geolocateds to Vietnam since I want to added some articles in Vietnamese language, if English is your second language, maybe returning to Vietnamese added first and some article can be added or fixed to comply this policy. 125.235.238.149 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctantly inclined to agree. I can't tell from IP's responses whether they understand our concerns or whether they're agreeing to make any changes in their behavior. They don't appear to have understood what I thought was the pretty straightforward proposal I made earlier, and if we can't communicate with them clearly on Talk pages, I certainly don't feel I can trust them to be editing articles or making technical changes to other portions of this project. DonIago (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I haved 2 IP address not continue to be making archive, this is an big story to tell about not making archive bot and it takes to continue editing Wikipedia, I want to make another way in this time, if tomorrow not make archive formatting again and edits with another article, I agree this to make any changes with an another page, not in behavior in the archive bot, I think want to stop add another archive formatting and I don't feel my bad can told to you I want to be edits another articles or making technical changes to other portions in this website. 2402:800:63A5:803E:F560:870E:64C2:7817 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop. Just... stop. Your English skills are NOT good enough to be editing the English Wikipedia. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to agree this, and can add in Vietnamese Wikipedia with the some article and for some reasons, if English skills is not enough to editing in English Wikipedia, @HandThatFeeds. Just stop another time to archive bot and if can wait result by administrator to be sure add another minor content in Vietnamese Wikipedia and if returns to English Wikipedia, My English skills will continue but will come to Vietnamese Wikipedia and if administrator takes no violation when added another article in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I just stop adding another archive formatting in all talk pages. If not violated in policy, I'm sure added content in Vietnamese Wikipedia because your Vietnamese skills are enough to be done in Vietnamese Wikipedia. Postscript: If continue to editing in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I will takes an last chance to let administrator not being blocked me and go to List of Wikipedias and view in 332 languages is available in all Wikimedia project to make sure I choose another language if want to edit all the Wikimedia Foundation project in all more time. I agree this. 2402:800:63B0:8E69:7559:A0EB:A496:1B12 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can administrator review and takes the chance to make sure not violated in MEATBOT? If today and tomorrow not work for all of the archive talk pages, I welcome to editing Wikipedia in your primary language. If Vietnamese Wikipedia is an target to edit minor content in this time, I want full enough to make sure after 5 days get messages about want need to do and total 6 users requests to stop adding another archive formatting. I want to result if return to Vietnamese Wikipedia and add in Vietnamese language and complete this time. If administrator review complete and takes final results, mission is currently complete and canceled added archive formatting in all talk pages. @HandThatFeeds, thank you for your help. If 100% sure not being blocked from editing, I can want to see again in Vietnamese Wikipedia and I agree to not banned in all articles in the future. 2402:800:63B0:8E69:7559:A0EB:A496:1B12 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't even tell what you're wanting to do. Just stop editing here, and edit the Vietnamese wiki if that's the language you speak. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see [] because only administrator in Vietnamese Wikipedia can blocked everyone was violated in policies and guidelines with Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy and Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. If waiting after 19 days to unlocked to come back in Vietnamese Wikipedia and set to do want to clear something as want to not edit myself and make it in this time and show me what to do in Vietnamese language after unblocked in time. 2402:800:63B0:A3BE:6CBE:5105:1686:1883 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because only administrator in Vietnamese Wikipedia can blocked with some users who violated in policies, guidelines, Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. I understand that confirms in all more, in the meantime, I want to editing in Vietnamese language after your blocked was expired to add some article sections to comply rule in wiki rules since they are not dead end in this my user. I want to get results and can find the score if return to added Vietnamese language before returning to English language later. And one more thing, I can tell you 4 things: 1) I not added another archive formatting in 4 days, 2) I want to understand this consensus policy and not violated in MEATBOT, 3) Waiting 19 days to unblocked your IP range address is 2402:800:6000:0:0:0:0:0/36 since that IP range address was blocked 9 times in a row, 4) The blocked was expired on 19:19, 1 May 2023 as well in 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC) to edit return in Vietnamese language instead of English language right now. 4 Things are very true, but some reasons because I want to keep result by administrators in English Wikipedia and see what happens if Nguyentrongphu want to editing in Vietnamese language and find out seriously about not to vandalism in particular this 2 language and all is general. Thank you! 2402:800:63B0:A3BE:6CBE:5105:1686:1883 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So you got blocked on the Vietnamese Wikipedia? Sorry, we can't help you with that. And you don't get to keep bombarding us with poorly written English. Just move on. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the IP has now responded from three different IP addresses, I'm starting to wonder whether an SPI may be in order at least to keep track of them, though they seem to have stopped editing...for now, at least. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but at least for three IP address and now get blocked since I want to keep an eye in 3 different IP address, so now I want to see what happens if administrator can want to get final score in this threads before closing shortly. Sorry for the IP blocked in Vietnamese Wikipedia, but I want to not ran out of moves in the next time. If want to wait to return in Vietnamese Wikipedia, I can want to wait if IP range address was blocked in 10 times in a row, I very too bad and just disappointed when can see [] can blocked in 10th chance in a row, since this IP address was get to vandalism in Vietnamese Wikipedia and the next block will longer since this 9th block was expired in 18 days. Please see [] because I haved 4 IP address in time because your block was expired in 2 months because vandalism and if your IP address continue to vandalism and the next block is longer. @HandThatFeeds and @Doniago I responded total 4 IP address and might be can waiting results by administrator to complete this question. And if User:WhitePhosphorus respond to me about not added archive formatting in 5 days in a row, I want to keep an eye in comply rule in wiki rules since all users says is stop immediately and not resume archive formatting again. I will need administrator can review this threads and take the last chance, if I not added archive again and not violated in MEATBOT issues, I will not being blocked again before your block in Vietnamese was expired in 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC), and your block in Meta-Wiki was expired on 10:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC). I can’t wait to see if I not resume archive again and sure 4 IP address can continue, 2 IP address was expired to edit Vietnamese Wikipedia first before returning to edit English language and 2 IP address can continue since @Drmies unblocked this IP address 2402:800:6000:0:0:0:0:0/38 because long term disruptive editing: edit warring, unexplained edits, unverified material, refusal to communicate and likely socking and IP address 2402:800:6300:0:0:0:0:0/40 was blocked by @Ponyo for rangeblock. And finally, if 2 administrators or another administrators review my threads since I not resume and never edits any archive again. If can to be continued in all general IP address to editing Vietnamese language instead of English language to make sure I want to not MEATBOT issues can continue to me or will be banned added archive bot in the near future if I can’t clear an consensus. Thanks you, @HandThatFeeds and @Doniago! I’m sure all IP address can continue. 2402:800:63B0:D805:440B:B3C2:6B10:3E7 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * After reading this thread, I have blocked 125.235.238.149 for one month and partially blocked the editor's IPv6 range from the Talk namespace. It is clear to me that this editor lacks the necessary communication skills to edit an English-language collaborative project. The block logs mentioned by the editor above are interesting. Spicy (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spicy Thank you. I want to get something to edit another articles not for the namespace Talk to keep editing and also can waiting unblocked to edit Vietnamese instead of English language first. 2402:800:63B0:D805:440B:B3C2:6B10:3E7 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! DonIago (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Block request


Please block Charlie Chan 1974,, already blocked in commons, another sock Allocato has been already global locked, this user is created in this wiki 14.0.168.216 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Something something, you're required to notify users of AN/I discussion on their talk page. I've done it for you this time, please be aware in the future. Something Something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GabberFlasted, understood, thanks 😊, I provide all the source of this user why he is a sock of AXXXXK 14.0.225.78 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GabberFlasted, Ping Yann 14.0.225.78 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ban appeal of User:Shoot for the Stars


The following is the ban appeal request of Shoot for the Stars. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to request an appeal of my ban that was imposed in August of 2021. I was 18 years old and had been uploading low-quality photos. This behavior ultimately led to my ban from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. In addition, another incident that resulted in my ban involved something I did back in 2019, when I was only 16 years old. At that time, I frequently added fake Beatles covers to articles despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was banned, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Sockpuppetry, originally using the accounts user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In September 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also want to mentioned that I was diagnosed with OCD and have been struggling with urges related to staying away from certain websites, including Wikipedia. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site.

I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. Since my ban, I have gone to therapy since October 2022, which has helped me to better manage my OCD and behavior. And for over six months, I have been editing at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, making positive contributions like creating new articles, working with the community on stuff like article deletions, and uploading pictures with the right licenses. My vocabulary has also improved tremendously since starting college, and I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with my new interest in law and crime articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner.
 * Comment having looked at UTRS 71442 and their semi badgering there and in parallel communications, I have some concerns about their urges to edit may still be an issue given the relatively slow pace in which the project can operate. Not enough to oppose, but definite hesitation. Star   Mississippi  12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * was only a small part of the issue here, a much bigger and much more serious problem was their repeated uploads of mug shots and the insertion of those mugshots into articles on living people  . This is a BLP violation (WP:MUGSHOT). Rather than thinking about the  they should be seriously thinking about the effect those edits would have had on the subjects of the article - one of the first things you would have seen when searching the internet for these people would have been a police mugshot - hopefully they can see how this is inappropriate? I'm not completely opposed to unblocking, but I think a WP:BLP topic ban would be well worth considering as part of the unblock conditions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Carrying over replies from user talk.
 * Star Mississippi sorry for the late reply. Was at school finishing up some homework. I have been going to counseling for over six months and it has helped me a lot. It proved to help me a lot as I was able to work on Simple Wiki without getting into any trouble. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to the IP address, I would totally agree with a topic ban on uploading any kind pictures to enwiki. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)"
 * --- carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept unblock/unban with TBAN on images. Especially adding images to BLP's.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adjust TBAN recommendation per S Marshall below. " (1) not to upload any images at all to Wikipedia and (2) not to add, change, or remove any images depicting living or recently deceased people from articles. Both restrictions should be appealable after six months." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And TBAN for BLP's in general -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that if unblocked this user should have two logged restrictions: (1) not to upload any images at all to Wikipedia and (2) not to add, change, or remove any images depicting living or recently deceased people from articles. Both restrictions should be appealable after six months.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good set of unblock conditions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the articles brought up by Abecedare I don't think this goes far enough - the issues appear to cover more than images. Maybe a full BLP ban would be appropriate. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept, with restrictions—per S Marshall /edit: and also with a full BLP tban/.—Alalch E. 12:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment After reviewing the editors recent editing history on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, I have doubts over whether u|Shoot for the Stars have truly stopped the conduct that got them into trouble on wikipedia, and concerns about their ability to edit in compliance with WP:BLP. They have continued to upload mugshots and low-quality images on Commons. And more seriously, see, simple:Stephen Buchanan, an article they created within the last month and are (so far) the sole editor of. Reading, for example, the Aftermath section of the article should make my BLP concerns obvious.
 * And the repeated appeals at UTRS (ten in total including on 3 Dec, 30 Jan, 9 Feb, 6 Mar, and 30 Mar) are not a good sign IMO that the off-wiki issues have been laid to rest. At a minimum, in addition to the above image-related conditions, I would like to see a topic-ban from BLPs, a disclosure of all past sock accounts, and restriction from using any alternate accounts on English wikipedia. Frankly, I am not sure I am comfortable with an unban even under those conditions, but I will let others weigh in on that. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (Updated the UTRS appeal count; had missed the most recent one. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC) )
 * I will be removing that section due to the BLP violation it presents. It can still be accessed in the above permalink.<span id="Nythar:1680880393533:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose given the information brought up by Abecedare. This user would either need so many topic bans as to make it difficult for them to edit anywhere, or they will simply become a time sink as other editors have to follow behind them to deal with new violations. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any unblock without a topic ban from FAC space. See this discussion for a brief overview of the disruption caused there, which hasn't been addressed. There are also civility concerns. This user has repeatedly made up excuses about their personal life to get out of trouble in the past so them now citing an OCD diagnosis in their unblock request does not give me confidence this is going to stop. Their work mostly included extremely poor quality articles being passed as GAs because they did QPQs for the reviewer. I would suggest this user spend their energies elsewhere. The potential disruption that will come from unblocking them simply is not worth it.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 20:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . --  Ponyo bons mots 20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . Thank you for bringing these issues up in a clear manner. I also have issues with their statement, such as the issue brought up by 192.76.8.84, and I just do not see a clear path forward at the moment. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I do not see any clear evidence that this user will not repeat disruptive and/or problematic behavior in the future (as discussed above by other editors). Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose without prejudice against an appeal at a later date, provided SFTS can demonstrate that he understands the spirit of the BLP policy, not just the letter. The "aftermath" section of the Stephen Buchanan Simple English Wikipedia article linked to by Abecedare had only one citation&mdash;a collection of Reddit comments put together by BuzzFeed. Essentially, an entire subsection of a biographical article was based off of a single comment on an internet forum left by an anonymous poster. There's no way of verifying whether that poster was telling the truth or not, and the subsection serves only to further defame the subject of the article. Even if SFTS didn't technically post that material on this website, it still shows what I consider to be a misunderstanding of the principles behind why we have BLP in the first place. Amplifying anecdotes about someone's life by adding them to a Wikipedia article without reliable third-party sources, especially if it's negative coverage, can have serious real-life consequences for them, and that is something we should do everything in our power to avoid, even for not-so-good people. Having said that, I believe SFTS is a good-faith editor, not someone with intent to do harm to others. I think what they should do is continue editing on both Commons and Simple English WP, maybe without contributing to anything biographical for a little while, and then submit a subsequent appeal in 6-12 months outlining the specifics of exactly how their contributions were below the standards of what we expect of our editors, as well as what they intend to do going forward to avoid repeating the same mistakes as the ones they made in the past. If they do this, I would support their eventual return. Kurtis (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you've nailed it there, Kurtis. They've got the wording of a great unban request nailed. If what they had said was true and verifiable, then it'd be a slam dunk (probably). But what they've said is not true and is verifiably wrong. This is a shame.
 * But perhaps, just perhaps, they're on the brink of an epiphany and, given time and some better focus on other projects, they'll get there. Until then, no, certainly not. But I join you in looking forward to the day that they succeed. Try again in six months or so, SftS, please? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And just to add onto my original statement, I don't even think SFTS is necessarily "lying" about reading up on BLP, but more misunderstanding what it entails in practice. The point is that words are powerful things, and putting out the wrong information&mdash;inadvertently or otherwise&mdash;can have unforseen consequences. Kurtis (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to support, with some hesitation, per Panini. Everything I said above still stands, and I'd like for SFTS to continue growing as an editor, as a member of our community, and as a person regardless of whether or not he is unblocked. However, Panini has swayed me into supporting an unban on a probationary basis, with topic bans in place on editing BLPs and uploading images (subject to appeal within six months' time). Reblocks are cheap, and if SFTS demonstrates a continuation of previous behavioral patterns, we can reinstate the community ban at any time. But let's unban him with the aforementioned restrictions in place and see what happens. Kurtis (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Accept unblock/unban with Tban on images and BLPs. A lot of evidence here is old; years old at this point, and shouldn't be recognized as a valid demonstration of his current behavior. Years can change a person's behavior and way of thinking, especially in a teenager (now a young adult). From the reading and research I've done (which has been relatively minimal) other cases of BLP mistakes are all in good faith. The user is merely struggling to understand incorrect editing patterns on BLPs, such as due weight. This could be from refusing to listen, but from what I see it's more likely from the fact that what they were doing wrong is never fully clarified; a link to a generic jargony policy on something as complicated as image copyright is overwhelming and confusing, and if a 17 year old were told they were doing something wrong without explanation, a sailor-swearing fit should be expected.
 * My argument lacks linkable evidence, much like how a religious' person core beliefs lack "scientific" verification, but hopefully that doesn't mean it's ignored. Just look at his behavior. The first block was from mere nasty behavior and refusal to listen. Nowadays it's mere policy mistakes and misunderstanding them. Repeated bad behavior comes from trying to fix mistakes, only for them to do something different incorectly and therefore having all mistakes bunched together. I also see very noticeable improvement in his behavior. Calling his impact on Wikipedia "bad" and "malicious" is completely disregarding their many edits to Simple English Wikipedia (only 2% reverted) and their many GAs prior to being blocked. What will Shoot for the Stars get out of continuing bad behavior on purpose? Why would he continue working on Simple English Wikipedia? What Shoot for the Stars could use is a mentor, or an adopter. Someone who is willing to spend the time laying out everything there is to know about what he is trying to accomplish and what he is doing wrong, not just slap down a template or link a random policy.
 * I understand some people aren't open to giving people more than one (or two) chances, or not assuming good faith with extreme scrutiny, but I do. But for the sake of making things easier, a topic ban on images and BLPs should suffice. Shoot for the Stars, dealing with images isn't even worth the hassle it seems like, at least for me. Besides, your best work comes from articles about songs and albums anyhow. Panini!  • 🥪 08:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was going to stay with my comment, but per these edits, they don't understand why their edits to a BLP were a problem, which brings me to ' need so many topic bans as to make it difficult for them to edit anywhere. Standard Offer isn't a get out of jail free card, they need to show that their editing has improved, and the problems raised here show that it hasn't yet. Star   Mississippi  01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an example of them not understanding BLPs, but rather them feeling like their good work is discredited. Their bad mistakes are heavily overshadowing the good ones. Panini!  • 🥪 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That they're continuing to have the same issues makes me think this is less a mistake and more a "does not understand the issue". An established editor using reddit and Buzzfeed on a BLP when they're in essence auditioning for another shot? Not an editor whose contributions in this area will be helpful. Star   Mississippi  18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A lack of understanding by definition precludes it from being intentional, yes? To me it seems then that that makes it a CIR issue...? casualdejekyll  18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. To counter the comment above, the bad mistakes are the reason they are blocked. The "good work" doesn't change the fact that the issues that led to the block are still there. It's not forever mind you, but just not at this time. Maybe this time next year, showing that they really do understand the issues at hand. Right now however, I have the feeling if we did unblock, they would be re-blocked soon after. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I'm not a regular at ANI (which is probably for the best...) I won't make a !vote to support or oppose this unban request but I would probably say I agree with Panini!'s thoughts on this. While I have noticed recently on simplewiki that a few of the articles SFTS created did not meet WP:BLP1E (enwiki policies apply to simple), he did make plenty of other helpful edits outside of that area: simple:WRRV, as an example. This definitely appears to more be a case now where SFTS doesn't understand policy instead of willfully editing disruptively – he did stop making those bad pages on simplewiki once one was nominated for deletion and BLP1E was explained to him. I'd also like to add that I've blocked SFTS on simplewiki, per his own request, and Taivo has done the same on commons. Considering he has requested to be blocked on two other projects, I don't think he is interested in continuing to edit Wikimedia projects unfortunately. --Ferien (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can treat this request as Withdrawn then. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They did try to withdraw once and was talked out of it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing
The user has been engaging in WP:RGW editing changing all text from British India to Indian Empire stating British India didn't include the agencies or princely states. And nation should point only to the country. The disruption went as far as September 2022. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia rather for a POV push — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All right then, give any one source stating the princely states were a part of British India. I've provided enough sources. You need sources to build encyclopedias. Not anti-India bias. A User Vif12vf has been reverting all my edits without having stated any sources to prove his claims, which I request he do. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PadFoot2008, you haven't provided any source, what you have provided are WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1681113696595:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Salvio giuliano 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All right, maybe that's true for the agencies. But my edit on Dir (princely state) had a reliable source clearly stating princely states were a part of India and Dir is a princely state. Do I also need to provide a source for Dir being a princely state? And do I need to provide a source explicitly stating agencies were a part of India? Will it be considered non disruptive editing then? What should my source state?PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by Fowler&fowler Padfoot has been promoting anachronistic POV on a broad swath of British India-related articles. It has gone on for much too long.  I, as an editor who has contributed to the articles Presidencies and provinces of British India, Company rule in India, Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, Partition of India, and Dominion of India for 16 years, feel that Padfoot has become highly disruptive.  Other competent editors and I should not be held hostage to relentless regression and puerile back and forth.  Some admin needs to step in and award a punitive block of at least a few weeks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You had failed to provide any sources to support your claim that "British Raj" also referred to territorial expanse of the country between 1858 and 1947. The Interpretation Act 1889 clearly mentions the difference between "India" to fulfil that criteria and the Imperial Gazetteer of India mentions "Indian Empire". Your maps itself which have been sourced from the Gazetteer mention "Indian Empire" in the title (also which you have miscaptioned as "British Raj".) You need to provide sources in Wikipedia. Your assumptions do not matter.
 * I greatly value your enormous contributions to Wikipedia and consider myself to be absolutely nothing compared to you but I just want to correct in a small spot with reliable sources. I don't have anything against you and I just want you to understand. I also understand that I've made some edits without providing sources, which might be viewed as disruptive and apologize for that. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment by HistoryofIran A lot of PadFoot's edits since summer (if not the majority), have been reverted. Click here and Ctrl + F "reverted". Their arguments to change the name of "British India/British Raj" were already rejected in at least two discussions, going back to June  and November . --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Writing so this doesn't get archived, as it's quite concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected hoax content and LLM use by User:Gyan.Know
While doing some WP:NPP reviewing I came across the article Yaakov Bentolila, created by Gyan.Know (and since deleted under G7). At first glance, this appeared to be a perfectly plausible article. However, when I looked a little closer I realized that none of the citations supported the content, and I could not verify that the subject even existed. I will repeat the text of my AfD nom here:
 * I can find no evidence that the person described in this article actually exists. The citations to the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post are dead (despite only having been added 5 days ago) and do not exist on the Internet Archive. The third citation to The Independent is about a totally different person with no mention of Yaakov Bentolila. There does seem to be an academic of the same name with articles on the Hebrew and Spanish wikis, but that's clearly a different person from the one described here. I can find no sources pertaining to a Moroccan musician by that name, which is quite strange considering that he was supposedly notable enough to earn obituaries in the New York Times and the Jerusalem Post. On another note, I felt that the writing style of the article was a little "off", so I ran it through an AI writing detector. It came up as 91% likely to be AI generated. I hope this is not a hoax, but all of the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.

Gyan.Know replied to the AfD, stating I am the creator of the page and I just want to say I thoroughly messed up on this one, and I too would like the page to be Deleted. I asked them how and why they came to create this hoax article. However, they have not responded to my ping, despite actively editing elsewhere. In the meantime, I took a look at their other article creations.Gyan.Know is a prolific editor, with over 2.5k edits and 44 articles created. Many of their articles deal with highly sensitive subjects such as antisemitism and the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I believe that most if not all of their recent creations contain falsified citations and unreliable AI-generated content. For example, see their most recent article, Occult writers and antisemitism. At the time of creation, it looked like this. There are no inline citations, only general references (in my experience this is typical of ChatGPT output). There are zero results for the first reference, "Occultism, racism, and the ideology of the Thule Gesellschaft", on Google. Likewise, the reference "The angle between two walls: Fiction, occultism and the question of history" appears to be fake, although there is a paper with a somewhat similar name about J.G. Ballard (who as far as I know was not a Nazi occultist). No results, either, for "The image of the Jew in German society and culture" or "Savitri Devi's mystical fascism: A religious perspective", and so on. Gyan.Know has since added inline references, but based on the history of the article I believe they are simply tacking these on to faulty AI-generated content. Likewise for the article Jewish economics - there are no results, for example, for the reference "Jewish Economists and the Making of the American Economic Association" outside of WP .I'm posting this ANI thread to get feedback from others on whether or not my suspicions are correct and if so, what should be done about this editor and the articles they have created. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Unverifiable and suspicious articles in highly sensitive topic areas sounds like an urgent reason to TNT. It's not believeable that this user has special access to a trove of books that aren't listed by Google. small jars 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * +1, regrettably. signed,Rosguill talk 18:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything they've created since the 25th appears to have false referencing apart from Legend of Exorcism, I not saying the referencing for that article is correct only that it doesn't share the hallmarks of the other articles. The rest should be TNT'd. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I noted below that that article is also falsely referenced. The subject is real, but the article is completely made up then falsely points to citations about the real subject, just like the biographies. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed several of the references provided in United Kingdom and the Holocaust, none of which appeared to directly support the text in the article. This doesn't look good. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like the first version of that article is AI generated (it's even complete with a citation to a paper that I have been unable to show the existence of anywhere). Gyan.Know has then googled "United Kingdom and the Holocaust" and added in "citations" at random without looking at what they actually say  (try it, most of those "citations" show up in the first page of results). So what we're left with is AI generated content with the first page of google results sprinkled over the top to give it the appearance of being properly researched. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A very similar pattern is in evidence at Piracy in the Indian Ocean. All of their creations may need to be scrutinized. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just their creations, earlier this month they did a bunch of edits where they "Expanded heavily" various articles, they also all appear to be AI generated (not to mention very unencyclopedic) . 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. All of their suspicious additions seem to be on or after 11 March 2023. Prior to that, they did mostly small edits, vandalism reverts and the like, at rather long intervals. Maybe they discovered ChatGPT on that date and it all spiraled out of control. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First article before the "Expanded heavily" spree, and apparently the test bed, was . RAN1 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * GPTZero says it's likely entirely written by AI  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I know this is off topic, but what's GPTZero? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A "detection" software similar to TurnItIn. https://gptzero.me/  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm checking out some of the non-controversial articles. R&B and soul music at least has real books referenced, but since none of them are in-line it's impossible for me to verify if these are falsified citations. The article itself is an odd subject anyway as the intersection of two genres without any real assertion for why these are covered together, and a couple of AI-generated-content detectors is pinging it. Legend of Exorcism is a real subject—but the sources do not AT ALL match the content of the article.
 * Articles they created BEFORE 2023 seem to (at quick glance) be proper articles. Compare this robust Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gridiron football and NASCAR career of Kyle Busch from 2021. A lot of the ones through 2021 seem to be routine splits for WP:ARTICLESIZE.
 * I think the move would be to TNT anything created this year for sure. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I was the one who speedied the initially found hoax. I concur that this is a Charlie Foxtrot of the first order; everything this user has done recently needs to be WP:NUKEed from orbit.  Nothing is trustworthy at all.  I may be generous enough to let them respond to these problems here first, but if someone were to indef them right now, I wouldn't object... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also File:Digital unrealistic potrait.jpg on Commons, it looks like a blatant AI creation especially with a blurred signature in the lower left corner. I'm not familiar enough with Commons to go about getting it deleted there, or knowing what their policy is on AI art. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks a lot like the signature for DALL-E from what I know. However it's different in that it's not YCGRB and it's also vertical rather than horizontal. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's actually the signature of Bing Image Creator, which is indeed powered by DALL-E. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  03:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another apparent hoax: Jewish economics. See for example the citation to Baumol, William J. "Jewish Economics." Jewish Quarterly Review 63, no. 3 (1973): 160-174., an article that does not exist. I have not deleted the article yet so that it and other creations by the user can be more widely reviewed. I assume an indef is forthcoming but will wait for a while for response/explanation. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Gyan.Know from article space and asked them to explain their conduct here. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Other recent hoaxes by Gyan.Know include Isaac Yaso and Akademia Nasionala del Ladino. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 Khalil Hachimi Idrissi is another BLP full of entirely fabricated sources, for a person who does not seem to actually exist. All 6 sources are about a journalist who works for Maghreb Arabe Press. I cannot find any evidence that this supposed physicist actually exists, he doesn't seem to have a profile with the African Academy of Sciences, the university he claims to attend, or google scholar, and none of his selected publications seem to actually exist. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They were going down a list of article requests, I think: WikiProject Jewish history/to do lists many of the articles they created just now. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @TenTonParasol You're probably right, Khalil Hachimi Idrissi is requested at WikiProject Morocco/to do. Rather than actually writing an article about the person at Maghreb Arabe Press they've used AI to create a completely fictitious article on a non-existent physicist. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and a) tagged all of their problematic new article creations with hoax and unreliable sources and b) rolled back their "heavy expansions" of articles without references in order to minimize the disinformation we provide to readers. I wouldn't oppose mass-deletion of the new creations at this time, but perhaps some people wanted to investigate more. We could also consider some other cleanup routes (for example, most of the Jewish-history related pages could be converted into redirects to related pages), or even leave some of them standing with tags if the subjects are clearly real and notable. signed,Rosguill talk 21:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The template AI-generated may be a good fit for these articles. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I added it and condensed it with the disputed tags, but not with the hoax tags. —Alalch E. 22:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The article that was created for Yaakov Bentolila had all of the appearance of a real article, including very genuine appearing (but non-functional) references with links to The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post. Maybe we all need to raise our alert levels, but the verisimilitude that is achievable with today's AI is sufficient to fool many experienced editors, let alone readers. The fact that this (and other) hoax articles was created by an editor with a few thousand edits should really send a message that it's not enough to assume that experienced editors don't pull these kinds of stunts. Be ready for far worse in the near future. We will be taking the Turing Test on a regular basis going forward. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be worth looking into creating a bot a bit like but looking for AI generated articles/content? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! I think there is open-source AI detection software out there. Maybe @User:The Earwig could weigh in?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PageTraige developers discussed automatic detection a bit in T330346. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is just a belated harbinger of a much greater doom which has already arrived behind our backs. I bet the real LLM spammers, whoever they are, laugh at cases like these for how badly they cover their tracks. /hj small jars 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading the rest of the discussion, and the oddly apologetic but vague and non-commital answers from the editor, I have upgraded the block by to site-wide. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY TNT! Incredibly dangerous to have AI created and fake content about these topics.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just want to say, if this is a case of you being very naive and not understanding what trouble these AI creations can be, don't be afraid to admit that, I have myself been in trouble at ANIs before and fellow editors are far more kind and understanding than what one fears when one has f*cked up.★Trekker (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with blanket deletion of any of the user's articles that have not been substantially reworked with references verified by other users. I also concur with the user having been blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All of his recent new articles have now been deleted, many of them by me. All that's left is to wait for the editor to start explaining what is going on. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have/want to say anything in my defence. Like recently I said to some user who informed me about some edit they made on a article created by me, i told them the same thing as this: I refuse to refute against any edit or action take by users who are far more superior than me (i know there isn't supposed to be a superior subordinate thing on WP).
 * Thus, if y'all thought it was appropriate to delete all the edits made by me this year, I am not going to complain. Moreover, I am thankful in part because I was feeling I was getting addicted to editing on WP. Checking my watchlist all the time, and if I don't have my phone in my hand ATM, I would just keep thinking about what edit should I do. I feel like this was not good for my health.
 * But I would still like to say sorry to everyone who was hurt and/or harmed by anything done by me. My deepest apologies. Now finally, I don't really wish to be unblocked, and you can keep me blocked for a indefinite period of time.
 * Also sorry for being a little late.  Gyan Know  contributions? 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Gyan.Know. Thanks for posting here. Can you please let us know if you have ever used AI to write articles, and if so, when you started doing this? There is a lot of cleanup to do and this information would help. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to humbly apologize that I won't be of any help to you guys now. It's just that after getting blocked I have lost all spark for editing on WP and and I don't want to get myself further involved. Again, I would say sorry for my any potentially harmful actions.  Gyan Know  contributions? 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also sorry for being a little late.  Gyan Know  contributions? 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Gyan.Know. Thanks for posting here. Can you please let us know if you have ever used AI to write articles, and if so, when you started doing this? There is a lot of cleanup to do and this information would help. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to humbly apologize that I won't be of any help to you guys now. It's just that after getting blocked I have lost all spark for editing on WP and and I don't want to get myself further involved. Again, I would say sorry for my any potentially harmful actions.  Gyan Know  contributions? 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar issues with User:BrownDan101?
I see somewhat similar issues with the creations of User:BrownDan101, whose articles have some facts and then mix in a lot of unverifiable or simply wrong statements. Whether this is deliberate or just the result of using AI is unclear, but the end result is similar disruption by posting fake information. I moved to draft Draft:Kaisertown because the intro claim "The neighborhood is named after the Kaisertown Roller Rink, which was built in 1922 and became a popular entertainment venue in the area." is complete bullshit. But I only got really worried after reading Draft:SS Chemnitz (was in the mainspace before I moved it): while there was a SS Chemnitz from 1901, it had different dimensions, different passenger numbers, a different builder, a different company, ... The sources are about other ships or give a 404 error, except for this suorce which gives the story of the real Chemnitz, none of which matches our article. Fram (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * GPTZero pretty much confirms that Draft:Kaisertown is AI generated. The lead describes it occupying an area that is absolute nonsense.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  12:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * GPTZero seems to be pretty good at detecting if something is AI generated. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 12:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But we need to be wary of both kinds of error. small jars 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure we do, but checking it by hand (especially the initial version) shows similar mistakes to other AI articles I've seen. Fake references, emotive style, absurd factual errors that would be very odd for a human to make but easy for an AI that can make plausible sentences but can't evaluate truth. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * posted over at VPT that GPTZero pinged basically every Wikipedia article I tried, so follow-up checking by a human is probably going to be necessary. NPP and AfC folks - I don't envy you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Draft:St. Ann's Church (Buffalo, NY) is also at least partially AI generated.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, fake references. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and it looks like it's owned by the Muslim community in Buffalo who bought it last year after it had lain empty for ten years.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  16:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ...as is Tino Mancabelli  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sonnenberger (surname) which you PRODded is also absolutely ChatGPT created along with falsified references that don't exist. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh. That account has the same pattern of relatively minor, intermittent activity before a sudden change in behavior, this time on 25 March 2023. Has everything they produced on or after that date been AI generated? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per investigations above, the answer seems to be yes. What needs to be done about these drafts (if anything)? Tagged for deletion as hoaxes? Left to wither away in draftspace? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The drafts aren't causing too much of a problem at the moment as they're not in article space. I would like to see what the editor who created them has to say... it is possible that they're not aware of how problematic ChatGPT is and have made an honest mistake. Whether it is likely is another matter.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So far, we've been letting them wither away in draftspace pending Large language models being beaten into shape as a policy, from which a new CSD-G15 might be born. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. I've tagged the drafts that weren't already tagged, just so any poor unsuspecting soul who comes upon them will be aware of their perils. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently 81 drafts that transclude ai-generated. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trey Maturin 84 now! Hmm - I wonder if it is worth going through the other contributions by the authors of those drafts and running them through a checker? Skimming the first dozen, I noted two or three cases where editors have produced other drafts or mainspace articles in the same period, and while I'm not wildly confident about my chatbot-spotting radar, they don't all look great. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh hell, yes, I never even thought of that. Yes, that would be a very good idea, please. There are several free AI detection services online if that would help, although I've never used any of them and can't vouch for their accuracy or usability. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just ran the other draft created by the author of the first draft on that list through writer.com as a test. It came back as having a 1% chance of being human-generated. Yeah, checking the other creations (and large additions to 'live' articles) by those editors is something we're definitely gonna have to do. Bugger. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 15:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trey Maturin Gone through them all with the aid of GPTzero and tagged a few more (plus reverted one presumably well-meaning contribution in mainspace). What a waste of everyone's time these are... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and then I plugged in one of my own articles, to discover it also gets tagged as AI-generated by GPTzero. No substantial text added since 2020. And now I'm just completely lost (unless this is the bit at the end of Bladerunner, who knows). Andrew Gray (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was one of my worries with these detectors. The problem is that these AIs have been trained on Wikipedia articles. And why wouldn't they be? We've got millions of high-quality, useful pages of knowledge-filled text. Of course they'd use us for training! But that means the resulting generated articles look plausible whilst being bollocks, and our actual handwritten 100% organic artisanal articles look AI-generated to an AI-generator. This is huge bind and my relatively tiny brain can't think of a way around it. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What are the odds that and  are the same user?  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  17:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty similar, though hard to tell based on just three edits. But what would be the point? ConcreteJungleBM was created hours before anyone had mentioned BrownDan101 here or noticed that article, so it isn't like they were evading scrutiny. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As in the above case, I have indefinitely blocked BrownDan101 from article space, and asked that they provide an explanation here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I experimented with AI to create about 5 or 6 Wikipedia pages. I did not know this would be a problem. Reading all of the above comments it seems like it has been a problem and the AI was not as accurate as it seemed. Also me and ConcreteJungleBM aren’t the same person, as I saw that was also a question. My intention was definitely not vandalism or hoax articles. I apologize for any confusion and/or trouble and will refrain from making new articles with AI. BrownDan101 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In the 11 months since you registered this account,, have you become familiar with Wikipedia’s core content policies? If not, would you please do so now? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just read them over and definitely understand how the AI articles could fall under original research and how the verifiability in the articles is lacking, even with the references the AI gave. BrownDan101 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think the obvious remedy here, if we are to WP:AGF from would be to WP:DRAFTIFY and and WP:PROD all of the articles he has created in the past few days.  Catfish   Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  19:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, PROD only works in article space... nuke them WP:IAR?  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  20:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment: This general comment probably belongs in a different venue, but I'd think the obvious solution to AI-generated content is WP:TNT. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is why I’ve advocated for a CSD-G13 “page created by an AI chatbot” or the like, but the push-back was huge: what if there was a useful paragraph that got deleted? what if a newbie felt bitten by having 20 articles about imaginary antelope-beavers deleted? what if an admin accidentally deleted a non-G13 article? and I gave up. Without that, TNT, IAR, ROUGE and dragging each article to ANI will have to suffice, alas. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll take that approach.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been using G3 for the ones from users in this thread. It may not have been intentional in this case, but the fake references output in these articles seems like enough to make it justifiable as a hoax article. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems appropriate--LLMs can be used to generate all sorts of content that in limited contexts could be useful (e.g. this comment was written in a browser that applies autocomplete), but the incorporation of fake references crosses a very clear line regardless of the editor's intent. signed,Rosguill talk 20:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s interesting (and, personally, I think right) but a discussion here a few months ago — apologies, finding a link to it when I’m on my phone is a hiding to nothing — came down against G3, since they’re not “blatant” hoaxes. Indeed, both of the editors in question here have fallen back on the defence that they fell for the hoaxes they themselves created because they were non-blatant. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 20:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but I think it comes down to how "blatant" is defined (which is admittedly vague in policy). You might see it as "obvious to the untrained eye", but I'm interpreting blatant to mean "might not be obvious at first glance, but after checking it becomes absolutely certain to be fake". At least, that's how I read it and how I will keep acting on it until I'm told otherwise. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you will (eventually) get loud pushback on that. I think the pushback will be wrong, wrongheaded and non-useful, but I can see it happening. Nevertheless, you have the angels on your side as far as I am concerned, so please carry on. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion? Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118 - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I start going thru the unblock process to get unblocked? BrownDan101 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would probably benefit you more to wait a couple of days, because it’s a little bit disturbing that it’s taken you 11 months to learn that copy-and-pasting faked nonsense into an encyclopaedia is not ideal and those concerns are still pretty fresh. I’d wait until all your fake articles have been deleted and every other substantive edit you’ve made has been double checked by others, then ask for an unblock. But your mileage may vary and you may be able to convince an admin that you won’t try to fundamentally undermine everything we’re collectively trying to do here again. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In his defense, based on what dan says here and elsewhere, he wasn't aware of how AI creates articles. He seems to have assumed it legitimately collates information from elsewhere on the internet the way google for example would. So at least he wasn't necessarily aware that he was copy pasting faked nonsense into Wikipedia. Fully agree with the rest of your comment though. It's best to wait until all the previous edits have been looked through and examined, because otherwise the new edits coming in (which we also have to check) will make the job of checking the old ones a lot more complicated. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These are fake references, friend; every bit of the AI generation is a verifiability issue. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 20:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the user has apologized, said they didn't realize the problems with factual errors and references, and promised not to do it again, do you have any objection to unblocking? The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , there is no way under the sun that I am going to unblock this editor from article space without a formal unblock request and a much more detailed discussion of their creation (perhaps inadvertently) of hoax content. It is essential that every editor have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of their work before adding new articles to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * AI-generated articles with fake references are an existential problem for Wikipedia which cannot be taken lightly. A hard line must be taken now, while things are still (I hope) relatively under control, meaning that editors who have been discovered adding such articles to the encyclopedia need to remain indef blocked until the community is absolutely certain that they understand what they did that was wrong, and why it was more damaging then simple vandalism can ever be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * On his | talk page, BrownDan101 has helpfully pointed out that he also used AI in one other page, namely Alfred University Football, which has since moved around quite a bit, and is now seemingly located at Alfred Saxons.Licks-rocks (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the change(s) he made to the page; if he used AI for that, I don't know what the value was. The edit is fine. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 15:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I went into the page logs, and that is not entirely accurate. I was mistaken about the new location: He did indeed create the page at one point, but it was then moved and subsequently draftified for lack of verifiability. It's just that unlike with the above articles, nobody realised what they were looking at. Dan seems to have then gone to the new redirect target, where he performed the edit you described (which is why I assumed that it was still the same article). --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * has made a formal unblock request. He seems to understand what he did wrong, explained that he didn't realize that the AI was making up fictional references, and promised never to do it again. I'm inclined to accept as his apology seems to be sincere, but I'd like to see some feedback here first. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support an unblock. The unblock request (and their comments leading up to it) seem sincere and remorseful. They make me feel comfortable that this user would not use LLM on Wikipedia going forward. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also support an unblock. Possible to assume this was a good faith error on his part, and he will not repeat his mistakes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading through his comments at his talk page, I support an unblock of BrownDan101. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked BrownDan101. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Another Chat GPT penned article
I killed a draft that looked to have been written by Chat GPT yesterday... Draft:Scottish Mountain Bear This one was daft enough for me to spot it as a hoax from the title.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  11:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) Is the (miscapitalised) Scottish Mountain Bear any relation to the Pacific Northwest tree octopus? Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pity the DNA study in Journal of Zoology doesn't exist...  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I know we already have a discussion about possibly creating a bot to review new articles, but maybe it is time to discuss a CSD criterion similar to WP:X1 WP:X2 that was used during the WP:CXT nightmare? The verifiability issues between AI-generated text and raw machine translations are similar in nature. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean WP:X2. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant, fixed now. Thanks IP199! The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I suppose there's no way of installing some sort of a filter to screen these articles first? I can only see this problem growing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There probably is but it would probably be quite complicated and also have lots of false negatives and false positive. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Presently, there is no reliable machine test. If there is one that I'm not aware of, I'd love to know; it's in my industry, after all. I'm of the opinion that all offenders need to be blocked on sight; I'm with BMK above on the existential evaluation. This will flood Wikipedia soon, and not just in AfC; small changes across a variety of articles would have escaped notice. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 05:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If the technology isn't good enough yet, I can only see two responses:
 * Spend an inhuman amount of time watching out for suspicious article-creation patterns and manually checking for signs of LLM-usage within articles.
 * Change the rules about article creation for everybody in some way that will make the methods used more transparent (e.g., requiring editors to expose their writing process by writing articles in small, incremental edits in the draftspace, rather than uploading an article all at once).
 * small jars 08:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's precisely the opposite problem. The technology is too good. LLMs are aiming to deceive so that text appears to have been written by a human. Any reliable machine test that is made could be incorporated into LLMs (sort of like an oracle machine) to reject output that the test recognises as "machine-written" and regenerate until the text passes the test. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah but you can't integrate laborious human checking into the training loop, at least without click workers (hence my first bullet point), and these tools aren't currently being designed to produce realistic record of a writing process behind what they generate (hence bullet two). small jars 09:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To me it seems the obvious solution is not to attempt to detect the human or non-human origin of a given swath of text, but rather to make an efficient machine able to reliably verify that the cited sources (1) exist and (2) support the text content. How far is current technology from this point? (Assuming that all the sources are online or otherwise machine-accessible.)Of course such a technology would also pose an existential threat to Wikipedia, but at least it would be a different kind of threat. Shells-shells (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A fully automated wiki is no better than a database of caches. When/if AI gets good at truth, it will have value as a client-side alternative to WP, not as part of it. Whether or not it will eventually become redundant, WP currently has unique value as a human-written encyclopedia, and we shouldn't let that be ruined with tools that are both inferior and available elsewhere. Information resources are like paints: WP is one colour, GPT is another, and if you mix them together without thought you'll probably end up with something that is less trustworthy than either were to begin with. small jars  12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting asides the question of offline, unreadable, or paywalled sources, this would require tools to understand what the source says; we have policies against copyright violations, after all, and excessive quotations do not a good article make. We're not there. I'm not going to provide a timeline; that would be irresponsible. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 18:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It exists, and it's not very good (announcement, github). DFlhb (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the interesting links, @DFlhb. They have a metawiki page too. Shells-shells (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Large language models
In case people were unaware, an attempt to create a policy about AI-generated articles is happening at WP:LLM and editors' thoughts would be very welcome (and perhaps more useful, dare I say it?) at the talk page. There's also links to other on-wiki AI-generation discussions and various article and talk page templates there. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 14:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Chatbot banned in Italy due to date privacy concerns.. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not unique to AI; just a privacy thing that revolves around OpenAI not having servers in the EU/complying with privacy regs. There are concerns, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 17:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Any specific application of LLMs is only tolerated, not recommended. Why is it even tolerated?! It's inimical to building a trustworthy encyclopedia. There's no way we should ever say that an act which is an indeffable offense is "tolerated". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no good telling me! You need to be telling the people working on WP:LLM! :-) — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Watching a statement of principle get devolved into bikeshedding over terminology is an even less justifiable use of my time than visiting a drama board. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Painful indeed. What do you think of the trim? It was meant to sidestep the endless discussions on wording, and to be simple enough that it can easily be adjusted to be more discouraging towards LLM depending on emerging consensus. DFlhb (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that an RfC (or several) would be beneficial at this point. Right now we have a lot of back-and-forth based on the personal opinions of a few interested editors, and getting community consensus on a few big questions (Do we allow LLM use at all? If so, when must it be attributed?) would help immensely. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Feel free to launch the first ("do we allow?") DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe a one-to-two year policy-level moratorium (a policy with an expiration date) on any LLM use on Wikipedia, outside of responsible experimentation in userspace, could be met with consensus—as a compromise between editors who hold a view that a blanket ban is justified and useful, and those who have different views. At the end of this period, the time-limited blanket ban (1) could be converted to an indefinite blanket ban, (2) could be prolonged for a definite amount of time, (3) could be replaced with a policy governing LLMs that does something other than impose a blanket ban, (4) or it could be simply let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, (4') or it could be let to expire so that there is no policy about LLMs, but maybe some other, non-policy, PAG material is created, and/or some new organized activity/effort such as a project, tool, whatever, is introduced, and/or existing organized activities, such as processes, are modified to better deal with the problem of LLM misuse.—Alalch E. 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can also understand a view that nothing like a policy or an organized effort by editors is useful, that the solution to the problem will have to be technological, and that we have to wait and see, and learn from future incidents like these. Another possible view is that the problem doesn't need any special attention, that LLM drafts can't break out of draftspace, that LLM-originated articles with fake references are easy to detect, that an incident like this where a seemingly average and reasonably trusted editor with 2.5k edits creates many such articles is rare (this is one and only such incident in several months) and essentially easy to deal with (they were all deleted and no one complained), that any ideas like those above are a waste of time, and that we should carry on as usual, and maybe talk as little of LLMs as possible so as not even to, inadvertently, make people aware, who would not have been aware, that using LLMs on Wikipedia is one possible way to spend your time (and cause disruption). —Alalch E. 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that, with a strict standard set at WP:LLM that is well-enforced and has teeth (e.g. indef block upon violation), every statement made, every sentence and clause written would be liable for checking. Every reference would need to support statements made. In that case, it's little different from writing an article from scratch, and the end result would be of decent quality. If someone used an LLM which was then not detected by specialists and editors, then wouldn't that meet wiki goals? But this might require a reworking of administrative practice around warnings and hoaxes. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 17:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If we can't trust Good Article reviewers to do anything more than check little green checkboxes instead of actually performing an in-depth review of the articles they are claiming to review, how can we trust users of LLMs to check every sentence, clause, and reference? The same people who are likely to use LLMs as a crutch in the first place are also likely to perform these checks perfunctorily, if at all. What teeth would you put into such a standard? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh, therein lies the rub. That, and proactively warning people against it is highly likely to backfire by giving people ideas. But the post facto cleanup, I think, will one day be unsustainable, hence my suggestion of a block-on-discovery thing as damage limitation. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User warning templates
I've taken the liberty of creating uw-ai1, uw-ai2 and uw-ai3 to help in the clean-up that this thread has revealed as being required. They're a rewrite of uw-test, which seemed most appropriate. Assistance in creating the template docs and integrating them into our various systems would be very appreciated because I know my own limitations. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So now this is going to be some ridiculous delete on sight thing regardless of content? Makes me tempted to make an LLM written article with completely accurate information and references. Silver  seren C 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably, if you're willing to put in the effort to verify every statement made with references listed, copy-edit it, adjust for weighting concerns, you're putting in just as much effort as you would be writing it from scratch. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just saving on the writing part itself. Less of an effort for me, but I can understand those who aren't great at writing prose in encyclopedic style. Silver  seren C 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That slippery-slope/strawman argument is beneath you, Silverseren. LLMs may in future be useful to us, but right now they're creating plausible hard-to-detect bollocks in mainspace and we don't have the tools to deal with it beyond dragging the editors in question to the dramaboards. Short-circuiting this with an escalating no-thanks user talk template seems much less work. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This has still prompted me to set up a ChatGPT account just now. Gonna see how well it does with summarizing existing news articles. Avoids the whole made up references and information thing from the get-go. Silver  seren C 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know this was written to provoke this reply, and loath as I am to say it to someone with your seniority here, but please don't post the results of your experiments to the 'pedia, not least because the potential copyright/plagiarism issues surrounding LLMs are a huge bomb under Wikipedia at the end of a very long fuse. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the copyvio you're referring to inherent to the LLM being the one that wrote it? Or are you referring to copyvios of the source text I'm giving it? Since I'm checking with a copyvio checker to make sure the text is paraphrased enough to not be a problem like that, as I would for any other article (and any DYK submission too). As we already have systems in place to check for copyvios from basically anywhere on the internet. Silver  seren C 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we go. I fell into the trap you set for me by pointing out this huge future issue (which will end up at SCOTUS and Strasbourg in the end) out because it doesn't apply to your own personal processes right at this second. Well done, I guess. You got me. Thanks. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about? There are ongoing cases, yes, with one question being whether the LLMs have their own inherent copyright or not for the original formulations of stuff they make. Kinda like how we as editors have a form of copyright for the articles we make here. Though there is the one art case that finished already that determined that the original art isn't copyrightable to the artbot, so outside of any potential copyright held by others, the art is in the public domain. (Which prevents commercialized usage of the art, so that's good at least). But is that what you're talking about? Potential inherent copyright held by the LLMs? Silver  seren C 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Silverseren, I don't think there's any point to this. As you can observe above, we're trying to deal with a serious issue here. It is deeply unproductive to suggest that we're making this a "ridiculous delete-on-sight issue" when there is two excellent use cases for this template provided right above your comment. Especially note the almost always in the template. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "is that what you're talking about": I can't speak for Trey but that's not my impression of the biggest problem. The "potential inherent copyright" is a potential problem, of course, but not the big copyvio problem. The big problem is that the LLMs cobble together text they pulled from who knows where, and some or all of that source material may be reused in a copyvio way, much like the human editors who copy text from sources but then hide their copying by using a thesaurus. We don't allow close paraphrasing by human editors, but with the LLMs it's much harder to tell what they're closely paraphrasing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the rant above for a moment, I think these templates look fine. Perhaps connecting the third template a bit more explicitly to already having been warned/doing it repeatedly would be helpful? E.G. in the third template "repeatedly adding AI generated content in defiance of warnings is considered vandalism" rather than just "Adding AI generated content is considered vandalism".Licks-rocks (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and edited the phrasing in that direction. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion about these templates is continuing at the dedicated central warning template talk: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace —Alalch E. 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

LLM-generated information as a tool
Following up from the above discussions, I wanted to ask what everyone's thoughts are about using an LLM like ChatGPT as a tool for consolidating information in order to make research easier and more focused. For instance, I recently asked ChatGPT about Black September in Jordan, specifically about what sorts of military actions were undertaken by the Jordanian military and the manner in which Palestinian civilians were treated relative to members of the PLO. An excerpt from ChatGPT's response: "The Jordanian government distinguished between civilians and militants, and while innocent Palestinians did suffer during the conflict, they were not targeted in the same way as PLO fighters. In fact, some Palestinians who opposed the PLO were allowed to leave Jordan unharmed." Let's say I took this line, attempted to verify its accuracy, and if it turned out to be a correct assessment of the situation, searched for reliable sources to back it up. Should I mention the fact that I used ChatGPT for this purpose in editing a page on Wikipedia? Is it best that I avoid using LLMs in this manner?

For the record, in revisiting ChatGPT's response, I noticed the paragraph directly above saying that the Jordanian government "was supported by other Arab countries, including Syria, which sent troops to help suppress the PLO uprising." In fact, Syria sent troops into Jordan to help the PLO, not King Hussein's regime. This casts some doubt over the overall veracity of its other claims. Kurtis (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You might get some good answers and discussion if you repost this at WT:LLM. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even when summarizing ChatGPT often makes mistakes, as you mentioned. I honestly don't see where one could use LLMs responsibly because it's whole purpose is to create the most plausible looking text, i.e. it is designed to fool humans into thinking what it is saying is reasonable. Galobtter&#39;s sock (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reddit Moderators Brace for a ChatGPT Spam Apocalypse. Cheery. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT comments at AFD
Here's something that's just turned up in an SPI filing, ChatGPT generated AFD comments by spammers. You can see that most of the text has been generated by a LLM, and it's been customised by tweaking it to fit the article. The ChatGPT stuff is capitalised properly, the customised bits have every word capitalised (e.g. ). 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ChatGPT being used to defend homeopathy? Merry fucking Christmas. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This was also likely happening with an LTA at AfDs and even GARs JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That final flourish is just perfect. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "In conclusion, Ontario Highway 11 is a road of contrasts. Or, as the natives call it, maize." XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

IP editor disrupting Egypt-related articles


IP editor rapidly making disruptive edits across a range of Egypt-related articles. Coming from multiple IPs over the last couple of days, clearly the same person, but 45.101.73.81 (the first one above) seems to be the long-running one at the moment. The IPs above are those I've seen so far.

Types of disruption: Often changing the names of people, cities, and lakes to what they claim is the "Egyptian" pronunciation while disregarding the current article names or even the cited source (e.g., , , , ). Inserting personal commentary (e.g. and see some of their edit summaries at Ras El Bar's revision history). Various arbitrary deletions throughout, sometimes on a large scale and sometimes edit-warring about it after they've already been reverted (see Ras El Bar's revision history again in particular, compare e.g. and ).

Warnings given on previous IP talk page here and multiple warnings on 45.101.73.81's talk page here. Disruptive edits have continued since the latest warning. R Prazeres (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

non adequately explained revert, baseless accusations from M.Bitton
I added properly cited content from a reliable source to the Western Sahara article. However, my edit was reverted by the editor M.Bitton, who commented "UNDUE even if that's what the source says". When I attempted to seek clarification by initiating a discussion on the talk page, M.Bitton accused my edit of being "POV serving a political agenda". ("Unexplained revert" section), and apparently M.Bitton is refusing to continue the discussion. SimoooIX (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to the discussion (to highlight the out of context cherry picked words). M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We are waiting for "better things" (as you mentioned in your comment) SimoooIX (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Simooonix, per the warning at the top of this page when you start a new section you are required to notify MB on their talk page of a discussion opened here. I have done that for you this time, but please in future read the instructions, they're often quite important. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. but M.Bitton reverted it. Thank you.SimoooIX (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Simoooix, my bad! Valereee (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearing up one issue, yes, SimoooIX properly notified M.Bitton (as demonstrated by M.Bitton's prompt appearance here). Valereee; always check the page history before handing out chastisements. Anyway, main idea. SimoooIX and M.Bitton don't appear to be on speaking terms, and apparently there's a history beyond this exchange. can I interest you in explaining more fully, either here or (better) on the talk page, why the edit is undue? I can guess, but many editors won't have have the historical context. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have, though most of one needs to know about the contentious subject is already covered in the article in question. M.Bitton (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your POV. SimoooIX (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Western Sahara is claimed by Morocco. This territory is also claimed by the SADR, a partially recognized state which is backed by Algeria. SimooolX mostly edits about Morocco/Algeria, across a range of articles. Many of their edits to various articles have met with opposition, particularly from M.Bitton. I ran across this at Talk:Pastilla. It is worth mentioning that SimooolX is currently blocked from the French Wikipedia for vandalizing their page on the President of Algeria. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a small precision: they have been blocked indefinitely on fr.wp for insulting the Algerian president. On this project: when their first edit was reverted by someone else, they left a comment on the talk page and this unjustified personal attack on my talk page (third third ever edit, despite having never interacted with them). All this, within 15 minutes of joining the project. M.Bitton (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's funny how you're attempting to avoid addressing the actual topic and instead reiterating points that have already been discussed with administrators. SimoooIX (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @MrOllie I appreciate your response, although it may be slightly out of context. The statement "  could be misleading and not entirely accurate. I would advise everyone to read the article for a more comprehensive understanding.  " As I have previously mentioned, I usually focus on editing about North Africa, including its history, politics, and culture, and that's my area of interest.
 * . Probably you missed it, but we've already discussed that. So you're just repeating things. Thank you for returning to our actual subject. I'm not going to discuss any thing out of subject. SimoooIX (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't discussed here in this ANI section, and when the reporting party has a history of disruptive editing in the topic area at issue that is extremely important context that reviewing editors should be aware of. MrOllie (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You could have opened a new section and discuss your issues. Since it's not related to our current discussion, it's causing disruptions. SimoooIX (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't how ANI works. See WP:BOOMERANG, which is very relevant here. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the case. It's entirely appropriate for the behavior of a reporting editor to be examined in a report brought to ANI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. It's alright. Actually M.Bitton personally atacked me here and  here  SimoooIX (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Simoooix.haddi & M.Bitton were off to a bad start (Simoooix.haddi's 3rd edit was an unacceptable aspersion), and have recently been edit warring elsewhere in a way that appears like they were both at fault.
 * In a 12 January 2023 ANEW report filed by M.Bitton against an IP the conclusion also was that both were edit-warring. On 16 January 2023 M.Bitton was blocked 31 hrs for edit warring. Another January 2023 ANI report filed against M.Bitton turned out to be a content dispute, though one that could have been handled better (although I tend to agree with M.Bitton here on the content I think the other editor deserved a much better and friendlier explanation of why their very high-tier RS are not followed in this case; the other editor has not edited since).
 * In the current dispute between Simoooix.haddi & M.Bitton, I am seeing again a refusal by M.Bitton to properly engage and explain why they oppose the addition of the reliably sourced content (again I suspect that they are right on the content issue, but they are not showing why they are right in a respectful and engaging manner). Both editors here are failing to assume good faith, though both do seem to be editing in good faith. With regard to M.Bitton there appears to be a longer-term pattern of ineffective or lacking communication that may need addressing. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're spot on that SH's 3rd edit is absolutely unacceptable, and seems like a bright-as-day declaration of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and intended to intimidate a perceived POV opponent. I don't blame M.Bitton for not assuming good faith after that point, and together with the vandalism on fr.wiki and attempts to railroad this discussion makes me think that an indef WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. signed,Rosguill talk 23:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes my 3rd edit was a mistake which i apologized for. Wikipedia was totally a new world for me back then. However i'm not the only one who had issues with this editor. SimoooIX (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion was clearly off topic. SimoooIX (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, You may be right. Though this edit a week later by M.Bitton is of a similar nature, Simoooix.haddi's response asking about the meaning of 'nationalist edit' while they used the very term themselves first seems indistinguishable from trolling. This all happened before the block and unblock of Simoooix.haddi, but given that working out a consensus with M.Bitton was a condition for their unblock just two days ago, and that they are already at ANI again essentially for failing to properly seek consensus with M.Bitton, Simoooix.haddi is clearly not learning. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Although ANI was not my preferred option, M. Bitton's refusal to continue the discussion (and that wasn't the first time) has left it as the only remaining choice. SimoooIX (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Now, I'm really looking forward to see people discussing the original topic. I left M.Bitton a question in the original discussion (i asked for a clarification of what they said) but they haven't answered yet. I'm not opposing if anyone wanted to join the discussion there. SimoooIX (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Simoooix.haddi, I strongly advise you to withdraw this report, to get to the point at Talk:Western Sahara (why is your addition relevant in the context, and not simply –as alleged by M.Bitton– a Moroccan irredentist talking point?), and when the positions of both editors are sufficiently clear, seek dispute resolution (WP:NPOVN or WP:3O are appropriate here). Focus on clarity: what precisely do you want and why. Be honest about your own motivations and try to understand the reasoning of other editors: see their point even if you don't agree. Be aware that the situation you are in now is at the very least 50% your own fault, and that if you continue to lay blame with others while not thoroughly fixing your own mistakes a WP:BOOMERANG indefinite block will soon be in order. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP range 96.143.180.xx; rangeblock needed
See recent history here; IP range is 96.143.180.xx. Iseult  Δx parlez moi 04:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like actual IP range is 96.143.160.0/19. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana"> AP 499D25  (talk)  05:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More long-term disruption at Flow (brand): link to page history. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana"> AP 499D25  (talk)  05:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nick Bizer
Nick Bizer has been persistently adding unsourced content on various pages. I have given the user multiple warnings about this issue but they continue to add content without a reliable source. This has been going on for months now. It should be noted that the user is currently blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia due to not following etiquette.

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 13:39, 9 June 2022
 * 13:13, 9 January 2023
 * 16:29, 17 February 2023
 * 14:59, 18 February 2023
 * 10:45, 19 March 2023
 * 14:42, 11 April 2023
 * Per This the user seems to be acting in good faith but doesn't know how to add citations correctly. Maybe if you helped them instead of trying to get them blocked, it may go better for everyone involved.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tried to help the user and even looked online for a reliable source and never find anything. The user's sources are either forums or social media accounts. Here I explained why these are usually not reliable sources but the user continues to use these type of pages as his sources. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that diff is that one of the sources they say they are using is facebook. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear from Nick Bizer's very cordial replies to warnings on his talk page that he means no harm. But his good faith is obviously not enough to stop this ongoing pattern of adding content without reliable sources. The problem began almost a year ago. It is not another editor's responsibility to teach him proper editing or to find sources for him, which Telenovelafan215 kindly attempted to do anyway.
 * The core of this problem is stated very clearly in Nick Bizer's reply to the first warning he received in June 2022: I really hope I haven't been causing any trouble... I mainly do those changes based on the facts that I remember from that time, when I still used to watch those kind of programs (I don't really watch them anymore, but let's say that I have too much free time and few things to do for the moment which is bad thing, frankly, ha-ha!). The editor effectively admitted, without realizing it, that a lot of the content he added was purely OR and that he had a feeling his edits could cause problems. But he then makes an offer which substantiates my belief that he's very nice and doesn't want to be disruptive: If you wish, I can just stop editing, there's absolutely no problem for me.
 * In this warning from February 2023, he was warned again about adding unsourced content. He replied with a link to a source for the information, and when he was told it wasn't reliable, he said, Had no idea... Anyway, nothing's wrong if you delete it... I mean, I found that site while browsing and thought it would be fine to include the information, althought it's far from important, really...
 * Unless Nick Bizer learns what reliable sources are, and how to correctly add them, I think we should take him up on his kind offer to stop editing, and thank him for his efforts. Stoarm (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Xenophobic trolling: User: Slovakheroaugustus
This user is clearly not here to participate for the creation of an useful encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Slovakheroaugustus He admits on his userpage that he is Magyarophobe=Hungarophobe: 1 He had only some edits, but according to his admitting, he is making only xenophobic trolling against Hungarians in Hungarian relation articles: 1 2 3 4 5 I think it is waste of time to revert the vandalism instead of focusing to create good contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of all the things that are not here, this is at the top of the list. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP at Battle of Adwa
Please see:
 * 1) and edits immediately preceding that first add material. Subsequent edits reinstate material.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Edit summaries reverting the IP have requested the IP discuss the subject edit. A section to discuss the disputed edits was opened at the article TP here. IP has not engaged in discussion. An edit warring notice was placed at User talk:2A00:23C4:6214:FA01:D1AA:8DF1:5B3C:6C9A.

Most recent IP address notified here.

This page is regularly protected for relatively short periods but IPs that disruptively edit return as soon as pp is lifted. PP is one solution though a range block might alo be considered in this case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Page protected x 1 year. IP 2A00:23C4:6214:FA01:0:0:0:0/64 rangeblocked x 2 weeks for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by IP on 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs
The indefinitely blocked user, Mastergerwe97, has opened a sockpuppet account on his mobile device through this IP, 2601:193:8201:7140:85B9:E841:6F30:A19B, and is continuing to disrupt the article. He was previously blocked for using a homophobic slur. IP will need to be blocked, page protection could be needed.

His edits include:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Conyo14 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Further evidence:


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * This is a common pattern with this editor and they won't let go until they are forced to move on. Article protection until late June would stop them until next year. Deadman137 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * More evidence:


 * 1) Deadman137 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be more appropriate for WP:SPI or WP:AIV? Aintabli (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the the editor is engaged in the same behaviour that they were blocked for yesterday I would say that this is the right place at the moment. The supporting evidence is just to show that it is the same person. Deadman137 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I've semiprotected 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs for 3 months per a request at RFPP. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 06:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncited edits from Young Chove 15
Young Chove 15 has been adding an uncited cover song to Say My Name, and on the talk page, they demanded that this cover version not be removed in all caps. Looking at their talk page, they have been warned multiple times to stop their disruptive editing, but it looks like all pleas fall on deaf ears. I have reverted Young Chove 15 multiple times for adding uncited information across multiple articles and have explained to them that they are responsible for citing the content they add, as per WP:BURDEN, but they are not listening to reason. This user has been doing more harm than good over the fast few years, and I believe something needs to be done about their behavior. ResPM (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR. ZsinjTalk 01:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Zsinj, they had already stopped, a while ago. Is the block necessary? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Drmies, considerate of the lack of responsiveness to warnings, and weighing the option of semi-protecting the page as an alternative (which would not prevent further edits by this editor), I chose the 24 hour block. This duration is brief and they maintain their ability to submit the unblock request if they realize prior to its expiration the reason for it. Their user talk page remains on my watchlist for awareness and response if appropriate. ZsinjTalk 02:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

IP editor keeps reverting edits on Sandbox and gaming the system
User:91.206.69.225 has been reverting edits and keeping their revision on the sandbox despite undoing many times. I don't think this would count as edit warring, but gaming the system as well (which is why I'm posting here). Vamsi20 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We encourage people who are experimenting with editing, which this IP appears to be doing, to use the sandbox. It's better than experimenting literally anywhere else. And a bot periodically rakes the sandbox, so no harm no foul. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, but they have also been blanking their talk page and removing warnings, although I guess that isn't that big of an issue because it's in their userspace.
 * But wouldn't the sandbox issue fall under 3RR? Vamsi20 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It’s the sandbox. No one is going to block an IP doing harmless experiments in the sandbox. And you are biting the IP. Courcelles (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh well, i guess... Vamsi20 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry for that Vamsi20 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that as a policy in my decade here – indeed, never even considered it as something someone would care about, what with it being somewhere specifically designed for fucking about in – so, umm, no, probably not. And even IPs are allowed to blank warnings on their talk pages: our admins are smart enough to see a blank talk page and think "hmmm, this has been blanked" rather than "oh, no warnings have been given". But warning a user about using the sandbox as a sandbox and then edit warring with the sandbox user over their use of the sandbox as a sandbox is... well, it might be thought to show a lack of perspective, possibly. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm yeah, that was a horrible response to that in hindsight on my part. Vamsi20 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? It’s the sandbox, harmless edits and now we’re dealing with both an AIV and ANI reports because an IP is using the sandbox as a sandbox?  Please go do something productive.  Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. No. It's the sandbox. Unless you are adding libellous, copyrighted or other prohibited content, it isn't a violation of our policies.
 * 2. Users are allowed to (in most cases) remove their own warnings. See WP:BLANKING.
 * 3. Except for non-autoconfirmed users who try to game user rights (which IP addresses cannot obtain, so I don't know what you are referring to), there isn't much to "game" on the sandbox. 173.167.177.193 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It may also be worth copying into this thread, as they also reverted the IP editor removing the warning from their talk page, and then escalated to a Level 2 warning for doing something that is not against policy. Please don't do that again: IPs are people too. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread should just be closed. As Courcelles said above, this report is not achieving anything productive and in my opinion, it's a waste of our time. 173.167.177.193 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Long-term partial block needed for this IPv6 range
This IP range:

has quite a history of disruptive editing and BLP violations, on the following article:

A look at the editing history from the IP range shows this editor made many BLP policy violating edits on 1 December and 6 December 2022, all of which have been revdel'd under RD2, and resulted in them being blocked twice in the past.

Since then, they have went on to make a certain kind of unconstructive edit over and over again at an irregular pace: 20 Feb 2023, 8 Apr 2023, 14 Apr 2023.

Looks like we could make use of a long-term (at least 6 months?) partial block from that article here.

— <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana"> AP 499D25  (talk)  05:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅. I've pblocked the /64 from that article for six months. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 06:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User pushing information not linked to the article
user:Khirurg on the Article Vurg is pushing an information which is not related to the article but to one individual (personal achievments, deeds and personal information such as background and ethnicity). The article Vurg is about a region not an individual. We discussed in the TP and seems that the user has difficulties understanding basic sentences (the point that i was saying) so i would like to get help from a third person to judge the situation. Talk:Vurg, Special:History/Vurg RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(Not) sockpuppetry
I got notified by a local WikiEDU course instructor that their students got slapped with a permaban with socking with their groupmates. Contacted original blocking admin but a bit slow in responding. Am writing here as they are having the assignment submission deadline in 10 hours. (My role: I manage and process these enquiries for a local affiliate) One of them had tried appealing but their assignment deadline is coming

Am requesting some help to either unblock or some advice from fellow admins.

Accounts:


 * and

The Education dashboard (the concerned course):


 * https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/The_University_of_Hong_Kong/CAES9720_Academic_Communication_for_Pharmacy_Students_(2022-23)/students/overview

1233 ( T / C） 07:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's wrong that they got banned for sharing an ID? Deb (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deb if I am correct it's two students in a group having two different accounts but editing the same sandbox to submit one article as assignment 1233 ( T / C） 07:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It would probably have been wiser to create a draft article rather than use a sandbox. Deb (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, will relay that to the course instructors. 1233 ( T / C） 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should be discouraging sandbox edits or drafts in user space, however, a simple notice on their user pages would have probably gone a long way to prevent any misunderstandings. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have requested them to add it to their future handouts when I found that out 1233 ( T / C） 10:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've undeleted User:Pharmacystudent000/sandbox, User:IloveDPPH/Topical hydrocortisone and User:IloveDPPH/sandbox while we get this sorted. For the record I see no reason for these blocks to stand. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked User:Pharmacystudent000, who has appealed in the correct way. I advised the other student to do likewise. Deb (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked the remaining student. I'm not sure an unblock request was necessary, per WP:NOTBURO, but that's academic at this point.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1681374980828:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Salvio giuliano 08:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether the block is good or not, that's a medical article written by someone who has apparently never heard of WP:MEDRS and should not enter the article mainspace. MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam / SPA
We seem to have a cross-wiki spam campaign, promoting an otherwise little-known musical artist: see https://www.google.com/search?q=Bui+Quoc+Huy+site%3Awikipedia.org

One of their MOs is to simply blast their edit on top of existing articles; see their edit to Sam, for example. They are also busy shoving stuff into Wikidata.

The point of origin appears to be https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Thebuiquochuy, but they are now engaged in sockpuppetry and IP editing. See for example, and this and this. They also seem to have uploaded (now-deleted) photos into Commons: see here. There may well be more, but I haven't got the time to investigate further at the moment.

Given the cross-wiki nature of this problem, what is the appropriate venue for discussing this, and how can this be stopped? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like a global block (or several) is in order, considering the accounts you mentioned are both globally locked. Admittedly I'm not that familiar with the process, but m:SRG is the place to go. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The cross-wiki side of things has mostly been handled as I've deleted the article of the subject in small wikis (after stumbling upon this thread by coincidence). The sources seem your typical paid-for sham publications that we encounter daily. A few admins are already looking at it on afwiki and they will make their own decision accordingly. Also, please do  not  nominate this for deletion on eowiki. They have a different system that requires more explanation than just "x-wiki spam". They decided to keep it in their own AfD back in early March per the sources. An admin who wanted to keep the article is active on the talk and you can start a normal discussion there explaining your point—that is if you want to. ~Styyx Talk ? 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User Sirhewlett: Frequent insertion of unsourced material despite multiple recent warnings to stop this
Would like to bring to the attention of Admins the user. As per title they have received repeated warnings on their talk page to stop disruptive insertion of large amounts of unsourced information yet have continued to do so despite these warnings. Believe this has gone beyond the point of simple warnings and stronger action therefore necessary.

Talk page as current

Recent repeated disruptive unsourced edits to Smosh

Apache287 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Actions are continuing, also their general behaviour appears to be just inserting whatever they want into articles despite content ranging from minor to straight up political vandalism . This is despite notification of referral to this noticeboard.
 * Please could this be looked into as a matter of urgency. Apache287 (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For further information, this user appears to be the IP address editor, who already has a final vandalism warning on their IP address and a similar pattern of behaviour. Apache287 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits from IP editor


For about three to four months now, this IP editor has removed content from articles without explanation (mostly alternative names in the lead and infobox). Despite warnings in the past, their behaviour has not changed. I have just given them a warning about removing Sámi names, but upon a deeper examination of their editing history, this seems to be a recurring issue. They haven't engaged with any of the comments on their talk page thus far, so it seems unlikely that they'll change their editing in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP has made about 50 edits since the beginning of 2023 and has never left a talk message or an edit summary. A block may be needed to get them to communicate. Other editors have left messages on their talk four times since 1 January. Their anti-Sámi campaign is their most distinctive behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston: It seems they have continued removing alternate names without consensus. I've also noticed that they keep changing German IPA transcriptions to unattested pronunciations, chiefly the diphthong ei [aɪ] to [æɪ], which they have done at least five times by this point (including one today). All but three of their edits have been undone in some way, and they have yet to reply to any of their talk page messages, so I agree that they should be blocked until they learn to cooperate with other editors. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Other editors have reverted just about everything this IP has ever done. Getting consensus is not optional, and being constantly reverted ought to be powerful feedback. The IP has continued to edit without responding here, so I've blocked them for two weeks. Any admin can lift this block if they become persuaded that the editor will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP 2603:9001:7500:3242:fccf:e04f:c45c:73d9 (and similar) at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine
Please see following diffs:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [
 * 4)

ANI notice posted here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) Using this address (2603:9001:7500:3242:706b:3a36:c7d6:eb67) the IP would asset that their comments are acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

UPE - User:Shouryasbaghel
Undisclosed paid editor continued editing despite several warnings. User made numerous promotional edits to articles. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * User blocked by RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You edit conflicted me saying that! Yeah, blocked as spamming/shilling/promoting/UPE, whatever you want to call it.  Admins will be able to see they created a spammy article as far back as 2016. Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Min-Seo O'Connor
User:Min-Seo O'Connor seems to be doing a bunch of random reverts along with "this is your only warning" messages on editors' talk pages. I got one, and others who did are responding on the editor's talk page. Perhaps he needs a block? Dicklyon (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The user was |blocked about 40 minutes ago by Spicy. Their edits were mass reverted by MaterialScientist, myself, and a few other users. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Was blocked, you mean? Good. No indication on their talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Tag-team edit warring by promotional SPAs at Aegean Oil
As discussed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, there appear to be a number of promotional SPA and IP accounts engaging in edit-warring in order to restore self-sourced promotional material on the Aegean Oil article. Despite being repeatedly asked to respond, most of the accounts have never responded to repeated notices on their talkpage regarding the issue. One of the IP users has responded to the above COI post, and gave in my opinion an unconvincing denial. . The accounts include, , and the IP range. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courcelles has blocked the users and the IP range and semi-protected the page. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Accounts blocked, pages protected. What a mess those accounts have made. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And now I’ve reverted the article back to before all the spamming and puffery. At least I’m not itching to G11 this version. Courcelles (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Paolo E F Maurício
See contribs. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Only edits are complaining about "extreme left ideology" and trying to add plainly inappropriate controversy sections to promote their POV, after being warned and asked to find another area to edit. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No thanks to this POV pushing… Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Nalinsharma80 is still creating unsourced articles
has been an editor since the beginning of 2017, and has made just over 3000 edits. Their focus is geographical locations/administrative divisions in India and Indian politics, particularly small or local political parties. Thir user talk page has more than 40 speedy deletion notices, 20+ BLP prod notices, 33 draftification notices, and multiple warnings (including several final warnings) about addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced articles. They have been blocked twice, including one 42-day block back in 2020 for "persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content, refusal to discuss". A previous ANI report three months ago resulted in this unambiguous final warning.

Their editing behaviour has not changed, however. Yesterday and today, they created five unsourced articles which have since been draftified by other editors. Two of the drafts were immediately submitted for review by Nalinsharma80 without any changes:,. They have also continued to add unsourced content to many articles, e.g. this from today. They have never posted to a user talk page. I'm afraid it doesn't look like this is going to change. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. I see they've been blocked before, repeatedly warned, and, apparently, are unaware of the existence of their own talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Need help with Nexon page. Myself and 3 separate editors want a controversy section but 1 editor reverts edits and got into dispute with me on my talk page.
I want to bring the Nexon page current with the current controversy regarding Dark and Darker. Since this is the biggest gaming controversy in international news in a little while. But one editor thinks he has more voting power than 4 editors and he doesn't bother to research. I caught him saying it isn't news but I linked him 4 major gaming articles from last 24 hours Netherleash (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Small issues in video games often get magnified as "controversies" and try to be push as that in WP. This is yet another case of that. M asem (t) 15:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.ign.com/articles/dark-and-darker-devs-distributing-game-on-discord-as-playtest-goes-ahead-amid-legal-issues https://www.eurogamer.net/dark-and-darker-dev-asks-players-to-torrent-latest-playtest-after-removal-from-steam https://kotaku.com/steam-pc-rpg-dark-and-darker-ironmace-torrent-playtest-1850338181 https://www.gamesradar.com/dark-and-darker-devs-ask-fans-to-torrent-april-playtest-because-its-taking-time-to-resolve-the-steam-situation/
 * I assume the editor with whom you're having a dispute is, whom you've failed to notify of this thread. You must do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I did inform him. What can be done? He's outnumbered based on Nexon edit history page. We need to honor the wishes of 4 genuine editors. Nexon needs a Controvery section today while it's breaking news. Readers have a right to be informed on major controversy. Netherleash (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're saying about honoring wishes. In this edit, you are adding a "Controversy" heading, which is deprecated, and you add a sentence, that unencyclopedically written stuff about thousands of fans leaving some place, without inserting a reference that proves it. This edit basically does the same thing, but worse. If you add something to a sentence/paragraph that has a source at the end, you are implying that that material is verified by the source. It is not. The revert was absolutely correct, and it seems to me that you need to practice editing a bit more--and that you shouldn't run to a noticeboard the first time you get corrected. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also for the record, I did inform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soetermans￼ but they deleted the notice promptly from their talk page. I petition this board that this user be blocked from Wikipedia for period of time this board finds appropriate. The actions of this user are suspicious, disruptive and anti-concensus. Netherleash (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * they deleted the notice promptly from their talk page—Did not delete notice. —Alalch E. 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You may want to duck the WP:BOOMERANG that would be heading your way if you keep this up. Per Drmies above, the edit was correct in being reverted. You need a source to validate this, which you do not have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And don't insist on packaging your desired additions as a controversy section.—Alalch E. 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking of boomerang, here's a message sent on their talk page following Soetermans'  : This is your final warning. You must reach concensus before reverting. Do it again. And I will petition admins lock you due to distruptive editing. You lied and said it's not newsworthy. Yet a simple Google search reveals multiple articles and multiple wiki editors requested the page be brought current including myself. (diff) I would support boomerang on  based on their constant aggressive attitude about the situation.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Constant aggressive attitude" is how I would describe Soetermans, since he's now resorted to following my contrib page and undoing everything I contrib. I could correct a typo and he'd undo it out of spite. I joined Wikipedia to contrib. But have faced accusations of being a ban evader from him (I'm 33 years old and have a busy life, I maybe visit Wikipedia twice a year) I want Soetermans to leave me alone and he wants to not leave me alone. He's essentially cyberstalking and harassing me. I could contact his local police station and ask for a restraining order against him. Because I am not going to accept being cyberstalked, harassed, or gaslight into accepting it. That is a Wikipedia security flaw that I cannot personally block users from sending me personal messages. So I'll have to go the old fashion method and contact the non-emergency police number. Netherleash (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * he's now resorted to following my contrib page and undoing everything I contrib evidence of this? cuz what I am seeing is that your edits are being reverted by different editors (me included), not him alone, which I don't think we are going to your user contributions and check out. Watchlist is a feature for a reason.
 * I could contact his local police station and ask for a restraining order against him ... So I'll have to go the old fashion method and contact the non-emergency police number. Some may construe these as a WP:LEGALTHREAT.
 * He's essentially cyberstalking and harassing me. What Soetermans have left on your talk page are is not threatening, harrassing or of stalking nature and he had gone above and beyond by actually giving non-templated advices/warnings that your behaviour is less than stellar.
 * I suggest that you drop this and everything related to the game on Wikipedia and walk away. Yes, you seem to be passionate about the game, but it is a beautiful Sunday with probably a beautiful view in the nature. Take a walk and have a breather. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He's a harasser. I'll msg admin directly. Look at my talk page please. I already deleted 4 of his messages then left a nice notice and he still felt emboldened to keep going. Also be careful with using that legal threat page. If someone needs to report something to law enforcement say go ahead. Never try to discourage them. That could be considered obstruction or deprivation of emergency service. Law enforcement handle mostly non-emergency complaints it's their job to determine if something is actionable, not yours. Netherleash (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misreading WP:NLT, or at least not getting the main idea of it. The page is about not posting your legal threats on the wiki; it's not about stopping people from calling 9-1-1. If criticisms or disagreements come up during WP discussions, a threat to call the police can have a chilling effect on otherwise productive discourse. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ⚠️He's actually continuing to harass me right now me even after 2 serious warnings to stop. Reported him to admin. If he continues next step will be contacting law enforcement. I really pray that he stops this ain't right. No one should be subjected to being called delusional, gaslit, accused of being ban evader, contrib-stalked, unwanted messaging. Netherleash (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reasons to block this user, but the most blatant is for the legal threats. Can't an admin just get it over with? These long conversations leading to the inevitable are getting very tiresome. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never insulted him once, but endured multiple insults and unwanted messaging from him as evidenced on my talk page, history, here. Harassment is a much bigger concern because it's a misdemeanor crime. Wanting to call authorities to deter bad behavior is not illegal, in fact law enforcement encourage it. Netherleash (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not illegal, but it is incompatible with editing Wikipedia, per WP:NLT. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Harassment is more serious violation of wiki rules. I hope no one ever harasses you on a website with sluggish reporting and blocking. Netherleash (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're trolling or delusional, but this ridiculous. You've been here less than 24 hours with 31 edits to your name. My messages were about your attitude. I at no point have been harassing you or "cyberstalking" you. Also note I use my real name and you can find the place where I live on my talk page. Besides your username, I know nothing about you. I haven't contacted you through email or through any other channel, yet you suggest to call the police on me because... I pointed out you fail to follow standard editing guidelines? Don't know what a reliable source is? Aren't particularly civil to others? You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to help Wikipedia. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You've been here less than 24 hours and most of your edits have been reverted, and not just by me. I'm pretty sure you threatening to call the police on me (really, for an edit dispute?) is a WP:LEGALTHREAT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where/who are the "3 separate editors"? I looked at the page history of Nexon and I only see two editors directly involved in the dispute, you and Soetermans. You having made more edits than the other editor doesn't make you outnumber them. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  14:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone mentioning Ironmace, Dark and Darker or controversy. It's all the same thing. Basically one gaming studio had a competitor delisted and their studio raided by police. But despite that, Dark and Darker is reaching massive popularity and critical acclaim through an underground torrent download. Its the biggest gaming controversy of the year so far. Netherleash (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not an answer to the question. Who are these other editors? If you can't or won't back up your accusations with evidence a WP:BOOMERANG might end up heading your way. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://imgur.com/gallery/0h3l8KZ
 * Here's a screenshot. it's actual 5 editors including myself, who have a natural genuine contribution interest in the Nexon-Ironmace Controversy. Netherleash (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody adding a wikilink is not supporting your position. You need to go back to the talk page and reach consensus there. It is not a vote, counting unrelated or barely related edits from the article history will not help you. Going to noticeboards to try to get your opposition blocked for routine editing will not help you. There is no substitute for using the talk page to discuss and reach a consensus. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Them adding content about the furore over the game is not the same as them explicitly supporting a Controversy section. – robertsky (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My issue is resolved. I'm very happy with the Nexon page edit Alalch just did. Way better than anything I could ever do! Thank you team. Sorry for being a pain. The other four editors would be happy too. And this will help protect the page because Nexon is getting review bombed, so being truthful and accurate is important. Netherleash (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what we get from keeping those old (and not so old) controversy sections around in so many articles. New editors are used to seeing them and believe it's a normal practice to add them. —Alalch E. 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Now I've got the time to reply properly, I see the issue is resolved. Are your issues with me personally also over, ? Let me repeat some arguments:
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. You kept going on about other editors that also supposedly agree with you, but Wikipedia doesn't function on a democratic process.
 * I told you to start a discussion on the relevant talk page. You leaving on message there and me replying let you to start this discussion. Was that really necessary? We have to assume good faith in our fellow editors.
 * At no point did I say the bit shouldn't be expanded. Your choice of words however were inappropriate and I wasn't about to change it into something acceptable. I'm not here to do your work. You can thank for fixing the bit.
 * I didn't remove your comment on my talk page, I moved it down. I also notified you, as you can see here.
 * Despite your very short time as a registered editor, you've used terms like admin, consensus and starting a discussion at ANI. Have you been editing before? Anonymous, or under a different account? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Zeno, HaeB, and I did a clean-up on short controversy sections in BLPs in 2021. I think there's a common misperception, particularly among readers, that any negative information about a person will be highlighted under a controversy heading. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , it seems you're replying in the wrong discussion, no? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's a reply to my unindented general observation about controversy sections above. —Alalch E. 21:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I was thrown off by the BLP bit, I apologize. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting for the record I’ve Indeffed Netherleash for NOTHERE and NLT. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thewikipedian7534
stirs trouble at Talk:Yahweh, despite several warnings. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not "stirring trouble", just insisting on using the article talk page for their personal analysis of the subject. Which might even be correct, but that's irrelevant; the presentation is one of personal opinion. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * They are now at level 4 warning about WP:FORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Through they have acted against a level 4 warning about WP:FORUM. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now blocked for 3RR, but the problems are deeper than that. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing?
There are lots of companies out there that engage in undisclosed paid editing. One of those is Prestidge Group. It's named after its founder, Briar Prestidge. Her bio, which is new (got previously deleted under A7 in Oct 2022), has been put up for deletion by. Whether Prestidge is notable or not is not my concern. What I wonder, though, is whether we have one of her staff writing the article. User:TeenNick24 started the bio a few days ago (and also authored the previously deleted version). This user has a total 56 edits. Smells like an employee who uses multiple accounts, which is common for undisclosed paid editors.

The other bio that this user started was for Paul Cole Chiori aka Ossy Achievas. Chiori's bio got deleted on 31 August 2018. And on 18 September 2018, it got recreated under the second name by User:Buzzy anslem, who's since been blocked for socking. Also very fishy.

Does anyone have a good idea what to do about this?  Schwede 66  10:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You should ask them if they are paid by the company or not. Point them to WP:PAID and ask them to give a disclosure on their user page about their connection to what they are writing about. This request has not been made to TeenNick24. Also if identical content has been put back to what was deleted then it could well be a copyright infringement. And a sock puppet investigation could be called for if a user looks like a blocked sockmaster. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was meant to point out that the Chiori / Achievas content was distinctly different.  Schwede 66  10:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

IP 116.206.158.105 troubling me
This ip has been troubling me for the past few months and telling i am sock and says i am vandalising ,if the ip claims ,i dont understand why doesnt he try to file a spi on me and solve but they doesnt do and trouble me .please check this matter as soon as possible. ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request - Eni.Sukthi.Durres
On 10 April 2023 was blocked by  following an ANI discussion (currently at, likely to be archived soon). I did not take part in that discussion.

Yesterday, ESD emailed me to state:

"Hello old mate, hope you have been fine. I'm very glad to see that you're still active on wikipedia as I always appreciated your major contribution here. Ok firstly I have to say that 5 years ago I declared an retirement from wikipedia as I had many engagements and I didn't had time, but due to my old passion for wiki last year I decided to return back to work even in part time and that you can see on my user page history where you also intervened against edits by unauthorized users https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres&action=history I also appreciate that. I must admit that I feel ashamed on you but I'm forced to bother you since you've been very nice to me, since here on my talk page *(I don't know if it will work as a link, sorry) but despite you blocked me in the beginning but that however served me as a lesson as we had very good collaboration then.

My friend I would be honest with you, I had very harsh disputes with experienced users including admins. here because happened to me things which I never seen before, such as reverts of my whole edits in few pages with reason of containing exaggerated text addition and not correct english but instead having also useful edits such as stats. table for example, but they reverted anything like never happened to me before with anyone of you. Believe me I asked only my rights but for wikipedia to not delete all useful edits but also to improve exaggerated text, and what did they do, attacked me, offended me also especially with pervert word d**k, etc. In the end they blocked me step by step by anything for speaking in favor of the truth. If you see my recent contributions in 2 or 3 pages you'll understand anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eni.Sukthi.Durres I would thank you if you do something even minimal for my rights as I know you're a fair admin, cheers."

I am bringing this here for community discussion. I have no opinion on the matter, and I fact I am away most of the weekend and then away on holiday for most of the next 3 weeks with limited internet access. GiantSnowman 14:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A cursory look at the talk page suggests to me that there is a competence issue here. If someone says they have been away so long that they have forgotten how to speak English and how to use Wikipedia, then they shouldn't be creating or amending articles until their memory is jogged. Deb (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As the blocking admin, I strongly oppose any unblock. Unfortunately, they do not have the ability to contribute at a reasonable level of English. (For what it's worth, their grievance of "offended me also especially with pervert word d**k" is clearly a misinterpretation of the statement "you can't be a dick when someone corrects your English" in the original ANI thread here; perhaps linking to WP:DICK might have helped, but that's moot now.) All of that aside, were they willing to drop their battleground mentality, there might have been areas to which they could have contributed outside of the Article namespace, and it might have resulted in a better outcome for them (e.g., only a partial block from the Article namespace). However, their threat here is grossly inappropriate. There are two possibilities: (a) that statement is not intended to be a threat, but their lack of command of English is such that it had the syntax of one; or (b) they knew exactly what was being said, and it was intended to be a threat. Whichever is the case, at least one of the two rationales for blocking applies. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is a reason WP:DICK is marked historical. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 18:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A valid point. Not the idiom I would have used, especially given that it could be grossly interpreted by a non-native speaker. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Decline unblock Looks like the problems persist. Recommend editing on a different Wikipedia for at least six months and at least 500 edits, and then request reconsideration. Rights? Face to face? No clue as to why they are blocked.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Decline - It seems to me that the CIR block was appropriate, that it was de facto endorsed in the discussion which provoked it, and that it is much too soon for any kind of appeal of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Decline does not have the English-language skills to edit this project. Star   Mississippi  00:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Decline - No one has any "rights" to edit Wikipedia and beyond the competence issue, there's still a great degree of WP:NOTTHEM in that complaint. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Issues with a user attempting OR and refusing to engage through appropriate channels: MatthewS.
This user has been "sitting" on Egyptian pound for some years attempting to impose an abbreviation the sources do not use and appears unable to recognise the validity of any point of view to the contrary despite reliable sources being cited. He is intent on using "E£" as the primary abbreviation, when no reliable sources do and it feels like arguing with a brick wall. This article was the subject of an edit war last year resulting in the blocking of both participants, one of whom is MatthewS. Valethske (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to say, this is one of the ballsier moves I have seen in quite a while... Bgsu98   (Talk)  17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There's an open SPI case for the reporting user at Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  14:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User: now blocked as suspected sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy after SPI case above. I think we can close this thread now. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  02:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Klyhorio
I noticed this user adding content that seemed unrelated to an Eastern European dog article earlier today. @Justlettersandnumbers noticed this and reverted the edit. The user reverted that edit, and I proceeded to revert it because they had not fixed the issue pointed out by the last editor. Upon having a look at their user page, they have a problematic history with edits related to dog pages (in fact, their ban for the Šarplaninac page just expired two months ago). I support a stronger ban on this user for their problematic edits and edit warring. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New; text-shadow:1px 1px 10px cyan, 1px 1px 10px #ccc;">TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  14:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A year partial, back to the same stuff? 24 total edits?  NOTHERE.  Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969
First, please note that I'm French and so almost all my contributions are on wiki.fr and English is not my mother tongue. So sorry if I don't know perfectly the rules here and sorry if I don't use the right words.

Nowadays, I consider that behavior of User:Onel5969 are very problematic. I created the article Handball at the Goodwill Games on 24 February 2023‎. I've nothing to say when he added on 4 March 2023‎ templates asking for primary sources and notability, I'm totally fine with the fact that the article is a stub and can be improved. Fine.

But then :
 * 10 March 2023 at 11:25 first clearing (so only 4 days after having added the Multiple issues banner whereas, for instance, Figure skating at the Goodwill Games has the banner "One source since October 2012!)
 * 10 March 2023 at 15:51 second clearing
 * 17 March 2023 at 10:52 article moved to draft
 * 24 March 2023‎ at 10:59 third clearing
 * 24 March 2023‎ at 14:12 fourth clearing
 * 24 March 2023 at 14:39 nominated for deletion.

I really don't understand how it is possible that such an experienced and many many times awarded user can act with without any piece of collaborative behavior nor empathy. If this person does not want people to contribute here, I'll take refuge in wiki.fr, it's not a big deal for me, but if he acts like that with everyone, I think it's a problem for wiki.en!LeFnake (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't a behavioral issue, this is a content dispute. Where is your attempt to discuss this with Onel5969? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's rather generous of you. This is a content dispute that the OP has made into a behavioral issue by twice removing the AfD template from the article and never warned; removing it once is at least disruptive but twice is nothing but vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)\
 * Good point. I was referring to Onel, but you're right that there could be a WP:BOOMERANG here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that I shouldn't have to remove AfD template, sorry for that angry outburst :-( LeFnake (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this take, . Obviously it's inappropriate to remove the AfD template, but it's also obviously inappropriate to blank a page four times (not including a move to draftspace), edit warring with two other people, before nominating it for deletion. That's a conduct issue, not a content dispute. Of course a single redirect/draftify is ok, but when challenged edit warring isn't an acceptable solution. So why is the burden only on the newbie to follow basic protocol, and not on the experienced editor, who also made no attempt to discuss beyond dropping a template? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also a good point. Backing away now like Homer Simpson into the bushes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I must say I've found this behavior by Onel5969 (across many different pages, either edit warring to restore redirects for undiscussed articles with no major issues (something that is not to be done more than once); or his draftifications for new articles (ones that don't have major issues) because... I don't actually know why he does that - and he does it sometimes (both redirection and draftification) for very clearly notable articles as well, for example D-I college football seasons, college football teams, etc.) a bit annoying and problematic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 's behavior has, so I agree that something should change here. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Onel5969 doesn’t “drive away” anyone who creates articles with decent sourcing to start with, or responds to tags by adding appropriate sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many editors are able to write a decent, well-sourced article on their first try (or one of their first attempts)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I’m pretty sure I did, but in any case, the point of tagging and draftifying to precisely to give the creator scope to improve their work, with suggestions about how to do so. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created one article, I reread the appropriate notability guideline several times, asked advice on it and made sure I had my sourses all lined up. I'm now working on getting sourcing for a second. I feel we push new editors towards article creation to quickly, and only afterwards warm them of notability and independent reliable in-depth coverage etc. It would be good if we had a "I see you're trying to write you first article" script to guide new editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dare I say Wi-Clippy-tan? –Fredddie™ 05:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the stub in question. I'd have redirected it too, easily. There doesn't appear to be any other interaction between Onel5969 and John Quiggin beyond that single dispute. DFlhb (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I don't agree with Onel's repeated redirection here, but it's reasonable to expect that an article created on the English Wikipedia (I can't speak to frwiki) in 2023 with only official sources will be redirected or nominated for deletion. New articles are generally expected to be supported by reliable sources independent of the subject which show that it meets a relevant notability criteria. Usually that means making sure there are at least two or three sources with no connection to the subject writing about the subject in some depth. Repeatedly redirecting such an article isn't appropriate, but if you restore a redirect a deletion nomination is all but assumed. While I haven't looked at the newly added sources closely enough to see if they pass the bar, cheers to for doing the necessary work to find independent sourcing. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I agree that removing AfD template was stupid. For me it was the last straw and I outbursted angry, but I shouldn't.
 * About new articles, we have barely the same rules on frwiki. When someone logically add templates asking for sources and/or notability, the article goes to AfD if it haven't been improved (or not enough). BUT this process generally takes monthes and transfer to AfD is not made by the one who added the templates in the first place but by another person (most of the time, an admin I think). That's why I considered the AfD was inappropriate now.
 * As previously said, English is not my native nor daily language and I don't really know where I can find reliable sources. That's why I asked for help on WikiProject Handball and just had an answer today. Too late unfortunately. LeFnake (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Things used to move more slowly here, with more patience for gradual improvement. We've gradually moved from a focus on quantity to quality, however, and there's now a mostly unwritten expectation that articles show notability at the time of creation. Good in some ways, bad in others. IMO this thread earns a WP:TROUT for both parties for edit warring, etc. (IMO a bigger trout for Onel, who should know better), but at least the article is a bit better now and you know what to expect on the next article, for better or worse. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment:, you’re obviously an experienced editor, so you’ve probably had and seen bad moments, which I think explains Onel5969 interaction with this article. It looks like the article will survive AfD, do you intent to ask for sanctions? I believe they have taken this into account, would you let the community know how you wish to proceed? Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  21:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. I think Onel5969's behavior is not acceptable: he does not have more rights than anyone else to solely decide what is ok or not. Asking for sources and notability is 100% normal. And if improvements are missing or insufficient, the fact that an article goes eventually to AfD, that's also 100% normal. But here, the timing has been very very short and he just considered that his vision was better than the community's one.
 * I forget to say it before, but I never previously met him, so there is no revenge or something like that in my mind. In the opposite, I then easily imagine what happend here can't be an isolated incident.
 * So yes, I think sanctions would be appropriate. LeFnake (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * so, just for clarity, were you intending to add more sources? If so, how much time do you think would be appropriate? Would you prefer to have your articles quickly sent to AfD rather than draftified? What outcome do you think would be optimal? Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * honestly, no, this way to proceed just discourage me from doing anything. I thought that Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by containing information on all branches of knowledge and that Wikipedia should be written collaboratively. I know now that this time is over on wiki.en and I'm 100% I'll never try to create another article here. LeFnake (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * In my experience, Onel5969's interpretation of WP:BLAR is aggressive, and their interaction with newer, inexperienced users leaves something to be desired. Looking at their talk page just for the last few days, I see User talk:Onel5969. The article, The Lions of Marash, did in fact have sources, though apparently not good enough for Onel5969, who blanked and redirected, and then told off the creator when they came to their talk page for an explanation. It's not up to Onel5969 to decide whether an article passes GNG or not. There's a responsibility for long-time users, administrator or not, to treat good-faith editors with respect. No one makes you edit here. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Page triage is mainly about deciding whether an article meets notability requirements or not. There’s always recourse to AfD to make a final determination but patrollers make that decision multiple times every day. Mccapra (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of article quality or anyone else's actions, Onel was way out of line in blanking the page 4(!) times without starting a discussion. This is unacceptable and deserves a warning at the very least, especially for an editor who's been around long enough to know better. I'm not generally a fan of articles based solely on statistics but these olympics articles are normally built around stats tables and are a rare case where it's acceptable to not have SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring in a redirect is never the right decision (and AfD was clearly the right decision if Onel cared enough and they were blatantly aware of AfD being an option considering their edit summaries, but were refusing to start one and instead kept up the edit war). Another problem is trying to do the edit war over an extended period of time, which gives the impression that Onel was trying to sneak through the redirection at a later date to try and get it accomplished without being noticed. Silver  seren C 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - seren  - This is what happened to me. I used the site frequently a few years ago then lost interest. Then the new rules were made after the Lugnuts situation finished and the requirements for posting articles got more strict. Within a few weeks of returning here, Onel drafted about 9 articles of mine that would have been eligible before the Lugnuts situation finished. This was completely new to me since I only knew of the AfD process. So I got very upset about it and it really soured me on this site. It created a lot of extra warring, arguments and issues with not only me and him but other users as well that might have not existed otherwise if the articles were just AfD'd in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed his edits and deletions many many times, and I'm glad someone brings this up. He's sneakily getting rid of pages without getting called out. I would endorse at least a short ban for the editor, and at least complete prevention from redirecting/deletion for at least the foreseeable future.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit disingenuous and I don't believe we should stop assuming good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am undecided on how to handle this, but how many times has this editor been referred to ANI these past couple years? It seems like we have this same discussion every few weeks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion started a couple of weeks ago Onel5969 has conscientiously avoided redrafting and, as other editors wanted, sent anything contentious or disputed to AfD. As the desired objective has already been achieved therefore, I don’t believe any action is necessary here. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment- I was also about to report this editor; they have tried to draftify three separate articles that I have made (and I don't make that many articles). In all three instances their claims ranged from misleading to simply wrong, and the articles eventually were let stay. They consistently refused to respond to me or incorrectly interpreted the notability policy. The articles were Wilburn Ferguson (they were the only person complaining about it), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (legitimately a tighter call about when she became notable, with multiple people commenting on different sides of the issue), and Costa (Pante Macassar) (currently ongoing). I'll admit to having a negative opinion of the notability policy, but none of these were articles that I considered a stretch from a notability perspective. Still, whatever your thoughts on the notability policy, letting people who obviously and blatantly misapply it go ham on new articles seems like a bad idea. This editor's actions have consistently and significantly reduced my motivation to edit Wikipedia, especially as, until I saw this, I thought I might be in WP:HOUNDINGMcavoybickford (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wilburn Ferguson had (and still has) huge swathes of unsourced text; that was a perfectly legitimate draftification which I'd reinstate if it was worth the fight. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez looked like this when Onel got to it (five months ago), and at that point she'd never been elected to anything; most of the coverage was run of the mill; redirecting was a good call. Costa (Pante Macassar) okay probably passes WP:GEOLAND but I'm sure if you'd put any effort into researching it you could have written more than one sentence based on a single source, which is still its condition a month later. Addressing problematic articles is not hounding. If you don't want your articles to receive this kind of attention, write better articles. Or draft them first then move them to mainspace when they're ready. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Back-Door Deletion
The major complaints about User:Onel5969, and the usual complaints about any reviewer whose reviewing is criticized, are about what I will call back-door deletion. There are at least two forms of back-door deletion, but the concerns about the two forms of back-door deletion are similar. The two forms of back-door deletion are moving an article to draft space, and cutting an article down to a redirect, sometimes called BLARing the article. Are we in agreement that the complaints are about back-door deletion? Are there any other forms of back-door deletion? Repeatedly taking action to delete an article via a back door is edit-warring. The reason that reviewers sometimes edit-war to back-door delete an article that is not ready for article space is that writing a successful Articles for Deletion nomination is work. It is easier to move an article to draft space or to replace the text of an article with a redirect to a parent topic than to write am AFD nomination. An AFD nomination with an analysis of sources is especially demanding, but is sometimes required when an editor is persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There are at least two subvarieties of edit-warring over draftification. The first is moving the same page into draft space a second time, after it was draftified once and moved back to article space by the author. I think that we are in agreement that draftifying the same article twice is edit-warring and should be avoided. There is another way that persistent editors edit-war to try to force articles into article space. That is moving a copy of the article into article space when the previous copy has already been moved into draft space once. Then the spammer or POV-pusher may think that the second copy is safe in article space, because draft space is already occupied. However, some reviewers will then move the second copy of the article to draft space as a second draft with the numerical label '2' to distinguish it from the first. The more appropriate action would be to nominate the article for deletion, which does however require more work than just moving it to draft space with a number after its title. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that the controversy is primarily about use of back-door deletion by Onel5969, when a formal deletion process should be used? Are we in agreement that a logged warning to User:Onel5969 is the appropriate action? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon - Onel does three things that create problems: 1) He marks articles as drafts instead of nominating them. While he says he does it so writers can improve the article and not get it deleted, which very well could be the case, it can also be taken in a negative way like I took it - as a way to get around the AfD process and basically force an uncontested deletion. This leads to another problem: 2) The user then has either make edits to the article, they have to remove the draft tag, which can be seen as edit warring or they have to have to hope someone else sees their situation and nominates the article for deletion themselves, since User:Rosguill had stated that users cannot nominate their own articles for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KatoKungLee&oldid=1135792356. I can't find any proof that this is a rule either, but when you un-draft something, you already feel like you are taking a rebellious action and nobody wants to ruffle someone else's feathers as well. The third thing that happens here is that - 3) if you do remove the the draft tag, Onel does not nominate the article for deletion immediately. Again, it may be so the article can be improved or it may just be an "I didn't get to it yet thing", but it lead me to believe that no further action would be taken, when the article was just nominated later, which just creates more tension. The problem is that if a user doesn't back to wikipedia for a while, that article could be gone before they could even make my case of it and waiting for Onel to decide to nominate an article or not is very frustrating. The situation got so out of control in Articles for deletion/Harry Sperl that User:GhostOfDanGurney had to step in and nominate the article for deletion just so we could get it over with, since I was concerned that publicly asking people to nominate my own article could be seen as some kind of bizarre meatpuppetry move.
 * I would personally much rather have articles nominated than deleted. Sometimes the nominator gets it wrong and the article should not be drafted or deleted. Sometimes, the afd process can lead to other people finding sources and improving the article, while nobody ever sees drafted articles. And if nothing else, the AfD process just provides extra sets of eyes who can provide extra takes on the situation.
 * I also do not believe that users know that they can remove the Draft tag on articles, which leads to more confusion and problems.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry but I think the point above makes no sense. If a NPP reviewer sends something to draft they are not personally bound and responsible for bringing it to AfD themselves if the creator moves it back to mainspace. Indeed if they do, they will be accused of hounding, and editors who have created a run of new articles with inadequate sourcing will claim they are being victimized. Better to leave it to someone else to take a second view and bring it to AfD if they think it appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mccapra - Unfortunately, Onel is marking articles as drafts, then after the author rejects the draftifying, Onel nominates the article for AfD. As you said, it comes across as exactly like hounding, especially after it has happened 8 times like it did in my case: Articles for deletion/Hamburg-Eimsbütteler Ballspiel-Club, Articles for deletion/Harburger TB, Articles for deletion/Uwe Bengs, Articles for deletion/Lars Kindgen, Articles for deletion/Harry Sperl, Articles for deletion/Fritz Sommer, Articles for deletion/Otto Oeldenberger and Articles for deletion/Christian Cavaletti.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I’m lost. In your points above you were complaining about instances where Onel5969 didn’t quickly take your articles to AfD, and now you’re complaining about when they did. I’m not sure what to make of this: perhaps that NPP patrollers shouldn’t draftify, shouldn’t AfD, and should just tag and pass? Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mccapra - As I said above, I think taking articles to AfD is the preferable move from the start over draftication. It avoids edit warring. It avoids continued arguments. It avoids situations where articles were incorrectly marked as drafts. And it also avoids situations where an article gets marked as a draft and then gets forgotten about and eventually deleted. It also avoids situations where an article's draftication is rejected, then put in post-draftication rejection purgatory where the person who originally drafted it can put the article up for AfD weeks and months later when the author may not see it.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) This is an approach that I consider entirely appropriate. In many cases an article could go straight to AfD, but sending it to draft instead is a courtesy to give the creator an opportunity for fixing it up before it gets thrown to the wolves. If the creator doesn't want to take that option, then back to the main sequence we go. If it seems targeted in your case, that's probably a consequence of Onel checking up, and then following up, on past creations of the same editor based on finding something in need of handling. As one should. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Elmidae - As I said above, with draftifying, while you may take it as a courtesy to avoid the wolves, I and others take it as a way to backdoor an article into deletion. My dog thinks he is helping me by barking at night when he hears something, but I don't find it helpful as it ruins my sleep. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that most article creators don't share your preference of slugging it out at AfD over being told "this is unsourced, I am assuming you actually have sources somewhere, please add them to this draft before someone deletes the entire thing". You may complain about being shown extra consideration, but frankly that's your own lookout. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Onel5969 is a very active patroller and I think they make mistakes given the volume of articles they try to review. I get frustrated when I see an article draftified several times and I just came across an article moved to draft space 4 times though not all of the moves were by Onel5969. But I think that is often not an instance of move-warring but a mistake of not checking the page history before draftifying a second time. But there have been a number of threads about Onel5969's patrolling on ANI and so I'm not sure how much of an impact this one will have. We can address the OP's article but I don't see anyone suggesting sanctions here. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t agree with the characterization of draftifying or redirecting an article lacking adequate sources as being “back door” anything. Both are valid courses of action, depending on the circumstances. Some article creators object if their work is draftified or redirected, but they will equally object if it is brought to AfD.  If the community wants to direct NPP not to draftify or redirect but to bring all articles of uncertain notability straight to AfD that’s fine, but that’s not how it operates at the moment.  In fact the opposite - we are supposed to try alternatives to deletion. When we do, we’re accused to doing things by the “back door”. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mccapra. It is common enough to hear actions such as redirecting referred to as alternatives to deletion, especially at AfD. It is not uncommon for it to be argued that such options should take place before an AfD. A logged warning for following a common AfD argument is a terrible idea. (Regarding drafting, it is quite common to see it increasingly referred to as almost a form of deletion, but this is not a firm consensus either.) CMD (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument isn't that it's wrong to BLAR (of course not, it's perfectly fine to do so), it's that it's wrong to edit-war about it. If you BLAR or move to draftspace and get reverted, you have to AfD the article if you think it should be deleted; you can't just repeat that action again. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument was explicitly "Are we in agreement that the controversy is primarily about use of back-door deletion by Onel5969, when a formal deletion process should be used?" CMD (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a form of back-door deletion. Let's say you're a new editor and you start an article, and that article is suddenly moved to the draft space and has the AfC template slapped on it. It sure feels like deletion, but without the additional oversight that comes with AfD. I've seen this done to articles that could obviously survive AfD (and in some cases did). Is rejecting the draftifcation and moving it back legitimate? Probably, but that's not obvious and if a new account does that I'm sure someone will decide that's worthy of sanctions. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely wrong to BLAR a reasonably well-developed article with reliable sources, particularly if it reflects the work of multiple editors, if the basis of that action is the BLARing editor's personal philosophy that the topic of the article should not exist. Just imagine an editor BLARing US Senate career of Barack Obama to Barack Obama because Obama's tenure in the Senate was relatively short. This would remove sources and content not found elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so would amount to a removal of notable information without discussion. BD2412  T 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely, it's called a "revert". It is a shame that a new user would probably get sanctioned for it, but that's a problem with the (hypothetical) sanctioning admins, not with our policies, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason draftification is "back door" deletion is because a (non-admin) editor does not have the power to unilaterally remove something from mainspace; that requires one of our deletion processes; except to draftify, which is kind of a loophole in our general "one person can't unilaterally delete a page" rule, hence the "back door". That back door is fine to exist so long as we all use it responsibly... Levivich (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If one person unilaterally added it to mainspace, one person should be able to unilaterally remove it if it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If the two disagree about whether it meets the criteria, then we have a discussion. NPP do a difficult and thankless task keeping crap out of the encyclopaedia. Mistakes are inevitable, especially as we can't expect patrollers to be experts on every conceivable topic of an encyclopaedia article, but it boils down to "if you think the subject is important, demonstrate that it's been written about somewhere else first". If an article creator doesn't do that, they can have no reasonable expectation that their article will stay. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  17:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If one person unilaterally added it to mainspace, one person should be able to unilaterally remove it if it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If the two disagree about whether it meets the criteria, then we have a discussion. Doesn't the person removing realize that by rule of this logic a discussion is required for the removal since the disagreement is apparent by virtue of the fact that the person who unilaterally added thinks it meets inclusion requirements or they would not have added in the first place? It seems fairly obvious to me that there is a disagreement the moment someone decides anything other than what was added should be modified. I guess what I'm asking is, why does your rule suggest we wait until a second objection has been raised before a discussion begins after a first objection has already been raised with the removal itself? To me, a rule like that seems like it would be a barrier to discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, after thinking on it some more I realize the rule suggests we wait until a third objection has been raised before discussion starts since the first objection technically begins the moment one person "unilaterally" adds, and it becomes explicitly implied that they would object to any removal. The moment another person performs a unilateral removal, the second objection is also implied. Why force the adding party to object twice before a discussion occurs? If we are going to have an "I can remove if you can add" mantra, then at least make the rules for it equally fair like maybe one objection each side requires discussion. That means I assume good faith that you already object to my removal, and knowing this would be a disagreement since I object to your addition, I take it to the appropriate discussion venue because I know your objection plus my objection equals one objection each. Me making you go object one more time just to make absolutely sure you're pissed about it is why Wikipedia needs to change. Huggums537 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know this is heresy on Wikipedia, but maybe they should reduce the volume? Levivich (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Onel's volume is fine. His ability to judge notability is top notch. His method involves a careful evaluation of the sources (I know this because he taught me his method when he was my instructor during NPP school), and his knowledge of notability has been calibrated through participating in thousands of AFDs. Keep in mind that Onel is the NPPer that handles the borderline articles that sit at the back of the NPP queue that no one else wants to touch, so that may skew his AFD stats a bit. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen editors & admins who retaliate by editing pages by other editors who they dont like, tagging pages with COI, UPE, Promotional, no main space editing, draftifying the articles and then propose a speedy deletion. The page is usually gone within an hour or two. There are several that seem to embrace a swarm behavior which leads to this result since it usually takes about 4-5 of them working in unison. It is unfortunate and certainly is driving away editors and positive contributors. On another note, there are so many editors who seem to be stat padding while reviewing articles. They are so quick to deny the articles but rarely leave any comments or constructive criticism that would indicate their actions were for the good of the community.47.153.142.52 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC) strike sock--  Ponyo bons mots 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A logged warning to not edit war over drafting a article, especially not over an extended period of time, is warranted. Other than that editors don't like having their articles drafted/redirected or sent to AfD but that's not against policy. Maybe a centralised discussion about the acceptability of WP:ATD-R and WP:ATD-I would be a way forward. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Onel5969 never responds to these discussions, and this is a deliberate choice: I am also appalled by this and this which are blatant personal attacks. --Rschen7754 17:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have left him a note suggesting that he drop by. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is significantly more concerning than drafitfying an article with no reliable sources. That suggests a behavioural problem, especially when taken with the edit warring to redirect an article, to the point that I'd be tempted to revoke their NPP rights. The first person to find a new article does not get to be the final arbiter of its fate, and disputes should be settled at AfD rather than editors insulted and belittled. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My response to Refrain from adding templates regarding the article's notability not being notable enough in the future until you learn what notability on Wikipedia is. would have been equally short. I can also understand Onel5969 reluctance to respond here, given the nonsense of past fillings. However they should post something here to the context that they won't edit war in this way again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the two diffs of personal attacks to not be as bad as they look. The new user ImperialMajority, with 200 edits, patronizing an experienced NPP by telling them until you learn what notability on Wikipedia is, is really rude. While ideally we should not respond to rudeness with rudeness, it is a mitigating circumstance here. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Arguing with a jerk is not a big deal. Not ideal, but not a big deal. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - has kindly invited me to participate in this discussion.  I rarely do so, as there seems little point in participating in the drama. Especially with how often I'm brought here.  I’ll try to keep this brief, but there are quite a few things to point out, so apologize in advance for the length.  And these are in no particular order.  First, since they so kindly invited me to participate, Mackensen’s comment “It's not up to Onel5969 to decide whether an article passes GNG or not” shows a complete lack of understanding of one of the purposes of NPP.  They then followed with a comment about treating editors with respect.  I treat the folks who come to my talk page with the exact same respect they give me.  That editor came to my talk page and told me what I should do.  I responded in kind by telling him what they should do.
 * Going back to the original OP, I find it interesting that neither they nor the other editor who “edit-warred” were admonished for doing so. There’s another editor in this thread, who I will not point out, who’s behavior regarding poorly sourced or non-notable articles led them to getting blocked.  A block, which has since been reversed, and I may add, they have acquitted themselves quite well since they were unblocked.  But they obviously have some latent bad feelings towards me.  In addition, we have an admin calling me out for personal attacks who has their own history of personal attacks (see this,  this, and this.  And that's just towards me.
 * Finally, at NPP we endeavor to avoid AfD, not because we don’t want to go there, but because there are better ways to solve issues than throwing everything to AfD. I almost always tag something and give about a week for improvement before going back to the article.  At that time, if no improvements have been made, I'll take another action, either redirecting, draftifying, or AfD/Prod, depending on the circumstance.  I think we have to decide whether or not we intend on being an encyclopedia, or just another fan wiki.  You call what I did on that article “edit-warring”, and looking at the definition, you are correct.  However, per WP:IAR, I look at it as trying to avoid creating more work for a lot of editors by clogging up AfD.  I would hazzard a guess that about 90% of the time it is successful and ends up with the articles getting proper sourcing, but I admittedly have no data to back that up, just my own personal anecdotal experience.  But if you want EVERY redirect which is contested, no matter how ludicrous the contention, sent to AfD, so be it.   Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating. Two observations:
 * I treat the folks who come to my talk page with the exact same respect they give me.: leaving aside that this contradicts the letter and spirit of Civility, this strikes me as the exact wrong way to work with editors involved in new article creation. If you're burned out, do something else.
 * You call what I did on that article "edit-warring", and looking at the definition, you are correct. However, per WP:IAR... (emphasis added). If you look to WP:IAR to justify your standard mode of engagement, you're in the wrong. WP:IAR is an escape hatch, a safety valve. I appreciate why you think it's necessary, but if you're edit-warring in order to avoid sending an article to AfD, you're explicitly working against Consensus and you need to find a different approach.
 * Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's just agree to disagree on IAR. If you think leaving articles on WP which do not meet the notability or verifiability criteria makes WP better, I can't agree with you on that.  I look at this as an encyclopedia, not a fan wiki.  Regardless, I've stated that if you folks want stuff to go to AfD if the redirect is challenged, so be it.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Onel5969 – You wrote: If you think leaving articles on WP which do not meet the notability or verifiability criteria makes WP better, I can't agree with you on that..  That's a strawman argument.  The question is not whether to leave the cruddy articles on WP, but whether edit-warring to remove them is better for WP than the use of AFD.  The spammers who repeatedly revert a WP:BLAR may honestly think that putting their cruddy articles on article space makes the encyclopedia better.  That is why we have consensus processes such as AFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is what should be done (unless the article could be CSD'd, but in most cases that wouldn't apply). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would just like to add, that while this conversation was ongoing, and they were participating in it, this edit was made, reverting a redirect with a single google maps source. Just saying. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and clearly if that is not notable, it will be deleted at AfD. It's better to follow the procedure here, even though that can obviously be a bit frustrating at times. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would just be happy, Onel5969, if you didn't draftify an article more than once. Although I check the draftification list daily and see some of your page moves reverted, I'm fine with one draftification. But if the article creator objects and moves it back, you shouldn't persist. And that's my view for every NPP. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A wise and perspicacious view. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR is great, unless the Community says, "Nope. Not this rule in this circumstance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, IAR should be invoked as sparingly as possible. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 23:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not that anyone needs my opinion, but that strikes me as an entirely equitable and sensible conclusion to this issue. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This user is also trying the delete NRL team's season articles, funnily enough edited this article and didn't try and delete it.. looks a bit like personal preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs)
 * I took a look at User:Onel5969/Draftify log and see from just this month, over 1,250 draftifications. Does that seem like a bit much to anyone else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * High volume doesn't necessarily correlate with low quality. Keep in mind that Onel is one of the top NPP reviewers by volume. Got any specific draftifications you object to? – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are any numbers, but how often would you say NPP-ers get it wrong? For the sake of demonstration, I'll assume 3 errors in 1000 page reviews, which is a 99.7% success rate.  With 2100+ reviews in the last 7 days, just based on the law of averages alone, Onel has likely made 6 errors this week.  I think that is what @BeanieFan11 was really alluding to; that Onel reviews so many articles that on average there would be more errors than any other editor.
 * I'm not going to suggest that we pore over Onel's logs and contribs to find errors, Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. What would be better is if the people with the NPP right who aren't listed on Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers picked up the slack a little bit, or we grant the right to more users so Onel doesn't have to review 2100 articles per week.  That way, it'll be easier to spot check how a reviewer is doing, the process improves, and the community improves. –Fredddie™ 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen a lot of draftifications from Onel. I have only sent one back to the mainspace. In fact, I think I have only sent a few in total from all other editors who have draftified back to AfC. I think as reviewers we should limit the number of times it gets sent back (one time, after that it is an AfD candidate), but I generally don't see an issue with Onel's work. The process has worked. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. I've had problems with Onel's edits when I was significantly less experienced a few years back, but I've grown to realize that trying to push back would end poorly. From my perspective, draftification is meant as a space for incubating potential articles, not as a backdoor for deletion. I've started numerous articles in draft space and user space. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * How many pages have they reviewed for NPP in that timeperiod? --JBL (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In the past year they're responsible for marking over 26 thousand articles and 7,300 redirects as reviewed, based on Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Their Xfd log is also quite long. They are by far the most active NPP reviewer. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just realized you asked for the past month, so I'll point you towards the 30 section of Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I would say that 1250 is not a particularly large number in the context of the number of pages they're reviewing. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That number also doesn't factor in that they routinely tag pages and move on without marking a page as reviewed, draftifying, or sending to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, not in proportion to the number of pages they review. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Onel reviews a lot of pages, so this isn't really surprising to me. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support warning. Thank you Devin Futrell. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For context, Onel placed a notability on the Futrell page before they just draftified it, when I have taken care to include multiple sources. Now I cannot send Futrell to DYKAPRIL. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW I only see one GNG source there (Tennessean). Levivich (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think Onel5969 does understand that the community majorly disagrees with their actions. So, we could give them a warning about it, but I think they get the idea from this discussion that they should know what to expect if it is brought up again, so the warning probably isn't even needed. Huggums537 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) To be clear, my comment should be interpreted as an oppose to any sanctions, and that a warning could be given, but I think it is not needed because this discussion appears to have already served that purpose since the editor has proven they understand the concerns brought up. Huggums537 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I endorse any sanctions.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any sanctions or warnings. The theory of "back-door deletion" outlined above is nonsensical. The reason AFD has the high threshold it does, and the structures it does, is because it is difficult to enact and reverse; the same is not true for draftifying or redirecting a page, which any editor is free to do WP:BOLDly at any time they please. Likewise, the argument of "the article's creator might not see it!" is nonsense - if an article doesn't have anyone watching it who is willing to make a single edit to retain it, and at least one editor sees a reason to redirect or draftify it, then the safe thing to do is to go with redirecting or draftifying (which is also appropriate per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.) Newly-created articles with literally nobody watching them are a danger to the reputation of the encyclopedia and anyone putting in the time and effort to go over them should be commended, not criticized. If there are objections, of course, such bold actions generally get reverted and then needs to be hashed out (like any bold edit) but implying that there is somehow something intrinsically wrong about draftifying an article (giving the creator a change to show it can be salveaged) and then nominating it for deletion (if they reject this) is silly and smacks of red tape - we shouldn't default to the most process-heavy solutions. --Aquillion (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Draftification and subsequent deletion when an article remains abandoned for 6 months are normal parts of our established creation and deletion processes; if folks disagree with a process, they should work to change it instead of criticizing those who use it. I can maybe see the argument for years-old stubs that might go unnoticed, but a freshly-created article is going to be on the creator's radar if they have any interest at all in developing it.
 * There seems to be an idea that articles on notable topics shouldn't be draftified. Draftspace is for developing articles on notables topics that shouldn't go to AfD but also aren't yet ready for mainspace (for example, articles about sportspeople that don't have the mandatory two SIGCOV sources). Our goal here is to build a quality encyclopedia, not placate the feelings of editors who refuse to learn about our notability standards and take personal offense when their subpar articles are not published. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose all sanctions per Dlthewave above. Well said. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support doing something. Bad draftifications and unsubstantiated UPE allegations like this one can really drive away other editors. When a state legislator dies on October 10 and someone writes a bio of him on Oct 12, UPE is quite unlikely, don't you think? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Onel adjusted his behavior in response to this ANI. If you search his AFD log located at User:Onel5969/XfD_log for the term "contested redirect", you can see that he is now sending these to AFD. Onel is the bus factor at NPP, our highest volume reviewer, a huge net positive, and the reviewer that is willing to deal with reviewing the borderline articles that everyone else leaves sitting in the queue. Unfortunately this is bound to generate some friction, so any ANI opened against him gives a huge surface area of things to criticize about his reviewing. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that he is a massive net positive, and tens of thousands of his reviews are spot on. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Give them a Barnstar instead.  And the accusations in this thread are  full of problems that it would take a giant thread that I don't have time write to respond to all of them.  But I'll point  out a glaring one.  The mere act of calling draftifications that somebody did "back door deletions" is a severe violation of wp:AGF, and then going on to say that such violates non-existent newly invented "offense" of draftifying an article which "should" go to AFD is a second problem on top of that. .  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Novem Linguae Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent claim by onel5969 that he can use AfD for cleanup
In this AfD today (Articles for deletion/2022–23 Michigan State Spartans women's basketball team), onel5969 appears to claim that they have been directed by a "consensus" at ANI that they can/should nominate an article for deletion: (i) without doing a WP:BEFORE search, (ii) even where abundant SIGCOV is revealed by a simple BEFORE search, (iii) simply because the article needs improvement (which would be contrary to both WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:INTROTODELETE ["When not to use the deletion process: Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing."]). Even when abundant SIGCOV was presented at the AfD, they refused to withraw the nomination. This is simply a time waste. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose one benefit of making them actually use AfD is it really more directly reveals to a wider group of editors just how bad Onel's deletions frequently are, with little regard for notability and content. Silver  seren C 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, while some of his AFDs are ridiculous, I'd much rather prefer that to lots of articles wrongly draftified / redirected and removed through the backdoor - at least with afd you must have people comment or it gets relisted, oftentimes with the draftifications and redirections nobody ever goes back and it works as a backdoor deletion when it shouldn't. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I sympathize that patrollers deal with a lot of unsourced stubs, and it's difficult if it's in a domain which one might not be familiar with. Still, we have WP:BEFORE, and it must be followed; alternatively, get consensus to reform the system.—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this is untrue. WP:BEFORE is optional; it is a suggestion, not a requirement. Per WP:NEXIST it is merely strongly encouraged; likewise, the top of Articles for deletion says This page explains what you should consider before nominating (emphasis mine) - it does not set requirements. More importantly, while those parts are ambiguous, WP:BURDEN is unambiguous that the burden of finding sources ultimately lies on the people who add or wish to retain text, never on the people who wish to remove it. Making it a requirement to search for sources before nominating something for removal would be completely inappropriate, and people who inaccurately cite WP:BEFORE in arguments like these are weakening their position by doing so. There is no requirement to do any sort of search-search before a nomination; and it is entirely appropriate for editors to decline to do so on every nomination they make. If you wish to retain the challenged material and therefore wish to search for sources yourself, you are free to do so, but you cannot require that nominators perform such a search. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on this specific article / AfD, but on the general comments by some.
 * 1: you may only draftify very poor articles once (if even that), after that it is AfD
 * 2: if you bring a very poor article to AfD, but the subject is notable, then woo to you, you didn't follow the rules

Can anyone who uses argument 2 please stop using argument 1? What you are actually saying is
 * 1: you may draftify very poor articles only once (if even that), after that you should tag them or improve them but otherwise just leave them in the mainspace.

It may or may not be the majority position, but at least it would be more honest and useful than this "gotcha" you are creating here with urging people to use AfD for article which need extreme cleanup, and then lambast them for using AfD because "AfD is not cleanup". Fram (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "gotcha" at all. If an article needs extreme clean-up then either clean it up or tag it as needing it. The answer is not to nominate for deletion articles about subjects that don't qualify under our deletion policy. This is yet another problem caused by the introduction of the totally anti-wiki idea of draft space. The whole point of a wiki is that articles are improved and developed in main space where they can easily be seen and found. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you get utter garbage which has to be kept "where it can be easily seen and found". The point of a wiki is not "I can put whatever drivel I want in the mainspace as long as the subject is notable", the point is "I do the best I can in a reasonable amount of time, and others will improve it even further". For something like Draft:Unnamed Girl, what would you have done? I am not able to reverse engineer some Japanese search terms to determine if there might be the start of something here or not, but it seemed most likely that there was nothing there, based also on other things this user created. By draftifying, they got 6 months to improve it, while at the same time we prevented this from being shown to our readers, for whom it was totally uninformative. Or take Draft:Papua New Guineans in New Zealand, probably a notable subject, but as with other creations of the same editor, the article and the sources given didn't match (or the sources weren't even about New Zealand). Why would we knowingly keep an article with almost all incorrect information in the mainspace? But bring it to AfD, and the response of at least some would be "AfD is not cleanup". Perhaps, but mainspace is also not a dumping ground for any and all shit someone can produce (or have produced by AI). Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may stick my nose in ...you're both right. Creating a fenced area to put problem articles removes them from our usual collaborative processes; they don't, for example, show up in maintenance categories or when searching from a list of requested/needed articles. But the draft namespace in association with the AfC process does provide a way forward for COI articles and other topics with possibilities where it would be inappropriate for the unimproved article to be in mainspace, but there isn't the urgency of copyvio or unreferenced BLP. It was even a good idea as a catchall successor to the article incubator and in response to the confirmed right becoming required for article creation. The problems are (a) the institution of 6-months-and-it's-gone; interacting with (b) the professionalisation of NPP and AfC so that a very small group act as gatekeepers, raising to almost a certainty that they will be passing judgement on articles on topics they know next to nothing about—it magnifies their conscious and unconscious biases; and with (c) ratcheting up of standards, partly because the reviewers are dealing with so many badly written articles, they get jaded (they could usefully recalibrate by looking at "random article" from time to time, neither the PAGs nor community standards require a new article to spring like Athena from the head of Zeus, in good English, with footnotes and no bare links, and making a valid claim of notability in the first sentence while avoiding promotional language, especially when "valid" means "this particular reviewer will instantly recognise its validity) and partly because those who are willing to go through the training and install the widget are likely to be self-selected defenders of the wiki from dross. If Onel5969 or any other NPPer uses AfD as a way to get an article cleaned up—or just to get eyes on it from people who know the topic—after draftifying it, let alone after repeatedly draftifying it, they're admitting that it may be notable and their main objection is to the execution. Unfortunately, we lose a lot of encyclopaedic coverage that way. It's extremely hard for a new editor, an editor with less than stellar English (and increasingly that includes native speakers unfamiliar with the formal registers we expect, as well as our older problem that some new editors are unfamiliar with any encyclopaedias except this one) or an editor writing on anything even slightly off the beaten path to get through the process of brushing up their article and getting it accepted, even if they figure out how and attempt it. (Lower on this page is a section on a new editor who's been recreating and resubmitting an article. I won't ping them because I suspect they're also a victim of the shite mobile software. They're temporarily blocked, but I've just filled out and re-mainspaced Kyuso. It's a town and sub-county in Kenya, and was on needed article lists. Wikipedia should cover the sub-counties in Kenya. It's part of our mission, and we need more coverage of Africa, and we need new editors willing to write such articles (whether they're from Kenya or from Alpha Centauri is not my business.) If I hadn't done my usual eccentric and inexpert thing and bypassed the whole AfC "wait and get rejected because the standard is wayyyy higher than AfD" thing. Credit where credit is due; I have a suspicion it was actually Onel5969 who told me to go ahead and re-mainspace any article I was willing to stand behind, after a particularly painful attempt to get a rewrite/expansion of an article by an indeffed creator, bristling with reliable references, past a reviewer's sniff test. Then 6 months later, poof goes another little bit of our coverage. (Also ... AfD as cleanup, whether or not one views it as heinous, assumes the AfD will attract editors capable of judging the situation. Unfortunately, AfD's are increasingly sparsely attended. We now lose a trickle of articles because nobody turned up who knew the topic area and how to find sources. Not helped by the increasingly common practice of not notifying even the article creator. Not everybody reads their watchlist daily. But then of course some mobile users won't even see an AfD template on their talkpage.) Back when experienced editors were encouraged—begged—to review new pages, it was much less likely that a few people's tastes and blind spots would be magnified in this way. Back when AfC was thought of primarily a way to guide new editors to refine their drafts until they were ready (not likely to be AfD'd and deleted), AfC and draftification worked well to save articles and help retain new editors who wanted to broaden our coverage. But now drafticication is used as a badge of shame or a dustbin, and the bin almost inexorably auto-empties. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to use Articles for deletion/Autovia C-13 as an example of what I think is wrong with Wikipedia's deletion procedures. I note that Onel5969 started the AfD to forestall an edit war and gave a reasonable good faith rationale for doing so. Other editors objected, one of whom supplied some sources to look at, which other editors agreed gave an indication of notability. All fine in and of itself - here's my problem - not one of those editors improved the article - making the AfD something of a pyrrhic victory as it didn't ultimately help improve the encyclopedia. Now, I don't mind people supplying sources but not improving an article where they don't understand the subject material - in this case, the majority of not all the suitable sources are in Spanish. And indeed, one neutral participant at the AfD said "I do not know Catalan my ability to find sources to demonstrate that notability is limited." - which is fine. But if you don't improve the article - who will? Therefore, I have to take Onel's actions as a good faith attempt to clean up an article nobody was clearly ever interested in improving. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * But if you don't improve the article - who will?: Per the policy WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish People can and do volunteer their time to participate in an AfD and identify a notable topic, without choosing to volunteer more time to improve the page. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know the policy, and to cite it here kind of misses the point I was getting at, which was aimed towards the readers. If somebody reads a Wikipedia article, that in their view is rubbish, they probably aren't going to think "oh well, it's a work in a progress, somebody will fix it eventually, maybe, perhaps"? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no excusing the fact that there is no indication in that AfD nomintation that WP:BEFORE was done, ignoring WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AfD is not an alternative to bypass WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION on content. —Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether WP:BEFORE is mandatory or not was one of the questions at the now defunct RFC on AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My problem with this view is that someone was concerned enough about the lack of sourcing in the article to put it through AfD. As part of the process other editors found sources.  They could have added those sources to the article but didn't.  But the editor who AfDed it in the first place now has access to these sources and if they were so concerned about the state of the article could add the sources to the article themselves.  Of course, they are no more compelled to add them than the editors who found the sources. And there may be circumstances - especially when dealing with foreign language or offline sources - when it may not be reasonable for the nominator to add the sources. But if editors are concerned enough about the state of an article to nominate for AfD, I'd think that in most cases they would be happy to add the sources that are found in the course of the AfD. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXISTS is policy. I will also point out that say I did add those sources - all I will get in reward is another 3-4 AFDs of various roads (and in fact, Onel still has some AFDs open from his last batch). Given that, I am not especially motivated to do any substantial content work at this point. I don't get paid for this. --Rschen7754 00:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The crux of this all from a PAG perspective is WP:ARTN. So long as an article doesn't qualify for CSD the guideline is clear that it remains regardless of how poorly written, though potentially in consolidated form. Conversely articles that are highly polished and informative should nonetheless be deleted unless the content is appropriate elsewhere. As a practical matter if poorly written article unlikely to ever be improved were a WP:DELREASON we would extend the tally for AFD well into the millions. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet continually publishing unsourced or poorly sourced articles is disruptive to other editors, who have to try and clear up the mess. Something editors get routinely blocked for (at least twice on this board since this thread started). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well there's no obligation for anyone to cleanup anything, however it does obtrude in a way that interferes with the collaborative nature of the project, especially when done at scale. Views on the type and quantity of actions needed to constitute actionable disruption have shifted over the years and both timing and social relationships influence day-to-day enforcement.
 * As I write this the indexed backlog for just those articles that are entirely without sources goes back 16 years, and would be longer if routine tagging had started earlier. It's still quite underinclusive, and the underreferenced tracking categories are even more so.
 * How that set of facts should influence our appraisals is a source of friction. Some may focus more on equitable treatment and assess in terms of par for the course, others may focus more on the law of holes. There's quite a range of views in practice and not just in a single dimension. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TBANs can be proposed for any frequent abusers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE issues?
I've had another Onel5969 Redirect-into-AfD nomination pop up on one of the delsort lists I watch, at Articles for deletion/Motorcenter Norway. I am concerned that they rushed to AfD here without bothering to check sources in Norwegian, for an article very clearly about a Norwegian topic. Within 2 hours of the nomination, numerous Norwegian sources were added to the article. Further, I am concerned by the lack of time Onel gave the editors working on the article from the restoration of the article from redirect to the AfD nomination. Overall, I am now beginning to feel like they need to take a chill pill and possibly reread WP:NODEADLINE. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree here. I have come across multiple articles where there was clearly no WP:BEFORE done before redirecting an article. For ex, and my edit to add sources to the article. I think a restriction of some sorts is needed here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Protip: If you complain about "WP:BEFORE", a bunch of people will kneejerk-respond "BUT WP:BEFORE IS NOT REQUIRED!". That's technically true, but to nominate something based on notability is to assert that sources don't exist (that's what notability means). That's not something you can determine without checking to see if sources exist, so nobody should be nominating anything for deletion without checking to see if sources exist. That's not WP:BEFORE; it's basic WP:N. The fact that a list of best practices is not itself a policy or guideline doesn't mean the policies and guidelines it's based on don't still apply, of course, but it's a convenient way to wikilawyer the acceptability of absolutely any deletion rationale. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Onel was told to send these to AfD above, and it was pointed out that that would result in exactly this ANI report. I suggest Onel redirect on WP:V grounds rather than notability, then WP:BURDEN applies. If it's the restored with additional references no AfD would.be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But...it was nearly all verified at the time Onel redirected it. As an aside, one of these days we need to figure out the whole "can you remove absolutely every statement without an inline citation across Wikipedia, even if they're verifiable, and cite WP:BURDEN to keep it out?" thing. My sense of the consensus position on WP:BURDEN is because WP:V doesn't require inline citations, it's only supposed to apply when someone challenges the material or when it's the kind of material that's likely to be challenged as being unverifiable or failing verification. i.e. it's not a catch-all to purge all unsourced statements, but requires a judgment call in each case. Using WP:BURDEN to circumvent guidelines on when it's acceptable to, say, draftify would then seem to be WP:GAMING. But I may be wrong about where consensus stands, or my view may be outdated. If that's true, why wouldn't we just codify "all statements must have an inline citation" rather than assume that someone won't abuse "if someone challenges material, it must have a citation" by simply challenging all statements without citations? Sort of a procedural tangent, granted. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Last month I chatted with Onel about this issue at Talk:Quebec City. The sequence of events was roughly this:
 * An editor split off most of the content of the "Infrastructure" section of Quebec City (transportation, mostly) to a new article, Transport in Quebec City. This content was mostly unreferenced, as it had been in the parent.
 * Onel reverted the split on these grounds: Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG, and not enough sourcing to meet VERIFY. I think they're correct, FWIW.
 * The original editor reverses Onel. They should have opened a split discussion on the talk page instead of doing that.
 * Onel stubs down the content on Transport in Quebec City to what was referenced, and nothing else, which is as it stands today. Given that most of the original content on Quebec City was split, this created a situation where Wikipedia had almost nothing to say about transportation in one of the largest cities in Canada.
 * When I stumbled across this situation (personal interest, thinking about traveling there) I assumed that the article had been vandalized and was surprised at this sequence of events. I agree with Rhododendrites that WP:BURDEN shouldn't be read this way. The information is uncited, but verifiable, unchallenged, and perhaps more to the point uncontroversial. Onel's explanation left me unsatisfied: Hi Mackensen -- I don't care one way or the other, really, just felt that there should be some discussion before splitting. Once it was split, I simply removed all the uncited material as per WP:VERIFY. This is a lazy application of WP:VERIFY, in that it doesn't identify problematic material. If WP:VERIFY was a license to simply remove all uncited material, it would say that. It doesn't, and WP:BURDEN is clear about when WP:VERIFY comes into play. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Onel5969 should not have let force the contested split without obtaining consensus. This edit by Tbf69 to the source article where they edit-warred to enforce their removal without creating a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is purely disruptive. A totally terrible edit. When your bold split is reverted, it's reverted on both ends. You can't enforce removal on the source side citing contested WP:BLAR; that's worthless wikilawyering. Tbf69 has been indeffed in relation to ill-advised bold actions that are not entirely dissimilar to this. Onel5969 should have protected the article more aggressively instead of conceding to the split, and finding a half-way solution that satisfies no one. Apart from that, Onel5969 did acceptably well here. —Alalch E. 23:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A similar issue to what occurred at Transport in Quebec City has occurred at The Language of My World. They've repeatedly WP:BLARed the article to Macklemore, without taking into account an RfC closed in 2021 which suggests that that WP:AfD would be more appropriate in these situations. Also, Template:R with history and Template:R with possibilities could have been added, but weren't.
 * To allow time for the article to become notable per WP:NALBUM, I've moved undone Onel5969's last WP:BLAR on The Language of My World, and moved it to Draft:The Language of My World. I've retargeted the resulting WP:CNR to Macklemore, so it appears similar to the previous situation. –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  16:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See the section above where people say Onel shouldn't move articles to draft as it's a "back door" to deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested I'm not intending to use it as a backdoor to deletion. –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  17:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd argue that the WP:BLARs used on the page were worse, as they actually deleted useful information about the albums content (which wasn't included at Macklemore). On the other hand, this draftification retains the article's content until it's ready for mainspace. –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  17:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your lack of intent to cause back door deletion doesn't affect much here, unless you personally intend to fix up the article; there is a perception among some editors that draftifying an article you do not intend to edit further is always tantamount to back door deletion, as described in tthe discussion above, largely due to the WP:G13 time limit that kicks in for any drafts over 6 months without an edit. signed,Rosguill talk 17:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill The issue is I personally think Draft:The Language of My World is pretty much okay for mainspace, providing it's tagged with Template:More citations needed. There's definitely worse articles. However, if I'd only reverted Onel5969's last WP:BLAR, and left it in mainspace, it would probably be WP:BLARed again. –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Last month I did a history merge on the article Rodovia Luís de Queiróz. Onel5969 then took it on himself to remove everything that was unsourced. This is well outside the scope of NPP and I sure don't want to go around doing history merges if I then have to fix up the entire article. Most of the material could have been cited using the ptwiki version of the article which is what I wound up doing in the end.  --Rschen7754 18:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of all the kvetching in this thread this flavour seems the least well justified. If you can source an unsourced block of text, great; if you can't or don't wish to spend your time on that but still take responsibility for keeping the encyclopedia verifiable, also great. "Letting stuff sit in mainspace with a cn tag" is a method that starts to look less attractive the more crap you see, and Onel sees a lot of crap, so I don't blame him in the least for this kind of predilection. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Undergirding most Wikipedia policies is the belief that unsourced, non-controversial (yet verifiable) information, added in good faith, is not harmful to the encyclopedia. This way of editing runs contrary to that belief, and it shouldn't be surprising that editors have a problem with it. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mackensen What about Draft:The Language of My World then? Onel has WP:BLARed it, when at it's current stage, rather than WP:DRAFTIFYing as I've done.  –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  09:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mackensen What about Draft:The Language of My World then? Onel has WP:BLARed it, when at it's current stage, rather than WP:DRAFTIFYing as I've done.  –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  09:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that CityUrbanism has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked user. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There a very simple total solution. Step 1 of building an article is finding 1 or 2 GNG sources and putting them in. Do that. Then every problem and invented "problem" in this thread would vanish. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @North8000 GNG as evaluated by new page patrollers, or by an AfD discussion? If we imagine deletionism-inclusionism as a continuum, I think we'd find new page patrollers somewhat to the "deletionist" side of the average Wikipedian. I can see why dealing with low-quality pages would engender that outlook. It does create a difficult situation wherein a new page patroller is draftifying a page that would easily (and does) survive AfD. That's not an outcome that makes sense to a lot of people. There are examples in this thread of articles with "GNG sources" (to use your phrase) that were treated that way. So long as there's a gap there is going to be tension, and it shouldn't just be hand-waved away as so much carping. The issue is a legitimate one. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As defined by the GNG part of WP:GNG And I mean this as a structural answer, not a flippant one.  And NPP and AFD should be doing their best to implement that.  Even the creator just making a good attempt at understanding and doing that would pretty much solve all of the above. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * if's you'd like to point out an example where it was even argued that the article had GNG sources and you think that the disposition by One was handled improperly, I'd be happy to dive in on that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this comment summarises this thread well, some editors believe NPP to be on the side of the "Deletionists", and that there is a tension with articles that are notable but don't meet other policies (particularly V). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Subject notability doesn't depend on what anyone thinks. Subjects are notable because they have verified sources. The idea that a subject could be notable, without verifiable independent reliable sources is the problem - Especially when it comes to BLPs.
 * Participants at AfD that habitually ignore core policy such as WP:V and WP:BLP to bludgeon discussions is causing a lot of disruption, contributing to a (continuing) toxic environment at AfD. A perfect example of this toxic bludgeoning and ignoring policy is happening right now at Articles for deletion/Robert Zebelyan with walls of text. Regardless of the outcome of this particular discussion, there is no way this type of participation should be allowed to continue.
 * In this case the disruptive editor was even warned by an admin to stop, but they have continued . These walls of text an d spam references are making any close determination difficult to impossible. The relisting comment says: "Needs more assessments of the sources". I agree that any closer needs a good assessment, but in this case how can anyone even begin to put a source eval together given the state of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  13:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I won't participate in Articles for deletion/Robert Zebelyan again (I like how the BLUDGEONING somehow only applies to me though...), but could you please tell me how your most recent article Serhii Korovayny meets the standards above that you apply to others articles? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Other than some specialty items from wp:not and wp:speedy, WP:Notability is the the main criteria in play regarding whether or not it should exist as a separate article and at the core of that is 1-2 GNG type sources. And the main job of NPP is evaluating that for new articles. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this in the discussion. Including criticizing NPP for doing their job and confusing article quality issues with "existence of the article" issues. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have similiarly encountered issues with Onel5969 as well, recently. While I understand there is some contention around the creation of [my article], I felt his approach was heavy handed and not in accordance with wiki policy. Even though I asked for his help, he simply just abandoned my request. Additionally, he threatened to speedy delete my article if I moved it again. I intend on making another pass with the inclusion of multiple research papers that have included this piece of software, but I felt his manner was incredibly crass and unwelcoming to a newcomer. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We had someone at the Teahouse confused about Onel5969 move-warring over Draft:Philip Lintilhac just today. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 21:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MickTravisBickle
has been belligerent in violating BLP, by giving unsourced/badly-sourced claims, on certain articles related to trans people, particularly Dana Rivers. They have been repeatedly been warned of being blocked, and have just continued, and kept up pointless arguments against policies. --Rob (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That’s false. I have not made bad claims about “trans people”. Rob et al have exhibited unfairness around both Dana Rivers and Camp Trans articles.  Murderer Dana Rivers was associated with camp trans. It’s documented, and it was on Rivers’ main article page until *yesterday*, when I wanted to also include it in the camp trans page. When I move to do any editing on the pages, everything was reverted, including verified facts.  Rivers appeared as a speaker, an advocate for camp trans. All I wanted to do was include in both the rivers articles and the camp trans article and my edits keep being reverted. This is clearly a case of protectionism and ownership and  attempted ownership of articles
 * http://eminism.org/michigan/20000812-camptrans.txt MickTravisBickle (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A topic ban on gensex is required at a minimum here. A brief review of MTBs edit history shows that they have trouble with NPOV in this area, Very Average Editor (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose indefinite block for incessant wp:bludgeoning, egregious BLP violations, WP:GREATWRONGS and POV warring on trans issues. The user’s recent editing history has been exclusively in this area and entirely negative. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thats quite enough of this. Indeffed for complete failure to follow BLP or NPOV, and generally NOTHERE.  Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Beauty pageant SPAs needs help understanding verifiability


has edited virtually exclusively in beauty pageant related articles, a topic covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. Plus hundreds of related pages in userspace, I don't know what that's about.

The complaint is this: They recently added back large sections of unreferenced content at Miss World 2017. The edit summary seems to state that they think that I should be adding references. They have been discussing on their talkpage with another pageant SPA,, how to preserve the unreferenced content as well, in this and other pageant articles. I think they both need help understanding WP:V and WP:BURDEN. One of the editors has been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and the other has a recent warning from an admin on their talkpage. I'm out of patience and don't want to get into 3RR territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted.  Placing an improvement template like &lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt; seems the most appropriate thing to do, in fact I just placed it in the article Miss World 2017.  Obviously, as always, the information must be duly referenced.  The issue here is that they are being deleted from the  final results  of a Big 4 competition, removing them completely seems like an outburst.  Like the preliminary competitions that in Miss World have considerable importance.  Other details such as the order in which the contestants are named are characteristic of beauty contests.
 * In any case, if you consider and persist that the information should be removed without any consideration, I will not oppose it or enter into any pitched battle.
 * I understand the good and logical intentions but the actions taken seem hostile and do not invite responsible and friendly participation from the Wikipedia editing community.
 * No more to refer to.
 * Says goodbye￼ Mauriziok (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Here is some friendly advice. If you want to add substantive new content to this encyclopedia, provide a reference to a reliable published source. If you want to restore content that another editor has removed as unreferenced, then provide a reference to a reliable published source. There is nothing at all unfriendly about any of this. It is how we maintain a high quality encyclopedia. Can you agree to that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned it before. The background of the action is reasonable but not the way in which it is done.  If you want to revert the edits.  Do it no problem.￼ Mauriziok (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll bite: in which way do you believe that unreferenced information should be removed, except for, well, removing it? You've been editing on Wikipedia for five years now, and you should have learned long since that unreferenced information is liable to be removed at any time, in any quantity.  You should also have learned -- long since -- that your edits are liable to be changed, edited further or removed outright at any time, without prior warning to you or to any other editor. The purported "importance" of the information is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that it should not have been put in in the first place if you were unprepared to properly reference it at the time.  If there's any "hostile" action at work here, it's in adding information and expecting that some other editor is going to do the work of properly sourcing it.  That's not what I'd call "responsible" OR "friendly."   Ravenswing      06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there may be a bit more of a fundamental problem here. Just scanning their contribs I haven't been able to find any where they add any refs, despite being quite prolific on adding tables of info. I've checked about a dozen of their larger edits where they add material and I haven't been able to find one where it's supported by a citation. if there are 6k of edits specifically to beauty pageeant pages on that basis... DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even worse, they've been adding large amounts of data to articles like Miss Venezuela 1957, Miss Venezuela 1958 and Miss Venezuela 1960 where not only are they adding no sources, there actually aren't any in the article apart from the pageant's website. Not sure how these articles have existed for 16 years; any of them could be AfDd with no issues.  Like many pageant SPAs, both accounts have poor English (that's not saying one is a sock of the other, but they're equally poor) and are adding material that isn't particularly good. In the end, if editors are adding no value to our articles, they should probably be restricted from doing so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an issue across hundreds if not thousands of pageant articles. Unfortunately I have been placed in a position where even bundling the AfDs was met with resistance. Unless something changes, AfD is a no-go at scale. So I'm kinda out of steam on that front. Now just PRODing onesies and twoesies, and trying to identify and deal with some of the prolific poor-content contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mauriziok, you said, I'm just trying to ensure that the information that has been placed with so much effort is not suddenly deleted. With all due respect, that's absurd. It's sources first and content second, not the other way around. And the content, of course, must be worthy of inclusion in the article. Since you've been actively editing for over five years, I assume you know all this. If you would put "so much effort" into finding reliable sources as you have for placing information, you wouldn't have these problems. This ongoing pattern of improper editing is disruptive. Stoarm (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Same situation is recurring at Miss Earth 2023 with apparently coordinated anon editors (2 minute time delta ), edit summary when they restored unsourced content is "Please conduct research before removing a confirmed contestants". ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with a group of pageant article editors not only telling other editors not to remove their unsourced content or outright OR, but also having the audacity to tell them to do their work for them by finding sources. This highly disruptive, coordinated effort needs to be stopped. It's time for restrictions to be handed out. I know almost nothing about pageants, but I'm curious to know, generally, who's causing the problems in these articles. Is it some pageant contestants or organizers? Or just superfans? Thank you, Bri, for all your time and effort to protect and improve this project. Stoarm (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A small discussion broke out on my talkpage and I asked people to contribute here, which I hope they do. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings! To answer the question of @Stoarm, problems regarding these articles are usually from the superfans themselves and not the contestants or the organizers. Some instances of vandalism became too much that it was reported in the news (i.e. Miss Universe 2015 article vandalism of changing Pia Wurtzbach as Miss Universe 2015 to Ariadna Gutierrez as Miss Universe 2015).
 * Now, as for my contribution in this discussion, I agree with the points of @Cullen328, @Ravenswing and @Stoarm that for one, if you are to add information in an article, it is your responsibility to cite references to validate the information, and making others cite references for the information you added seems disrespectful and irresponsible. The key here is responsibility, and if you are to add information without sourcing, why add it? The solution here is really simple (in my opinion): cite references, that's it, problem solved. Unsourced content should be rightfully removed since it violates WP:V and the "Order of Announcements", "Final Competition Scores" and "Order of Introdcution" sections of some articles especially in Miss Universe are considered as fancruft. Majority of the articles even violate MOS:BOLD. There are a lot of contributors to pages regarding beauty pageants but none really seems to care to add references to articles for past Miss Universe editions, some even cite a reference erroneously which could be in danger of link rot.
 * For example, articles for Miss Universe in the 1990s and 2000s are already here for years and years and yet there is still no progression in citing references. Yes, it may have an external link linking to the official page of Miss Universe, but does that website even carry information about those years? Especially from the 1990s or even the 1980s? Not anymore. That single link is not enough. And do you think Pageantopolis, a long dead pageant blog would be considered as a reliable source? No.
 * I am citing a tip from Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants:
 * "As with any article, cite reliable sources for any facts in the article. Ideally, they should be independent sources (not just what the pageant or contestant says about themselves, which is often promotional). Also, independent coverage is a good indicator of notability, which helps justify inclusion in the encyclopedia."
 * That is from the project itself which is the umbrella project for all of the articles in this discussion. If it is clearly stated from the page itself. It is even mentioned at WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as to which sources are deemed reliable or not. Reliable sources/Perennial sources would also help. These users defending unsourced material are making this situation worse even if this situation could easily be solved.
 * Now, I am finding it hard for some people reverting back my edits where I remove unreferenced articles and not giving edit summaries (which is also a problem). I even state why it was removed in a nice way but some find it to be insulting. What is insulting is that you are reverting back unsourced material that clearly violates the aforementioned policies. @Raymarcbadz for one reverted my edits at Miss Universe 1991 without even an edit summary and they even have to shout at me (although they removed it) for doing a "disrespectful" action.
 * "WHY CAN'T YOU DELETE ALL THE PAST MISS UNIVERSE AND MISS WORLD ARTICLES and INSTEAD RECREATE A NEW ONE WITH SOURCES? YOU'RE TRYING TO MESS UP ALL THE ARTICLES BECAUSE OF REFERENCE ISSUES. WE HAVE OTHER MATTERS TO FOCUS ON." Is what the user said verbatim to my user talk which prompted me to halt editing in English Wikipedia. The problem regarding the articles could really be fixed by just searching on Google for articles, checking on Google News Archives, checking for digitized historical newspapers on reliable sites such as Delpher, National Library of Israel, Newspapers.com, National Library Board, Trove, etc., but instead they have resort to this. I do not have bad intentions regarding the user and the articles I have edited but why should it be like this? I assume the user should know already about the policies at WP:V etc., especially that he is editing in Wikipedia way longer than I am. The disruptive editing are adding unsourced material should end. Allyriana000 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has edited a lot of pageant articles, I'd rather not see competitor lists or results from pageants removed even if unreferenced. A lot of these pageants completely remove all information when a new pageant happens and various news websites move pages and then it gets lost. It's not as much of a problem for a recent edition of Miss Universe, but it becomes a major problem for smaller and older pageants. The media often also never posts full competitor lists.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unsourced or unreliably sourced content regarding living persons should never be added and when it is found, it should be removed per WP:BLP. These edits are a problem:, , , , .  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, honestly? Too bad. We're not merely permitted to remove unsourced information concerning living persons, we're enjoined to do so. I am militantly indifferent to excuses why that's somehow harmful. If, in the example you use, smaller/older pageants don't have enough regard for their own history to maintain their own lists, I don't see any reason why we need to save them bandwidth costs ... or that we have the authority in the first place to override a core content policy of the encyclopedia. Because there's this curious notion that's been bopping around Wikipedia for many years now: that if there's some putative excuse why the media isn't covering a subject (or, as you state, isn't doing so thoroughly enough for your liking), the provisions of WP:V and WP:N are suspended in its favor. This notion has no foundation in any policy or guideline, and we want a far better reason to defy the WMF on BLP's provisions than the lack of a well-sourced full competitor list for the Miss Upper Sokovia 1993 pageant.   Ravenswing      05:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps a tangent, though relevant. I think for years, maybe from the beginning, Wikipedia has become a very useful 'archive' for information which the Internet doesn't always keep: as the comment says, websites get updated and delete information while Wikipedia can be a permanent record of history A strict reading of notability guidelines would remove acres of useful information, from local election results to movie information to weather events to pageant lineups: it has always been a push-pull relationship between encyclopedic content and a record of facts. Obviously in this specific case we can't allow things to go silly, but I'd be cautious about being ultra prescriptive. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stipulating so, Wikipedia is not a webhost. It is not within our mandate to store movie information, insignificant weather events, obscure pageant lineups, municipal election results or any of the rest of that.  Quite aside from that, a large part of the reason for WP:V being a core content policy is that without verification from a reliable source, we have no idea if the information presented is accurate.  That unsourced Miss Upper Sokovia 1993 pageant list could, in fact, be completely spurious.  We've certainly been hoaxed many times before, to the point where there's not only a List of hoaxes on Wikipedia article, but the section on known times we've been hoaxed with a spurious article lasting more than ten years is nearly fifty deep. In any event, as we've seen half a thousand times over at AfD, on article talk pages and, well, here, editors riding their pet hobby horses have a curiously elastic definition of what constitutes "going silly," and those pet hobby horses seldom seem to fall within it.   Ravenswing      09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point. I've had many successful AfD nominations of very minor political parties because the argument 'all political parties are notable' doesn't stand up. And yes, adding lists of pageant lineups without proof of them even being genuine is the act of a potential vandal. Where I divert from you is the idea that certain subjects can't fall within the remit of Wikipedia: I'd say Wiki is the most reliable source of comprehensive UK local election results on the Internet. "Encyclopedic" can be flexible enough if the content is important or non-trivial: if the choice is "local authority election results verses Pokémon varieties", I know where I'd land.
 * Anyway, I think this is a tangent for somewhere else :) doktorb wordsdeeds 10:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Ravenswing's comments above regarding AfD discussions; it is long past due for this type of disruption regarding BLPs to be stopped.  // Timothy :: talk  10:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * KatoKungLee, you are not an SPA, but seem to need help understanding verifiability. If lists of competitors have not been published then we can't include them. If they have been published by reliable sources (which don't have to be available online) then we can include them. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User: FortUser actively gaming EC
See the history at Sandbox, several warnings on his talk page. Think a block only thing get it to stop and get them to understand the rules and the point of extended-confirmed to begin with. And by actively I mean literally right now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I will no longer seek extended-confirmed protection by gaming the system. Please don't block me. FortUser (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have left them an edit-conflicted note. If they stop with the sandbox games and go back to regular editing then hopefully there's nothing more to do. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thank you. Only came as it continued for a while after the talk page messages. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely shouldn't be getting EC without requesting at WP:RFPP. To prevent someone being automatically assigned EC, do we usually grant and then immediately revoke EC? Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or wouldn't that really be necessary now since they've well and truly attracted everyones attention? Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just leave it, we'll see what happens from here. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed for the clear trolling at Selenium (software) \ Wikipedia application \ Proof of concept. Yes, that was the title. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

More block evasion from Colombia


Colombian IP Special:Contributions/186.155.172.57 was blocked three weeks ago for disruption in music articles. Before that, the person used other IPs in the range Special:Contributions/186.155.168.0/21 and was reverted a bunch of times but not blocked.

Now this same person is using Special:Contributions/186.155.104.0/21, continuing to disrupt music articles, especially by genre-warring. Can we protect the wiki from this new range? Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ve given the /21 a month off anon only. I’d want a CU to take a look before anything stronger. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to see. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Rahulwiki214 disruptive editing
replacing content or blanking of this AfD [1] [2] [3] [4]. There is so much evidence that I can't just stuff it all as links, they are all in contribs. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * pinging @Fram, @The Night Watch. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 14:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by ScottishFinnishRadish. Thanks for notifying me.  The Night Watch     (talk)   14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * not indeffed, they got blocked for 1 week. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Silly me! Yes, you're right.  The Night Watch     (talk)   14:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally vandalizing and disruptively editing user talk pages. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy and fairness, I've fixed their unblock request. Callmemirela  &#127809; <b style="font-family:Open Sans; color:#9cadad; text-transform:uppercase;">talk</b> 15:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the user indefed however for socking. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 16:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefed by ScottishFinnishRadish for making legal threats. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 17:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien premature AFDs
I’m a bit concerned with there excessive premature AFDs of subjects like 2023 Rutgers University strike, 2023 Texas dairy farm explosion and 2023 Dadeville shooting. Little WP:BEFORE and lots of cleaning votes should be discarded because they don’t like them personally. 144.121.185.140 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is to a point of being ANI worthy. People make mistakes and their AfD nomination history isn't concerning to me. I would however like to see them withdraw an AfD when it's a clear snow keep (looking at you 2023 Dadeville shooting). Give them a chance to learn from the results of their current AfD nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They have, further signaling that they are acting in good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing remotely wrong or actionable here, people are allowed to bring AFDs, the process is going forth as it should. This ANI post is excessive and premature. --Golbez (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS is a valid reason to consider deletion, and AFD coming to a consensus to keep (as appears to be happening in these) doesn't mean it wasn't a discussion worth having. Process is working as intended. Courcelles (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not disruptive to start a discussion and see where community opinion lies, and it doesn't become retroactively disruptive if the community is unanimously against you. You can't punish people for being wrong!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Vaibhav13july talk page
Could an admin please remove Vaibhav13july's talk page access? relevant diff. Mvqr (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Aoidh (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

POV-pushing user
For years, has been vandalising articles related to the Aromanians, removing information they do not like including the removal of Aromanian descent claims to several Albanian figures or reducing the estimates of their population in Albania. They are not here to build an encyclopedia but to obfuscate information on an endangered minority group in benefit of their own nationalistic beliefs. Their edits have spilled over other topic areas such as Kosovo or the former Yugoslavia. They have also not doubted to remove information they do not like regarding Albanian collaborationists with the Nazis in WW2.

Here are several diffs: (note the blatantly deceiving edit summary),     (white-washing WW2 crimes),  (removal of an Albanian government site for being "unreliable"),. This user was already blocked for three days before due to edit-warring. Also note that literally all of their edits have been reverted. Super  Ψ   Dro  13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A E Francis: calls me a vandal, adds back unsourced (BURDEN, OWN) content in a very slow edit war


User A E Francis intends to keep restoring, over and over, as they have done for roughly the past 7 months, their version that violated BURDEN and against which there is a consensus. There were multiple attempts at discussing, but the user simply IDIDNTHEARTHAT.


 * I made the user aware of their violation of BURDEN in September 2022
 * the user was warned in September 2022 by admin DatGuy, see this ANI case; to which A E Francis replied he had only [c]orrected vandalism.
 * a page protection had been put in place due to our disagreement by Anachronist, who stated: Resumption of disruption after protection expires will result in blocks on involved accounts. To which A E Francise did not react and simply waited, to later restore their version.
 * there was a clear consensus that the user's version was unacceptable, explaining the user what the problem was
 * the user called my removal vandalism again and again . They have received explanations on why their behaviour was unacceptable in January 2023 by admin DragonflySixtyseven.
 * the user tries to restore their content every 2-3 months, never changing it, whatever others say. Recently (April 2023), they have done so, claiming to fight "vandalism" (i.e. my edits). To which another user (Ltwin) replied that none of the problems pointed out previously (such as the user signing their own reflexions inside the WP article itself) had been fixed.
 * I had reverted the user and gave a final warning to the user on their talk page. But then I realised it would do nothing, that this problem has been running for too long and that I had already given numerous warnings to the user at their talk page (I also undid my undoing 30 minutes later, as it was likely a form of edit-warring)

So, unless the user is blocked from editing this very page, I am afraid they will always come back to restore the article as they see fit (with the unsourced content, violating BURDEN) as they have done since roughly September 2022, in a clear WP:OWNERSHIP (something they were reproached as far back as 2008) and WP:ATTRITION mentality. And, if nothing is done, they will continue to call those who disagree with them'vandals'. Veverve (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are probably wise not to revert the edit to Thomistic sacramental theology, but I have done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading A E Francis's version of the article, none of which is sourced or appropriate encyclopedic language, and seeing in their contributions that they've been pushing this text for 7 months; and that their posts to its talk page basically consist of calling removals of it "vandalism", I think at a minimum that A E Francis should be blocked from editing Thomistic sacramental theology. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Might as well indef him seeing as its literally the only article hes edited recently. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:7D34:A823:E451:2EA0 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the archiving of this discussion as it does not appear to be resolved. @ This discussion has been open for several days and you have not responded. Multiple editors have been critical of your history in this matter. I'm giving you a last chance to respond before I or another admin takes action based on what's here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - don't want to tread on your toes here, but I don't think that we're going to hear from any time soon, they only edit once every few months. I've indefinitely p-blocked them from that article - when they come back, if they want to work on it again, they can use the talk page to propose improvements, or they can request unblock and convince an admin that they will do so non-disruptively.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

IP sock threatening to rape and murder
223.188.243.83 Has threatened to murder me and rape my family members (in Hindi) in his edit summaries and on my Talk page. Please block him at the earliest. The IP likely bleongs to this sockpuppeteer Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. Gotitbro (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And please censor the edit summaries of these edits/the edits, they are too vile to appear in page histories. Gotitbro (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Placed a rangeblock as well. Hopefully that takes care of things for a while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-close note - I've lengthened the block - doesn't look like there will be much collateral, and that person has been using it through accounts as well as IPs for a while now. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Leo1pard appears to be participating in an AfD while drunk.
Or at least, that's the most charitable explanation. See Articles for deletion/Tiger versus lion (3rd nomination), where Leo1pard posted a supposed list of sources (scientific or otherwise) which dealt directly with the topic Even a momentary inpection of the list reveal a whole slew of citations to random topics having no connection whatsoever to Lion vs Tiger fights. Or even Lions. Or tigers. Highlights include an article 'Kyivan Rus' from the 'Internet Encyclopaedia of Ukraine', the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Balkans, the Encyclopaedia Iranica article on Flags of Persia. A webpage on Geographical Names concerning Samur:Azerbaijan, and an 'Ecosystem Profile' of the Caucasus. No lions fighting tigers in any of them. No lions or tigers at all. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Rather than respond rationally by redacting the absurd list, Leo1pard has doubled down by spamming the talk page with the same, repeated non-response: To get what I know, you will have to scroll through what was in this article before, but I wouldn't want to put the whole thing here, because you might find it cumbersome. Even scrolling though what was in the article before is cumbersome. Which isn't even an attempt to explain why the list includes such off-topic nonsense.

At minimum, I think we need to block Leo1pard for such time as is needed for them to sober up, though a topic ban from lions, tigers, and AfDs might well be wise, until such time as Leo1pard can convince us that they can distinguish between a large felid and Azerbaijani place name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks! I didn't attack you personally, only trying to explain what was in the article before! Leo1pard (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please blow gently into this tube... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can stop with the personal attacks Mr. Grump. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "...though a topic ban from lions, tigers, and AfDs might well be wise..." Oh my. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * After requests / warnings, I removed the repititions, and shortened what I said. Leo1pard (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest, before it becomes necessary to make this compulsory, that you voluntarily remove yourself from that AfD, let others have their say, and stop bludgeoning the discussion. You can always make a few small comments (think sentences, not entire libraries) later in the AfD process, when there's more to discuss. The page, right now, is basically you stopping any meaningful discussion from taking place by burying it under references and then copyright violating copy and paste text. You might actually be drifting towards a competence is required type block, the more I think about this. That would be a terrible shame. Nick (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I removed another wall, as requested. Leo1pard (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And still not the slightest attempt to explain why the list includes a whole slew of utter irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that the whole thing was to be restored, and I was requested to remove the wall of text from the AfD. I don't think that anybody would want a wall of references here either, like what I just removed. Leo1pard (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 17:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't want a wall of references. I want an explanation as to why you posted a wall of 'references' full of citations to material having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article being discussed at AfD. Just how hard is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Am I understanding this situation correctly? 1. The article was kept at AFD in 2019. 2. In the intervening ~3.5 years the article was massively trimmed/cleaned up to try to reduce synth and OR. 3. The article is back at AFD because the nominator thinks it's still a mess of synth and OR, and is completely irredeemable. 4. Leo1pard is trying to argue that the article should be kept because the topic is notable because the version that was kept in 2019 had more sources than the current version, even though the sources that have been removed bear little to no relevance to the topic of the article, notability is not the issue in this AFD, and the even if it was, the article as nominated in 2023 cites 53 sources.  Have I got all this right? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it was to explain what was in the article before, but unfortunately, even scientific sources got removed. Leo1pard (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That was not what was asked of you, and never was. This does not help show that you have any competence as an editor. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of the AfD now - due to a slew of redactions, it is an almost incomprehensible mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a reader approaching it after the redactions it is pretty comprehensible. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of AndyTheGrump & UtherSRG are doing personal attacks. Leo1pard (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That is not a personal attack. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you tag me? I have nothing to do with this... --Equivamp - talk 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Leo1pard, we're done. You've made your point on the AfD, or tried to, and you certainly have had plenty of opportunity to try to. I'm going to p-block you from editing that document until it's run its course--and I'm doing that to protect you as well as the project. I don't see any reason for any further action, right now, but don't push the point, any point. AndyTheGrump, I can "read" the AfD well enough; no worries. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor (50.224.80.190) is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia
This disruptive IP keeps on trying to add WP:OR and other improperly cited material to articles despite multiple reminders not to. They also seem to add WP:POVPUSH and not adhere to WP:NPOV, as well as constantly adding unsourced or improperly sourced material. I also noticed them removing sourced material to shift the POV of an article. Looks like classic WP:NOTHERE behavior to me. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  03:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Courtesy linking
 * GabberFlasted (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @GabberFlasted just fyi IP editors can't be pinged. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  11:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 'twas a courtesy link, not a ping. Usually when opening a thread on AN/I, links to the editor(s) in question are provided with or  to make certain who is being spoken of, and also so anyone reviewing the situation has quick access to these pages. the User template just returns the typical signature links (User, Usertalk, and contribs) while Userlinks provides extra links as shown above. Hope this helps! GabberFlasted (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a little rich. Using words like “constantly” to describe someone who’s only made a few edits to Wikipedia over a couple weeks. Using an accusation of point of view pushing to describe two edits that I made to a particular page.
 * On one person’s Wikipedia page, I first removed something that I felt was a biography of living persons violation and that was reverted. So then I instead of edit warring, I waited more than a day and then instead of repeating my earlier edit, I included some information about SPLC. My preference would’ve been my earlier edit where instead of making a statement about SPLC I just removed their being attached to the article. 50.224.80.190 (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Butlerblog and @Wesoree -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  11:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * definitely a WP:POVPUSHER. By what I can see, how he replied saying that something that I removed from my user page for being too WP:POLEMIC that it was fine. Besides, I can't be notified every single day from that editor. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 12:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To address 50.224 directly, Using words like “constantly” to describe someone who’s only made a few edits to Wikipedia over a couple weeks. Using an accusation of point of view pushing to describe two edits that I made to a particular page. - Well, considering that you've made only POV edits (using this IP) and then you spent the bulk of your time with nonsensical arguments about them on UT pages, that would qualify as WP:POVPUSHing. Of course, you already know that.  Your feigning of ignorance here is just more of the same nonsense you pull elsewhere.   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This user is willfully and intentionally WP:NOTHERE and a WP:SPI would turn up positive. If they're not blocked, they will continue to WP:WIKIHOUND - it's what they do. I've dealt with this user before, and this time, unfortunately, I just was too busy.  It's obvious they're unable to help themselves from being a troll even when ignored.  I'd support any kind of block, and if necessary, I'll open yet another sockpuppet investigation.   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Butlerblog Yeah, I kinda suspected socking and/or Long-Term Abuse too with this user's edits and WP:POVPUSHING. I think you should file an SPI just to be safe (I'm not sure who the sockmaster is yet, personally). -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Butlerblog You should probably request CU as they might know who the sockmaster is. I support a 1 month block for now however. The amount of WP:HOUNDING on my talk page has been reverted. I've just blanked whatever that there was on my talk page also per WP:DENY. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 13:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wesoree Yeah, that IP seemed to be hounding and harassing you. I knew something was a bit off at first (but was a bit unsure- I thought they might be WP:BRDing but now that I look at their edits I can see how they are clear and unambiguous WP:POVPUSH) but now I'm just plain convinced that they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia based on their actions. I'm personally willing to support longer blocks, maybe up to a year. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  13:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll open the SPI. You can't CU an IP, but the behavioral evidence is there.   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Butlerblog Thanks. That might deal with all this WP:POVPUSHING for now. Either way, I just don't want this IP making any more WP:DISRUPTIVE edits. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it was WP:BRDing at first, but as it went on, I knew something was off. Especially with the section regarding my userpage. --  Wesoree  ( T · C ) 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wesoree Yeah, something was CLEARLY off in that comment they made about your user page. Again, it's just plain unambiguous that this IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  13:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI opened:   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal Threat by IP
See here by  LizardJr8 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You got it before I even notified them on their talk page. Which I swear I was doing! LizardJr8 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP has already been blocked by SarekOfVulcan. ZsinjTalk 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppenheimer (film)
Could someone please delete the page and restore it without the latest nearly hundred edits? An IP has wrecked the page history. Home Lander (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 23:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ummm... nope, not yet done, administrator needed. Home Lander (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the above "done" is referring to... anyway, I've blocked the IP editor (they're a returning customer), but I don't think selective deletion is needed here (see also Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343). DanCherek (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried restoring the page to the version pre-all the IP edits but for some reason the software isn't saving it. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 23:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to was actually removing all the edits from the edit history; they have no purpose at all. Home Lander (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there exists such thing as removing revisions (or hiding them from view) from a page's history. According to WP:Oversight, there used to exist such a thing ("Old Oversight"), but that's gone now. I've requested semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  02:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a way to do this, called Selective deletion, but it's been deprecated in favour of WP:REVDEL, which is not appropriate in this case as it would still leave the entries visible in the page history. So while we technically could do what Home Lander is asking, it would be against policy and common practice. – bradv  03:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

An odd case of sockpuppetry
I came across the page William Quantrill today and observed an odd case of sockpuppetry. Apparently a week ago, attempted multiple times to remove mentions of William Quantrill being a mass murderer (1 2). A look at the page's history indicates they've been after that article for quite a while. Anyway, about a week later, an IP made exactly the same change (all three diffs I linked to removed exactly 91 bytes). A few hours later, another IP removed that part yet again but replaced it with a slightly different wording. Another IP conducted a similar change a few minutes ago and...I think you got the point. An administrator should probably look into this further.<span id="Nythar:1681942184629:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 22:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another one: (1 2 3)


 * Restored status quo. Semi-protected page for a week so that the content issue can be discussed on talk-page. And warned for apparent logged-out editing. Abecedare (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nythar, a case for this has been opened at Sockpuppet investigations/Harry Sibelius. I've listed all the disruptive IP's being used by this one user. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton and Simoooix.haddi 2-way interaction ban
M.Bitton and Simoooix.haddi

These two simply cannot seem to interact without making accusations that the other is following them around with an intent to harass, making personal attacks and accusations of nationalistic editing, source misrepresentation. I've suggested (April 18 diff) a voluntary 2-way iban, to no avail.

Proposing the community implement a 2-way interaction ban between M.Bitton and Simoooix.haddi for disruption.

8 February Special:Permalink/1150497426

9 February Special:Permalink/1150497426

18 February Special:Permalink/1150497426

5 April Special:Permalink/1150497426

After discussing/advising at both editors' talks here, here, here and here and an article talk, plus at another editor's user talk, I p-blocked Simoooix. I wasn’t sure whether I’d missed that the behavior on the part of both was blockworthy, so I opened a discussion at XRV:

9 April Special:Permalink/1149861748 At XRV, they continued to bicker over content and whether the other was following them around with an intent to harass.

12 April Special:Permalink/1150427380 Continued bickering, ditto.

18 April Special:Permalink/1150497426 Valereee (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * First, I'd like to apologize to Val, because she took this on after I said on my talk page I didn't have the time to look into it. Second, support a two-way iban. This has been going on for quite a while, and it needs to stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is Simoooix.haddi's third ever edit. They are indef blocked for anti-Algerian vandalism on the French Wikipedia. I don't think that this is a 'both sides are at fault' kind of situation. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As i have already stated. Wikipedia was totally a new world back then. And i have apologized for my mistake. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As you say, their third edit, and ten weeks ago. They've learned a bit more about our policy since then. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not so obvious about it now, sure. But Civil POV pushing isn't really an upgrade. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And IMO it may well require an eventual topic ban. But in the meantime the waters are muddied by all of this business. I asked M.Bitton to file here, but they insisted (April 18 diff) Simoooix "needed more rope" and wanted to continue the constant disruption in the meantime in order to get that evidence. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What I actually said is the interaction is hiding the real problem that will become clearer as time goes by. That's why I suggested more rope while I will avoid interacting with them unless absolutely necessary (and on the article's talk pages). The way I see it, a 2-way interaction ban won't work as it will shift the underlying problem somewhere else, instead of addressing it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But you didn't saying anything about avoiding interaction/interacting only on article talk until after this was filed? Valereee (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did mention avoiding interacting with them, even though I wasn't specific. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What in Filing it now will just repeat what has been discussed and won't achieve anything. The whole intention of the rope is to get rid of what's been hiding the real problem (i.e., the interaction) and let them do what they came here to do (which will get clearer as they time goes by is a mention of avoiding interacting? Valereee (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole intention of the rope is to get rid of what's been hiding the real problem (i.e., the interaction) M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, completely unclear to me where you've said you'll avoid them as much as possible or how the rope gets rid of interaction. I don't want to bicker about this here, so if you feel like continuing this particular argument, ping me to your user talk, but FTR here, I'm finding the idea you went to their page to give them rope was intended to get rid of interaction pretty unconvincing. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I didn't go there to give them rope. The rope was offered later when it became clear to me that you are not seeing the real problem. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you see the part where I said take it to your user talk? Valereee (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton, Could you please tell what exactly "the real problem" is? Please be precise, i really need to know (and i think others also do). Is it what Rosguill suggested below? SimoooIX (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Is a User talk-space iban an option? I expressed a view in the last thread similar to MrOllie's here and see very little reason to assume good faith (and much less to insist that M.Bitton assume it) on SimooolX's part. That having been said, the final thread linked by Valereee, which was started by M.Bitton at SimooolX's user talk page, is a total waste of time. Absent evidence of disruptive editing by M.Bitton in mainspace, I don't think a full two-way iban is appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 15:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd go with a 2-way user talk iban, at least as an attempt. Kind of depends on whether it just moves the disruption to article talk. If I saw one or both of them making accusations of following with intent to harass at multiple article talks without compelling evidence, I'd consider it just moving the disruption. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , replying to your comment from SimooolX's talk page here, I think I do see the underlying problem: SimooolX clearly came to en.wiki ready to BATTLEGROUND based on their first few edits. As I stated in the last thread, I think even a NOTHERE block (to say nothing of lesser remedies such as a tban or 1-way iban) would be reasonable on the basis of their initial personal attack, and I'm not particularly moved by their apology. However, given that other uninvolved editors have varying perspectives, I don't think it would be appropriate to act unilaterally as an admin here and instead would like to see community agreement on next steps. As for why I didn't propose an indef up front at this thread--since having first raised it at the past thread, the main disruption that has been brought to my attention is the unnecessary and rather flimsy accusation of hounding that you brought to their user talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 15:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * that wasn't my finest hour, I admit, but what can I say? Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Try avoiding desperate measures that leave you in a more desperate position than where you started. signed,Rosguill talk 16:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit warring, and personal attacks
The user Panam2014 has engaged in multiple edit warrings on the articles Islamic schools and branches and Non-denominational Muslims due to his/her disagreements with other editors, including me, User:Srnec, and User:Soyouy553 (see his/her recent edit history). Despite a Lv1 warning that I left on his/her talk page in which I notified to them that they had deleted sourced content with references without providing an adequate edit summary for their edits, they continued to revert me and accusing me of lying on my talk page and Srnec's talk page as well. Despite my attempts to collaborate and inviting them to take it to the article's talk page, Panam2014 instead continued to revert both my edits and those of Srnec.

After demonstrating on the article's talk page that Panam2014 was misrepresenting or misreading the source and its content, he continued to accuse me of lying, he accused Srnec of being a biased user, and proceeded with multiple insults and personal attacks both on Srnec's talk page and the article's talk page. Judging from their persistently uncollaborative pattern of disruptive editing and aggressive behavior towards other editors, I think that it is abundantly clear that Panam2014 is WP:NOTHERE. GenoV84 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: I just notified Panam2014 about the current WP:ANI discussion, he immediately reverted the notice in their usually aggressive way . They have also opened another WP:ANI discussion about me. I don't know why.... maybe, revenge? GenoV84 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * While sorting this report out, the article is now fully protected after being rolled back to the 15 April version of the article, before the edit warring began. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is misused. Because the source is clearly misappropriated. Misappropriation of sources must be sanctioned Panam2014 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Panam2014 If this is a content dispute, that should be addressed at the article's talk page. If this is about editor conduct, please provide a diff that clearly demonstrates the conduct in question. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it is not a content dispute. Please read the section. The contributor have insulted me as a vandal and liar various times. See Report of GenoV84 by Panam2014. It's not a content dispute. The source is completely distorted Panam2014 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (after numerous edit conflicts) You both need to discuss content on the article talk pages in a civil manner, without accusing each other of lying or vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I reported this user for multiple insults and personal attacks towards me and User:Srnec (see diffs linked above); this is not a dispute about content. GenoV84 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you have insulted me 4 times : 2 times as a vandal and two times as a liar. Panam2014 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You insulted me first and then Srnec because he disagreed with your way of treating other editors and engaging with them, and he was right about that . GenoV84 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you have insulted me first. Srnec have commited personal attack against me. Panam2014 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging everyone. Srnec didn't insult you at all, he just stated his disagreement . That is not a personal attack. GenoV84 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ", your hairsplitting makes no sense to me" is a violation of WP:Good faith and Civility. You have insulted me for 4 times. Panam2014 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you talking seriously now? Unbelievable. GenoV84 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (more edit conflicts) Well, at least you agree with each other that this is not a content dispute. Can you both now stop insulting each other and discuss the content, which a disagreement about sources is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a disagreement about the source. The source is clear. It has been denatured. She says nowhere what he wants her to say. This behavior is prohibited, as is a contributor who adds that Biden is a communist based on a source that mentions his support for Obamacare or student aid. Panam2014 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is this:
 * I read the survey above that Panam2014 attempted to remove and then whose content he attempted to rewrite according to his own liking on the article Islamic schools and branches, and it's fairly clear to me that either he is misreading or misrepresenting the source itself, since the Pew Research survey explicitly speaks of Muslims worldwide who choose not to affiliate with a specific sect, aka Non-denominational Muslims. Therefore, the content that he kept deleting is sourced and accurate, fully in accordance with the cited source which he continued to disparage with a useless edit warring:
 * “Just a Muslim”
 * "Many Muslims worldwide choose not to affiliate with a specific sect but volunteer that they are “just a Muslim.” This affiliation is most common in Central Asia and across Southern and Eastern Europe; in both regions, the median percentage stating they are “just a Muslim” is half or more. In Kazakhstan, nearly three-quarters (74%) of Muslims volunteer this response, as do more than six-in-ten Muslims in Albania (65%) and Kyrgyzstan (64%).
 * In sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, substantial minorities also consider themselves “just a Muslim” (medians of 23% and 18%, respectively). And in three countries – Indonesia (56%), Mali (55%) and Cameroon (40%) – “just a Muslim” is the single most-frequent response when people are queried about their sect. Identification as “just a Muslim” is less prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa (median of 12%) and South Asia (median of 4%)."
 * GenoV84 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the Pew Research survey says "just a muslim" not " Non-denominational Muslims". It is your personal interpretation cf WP:OR that connects the two notions Panam2014 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, the full quote and the sentence before the prhase "just a muslim", which explicitly speak of non-affiliated Muslims, are of no value according to your judgement. GenoV84 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it is your own interpretation.Moreover, the source is not centered on Muslims without denomination but on a survey on how the Muslims questioned define themselves. Panam2014 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many different Muslims define themselves in many different ways, including those who are explicitly unaffiliated and without denomination, just as the source itself states. GenoV84 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GenoV84 and Panam2014 have had four previous blocks for edit warring, and GenoV84 was also blocked last year for improper accusations of vandalism. Disappointing to see that apparently neither editor has learned how to hit the brakes on an edit war. DanCherek (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He also called me a liar. And another thing: the heart of the problem is the fact that he misrepresented the source. There is a mismatch between the text it supports and the source content Panam2014 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the diffs that I provided above. This user has continued to provoke me both on the article's edit history and my own talk page, as well as WP:AIV and here on WP:ANI, not to mention the insults and personal attacks on Srnec's talk page, which I mentioned before. GenoV84 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is inappropriate. You should be punished for your personal attacks and especially for having distorted the source Panam2014 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Said the one who insulted and reverted three editors on two different articles! It's not my fault if you can't read a source. GenoV84 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is clear and you and you distorted it Panam2014 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My immediate advice to both of you is that with any further inflammatory comments, you're each at risk of a long-term sitewide block given your extensive block histories (see C.Fred's comments below, and seriously, four edit-warring blocks is four more than the typical editor has), so – and this is directed at both of you – it would be great to reflect on your behavior in this dispute, and/or let uninvolved editors comment here instead of the back-and-forth bickering. Stop trying to get the other person blocked, please. DanCherek (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the edit warring, but Srnec didn't do anything to deserve this kind of treatment, and I personally find it depressing that a content dispute about a single source has turned into this mess, but I have genuinely tried to collaborate with Panam2014, both on my own talk page and on the article's talk page before he started to insult me and Srnec out of nothing. GenoV84 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for reverting the edits but 'I received personal attacks from these two contributors Panam2014 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Report of GenoV84 by Panam2014

 * He committed personal attacks (vandal and liar) : and
 * He violates WP:Edit warring :, , , ,.
 * And the third problem : He is guilty of original research and misappropriation of source. It is a disruptive behaviour. The survey is about people who responded that they consider themselves as "just muslim" not about the fact a certain percentage of the population belongs to Non-denominational Muslims. So he added false content. Panam2014 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) --Panam2014 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Initial findings and remedies
To draw an analogy with a rugby match I watched this week, this is the referee calling the team captains together to say there's been a lot of foul play away from the ball, you need to get your teams under control. Editors, please let this dispute turn out differently than that match, because if the analogy holds, the next inappropriate action will result in somebody being sent to the sin bin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Findings:
 * The underlying dispute is whether a survey where respondents identified themselves as "just a Muslim", not affiliating with a specific sect, is the same as those respondents identifying as non-denominational Muslims.
 * The dispute quickly led to an edit war at least at Islamic schools and branches, if not other articles.
 * The dispute spread from edit summaries there to article talk and user talk pages.
 * The rhetoric among the users quickly escalated to become inflammatory, with accusations of lying, vandalism, and bad-faith editing from both sides of the dispute.
 * Remedies:
 * The break-glass remedy of full protection to the article will remain in place until it expires.
 * As parties to the initial dispute, I invite you to use the article's talk page to have a civil discussion about the merits of the survey as a reliable source and how to deal with the results. You may want to open a Request for Comments to get broader community input. You must, at all times, assume good faith and remain civil toward fellow editors.
 * Any further name-calling or personal attacks—including but not limited to accusations of lying, vandalism, or bad-faith edits—is grounds for an immediate sitewide block.
 * It is acceptable to say something along the lines of "I do not see that in the source"; but do not make comments along the lines of "You are misinterpreting the source".
 * In the event any party to the dispute needs to report said behaviour at this noticeboard or anywhere else, you may link the diff of the edit, but refrain from labeling it. You may, of course, ask an administrator to review the diff in question.
 * Nobody is getting any sanction at this time because there has been such a garbled interchange of posts in multiple places that it's hard to see who "started it", and because I think the community is best served if everybody gets a chance to calm down and try to work through this together.
 * and have now been informed of this message via a uw-npa4im templated message on their respective user talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * he continues). Enough is enough. I am engaged to not revert again but he continues his edit warring as WP:3RR. It is not fair. Panam2014 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the two of you need to stop, and STAY STOPPED. This entire thread is a repeated cacophony of "Well, he started it" / "Okay, I'm sorry, but he started it" / "I won't do it again, but he started it!"  We are none of us (or shouldn't be, anyway) seven year olds.  What is "fair" is that you follow Wikipedia civility and conduct rules.  Others will tend to other editors.   Ravenswing      06:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * has been advised via a non-templated message. has been removed as a party, since they have not edited the articles in question since the dispute began. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks
At an argument over at an RfC on whether to ban joke BLP AfDs, said that they "know [I] have WP:CIR issues" and told me to "come on" after I argued that tasteless AfDs can be made for non-BLP subjects. NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And already told the IP to tone it down, in that thread.  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, since you've brought my comment here let's have a discussion about why I said what I said, because I have had some serious concerns about your editing for a long time.

Let's start with your ongoing harassment and gravedancing campaign targeting TheCurrencyGuy. That account was blocked 6 months ago, and since then you have been embarked on a crusade to completely remove every single one of TheCurrencyGuy's contributions and preferred spellings from articles, not on the basis of policy or guideline or consensus, but seemingly so you can spite them. You are making poorly thought out, completely unjustified reverts of their edits for no good reason at all. One example is trying to remove every instance of their preferred spelling of Rouble. You have reverted months old edits they made while not blocked on the basis that they are "disruptive" or that they were later blocked, which is not how sock clean-up works e.g. reverting,  reverting a ton of edits. You have left articles in a broken state, because you were more focused on reverting TheCurrencyGuy than looking at what you were doing. You have made ridiculous edits like swapping the spelling Rubel to Ruble, on the disambiguation page for Rubel because you are focused on removing every instance of TheCurrencyGuy's preferred spelling. You are currently trying to get an RFC overturned despite an overwhelming consensus against you, because you view it as an obstacle to continue reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits. You have a similar, completely unjustifiable obsession with removing every single instance of "stg" in favour of "sterling", not based in policy, but seemingly because TheCurrencyGuy liked using stg.

I could continue by pointing out that your disruption related TheCurrencyGuy is just the latest example of a long list of you making disruptive, WP:POINTY edits in response to disagreements. Another example would be the time that you requested an admin block you if the result of a deletion discussion wasn't to your liking.

We could discuss your history of disruption with regard to the arbitration committee? let's start with the time you tried to file an arbitration case for a routine matter which didn't involve you and which did not require arbcom involvement at all ? How about the time you falsely accused Thryduulf of disruptive editing because they made some redirects you didn't like then threatened to drag them to arbcom because they are a functionary. How about the time you decided that you wanted arbcom to rule that no-one was allowed to make pages you don't like and enshrine your opinions in policy. Shall we finish this off with a review of your recent, useless comments in cases that have nothing to do with you? Let's start with your involvement in the deletion discussions case, where you decided that arbcom needed to clarify if an AFD topic ban applied to other deletion venues, and felt it needed an explanation of how it applied to April fools jokes. How about your comments in the Lugnuts case, where you felt "I had to ask Lugnuts for clarification once" was evidence of "misconduct" worthy of arbcom.

We could talk about the fact that you cannot accept criticism and have "retired" from the project, only to come back once the heat dies down? How about your ridiculous dramatic WP:PRAM "I demand release to elsewhere" messages when asking for self requested blocks and dramatic, ridiculous leaving messages.

Shall we discuss the massive amount of disruption and time wasting you have caused with regards to April fools day? Let's start with this edit, where you simultaneously acknowledge that an editors' behaviour was "disruptive" and "strongly inappropriate" while insulting the admin that refused to unblock them with accusations of bias and calling them "the fun police". Does it really require 4 admins to explain to you why AFDing Donald Trump is a terrible, terrible idea ? How about this egregious waste of community time, where you opened a deletion review over an April fools joke page you G7'd, waited for a bunch of people to comment, then decided to keep the page deleted anyway to make a WP:POINT when someone criticised your timewasting. How about the Bobby Witt Jr. AFD, which you created, decided was too offensive to keep and blanked, spent two weeks messing around with the humour template, added a disclaimer, started an MFD discussion to delete it decided you wanted to keep it, unblanked, and proceeded to spend months continuing to mess around with. You were still messing around with this page in July!

We could discuss your attempts to write your own essays and policies (e.g. WP:FRIED, WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE) which were unanimously rejected by the community   and the follow up tantrum where you deleted everything when you didn't get your way?

What about the fact you accused a 10 year old, 30k edit account of being a sockpuppet of a user who joined last year with absolutely no sensible evidence whatsoever in a sockpuppet investigations filing you described yourself as "contrived".

Shall we discuss your disruptive, often downright nasty comments at RFA where you find flimsy reasons to oppose everyone you've ever had any kind of minor grudge adainst? Lets start with your oppose on Spicy's RfA on the basis that they weren't sufficiently polite when telling you your baseless SPI was without merit. How about Extraordinary Writ, who you opposed because they declined a WP:RM/TR you filed once. How about DatGuy, who you accused of UPE because they made a mistake filling out the nom statement.

So yes, I said you have CIR issues, because you have CIR issues, and I had the diffs to prove it. I acknowledge that I was rude in that discussion for which I apologise, I should have voiced my concerns in appropriate venue and just posted here, but a review of the last 2 years of your editing shows an endless pattern of disruption, pointiness/revenge editing and screwing around. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have re-opened this discussion as one of the parties apparently feels there are unresolved issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The only outstanding issues of mine from your wall of text is the Witt AfD (that I am willing to let go if consensus so mandates) and the TCG situation. Yes, I admit that I favour "ruble", but if you think about it, it has been "ruble" for quite the time before TCG started to mass-change them into "rouble". And over at Talk:Pound sterling, I did hold an RfC on "stg", and consensus favoured its removal in favour of "GBP". Therefore, the TCG situation, though controversial, is a non-point in your argument.
 * If you really think I am that problematic, you should hold a discussion here regarding sanctions against me - after all, you do have a superficially strong case to do so. And if you think the Witt MfD is unfunny, please go MfD it (again); I pledge that I will not unpromptedly repeat the acrimoniousness that was my DRV. Just try not to dig up my rookie mistakes like WP:FRIED that has long been the water under the bridge, and present them as evidence as if I have been an LTA all along.
 * After all, if I really were an LTA all along, why didn't the admins block me in my early days when I made WP:FRIED? How about the fact that I was never warned (let alone blocked) when I reverted TCG or made the Witt AfD? Not that any of those were meritorious actions, of course, but why have no-one noticed my apparent lack of competence until today (or yesterday, depending on time zones)?
 * Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @NotReallySoroka I mean, if anything that response only serves as more evidence that you have WP:CIR issues. You don't seem to have understood anything I wrote.
 * Bullshit. You were being disruptive with April fools rubbish on TonyBalioni's talk page hours before I wrote the original response. Your disruption with regards to arbcom has been a feature of your editing from the moment you joined to some of the most recent cases arbcom heard. Your most recent RFA disruption was two weeks ago. This isn't an issue consisting of specific incidents, this is a long term pattern of disruption.
 * 1) your edits were not swapping "stg" for "GBP", they were swapping "stg" for "sterling" which there is no consensus for at all in that discussion. 2) An article talk page is not an appropriate place to come up with style guidelines that apply across the entire site, this discussion should have taken place at the manual of style.
 * The major "point" regarding TheCurrencyGuy is that you have shown that you are willing to sacrifice the project's integrity just so that you can further a grudge. You are making edits not on the basis of "what is best for the encyclopedia" but instead on the basis of "what would most upset TheCurrencyGuy". You are willing to discard good quality, reliable sources because they support TheCurrencyGuy's position instead of yours. You are trying to subvert our usual consensus building process and overturn an RFC not because there is a legitimate problem with it but because it is getting in the way of you removing everything TheCurrencyGuy did.
 * What on earth do you think this discussion is?
 * How is my case "superficial"? I have backed up every single allegation I have made with evidence in the form of diffs showing your long term history of disruption. Do you want me to add more evidence here to make my case stronger? I could easily add a paragraph or more about your disruption at ANI if you want?
 * Where do I refer to you as an LTA? Do you even know what "LTA" means? I said you had WP:CIR problems, which is a very different thing to being an LTA.
 * You mean like      for example? You have also quit the project multiple times in response to people pointing out your disruptive behaviour. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I noticed this after the mess on my talk page about the Trump AfD which they didn't even start: I agree with the IP editor's comments after reviewing all the diffs., you're bordering on a WP:NOTHERE/CIR block because you treat Wikipedia like a social network and not like an encyclopedia, while making things harder for the people who are here to contribute to its building or maintenance. I don't think this should be closed with any sanctions at this time, but a firm warning that continued disruption will likely result in you being indefinitely blocked, either by an individual administrator or by the community at a noticeboard, is in order. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with TonyBallioni and the Oxford IP. NotReallySoroka's conduct on Wikipedia, particularly in the RfA space, has been needlessly disruptive. A firm warning is certainly called for. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO a topic ban from April fools day, a topic ban from project space (or at least certain parts of project space) and an interaction ban with TheCurrencyGuy would all be worth considering. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And a for bringing a knife to the IP's gunfight ...  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That really isn't a helpful comment... 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly blocked user returning as IP?
After was indef-blocked for vandalizing Magic (supernatural), IP#  (for its sole edit to date) did likewise. I reverted and placed a uw-vandalism1 on the latter talkpage, but I have to wonder whether this is the same person and more is required. Usercheck, please? – . Raven .talk 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * When opening an AN/I thread, you must notify the relevant users as described by the big red box at the top of this page. I've notified the IP for you this time. Something something Burma Shave. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and so noted. – . Raven .talk 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it's the same person? While neither editor was particularly constructive, the unconstructive edits of JosephDaWizard16 are very different sorts of unconstructiveness than the unconstructive edits of 24.22.193.102.  The first tried to spam their YouTube channel, the second just deleted some text in what looks like a test edit of some sort.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sure"? No. "Wonder" (as I said)? Yes. Only because both targeted the same page, in the only edits they ever made, over just a few days. – . Raven .talk 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clearer: I don't think this is the same person. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I respect and accept your judgment in the matter. – . Raven .talk 16:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Qayqran ignoring general sanctions
Non-extended-confirmed @Qayqran has repeatedly violated WP:GS/RUSUKR by editing articles in the topic area and participating in internal project discussion. They were notified of the sanction at 14:35, 14 April 2023.

Since then, they have made numerous article edits in the topic area, and initiated a deletion discussion in the topic area.

The user has also made argumentative and disruptive discussion posts violating the restriction to use talk pages in the topic area only “to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.”

I request an uninvolved admin evaluate this and take action, as I have been in content disputes with this user. —Michael Z. 19:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that they have (by my count) four mainspace edits that haven't been reverted for various reasons. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:B1A9:F14:1C47:1B4C (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed. NOTHERE, and refusal to comply with GS. Logged the block on WP:GSRUSUKR Courcelles (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block. The only purpose of this editor was to tendentiously argue and edit-war in contentious topic areas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes good block, pretending to be a confused newbie now after their tendentious rants on Russian invasion of Ukraine and accusing Michael Z of being ″WP:NOTHERE″ and straight up denying their conduct will hopefully not fool anyone into unblocking this clearly disruptive user. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring after the block has expired
See. They're basically edit warring in order to perform WP:SOAPBOXING for their own WP:FRINGE religious dogma. I don't think that many people around the world even know of the spelling. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely pblocked from that page and talkpage. Said user has some reasonably constructive edits elsewhere, if disruption starts up anywhere else I'll convert it to a full block. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef'ed by user:discospinster Meters (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur biography disappeared

 * Tupac Shakur

somehow deleted the rapper biography Tupac Shakur, creating a closed loop of redirects with no content. We need an admin to restore the bio. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is now at Tupac Shakur (rapper), having been repeatedly moved including to its own talk page at one point. My brain hurts. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a hologram the whole time. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be moved back to Tupac Shakur, without the disambiguation, and the various redirects repointing to it. Samelovestheworld99 has been indeffed by for other offences in the meantime. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

TPA Removal PLS
User:Salebot12 is spamming their talk page. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User 2405:201:6007:4D61:90F9:A67A:EB7B:1ABF making many changes in the last two days
This may not be exactly the right place but I hope it is close enough, at least for passing onwards to a better place.

User 2405:201:6007:4D61:90F9:A67A:EB7B:1ABF is currently making many changes to place-name across many articles. A few have been reverted (correctly, I think) but many have not.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:201:6007:4D61:90F9:A67A:EB7B:1ABF

Hope that's OK.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've spot checked a few random recent edits, and I don't see any obvious vandalism. Stuff like expanding acronyms, or changing an anachronistic name to the name in use at the time, all seem in line with good editing practices.  If there is vandalism in there, I'm not seeing it.  Can you show us some of the problematic edits they have made?  Because I'm seeing nothing but good work.  Also, per the instructions at the top of the page, you are required to notify anyone that you have brought them up for discussion here.  Please correct that problem now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.
 * It isn't overt vandalism. But it seems a lot of editing activity for a user that is anon-IP and only active for a couple of days or so.  (It came to my attention through my watchlist. The edits seemed odd, although not obviously wrong (although there was some overlinking), and they have no edit summaries.  I wondered if it might need someone more experienced in oversight to take a look.)
 * Apologies for my oversight in failing to notify. It didn't cross my mind for an anon-IPv6 user which can so often be transient.  I have (I hope) now corrected my mistake there.
 * Perhaps there is nothing to worry about. But (for perhaps the first time in my 15+ years here) I wondered whether this might be something in that grey area between "act" and "assume someone else will spot it and act".  Apologies for troubling you if there is no problem.
 * Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your statement "it seems a lot of editing activity for a user that is anon-IP and only active for a couple of days or so" That doesn't mean anything, and should never be taken as a sign that something nefarious is going on.  Many people who edit Wikipedia have never made an account, and they don't have to.  Accounts may have some benefit, but they are not a requirement for editing Wikipedia.  There are people who have spent a decade or more as active Wikipedia editors, and are very familiar with Wikipedia, and they have never created an account.  It means nothing, and should not raise suspicions.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of edit-summaries makes it hard to check their edits, but with only one exception, all that added birthday details were unsupported by refs as far as I can tell. One even has a talkpage discussion I had started about the lack of RS on that detail. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Margery Jackson
I have posted the following information on the talk page of, and because he is currently unavailable, he has suggested that I copy it here:

I am having problems with an editor who objects to elements of the above article, and I wonder whether you could help? The issue is not their point of view (which they are welcome to), or even some of the changes that they want, but the fact that they are liable to remove content on the basis of their opinion and without discussion. The article will shortly (on 29 April) be linked at DYK for 24 hours, and I fear that its contents may be disrupted daily until then, and maybe even also on its DYK day.

This issue has happened with this editor several times before, on the talk pages of David Simpson (mayor), Richard Ellis (mayor), George Dawson (builder), H. E. and A. Bown, Walter William Covey-Crump, and on the talk page of Constantine Zochonis, (now in archive 1). As you will see, I have on each occasion made careful and extended attempts to explain the article and its contents, and addressed their every query, but this editor just repeats their opinion every time, even when I change the article in an attempt to appease them. Each time they get their teeth into an article, I wake up every morning to more queries about the same small detail, more complaints about the changes that I made to appease them, more accusations, and not infrequently, new accusations based on the wording of my explanations, saying that my explanations imply new and hidden misdemeanours in the article. This editor has frequently also tagged the article some of the articles inappropriately, saying that the article has spelling and grammar errors (which is not the case) and asking editors to heavily prune the article without suggestion of discussion. Every time this happens, it causes me severe distress to have to wake up every morning, dreading what I will have to deal with today, because dealing with this editor is impossible - and worse than that - never-ending.

If the issues had been raised by another editor, who behaved normally, the issues themselves would not be a problem, and we could resolve them immediately in most cases. Compromise would be a good way, but this editor cannot do compromise. The issue is the behaviour of this editor.

At the very least, I would be most grateful if the article could be protected from that editor at least until after DYK is over. Ideally, I would be grateful if a way could be found to stop them behaving in this manner. I am at the point of leaving WP due to this behaviour. I took several years to bring the Margery Jackson article to completion, because I needed a second major biography source to balance the article, and make its contents neutral. I put a great deal of work, time and effort into creating articles, but there is no point if this person continues to track "my" creations and then weighs in with their personal opinion, and will not let go. I don't want to leave WP at all, but I am being driven away by this.

I shall of course notify the editor concerned, in accordance with the notice at the top of this page. Storye book (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Additional viewpoints would be most welcome at Talk:Margery Jackson; I had already posted to NORN to request input, but unfortunately no responses yet.


 * I regularly review content in the DYK queue, and have done for years before encountering the OP. To be clear, I don't check who created that content before reviewing, and have no idea if the OP's content that hasn't passed through DYK has similar issues. From what I've seen at DYK, the OP has a highly idiosyncratic approach to both writing articles (see for example Talk:Walter_William_Covey-Crump or this perspective) and interacting on Wikipedia, one not really well aligned to our policies, guidelines and practices. When their perspectives are challenged, even in the most civil, content-focused way, they react emotionally and with a high degree of ownership (an issue previously raised with them by multiple other editors, see for example Talk:Euphemia Steele Innes or Talk:Cherryl_Fountain). I am very sorry that the OP is experiencing such distress, and have previously encouraged them to step back as needed. Unfortunately it does not appear they are able to do so, which makes discussing content issues quite challenging. They also reject both tagging (which they see as "coercive") and RfCs as means of bringing in more perspectives, which leaves limited options for consensus-building.


 * To give some specific examples of issues:
 * They ask that content not be changed without discussion
 * They assert that they will "have to continue to revert your unilateral and undiscussed attempts to remove material", while simultaneously trying to shut down discussion of the material at issue
 * They hurl insults: "just because sophisticated British English may be beyond you, it is not beyond others"
 * They propose a compromise ("take it or leave it"), but then revert implementation of their proposal, claiming it "was not agreed. It was vaguely suggested by me when put under undue pressure but it was never a good idea"


 * To be clear, I'm not proposing sanctions against the OP. Mentorship may be helpful in allowing them to better understand our practices - it's clear I'm not someone they're going to listen to on that topic. Or at least they would benefit from a friend having a word. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The above reaction is to be expected. Sigh. Please see the talk page of the Margery Jackson article for the true context of the above comments.
 * Regarding the Cherryl Fountain article, the undue pruning there has done a great deal of damage to the article. It got to the point where I was unable to rectify the article (to make it match the sources, for example) without summary reversion. So I gave up. It happened that I had contacted various institutions for information (and for citations to back it up). Some of the staff at the institutions noticed the mess and asked me for copies of the original article, as initially published. This is because at the Royal Academy, Kent museum/art galleries, the National Trust and other institutions needed the information that the public asked for, including the number of times Fountain's work was exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition (RASE), and the titles of the paintings exhibited there (with citations of course). The original published version had that, but had been pruned out. They were displeased at the uselessness of the current version, so I sent them a copy of the original version which included that. Since the major pruning operation, I had discovered (and had citations for) some work by Fountain in another major institutions's collection, but I could not add it to the article due to fear of reversion. This is an important matter, because part of an artist's biography notability is the number of national collections in which their work is represented. This situation saddens me greatly, and makes me feel ashamed of Wikipedia in the case of that article. After completing and publishing the article, I tracked down Fountain in order to get a photograph for the article. When I did so, I was asked to reinstate the original version of the article. However, I have been too intimidated to do so. There is nothing wrong with including in an article the number of times an artist has exhibited at the RASE, the titles of the works, and the full list of national institution collections in which the artists work is held (all with citations of course). Storye book (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , the last thing I would want would be for an active contributor like yourself to be driven away form the project; however, I am not convinced that there is any hounding taking place here. is an active participant behind the scenes in the DYK process (as well as being an FAR coordinator, and a generally enormously experienced editor). When one submits an article for consideration through the DYK process, you are inviting other editors to review it. If they suggest or make changes, you need to discuss those with them, and try to come to an agreement on what the article ought to say. Sure, that can be frustrating sometimes, but it's also a good way to learn more about how we put really good articles together. You (and I) could probably learn a lot from a discussion with Nikkimaria. We are all working on the same team.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thank you for your comment. If you care to look at my record of behaviour and responses on DYK, both as creator/expander/nominator and as reviewer, you will find that I almost always cooperate fully and immediately with requests for correction or improvement. There will of course always be a few occasions where we discuss and agree that no change need to be made, but that is done amicably. I should add that I have over 2000 items on my watchlist, and check them daily. There is of course a list of changes every day. It is rare that I dispute any changes on that list. With the exception of vandalism, I am only likely to request a discussion before content removal if (a) the change is going to belie the citations, and (b) I think that the editor concerned may not be understanding the article subject matter fully. The latter does happen sometimes, because many of the articles that I create deal with 19th-century UK, and not all editors on here are familiar with the social and historical context of it, and sometimes they do not have access to my sources. So I feel that I should explain. All this works for most editors, and it is rare that there are difficulties over it. The only long-term issue that I have had is with the above editor, as described above. Storye book (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (nods to Girth Summit) Storye book, there are a great many editors who are very active in particular areas.  If you had some issue you took to the ice hockey Wikiproject's talk page, or the Notability:Sports talk page, there's a strong chance I'd be one of those responding to it.  If you filed an AfD related to hockey or Massachusetts, there's a strong chance I'd be one of those chiming in.  Heck, I'm active here at ANI, and here I am being one of those chiming in. And in this particular area, we have a very strong incentive to get things right. Damn near every page view on Wikipedia goes through the Main Page first.  Given that DYK is intended to be clickbait, its entries need to be as well written (and accurate) as possible.  If there were two dozen Nikkimarias poring over every submission, that would be none too many, and editors who recoil at that level of scrutiny probably ought not to be making DYK submissions.  That you have many DYKs over the years does not immunize you against that scrutiny. As to the time and effort you put into articles, well ... I've put a great deal of time and effort into some myself.  And as a condition of editing Wikipedia, I accept that my prose and content can be edited, changed beyond recognition, added to, slashed, reverted and/or deleted outright.  My first DYK looks significantly different from when I created the article.  Not only is that the price of doing business here, but that's fine: I don't know everything, and Wikipedia is not set up to reflect my personal amour propre.   Ravenswing      13:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that I have been misrepresented here. Please see my responses above. I don't "own" pages, and I don't object to changes per se. This is not, and has never been, the issue. The issue is the way that changes have been handled by this one editor. The behaviour of this editor has made it impossible for me to come to an agreement or compromise, however many times I explain, or attempt to adjust the article to appease them. And they will not stop. Look at the contrast in what happens on DYK (see my above comments on that). In recent years there have been big disputes over hooks written by . That is not happening any more, because she has withdrawn from direct involvement with DYK, but when it was happening, I used to chime in to the DYK discussions and attempt to undo the impasse and find a hook that would please both the reviewer and the nominator. Sometimes tensions did get high, but the important thing is that it always ended with a new hook getting approved, and the nomination getting promoted - and it almost always ended with mutual respect. So you are not dealing here with a case of "ownership". I happily cooperate with most editors. My issue as posted today is just with this one editor, Nikkimaria. Storye book (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this board is for matters surrounding users' conduct. I do not see any incivility in Nikkimaria's posts on the articles' talk pages, and I see no evidence that she are hounding you - she is just doing what she routinely does, reading and improving articles that have been submitted to one of our formal review processes. I know from personal experience over at WP:FAC that Nikkimaria is thorough, careful and frank in her reviews - perhaps more so than some other reviewers. That isn't a bad thing, though, it can be a useful learning experience. Put it this way: when Nikkimaria proposes some changes to an article that I have written, I start with the assumption that she is probably correct, and try to understand her perspective. It seems to me that this boils down to you disagreeing with some of her assessments, and getting tired of receiving them, but we're not about to ask one of our most prolific and talented content reviewers to step back because you don't like what they have to say about your contributions. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue about her opinion versus my contributions is now over, because all of those content issues have been resolved. None of the phrases listed on the talk page exist any more in the article. What worries me is that I am afraid that the hounding will continue nevertheless, as it has done in the past, after all issues have been resolved. I fear that there will be no end to it. In the past, the only way that I have been able to stop it continuing, is to make clear how distressed I am, and she then makes some patronising comment and/or blames me for bringing the hounding onto myself, then she stops. So do I have to do that again this time? I would like a better way to make it stop, bearing in mind that all editing issues are now resolved (unless of course she invents new editing issues out of the wording of my explanations on the talk page, which she has done before). This pressure makes me feel nauseous, and I cannot sleep for fear of what I will find tomorrow. If I were an evil editor, introducing porn or advertising, or committing copyvio, I would understand it, but I have never commited crimes on here. I just want this to stop.. Storye book (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not been hounded. When you nominate an article for DYK, you know that other editors are going to review it. When you get the review you asked for, there is a good chance that the reviewer will either suggest or make some changes. I can't think of a single time when I have put an article up for review, whether that be at DYK, GAN or FAC, and no changes have been suggested. Don't fear that or get stressed about it - engage with the reviewer, take what they're saying on board - you might find yourself able to enjoy the process if you approach it with a positive mindset. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the discussion, and I agree there's no hounding; the changes the other editor made that sparked the talk discussion were very typical for DYK. I've made many similar changes at articles as I reviewed them. SB, I get that editing is not easy for you, and clearly having your work reviewed is very distressing for you. Maybe your work process doesn't mesh well with the other editor's. But the fact a review you requested causes you distress doesn't mean you're being hounded. If having your work reviewed is just too awful, don't submit it for peer review. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. The article had already been reviewed, and it had passed DYK, and had been promoted. It is currently in Prep 7, if I remember rightly. 2. I always respond quickly and cooperatively to reviewers on the DYK template (ask the regular template-reviewers), and so far we have always ended up getting my nominations through DYK painlessly. 3. I was not aware that the above textual changes were about DYK. I had understood that they originated in a separate context. 4. All the above quoted wording has now been removed from the article, or has been suitably adjusted.
 * Reviews per se on DYK templates have never been a problem for me. Ask the regular reviewers there. The changes made by Nikkimaria have all been resolved now, and I had only questioned half of them, anyway. The fact of reviewing is not a problem. The problem has been the argument on talk pages, which never seems to stop, even after all the textual issues have been resolved. How many times do I have to say this. The textual issues are resolved. My issue is with the manner of discussion on the talk page, specifically that that discussion just will not stop, and goes on day after day, even after the textual issues are resolved. My issues are not about not liking being reviewed. They are not about the article's wording. They are about the discussion going on and on after the issues are resolved, and not stopping. How many times do I have to repeat this? Storye book (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles and hooks go through multiple reviews at DYK. There's the reviewer, the promoter, the admin who moves to queue, plus multiple other editors along the way both at the hook and at the article. It's not uncommon for a discussion to be opened at DYK talk somewhere in there. On average I see a half-dozen people editing one of my articles before it hits the main page. All of these happen because people see things they feel are not resolved. The article creator has no control over that, and yes, it can take a while, and that may be frustrating. It is supposed to be this way. That is what happens at DYK. Valereee (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And on another look, SB, you seem to have the last word in nearly every one of those points. Honestly it actually looks like you are the one continuing to argue until you have the last word. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just because it stopped when I posted on the incidents board. Storye book (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a .sig I've been using on VBulletin-style forums for many years now:  You are not remotely a rookie here on Wikipedia, and it should not be this hard to wrap your head around the premise that multiple veteran editors (with nearly 70 years of Wikipedia experience and 400,000 edits between us) can have examined the merits of your complaint and still disagree with you. We should not have to keep reiterating the same sentiments in answer to rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal.   Ravenswing      21:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

184.92.0.139
, recently given a three-month block for disruptive edits regarding broadcast stations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, seems more interested in randomly inserting stuff about their versions of those stations on their talk page than anything even vaguely resembling an unblock request. I'm not at all convinced that any continued retention of talk page access would be all that useful here.  WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  20:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wcquidditch So basically, you are asking that this user's talk page access be removed? — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  09:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll revoke talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruption
This recently created account has been making disruptive edits, moves and redirects on a number of contentious articles despite several warnings on their t/p which includes creating articles by copying a large chunk of it from the already existing one like Rathore clan (copy of Rathore dynasty Chandel (Gujjar clan) (see Chandel (Rajput clan), only changing the initial few lines where they are pushing Gurjar pov with archaic and third-rate sources - (diff), (diff) et al.

Now they are also making disruptive redirects as well like here - (diff), (diff) among the others. Personally, I don't see that they are here to improve the quality of enclyopedia but only to create a mess in already controversial caste-related articles with archaic sources and disruptive redirects. Pain to deal with the caste-warriors, Indefinate block needed for obvious reasons. Re Pa©ker&#38;Tra©ker  (♀)  16:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed for the rapid-paced disruptive editing and inadequate response to the warnings. Note too that they claim to be an AI language model. Lots of clean-up required. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that caste-related disruption falls under these general sanctions. Deor (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

80.189.121.239
The IP has been adding inconsistent sources. They continue to use an image as a source on their edits like this edit here, and when noted about it, defends their edit when reverted, saying that it is "omitting information". I did my best to try and explain the policies of Wikipedia regarding reliable sources, but it appears that they are not willing to listen and are still going ahead. Can someone talk to this IP? It's becoming a headache trying to explain that their source is not reliable. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Kurmali language → WP:Kudmali language
Something has gone awry with this page move: by User:চিথারাই_মাহাতো, as it now seems to be a project page instead of an article. This may not be right place to brinng it up, but it looks like there's some messy editing back-and-forth, maybe edit-warring(?), so I didn't want to step on any trip hazards. I'll let the editor know it's gone wrong, though. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that. I tried changing from Kurmali to Kudmali. But it was mistakenly changed to the Wikipedia project page. However, how can I do it right now? Help me plz. Thank You. চিথারাই মাহাতো (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have finished the move, but I do not know if Kur or Kud is best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You. চিথারাই মাহাতো (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Kurmali language to WP:Kudmali language page move may be mistake but your activity is not Wikipedia friendly. You disrupted three wiki article Kurmali language, Kudmi Mahato, Chuar rebellion, even after warning. I believe you might be closely associated with that social group and writing your point of view rather than fact with sources.
 * <b style="color:red;padding:2px;">MaxA-Matrix</b><b style="color:white;background:red;padding:3px;vertical-align:1.5em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;">&#128172; talk</b> 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I try to know my mistakes. Thank You. চিথারাই মাহাতো (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Wikiview2000
See and. The underlying WP:BLP concerns being raised by Wikiview2000 may have some legitimacy, but this isn't the way to get them looked at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * User has already been indef'd by for sock puppetry. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nikolai Boyanov for the 4th time in ANI
Nikolai has been reported to ANI three previous times by @Paper9oll. However despite being blocked twice for persistently adding unsourced content they continue to do so . Lightoil (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite being blocked twice for persistently adding unsourced contents, Nikolai clearly couldn't be bothered despite so many warnings to simply stop adding unsourced contents of which the majority were issued by me, but clearly I'm not the only one having the same thoughts/judgement on Nikolai's behavior. As I had stated previously on Nikolai's talk page under their unblocking appeal, not only did Nikolai attempted to add a bunch of unsourced content but Nikolai also did so by removing the References column in the every same edit here, which in my judgement is clearly an attempt to avoid scrutinization and likely hoping patrolling editor won't see the unsourced additions at the bottom otherwise I'm not exactly sure, what exactly is their goal in doing so, as their unblocking appeal quote "I thought that even though there are no sources for Bubble for Actors, Sports and Treasure Hunter, doesn't mean that we cannot add these ... Every time (not every) I'm forgetting about sources, but doesn't mean that I'll not read the guide" clearly doesn't tally with their actions performed. Already blocked 1 week (first time) then 2 week (second time), clearly this wasn't enough as we could see the 3 diffs provided by Lightoil still having unsourced contents being adding.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  05:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah enough is enough. At this point it's willful ignoring of the rules of the project, there's no "forgetting" when it's been discussed so much. I've indeffed them. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 09:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Abusive language
User:103.196.112.22 has a history of vandalism here and here. As IP address originates from Institute of Technical Education, it is likely a recycled IP address. It is possible that the current editor found the talkpage messages being confusing and remove it but included a local (Singaporean) profanity in the edit summary here. The first word (the C word) refers to vagina and commonly used as a swear word in Southeast Asia. Also, personal attacks on IP editor's talkpage and my talkpage. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has already been dealt with, IP blocked for 1 week without talk page access by . — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  05:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism, Racism, Legal Threats, and Possible Sock Puppetry: A Tale of a Novice Wikipedian In Over Her Head
I am very new to wikipedia so I'm sorry if I'm not putting this in the right place, but this pretty much falls in to most of the others so I figured it would be best to put it here.

Cast of characters:



Timeline:


 * Act I: 28-29 March


 * ,,
 * all of these edits arbitrarily (falsely) increased the population count of Algerian citizens in the info box and in the article


 * 
 * padded the population counts again


 * 
 * reverts 1-4


 * Act II: 23-24 April ...In which things get heated


 * 
 * falsifying statistics, again


 * Edit Summary: (ALGERIANS ARE NOT ARABS. THIS IS RACISM FROM INFILTRATORS.)
 * some weird polemic that I dont fully understand (and dont want to) to the effect of Algerians are not arabs, this seems to be a theme with this user's other contribs.


 * Edit Summary: (Please stop degrading berbers and USING fake CHARTS to make it seem as if "arabs" are the manority. Algerians are merely arabized not arabs so therefore the pie chart is innacurate.)


 * 
 * reverts 6-8


 * Edit Summary: (ALGERIANS ARE NOT ARABS. I will sue you if you continue to spread lies)
 * WP:SUE
 * something to the effect of [7], just restated, this is honestly the biggest piece of evidence that these IPs are connected


 * Edit Summary: (Fake statistics)
 * blanks a sentence stating that arabs are the majority


 * (Thats me)
 * reverts 10-11
 * used uw-legal template on User:2001:56a:fb24:bb00:80ee:6069:fcbd:8493's talk page


 * Geolocation of IP's


 * : Edmonton, Alberta
 * : Edmonton, Alberta
 * : Salzburg, Austria
 * : Salzburg, Austria
 * : Douera, Algeria

Anyway, this is all the info I have. I am not experienced enough to deal with this. - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 07:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @FenrisAureus Great work. Blocked the Edmonton editor, lunch now, will look at rest later if no one else does. You can click on contributions and are then able to add /64 after to get all their contributions, eg 2001:56A:FB24:BB00:80EE:6069:FCBD:8493/64. Doug Weller  talk 11:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, the Salzburg IPs are the same /64 and haven't edited recently so no point in blocking, the Douera one only made one edit so insufficient reason to block. Algerians semi-protected for a month. Doug Weller  talk 12:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Three instances of verbal abuse and a further insulting remark by User:Thermicknight7
Following a draftification of Draft:Stealing Eden, and a previous version being deleted, the article being clearly not ready for mainspace, there has been plenty of verbal abuse from this user. Here are the diffs of directly swearing at another user. I also found the comment You are extremely incompetent and should probably consider getting a job as fast food cook instead. to be unnecessarily patronising and insulting. The diff for that is here. As you can see from their user page, they have been warned but they have ignored these warnings. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. I see they had already been warned by another Admin. Doug Weller  talk 11:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:അദ്വൈതൻ continued edit warring and refusing to communicate, reported by User:StarTrekker
This user has previously been blocked twice for edit warring and refusing to reply on talkpages (including their own). Their main focus seems to be to remove what they perceive to be Christian information in articles where they think it doesn't belong or other religious information they believe is simply "wrong", despite being reverted and explained to by several editors. Mainly these issues have showed up on the article triple deity and articles which linked to it, where they claim the translation "trinity" is an attempt at inserting Christian terms into Hinduism. They also accuse it of being "plagiarism"

Recently they have been making disruptive edits to the article Marriage in ancient Rome, first in February by removing a citation and inserting [Citation needed] templates. In April they began accusing the article of being "propaganda" 1, 2 and first starting by spamming the lead section with CN templates despite being informed several times that that is unneeded as the lead simply summarizes information that is already referenced in the article body. They edit warred on this and were warned by me and another editor (who according to my talkpage wishes to not be bothered with this anymore so I wont ping them). After giving up on this angle they then moved on to removing the first section of the lead and inserted new information with a citation. They were warned by me again on their talkpage after edit warring about this. Eventually I moved their new citation and information to the article body and rewrote the lead slightly in hopes that it would be seen as more fair and balanced, and once again asked them to raise any further content disputes on the talkpage. So far they have continued to revert to their version and have ignored all attempts at communication.

I believe this constitutes POV editing and is not in good faith. ★Trekker (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC) UPDATE: They're still at it.★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They've twice been blocked for edit warring before, so they ought to be aware of the rules around it. Despite that, today on the Marriage in ancient Rome page I count: edit, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4.  Despite one of their edit summaries asking for talkpage discussion they have only ever made one edit to talkspace, and never edited Talk:Marriage in ancient Rome, though I see other editors have attempted to discuss at Talk:Marriage in ancient Rome.  Not great behaviour. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On further inspection, all four of those reverts were made after StarTrekker made this report. If they are not going to respond to this report but rather continue the edit warring, perhaps a partial block is required to encourage communication. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit torn on this one... The editor has indeed made four reverts so is in breach of 3RR, and has been blocked for edit warring twice before. However, it does seem like their edits are being reverted without a valid rationale for such reversion so I can understand their frustration. Why is it being labelled "POV editing" to include cited information about Roman marriage and its purpose? If that could be made clearer perhaps this would be more black and white. It seems like the correct approach here is for all parties to go to the talk page and discuss the best way forward, with evidenced rationales for why particular phrasing is or isn't acceptable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually never mind, on deeper inspection it does look more like a "my way or the highway" approach,and other participants have made compromise edits incorporating the different sources, withy not participating in such discussion or compromise at all. I've blocked for 1 week for edit warring, this is really the last chance saloon. Please engage productively in future and don't edit war.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range
Please click here and Ctrl + F "reverted". Now your screen is almost completely yellow, that is how many times this range has been reverted from May 2022 till now. That's almost a whole year they have been bothering Wikipedia with their disruption. Can this range please get a lengthy block? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, very little of any use coming from those ranges. I have cut the range down (2A04:EE41:0:0:0:0:0:0/44 and 2A04:EE41:0080:0:0:0:0:0/44) and blocked for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle


Greetings! I think we have to discuss User:MrsSnoozyTurtle editing once more. I understand MrsSnoozyTurtle are passionate about fighting WP:COI, but their recents edits are unfortunately not helpful. There was a discussion about them, where many editors shown their concerns and there was some sort of consensus to topic ban them, but due to broad proposal a consensus was not reached and the discussion was archived prematurely. Hence, they received WP:ROPE (again) from the community.

I just checked their recent edits on Douglas Cumming, Berry Campbell Gallery, Ignition system and found them disturbing. They are continously failing to assume WP:GOODFAITH and are deleting useful contributions even after being reverted by by an editor who is a professor and gave a proper summary. It is clear now that they are not well-versed with WP:AFD/WP:DRAFTIFY guidelines, or even aware but don't care to follow. They nominated this page, without WP:BEFORE and without even going through the references, just because it was drafted by a "disclosed paid editor" - good way to punish them - first nominate and if that doesn't work then delete the page to bare minimum. Similarly, in the case of Berry Campbell Gallery where there is no apparent WP:COI and they are just assuming and based on that assumption, converted from a well-sourced version like this to something like this. This is what vandalism guideline says: "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" which I belive applies to them nicely.

We have to find a solution to this behavior as this is driving new potential editors away from Wikipedia which is a big loss. Thanks. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please notify the editor. See When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Also, I find it suspicious you know so much about this editor's activities given your first edit was made earlier today. Did you forget to log on?  Ppt91    talk   23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP notified the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And who exactly are you? An IP whose only edits are to post here with a rather expansive knowledge of policy pages, diffs, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an IP. I travel widely, somewhat nomad lifestyle, so this happens with me. I like being an IP: we can't delete sourced information like MrsSnoozyTurtle can because somebody would revert us, can't nominate page for deletion, AfD rationale holds little value, so we just contribute and build encyclopedia. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As for Berry Campbell Gallery, WP:OVERCITE is not well-sourced. @MrsSnoozyTurtle had every reason to made these edits and to question the subject's notability given that these sources were only passing mentions rather than significant coverage. And a commercial announcement published on Artsy about the gallery's expansion does not pass WP:RS. Your remaining examples of alleged wrongdoing are similarly flawed (that being a "professor" is somehow synonymous with editorial authority and so on), but I see no point in dissecting these just to waste more time.  Ppt91    talk   23:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have the bandwidth to list all of their edits here. The editors who participated in the previous discussion know it is a long-term issue. They deliberately avoid scruitny by deleting all the warnings on their talkpage. I don't want to go through their talkpage again. Regarding edits, even their summaries are wrong: they removed this saying "Removing unreliable sources". Is Sangbad Pratidin unreliable? How about this:, remove references and then label it as "Removing unsourced text, article structure". Wow. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the previous discussion it was not "archived prematurely", it fizzled out with the now indef blocked OP barely missing a WP:BOOMERANG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "indef blocked" how? 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry that could be ambiguous, I meant the OP of the previous post not this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I should be sorry - I linked up wrong discussion. I was talking about the discussion in which you participated. Sorry for messing it up - somehow linked wrongly while searching. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That thread had a lot of diffs showing a specific problem, particularly edit warring. It wasn't enough to get a consensus. If those issues have returned (I hope they haven't) you'll need to show with diffs, not waving at the edit histories of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post a similar comment. Between the misrepresentation of the old discussion and the nothingburger complaints about specific articles, there's no cause for sanctions on MrsSnoozyTurtle here. IP seems to be either deliberately misrepresenting or just reading with grudge-colored glasses. MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Corrected the previous discussion. Apologies again. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Found another comment regarding their grasp of AfD: Hello Jeppiz. Notability is not the basis for this AFD, please see the nomination statement. If notability is not an issue then why nominate? 82.4.215.32 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is a valid reason for deleting an article, if contentious. This wasn't a brilliant nomination, but mostly because another editor cleaned up the article (with a hatchet). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is an essay. 82.4.215.32 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its also shorthand for a widely accepted principle that is used in dealing with problematic articles created under notable titles. If there is a consensus in a discussion that TNT embodies the correct action to take, then it violates no policy or guidelines and is an acceptable outcome.  // Timothy :: talk  01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: (I am adding this prefix per below) While there are problems, this is a Grudge complaint with no merit, clearly arising from AfD disputes. This exceeds my threshold for AGF. This is clearly an editor with a grudge that is trying the "everything and the kitchen sink" tactic hoping something sticks.  // Timothy :: talk  00:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , maybe, but this edit was not good. [[User:Drmies|Drmies] (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there are some problems, but this feels like a grudge match. I've refactored my comment to be clearer. Thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I admit my own personal disbelief of the IPs claim not to have a regular account (IP or reg acct), is a large factor in my belief that this is a thinly disguised AfD grudge match (an opinion, but most cmts are).  // Timothy :: talk  02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am glad you voiced your belief aloud, because it is something that I believe is a recurring issue with how users treat IP editors. We wouldn't tolerate an IP editor accusing a regular user of being a sockpuppet without evidence. I don't understand why it isn't considered dirty pool when the accusation, implied or not, is the other way around. There are plenty of editors who roam between IP addresses and have been recurring contributors to Wikipedia, and in fact have been reasonably effective in sniffing out vandals. There are lots of disruptive IPs too, of course, but we identify those based on their actions and not by presuming their intentions. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its the lack of an editing history of any substance, combined with a knowledge about internal wikipedia stuff that most don't have (reg or IP), combined with the circumstances, which makes me believe we are not being presented with the full picture/background. I'd feel the same way if this was a newly registered acccount.  // Timothy :: talk  15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was an IP editor for a long time, and you're right that they are treated with little respect (something I've mentioned before on this board). However given certain things I don't think Timothy is wrong here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the blanking of content done to Berry Campbell Gallery. That was very blatantly MrsSnoozyTurtle just doing another vandalism. An argument could potentially be made for removing the selected artists list for those featured at the gallery, but not the removal of the history section and the specific selective removal of the references supporting that content. Just pure vandalism of the article because the AfD didn't result in the deletion they wanted. Silver  seren C 02:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak to MrsSnoozyTurtle's past edits, but this was neither blanking nor vandalism. That article, which is about a contemporary commercial gallery, uses promotional content to establish notability (Artsy and Artfix Daily are just two examples). The whole thing reads like a press release, including a lengthy quote from the gallery's founder. It is also a prime example of WP:REFBOMB--why would a mention of an artist represented by the gallery need 4 of 5 footnotes? Finally, the AfD was without consensus, rather than keep.  Ppt91    talk   02:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Silver seren Just so I am specific: in references 1 through 9, used for the actual content of the article, not one passes WP:RS for significant coverage in establishing notability (a single interview from Surface is not sufficient). References 10 through 45 are used as citations for a list of artists, which should be done with a single source and is nothing short of ridiculous.  Ppt91    talk   03:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC) A quote can be shortened. And I don't consider a quote from the creators of a gallery on why they founded it to be all that promotional. Especially when it is taken from a reliable source magazine. And there are certainly references that can be removed, but there are sources at the top level of reliability that discuss the gallery featuring various artists' work. And there is absolutely no explanations I can consider reasonable for turning the article into this and removing literally all of that. That is indeed blanking and vandalism of the article. Silver  seren C 03:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad for your opinion. Still not an explanation for the blanking of the article. Silver  seren C 03:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * NYT discussing the artist's work is a reliable source for that artist, not for the gallery which represents the artist, unless its notability can be independently established. The gallery was established in 2013 and while it's great they are promoting under-represented artists, I have yet to see art historical or cultural notability. And relying so heavily on commercial content to prove notability is just egregious.   Ppt91    talk   03:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said the New York Times article was a source meant to establish notability. But it was an accurate source for the usage and there was no reason for it to be removed. And that's especially so for the Surface interview article. Hence why MrsSnoozyTurtle's blanking actions were vandalism. They bizarrely also left just one unreliable source in there, I guess as an argument to then claim the article is bad and non-notable? I can only guess to that being the reason, since they might as well have blanked everything and called it unreferenced at that point. Silver  seren C 03:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the article absolutely warranted an intervention but I respect your objections as to how that was handled. I hope that clarifies things.  Ppt91    talk   03:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment this editor MST has been making harassing edits for some time. I will offer diffs when the community has the appetite to sanction MST and not the reporters. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , please do state some specifics, both to support the IP (who's getting extra-heavy flak for the non-crime of being unregistered) and to avoid a charge of casting aspersions. Further, this is at least the 2nd time the editor's conduct has been brought here recently,and I agree with Drmies that removing a list of books published from an academic's article is not a good edit; that's a standard part of such an article, important for demonstrating notability, and the list was not indiscriminate as the edit summary claims. I've restored the list with refinements to its presentation. Gutting articles like that—even more so, like this flagged by Silver seren as well as the IP editor—doesn't help the encyclopedia at all. (WP:TNT is blowing it up and starting again, not just blowing it up.) So I think we should have it out now, so that MrsSnoozyTurtle can be induced to stop doing things like that and like whatever you refer to, and concentrate on their useful work. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The last ANI was full of diffs that editors here dismissed. And claims from that MST was harassing and needling ARS. Nothing came of it and it has continued. If I felt this was going to go anywhere I would provide diffs again. Basically MST has been harassing myself and the ARS for more than a year by: refactoring edits to the project page, and WP:FOLLOWING to ivote angular without ever trying to rescue a single article which was posted to ARS. After Sozo Water Park was posted for rescue, members improved it and MST waited until the AfD closed as keep and then erased most of the article with a misleading edit summary of "various changes". When I reverted the erasure they reverted me. That was December and more following has occurred since then. MST's following, and needling has been a puzzling thing to deal with. In March I had this discussion on 's talk page.  Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and I note the removals at Sozo Water Park have since been reverted; I have done some tightening. But I'm afraid specifics are needed if harassment is at issue, especially since definitions vary. In particular, some would not place activity at the Article Rescue Squadron under that heading, since it is itself an advocacy group within Wikipedia. But refactoring others' edits at the project page is wrong; can you show a diff of that? Have you been careful to assume good faith of ARS members? And what's your rationale for cutting down articles after they have been examined by multiple editors and kept at AfD? In terms of ridding Wikipedia of promotional material, wouldn't it be more useful to accept consensus and move on to another article? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read Tryptofish's comments in the last MST ANI to see. The first ANI was full of problematic edits by MST - maybe too many diffs, so that editors were too overwhelmed to read them all. Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I reminded MrsSnoozyTurtle at her user talk that this discussion existed, but she hasn't edited since the 16th. Hopefully just on vacation or something. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. My semi-revert of  at Douglas Cumming was mentioned in the report.  I take the editing here to be in good faith:  I believe the list belongs in the article for the reasons in my edit summary, but without book reviews it may not be completely obvious.  MrsSnoozyTurtle did not revert me after that, although she converted from a list to a paragraph (since reverted back to a list by ).  I agree with Yngvadottir that the list format is preferable here, but I also think that there is room for reasonable people to disagree.  I do agree with the totality of the recent edits at the Douglas Cumming article of MrsSnoozyTurtle and others, which cut the Douglas Cumming article down from a huge mess to a reasonably sourced article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been aware of and have been following this discussion, and I'm commenting now, because I've been pinged. It's true that I raised some significant concerns at the last ANI discussion, about MrsSnoozyTurtle acting in unpleasant ways at the ARS noticeboard, and interested editors can look back there to see what I said then. We came out of that previous ANI with a consensus that MST should be on her best behavior going forward. From what I'm seeing above, there have been some suboptimal edits (notably the one highlighted by Drmies), but not the sort of thing that rises to being sanction-worthy. At the same time, I've also see evidence of MST doing good work (having gotten thanks from ), and having had to deal with some unfair trolling: . At the same time, Lightburst, who pinged me here, does not have entirely clean hands . And yet, Lightburst, too, has also been doing a lot of good work since he was last at ANI, so I didn't pursue that incident I just linked to any further. I'm not sure whether this current ANI thread can really lead to any sort of action being taken, but I'll strongly urge that all involved be on their best behavior, for real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the previous AN/I again, and noted that quite a few editors argued there for a restriction on, but that discussion ended after she promised to re-familiarize herself with the rules on PROD and draftification. She does seem to have been doing better, to judge from the balance of responses here. But I find disquieting that she has yet to respond here, which is why I'm pinging her., thanks for noting my edit at Douglas Cumming. But this edit by MrsSnoozyTurtle shortly after the article was kept at AfD was far too severe, removing information filling out the subject's actual biography. A common argument for deletion at AfD, related to BLP1E, is that we lack information to write a biography and can only report what the person is known for; this arises especially with academics, who rarely get profiled in newspapers and magazines and usually have very recentist mini-biographies online at their institutions or at proceedings of conferences. When I looked at that list of books, I was struck by the fact that, as MrsSnoozyTurtle had written in her paragraph version, they all have the same co-author, and independently discovered references at the Florida Atlantic University business school website naming the co-author as the subject's wife. Moreover, those references state the subject's previous position, which should definitely be in the article! Hence my edit added quite a lot of material.I agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle's removal of the number of children the couple have—others might disagree, but if we were to include that, I think it should be in a separate "Personal life" section, and the article had in the interim had its blended early life and personal life section rolled into the main Biography section. But I note she also removed his past as an athlete; there was no justification for tagging that as unimportant and then removing it, given that we are writing a biography rather than a paragraph on "the one thing you need to know about this person", and the medals ought to be easy to independently source. (And the Memorable Manitobans source that was misused for his mother's profession is an excellent source for his father; sensitive editing would have kept it.) That article was a mess because of inexpert assembly; taking a scythe to it made it less useful to the reader, and less appropriate as an account of a person whose notability had been established at AfD. In a more extreme form, this is the sum of MrsSnoozyTurtle's edits at Berry Campbell Gallery immediately following the AfD being closed as no consensus. (I note that in the spirit of WP:TNT, Silver Seren did not just revert this wholesale blanking but has since improved the article.) MrsSnoozyTurtle's good faith in zealously pursuing COI edits and promotional content is not in doubt, but this is a project to write an encyclopedia, and once a topic has been determined to merit an article by virtue of notability, gutting the article is a disservice to the reader and unjustifiable damage to the encyclopedia. Tags and removal of truly trivial or undesirable material is one thing, although looking for a reference oneself is much to be preferred. Laying waste to the article looks like sour grapes, and evinces an assumption of bad faith in editors who argued for the article to be kept. That may be one source of the continuing accusations of harassment? I've nominated articles for deletion and had them kept. It happens. This place operates by consensus. MrsSnoozyTurtle, can you undertake to accept consensus and walk away from an article after it's kept at AfD, rather than cutting away at it? Consider what other problematic articles you might more usefully spend time on rather than attempting to relitigate the decision in this way. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * D'ya think you could throw a couple of paragraph breaks into that wall of words to make it possible to read? MEGO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried. But whatever I do always seems to violate accessibility guidelines in some way. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, Ive made some formatting changes which I hope represent your intentions, and which I think are not a problem in terms of accessibility. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's one more template I keep forgetting how to use, especially when I'm also worrying about asterisk protocol. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have had the misfortune of crossing MrsSnoozyTurtle's path in the past - they are hell bent on deleting everything they encounter, ignoring others comments, but always carefully remaining just within the lines. I have seen them narrowly escape sanction several times in the past. They freely delete sources which do not agree with their point of view and deliberately needle others when it is possible to do so without actively crossing lines. No matter I hate to be part of such an ill-birthed report but this user's habits and methods pushed me away from editing at all for a while. WP:OWN is probably the main problem, and others have had issues with this user for years.
 * MST has a particular fondness for deleting large swathes of all BMW articles and removing metric horsepower, frequently introducing tiny factual errors while doing so. They are currently in the process of gutting many articles relating to automobile systems, such as spark plug and fuel injection. After a discussion relating to Straight-eight engine, consensus was reached to restore an earlier version but MST claimed there was no consensus and reverted again. In general, MST will argue but generally pretends not to comprehend others, claims to have misunderstood when problems are pointed out, and pretty much never acknowledges sanctions.
 * The problems are in themselves not that serious, what's problematic is the fact that they have persisted for many many years, with absolutely no change in behavior as far as I can tell. Again, WP:OWN is my main issue.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , isn't disappearing from editing whenever a discussion such as here at ANI happens the common MO for MrsSnoozyTurtle? It's exactly what they did with the previous discussion as well and why it kinda died out without any conclusion. Disappearing for a bit is a way to avoid actual sanctioning, since we all usually want to avoid enacting sanctions without the person getting an opportunity to defend themselves. So disappearing and then resuming the same disruptive activity later is how to get away from any form of repercussions. Silver  seren C 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to assume bad faith. This is a volunteer project, and she hasn't edited at all since the 16th. And the ABF against the IP in her removal of the talk page notification is sad but not unusual; see the early part of this section. But I will admit that not turning up here at all while continuing to make lots of edits at AfDs, then going silent, looks worse to me than her couple of brief responses at the last AN/I. (I haven't checked for earlier AN/Is.) I pinged her and bugged her on her talk page in hopes of getting her point of view; by not responding here at all while continuing to edit, she's given the impression that she doesn't care about the concerns that have been expressed. (I should note that I'm responding because this was addressed to me, but I have no particular influence here beyond that of another experienced editor.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious canvassing at multiple venues

 * Move_review/Log/2023_April


 * on 18 April votes to endorse an RM which was largely opposed at the time.
 * posts a comment on 18 April to endorse it, but his comment has nothing to do with the RM.
 * Ameen Akbar also votes on 18 April to endorse it.
 * votes on 19 April to endorse RM.

None of these accounts have any history on Move review or the article that is being discussed. Another user, also deemed canvassing has happened while  cited another similar instance of canvassing that involved same users.


 * Articles for deletion/Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan


 * starts AfD against a notable subject.
 * AfD starts moving towards "keep".
 * Oriental Aristocrat jumps to vote for "Delete".
 * Ameen Akbar also votes for "Delete" on the same day, despite no votes in any AfD for over 6 months.
 * , an account with only 50 edits, makes his first ever AfD vote to support deletion.

also pointed out about the "unusual activity" in the AFD.


 * Talk:Pakistani_Taliban


 * voted support the move.
 * Ameen Akbar also voted support on the move.
 * Cheel also voted support on the move.
 * also voted support on the move.

Similarly suspicious activity also happened on Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir where is involved in content dispute, but Ameen Akbar jumped to help Oriental Aristocrat without having any previous history with the article or its talk page.

Clear off-wiki canvassing is going on. I request an admin to strike/collapse !votes by these users in the ongoing discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a participant at Articles for deletion/Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan, I agree there are strange things going on, with several editors trying to censor the subject. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that a clear off-wiki canvassing is going on. See for example:
 * 1. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp are the only two editors except a blocked sock and an IP (with both of its edits on the same AfD) to vote Delete.
 * 2. CapnJackSp's first ever edit to 'China' article was to revert and restore Aman.kumar.goel's five edits.
 * 3. CapnJackSp and Aman.kumar.goel then gang up on 'Talkpage:China'.
 * 4. Aman.kumar.goel's first edit to 'Talk:Pakistani Taliban' is to vote Oppose on the RfC. CapnJackSp too votes Oppose on the same RfC.
 * 5. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp back each other up on 'Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948' against.
 * 6. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp remove the same content on 'Violence against Muslims in India'.
 * 7. Aman.kumar.goel and CapnJackSp both comment on the same discussion at 'Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal'.
 * 8. Capitals00 initiates the Move Review for Hindu terrorism following which CapnJackSp and UnpetitproleX comment to Overturn it.
 * 9. CapnJackSp removes the same content as UnpetitproleX and then Capitals00 joins in to edit-war at 'Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir'.
 * 10. Aman.kumar.goel twice reverts the same content on 'Terrorism in Pakistan' that is then removed in their first edit to the article by CapnJackSp. CapnJackSp then continues to edit-war multiple editors (incl. & ) to CENSOR the article.
 * 11. Aman.kumar.goel votes Keep on the 'Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan' AfD. More influx of Keep votes is expected from editors of that certain country.
 * This post is simply a BADFAITH HOUNDING that deserves a BOOMERANG. The above instances are just the tip of the iceberg in uncovering this CABAL (more to follow). Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See whataboutism. What is quoted by you is common edits between editors who have thousands of edits in a similar space, most of them unrelated. What is quoted by me is editors with very low edit counts consistently vote stacking with no significant contribution to the discussion.
 * This comment itself highlights your WP:CANVASSING, where you have pinged only those who opposed the edits of Aman.kumar.goel, UnpetitproleX, Capitals00 but didn't ping Aman.kumar.goel, UnpetitproleX, and Capitals00.
 * Your short editing history, where two pages had to be ECP protected due to edit warring by you, clearly shows a case of WP:NOTHERE and your baseless counter-allegations against established editors confirms this further. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To everyone involved, remember that WP:NATIONALIST editing is not permitted and that the India–Pakistan topic area in particular is subject to WP:CTOP restrictions. Basically, if your editing and comments always support India or always support Pakistan, don't be surprised when the community gets annoyed with you and you get banned from the topic. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thebiguglyalien, what nationalist editing? I don't use Wikipedia too much and only came to occasionally edit. I see an article that makes no sense to me and vote to delete it and even explained my reasons. I don't know why this person is suddenly making accusations at me. Cheel (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Michigan IPs have been disrupting exactly like Texas puppetmaster

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler

Someone using the IP Special:Contributions/97.84.158.92 and the range Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:767F:80B3:0:0:0:0/64, all of which geolocate to Saginaw, Michigan, has been edit-warring to restore contributions from sockpuppets such as and. These sockpuppets were part of an investigation into, but then the 556greentip case was seen to intersect with Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler from Texas. The nearby range Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:767F:5518:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked twice for block evasion.

Here is a sequence of edits at Empty (Juice Wrld song): Ppok ll creates the article from a redirect, which is reverted. Sahbabi04 restores the article, which is reverted. A month ago, Saginaw IP 2600:6C48:767F:80B3:7DD4:6EF2:1A0C:A3F1 restored the article again.

Another example is 556greentip creating the article Just Wanna Rock from a redirect, which was reverted. A Texas IP (certainly Rishabisajakepauler) restored the article, and more editors worked on it including some sockpuppets. Saginaw IPs edited it in early April and late April, edit-warring to restore their preferred version.

A third example may be seen at Franky (One Piece), where sockpuppet re-created the article from a redirect, which was reverted, then Saginaw IPs restored it twice more.

Since this sockmaster has used two related /64 ranges, I propose we block a larger range that includes them both. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, meatpuppetry is going on here. Agletarang (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

IP vandal
There is a vandal in the IP range Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E51:5400:0:0:0:0/64 that has a strange obsession with adding that someone was "brutally beaten" in articles. I first noticed such an edit some months ago and came across it again now. See for example these recent edits:. Mainly these are just unsourced changes that look like plain vandalism. Most of the edits get reverted but some slip through as some are not so obvious and probably some more need to be reverted. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic IP-hopping editor inserting their own POV in articles
These two IP's (seemingly the same user) keep on inserting their own POV in articles and refusing to cooperate when warned. Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  11:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging @LilianaUwU -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  11:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith (for once, some editors might say) and assume they're simply using a different computer or have been in another room of the house between two edits. Otherwise, yeah, unacceptable behavior. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn’t even worthy of ANI. Just a bigoted vandal trying to “trigger” people with cringeworthy attempts at edginess. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Both IPs blocked for a week. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Explicit
Person of concern:

I have some concerns about this Admin's behaviour. They have deleted my Sandbox for no acceptable reason (they have cited it qualifies for quick deletion which is nonsense, and that it had a link to a deleted draft page) and are refusing to reinstate it. They are presently not responding, nor restoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesgillham (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Your sandbox was solely a redirect to a non-existant page in draft space. It is valid for a userspace page that redirects to another space to be removed, especially one to a deleted draft that's just regular cleanup. You could make an argument that the sandbox is excluded, and you may have a point, but are you really creating a massive fuss over a sandbox that was solely a redirect to deleted draft which was of zero use to anyone even yourself and could recreate in 5 seconds. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To add it looks like your draft was moved to: User:Milesgillham/Clara Higuera Cabañes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The OP is aware of that as they have responded to the message informing them of it with the fact they understood it. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RickinBaltimore, you've described exactly what Jimfbleak did after I asked him to restore the Draft page that he deleted. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are describing exactly the state of it at that exact moment. But it had an edit history that was rich in content, especially after the Draft page it referred to was also deleted under me at the same time - leaving me with nothing (Draft page since restored, but that's another story). So the rule is that any Admin can delete anyone's Sandbox and then refuse to restore it? You're endorsing Explicit's behaviour? --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Um all the edit history is there in the version in your userspace. I'm not understanding what you think has been lost here. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit history moved with the page. However, if it will make you happy I can restore the deleted sandbox and edit the redirect to point at the current location of the content. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ONUnicorn, I would appreciate it! All I've been asking for is to have my Sandbox undeleted. I don't understand why that has been a problem. It was a greater problem before Jimfbleak restored the other Draft page. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I can now see that there was no futher history in the Sandbox, I had thought it had a long edit history, but that clearly moved with the Draft page.
 * I now have everything back.
 * You are one of the good guys, ONUnicorn. Matter resolved. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the OP for conveniently omitting the chain of events, I expected nothing less than the continued gaslighting which began on my talk page.
 * Draft:Clara Higuera Cabañes was deleted by per WP:CSD. User:Milesgillham/sandbox was later listed at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects, so I deleted it in accordance with WP:CSD as a broken redirect.  left me a message demanding the redirect to be restored despite the history showing nothing but a redirect that was created as a result of the page move, the target of which remained a red link, while falsely claiming that "a User Sandbox is clearly exempt" from G8. In every edit summary, the user described me as a vandal.
 * What I am seeing now is that the Jimfbleak restored the draft a day later and moved it to User:Milesgillham/Clara Higuera Cabañes. It remains unclear what Milesgillham benefits from restoring a page that would still point to a red link. ✗  plicit  14:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're pretty rude, Explicit. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your COI with the subject of this draft you're writing? It seems pretty odd that the subject would upload photos of themselves and you just happen to create a large article about them within minutes of the upload. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no COI. I attended to a talk by the subject and was impressed with the content and depth. There needs to be more women in STEM so I started drafting a page. I reached out to them and asked them to upload a photo. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Canterbury Tail, can you explain your COI in effectively endorsing Explicit's behaviour? --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's not a COI. Your complaint is they deleted a redirect to a non-existent page in another space. It's valid cleanup. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we please drop this? I have restored your sandbox and corrected the redirect to point to the current location of the draft.  Jimfbleak restored the draft.  Explicit did nothing that was against policy. Let's just move on. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Talking of "pretty rude", two edits on my talk page, here and here, show the level of civility Miles Gillham employs, and that he always intended to waste time here even after his draft was restored <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - <i style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</i> 15:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, if I was coming after you, jimfbleak, it would be about the number of draft pages you've been deleting without warning. The reasons you give are reasons why the Draft would not be promoted, not good reasons for deleting Drafts underneath people. I can see quite a chain of misery to other Editors that you and Explicit have been creating together. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm done. Much appreciated ONUnicorn. --Miles Gillham (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for ongoing battleground behavior, for 31 hours. The lack of AGF and the ridiculous claims are personal attacks, and they created another time sink here on ANI. This should put a temporary stop to this "chain of misery", and I hope they will not continue this when they return. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn and not understanding stable, consensus, or primary sources
is a new account with edits on one page Kansas SB 180, I created the article and the article was subsequently reviewed. They do not understand that articles need to based off secondary and tertiary sources, and has continuously removed sources. I explained to them that the current version of the article is the stable version and as such they require consensus to make changes to the article. They have assumed bad faith here and I warned them about them here on there talk page (which they subsequently blanked). Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've partially blocked them from Kansas SB 180. You're also very close to edit warring, @Des Vallee. Hopefully you two can discuss it on the Talk page. Star   Mississippi  21:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I just want them to understand the basis of primary sources, and understand this especially for someone this new, they have no clue what they are talking about, and immedetely jumped towards "Your being biased, I am assuming good faith but you look biased" anti-insult. I will try my best to discuss things, on the talk page. I understand and I will try my best to do so. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Just one reminder, being potentially "right" doesn't give you license to edit war. Not being able to edit the article should help them understand the role of talk pages and consensus. Hopefully. Star   Mississippi  21:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "articles need to based off secondary and tertiary sources" is a misrepresentation of Wiki policies. Policy does not prohibit factually presenting primary source information, so long as it is not interpretive (which it was not). It was well cited with the highest level of Verifiability (direct government documents), yet they completely reverted it.
 * "continuously removed sources" Explanations were given on the talk page and never addressed.
 * Reference is for a Yahoo News article given to prove factual information (that the bill was vetoed) which would be best represented with primary sources.
 * Reference is misrepresented and the context within the article misleads transpersons into believing they have federal protections that have not yet been ratified.
 * Reference is a poor source and only mentions SB 180 in a singular sentence. The claim it makes is controversial which needs more citation, and such a controversial claim should not be in the first implied "About the Bill" section.
 * Reference is literally a paywalled article that the public doesn't have access to.
 * @Star Mississippi Can you please explain what I am being partially blocked for? Literally no reason was given.
 * Have you reviewed the article as I've proposed? I'd be happy to incorporate Des' new information, but as I've stated on the talk page, most of the information prior to my rewrites was not salvageable or could be surmised in the Controversy section. Can you please tell me specifically why it is justifiable to delete my entire rewrite, instead of adding information onto it?
 * Also as far as blocking, I would like to point out that I made material revisions to the article, not just petty reverts. So again, I would like to know on what grounds a block would be given. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread is not a place for content dispute. As for your actions, while the discussion thread was active, you've continued to revert Des Vallee. BRD actually refers to reverting the original edit in question, which was done by Des Vallee. Callmemirela  &#127809; <b style="font-family:Open Sans; color:#9cadad; text-transform:uppercase;">talk</b> 22:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Callmemirela,
 * I'm not intending to discuss content, but show that I provided numerous examples of issues that were never addressed. Rather than attempt to preserve any of my work, my edits were wholly discarded.
 * Even though I completely rewrote the article to meet the absolute highest standards of Neutrality and Verifiability, you are saying I "reverted," which implies simply clicking an Undo button, rather than the hours of work I put into the article.
 * Could you please clarify for me: Are edits not allowed on a page til the prior editor has approved them on the talk page? Because again, I did not merely revert articles and instead expanded this one.
 * Now I'm being blocked, which gives me the impression that an original editor of an article has a form of ownership over it. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , you need to gain consensus for any edit you wish to make that is contested by another editor. Talk page discussion to build consensus is the first step, and there are various forms of dispute resolution available as well. Edit warring is never appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Cullen328. Does the need for consensus apply both ways? Or is it just whoever touches an article first must give consensus? I keep being referred to the same page which doesn't explain why my hours of work were discarded wholesale without cause and with no attempt to to integrate them into the article. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , consensus is required to change an article if the proposed changes have been challenged. I do not know how I can explain it more clearly. Editors do not "give consensus". Editors build consensus through discussion and negotiation. No consensus means no change. It is therefore incumbent on you to persuade the other editors interested in the specific article that your proposed changes are an improvement. That is how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time @Cullen328. Building consensus implies that all views are considered. I hope you can understand why I'm struggling here, because "no consensus means no change" implies that I must gain consent from one editor, while they do not need to gain consent from me. Simply because they were "here first." PhenomenonDawn (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

, it seems that you may not have fully read my earlier answer where I told you that talk page discussion is, and if that is not sufficient, various forms of are available to you. Some forms of dispute resolution are specifically designed to bring fresh eyes to a dispute, such as third opinion and mediation and request for comment. Did you read that link that I offered to you? Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes @Cullen328 and thanks again. I wasn't trying to imply there aren't other methods of dispute resolute, just that the "first line" seems inequitable when two parties are involved. It would have seemed equitable if we had followed a process of through editing embodying the spirit of "Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work." Instead my work was reverted because I "have no clue what [I'm] are talking about," as evidenced in their comments above.
 * In any case, I truly do appreciate your time here, and don't want to take up any more of it. I will draft a thorough talk page and request third opinions and comments. Cheers! PhenomenonDawn (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Help please
I am having suspicions and concerns over the editing behaviour on a page and talk page. I do not want to make false accusations as this is a serious matter but there appears to be a new editor to a page (not to wikipedia) who is all of a sudden editing in a way which mirrors and supports another editor on a page who is a long time editor on the page. Can I please get some assistance in this delicate matter? The behaviour is going so far as to tag team revert and support a preferred version of the article. The intervention by the second editor also conveniently circumvents the three-revert rule. which the first editor would be in violation of if they did the revert to their preferred version. Sparkle1 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So what is your complaint? Is it that you are, at the moment, in a two to one minority at Talk:Martina Navratilova? If nobody supports you then it simply means that you have no consensus for your position, not that anything underhand is happening. And it is obvious that you are talking about User:Fyunck(click) and User:Czello, so I hope you have informed them that this discussion is happening. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sparkle1, I'm not quite certain of what the issue is with that article, but it seems there's something related to the WP:GENSEX topic area. In this case, you need to stop edit warring and use the talk page to discuss the issue with others. If consensus is not on your side, I recommend you simply leave the article and perhaps find another article to edit. Regards,<span id="Nythar:1682247350316:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The series of events at Navratilova is what's supposed to happen. An editor sees an addition they disagree with and reverts it, and takes it to the talk page for discussion with the editor making the addition. A third editor sees the disagreement is approaching 3RR and weighs in by reverting to the version they agree with. There is nothing nefarious going on. Valereee (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sparkle1, you did not inform me or Fyunck(click) of this discussion which you are obligated to do. Furthermore, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG as your editing is very much at fault here. You've violated 3RR in order to insert contentious material into a BLP article. Furthermore you are edit warring to collapse a section on the talk page for no justifiable reason - despite Fyunck(click)'s responses to you being very valid. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Well this was a waste. As what I tried to avoid just happened. I wanted a place to discuss an issue but instead, it has all gone a little bit silly. All I wanted was some advice but it seems that that is not possible. All I wanted was a generalised discussion before making allegations. Seems that is not possible. I wasn't naming anyone. I wasn't going after anyone. All I wanted was some advice from people who may know a sensible and cautious way forwards. Instead, all that has happened is what I tried to avoid. Well done everyone. *slow hand clap*. I have not read any of the above and nor am I going to as it is pointless. I tried to avoid this kind of thing above happening but c'est la vie turns out you cannot do that. My congratulations on the handling of this go especially to Phil Bridger. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sparkle1, you brought this to ANI, which is the place to bring urgent or chronic behavior issues to the attention of administrators for actioning. If you want advice, I'd suggest WP:TEAHOUSE. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your complaint about Phil Bridger is, exactly - all he asked was what your complaint was. In fact, given your post on my talk page and the wording of your original post, it sounds like you're trying to make an allegation about something, in your words, "fishy". It sounds like a sockpuppetry allegation, so I think it's right to ask you to be clear about what you're saying. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sparkle1 In addition, you have failed to notify Czello or any other user who you are reporting here of this ANI report, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. When making reports, you have to at least tell us who you are reporting about, and give clear evidence as to why you have done so. You cannot expect us to try to fish this evidence for you or have to notify people on your behalf. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 12:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You can now throw in some personal attacks from the OP on their talk page. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:18A1:B827:1E05:9077 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd argue its time for an indef block for incivility. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Their response to me warning that their comments count as personal attacks is mildly uncivil and solidifies my opinion that an indef block for incivility and battleground mentalality is needed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * as you are the target of their incivility what is your opinion? Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that discussion would need its own section, which I've opened below. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I agree that Sparkle1 should be - and is now - indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sparkle1
Casts aspersions and unsupported accusations and assumes bad faith when disagreed with. Multiple complaints and warnings for various types of incivility and battleground behavior. Chronic, ongoing problem despite warnings.

October 20 Special:Diff/983523929 "a talk has already been started on there but you know that is a low traffic page and you are hoping to win by lack of input"

November 20 Warned

May 21 Special:Diff/1023554507 "removed graphics and this stupid new inclusion which is cancerous"

Dec 21 Warned again

Oct 22 Another trip to ANI after calling someone a "bad faith wally"

January 23 Special:Diff/1134454367 "it seems you cannot read" because someone missed the 'don't template me' at the top of their user

Feb 23 Special:Diff/1140391244 "Your current position is an inside-out, upside-down nonsensical version of BLP which would mean every article on a human being that is alive would have to be deleted as nothing at all could be included on them as it would be a violation of your absurd BLP version. Prove us all wrong with the parts of BLP you think to support your weird and ludicrous position."

April 23 Special:Diff/1151340897 "please don't play puppy-eyed and innocent." and Special:Permalink/1151374004 Various personal attacks, casting of aspersions, assumptions of bad faith. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also of note is the ANI section Help please further up this page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my attempts to explain that such a series of edits is routine was met by at worst I'm lying ("I shall take it with a pinch of salt what you have said") and at best, I'm naive, a problem which I should work on. Valereee (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This signals... idk, something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to let Wikipedia know about Sparkle1's attitude problem for years. From Scottish Parliament election results to football team articles and everything in-between they are rude, brusque, insulting, and disruptive. They've been a constant thorn in my side for years. May their reputation catch up with them doktorb wordsdeeds 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The pair of you have made a storm out of nothing and I hold this with the vexatious and frivolous nature it deserves. You both needed not to jump in and behave as you did. This is nothing more then ‘eww this other user hurt my feelings’. This is a frivolous and vexation complaint and should be held as such. There are far more important things to discuss than what us clearly a couple of users with fragile feelings trying to get the mean user banned. Grow up the pair of you. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I have nothing more to say on this thread and will not be engaging with any comments and/or continuation further of this frivolity. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sparkle1 denies they've been notified because I didn't use the template, so I'll re-notify. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed Sparkle1.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, edit conflict. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And they are appealing the block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And appeal denied as I expected it would be. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Appealing again. Apparently it's everybody else's fault. Also, gotta love someone with a big banner ordering people not to template them then complaining that a handwritten notification was Just. Not. Good. Enough because it wasn't a template. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the behaviour I've highlighted before. It's present in his edit summaries, in talk page messages, in his general attitude. I'm amazed that it's taken this long. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good call. Total time sink. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This section, and the one above created by Sparkle1, should be closed now. There's no need to have a parallel discussion here to the unblock request(s) on the user talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

ErceÇamurOfficial And RFD
ErceÇamurOfficial has been told to stop nominating redirects at WP:RFD or read WP:R and WP:CHEAP before nominating any more redirects many many times; however, the user just keeps nominating redirects without any valid reason and thus is just wasting editors time. As this user is just ignoring editors' requests, this is a WP:CIR issue. <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * blocked for 31 hours. I was not sure whether a p-block from Wikipedia space would stop them from nominating, or if they'd just create broken ones so this is a full block, but short duration. If any admin feels this needs adjusting, feel free. Star   Mississippi  22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm not sure if 31 hours will be enough since their editing frequency is so sporadic ... since I hear we can do partial blocks these days, maybe the prolonged block from the "Wikipedia:" namespace may honestly be preferable? (But then they couldn't respond here.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Steel here but I don't think a partial block to the Wikipedia namespace would fix the WP:CIR problem (especially since most of this user's edits are in namespace and are on BLP articles). If you look at this user's contributions and filter them by edits that have been reverted, you can see a concerning amount of reverted edits compared to their total amount of edits (which is 528 edits). <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 23:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * with the p-block, they can still tag a page for RfD, they just can't create the discussion I think. My concern was whether that wouldn't lead to broken noms. I'm about to log off for the evening, but if another admin feels that's the answer-feel free. My goal was stopping the immediate disruption. Star   Mississippi  01:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read that, but I've seen "Wikipedia:" space bans (before namespace blocks were possible) done anyways for reasons that I would have to guess were because the collateral damage was still less. Not sure, but anyways, thanks for taking action. Steel1943  (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and @Yamla declined an unblock. We'll see if they understand the issue coming out of the block, and we can always block longer if needed. Star   Mississippi  16:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would support an indefinite block. There are clear CIR issues here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Order of operations - disruptive editing
Over at Order of operations, user Rick Norwood has repeatedly (five times) restored an edit that has no consensus on the talk page, with every other editor participating disagreeing with his edits.

I have repeatedly advised him to reach consensus on the talk page before restoring this edit, but he keeps re-inserting the edit, which as other editors have noted mis-represents the cited sources. He has provided no sources to support his edit.

Initial edit:

First revert:

Ensuing diffs:, , , , ,.

Talk page discussions: ,

I'm not going to violate the three revert rule, so the non-consensus material remains part of the article for now.

Perhaps someone could explain consensus and WP:BRD to the editor, or at least restore the previous version of the article pending reaching consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The claims made above can be easily checked by anyone who reads the Talk page of the article Order of Operations. Mr. Swordfish says, that I have "repeatedly (five times) restored an edit that has no consensus on the talk page". On the contrary, I have tried very hard to satisfy Mr. Swordfish, while keeping the article mathematically correct. The current version is not one that has been restored five times, but rather is one that uses Mr. Swordfish's own quote from Mathworld which he suggested in Talk today. I added his own quote to the article.


 * Here is what Mr. Swordfish said on the Talk page of that article earlier today: "See https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Precedence.html and https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Parenthesis.html, in particular "Parentheses are used in mathematical expressions to denote modifications to normal order of operations.""


 * And here is what the current version of the article which Mr. Swordfish objects to says, "According to Mathworld, "Parentheses are used in mathematical expressions to denote modifications to normal order of operations."


 * As you can see, I'm doing my best to satisfy Mr. Swordfish, while keeping the article mathematically correct.


 * I have been editing this article, off and on, since 4 June 2019 and I always treat other editors with respect. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , once your edit has been challenged, you need to provide a reliable source when you restore it. And as a rule of thumb, you shouldn't add any claims to an article without providing a source that supports it. Until you do that, you're basically writing your personal opinion into the article. Whether or not your position is true is irrelevant. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's not muddy the waters here. When the article in question was created over 20 years ago, the very first version included four items in the "definition".  In the ensuing 20 years, those four items were retained and  reliable sources were added that support the four items.
 * A week or so ago, Rick Norwood deleted item #1 without providing any reliable sources to support the change. This edit was quickly reverted with early consensus disagreeing with that edit.  He has repeatedly re-inserted the edit without a) reaching consensus on the talk page or b) providing any reliably sourced material that supports the edit.
 * That is the issue here. Whether his edit is "mathematically correct" or not is irrelevant at this point - he may be right, but we need to follow the process of finding reliable sources and reaching consensus.
 * I have tried to explain that major changes to an article need to be discussed on the talk page with a consensus of editors agreeing before restoring a "bold" edit.  Perhaps someone could do a better job of explaining that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A few points: Walt Yoder (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether parentheses/brackets should be listed as an "operation" on that page has not been agreed-upon for 20 years.  Special:PermaLink/986278545 (from October 2020) does not include this.
 * 2) Both Mr Swordfish and Rick Norwood were editing this article in 2020, so this is clearly a very long and slow-moving conflict.
 * 3) Mr Swordfish is definitely edit-warring with diffs like Special:Diff/1151100825, restoring (as explained in the Mnemonics section of this article, PEMDAS is the mnemonic) to the text of the article a day after he made a change "rewording" that indisputibly-awkward language.
 * 4) Neither editor can demonstrate consensus for their position on the talk page, because the discussions there clearly have not found consensus.  Any claims an editor makes that there is a clear consensus supporting their position must be viewed as an argumentative tactic rather than a statement of fact.
 * 5) Why is this here and not at WP:ANEW?


 * Maybe I'm just delerius with fever, but sounds to me like they both need a partial block from that article?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that both could be true: that you are delirious with fever and they both need partial blocks. <g> Feel better, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the disagreement at WT:WikiProject Mathematics in the hope that other people will offer an opinion. Meanwhile it would be a very good idea for the edit warring to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite the statements above, someone who signed himself 2601:18f:107f:e2a0:7142:367:472:ca68 has restored Mr. Swordfish's version of the article.Rick Norwood (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Norwood's (last?) version has two major issues that makes it unacceptable in Wikipedia. Firstly, it presents Mathworld as an authoritative issue ("According to Mathworld, ...) although it is a tertiary source, whose use for sourcing should be cosidered with care. Secondly, the removal of the first item makes makes the section "Definition" incompatible with section "Mnemonics", where all mnemonics begin either with P for Parentheses of B for Brackets. As far as I understand, Norwood's concern is that parentheses are not an operation. This is true, but this is easily solved by recalling that "order of operations" is a shortcut for "order in which the operations must be performed". If this is clearly stated, there is no more problem to include parentheses in the list. I'll clarify this in the article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Walt Yoder,
 * Thank you for providing valuable context that corrects a misunderstanding on my part. I was under the impression that this issue had long been settled and that the recent edits were "new". I did not find it discussed in the talk page archive, but since I did not extensively review the edit history I was not aware that this has been a long-term item of contention. Realizing this, I should have been more circumspect in my reverts.
 * You are correct that consensus has not been established on the talk page. I had assumed that there was an implied consensus, but that assumption was incorrect. I stand corrected.
 * Moving forward, the proper place to resolve this is the talk page of the article. (Perhaps an rfc is in order, but I'll leave it to someone else to create that.) It appears that we are making progress there, so I'll withdraw this complaint.
 * Thanks again for your help, and also the other editors who took the time to look into this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I am delighted to have you work on the article. I'll move this discussion to the talk page of the article.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Request to lift Topic ban
I am asking the community and/or administrators to allow me to edit in the ARBPIA area, rescinding the current topic ban, a ban which I unsuccessfully appealed here, but which allowed me to edit ARBPIA pages without divulging in political issues. This freedom, too, was taken away from me when I wrote a new Wikipedia article entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” which you can see here

I first want to say that I made an honest mistake. Since my topic ban actually permitted me (as one can see here), to edit pages bearing the Arab-Israel (ARBPIA) tag, I felt that I could do so on a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem”, mentioning both Jewish and Arab cultural sites, following the format of Outline of Munich, without divulging on the political intricacies besetting the Israeli and Palestinian Arab peoples. In fact, I simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem, which information the page in its format had actually called for (and what information is presently known by all). My freedom to edit pages bearing the ARBPIA label gave me a sense “unfounded” confidence that it would not be a breach of my topic ban (which prohibited me from engaging in issues involving the area of conflict) if I were to write the name of the government currently in charge of the city, as the page format requested.

I made an honest mistake and am asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area by rescinding my current ban. I can assure my colleagues here that I will do my utmost to abide by all Wikipedia policies, and act in Good Faith when editing. This will allow me the opportunity to help promote articles in the ARBPIA field to good article status, as well as to add historical data, whenever needed.

Secondly, I wish to say that my original topic ban in the ARBPIA field involved a dispute that I had with another editor, but that this dispute has since been resolved. I wish to remind all those here that I have NEVER once made any statement on Wikipedia that incites violence against any of my Arab or Palestinian countrymen, nor have I ever hoped that harm come upon them. My editing history will prove this without any doubt.Davidbena (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading the last discussion, it notes that your neutral article "Outline of Jerusalem" (that I have not and cannot see) never mentioned Palestine, even though that state governs a large potion of the city. Even above you imply that Israel governs the entire city (or is it an illegal occupation?). In my mind this suggests there remains a lack of understanding or sensitivity regarding the situation. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The appeal does not indicate any real understanding of why they were TB'd, nor does it provide any evidence of a change in attitude or behavior since their last appeal (here) was turned down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI is not one of the available locations for an appeal, will talk to David about his options. Involved close so revert if you must, but this does not belong here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE at Talk:Armenian genocide
Since disputing the Armenian genocide is a frequent problem and I do not wish to violate 1RR, I bring it here for discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IP has posted another thread disputing the Armenian genocide Talk:Armenian genocide.
 * It was responded to by another editor and I closed and archived the discussion.
 * IP has reverted the close and restored the post
 * I've restored the closure. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that allows us to express our opinions, share information and demand a better world. Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. It protects not only commonly accepted opinions but also those which may be considered unpopular.
 * However, freedom of expression is not absolute. It can be legitimately restricted when it violates the rights of others, incites hatred, discrimination or violence, or threatens national security or public order. Moreover, freedom of expression does not mean freedom from responsibility. We have to be mindful of the historical, political and cultural contexts in which we exercise our right to speak, and we have to respect the dignity and diversity of all human beings.
 * One of the most controversial and sensitive issues that challenges the freedom of expression is the interpretation of the events of 1915, when millions of people suffered and died during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian side claims that these events constitute a genocide, a crime defined in international law, perpetrated by Turks against Armenians. The Turkish side rejects this term and argues that these events were part of a larger tragedy that affected many ethnic and religious groups, including Turks, who were also victims of war, famine, disease and violence.
 * I say that the events of 1915 have to be understood in their historical context, when the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its survival against foreign invasion and internal rebellion. I acknowledge that some Armenians suffered immensely during the relocation process ordered by the Ottoman authorities to prevent their collaboration with the enemy forces, but I disagree that there was any intention or plan to exterminate them as a group. I would like to also point out that some Ottoman officials who committed crimes against Armenians were prosecuted and punished by the Ottoman government.
 * The events of 1915 are a matter of historical inquiry and scholarly debate, not a political judgment. Turkey has proposed to establish a joint commission composed of Turkish and Armenian historians to study the events of 1915 in all relevant archives and to share their findings with the public. Turkey supports dialogue and reconciliation with Armenia and has signed protocols in 2009 to normalize relations and establish diplomatic ties. However, these protocols have not been ratified by either side due to various obstacles.
 * I respect the freedom of expression of those who have different views on the events of 1915, but expect the same respect for my own views. I view the removal of my comments as a violation of my freedom of expression. I hope that one day, both Turks and Armenians will be able to overcome their differences and grievances over the events of 1915 and renew their friendship based on mutual understanding and respect. I believe that this is possible if both sides are willing to engage in an honest and open dialogue, without prejudice or preconditions. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have no rights on this privately operated website, see WP:FREESPEECH as an example. The right to expression means that you can stand on a street corner and speak your views to anyone who will listen, or write a letter to the editor of your newspaper giving your views, but it doesn't mean you can force your views onto a privately operated website.
 * The Turkish government indoctrinates its citizens about its views on the genocide and doesn't give the opposing view(even making it illegal to do so, I think) because it undercuts the reasons for the existence of the current Turkish state. If you want to believe what your government/the Turkish government wants you to believe, that is your choice, but we don't do that here.
 * Your editing is disruptive and needs to stop. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot That's a merely an interpretation of American law. Turkish constitution gives the right to all citizens to reply to false statements about themselves (article 32). I provided valid, academic sources arguing that massacres and relocation of Armenians cannot be labelled as genocide. Furthermore, it is not illegal to say in Turkey Armenian genocide happened; far-left academicians, journalists and politicians do it all the time and they are not prosecuted. You have a completely biased and prejudiced opinion against Turkey. Indeed, it is you who are silencing others by denying me the right to present my sources. Please continue your expressing racism against Turks under the guise of 'genocide'. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not subject to the Turkish constitution. You do not have a right to post whatever you want on Wikipedia's talk pages. Also, your comments toward 331dot are not only assumptions of bad faith, but outright personal attacks. I suggest you retract them immediately. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest a temporary block for the IP. Accuse one of racism is not nice. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 15. The Federal Court has itself admitted that there is no unanimity in the community as a whole concerning the legal characterisation in issue. Both the applicant and the Turkish Government cited numerous sources – which have not been contested by the respondent Government – attesting to diverging views, and argued that it would be very difficult to speak of a “general consensus”. The Court agrees, and would point out that there are differing views even among the various political bodies in Switzerland: whereas the National Council – the lower house of the Federal Parliament – has officially recognised the Armenian genocide, the Federal Council has repeatedly refused to do so (see points 4.2 and 4.5 of the Federal Court judgment in paragraph 13 above). In addition, it appears that to date, only about twenty States (out of more than 190 in the world) have officially recognised the Armenian genocide. In some countries, as in Switzerland, recognition has not come from the Government but only from Parliament or one of its chambers (see in this connection the declaration of 24 April 2013 by certain members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, paragraph 29 above).
 * 116.  The Court also agrees with the applicant that “genocide” is a clearly defined legal concept. It denotes an aggravated internationally wrongful act for which responsibility may nowadays be attributed either to a State, in accordance with Article 2 of the 1948 Convention (see paragraph 18 above), or to an individual, notably on the basis of Article 5 of the Rome Statute (see paragraph 20 above). According to the case-law of the ICJ and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (see paragraphs 21-23 above), for the crime of genocide to be made out, it is not sufficient for the members of a particular group to be targeted because they belong to that group, but the acts in question must at the same time be perpetrated with intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part (dolus specialis). Genocide is therefore a very narrow legal concept which, moreover, is difficult to prove. The Court is not satisfied that the “general consensus” to which the Swiss courts referred as a basis for the applicant’s conviction can be relied on in relation to these very specific points of law.
 * 117. In any event, it is even doubtful that there can be a “general consensus”, particularly among academics, about events such as those in issue in the present case, given that historical research is by definition subject to controversy and dispute and does not really lend itself to definitive conclusions or the assertion of objective and absolute truths (see, to similar effect, the Spanish Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 235/2007, referred to in paragraphs 38-40 above). In this connection, a clear distinction can be made between the present case and cases concerning denial of crimes relating to the Holocaust (see, for example, the case of Robert Faurisson v. France, determined by the UN Human Rights Committee on 8 November 1996, Communication no. 550/1993, doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (1996)). Firstly, the applicants in those cases had not disputed the mere legal characterisation of a crime but had denied historical facts, sometimes very concrete ones, such as the existence of gas chambers. Secondly, their denial concerned crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime that had resulted in convictions with a clear legal basis, namely Article 6, sub-paragraph (c), of the Charter of the (Nuremberg) International Military Tribunal, annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 (see paragraph 19 above). Thirdly, the historical facts challenged by the applicants in those cases had been found by an international court to be clearly established. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not subject to the Turkish constitution. You do not have a right to post whatever you want on Wikipedia's talk pages. Also, your comments toward 331dot are not only assumptions of bad faith, but outright personal attacks. I suggest you retract them immediately. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest a temporary block for the IP. Accuse one of racism is not nice. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 15. The Federal Court has itself admitted that there is no unanimity in the community as a whole concerning the legal characterisation in issue. Both the applicant and the Turkish Government cited numerous sources – which have not been contested by the respondent Government – attesting to diverging views, and argued that it would be very difficult to speak of a “general consensus”. The Court agrees, and would point out that there are differing views even among the various political bodies in Switzerland: whereas the National Council – the lower house of the Federal Parliament – has officially recognised the Armenian genocide, the Federal Council has repeatedly refused to do so (see points 4.2 and 4.5 of the Federal Court judgment in paragraph 13 above). In addition, it appears that to date, only about twenty States (out of more than 190 in the world) have officially recognised the Armenian genocide. In some countries, as in Switzerland, recognition has not come from the Government but only from Parliament or one of its chambers (see in this connection the declaration of 24 April 2013 by certain members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, paragraph 29 above).
 * 116.  The Court also agrees with the applicant that “genocide” is a clearly defined legal concept. It denotes an aggravated internationally wrongful act for which responsibility may nowadays be attributed either to a State, in accordance with Article 2 of the 1948 Convention (see paragraph 18 above), or to an individual, notably on the basis of Article 5 of the Rome Statute (see paragraph 20 above). According to the case-law of the ICJ and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (see paragraphs 21-23 above), for the crime of genocide to be made out, it is not sufficient for the members of a particular group to be targeted because they belong to that group, but the acts in question must at the same time be perpetrated with intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part (dolus specialis). Genocide is therefore a very narrow legal concept which, moreover, is difficult to prove. The Court is not satisfied that the “general consensus” to which the Swiss courts referred as a basis for the applicant’s conviction can be relied on in relation to these very specific points of law.
 * 117. In any event, it is even doubtful that there can be a “general consensus”, particularly among academics, about events such as those in issue in the present case, given that historical research is by definition subject to controversy and dispute and does not really lend itself to definitive conclusions or the assertion of objective and absolute truths (see, to similar effect, the Spanish Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 235/2007, referred to in paragraphs 38-40 above). In this connection, a clear distinction can be made between the present case and cases concerning denial of crimes relating to the Holocaust (see, for example, the case of Robert Faurisson v. France, determined by the UN Human Rights Committee on 8 November 1996, Communication no. 550/1993, doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (1996)). Firstly, the applicants in those cases had not disputed the mere legal characterisation of a crime but had denied historical facts, sometimes very concrete ones, such as the existence of gas chambers. Secondly, their denial concerned crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime that had resulted in convictions with a clear legal basis, namely Article 6, sub-paragraph (c), of the Charter of the (Nuremberg) International Military Tribunal, annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 (see paragraph 19 above). Thirdly, the historical facts challenged by the applicants in those cases had been found by an international court to be clearly established. 95.12.115.214 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Paraiyar


There have been some recent edits to Paraiyar that seem problematic, particularly this edit seems problematic but I was unable to undo it. -- 2001:16B8:A8:2900:9DBF:117C:7333:A20C (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't able to do it either without also reverting the script edits after the vandalism. Unfortunate, but that's a price worth paying to have a vandalism free public-facing version. Courcelles (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

AI for article creation
Originally posted this to the Helpdesk, but it was suggested this was the more appropriate forum. I wanted to flag the issue of possible use of AI in article creation. At Peer review, I came across this, a use of AI in reviewing. That led to this GAR discussion, AI again, where it became apparent that User:Esculenta was also creating articles at a very fast rate. I'm not competent to assess whether or not they are making use of AI, whether it would be a good/bad/right/wrong thing if they are, or whether their actions are in fact completely appropriate. I know the use of AI here is currently a topic under quite heavy discussion although I'm not aware any conclusions have been reached/guidance or policy written. So I wanted to flag it to enable those with the necessary technical competence to have a look. Very happy to flag it elsewhere if this isn't the right place. I have let User:Esculenta know I've raised it. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am actually more disturbed by Esculenta's refusal to respond to KJP1's queries, per WP:COMMUNICATE. BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This edit summary is appalling for a collaborative, consensus-based encyclopedia. In the meantime, has blocked Esculenta for a month. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Esculenta was unwilling to responds to KJP1's initial query, but I can understand them become less interested in responding after being repeatedly badgered to respond. Esculenta is clearly somebody who drafts article outside of Wikipedia and may upload a series of articles in quick succession. E.g. Verrucaria hydrophila, Verrucaria placida and Verrucaria rosula were each created over the course of two minutes (and were created before ChatGPT was released). Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair criticism. I should have realised earlier that they had no intention of responding and dropped the stick. I apologise for not doing so. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that raised similar concerns in March. Their reluctance to answer any questions about their editing is very disappointing (to say the least). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In their brief discussion with Paradise Chronicle on March 20, they said Their refusal to seriously discuss their editing is unacceptable, and they are rapidly removing all messages from their talk page. I will be off-Wikipedia for a while, but will check in later.Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it extraordinary that – without any evidence at all of wrongdoing – has been banned for a month for creating "AI generated articles". Like many of us, s/he appears to write things off-site. I do this too, when I'm working somewhere other than my house, for the simple reason that I use a VPN while working abroad and can't edit on Wikipedia when I do. S/he was very clear in his/her GA review that AI was used, and pointedly DIDN'T say that AI was used when queried about it a month or so back. It's disappointing that s/he didn't respond when challenged directly (though the confrontational tone of some of those challenges would have put my back up too), but a month ban seems pretty darned extreme. MeegsC (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it? I was kind of expecting an indeff. The point of the block is to inspire conversation, if there's a reasonable explanation the block is going to get dropped very quickly. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Expecting an indeff?" Wow. For something that's been guessed at but not proven? And therein lies the current problem with Wikipedia. Lots of folks itching to pull the trigger. No wonder we're haemorrhaging editors! MeegsC (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , as I said on their talk page, the editor can be unblocked quickly if they respond in detail to the reasonable concerns that have been expressed about their editing methods. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @MeegsC: They're not banned. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but that's just semantics. They can't contribute for a month; it might as well be a ban! Yes, it's only a temporary ban, but it's more or less still a ban. MeegsC (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, they can be unblocked promptly if they simply explain their editing processes and address the reasonable concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "just" semantics?? A block and a ban are diffetent things. Different concepts. With different names. In other words, yes, semantics, without which none of us would be able to make ourselves understood. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Paradise Chronicle listed Esculenta as an example of an editor who was doing a good job while creating a large number of articles a couple days after leaving that message on Esculenta's talk page. Requesting permission for semi-automated mass creation of articles has been policy since 2010, but it wasn't until 2022 that anybody actually requested permission to do so. And Esculenta's articles aren't anything I would even consider semi-automated creations. They may be starting with some boiler plate text, but there is quite a lot of additional information beyond any boiler plate. We have an unsubstantiated allegation of using AI to create articles, and manual (non-automated) creation of a fairly large number of articles (sometimes uploaded to Wikipedia in quick sucession, but averaging less than 3/day). What is the problem here?Plantdrew (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have, historically, had major issues with mass creation of articles. These issues have always led to other volunteer editors here having to spend time and energy on double checking and clean-up, far more than average human article creation requires. This in itself is unfair on us.
 * Add to that a habit of ignoring attempts to collaborate in future article creations, using withering put-downs to people who are trying to collaborate, and even just dismissing block notifications with “ok” and a revert… how is this helpful?
 * I get that there’s a difference of opinion on WP between quantity and quality (we call it inclusionism vs deletionism) but whatever side we’re on, we all agree that communication is the most important thing. And that’s where this rightly went wrong for Esculenta. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, I think we would hardly be here if Esculenta had responded with any rationale whatsoever. "It's not AI, I draft piles of articles offline because [whatever] and then when I have [time/internet connection/a whole bunch of articles ready] I upload forty articles at once." But repeatedly blanking with extremely rude edit summaries (I can't think of what else PFO could stand for in this context other than "please fuck off") tells me that even if this person simply has a weird working process, they aren't prepared to communicate with others on the project, and that's the real problem. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you please provide links to where Esculenta "ignored attempts to collaborate in future article creations" and "used withering put-downs to people who are trying to collaborate"? Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is my read on it too. I can easily understand that the rapid creation of articles in the manner that Esculenta did would provoke concern – on both AI-generation and database-derivation grounds – but drafting articles offline is totally permissible, and I would be troubled to see somebody blocked merely for doing that. Their conduct in our collaborative process, on the other hand, is unambiguously poor. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Drafting articles offline is not merely permissible, but strongly encouraged by our current culture of immediately draftifying content in article space that is in the process of creation but not yet a completed article (despite clear instructions in WP:DRAFTIFY that this should not happen) and of capricious denials of AfC requests for drafts that, if an article, would be C-class or below but otherwise unexceptional. Because of these factors, I have long ago moved to offline drafting of all my new articles, and would strongly recommend doing so for all new-content creators.
 * What makes this case suspicious is not the offline creation, but the rapid pace of creation (beyond any plausible reason for stockpiling and then uploading a set of drafts), the open and admitted use of AI assistance by the same editor in Peer review/Manila Metropolitan Theater/archive1, and the refusal to respond to concerns that this AI assistance may have been used as well in article generation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trey Maturin, while we had major issues with masscreation, MEATBOT, which is within a policy and in my opinion would fit for AI, is hardly applied. I believe with Esculenta it was the first time it was considered. I'd support if MEATBOT will be considered in the future also by other admins, not necessarily for blocks but for that editors apply at BRFA.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328's block
I can see in the history of Esculenta's talk page a testy exchange on the day, with badgering on one side and incivility on the other, which though not reflecting well on anyone involved doesn't seem to go anywhere sanctionable. Once this is at ANI, you'd think we should let people sleep on it and then come back to it after the heat of the moment has passed, so we can all figure out what's going on? But that wasn't to happen: just 16 minutes after the ANI thread was opened, and before almost anyone had had the chance to comment, proceeded to block Esculenta, a long-established and productive editor with a clean block log, for a period of 1 month. The blocking summary is: Unapproved mass creation of articles and another content using ChatGPT or other AI technology. Given the comments on workflow above, and the fact that Esculenta had only created 3 short articles on that day (25 in the preceding week and 123 in the preceding month), there doesn't appear to be any actual problematic mass creation. The use of AI remains an open question, but there's a little bit of evidence against it at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations, and Esculenta has otherwise been completely open about using AI help in two GA reviews, so I wouldn't presume they'd be guilty by default. So, Cullen328, no matter how I look at the situation, I can't see your block as anything other than an honest mistake. – Uanfala (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the sake of accuracy, this matter came to my attention at the Help Desk where it had been reported 18 minutes earlier, rather than here at ANI. I was not aware of this ANI thread until after I issued the block. And I remain open to unblocking once Esculenta provides an explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but as above I have no problem with the block: blocks are preventative and the user was mass-creating articles, probably using AI, whilst dismissing all attempts to communicate and using nasty edit summaries whilst doing so. Blocks are preventative, and despite others claiming this one was punitive, a block was literally the only thing that could be done to draw the editor's attention to the issue at hand. An indef block would've been more appropriate, except that people believe that indef=infinite, so a month was a good way of heading those complaints off at the pass. Either way, a good unblock request (rather than the editor's choice of a revert with the edit summary "ok") would've been dealt with without drama as 99.9% of unblock requests are. But this is the internet and no good deed goes unpunished here. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * there doesn't appear to be any actual problematic mass creation. Any mass creation without approval is problematic; considering that Esculenta was refusing to engage with legitimate questions I don't believe a block was inappropriate here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * People like talking and assuming good faith—AI is known to have no clue and to make up whatever seems to sound good, and AI uses fake references, but perhaps AI is useful at Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting there is a problem with blocking someone who mass creates 123 articles and fails to respond? Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying to both of you. The use of AI on Wikipedia is an area of nuances and evolving understanding (WP:LLM). In short: no, it's not banned, but yes, it can be disruptive in many circumstances. The main point though, and one that I guess I need to emphasise is: there's no evidence Escuelenta has used AI for article creation. As for the other point: 123 short articles per month, which is equivalent to 4 articles per day, is not mass creation. – Uanfala (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:MASSCREATE gives only half a definition of what is mass-creation: it does (somewhat) specify a number range (anything more than 25 or 50), but not in what amount of time. Which makes the definition, frankly speaking, less than useless. I could use it to argue that anyone who, throughout their entire time at en.wiki has created 25 content pages on any subject and of any quality&mdash;even if they've been here since the mid-noughts, and thus average only a bit over a page per year&mdash;needs prior approval before creating any further content pages, or I could use it to argue that someone creating ~600 near-identical, formulaic stubs or underpopulated categories per month every month without prior approval is not mass creating because their daily average is well below 25. As the rule is written, both are potentially valid readings.
 * Obviously, pretty much no one will see the former case as mass creation, and just about everyone will agree that the latter very much is. But where in between those two extremes the actual difference between "not mass creation" and "mass creation" lies? That's by no means defined. AddWitty  NameHere  10:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 163 in March, 51 in April; query/73280. And creating this many articles at such a rate, on a narrow range of topics, when there are AI concerns, is mass creation. It might be mass creation that we would support, but that is for a discussion at BRFA to determine. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I believe anyone in this area is aware of your stance on this topic, but the community recently rejected a number of proposals to this effect, so no, Esculenta was not required to go to BRFA before creating 160 articles last month., the rate of 25-50 creations mentioned in WP:MASSCREATE obviously assumes a small period of time (such as a day), that much is obvious from the old discussion linked in that sentence of the bot policy. Anyway, I'm not arguing that Esculenta's creations don't need scrutiny: maybe they do. If the community wants to debate them, it should, and maybe it can even come up with some sanction. But no-one has so far pointed out any specific problems with those creations, and there are no community norms that Esculenta has violated. What I'm arguing in this section is that the unilateral draconian block was not justified. I'd appreciate it if we could stay on point and not turn this subthread into a proxy re-enactment of battles for general guidelines that we personally believe the community should have adopted. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some were rejected, some were approved, and some failed to find consensus either way.
 * Defining mass create based on a single days activity also doesn't align with precedent; Lugnuts, who indisputably engaged in mass creation, created over 32,000 articles on days he created less than 25 articles, and 70,000 on days he created less than 50. However, even if you do define it as a single day Esculenta exceeded that, with 67 creations on March 30 and 83 on March 15. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re Uanfala's "no evidence Escuelenta has used AI for article creation": the evidence is the rapid bursts of article creation and the admitted use of AI for other purposes at Peer review/Manila Metropolitan Theater/archive1. It may not be strong or persuasive evidence, or enough evidence for a block on those grounds alone, but it is false that there is no evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Large Language Models do pose quite a serious threat to Wikipedia inasmuch as they have a virtually-unlimited capacity to generate superficially-acceptable prose that can be inserted into articles with insufficient scrutiny – even though many of the AI-generated text insertions we've seen so far (to the best of my knowledge) have been not from malicious actors but rather good-faith editors who simply did not understand the limitations of the LLM process. The question of whether such process might one day be useful here is irrelevant to the matter at hand, however, because at the moment I don't believe that anybody has actually found credible indication that Esculenta used AI to generate their articles – only suggested that they might have because they've previously openly used an AI process outside of articlespace, and because of their rate of article creation. The latter might easily be explained by drafting offline, and in all truth I wouldn't have viewed Esculenta's editing as infringing the spirit of the mass creation policy because the articles are not the sort of hopeless database-derived perma-micro-stubs that were the main target of said policy.
 * That said, Esculenta's conduct in communication and collaboration has been very poor, and it's not without precedent for an editor to be blocked in an effort to force them to communicate constructively. I would have preferred to see the block made primarily on those grounds, with the matter of potentially problematic mass-creation as a secondary reason. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 12:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I wish that I had mentioned the communications issues in my block notice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , so what exactly does Esculenta need to do for you to consider unblocking them? Answer questions about whether they were or were not using an AI to generate articles? They haven't had any previous warnings about incivility. A 30 day block seem excessive for an editor who hasn't had any previous serious warnings about their behavior. Plantdrew (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Esculenta needs to file a properly formatted unblock request that addresses the specific concerns that several editors, not just me, have expressed. Is the editor using ChatGPT or any form of AI to write or draft articles? What is their workflow that results in dozens of articles being created in a rapid-fire fashion? Is the editor willing to consider taking their techniques to Bot Approvals Group for discussion? Is the editor willing to discuss reasonable questions with their colleagues, as opposed to blowing off their concerns and repeatedly blanking their talk page? Please do not focus on the length of the block. This block can end in short order if the editor responds in a collaborative fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a simple question. Has any of the articles they've created had issues? False information, copyvios, fake references or just references that don't contain the content they're used for, anything like that? If no to all of that, then there's either one of two conclusions to make: 1) That Esculenta did make all the articles in question by themselves and just submitted them in a short time frame or 2) That they've discovered a method of using AI writing to avoid all the issues we've seen previously with using such LLMs. If the former, then clearly there's no problem here at all. If the latter, then that's incredible and I personally would like to know the method, as I'm sure many others would in regards to helping improve article creation efforts as a whole. Silver  seren C 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is why communication is required. This editor has gone silent. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But is there any problem with the articles they've made? Is there reason for this block other than the accusation of using LLMs to make articles? Also, considering there isn't yet policy for that to even be a blocking reason, I don't know if your block stands up to scrutiny on that front. Outside of an actual issue with the articles they made that violates our existing policies, I'm hard-pressed to find an actual reason for any of this in the first place. Silver  seren C 06:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Communication is crucial. Not only did Esculenta mass-create those articles, they also didn't bother replying to multiple questions asked on their talk page relating to those articles. They replied with disruptive edit summaries like "mamma said it's not a good idea to talk to random strangers who ask too many questions" and "PFO". Regardless of the articles' quality, they need to explain themselves when asked to do so; that was really their only major fault. Besides that, it is necessary for us to know whether the articles were written using a LLM before determining their disruptiveness. That cannot be done if Esculenta reverts every question posted at their talk page. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 06:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, three articles in one day cannot reasonably be construed as 'mass creation'. The failure to communicate is problematic, but I'm not convinced there is enough evidence here to sustain a block on the basis of using AI to write articles. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 18:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a month, to try to convince them that just a little bit of communication would be a good idea in a consensus-based collaborative encyclopaedia. That month is a very nice olive branch, considering. Someone with less patience than Cullen would've indeffed for the edit summary replies alone. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can read. I was addressing the AI aspect, which was all that was mentioned in the original block rationale. And yes, I have seen Cullen's later comment about wishing the block rationale had also mentioned the communication problems. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of blocking this person for using AI to create these articles when we don't actually know if that happened. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not like their talk page is protected. An explanation, via an unblock request for best but in any form, would sort this. But, as they have repeatedly shown, they don’t believe in such things: that would go against their mother’s requirement not to talk to whiny strangers. It’s a bare minimum requirement to communicate here and they won’t. The block rationale wasn’t perfect, but adding shrubbery that requires a perfect rationale before a non-communicative editor is allowed to be stopped from mass-creating what appear to be AI-derived stubs is a bad idea unsupported by policy. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why several people have assumed that an unblock request is the best way to deal with a unjustified block. If I were in Esculenta's position and found myself blocked for a month on the mere hunch that I may have used AI, then I wouldn't be begging to be let back into the project, I'd be packing my stuff and leaving for good. – Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, mother did say not to interact with strangers... AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , what makes you think that Esculenta's articles appear to be AI-derived? Have you fed any of them into a tool that attempts to detect AI-derived text? I've done that for a few of Esculenta's articles, and the tools reported that they were human-derived (I really have no idea which tools are the best for this) their most recent article, Fissurina amyloidea is human according to, and is 3.03% AI (amounting to one sentence) according to , 100% human generate content according to , "your text is likely to be written entirely by a human" according to , and 99% "highly likely to be human!" according to . Esculenta has created articles at a rate that isn't possible by manually typing the text (e.g. 3 articles with ~2,000 bytes in 3 minutes), but that is entirely explainable by uploading articles drafted outside of Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For arguments like Plantdrews we will eventually need a regulation concerning the top article creators. Like top 10, or top 20 have to apply at the BRFA or some other venue. Within the top 20 are several article creators of table farms, poorly sourced articles or stubs of a phrase or two. There are also some within the top 20 I recommend as examples to follow their lead.       Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Silver seren That Esculenta could help us was my idea as well, but they were not really cooperative first with me, then with others as well. If it really works good, that's great and others could learn it as well. I am not convinced we can stop AI generated articles if editors can just deny they use semiautomated tools and get away with it. I believe we need to to support the use of AI and find the ones who use it in the sense of Wikipedia. David Eppstein double checked one article and they were satisfied. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content at Contract theory
Hardly seems worth edit warring, but some help will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion for you at Talk:Contract theory. Yes, User:Wenbro should have done this, but they're new and likely didn't know to do that. I doubt that any admins will take action here until you've exhausted all of your options—which should nearly always start with communication at the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I wasn't expecting administrative sanctions against the user, which at this point would be overkill, but I did want more eyes. Will comment at article talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we have an unapproved bot?
and dozens of similar edits? I mean, the edits are not necessarily bad (no opinion on this), but I thought if they are marled like a bot they must be a bot? And, to be honest, I do not know what do we usually do in this case (on Wikidata, where I have somewhat more extensive bot knowledge, I would block). Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Since this user appears to own a couple bots on the Russian Wikipedia (see for instance ru:Участник:TextworkerBot), I can only assume they either accidentally used their bot tools here or are unaware of our local bot policies and how to ask for approval. I don't think blocking is necessary at this point, but would like to see them acknowledge the issue and stop editing in such a manner. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 16:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The user resumed editing Wikipedia without reacting to this thread or the message at their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Revoke User:69BigBallz69 TPA
This user has been disrupting his own talk page with the lyrics of a copyrighted song. This disruption has been lasting for a long time. It is time that their TPA be revoked. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 16:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Courcelles (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP being WP:NOTHERE
This user has been saying "you're fired" on their talk page edit summaries. When blocking, remove TPA as well. It's all contained on their talk page. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 17:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reblocked for a month, no talk page access. This has been on going for a while. ~ GB fan 17:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:PBnJGuitarist23
User has severe WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE issues. They were warned not to make POV edits to Matt Walsh (political commentator) and responded with a bizarre pseudo-legalistic defense before immediately resuming. They also rudely lashed out at a user simply for informing them their draft was non-notable and have expressed hostile views towards trans people. I’m not going to bother providing diffs because literally their entire edit history and talk page encompasses these incidents. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably not done enough to merit a block, so far. Only signed up to plug a book (theirs I presume), and most likely to find something better to do elsewhere now they've had their rant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make new accounts and keep editing 🤷‍♂️ PBnJGuitarist23 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And you'll be blocked for doing that. So don't do it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I already indeffed. The edit warring and promotional draft followed up with a threat to sock was enough to make them convince someone with an unblock request that they can contribute constructively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to warn them...RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Pakistani IPs and talk pages
As someone who patrols talk pages searching for WP:NOTAFORUM violations to remove, I have encountered IP addresses from the range of 39.42.0.0/16 on multiple occasions. They post all-caps text that clearly violates NOTAFORUM (even though I don't fully understand what they're trying to post) and don't stop.

Here is a list of talk pages they frequent:
 * Talk:Supreme Court of Pakistan
 * Talk:Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan)
 * Talk:Niaz Ahmad Akhtar
 * Talk:Prime Minister of Japan

IPs from this range need to be blocked and/or watched. The pages they target may be monitored as well, especially after the block expires.  Zoe Trent Fan 🎤💍 16:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You got it--holy moly. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drmies Thanks for the long range block.  Zoe Trent Fan 🎤💍 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

They're still adding said material to own their talk page; see here. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs · he/him&#93; 02:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User editing on IP address to carry out WP:HOUNDING
This user appears to be the same individual as, who was blocked for a week for edit warring.

They left a racist message on my talk page after I removed content they added to the Scythians page which was not backed by their cited sources.

Their tone and the racist content of their message both correspond to those of the ones they left in response to.

Antiquistik (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Antiquistik Looks like they have already been blocked by . In the future, be careful when calling additions to a page "vandalism"; that only applies to intentional attempts to damage Wikipedia, which the diff you cited was not uncontroversially so. You can simply put in your edit summary "Reverting unsourced content" instead, unless further evidence that said unsourced content was intentionally added arises. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I referred to it as vandalism because that user appeared to be intentionally inserting dubious information on various articles that they claimed pertained to Kurdish history. Although, thanks for the heads up, I will be careful about the issue in the future. Antiquistik (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)