Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126

User:Burhan3456
The user has a conflict of interest towards Soundarya Sharma plus there's WP:PAID violation. Diff where the user accepted themselves to be a role account used by a professional PR team. ManaliJain (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial-blocked indefinitely from Soundarya Sharma, since they have ignored at least two warnings. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since they've admitted to being a role account, shouldn't we indef across the board? Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose we probably should. I was hoping they might be able to assist on the talk page, but it was a long shot anyway. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive User/ user:Gina Felea 88
I noticed the user user:Gina Felea 88 making continious disruptive editings at International recognition of Kosovo article. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not any more. The uploading of a fake map (File:ESC 2022 Semi-Finals draw.png) which shows Kosovo to be part of Serbia was the last straw. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They also appear to be doing the same at es.wiki, if anyone with better Spanish than me wants to tidy it up (or draw their administrator's attention to it). Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, i can do it. Thanks for noticing! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:McDonaldsUSA disruption
This user has been doing some talk page disruption on his own talk page, please revoke TPA. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 17:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Karlfonza
needs to be blocked and have their edits reversed, promptly, before more damage is done. They have been warned innumerous times over at least seven years against adding random photos they have taken into articles like Ice cream, Square, and Gym, articles that are already well illustrated. Karl's photos are usually not of great quality, and are not very relevant to these articles he adds them to. It needs to stop, and I can't keep manually reverting him as he comes back over the years. See also my complaint 5 years ago, yet it is still taking place. ɱ (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Edits like this are obviously bad. There are plenty of talk page warnings over the years, which seem to have been mostly ignored. Nothing seems to have made a dent, a WP:CIR block may be warranted. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While both bad and very funny, it is definitely not constructive editing and is borderline vandalism. Are there examples of constructive edits by user? Otherwise yeah a CIR block is warranted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP claiming to be person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.169.46.112

This IP user claims to be Emmanuelle Schick Garcia, and removing pictures of the connected wikipedia page. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the pictures were overkill on the page for one. Two, if the IP truly is Ms. Schick Garcia, then WP:AUTOPROB would apply here. I'll reach out to the IP as well about this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, looking at then, they seem to fit better on Instagram than Wikipedia. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If it is the person in question, then looking at the information for image in, it was uploaded by JPS Films; as best I can tell, she IS JPS Films - so it does raise the question of whether Wikipedia really ever had a valid licence for the image. There's other images in c:Category:Emmanuelle_Schick_Garcia; some of which indicated that she contributed them herself, as c:User:GrassHerd, which also exists here as - which has only ever edited Emmanuelle Schick Garcia. Is she really notable enough to have an article? Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems like a copyright dispute wrapped in a autobiography dipped in WP:SPIP. and I was trying to watch my WikiCarbs! I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gonna notify GrassHerd, make sure they know about us talking about them. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Astatine ... for some reason it crossed my mind after I went to bed, that I should have done that. Also, do we normally notify accounts on other projects - like Commons - that they are being discussed too? Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't believe so if they have an on-project page. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-civil AfD comments from 2402:3A80 range IPs
Two non-civil comments: Neither conducive to constructive debate. AllyD (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * from 2402:3a80:1eb3:4ad5:0:3f:32a7:9901 on 19 April
 * from 2402:3a80:1b86:9e4a:0:4b:1d80:b201 on 26 April

Probable self-promotion
Since 15/04/23, IP has been persistently adding content claiming a non-notable individual is the crown princess of a defunct medieval kingdom. Cited source is a business website owned by the individual's parents. Upon a cursory search, it appears no other evidence for this claim exists beyond personal social media accounts. IP has been warned 3 times that this is disruptive behavior, twice via edit summaries, once on their talk page.
 * on Isa Khan

Appears to be self-promotion as I suspect IP to be the alleged "crown princess" in question, or at least the manager of the source website. This is because the website made no mention of the claim a week ago (19/04) as per the page archive. I pointed out to them that this was the case on 22/04,. By 26/04, the source website had been amended to include the claim, on which date the IP asserted that this is the case.
 * Since this appears to be a static IP, I've temporarily blocked them from editing this page. Hopefully that will encourage them to make use of talk. RegentsPark (comment) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah good call, I completely agree. Thanks for the prompt action. Alivardi   (talk)  17:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Coolcaesar: Persistent and widespread incivility, disruptive behavior, and calling good-faith edits "vandalism."
Coolcaesar (talk) has been repeatedly admonished for incivility, disruptive behavior, and calling good-faith edits "vandalism." User talk:Coolcaesar, Civil tone, February 2015, Personal attack in edit summary at Circle 7 Animation, Walt Disney, Civility, Your tone, Typo, Choosing your words carefully, Don't patronize me, Hostile response to good faith edits, Edit warring, obvious vandalism to "Interchange (road)", Verbal assault, Ongoing WP:CIVIL violations, Your message "Please do not vandalize Wikipedia", Edit-summary snark, April 2022, April 2022 - 1, “Conflict of interest” page.

There are other instances in the archives of his user talk page:
 * /Archive1 (22 August 2004-7 July 2006)
 * /Archive2 (8 July 2006-29 February 2008)
 * /Archive3 (3 March 2008-20 December 2009)
 * /Archive4 (21 December 2009 - 28 April 2014)

This has come to my attention because of Coolcaesar's comments at Talk:Apple Campus.

This has also been brought up at ANI at least once. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096.

Users have noted that Coolcaesar contributes many useful edits (e.g., User talk:Coolcaesar), but that does not excuse persistent rulebreaking. SilverLocust (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on their participation in the previous noticeboard discussion (in response to this false accusation of vandalism), I am tagging . Pawnkingthree said there, "Perhaps we should see if they do heed User:Cullen328's warning, which I think should be a final one." Nevertheless, Coolcaesar still characterizes good-faith edits as vandalism (e.g., Special:Diff/1136318748). SilverLocust (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit summary at Silicon Valley in the diff immediately above is way out of line, both behaviorally and factually. Effectively arguing that Menlo Park, California and Redwood City, California are not in Silicon Valley is ludicrous and pedantic, and the accusation of vandalism is a falsehood and therefore a personal attack. On the other hand, the diff is nearly three months old. I am unsure about how to best deter Coolcaesar from making false accusations of vandalism. I hope that other editors might have some constructive suggestions. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only think of a block. This is going on for years, although with a low intensity. Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another possible approach would be a mandatory WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism. I'm not sure this is a good idea, just noting a possible approach. --Yamla (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Ymblanter's swiftness in proposing a block needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since our primary interaction was when I reverted this edit in December 2021 which had reinstated someone else's incorrect edit to the effect that FedEx is based at 35 Hudson Yards in New York City (when it's common knowledge that FedEx is based in Memphis, Tennessee). I have already apologized for my uncivil language in reverting User:Ymblanter's reinstatement of that misinformation.
 * Getting back to User:SilverLocust's point, I never accused User:InvadingInvader of vandalism. Because the drive that goes around Apple Campus is called Infinite Loop, I correctly recognized there is a good faith basis for using that as part of a new title.  I criticized the sudden page move of Apple Campus to Apple Infinite Loop as disruptive because it was made (1) without warning and (2) to a new title that has even more problems than Apple Campus because of how Apple Inc. traditionally uses Apple Infinite Loop as the name for the Apple Store at Apple Campus.  This latter issue could have been discovered in 10 seconds by simply searching for "Apple Infinite Loop" on Google, Bing, or their corresponding maps sites.  All of them use "Apple Infinite Loop" to reference that Apple Store, probably because it's what Apple calls the store on the store's official web page.
 * That move clearly needed to be challenged as inaccurate and creating unnecessary confusion. But after refreshing my memory on current WP policies, I acknowledge that my choice of words was poor.  Is it irritating that User:InvadingInvader apparently did not run the new title through Google? Of course.  However, under WP:AGF, I can see how that was a simple mistake that anyone could have made, especially someone not based in Silicon Valley. And if User:InvadingInvader was therefore unaware of the ambiguity surrounding the new page title, that would logically explain the sudden page move.  So I can see how the word "disruptive" might come across as uncivil. So for that, I apologize.
 * The issue with Special:Diff/1136318748 is that User:Joe Calder inserted an additional factual assertion not in the sources cited, in violation of Verifiability ("All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"). (Of course I know the broader definition of the region now encompasses southern San Mateo County, having shot the photos for Sand Hill Road, but the burden is still on editors to make sure that they have sources for their statements.)
 * There were three books on Google Books which I cited in support of that sentence, by Malone, Shueh, and Todd. All three of them clearly equate Silicon Valley to the Santa Clara Valley, the Valley of Heart's Delight. (Just look at the titles of the Malone and Todd books.) None of them mention San Mateo County in the pages cited.
 * At the time, my thinking was as follows: The correct good faith approach would have been to either add a citation to a separate source noting that the common definition of Silicon Valley has expanded into southern San Mateo County, or even better, add a separate sentence and either leave it unsupported or mark it with a "citation needed" tag. But it is neither accurate nor in good faith to modify a sentence so that it contains a factual assertion entirely absent from the sources cited.  That's where I was coming from when I characterized User:Joe Calder's edit as vandalism.
 * With the benefit of hindsight, I see the flaw in my logic: I'm jumping to the conclusion that edits that fail WP:V are not in good faith. But the majority of editors lack my deep familiarity with WP core content policies (verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view). So the civil approach would have been to revert with an edit summary merely stating that the edit inserted an additional fact which failed verification against the cited sources and citing WP:V.
 * Yes, I still jump to conclusions sometimes. But I have significantly improved my compliance with the civility and AGF policies over the past four years, and as you can see from the foregoing analysis, I am getting better at thinking through why my word choices are uncivil when they are brought to my attention.  Over the last year, I have been very careful in the vast majority of my cleanup edits to focus on the text itself (that's why I write "Fixing this" or "Fixing this mess") and not other editors.
 * The underlying problem is that I care deeply about this project. Do I care too much? Probably. I have contributed high-quality photographs to over 500 articles and most of the text and sources in over two dozen significant articles (and contributed citations to reliable sources to several hundred others).  I have enjoyed contributing to WP for many years. I was planning to contribute for many more.
 * However, if you think I've worn out my welcome, then keep in mind that I am the only editor regularly monitoring over a thousand articles (of the nearly six thousand on my watchlist). I've seen the same pattern hundreds of times: an anonymous IP editor sneaks in subtle misinformation or disinformation that lingers for two to five years before I notice it and correct it. If I'm not around any more to catch that, that's on you, not me. Drive away every editor who cares, then no one will. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * CC, you don't seem to recognize vandalism as separate from carelessness, misinterpretation, unclear language, simply being incorrect. Seriously, accusing an editor with hundreds of thousands of edits of vandalism? Maybe you really just shouldn't ever be even using the word here? Valereee (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , the problem with your reasoning about Silicon Valley being equivalent to the Santa Clara Valley is that the Bayside cities of San Mateo County are indisputably part of the Santa Clara Valley. Read that article and look at the map. Or if local, go to any eastward facing scenic overlook in the southern Santa Cruz Mountains, along Skyline Boulevard for example. You can easily see that it is one big valley, partially under the San Francisco Bay, stretching from San Francisco International Airport all the way to northern San Benito County, and also including the Bayside cities of southern Alameda County. So, you were not correct on the content issue and still, you falsely accused the other editor of vandalism. Your contributions are very much appreciated, but if I was you, I would be exceptionally cautious about use of the word "vandalism" going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the truth of User:Joe Calder's edit with whether it was supported by the underlying sources. As I just said above, I have never disputed the truth of the edit.  But it was not supported by the sources as required by WP:V.  As I mentioned, I personally shot the photos of Sand Hill Road and I am well aware that southern San Mateo County is widely considered to be part of the Silicon Valley region. Rather, I used uncivil language because I was incensed at how User:Joe Calder had apparently violated WP:V by stuffing words into the cited sources' mouths that are simply not found in the cited sources (which I just linked to above).  Under WP:V, the burden is on that user to either add a separate source for that fact or add the fact in a way that doesn't improperly imply existing sources support it (when they do not).  The civil approach, as I now realize, would have been to simply point out that the new edit had failed verification.
 * As for User:Valereee, I think that might be a good point. Since I keep getting chewed out for uncivil word choices, I probably should just eliminate the words "vandalism" or "disruptive" and find less strong language to express my irritation at unconstructive, uninformed, or incorrect edits.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I fear that you are sinking into pedantry now,. The three sources said that it is equivalent to the Santa Clara Valley, and much of the heavily populated parts of San Mateo County are in the Santa Clara Valley. You have have absolutely no reason to be incensed on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see where we're talking past each other. You're using the vague geological definition of "Santa Clara Valley" as set forth in the Wikipedia article to contend that User:Joe Calder's edit was therefore adequately supported by the three books cited (because of how they refer to the Santa Clara Valley) and therefore my anger at the edit was unjustified.
 * The part of that article claiming the Santa Clara Valley starts at San Francisco didn't link to the relevant report, but it looks like it's citing to this page in this USGS land subsidence report from 1985.
 * Having grown up in the Valley, I can tell you that the vast majority of Bay Area residents treat the Valley as ending at the Santa Clara County boundaries at San Francisquito Creek (on the west side) and Scott Creek (on the east side). They do not commonly perceive southern cities in San Mateo County or Alameda County to be part of the Santa Clara Valley.  Silicon Valley, yes. But not the Santa Clara Valley.
 * For example, the map of the Santa Clara Valley in a 1999 USGS report on land subsidence shows that its northern end is at Palo Alto. As does the title of this book from 1991. Notice how the 1999 report is careful to state that the Valley is part of a trough, while the 1985 report defines the Valley as the trough itself.
 * All three books I cited in the Silicon Valley article were published after 2000 and therefore it is more likely that the authors were using the common meaning of the words "Santa Clara Valley" as equivalent to "the valley dominating northern and central Santa Clara County" than the older, more obscure geological definition of "the valley running southeast from San Francisco." So it was up to User:Joe Calder to make edits consistent with that common meaning.
 * And then I just realized something. Under WP:AGF, it was entirely possible for User:Joe Calder to be acting in good faith if he's not from the Valley and was relying on the defective definition in the current Santa Clara Valley article.  I have to concede that's where my anger was partially unjustified: the real issue here is that the Santa Clara Valley article has the wrong definition.  So yes, I see that's why the civility policy is so important.  Sometimes we just need to cool down and think things through.
 * Anyway, let's get back to the point of all this. To be reasonable, I propose that one way to handle this is for an admin to scold me at length on my talk page, advise that this is my final warning and that I am prohibited from using the words "vandalism" and "disruptive editing" to characterize other editors' edits for all but the most truly extreme situations (as in article blanking or sudden replacing of entire articles with clearly off-topic nonsense), that I am to find less harsh language to describe any edits which are merely unconstructive, uninformed, or factually incorrect, and that any admin is welcome to block me for a week or two if I continue to keep losing my temper and using uncivil language. Is that fair? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or possibly any admin will indef you the next time you lose your temper or use uncivil language or baselessly accuse someone of vandalism. Valereee (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a rather harsh approach, but I can see how some admins might feel that way.
 * I just traced the underlying issue with the Santa Clara Valley article that led to this situation with the Silicon Valley article. User:Binksternet made major revisions in 2021 which I hadn't closely paid attention to until now.  The edits are clearly in good faith as a fair restatement of assertions in the 1985 report, but it looks like User:Binksternet did not recognize the source is an outlier.  The correct approach would have been to note that the 1985 report has an unusually broad definition and that other sources define the Santa Clara Valley as starting farther south at the southern end of San Francisco Bay (the previous definition in the article), including this one, this one, this one, and this one.  The last one is particularly important. The ATF explained in a 1989 rulemaking document that they determined the area north of the boundary with San Mateo County is not locally and/or nationally known as part of the Santa Clara Valley and therefore would not become part of the Santa Clara Valley AVA.  So I will have to take that up on that article's talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not harsh at all. When faced with To be reasonable, I propose that one way to handle this is for an admin to scold me at length on my talk page, advise that this is my final warning and that I am prohibited from using the words "vandalism" and "disruptive editing" to characterize other editors' edits for all but the most truly extreme situations (as in article blanking or sudden replacing of entire articles with clearly off-topic nonsense), that I am to find less harsh language to describe any edits which are merely unconstructive, uninformed, or factually incorrect, and that any admin is welcome to block me for a week or two if I continue to keep losing my temper and using uncivil language. Is that fair? [emph mine] what I see is someone not taking this seriously. An indef isn't punishment. It's requiring you to deal with your issues. Valereee (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I am trying to take this seriously and talk through these issues in good faith. It's not working.
 * As long as WP admins will allow me, I'm going to focus on what I do best: taking photographs of interesting buildings and things and adding them to articles. And I'm going to cut back on everything else.
 * In an earlier edit (the one where you just reverted yourself), you said no one cares about the Santa Clara Valley. You're absolutely right.
 * As I have just explained, we have an article using an outlier definition of its subject matter that is largely disconnected from actual real-world usage and most published sources. But I'm not going to fix any of that, or many other issues from now on. Because no one cares.
 * I have tried very hard for over 15 years to help build a more accurate encyclopedia. It is abundantly clear my efforts are not appreciated. So I will focus my text edits on a small number of articles I love the most (the ones where I wrote most of them), and I promise to keep my edit summaries for those articles terse, anodyne, and civil.  And if even in that limited sphere, I again cross the line, feel free to indefinitely block me. That's the best I can do. Coolcaesar (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Coolcaesar, Sorry, didn't make myself clear: no one at ANI cares about any content dispute, including about the Santa Clara Valley. Wikipedia cares. ANI does not. Valereee (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Coolcaesar, your contributions are highly appreciated. From the diffs I've seen, the people you berate are often in the wrong. Your attentiveness to verifiability is valuable, as it's one of the most neglected tasks on Wikipedia. But your posts remind me of Linus Torvalds. He was a PITA to his collaborators for more than a decade until someone helped him realize how little it achieved, and how much unnecessary stress it caused him and others. He became less abrasive, and I bet everyone around him breathed a huge sigh of relief. When dealing with incompetent editors, no amount of berating will help them change. And competent editors don't want the unpleasantness. Is the abrasiveness worth it? I hope you can take the time to reflect on that, as Torvalds did. DFlhb (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that Coolcaesar should not be labeling content disputes as disruptive unless he can clearly demonstrate that a user has actually been disruptive over a period of time. Undiscussed moves are free to be challenged, though unless there is evidence of a move war, I shouldn't be tagged for disruptive editing. Noting that there has been a pattern of this, but also considering that Coolcaesar has done a lot of good work for the project, I would recommend that Coolcaesar be formally prohibited from labeling edits as vandalism or disruptive unless it's obvious (maybe as described under the 3RR exception for obvious vandalism).  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor continues to add too much stuff to infoboxes


Dannyzk has been asked multiple times to stop inserting too many roles into biographies by way of the "known for" parameter. Dannyzk has not responded at all to concerns voiced by others—has never used a talk page. The first explicit request on Dannyzk's talk page regarding the "known for" problem was added by on April 15.

Dannyzk added three films to the infobox of Rosalind Russell, a very accomplished actress who was nominated for major awards for ten TV, film and stage roles. Listing ten productions in the "known for" parameter is too much (the template instructions say "brief description") which is why the parameter was not used previously.

Dannyzk added one song to the Cathy Dennis biography, as if she is known for only one song. She's known for at least a dozen songs, which is why the "known for" parameter was not used. The same problem may be seen at the Reba McEntire biography, with Dannyzk adding two songs despite the fact that the singer is known for many songs.

Another warning Dannyzk received was for adding both the "alma_mater" and "education" parameters, though the infobox instructions say that only one of these should be used. Dannyzk has not responded to any talk page messages. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hate Speech/Uncivility

 * Where? Talk:United States


 * Who? GrandCoaxial (talk page linked, they don't have a user page)


 * What? whole message is quite interesting but this specifically caught my eye: "Blacks here are lucky that they were brought over from slavery since if it wasn't for whistling dixie, they would still be in the stone age."

I'm not sure if I did this right or in the right place or whatnot but just tell me and I can post it somewhere else. phrogge  'sup?   edits  05:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your report, . The only thing good about this incident is that GrandCoaxial revealed their overt racism immediately. I have blocked them indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour
Incident started with User:Mcdynamite over Peter Yu's BLP article. Initial attempt by me to merge the same years into a single cell, removing WP:CHINESECHARACTERS beside wikified articles, merging both English and Chinese titles into a single column here with a lazy edit summary of cleanup. It was subsequently reverted by Mcdynamite with edit summary of nope, you're not. I reverted his revert with an explanation of the policies involved. Subsequently I written a clearer explanation of the policies on his talkpage which he claimed not to flout in his reply. Mcdynamite was subsequently partially blocked for edit warring. Edit warring ANI link. In between he was mostly uncivil and cast aspersions, quoting him You aren't contributing new content and you don't own wiki either. Learn how to respect the editorial ways of other users. Thank you! , Now I understand why hardly anyone is contributing to Singapore entertainment articles. That is because of a certain few autocratic editors who never contributes new content but only is keen on reverting edits.. Another uncivil occasion on saying Onel5969 causing mischief for drafitfying his created articles

The latest incident is on Yao Wenlong where Mcdynamite changed the role name from Hanyu Pinyin to dialect which I reverted on a note that I am not sure there is a dialect translation of the names of the role. this need a reference. (Note the official plot by the network only indicate role names in Hanyu Pinyin ) Mcdynamite reverted claiming I'm just following the Chinese wiki which I'm sure the editor got it from the subtitles on Malaysia's Astro channel which I reverted that it is WP:OR. Mcdynamite replied Whatever feeds your ego, i'm not going to waste time arguing with a fussy user who never contributes but only RUDELY REVERTS.

Note that the conversion of role names are partially across the cast of the television show Your World in Mine. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * User Mcdynamite had been notified of this ANI incident on talkpage . Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Evidently from the editor's user page, they are not willing to be communicative with other editors. – robertsky (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

trolling my talk page
.Raven@undefined is trolling my talk page. I've asked them several times to stop, but they continue. I don't know if this is some sort of game, or if they think they're somehow scoring points, but it's getting tiresome. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * left 4 different warnings on 's talk page, with Kwamikagami reverting the warning each time with an edit summary of "rv. troll". Diffs of the warnings:, , ,
 * It looks like these warnings were in retaliation to an edit warring warning that Kwamikagami left on .Raven's talk page . .Raven did reply to the warning on their talk page, indicating that there has been disagreements across multiple pages in this dispute. So there's history here which I, frankly, don't want to take the time to dig into.
 * Your report is very vague and expects others to do the leg work of looking into the situation. Please try to explain a situation better when making reports at ANI and include diffs to evidence when you can. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After Kwamikagami told Raven to stay off their talk page twice, posted additional template warnings to User talk:Kwamikagami, which might be considered harassment.  Schazjmd   (talk)  15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very simply, I did not see his edits on my talkpage because I was still posting on his. – . Raven .talk 16:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may offer background? kwami and I first encountered (as far as I know) in late March＊ when he was changing numerous China-related articles – Cheng Man-ch'ing was the first I noticed – to change the ordinary apostrophe (') to an okina, a Hawaiian character. I did not revert him there or even edit that article at all; I objected on its talkpage, and as one outcome @Peaceray reverted, and took the larger issue to WT:MOS, still open as I write. With that unresolved, I've tried helping restore the pages to their stable status quo ante, the default or neutral position... with kwami reverting my reverts, a move war. More recently he moved a page I'd been working on, from its clear WP:COMMONNAME of Theban alphabet (~32,900 Ghits) to the less specific Theban script (~74 Ghits, including Wikipedia)... which I reverted under WP:RMUM, and again he reverted – so that when *I* opened Talk:Theban script it was a case of BRRD. It turns out he's done the same to a number of other "alphabet" pages that (per WP:NCWS and the consensus on WT:NCWS) should be titled "alphabet"s. Oddly enough, he claims WP:NCWS justifies this. So now there's discussion on WT:NCWS (opened by me), as well as more page move requests on some of those articles' talkpages. And discussion on his talkpage and mine. He's repeatedly accused me of "playing stupid" for not agreeing with him, and also repeatedly of "bad faith" (for instance, because I posted those page move requests.) Today he put a user warning on my page in which (with his own added text) he told me that since those page move requests were open, I shouldn't edit the text of any of the articles. This is not only not the rule as I understand it, he himself has continued to edit those articles, so it's a "rule" he doesn't obey himself. I've responded with the same 3RR warning for the sake of the record (since he's far more active, despite being "semi-retired from Wikipedia", and engaging in both edit- & move-warring); as well as warning him about his violations of WP:AGF, WP:BRD, and WP:NPA, etc. As you saw, he's "rv. trolld them, and come here. I've just learned today from this page's archives that edit-warring is not recent behavior on his part. Apparently he lost at least one user-rights bit over it. That might be useful context. –  . Raven .talk 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ＊ Whoops! Date is about right, but I forgot an encounter before the China-related articles, in which he insisted it was "racist" of me to refer to indigenous peoples as either a "tribe" (even if they have a "tribal government") or "ancient" (even the ones with continuous cultures since before the cut-off date in the definition of "ancient"). See User talk:.Raven. – . Raven .talk 17:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think .Raven leaves some important context for the greater issue, and it does look like they are doing the right things with regards to dispute resolution. That being said, .Raven: if you haven't seen it before, please read WP:DTTR, and especially in light of the sequence of edits here from 13:33-14:10 today, I'm not sure how to read that as anything but low-level harassment.  If kwami is reverting your warnings with "rv troll" (and yes, they should absolutely not be calling you a troll), the message is plain that they aren't interested in getting warning templates from you.  If you've got a problem, explain the problem in plain English.  If they ask you directly (or make it clear through their actions) that your messages aren't welcome on their user page, don't keep hammering at them.  Instead, bring the matter up for dispute resolution.  If they don't want to interact with you, fine.  Find someone else to review the matter and give a neutral assessment.  At no time should you be spamming a user's talk page with warning templates, especially not when they are currently in an active dispute with you.  It comes off as rather rude.  So yea, if your summary is accurate with regard to starting discussions on the talk pages, you did that part fine.  That doesn't excuse hammering Kwami's user talk page with pointless templates.  Start a real conversation next time, at the minimum, and if that isn't received well, then just don't.  -- Jayron 32 16:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, OK. In my own defense, once kwami started communicating on my talkpage with a template – to which he'd added a nonexistent rule even he wasn't following – that seemed an invitation to communicate with him likewise (but with better justification, since he'd *actually* violated more policies than he alleged I had) on his webpage. Or is one-way communication a thing on WP?
 * And as I told Schazjmd above, I was still on his talkpage while he posted on mine; so I didn't see his messages until I got out (the alerts don't show up on my screen when I'm at the bottom of a page). – . Raven .talk 16:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Someone was rude to me, so I thought it was license to be equally as rude to them" is not a defense. Next time, let other people be the wrong ones, instead of joining them in being wrong.  -- Jayron 32 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good principle, which is why I haven't simply reciprocated to his repeated and unfounded personal attacks of "playing stupid" and "bad faith", or even simply reverted his reverts with non-explanations like "rv", "rvv", and "rv. ignorance", as he's done – but rather, if my detailed and RS-citing explanations fail (as usual), taken the issues to RFCs and PMRs. I've been "letting him be the wrong one" for a while.
 * Note that even kwami calls my last comment on his talkpage "substantial", though he then repeats the unfounded attacks... to which, of course, I must not give any answer at all. –  . Raven .talk 01:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now that I've had time to check, I see kwami has once again reverted me on N'Ko script (as he has renamed it from N'Ko alphabet), to delete citation of an RS which contradicts him – commenting "rv: this is an ongoing discussion -- wait for the result". But the "ongoing discussion" is Talk:N'Ko script, a page move request, which is not (that I ever heard) reason to stop editing the article text. He's deleting valid info I added, using a bogus reason.
 * No wonder he posted that bogus message on my talkpage. – . Raven .talk 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise this edit by kwami on 'Bassa Vah script', deleting three refs and fouling up two others. This seems to be reversion for the sake of reversion, as if he owns these articles. – . Raven .talk 23:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And kwami has now reverted to remove not only RS citations but also the wikilinking of "West Africa" from N'Ko script, commenting only "rv. troll". Clearly I'm not allowed to edit at all, if even brackets must be undone. –  . Raven .talk 04:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. I reverted giving my reasons at User talk:Kwamikagami; he re-reverted giving me another 3RR template (level 2). Then on his talkpage he said "If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that." I took him at his word. He then reverted me again (third time in 1.5 hours), and threatened: "Once more and I'll file a 3RR complaint at ANI." Is that entrapment?
 * Per the above gentle hint about WP:DTTR, I have not posted any further template to him, nor tried to restore even the wikilinking he once again undid. It does seem he owns the page. – . Raven .talk 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh and the remark on his talk page: "I'm simply not willing to parse the good from the bad in your edits...." – in other words, the parts he agrees with from the parts he disagrees with. He just reverts my edits in toto. "... -- that's your job." – If he considers wikilinking "West Africa" the work of a troll and vandal, how could anyone guess what he'll accept as "good"? – . Raven .talk 06:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now what kwami has reverted (with the comment "rv. chronic POV warrior") included my adding the sign for comma in Bassa Vah with a ref to WP:PROVEIT; a fully relevant external link to Omniglot; and my making the Defaultsort actually include the full article title, three short words – of which he deleted the middle one. kwami himself has refused when asked to cite RSs supporting his edits. – . Raven .talk 10:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Also please see Talk:List of numeral systems. Or perhaps fandom sites are now RSs for adding mathematical vocabulary here; how could I not have known? Though Google can't find any site or book except the above page for the term "quitrigesimal". So is a Wikipedia page sufficient RS for itself? Please advise. –  . Raven .talk 06:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Kwamikagami hasn't commented further on this discussion and is now involved in an edit war with this user at N'Ko script and Osmanya script. As a former admin, they should know better. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from context clues that was responding to the second half of your comment: Is it "trolling" to even wikilink "West Africa" (one of your removals), for goodness's sake? when said, If you want to restore any improvements you made, [etc]. It was a license to re-insert the wikilink; not continue to edit war. That misinterpretation was really on you. You were told explicitly, if you improve content in the same edit that re-introduced disputed material, you'd get completely reverted. You made the same edit as you made the first time you were reverted, and kwami acted accordingly. I am not excusing kwami's actions here because edit-warring is still edit-warring, but your insistence that kwami implied you could make these 2 edits is just wrong and disingenuous. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , You're both right on the line for an edit warring block. Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of an by Kwamikagami considering their reversions and the edit summaries they've been using to call .Raven a troll and a POV pusher. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, and I'm upset at myself for getting drawn into this. I've tried discussing, on multiple pages/threads, including most recently Talk:Osmanya script, and, as mentioned above, on his talk page. He has, for his share, templated me again (also as mentioned above), and tried to recruit other editors: WT:NCWS. It has become impossible to do so much as add and document a Bassa Vah comma sign, fix a malformed link, or wikilink another article. 2012's report leaves me thinking this is just history on endless repeat. I should have taken that hint and just stayed away from the quicksand, even when he moved an article I'd been working on. Doing so now, despite the info still lacking or broken on multiple articles. – . Raven .talk 15:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So to add on, this former admin is canvassing, stonewalling, and levying personal attacks. It's really seeming like Kwamikagami has serious problems with edit warring and conflict resolution, given that they lost admin and then later rollback permissions for dispute related issues. They've also been blocked several times in the past for 3RR / edit-warring offenses as well.
 * Not to say .Raven has been perfect in this, which they've acknowledged, but I'm starting to suspect a WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to file a formal complaint, just wanted someone here to tell Raven to stop trolling my talk page, a complaint I filed after I had told them multiple times to stay off my talk page unless they had something constructive to say. They had repeatedly templated me with warnings to stop doing things that I wasn't doing, such as vandalism warnings, after I give them a 3RR warning. After I filed here they did stay off, apart from later commenting on other topics, which I don't mind as long as they're arguing in good faith.
 * As for Josh's objections, there was no "canvassing". I asked for help on the NCWS discussion to keep various articles stable while the naming guidelines were being discussed, since Ravin hadn't notified the discussion of the parallel move requests. That's not "canvassing", and I didn't go behind their back to anyone's talk page. The only "stonewalling" was insisting that we wait for the outcome of the NCWS discussion before we start implementing our preferred version of it. (As, for example, just happened at Theban alphabet, due to a consensus for new wording at NCWS.) As for personal attacks, I've called Raven out on their bad behaviour. We can't have a constructive engagement when an editor is acting in bad faith, and there is plenty of evidence of that, including fake citations; POINTy citation of uncontested points in the leads of the articles being discussed, as if to prejudice the move requests; 8 duplicate move requests that don't mention the ongoing NCWS discussion on that exact topic, or notify the people involved; and chronically misrepresenting and pretending to not understand the simplest points that are made, which everyone else in the discussion is able to understand. Kind of a Borat defense, that in response we need to dumb down the discussion, which they then continue to refuse to understand.
 * E.g. R insists that unless I find a RS that a alphabetic script is not an alphabet, then I'm not allowed to revert their POV-warring, despite the fact that there's no claim, by me or anyone else in the discussion, or anywhere in the article, that it's not an alphabet.
 * In another case, I reverted them after they added a claim along with a citation that (a) is not a RS in the first place and (b) had been retracted by the authors themselves in a later edition. I even contacted the authors to ask why they retracted the claim -- they said they never had a good source and were contacted by people in the field that the claim was in error, and I let Ravin know. Raven then restored the bad citation and added two more, which didn't even mention the topic, and claimed that I now couldn't revert their edit because I'd be 'reverting sources'. Or, when they complained that I had reverted some good edits with the bad, and I said I wouldn't mind if they restored those bits, I just wasn't going to take the time to do it myself, they sarcastically took that as permission to continue the edit-war. These are examples of a pattern of behaviour that convinces me that Raven engages in bad faith edits and arguments when they don't get their way, and I have called them out on it whenever they do it. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Drat, I was going to avoid interaction, but some of this has to be addressed: • "... insisting that we wait for the outcome of the NCWS discussion before we start implementing our preferred version of it." – So the RFC on WT:NCWS and not the page move request is the "discussion" meant in the revert-comments and 3RR template saying I shouldn't edit these articles? But – just as my move requests for the Bassa Vah, Gadabuursi, Kaddare, N'Ko, Osmanya, Todhri, Vithkuqi, and Zaghawa articles, as stated on their talk pages, were based on the existing text of WP:NCWS, "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters" (in context of the WT:NCWS consensus surrounding its placement by kwami, e.g. "If an alphabet is specific to more than one language then it’s still language-specific."), and were also compatible with the RFC's proposal(s), thus they would be unaffected by the RFC's outcome, pass or fail – so, likewise, my edits.
 * The RFC opens: "Should 'alphabet' in WP:NCWS include letter-sets for specific uses (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet, Theban alphabet), as well as for specific languages (e.g. Somali's Kaddare alphabet and Osmanya alphabet; Zaghawa's Zaghawa alphabet; Mandaic's Mandaic alphabet)?" [boldface added] IOW, the existing text already covers the latter set of "language-specific" alphabets; should it cover "use-specific" alphabets like the former set(ISO basic Latin, IPA, Theban) as well? I pointed out that Vaisaac's summary of consensus had included "for specific languages or use" [boldface added], to argue that should have been in the text all along.
 * Therefore the only articles affected by the RFC outcome were use-specific alphabets like ISO basic Latin, the IPA, and Theban – the last example of which has since been resolved separately – an important clarification to make, because kwami had declared these all "scripts", not "alphabets", and did so again during the RFC.
 * That kwami has also moved the natural-language alphabets (e.g. Somali's Gadabuursi, Kaddare, and Osmanya, all designed for that single language) into "script" titles actually contradicts the existing text of WP:NCWS, although kwami thumps "WP:NCWS" as the rationale and can cite no off-WP RS consensus agreeing with their premise.
 * But that's not even a "discussion" up for support-or-oppose comments. kwami's never started an RFC to move natural-language alphabets over to "scripts", nor is that proposal part of the current RFC. kwami's simply moved and edited them BOLDly, then repeatedly reverted any reversion, and also any article text-edit restoring (or supporting with cites) the status quo ante. To me this seems the encyclopedic equivalent of a coup d'etat; kwami now owns those articles.
 * And I don't think that's right.
 * • "fake citations" – which citations were "fake"? On various articles, kwami's repeatedly reverted to delete the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry 1a for "alphabet" ("a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order"), and – I invite anyone to click the links and compare my quotes with their actual texts.
 * • "POINTy citation of uncontested points in the leads of the articles being discussed" – If the point is "uncontested" in those articles, why is kwami removing the word "alphabet" from both their titles and their body texts?
 * • "8 duplicate move requests..." – No, each is on a separate article talkpage, for that article alone, They cite the same documentation because the same issues apply. kwami knows this; kwami has made the same claim before, and I've refuted it each time.
 * • "... that don't mention the ongoing NCWS discussion on that exact topic" – as noted above, the RFC on WT:NCWS doesn't affect these natural-language alphabet articles, whether pass or fail; nor do they affect it.
 * • "or notify the people involved"' – Note that kwami, who moved those articles from "alphabet" to "script", did so without discussion or notification to anyone, and quickly reverted all reversions also without starting discussions (until quite recently, e.g. the templates and this ANI complaint). To each of my move requests, kwami has quickly !voted "opposed"; who else was "involved" to notify?
 * • "chronically misrepresenting and pretending to not understand the simplest points that are made, which everyone else in the discussion is able to understand." – As I told kwami before, "You mistake disagreement for incomprehension."
 * • "R insists that unless I find a RS that a alphabetic script is not an alphabet, then I'm not allowed to revert their POV-warring, despite the fact that there's no claim, by me or anyone else in the discussion, or anywhere in the article, that it's not an alphabet." – Again, note kwami's insistent removal of the word "alphabet" from article titles and body texts.
 * A writing system can be both an alphabet AND a script... as a logographic/ideoraphic script is also a script... but when a species is also the sole member of its genus, we still title it by its species name, then create a redirect to that from the genus name. (If more genus members turn up, we can convert that redirect to a dab without having to rename the species article.) The same preference for specificity surely applies to alphabets.
 * • "In another case, I reverted them after they added a claim along with a citation that (a) is not a RS in the first place and (b) had been retracted by the authors themselves in a later edition. I even contacted the authors to ask why they retracted the claim -- they said they never had a good source and were contacted by people in the field that the claim was in error, and I let Ravin know." – In fact, kwami never mentioned having done such OR offline, nor would I have accepted such an unprovable claim. kwami asserted there'd been a retraction, I asked for an RS to that retraction, and kwami never replied to that request. This is in reference to article Alchemical symbol and his deletion of Magnesium from a list there. My cite was a Unicode proposal from the website of Indiana University's "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" Project – but kwami then claimed that project had had the symbol removed from Unicode. He gave no link, of course. Discussion on my talkpage, following the reversions on 'Alchemical symbol', from 01:21, 12 April 2023‎, forward. Note that ironically, and perhaps without even realizing it, kwami later added a link to an existing file photo of a 1931 book showing a recognizable symbol for "Magnesia", as I mentioned at the end of my talkpage's thread. I thanked kwami for it.
 * I also added the source book (of the chart kwami had linked) to refs for Magnesium. I now see that kwami has again deleted Magnesium from the list, along with all its refs, commenting "rv fv (spurious sources)"; look at those sources for yourself.
 * Update: I see that kwami made that claim of personal off-WP contact in Talk:Alchemical symbol, posted 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — 19 minutes after claiming in their above 20:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) comment in this thread that they'd told me so earlier. Wow. (This was also nearly 17 hours after their removal of the Magnesium entry for "spurious sources".) – . Raven .talk 01:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * • "Or, when they complained that I had reverted some good edits with the bad, and I said I wouldn't mind if they restored those bits, I just wasn't going to take the time to do it myself, they sarcastically took that as permission to continue the edit-war." – What kwami actually said, verbatim, was: "If you want to restore any improvements you made, I have no problem with that. I'm simply not willing to parse the good from the bad in your edits -- that's your job."&thinsp; I took kwami at their word. They reverted me in toto&hairsp; again, as usual.
 * • "Raven engages in bad faith edits and arguments when they don't get their way" – Funny thing, I've never accused kwami of "bad faith", due to WP:AGF. – . Raven .talk 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you don't have reason to accuse me of acting in bad faith? You're still pretending you don't know what words mean, which, since I suspect you're intelligent enough to know better, raather proves my point. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I'm going to regret weighing in here...
 * In response to your request/comment on my talk page, Raven's duplicate move requests are at Bassa Vah script, Elbasan script, Gadabuursi Somali script, Kaddare script, N'Ko script, Osmanya script, Todhri script, Vithkuqi script and Zaghawa script. So that's 9, actually. (I don't count Theban script, which is a slightly different rationale and had been requested earlier.)
 * As for the difference between "script" and "alphabet", if you're interested, see Latin script and Latin alphabet, or Arabic script and Arabic alphabet. The one is the basic writing system, the other the application of that writing system to a particular language. So the English alphabet we're using is in the Latin script, but there are two Serbian alphabets, one Latin script and one Cyrillic, and two Kurdish alphabets, one Latin script and one Arabic. The question being discussed at NCWS is for cases like Bassa Vah, where the script is only used for one language. Thus the article could be labeled either "Bassa Vah script" or "Bassa Vah alphabet". Do we choose 'script' because it's a writing system, or 'alphabet' because we're discussing the application to a single language? Both aspects are (or should be) covered in the article. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By that rationale, every "alphabet" article should be titled "script", as all alphabets (and abjads and abugidas and syllabaries, etc.) are types or subsets of scripts.
 * But that removes information rather than adding it. We know, when seeing a title say "alphabet", that a type of script is involved. We do not know, when seeing a title say "script", that an alphabet is involved. "Alphabet" tells us both things; "script" tells us only one.
 * "Script" is appropriate when there are several subset alphabets, as "Cyrillic script" includes, e.g., the Russian, Buryat, and Mongolian alphabets. "Arabic script" likewise includes, e.g., both the Arabic and Persian alphabets.
 * In the cases at issue, there are no subset alphabets involved; just one alphabet per article.
 * Per WP:NCWS, "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters" – and these are all "language-specific", most of them for one language only; N'Ko for a small group of languages or dialects, the Manding languages, outside of which its chief feature (that all users, no matter how they speak a word, spell it the same way in N'Ko) doesn't work. – . Raven .talk 02:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * > "if you improve content in the same edit that re-introduced disputed material" – But kwami has insisted over and over (even above) that these were "uncontested points"; kwami's point seems to have been merely that footnotes must not be in the lede. The last paragraph of WP:LEDE's lede differs: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead." [emphases added]  I've cited and quoted that sentence to kwami, who has continued to disregard it. – . Raven .talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, the so-called "duplicate move requests" were to return "alphabet" articles to that status quo ante, after kwami had BOLDly moved them to "script" titles without discussion or consensus (and against even the WP:NCWS kwami has thumped), and re-reverted reversions of those moves (thus knowingly overriding objections). Supposedly it was kwami's duty to create all those move requests after the first reversion; instead *I* did, rather than echoing kwami's move-wars. Somehow this is being listed as an offense I've committed. I've just learned, from lower down this page, of WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which seems to indicate otherwise. – . Raven .talk 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and I have now come across WP:BECAUSEISAYSO, which seems to sum up kwami's !RS !citations. –  . Raven .talk 23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now kwami has deleted from 'Alchemical symbol', as "false claims", a source copied from Magnesium, where it was not controversial at all, the report of magnesium's first isolation: (Specifically, pp. 109-116, in the Collected Works version linked there, cover the extraction of the metal he calls magnium from – and its subsequent oxidation into – the white powdery material he calls magnesia: [p. 115] "It sank rapidly in water, though surrounded by globules of gas, producing magnesia, and quickly changed in air, becoming covered with a white crust, and falling into a fine powder, which proved to be magnesia .") When will these unjustified deletions, using false edit-comments, cease?
 * I have restored this with the comment that, before removing it again, that removal should be justified in discussion. I have made the same remark in reply to kwami on Talk:Alchemical symbol. – . Raven .talk 04:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and DePiep has called "broken process" on that 'Talk:Alchemical symbol' thread, linking kwami's deletion of that source while kwami's own RFC was underway. – . Raven .talk 18:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not going to get your pound of flesh here. Stop beating a dead horse. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WT:DTS – . Raven .talk 21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This addition, itself a failure to drop the damned stick, is really not helping anybody. — Trey Maturin™ 21:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What was that utter nonsense of a post supposed to convince us of? Frankly, this is getting tendentious. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This kind of argumentation is why I was getting annoyed with Raven. They continue to make OR edits that contradict their sources, but at least no longer edit-war over CN and FV tags that I add. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * > "They continue to make OR edits that contradict their sources" – you haven't found a contradiction yet, merely reverted or marked {fv}{cn} when it was clear you hadn't read them, viz. Alchemical symbol (and its talkpage). You for your part almost never bother to cite sources when you edit, and that's WP:OR. – . Raven .talk 19:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I'm calling for a Boomerang block on Raven for disruption. This has gone one long enough. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Is discussing the unclean hands of the original reporter "changing the subject"?Is differing with an essay blockworthy?Was WP:LEGS wrong? – . Raven .talk 02:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop. --128.164.177.55 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When you put it like that... okay. – . Raven .talk 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Tekrmn
created their account on 2023-02-10, they made one edit, then went dormant until 2023 Covenant School shooting occurred. At this point they began editing significantly on the subject, as well as other transgender subjects. They were given the standard contentious topics alert (notice). Since then they've repeatedly misrepresented sources, our policies and guidelines, edit warred (AN/EW report), and engaged in personal attacks (accusing an editor of "vandalizing", "your opinion doesn't matter" and another "vandalism" claim, casting aspersions about other editors), finally culminating in this edit they made that's a combination of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS: (as regards the end of their rant, the reason the NPOV tag is still there is because a number of other editors agree there is an issue). Their edits show signs of being a WP:SPA, seemingly here to WP:RGW. Behavior like this is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * While I have edited multiple pages that involve transgender people or topics, I have also edited a number of pages on other topics and am working on a draft that is on another unrelated topic. Many wikipedia editors have specific areas of interest. The edit warring report was dismissed for good reason. I think if you take a look at Locke Cole's own history and the context of the quotes they've given above you will see what is actually going on. Tekrmn (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you deny saying ? You shouldn't because I literally linked to the diff of you saying that. So since you made those multiple claims of misbehavior, do you have any evidence of that to back those claims up? Because if you don't, that's exactly what WP:ASPERSIONS warns against. You did four reverts in less than 24 hours, after being warned about WP:3RR. Nobody forced you to do those reverts. The only reason you weren't blocked was because you ended up self-reverting. I don't know that I'd call that a "good reason" when you had all the reason in the world not to revert the 4th time already. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Locke Cole, do you have diffs to support repeatedly misrepresented sources? Schazjmd   (talk)  15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Was debating another editor over someone being characterized as a "friend", the linked source is even titled "Friend says she contacted authorities after messaging with Nashville shooter Audrey Hale on morning of attack". (As an aside, Derekeaaron1 and Tekrmn are the same editor, they changed their name in the middle of this, which ended up with editors restating arguments repeatedly because it seemed like another editor was engaging the topic.
 * Claimed all social media accounts had changed their name, but this was demonstrably not true (specifically, their LinkedIn profile still used the "deadname").
 * Pretty sure there were more, but that was all I could type out in five minutes.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the debating another editor diff, that isn't misrepresenting the source. The linked source quite clearly states Paige Patton, a Nashville radio host who goes by the name Averianna, told ABC News that said she played basketball with Hale in eighth grade and remained in occasional contact with Hale.
 * On the claimed all social media accounts diff that seems more like an honest mistake than anything particularly nefarious.
 * Do you have any more diffs? Because what you've provided so far doesn't really support your assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean the repeated claims of editors being "vandals" and asking when they're going to be blocked is really enough. Unless that's your definition of a collegial editing environment... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the two diffs on repeatedly misrepresented sources when I said that the diffs you had provided don't support the assertion. If you do not have any other diffs that support the assertion on misrepresenting sources, I would ask that you strike it.
 * In relation to the three diffs in your opening comment, I'd agree that the first two are mildly bad. But only so far as they should be warned not to do that again on an article talk page. The however, could you explain what the aspersion here is? The first sentence of it is certainly overly personalised, and could have been phrased with more tact (for example saying something like "I think you're overlooking the part that it can affect other trans people"), but it does not really fall into aspersion territory.
 * The is something that doesn't belong on an article talk page, but would be appropriate at a noticeboard like this with sufficiently strong diffs to support it. But as with the first two diffs, this only really rises to the degree of a warning to stop making that sort of comment outside of an appropriate noticeboard.
 * As to your accusation of being a WP:SPA, I have to disagree. While a lot of 's activity has been on the 2023 Nashville school shooting article, its talk page, and the current discussion at WT:MOSBIO about deadnaming of deceased trans and non-binary people, there are also mainspace contributions to a pretty wide array of topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understood what you were asking about. I just think it’s akin to worrying about the walnut shell littering while the forest is burning down. Personal attacks and casting aspersions like that (all while advocating for “removing” me from the article) from an editor with less than 500 edits strikes me as enough to skip to NOTHERE. For anyone else reading this, understand that Sideswipe9th and I are on seemingly opposite ends of a discussion on that article talk page, and their appearance here feels like ally-protecting. It would be nice to see some uninvolved admins taking a look at this. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And now Tekrmn has upgraded to WP:GRAVEDANCING with this edit, knowing that is currently blocked and unable to respond, they've decided to respond to a nearly week old comment of theirs. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More aspersions. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not aspersions, nor is that gravedancing. It fully appears Tekrmn is unaware of InedibleHulk's block. Recommend closing this nothing burger. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming you don't know what aspersions are or what WP:GRAVEDANCING says. And note here again, FD and I are on apparently opposite ends of the discussion at the talk page there. It would be incredible if someone uninvolved took the time to look this over, or should I just go to AE since apparently that's what we do when we want to get rid of people? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not know that user was blocked (or even how to find that information), and responded to a comment in a discussion that I was not aware of until today. Even if I was aware they were blocked, I do not see how that would constitute gravedancing. you have been consistently misrepresenting my actions in order to try and get me banned for a week and a half. you know full well that I am a new editor who does not know the rules as well as you do and is therefor likely to stumble into them and not be able to defend myself against your accusations. or show the other side of the story. to any admins weighing in on this, I would appreciate it if you would look at the history between Locke Cole and myself, as well as their individual history. I feel this user is going out of their way to attack me. Tekrmn (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m going out of my way to attack you? Tell me, of the two of us, which one has called the other a “vandal”, and repeatedly claimed they “vandalized” the article? Which one of us has called for “removing” the other from the article? Now, tell me again, who is attacking who? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you attempted to get me permanently banned from editing and have now brought me to a noticeboard, all without ever attempting to discuss what you feel is inappropriate about my behavior or how you think I should change it. I don't think that assumes good faith and I don't think you have followed the guidelines in dispute resolution when we have disagreed on content, guidelines that I have only become aware of recently. Tekrmn (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AN/3RR is not a "permanent ban", I did indicate that given your other behavior at the time that WP:NOTHERE might be relevant. You mean like this? Which, instead of responding or heeding my warning, you chose to copy what I did, then remove the warning from you page and reverted again anyways (your 4th in 24 hours).  WP:AGF is not a death pact. And maybe you missed it, but we're all volunteers here: I'm not going to invest significant amounts of time when you initially refuse to engage. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is not a death pact No, but constantly assuming bad faith isn't very compatible with editing Wikipedia. It's fine to be annoyed sometimes (and God knows I'm sometimes pissed off by vandals when doing recent changes patrol), but so far, all I've seen from you is a battleground mentality. (Then again, we haven't interacted much.) Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 09:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you indicated there and here that you think I should be permanently banned. you have invested a significant amount of time into getting me permanently banned and zero time into discussing any of this with me. I never said why you tried to get me banned or that AGF is a "death pact." Tekrmn (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. I note with interest that the comment that precipitated this, calling me a vandal and stating that my edits are vandalism, is still active and you've yet to provide any evidence to support your aspersions. Some more examples of you accusing people of being vandals either collectively (for not agreeing with you) or directly:
 * "editing is protected to prevent vandalism from who refuse to acknowledge the evidence and the rules of wikipedia that indicate we should use the name Aiden and he/him pronouns to refer to the shooter."
 * "Your edits are vandalism at this point."
 * "I'm not going to respond to you again unless you vandalize this article again or come up with a reliable source to verify your claims."
 * Can you please provide evidence that your claim that I'm a vandal is valid? Can you provide evidence for the last two bulletted diffs above that show is a vandal? Are you aware that WP:VANDALISM says ? Do you think you should be allowed to call people names without any repercussions? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The second and third diffs in your bulleted list are diffs you already included in your opening comment. While you can of course ask about them, characterising them as some more examples seems a bit misleading as they had already been presented in the same context that you are asking about now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No more misleading than referring to editors acting in good faith as vandals repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the diff you linked to my saying "your opinion doesn't matter" (which I admit was not a respectful way to put it, but it was also taken out of context) is part of a discussion that led to InedibleHulk removing verified and cited information, which they had already disruptively cite tagged. I believe there was at least one other instance of them disruptively cite tagging that article but I am having trouble finding it. I believe your placing an NPOV template on that article was also an example of disruptive tagging, and other editors have said your behavior around the NPOV tag constituted disruptive editing. I admit that these do not constitute vandalism, which was a term I misunderstood and which I now know is an inappropriate thing to say on a talk page and without sufficient evidence.
 * the 2023 covenant school shooting talk page was the first one I had been active on in any significant way, and the way people are speaking in that talk page is very offensive. you were not the first editor to come after me from that talk page and yes, I got defensive when you posted a template on my page. it seemed to me (and honestly still seems in some ways) that wikipedia was an inherently unfriendly place, and I believed the way I was communicating was both in line with the guidelines and pretty respectful in that context. I now realize that the talk page for that article and the users who are active on it reflect the contentious nature of the article, and that basically nothing on that page follows wikipedia guidelines. I will adjust my own behavior accordingly now that I know that, as I have done and will continue to do each time I learn something new about the expectations.
 * If I should assume you're acting in good faith why can't you assume I'm acting in good faith? your actions toward me regarding the edit warring are mentioned by name in WP:civility, which says "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message." and "(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken." several users have pointed out that your interactions on that talk page are inappropriate in tone
 * after looking at WP:DNB it seems clear that you have also not abided by these guidelines, particularly "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project."
 * you've also called out other editors for not attempting dispute resolution despite implying that it would be ridiculous for you to have tried to resolve a dispute with me, rather than spending that energy trying to get me banned Tekrmn (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I had concerns about User:Locke Cole and their editing, but hadn't gotten myself to fully dig in and vocalise myself or bring it to ANI.
 * There were several tone issues (1 2 3) and two cases of borderline WP:BADGERING to the point of making conversations unreadable (1 2). I also found one case of WP:BURO where I now realised they might be right (1) and another where I'm unsure but think they're wrong. (2 calling this discussion 'nuanced' and drawing out the RFC)
 * Their other edits as I went through the page ranged, for me, from 'understandable but probably wrong' to 'well rooted in policy'. I guess my sticking point is of discussions being drawn out to an unreasonable halt, but I cannot find policies they violated.
 * Having gone through the discussion, I'm no longer as convinced of my earlier conclusions. I'm pasting the diffs I collected anyway. Something about their behaviour ticks me, I just have not been able to pinpoint if they're a well intention-ed but rub people wrong; or doing some sort of WP:CPUSH.
 * Soni (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I now notice several of their comments in this very heading that definitely highlight the same tone issues, so maybe I was not hallucinating my earlier concerns. Soni (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first diff is a Jim Michael2 comment? The other two are... to quote someone above, (let the "tone" sink in there). Regarding the alleged badgering, it's also a reverse WP:SATISFY (damned if I do (badgering) or damned if I don't (not satisfying those who disagree)). Don't worry, I won't respond to misunderstood policy and guidelines in the future and continue to let you lot believe what you want to believe... As to 2nd WP:BURO, are you not aware of WP:FRS? Closing an RFC after a handful of days doesn't allow those who were solicited to respond...  As to, I guess taking issue with being told I'm not civil is a problem, but it's perfectly fine for someone to to say I'm a vandal and I should be "removed" from the article? Help it make sense, please! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My first link went one diff too far but linked the correct section with what I wanted to link.
 * Don't worry... you want to believe This is the same tone issues I've noticed through this ANI thread (as opposed to the milder Talk page diffs). I recommend taking some time off to compose your replies.
 * are you not aware of... solicited to respond I freely admit I'm unsure on this, having not worked deeper with RFCs in a little while. Happy to be corrected/informed so by an uninvolved editor.
 * but it's perfectly fine for.."removed" from the article? I intentionally did not comment on 's comments as I've not been following them along closely enough to make a full opinion.
 * Your other points are mostly valid, which is the entire reason I said I'm no longer as convinced of my earlier conclusions while writing the above comment. I'm pasted the diffs, but my conclusion was "Can someone uninvolved do a sanity check" as opposed to "WP:BOOMERANG time, admonish Locke". That was me ending up partially agreeing with you. Soni (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry, the WP:BOOMERANG comment was already added, then quickly removed (I appreciated the ominous "not yet" edit summary). As interesting as I am (and I assure you, I'm very interesting), can we please stop trying to derail this thread about and their behavior? Editors involved in the disputes at, who pretty much all disagree with me, seem to have made their way here to try a pile-on. Only one uninvolved editor has chimed in so far, and they thanked me for my reply, but it feels like the involved ones are just here to protect (or at worst, distract from) Tekrmn. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, BOOMERANGs are going to be an inherent part of ANI. So I don't think they're as derailing as you claim. it feels like the involved ones are just here to protect (or at worst, distract from) Tekrmn Comments like these are precisely why you've been such a difficult editor to work with, I guess we just have to wait and see what uninvolved folk feel about them wrt our policies.
 * Either way, having no opinion on Tekrmn, I guess I'll just wait for other uninvolved editors to weigh in accordingly. Soni (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add myself to the list of editors who have had negative interactions with Locke Cole. I hadn't planned on posting here until his most recent edit. To be clear, I don't think Tekrmn has always struck an appropriate tone—and I have, at least once, disagreed with him on the talk page. That talk page is a contentious one, and, unfortunately (though not surprisingly), the right tone is often not struck. But, while I understand Locke Cole's frustration that so much of this section has been devoted to his behavior, rather than Tekrmn's ("can we please stop trying to derail this thread about [Tekrmn] and their behavior?"), the simple fact is that the behavior of many, including Locke Cole (including myself, including Tekrmn, etc.), provides important context for the debate on that page and Tekrmn's edits—I'm not seeking any outcome other than providing that context.

Locke and I had a few brief interactions, but I think our first prolonged one occurred at the legal-name section. There, I pointed to Wikipedia policies that cover the discussion of people who are "not the subject" of articles and the discussion of people "outside of [their] main biographical article[s]". Locke contended that the shooter was the subject of the article on the shooting, and that the article was, for purposes of those rules, the "main biographical article" on the shooter, since no other biographical article existed. I said that I disagreed with that reading, and I pointed out that "subject" is singular, and if everyone who got a section in that article was considered a "subject," the article would have dozens—the perpetrator, victims, and possibly even the "react[ors]". In response, Locke accused me of "actively suggesting we shouldn't cover the perpetrator"—when I pointed out the absurdity of that interpretation (and also noted that I had added more info to the perpetrator section than he had), he stuck to it. He added, "Words have meaning, and they don't mean what you seem to think they do." I suggested that he was assuming bad faith, and I said we should take a break from interacting each other.

Shortly after I made that suggestion, Locke Cole decided to chime in on a completely unrelated discussion I was having with another user. I had made a table of editors participating in a survey, endeavoring to show that there was a relative consensus that the shooter should principally be referred to as Aiden Hale. As of now, the table shows that 19 editors have supported principally referring to the shooter as Aiden, and only 4 editors have not. In a small-text footnote, I also pointed out that one of those four had been banned in relation to their conduct on the page, including alleged violations of WP:GENSEX. Another user suggested that pointing this out was WP:GRAVEDANCING. I responded, saying that was certainly not my intention, and endeavored to explain why I had included the note. Locke Cole then jumped in, escalating the first user's complaint by saying I was violating WP:NPA. I attempted to answer the accusation he posed, but I also asked that he not hound me across sections. In response, Locke Cole said, "Do you think you can just break rules as long as you announce you don't want anyone to interact with you that might call you out on them?" This was, of course, another absurd allegation—a different editor had raised the concern about the footnote, and I was in conversation with that editor.

I had no plans on chipping in on this section until Locke Cole made clear that he'd be unwilling to take break from interacting with me (as I repeatedly requested). But, given that my repeated requests were mocked or ignored, I think detailing them here is now warranted. I've found that Locke Cole consistently assumes bad faith and struggles to police his tone—he exaggerates editor's views into the absurd and turns them into caricatures. I'd agree that Tekrmn has made exaggerated aspersions against Locke Cole (including the "vandali[sm]" remark), but Locke Cole has done the same. I find it telling that, above, when Sideswipe9th pointed out that Locke Cole was being misleading, Locke Cole defended his characterization by saying he was being "[n]o more misleading than" Tekrmn. Using that same logic, Tekrmn has not exaggerated or cast aspersions to any greater degree than Locke Cole, and thus I don't think any sanction is warranted.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimer, am involved with the article, as are many of the editors above. It is quite stark with regard to four different editors so far (InedibleHulk, NewImpartial, Tekrmn, Locke Cole), the battleground lines have been drawn for the shooting and at MOS:GENDERID, and generally the support/oppose from those involved has matched the ideological ‘ally’ / ‘opponent’ theme. Now, moving on to this case. The strongest evidence was on Tekrmn's accusing good faith editors of vandalism, and that deserves a warning. I think we can let the others go because Tekrmn is relatively new. As for the evidence JFD brought against Locke Cole, I think the first incident is stronger than the second, but both are weaker than the evidence against Tekrmn. I would trout Locke Cole for sticking to the interpretation of the first incident despite being shown evidence against it. For the second incident, Locke Cole has already been involved in that wider discussion, and also extensively involved with the page, and thus he was continuing participation.  starship .paint  (exalt) 00:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editor here- This thread is a bit of a slog given the inconsequentiality of so many of the accusations but from what I can tell, Tekrmn does need to be more careful about calling editors vandals and should probably be warned about it, especially as across this thread I only found one instance of them admitting or acknowledging that something they did wasn't approrpriate. I don't think many people are going to argue against that so I won't dwell on it. But I do think Locke Cole does deserve a bit more scrutiny than I'm seeing here.
 * LC accused Tekrmn of repeatedly misrepresenting sources and policy (which for it to be reportable as chronic intractable behavior, would have to be deliberately). rightly asked for diffs on this and LC provided some unconvincing diffs. When challenged that these diffs aren't substantial apart from showing Tekrmn does need to use the term vandal/vandalize more carefully, LC essentially threw up their hands, said  was missing the forest burning down for the trees, said we should just skip to declaring Tekrmn NOTHERE, and very blatantly accusing Sideswipe9th of defending Tekrmn just because they're an ally. For all the nobody that asked for my count, that's a hat trick of gross exaggeration, call to skip due process, and aspersions against another editor all in one comment.
 * LC accused Tekrmn of WP:GRAVEDANCING because they responded to a 6-day-old post on the same talk page of the greater discussion this AN/I is about that happened to be penned by a now-blocked user. If LC checks to see if the user they are replying to is blocked before every one of their replies then that is commendable but that is not a standard we hold users to here. When pointed out that this was a silly claim, LC quite snarkily accused FD of ignorance, dusted their hands of the matter, and heavily implied that they want to get rid of Tekrmn (diff).
 * When Sideswipe9th pointed out that LC was reposting diffs from their opening post of this thread and characterising them as some more examples, LC admitted and excused this misleading because Tekrmn was calling people vandals.
 * pointed out some great examples of pages where LC seriously struggles with tone and civility. Instead of accepting they could work on their tone, LC replied to with a very snarky comment. Despite Soni explicitly stating they were calling for a sanity check and not a boomerang, LC played the martyr by announcing that someone had made, and then shortly after retracted, a Boomerang nomination, and said that all this examination of LC's behavior was derailing the discussion and would everyone please focus on Tekrmn's accusations of vandalism and ignore LC's accusations of bad faith. Ironically, this displays a lack of understanding of WP:BOOMERANG.
 * I can't be the only one that finds a lot of LC's comments here and on talk pages to be inflammatory and provocative, and I know I'm not the only one that finds them to be frequently uncivil. Just in this thread alone they've thrown multiple aspersions at other editors here. I'm going to be bold and table the possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG here. Even if it's a temporary partial-block, I think Locke Cole needs to take a step back from some of their more heated areas of interest and reflect on what kind of atmosphere they bring to discussions in the way they treat other editors. and since accusations of ally-protecting and dogpiling are being thrown around, I suppose I have to disclose that I've never worked with anyone here involved here, I recognize the usernames Schazjmd and Sideswipe9th, and I vaguely recall respecting Formaldude and LilianaUwU, so maybe I'm an unreliable narrator. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to address the fact that I've only acknowledged in one comment that my behavior was inappropriate-
 * I have only started to learn about these guidelines and rules through this noticeboard post, and while I did read them I have not been on wikipedia long enough or in the right places to see what it looks like when they are actually being followed. nobody tried to talk to me about these guidelines or commented on any of my behavior outside of this noticeboard, except in regards to the edit warring which occurred after the AN/EW was already underway. I was under the impression that LC was misusing all of the cited guidelines and policies in this post, but I now recognize that accusing someone of vandalism could be considered casting aspersions and possibly a personal attack and that regardless of the specific guidelines it is not appropriate to do that or to question someone's involvement on an article in the talk page. I also now recognize that I have, in many places, not used an appropriate tone. as I said in my earlier comment, the only real experience I have on wikipedia has been on a talk page that is very contentious, and that colored my perception of what was appropriate. now that I know my behavior wasn't appropriate I will change it.
 * I do not think it is worth addressing the other claims, as they have either already been addressed in the AN/EW or they are, as I understand them, pretty baseless. if anyone feels differently or has further insight I am always open to constructive criticism.
 * I was genuinely very excited to become more involved in wikipedia, and I would have loved to find the places on wikipedia that consist of respectful discussions, but someone trying to get me permanently banned for shits and giggles, especially after a lot of upsetting discussions on the 2023 covenant shooting page, has ruined that for me. I really don't have any desire to continue to edit in any serious way, at least for the time being. I'm not that invested in the outcome of this and I have many much more important things to worry about, so I have not put that much effort into this discussion. Tekrmn (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm coming around to the idea that, at the very least, LC needs a formal CTOP warning, if not strong sanctions.
 * In, implied that another editor concluded neutrality is now optional if we don't want to offend people when they changed an erroneously placed NPOV content tag to a content tag, after a somewhat lengthy discussion on whether the NPOV tag was appropriate. While there was no consensus on what should replace it, if anything, there was a consensus that the NPOV tag was inappropriate. When pointed out , LC  with accusations of bad-faith wikilawyering, and WP:IDHT behaviour.
 * At this point, I find myself wondering if there are any editors in that discussion that LC won't attack in some way? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify that I didn't intend to describe the discussion as having reached a consensus—I think I actually said that I thought the user's change was a little premature. Separately, as described above, Locke Cole and I had a bit of a history—I took a week-long break of interacting with him. But I did object to the "neutrality" comment, pointed out that the user's edit could absolutely have been done in good faith, and suggested that the fact that it had been a week since the replacement was made complicated what to do with the discussion. (I'm not sure everyone noticed that the replacement was made; I had pointed it out a minute before LC's comment.) In response, LC made the bad-faith wikilawyering and WP:IDHT accusation. It is genuinely frustrating how quick LC's bad-faith trigger finger is. I don't think his views are inherently unreasonable, and he argues them well; I just think that, once he articulates those arguments, he can too easily jump to seeing opposition as ignorant or bad-faith obstinacy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * re:Ss9 - There was no closure of that discussion that indicated that there was a consensus. It is also disputed that the tag was erroneously placed. Changing the tag without a closure could certainly have been seen in a bad light.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As WP:CLOSE states, not every discussion needs closure for there to be a consensus. While there is no consensus on what tag should have replaced the NPOV tag, there was a rough consensus that the NPOV tag was not the correct one to place for the issue at hand. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, so you’ve changed your claim from “the consensus” to now “rough consensus”. However, the whole purpose of the discussion was so that a clear consensus can be developed from this thread, as the opening statement stated. Thus, by the metrics set by the opening statement, the discussion was not over. Plus, you participated in that discussion, so this is a self-declaration of victory. I now realise that FormalDude was the first person to vote in that discussion. Given that FD unilaterally took action to change the tag despite obviously being aware of the discussion, that very well explains LC's reaction.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really commenting on the propriety of the tag replacement, but doesn't WP:AGF exist precisely to cover actions that could be seen in a bad light? Even if it was a premature or uncalled-for replacement of a disputed tag, "this editor must have concluded that neutrality is optional" is about as bad-faith a light as you could see the action through. And, frankly, while I understand LC has been frustrated with me before, and that might be a mitigating circumstance for any comment he makes to me, I'd also say that suggesting I was "wiklawyering" in "bad-faith" and displaying "classic WP:IDHT" wasn't close to proportionate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * JFD - read it again, LC did not say you were acting in bad faith. Now that I read LC's comment, I see he does have a point in the first sentence. You didn’t want to interact with him, you’ve come here to complain about it, yet you did go and interact with him again. This could certainly be frustrating.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I requested a wikibreak from each other, which LC made explicitly clear he wouldn't honor. I kept to that break for a week, and then I decided I was ready to converse with him. 2. That said, you're right—he didn't use the words bad-faith! Just that I was displaying "classic WP:IDHT" and "wikilawyering" ... and he previously asked me, "Do you think you can just break rules as long as you announce you don't want anyone to interact with you that might call you out on them?" ... which is inherently an accusation of bad faith.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IDHT and wikilawyering and not necessarily bad faith activities. Could be done by the misguided. Now, that previous comment - yes, but this comment - no, not on you, at least.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That whole section began because @Izno asked for a clear and obvious consensus before changing or removing the NPOV tag. @FormalDude was trying to derail the very simple request (simply linking to the RFC that they started that I was ceding would hopefully resolve the issue) by demanding the NPOV tag be removed/replaced. The discussion about the NPOV tag was far from clear and obvious. "Rough consensus" isn't even what I'd describe that as, especially while the RFC was still ongoing... changing the tag like that is WP:TE, pure and simple. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuinely—and obviously this advice is grain-of-salt territory—I think both you and others working with you would have a much better time if you avoided speculation about bad-faith motives and invoking pages like WP:DE and WP:TE. There are times that I've strongly disagreed with you, and there are certainly times I've felt you were being a bit evasive as to a certain point, but, as I said above, I don't think your points are ever inherently unreasonable. Still, if there's one thing this thread makes clear, it's that more than few editors think your tone escalates far too quickly. I realize talk pages can be contentious, and sometimes people make mistakes in the heat of the moment or just feel compelled to vent. But if you avoided accusations of bad-faith motives or the kind of rhetorical flair discussed here, I genuinely think your points would be stronger.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We're here because I volunteer my time to try to contribute productively to an encyclopedia: I don't volunteer my time to be called a vandal repeatedly, to have editors question whether I'm trying to cause harm to transgender people, or to in other ways engage in appeals to emotion at the expense of my personal character (because apparently trying to follow our sources makes me a "bad person"). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I understand talk pages can be contentious, and sometimes frustration that builds up in one portion of a conversation can spill into others. But let's be clear: I have not called you a vandal, suggested that you're trying to cause harm to transgender people, or ever said you were a "bad person".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * LC, I think the other editors do have some point. Just like you don’t like to be called a vandal, similarly, I’m sure they don’t enjoy having their faith questioned. They did bring up a bit more evidence than what was originally presented, so since I recommended a warning for Tek, I’d also recommend a warning for LC for reacting a bit too strongly. Neither needs to be topic banned, and what everyone should really do is treat this a bit less of a battleground.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ^ I absolutely agree that no one needs to be topic banned. When I originally posted, my only point was that Tkrmn's comments should be considered in the context of the ton of the talk page, a tone that, I think, some of LC's accusations contributed to. I jumped in to clarify a point once I was brought up by Sideswipe9th. Originally, I said I didn't think any action needed to be taken, and I'm not totally convinced anything needs to be done now, but I do think a warning to both parties might be justified.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral inflation of importance: Houston–London avant-garde band Red Krayola


Aradicus77 and IPs from the general area of Manchester, Leeds and Blackpool in the UK have been greatly expanding articles related to the Texas band Red Krayola which decamped to London in the late 1970s. By itself, this expansion action is admirable, but Aradicus77 and IPs have been pushing too far, puffing up the importance of the band to make them seem more central and influential. I keep removing the excesses, but Aradicus77 and IPs have been edit-warring to return over-large quotes and tons of trivia. Aradicus77 appears to be intent on changing the band from being semi-obscure with low sales, to critically important to the development of noise rock. I'm seeing WP:NOTHERE behavior.

Aradicus77 first edited on September 20, 2021, adding a trivial fact to The Parable of Arable Land to bring a famous name, Jimi Hendrix, into the article. The cited source even describes the fact as "superficial" and insignificant. This edit set the tone.

Aradicus77 inserted the Red Krayola band into the noise rock article, which I reverted because of poor sourcing. Aradicus77 restored this material and more. Aradicus77 also pushed Red Krayola into the goth rock article, though they are not mentioned at all in any source writing specifically about goth rock.

Aradicus copied text from a cited source directly into the Red Krayola article back in June 2022, and the material was revdeled. The very next day Aradicus77 returned some too-close paraphrasing to the article. Aradicus77 and the IPs have violated WP:MULTIPLE by edit-warring disputed material back in to the Red Krayola article. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (NAC) Comment. Very clear cut case of a concerted effort to promote a small band. Whilst the band may pass GNG (barely, if this article were sent to AfD a delete would not be surprising) the egregious and promotional editing based on my observation is highly reminiscent of the hundreds of MySpace bands in the early 2000s that had pages (past tense as I have seen many PRODed). I would suggest a chance for the registered user to explain themselves first. More than suggest, really, its imperative before they get page-blocked. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dude, why are you listing stuff from 2021, in 2021 I wasn't too knowledgeable on how to edit on wikipedia, since then I have learnt what is allowed and what isn't, I haven't added anything to goth rock or whatever genres, because that would be original research, now I understand that critics have to assess these bands in that regard for them to be added as precursors on genre pages, I'm not being malicious, your suspicions are baseless. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't put them as being critically important to the development of noise rock? All I did was add what Mark Deming said, I removed the image I added. There's no info on Red Krayola on the noise rock page besides one sentence, I have no relation to the Krayola at all. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship
The article is currently protected by User:El C for "Edit warring / content dispute: maybe launch an WP:RFC to conclusively decide...? Just sayin'!" , with no clear indication that a discussion about the dispute is taking place at the talk page. Yes, it's true that whole situation in the article has become a mess with edit wars and such, but I don't agree with a sudden increase in full protection without a clear explanation why it is necessary. I have no prejudice against El C and others involved in the dispute. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that the page is fully protected because several editors kept edit-warring after the page was semiprotected for the same reason. Generally speaking, when multiple editors are edit-warring, protection is preferred over blocking everyone involved, though that is also an option. The discussion of the dispute seems to be at Talk:SpaceX Starship, and it looks to be a long way from resolved. El C's action seems perfectly reasonable and I would not reverse it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I am not "involved in the dispute," as the OP seems to claim. The page was protected in response to this protection request, one of several dozens I've attended to yesterday. El_C 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely onboard with the full protection. It's not against Wikipedia principles to stop edit warring; it's not against Wikipedia principles to reach a consensus in a centralized discussion; it's not against Wikipedia principles to stop a page from becoming a battleground over differences in point of view, and it wouldn't stay that way forever if people just went and did a formal RFC. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So... Redacted II has 78 edits as of my making this comment. Fnlayson, Osunpokeh, and Jadebenn are extended-confirmed. I don't think full protection was necessary. —Alalch E. 17:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) 13:42, 20 April -- Jrcraft Yt updates the ibx adding failure
 * 2) 16:33, 20 April -- 81.34.6.138 changes failure to partial failure
 * 3) 17:08, 20 April -- CactiStaccingCrane reverts back to failure
 * 4) 19:27, 20 April -- Full Shunyata adds reference for failure
 * 5) 23:40, 20 April -- 120.18.150.63 reverts addition of reference while not contesting that it was a failure
 * 6) 23:48, 20 April -- Fyunck(click) reverts the revert
 * 7) 03:57, 21 April -- Full Shunyata changes the reference to the one that more explicitly supports the ibx claim
 * 8) 15:11, 21 April -- 2a02:2f04:d60c:d700:d90a:f074:f609:f587 changes failure to success
 * 9) 15:20, 21 April -- That Coptic Guy reverts
 * 10) 23:40, 21 April -- Flat lime changes failure to success
 * 11) 23:44, 21 April -- Materialscientist rolls back
 * 12) 14:56, 22 April -- Redacted II changes failure to partial failure, removing the reference
 * 13) 15:16, 22 April -- Fnlayson reverts (failure)
 * 14) 16:17, 22 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
 * 15) 16:23, 22 April -- Fnlayson reverts (failure)
 * 16) 16:38, 22 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
 * 17) 16:44, 22 April -- Redacted II adds a CNN ref ("SpaceX Starship’s explosion is not the failure it appears to be, experts say") to support the partial failure claim (Fnlayson then edits elsewhere in the article)
 * 18) 05:39, 24 April -- Osunpokeh changes partial failure to failure, removing the aforementioned CNN reference (followed by the nth bout of unconstructive editing / vandalism since 20 April, not specifically related to the infobox)
 * 19) 18:44, 24 April -- Widr adds semi-protection
 * 20) 17:05, 24 April -- Redacted II changes failure to partial failure
 * 21) 17:07, 24 April -- Redacted II reads the removed CNN reference, completing the revert
 * 22) 18:20, 24 April -- GajusPieknus reverts Redacted II, changing back from partial failure to failure (from this point onward this revertable content becomes the easily identifiable 293 byte change)
 * 23) 18:27, 24 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
 * 24) 22:31, 24 April -- Jadebenn reverts (failure)
 * 25) 23:39, 24 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure)
 * 26) 23:46, 24 April -- Jadebenn reverts (failure)
 * 27) 23:52, 24 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure), says Jadebenn is "ignoring the result of the Talk Page"
 * 28) 00:10, 25 April -- Sub31k reverts (failure), says "there does not exist a "result of the talk page""
 * 29) 00:36, 25 April -- Redacted II reverts (partial failure), says "Given that the status quo is "Partial reuse", it should remain until a new consensus is reached."
 * 30) 01:26, 25 April -- Sub31k reverts (failure), says "please see talk page, there are users proposing a compromise resolution"
 * 31) 03:13, 25 April -- Fyunck(click) tags the 'failed' claim as dubious (a few hours later El C adds full protection)
 * There's no RfC and there hasn't been an RfC yet because editors are working out how to make the best incremental step from stating that the launch was a failure to stating that the test launch was a partial success. This is not a "dispute" of such kind that someone needs to test their ready-to-go proposal in an RfC—it's a brainstorming process (but the concrete result seems to be close), and when it's figured out it won't even be contentious, so that it would require an RfC. During this, one new editor has not been completely getting it, and has been enforcing an essentially irrelevant alternative that they believed corresponds to the general drift of the discussion. But the editor eventually got it, and was constructive on the talk page in the final hours.—Alalch E. 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not intuitive for an uninvolved reviewer to parse that from the edit history, so the protection request did look sound. It's possible that doesn't even know that WP:EW is a thing since their talk page has no warnings or notices that inform them of it (i.e. uw-3rr, etc.). Anyway, I'll downgrade to WP:ECP for the duration. El_C 08:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @El C. My 2 cents: I think the protection was helpful to "cool things down" and guide editors towards discussion rather than WP:EW. The duration was maybe a bit long (even a few hours would have saved as a helpful "truce") and an explanation in the talk page would have helped to make the reasoning clearer. I arrived at the discussion after the protection and the reason behind it wasn't immediately clear and might have "alarmed" some editors. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * endorse full protection per WaltClipper, and I see no indication that a shorter duration would have been effective.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan: disruptive editing, vandalism, accusations of NPOV, refusal to discuss his edits or accusations against me on talk-pages
@WikiCleanerMan has made a number of edits in which he has added or re-added unsourced material which I have deleted. He has also often accused me of NPOV-violations in his edit-summaries. '''In nearly every case I have attempted to discuss his additions and reversions on the talk-page of the article in question. In every case, he deleted the topic from the talk-page, without responding to me. '''I tried bringing it up with him on his talk-page, twice. He deleted those, too. Now he is trying to build-up an SPI investigation on me. Time will tell if he will respond to me there, but so far, he has never engaged me directly, not even once, and has deleted any evidence of my attempting to reach him.

The following is a pretty representative example of WikiCleanerMan's nonsensical style of editing:

"Know Nothings are occasionally referred to as an antisemitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and their religious bigotry; however, the movement was openly hostile towards Jews because its members and supporters believed that Jews did not allow "their religious feelings to interfere with their political views." The Know Nothing Party, prioritizing a zealous disdain for Irish Catholic immigrants, reportedly "had nothing to say about Jews", according to historian Hasia Diner. In New York, the virulently anti-Catholic Know Nothings supported a Jewish candidate for governor."

Not only is this wrong in the sense that it's not backed-up by the sources, but it's internally incoherent. He seems to be saying that the movement was openly hostile towards Jews because they had nothing to say about Jews, and supported a Jewish candidate for governor.

I'm not sure whether I'd consider that a POV-edit, because I can't even really understand what thought he could possibly be trying to convey, if any. Would this edit be closer to vandalism? It cannot be considered a simple typo, because the previous revision was also by him; he went out of his way to remove the word "not"; even without having read the sources, as he seems not to have, (they don't back up his interpretation, and are in fact totally contrary to it) it should be clear to anyone who is basically literate that this causes the entire sentence to become self-contradictory and therefore nonsensical.

Aside from on his own talk-page, here are some other examples of his attempts to avoid defending his edits:

On the Samuel Bierfield talk-page.

And on the Third-Party System page.

'''So far, there has never been an occasion in which he has responded to my attempts to talk with him. '''The only topics I have made involving his edits that he has not attempted to delete regarding him so far have been this one, and the one on my SPI investigation page, and we'll see how long that lasts. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @WikiCleanerMan, I see you've seen and removed the notification of this discussion at your user talk, along with advice that you should really show up here. That advice was good, communication is required.
 * I'd especially like an explanation for your two removals of another editor's questions on article talk pages. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I recommend an admin to close this thread because for the simple reason that somehow I'm building a case against him when another user has started the case and what I said at the SPI case page is supported by the evidence of sockpupptery. This user has been battlegrouding with actual NPOV violation edits. Why would he defend an IP edit on the Third-party system article when it's clearly his way of of trying to avoid taking accountability for his behavior and subverting editing policy. I can remove any message on my talk page by any user which does not violate any policy. So I don't have to talk to a user on my talk page if I don't want to. However, as frivolous as this report is, this constant back and forth by HS is clearly meant to cause chaos than to build any substantive material of improving article subjects on controversial topics. When I was reverted by another editor on the Know Nothing article, I didn't revert the editor because of his clear explanation in the edit summary. But when a user who has been accused of sockpupttery and where I have provided of his disruptive IP edits with similar editing patterns, it's clear this report is not meant to be taken seriously. As for talk pages, if he can't provide evidence to support his edits and just attack editors, it's meant to be taken with a grain of salt. But I will respond on talk pages to help keep the peace next time. But we should ask ourselves, should Beyond My Ken be accused of doing the same thing of reversions on the same articles and explaining of his edits in the edit summary or the fact that Ken was the one who opened the SPI case against HS and "building evidence" due to the same disruptive patterns of editing behavior, should that be subject to an ANI report? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also Nythar had opened an thread on here about the editing patterns of this user not long ago and has commented on the SPI page and Hs has not provided evidence he didn't or hasn't socked. Nythar can be accused of "building a case" by expressing concerns as if the case against him somehow violated policy of editing which it hasn't. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * " As for talk pages, if he can't provide evidence to support his edits and just attack editors, it's meant to be taken with a grain of salt. "
 * . . .because you've been deleting my attempts to do so from the talk-pages, which is why you're here.
 * I'm not really sure how I could go about proving to you that I'm not a sockmaster, but even if I were one, it's not really relevant, because you were already deleting my talk-page topics and edit-warring with me before you ever claimed that I was a sockmaster. This seems to be a post hoc rationalization for your behavior.
 * Again, as I have said many, many times, I would be willing to discuss your accusations that my edits are POV. Obviously, from my perspective, it is your edits that are POV. You often seem to take an ideological or racial line that is absent from the source, or contrary to it. I don't disagree that you have the right to remove whatever you want from your talk-page, but you also remove content from article talk-pages, too, so I don't really see a way to hold you accountable for your edits other than posting here.
 * You say that you didn't edit-war with other editors who disagreed with your interpretations on Know-Nothings because they left clear explanations in their edit-summaries, but the content of my edit-summaries wasn't substantially different.
 * "I recommend an admin to close this thread because for the simple reason that somehow I'm building a case against him when another user has started the case and what I said at the SPI case page is supported by the evidence of sockpupptery" I'm not sure what any of that sentence means.
 * As for the idea that it is unfair to single you out for criticism, and that, by my logic, I should also include in this post the other editors that you mentioned, all I can say is that, while I may have my issues with those editors, you are the only one of them who has declined every attempt I have otherwise made to discuss your edits with you. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Harry Sibelius Please stop messing with font size and bolding. You're actually making it harder to read and therefore less likely anyone will read it.
 * @WikiCleanerMan, you can absolutely remove comments from your own user talk. But you can't remove other people's questions from article talk, and you can't refuse to communicate about article edits you're disputing. (Re: the accusation about you building an SPI -- honestly my attention just skipped over that; of course you can do that.) Valereee (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that his being on the other side of the SPI itself can be considered here as some sort of infraction, and I know here isn't the place to defend myself, but it's relevant to mention when making a complaint about Wikicleanerman that he's involved in a complaint against me. It's also relevant because he has used the allegation that I am a sockmaster as justification to revert my edits. Considering the fact that I've never been found to be a sockmaster, and that he was behaving basically the same way before he had ever accused me of being a sockmaster, I see it as a post hoc rationalization for his behavior, and the accusations as retributive in nature. Furthermore, when he has reverted edits of mine with the excuse that I'm a sockmaster, he has done so on articles that have not even been edited by any of the alleged sock accounts anyway. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the article I was referring to, in which he reverted me for allegedly using socks (even though the only edits to that page in 2023 have been his and mine, meaning my sockpuppet would have to be WikiCleanerMan himself.) Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Valereee, you can now see that HS is bludgeoning by making false assertions and this was never meant to be serious from the start. If you're admin just close this. HS' edit behavior with the IP's is evident on the SPI report page. You can see that this just to battle ground than to actually prove anything. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You were the one who made the assertion that my socks were editing Samuel Bierfield, not me. And the only other editor editing Samuel Bierfield is you. So, if you are telling the truth, the sock would have to be you. If you're not telling the truth, then you're lying. You've caught yourself in a Catch 22. I obviously don't think that you're my sockpuppet, so the only other possibility would have to be that you are lying. Harry Sibelius (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that I have blocked Harry Sibelius for reasons explained on their talkpage and (gently) warned WikiCleanerMan for their role in the battleground atmosphere. I haven't taken a look at the latter's article-space editing and therefore my warning should not preclude from further action being taken by any admin. Pinging as a heads-up. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding unsourced content on Jerry Springer (talk show)
An IP recently added unsourced content to the article 1 After I reverted them for it 2 they still keep reinstating it and seem hell bent on adding it 3 4 5 without providing a source for it.

What makes it worse is that there are two citations at the end of the sentence so by adding this text it implies the content is found in those sources, which it is not. So this is completely inappropriate. --2607:FEA8:101E:A026:B596:996B:A7D4:46EA (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've issued a warning for adding unsourced material, let me know if it persists. Excuse me while I take a shower after having to deal with anything related to Jerry Springer. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading the line sperm theft and that we have an article on the concept? (runs for a scalding shower 😫)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And now because Springer has died (the timing of this thread is eerie) we have the usual 'it no longer exists' vandalism, even though we have the concept of videotape and hard drives allowing it to still be distributed; thankfully protection has not been needed so far.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User continually moving articles without prior discussion
has, over the past several months, been conducting numerous page moves on various war-related articles, never with prior consensus and rarely with discussion. A look at their logs shows just how many they've conducted, and their talk page is littered with warnings and requests to not do so without prior discussion. They appear to be motivated by PoV beliefs on the use of the word "dignity" in some of these articles. In particular, after a failed move request at Revolution of Dignity they started another discussion immediately afterwards, saying As the Syrian and Yemeni revolutions now have “Dignity” in their titles - the problem is that TankDude2000 was the one who moved both of those articles (without any discussion on their talk pages) in order to support a move of Revolution of Dignity. Aside from being outright disruptive I also find it to be a case of gaming the system.

I left several warnings on their talk page afterward. Despite this, they continued moving articles without discussion, as can be seen by the log, which led to also leaving a final warning on their talk page. Nonetheless, they have continued moving articles today, again without consensus. One of the moves was again moving the Syrian revolution article for a second time (the first being mentioned above), despite being warned for move-warring. At this stage I count nine different comments which ask this user not to keep moving articles, the last one from Super Dromaeosaurus being a final warning. I do not see them stopping at all, so I'm bringing this here. — Czello (music) 20:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly support sanctioning. TankDude2000 more than clearly lacks WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely, an indefinite block. TankDude2000's comments here show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Czello has shown that the issues with this user are not restricted to page moving, so a t-ban will not work. Further, as the cherry on top, some random IP came here and tried to delete the thread. This was either a friend of TankDude2000 (WP:MEATPUPPET) or TankDude2000 themselves. This user is not going to be useful for the project. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In lieu of moving the article itself, TankDude2000 is now piping links in order to display their preferred article name. This is after they commented above. — Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support sanctioning - I had reverted such a move at Peruvian protests (2022–present), which was a very high visibility article as it was linked on the main page at the time. TankDude has been warned numerous times over the past few months about their behavior and clearly has not heeded the warnings.  I support sanctions to prevent any further disruption. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t sanction - Please, don’t sanction me, I’m a new user! I just have problems. I just wanted to be nice. I didn’t do these edits to threaten you or to upset you. Plus, you are being very mean with me. I guess Wikipedia’s admins have become too authoritarian. And if you’ll sanction me for saying this, then you will make yourselves look bad, just like some dictators.
 * TankDude2000 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Need I say more? - ZLEA  T \ C 03:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an anarchy; we have policies and guidelines all editors must follow. Since it seems that your "problems" include you either being incapable of or unwilling to follow these rules, take instruction or heed warnings, you seem to be a poor fit for Wikipedia. Upon examining your record, I likewise support a t-ban against page moves at the very least.  I see on your talk page that you complain that Wikipedia is "too strict," and that you want to know if there's a "fun version" out there.  I wish you luck in finding one.   Ravenswing      03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting they have been alerted that some edits fall under WP:CTOPICS before this tendentious editing, perhaps a topic ban might be appropriate there. This doesn't cover all their edits, but it seems to be the core area of issue. CMD (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when is piping links illegal? TankDude2000 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that it's very clear what you want the Revolution of Dignity article to be named, but as you're unable to get consensus to do so you're doing it through other means. The name you chose doesn't make sense in the context of the article as it's superfluous, and over-complicates the linking. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, the dignified revolutions of Ukraine, Syria and Yemen should be equal. TankDude2000 (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion, one which you have been told numerous times requires consensus. You have not attempted to seek consensus for these changes, instead you're edit warring and making disruptive page moves despite many editors asking you to stop. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that this thread was just blanked by IP, who has made no other edits, only 3 minutes after TankDude2000 replied. I'm inclined to believe that this is TankDude2000 logged out. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP and put a final warning at User talk:TankDude2000. Please let me know about any problems that arise after the time of this post. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the user has had plenty of warnings. I've indeffed them for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, I’ll surrender! TankDude2000 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest an indef NOTHERE block, I get the feeling that we're being trolled. RegentsPark (comment) 15:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Dêrsimî62's chronic problem of not providing edit summaries
Dêrsimî62 does not provide an edit summary for the vast majority of their edits. A big portion of these unexplained edits are pretty major, where Dêrsimî62 has added or removed hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes. Many are on articles involving controversial topics, so it gets difficult for any interested editor to easily assess what they changed. They have been warned for this around two weeks ago. I have also warned them shortly after the first but removed my warning, because they hadn't edited after the first warning, though I emphasized on the initial warning then. These warnings did not help. Dêrsimî62's editing pattern has not significantly changed and poses a great obstacle against cooperating with them. Aintabli (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . According to Help: Edit summary, . "Strongly encourages" does not mean that edit summaries are required. You can continue encouraging the editor to use edit summaries, but administrators cannot force the editor to comply. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I kind of expected that per WP:FIES, but I hope that the creation of this thread itself will be a more effective encouragement than warning the user over and over again with the same template. Aintabli (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There is still an SPI up for Dêrsimî62, if someone's interested (Sockpuppet investigations/Araxes TheThief). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging @Yuhnuser62 here as well, since they are similarly not providing any edit summaries. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack
Hi, sorry to bring this triffling stuff to you, but an editor has started making personal attacks, I've asked them to stop. I've tried to keep it friendly, but they are not interested, so sadly I'm here asking for them to be warned and to have the personal attack struck through and/or removed. diff here of most blatant personal attack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tambor_de_Tocino&diff=prev&oldid=1151919074 Thanks in advance. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't a personal attack, which is defined at WP:WIAPA. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, you're accusing me of vandalism. I've been contributing in good faith. You are being antagonistic towards me for no good reason. I'm not going to comment any further, I'm sure the admins will be fair. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not being antagonistic, I'm reverting vandalism. Yes, disrupting articles to make a point is vandalism. Observing that it is such is not a personal attack. The examples given in the actual policy, linked above, are far, far, far more extreme than that. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What, I'm not trying to make any points? I don't even know what you are on about. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, there was a general agreement to restore the status quo at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Far-right_politics in the "Lead image removal" discussion...there's an ongoing discussion and has been repeatedly restoring his preferred version, against the developing consensus. Several of the other editors agreed to restore the status quo and VQuakr is ignoring this fact, making personal attacks and being generally disruptive. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't "agree to restore the status quo". That's a WP:POINTy removal that you admit you don't even agree with. I don't think this is WP:BOOMERANG material, but you need to knock off the antics and wikilawyering. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What, you're just sledging me, why are you being so uncivil and unreasonable?


 * Now VQuakr is removing my comments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFar-right_politics&diff=1151923460&oldid=1151922339 This is becoming very unpleasant. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a WP:AOHA vio immediately followed by a link to your own WP:TPG vio above. Mate, you need to take a breath and focus on content on the article talk page. Not running to admin boards and shooting yourself in the foot, and not wiping content from articles. Nobody has it in for you, the disruption just needs to stop. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * what disruption? I've been editing in good faith and discussing in a civil manner. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any disruption from Tambor de Tocino, and VQuakr needs to read WP:VANDALISM again, as TdT's edits cannot be in any way construed to be "vandalism".I am seeing a general informal consensus on Talk:Far-right politics to remove the lede image until there is a formal consensus for which one of two candidates is preferred - or some other image. No image is the WP:STATUSQUO state of the article, since a lede image was added only recently. I say this as someone who favored both images at one time or another, and who does not favor the article having no lede image - but that's the most recent status quo which TdT's edits have acted to restore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BMK...I felt like the whole discussion was going really well, it was reasonable and collegial, friendly even - despite disagreements - that we were all working well together towards some kind of consensus in a civil manner, then suddenly this one editor started attacking me personally and making all kinds of aspersions, edit warring etc...I was quite shocked to be honest, the hostility went from zero to a hundred in seconds, and I can see no reason for this discussion to get so heated. I did try to calm the conversation down, to no avail. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did notice a bit of nastiness earlier in the discussion and this too was coming from VQuakr, accusing another editor of gaming the status quo - I'm not sure if that was directed at me or another editor, but it was uncivil. Perhaps they are too invested in this subject. I mean it's only a photo, no need for anyone to be attacking other editors like this. It's certainly not civil and it's unpleasant to be subjected to aggression and incivility like this. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm opposed to the status quo also, but I honestly thought we agreed to restore it until the discussion had reached a consensus (I made a mistake at one point as to which version was the status quo, perhaps that is what has made VQuakr decide I'm a vandal and everything else he's accused me of, I dunno?). Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're just throwing out vague WP:ASPERSIONS now? Stuff like this and this needs to stop. No one has "attacked" you. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, perhaps I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing any personal attacks in either of those diffs. If an editor thinks another editor's comment is uncivil, saying that it's uncivil is not a personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * agreed, those diffs weren't links to personal attacks and I don't believe I've described them as such. VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I'm confused. What did you intend for them to illustrate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First one, poor use of article talk page derailing an attempt to move on and refocus on content. Second one, vague handwave at "nastiness" with no backup. I don't think either of these are actionable, but I would prefer the pattern of needling to stop. VQuakr (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, aspersions? Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Fine I'm a vandal and all that, you got me. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Go get the noose and string me up. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * VQuakr, labeling a Tambor de Tocino's edits as "vandalism" without evidence to back it up is in fact a personal attack, or at the very least an aspersion. Please review WP:NOTVANDALISM. El_C 08:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, pointy removal is disruptive not vandalism, thank you for the reminder. VQuakr (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, you need to stop digging. El_C 08:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Heard. VQuakr (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I contest that personal attack too, I've been contributing in good faith in a civil manner. I now want some kind of sanction a this point, this is just bullying. I've even tried to make peace, and I'm still being attacked for no good reason.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a personal attack, and you need to dial it down, too. Comments like Go get the noose and string me up are too much. El_C 08:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there’s no need. After being called a vandal, a disruptive editor and accused of disrupting the project to make a point, I’ve had quite enough being subjected to completely unfounded personal attacks and accusations made against me for absolutely no reason what-so-ever. VQuakr has succeeded in chasing me off Wikipedia, which I’m sure was his intent. Ive got better things to do than be subjected to this shit. This is why the project can’t attract and retain editors. What a joke. 118.210.175.206 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Chasing some people off is sad, but sometimes it needs to be done. And, yup, practically everyone can return to editing, but they need to address their own faults, which led to being chased off in the first place, before returning to editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange editing behaviour, likely sockpuppetry
made a lot of disruptive editing and made a terrible report on Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK on their very first days, they made a report without any evidence against established user:MCC214 and another user:Mini Siam Pattaya without any edit. I remembered that one of the LTAs likes making such disruptive reports against normal user without any evidence but I cannot remember which one it is. Anyway, considering WP:CIR, this user's previous behaviours are enough for a block. -Lemonaka‎ 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I handled Kentold's repeated malfomred speedy deletion requests and their SPI a few hours ago, and my impression is that they're a new user whose first language is not English, not that they're a vandal. Their requests were a bit nonsensical but they haven't really harmed anything. There are a number of LTAs who make false sockpuppet reports but almost all of them repeatedly pick on one or two of the same users over and over again. There is one that picks accounts at random but I know their behaviour and this definitely isn't them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ivanvector Then please take a look of this edit, you will know why I'm calling this account is a sock of an LTA. edits on meta, obviously, this is some kind of LTA behaviour. -Lemonaka‎  21:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's retaliation. I'm happy for someone to have finally provided some kind of evidence in this bizarre situation. Kentold is ✅ to AXXXXK, along with a few others. No tags per WP:DENY as they seem to enjoy the attention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Armando AZ
has been making questionable edits more recently and I opened a sockpuppet investigation due to WP:DUCK (it was nothing personal). However, this edit on my talk page by Armando AZ not only brought the topic of race into my talk page, but a threat. Reading WP:PA and WP:ZT, this is concerning to me, so I have brought this to the noticeboard.--WMrapids (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This was the last thing I wrote, it was never a personal attack. I just wanted to be direct with the matter at hand. As can be seen here, I am only warning him for his bad behavior: For example, the one indicated in this article here created by him by other users. Armando AZ (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As well as giving me the message of him complaint to me in a defiant and disrespectful way. Armando AZ (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that is what the ANI template says.--WMrapids (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @WMrapids Since you are answering me: In a template you can add text that reduces or reinterprets the language that is used, but it can contain an aggressive tone (that would be a matter for those who make the templates). The issue is why mention the pending complaint that I have? That is not solved by putting between parentheses "it was nothing personal"; precisely you are denouncing me for my "bad behavior". Armando AZ (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Err ... am I missing something here? The diff you posted of this purported "defiant and disrespectful" notice is the standard notice template for ANI complaints.  Did you have something else in mind?  That being said, yeah, it's pretty uncivil to infer that there's something suspect about an "American" or "Anglo-Saxon" making edits in South American topics. (You wouldn't, I expect, appreciate us telling you that there must be something suspect about a native Spanish speaker contributing to the English Wikipedia.) That, if you will, is bad behavior.   Ravenswing      03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Wikipedia, much less in English, I'm simply clarifying why I gave it a warning (I admit not in the best way) since it is a recurring behavior in them. Armando AZ (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ravenswing For example, the articles Protests in Peru 2022-2023 and Ayacucho Massacre have neutrality alerts precisely because of their editions. Armando AZ (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but c'mon. YOU put the tag in on the first article, and the tag on the second went in after disputed edits from another editor.  That being said, you have not yet addressed the OP's charge that you were being racist, and having seen your original comment, I would myself like an answer from you.   Ravenswing      04:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having put a bias alert? As if that wasn't everyone's duty on Wikipedia (besides, you didn't see how the article was before to put it). Lastly, and answering the question, never use a race criterion, I simply saw his Wiki historial and discovered that a few years ago he did not edit anything or little about Peruvian articles (which is my born country), which made me suspect what is What calls so much from a country to put biased information towards one side of the conflict? You can see for yourself that after the self-coup attempt, his interest in Peru skyrocketed. Armando AZ (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking for the exact date, since July 12 of 2020, their interest in Peru began, before They only edited articles related to the United States. Armando AZ (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (Sorry in advance if I use wrong pronouns its hard for me sometimes and sometimes i also use google translate to help me). Armando AZ (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if you're using Google Translate but your English isn't good enough to know its output is bad, then there's a WP:CIR problem. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be, that's why I don't plan to edit many articles from then on, I feel that the main issues in which I saw controversy have been resolved in one way or another (and I've liked contributing to it). Armando AZ (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't know about Peru, but this editor has recently arrived at COVID-19 lab leak theory and has been bombarding the page with borderline-incoherent and WP:PROFRINGE comments, most recently removing one of mine that raised this. The vibe is not good. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have already resolved this issue. There will be no consensus until better evidence is presented by those who support the theory. The reversion I did was precisely because I thought that everything I had written there did not make any sense. Armando AZ (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised to learn it if were also a sockpuppet, just based on similar commenting behavior and times, following each other to discussions, etc. I'll add that to the SPI. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also to add, I think aside from all the SPI issues, there is undoubtedly a WP:CIR problem with Armando AZ. They seem to misunderstand the collaborative editing process, regularly making ultimatums on other users, asserting appeals to "truth", misunderstanding the issues of false-balance, not understanding SOURCETYPES, making appeals to ignore all rules in favor of "national interest", etc. All this despite many users explaining these things to them. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At no point did that last mean abandoning the rules, it was making an argument for its reconsideration in RfC. Armando AZ (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sock confirmed

 * Well, it looks like we can confirm that Armando AZ has been using sockpuppets throughout the project, per the verification page on Portuguese Wikipedia. Starting to look like WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well.  If he's been just recently blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia, and he's been just recently confirmed as socking on the Portuguese Wikipedia, the odds that he's suddenly developed clean hands here are poor.   Ravenswing      10:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now confirmed on enwiki as well, unsurprisingly. DFlhb (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Ostrich2Emperor
is making rapid-fire edits to Elephant bird against the consensus of other users. I'm not sure they need to be blocked, but they need to be given a stern warning that they need to use the talk page to gain consensus for their edits before making them. may be a sock account due to the edits between the two accounts basically being identical in scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the two accounts are . They are the only users of a static IP but each is using a different device, but they are also making the same edits to a common set of articles. I have blocked them both. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:망고소녀‎ needs a partial block from Martin Bormann
After discussion on Talk:Martin Bormann, consensus was reached concerning what birthdates for Bormann's children should be in the article. Unfortunately User:망고소녀‎ doesn't like the consensus, and has pleaded and begged for their choices to go into the article, bludgeoning the discussion in the process. ,, Discussion on their talk page leads to apologies,, but the behavior continue, such as this edit today:. Since there have been IPs making similar edits, suspicions of editing while logged out or socking (all denied) have arisen. ,

I think that 망고소녀‎ needs to be partially blocked from editing Martin Bormann for a reasonable amount of time, to give them a chance to get past this hang-up, or else I'm afraid a stronger sanction might be levied on them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk)


 * I'm sorry... I'll be punished, so please don't block me indefinitely... 망고소녀 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @망고소녀 그런식으로 하시면 강퇴당해요 ㅎㅎ BorgQueen (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I was apologizing for editing without thinking. 망고소녀 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @망고소녀 I was talking about your edits to Martin Bormann. BorgQueen (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just "editing without thinking", it's also the sockpuppets to get your version. Callmemirela  &#127809; <b style="font-family:Open Sans; color:#9cadad; text-transform:uppercase;">talk</b> 13:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which are his "sockpuppets"? That's an strong claim, so you should show proof Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be here for instance, which 망고소녀 insists is not them avoiding 3RR despite it being a South Korean IP making exactly the same edits and using exactly the same language, including grammatical mistakes, and proposing exactly the same "solution" to the problem – reverting to their preferred unsourced version – in the edit summaries. But, yeah, likely just a coincidence. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Three different IPs all geolocating to South Korea all performed the same edit as 망고소녀, after an edit warring warning had been issued. Also the username translates to "mango girl" so please don't assume they are male. — Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've blocked 망고소녀 from editing Martin Bormann for three months. BorgQueen (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope that they will find other articles to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm a Bulgarian vandal

 * Thread revived (who archived it btw?). El_C 15:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was the bot. El_C 16:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)



User:Karak1lc1k, after a bit of edit warring on First Bulgarian Empire, tells me that I'm "helping Bulgarian far-right nationalists", which was news to me. I suppose all this started with an edit summary, "the name must be mentioned in the first sentence for true redirecting for scholarly researches by any people from any scientific studies", in an edit which was reverted by, and later on, when I reverted Karka1, I referenced that edit summary--which is simply incorrect. So they're warned by an editor, and they're warned by an admin, and then comes a barrage of a personal attacks, of the really silly kind: so there's this, "no shit Sherlock", moving on to "fascist globalist dictators", followed by the incomprehensible charge that I am Bulgarian and me and my buddies are "slave[s] of the Eurocentrist Nazis", whatever the hell that means. Someone please tell them to stop. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Clearly, Karak1lc1k is not here to build a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've left them a final, final warning on their talk page for their edit-warring and failure to bring up consensus for their edits. Their personal attacks are unacceptable, any further personal attacks and continued edit warring, it's likely a block. Additionally, First Bulgarian Empire is designated as a contentious topic, specifically Eastern Europe or the Balkans, so something to note there. And jeez, those personal attacks are scary! Tails   Wx  01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "I've left them a final, final warning on their talk page..."
 * Not a good call, IMO. Said user has already been handed kilometers of WP:ROPE during their stay at Wikipedia. They have a long history of casting WP:ASPERSIONS at users they disagree with and do not refrain from using ethnic labels at other Wikipedians in tandem with insults in order to intimidate them, and to continue their WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A few examples, for the record:
 * " It seems that you strongly show your "own subjective beliefs", considering the possibility of your nationality being Russian "
 * "And also if you are not a member of a foreign culture, you have to shut up ."
 * "So, please SHH. Learn it first, or I mean, live it first, or at least try to <U>learn Turkish, at least boy, at least, before pretending "adulthood" (aka patronizing)"
 * "How Kurdish? :D I think Kurds are a tribe of Turkic tribes from Kipchaks. I think you know all these knowledges. You are only a system historian, I am the realistic historian. You are a small, little boy... "
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No final (or final final) warning. Blocked indef. El_C 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, bad call by me. I'll learn from this in the coming months. Tails   Wx  02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Tails Wx, LouisAragon sometimes comes off a bit strong. It wasn't a bad call, and I wasn't even out to get an indef block--LA just has a lot more experience, more than me, dealing with editors in that problematic area. Thanks--and thanks, . I had no idea the user had been this problematic for this long. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey np. I blocked before learning about those earlier diffs provided by LouisAragon (hence the ec). And while it certainly bolsters the case for an indef, the egregious nature of the personal attacks otherwise cited more than merits one, in my view (i.e. a return to editing only with the burden of an unblock / WP:GAB having been met).
 * As for Tails Wx's final final warning, while I don't think it was a good call, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad one, either. On the one hand, them not being an admin, it really was the most severe action they were able to take in the immediate moment. But on the other, some inexperienced admins might have been deterred from blocking after seeing that final warning, thus, leaving us open to even more disruption (a high likelihood). In the end, though, I think Tails Wx's heart was in the right place, so it's all good. Next time, though, best to wait for an admin. For my part, I should have explained all that less tersely, which is to say at all, but I was distracted by unrelated things. El_C 03:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, while a warning might make some unsure whether that warning now starts the clock again vs. whether action can still be taken, it's also generally helpful to see there are multiple warnings from multiple editors who can't take action. Tails Wx, don't take away that you shouldn't be warning. You should. It's the 'final, final' idea that might communicate, especially in an egregious case, that "this is the action being taken in this case, no further action will be taken unless you transgress again" you want to avoid. It's know that's kind of a fine line to draw, though. :) Valereee (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi y'all, I just got back from a night-long session reporting tornadoes in Oklahoma. Thanks for the replies, however I still think I've made a bad decision in final-warning them rather than waiting for an admin to take necessary action, but I'm grateful for the advice given above and will look forward to improving in the future! Tails  Wx  12:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It takes a lot of integrity and maturity to be able to say this. Respect for that - you're doing good, please keep it up, Tails Wx. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Never apologize for showing others grace. Even if the decision is ultimately to block said user, mercy is never a character fault, and one should never feel the need to apologize for it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No wories Tails Wx! As El C correctly added, while it may not have been a great call, it wasn't a bad one either. No need to apologize for that at all. You were acting in good faith after all, and after more evidence appeared you realized what was going on :-)
 * "Never apologize for showing others grace (...) mercy is never a character fault"
 * I get what you mean, but I don't entirely agree with this take. Tolerating persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS editing over and over is a waste of the community's time, and is harmful to the project as a whole. Especially within topic areas that are frequented by users such as Karak1lc1k. Whilst no one should apologize for being merciful, one should be reflective of the fact that excessive mercy is detrimental and harmful in many ways. Outside Wikipedia as well i.e. IRL.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I heartily apologize for being detrimental and harmful. I will try to do better in the future.  I know we haven't interacted much, but if you ask around, I'm sure you'll find that "detrimental and harmful" is probably an apt way to describe my presence at Wikipedia.  Still, continuous improvement is always my goal, and I will try to stop being such a terrible person.  I take it that because you see me as detrimental and harmful, you also object to the unblock request, and think the user in question should remain blocked.  Can you elaborate on that so that I can finish responding to the unblock request I put on hold.  Thanks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can not speak for LouisAragon, but their statement is factual. I understand other editors want past comments to be quickly forgotten, but the fact is an admin posted a PA warning on their talk page which resulted in not only the comment "fascist globalist dictators", but was quickly followed by "slave[s] of the Eurocentrist Nazis". Now if I had said this to anyone on Wikipedia, much less in response to an admin, I would have been indef'd so fast TailsWX would have reported it as an EF5(tornado)! If Karak1lc1k wants to prove they can edit without the PAs, I suggest a 1 yr topic ban from all Turkish/Turkic related articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What does everyone else think about this proposal? Do we have support for such a ban?  Do we have support for an unblock?  Some clarity from the community would help.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you felt the need to pull a WP:STRAWMAN, but I'm gonna let it pass. On topic: I'm fine with an unblock in tandem with a 1 year topic ban from all Turkish-Turkic related articles. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, see User talk:Karak1lc1k for an unblock request; I am somewhat sympathetic to it. , your mileage likely differs. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like they intended to withdraw their unblock request, looking at that talk page's history. Oh well. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  00:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can't read that unblock request right now. If I had time, I'd add paragraph breaks to make it readable, but I don't, and as a non-native English speaker, my eyes just glaze over (I need paragraph breaks for that much text). That said, if the thinking is that that unblock request is good enough, I won't stand in the way., good luck with the chase, though maybe steer clear of McCurtain County! El_C 01:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What, is it because of the 2022 Idabel EF4 tornado? BTW, the severe threat's shifted south into Texas, where my friend lives in Waco, and under a flash flood warning. And don't worry–I've been too close to an EF3 tornado twenty days ago! (For that link, scroll 'til you see the Spencer, Indiana one.) Tails   Wx  01:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're white, you'll probably be fine @McCurtain County, OK. Yeah, Texas, I gathered. Mister Big Penta's stream just went down at a decisive moment due to storms, but not before he took a selfie standing at a mountain trail, which scrambled multiple cops to go way out there (over and over again) — but it was actually just a painting in an apartment! (link) El_C 04:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh and speaking of Texans, I'm a big fan of Pecos Hank, both storm chasing and music (I featured two of his songs, "Won't Pray Adagio" and "Angel's Serenade," on my songspam). El_C 04:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, Waco's been hit by 4-inch hail and a possible tornado yesterday night. Thankfully, my friend and everyone there (as far as I know) are okay. Tails   Wx  16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support unblock with a 1 year topic ban from all Turkish/Turkic related articles if Karak1lc1k acknowledges their WP:incivility was not acceptable behavior and if they can address how  members of this project are supposed to handle differences of  opinion.--  Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support ublocking with a 1 year topic ban from all Turkish/Turkic related article if incivility will not be a problem. What do you think? Should we ask ? --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For sure, ask away. I mean, if Karak1lc1k is conciliatory about it, that would be an improvement. El_C 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In skimming the now declined unblock, I've not much hope of conciliatory. I put it to him. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How does one go about becoming a Bulgarian vandal, you know, like, out of nowhere? Presumably there are citizenship tests after a whole procedure to get residency, and after all that I'd need to, what, spray paint my tag on the side of a Bulgarian train or something? I ask for information only. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Y'all! Could we please stick to the matter at hand? Will ye? Nil ye? unblock the appellant? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, someone got out of the wrong side of the bed in Sofia this morning! ;-) — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe the wife made him sleep on the Sofia last night... El_C 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * •Agreed
 * Wikipedia is not a place for cencoring. He apologized for behaviour and old messages are likely 7 years old. He was just a child. I think banning him for 2 months from everything will be better. I don't think he will repeat same actions either way. His content with numerous sources deleted for politic reasons. Volgabulgari (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK--the way I see it, may well have lost their cool because of a POV reason, but here's the rub (for me): Wikipedia does not need more editors to contribute to the usual whatever articles. We do need editors in underdeveloped areas, and this is one of them. I have not seen any comments about the editor's inability to contribute neutral and properly verified content, so it's really purely a matter of behavior, right? So I do not think we should put a topic ban in place, or make this more complicated than it is--what we could consider is the usual "strict civility" guideline, and perhaps a 1R restriction for a year, since it's the edit warring on First Bulgarian Empire that prompted this. Pinging, , , . Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, if they're open to it (the TBAN), I suppose. But that inclination needs to, well, exist. El_C 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck topic ban per Drmies. So all I need is assurance the inciviity ceases.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * endorse strict conduct and 1rr -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'm really fine with whatever here.  The indef block is fine, but I'm also OK with a topic ban and/or a civility restriction.  I've not ever interacted with this user and I don't work in this topic area, so I can't really address their content contributions; if there is a way we have to curb the behavioral problems, I'm fine from that aspect.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also good with whatever, be it TBAN or civility restriction or revert cap. But my issue is that they post this huge paragraph of an unblock request (diff) only to immediately remove it and the block notice and the ANI notice (diff), which is fine. But then, after Drmies restores it (diff), they're silent for a full week. We don't even know if they're still interested in an unblock at that point. Finally, after a week, they state the following (in full):


 * As he's daily active on Wikipedia (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/El_C ), is he or any other person neglecting or ignoring this case? It says "the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator", it's you User:El_C, what's the conclusion? It's been 7 days (diff).


 * So, yes, it's been 7 days, but they've just sort of waited passively to be unblocked, without addressing anyone else's proposals or comments, all while it is unknown if they're even still interested. But apparently they were all along (now we know). The entire thing feels off to me. But if they can commit to whatever restriction is agreed upon, I'm good with that. El_C 07:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The unblock request (with paragraph breaks)
Hello. After I've checked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, @LouisAragon inputted my very old (7 to 10 year-old) talk page messages such as "It seems that you strongly show your "own subjective beliefs", considering the possibility of your nationality being Russian", "And also if you are not a member of a foreign culture, you have to shut up.", "So, please SHH. Learn it first, or I mean, live it first, or at least try to learn Turkish, at least boy, at least, before pretending "adulthood" (aka patronizing)", "How Kurdish? :D I think Kurds are a tribe of Turkic tribes from Kipchaks. I think you know all these knowledges. You are only a system historian, I am the realistic historian. You are a small, little boy...", All of these comments were made in the range of years between 2013 and 2015 (8 to 10 years ago). I created my Wikipedia account in 2013 when I was 18.

First of all, I must inform you that I was a new university student in those years and I was a fresh clueless boy who did not research a lot about the subjects that I am interested. It was a little bit too early for me to create an account on Wikipedia but it's impossible in rebellious teenager years of people in general (especially first year of university) that somebody would tell what are the do's and don'ts on anything (it was completely unpopular to have a Wikipedia account, in Turkey, User:Beshogur can verify and confirm this). I made all of my good and we can call "real" researches after 2016 or 17. I was new to university and studies as a villager-backgrounded tribal boy (we are called Yörük generally and in my region our name is Varsak, as the tribal name) and the knowledge I have was equal to the ordinary/common people who have knowings on general standard ordinary things, but such extreme/fringe words such as "Kurds could originate from a Kipchak tribe" 7 or 8 to 10 years ago were based on only to some lines that was inputted by users into Turkish social forum-like platforms such as "ekşi sözlük", I was a little bit of a forum-guy in my teenager years and initial university years. I already acknowledge and accept that when I was younger I made all of these comments. I was new to Wikipedia and I was around 17 to 21 years old, quite a teenager and I was using Wikipedia for sure not with a responsible behavior and I made comments like it was a forum, I had no idea about Wikipedia rules because I did not encounter those, besides, it was very long long time ago.

I already was warned by patrols or admin users like User:Kansas Bear in those days and I did not do same things after those multiple warnings, and this was the reason why I started reading on Wikipedia, rules and interesting articles for me. After that, after a long time from those incidents I made 500+ edits around my sphere of interests. After I slept well last night I woke up to this shock today. I love Wikipedia and here I declare that those talk page comments made by me couples of years ago from 2013 to 2016 were all because I was not familiar with non-forum-like project's strict rules, and I declare that after series of warnings years ago, I then realized that there were a lot of rules in Wikipedia and since then until last week I was in that average shape all around Wikipedia. But last days, particularly last 3 or 4 days, in general this week was a rough week for me in my personal life and I couldn't control myself in Wikipedia also, I am not a fully active editor on Wikipedia and I've never been and I still try to figure out some rules although I know most of them.

I apologise from users like User:Drmies and others. I am originally a tribesman from mountainous yayla-villages of Taurus and I value my culture more than common people because after globalisation sped up people started to lose and completely forget about their cultural values. And so in this last week I saw people, in a number higher than I witnessed normally around Wikipedia, who insulted Turkish people and Old Turks on other talk pages around Wikipedia and I was a little bit agitated about that, there are many, so many people around Wikipedia, especially new users that insult Turkish/Turkic values by some trolling messages.

After series of the negative things I read on Wikipedia talk pages since yesterday or for 2 or 3 days, I think you can understand that every people could find himself/herself in this kind of situation. The incident happened yesterday will not be repeated again, and I declare that I can assure you I will not attack anybody like I did yesterday against User:Drmies and other users particularly Bulgarian fellow Wikipedians on articles like First Bulgarian Empire. I thought they were one of far-right extreme nationalists just like the ones I witnessed in talk pages in the recent days. You can completely permanently ban me next time but I can assure you it will not happen again. I apologise and kindly request/ask you to unblock me from editing. I can provide what is needed for it. 𐰴𐰺𐰀:𐰆𐰍𐰺 · 13:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) —  El_C 17:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) 


 * tl;dr. All I need to support unblocking is a commitment to stop making personal attacks and an understanding of dispute resolution to be used instead. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks DFO--I'll leave them a note as well. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but to me, it comes across as him expecting others to review his lengthy unblock request without reciprocating by reading and responding to what others write, in turn. Plus, he keeps removing the entire thing without comment . Last time, Drmies restored it, but this time, it's really up to them to do so, and without being passive-aggressive about it. I'll be blunt: if they don't have the patience to meaningfully engage (beyond singular fire-and-forget), then I'm not sure what else can be done. El_C 20:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ronald Gerard Mith: adds TRIVIA and violates BURDEN (likely to PROMOTE), possibly uses undisclosed IPs

 * Ronald Gerard Mith is an SPA who only adds one information: the mention of a film at Thus Spoke Zarathustra. This addition is TRIVIA and violates BURDEN: I have removed the information time and time again, and so did another user Harold the Sheep one time, but Ronald Gerard Mith keeps on adding the same paragraph back; see, , , ,.
 * I suspect the user does this to promote the film.
 * I have warned the user numerous times on their talk page User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith but the only answers I got were unclear one-liners.


 * Most answers at their talk pages are from numerous IPs. I do not know if the IPs are the user under IPs or not. One IP who anwsered on the user's talk page even denied being the user. Either the IPs are them and they are suckpuppeting; or the IPs are not them and they are fully commited to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to refuse to communicate. None of those IPs disclose they are Ronald Gerard Mith, nor does Ronald Gerard Mith state those IPs are them. I have warned the user not to use multiple accounts. And I have warned the latest IP commenting their talk page. To no avail.
 * I had opened an SPA on IPs adding this same information about this film before, but it was rejected due to the IPs not being able to be linked to a registered user.

Veverve (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely pblocked Ronald Gerard Mith from that page. If the disruption continues with IPs we can always semi-protect it. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The IPs on that user-talk and the article-talk are an IPv4 and two sets of IPv6/64, all of same ISP, and are disruptive in many ways. I've blocked a week each. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the named-account is obvious COI (therefore the stated intent of "getting the word out"/"not hiding the truth" is self-promotional behavior), and various of the IPs have specifically stated that they are the same person (but unsure if that means just among the IPs, or also including the named account). DMacks (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PSA. Not sure whether it works the same in your part of the world, but a sometime last year I found out that, where I am, if you start typing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" into a Google search, the first auto-complete suggestion is "Aldi Special Buys". Just thought I'd let people know, in case someone looking to add to their collection of C19 German philosophical works ends up buying a unicycle instead.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 02:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That explains a lot, thanks! It did look oddly-shaped and out-of-place on my bookshelf. DMacks (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

More eyes at Talk:Gays Against Groomers please, flood of SPAs of late
Talk:Gays Against Groomers

The talk page has been flooded lately with single-purpose accounts, all trotting out the same old "FIX THE BIAS" nonsense. It is entirely too much to accept as coincidence that when I close a week-long meandering back-and-forth by, starts up again 3 days later. In recent weeks, we've also had



this is getting out of hand. If not socks, then at the very least there is outside coordination. Zaathras (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My sock sense is tingling, but I'll be damned if I can figure out who the possible master is. Otherwise yes, that talk page has had a flood of SPAs and long, meandering IDHT discussions. While GAG have tweeted their...dislike...about the article, and those involved in creating it in the past, they don't appear to have done so recently. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You've literally been reverting and editing the article for the past few months as shown in the edit history of the article, trying to spread your completely biased opinions and put it in an article full of misinformation. HurricaneOcean (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @HurricaneOcean blocked as sock. Doug Weller  talk 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Figuratively unbelievable. If your automatic response to pushback is assuming foul play, I don't know what to tell you. Also, accusing me of being a SPA is insulting, considering I have a decently long and varied history of contributions, if I do say so myself. Oktayey (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re, you have 315 edits, over 120 relating to "Gays Against Groomers" disputes, and a substantial majority of the rest relating to firearms and shootings. To call that either "decently long" or "varied" would be rather generous. BD2412  T 01:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Now I have yet another awful page on my Watchlist. The Talk page is tl;dr but it looks like the trolls and sealions have been overindulged and are getting a bit too comfortable there. I see that the FAQ is good and I advise people to lean on it as much as possible to give them polite but short shrift. I think the troll threads should be ed once they have been adequately answered to prevent ongoing disruption. The sealions are never going to accept that their questions have been answered but we don't have to give them unlimited rope. DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Continuous abuse and biased editing at Gays Against Groomers.
I'd like to file a report against Zaathras for his continuous abuse of the Gays Against Groomers page, and his edit-warring by continuously trying to delete, revert, or hide discussions on the talk page, effectively ruining the entire idea of a talk page if he is just going to silence people he disagrees with.

He is way too emotionally involved with this topic, and I recommend he gets topic-banned from anything to do with LGBTQ+ topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneOcean (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a tit-for-tat of the above. Let's note for all here that this user's Wikipedia existence consists of 14 edits in approx. 90 minutes, all concerning this GAG group. Zaathras (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The entire point of Wikipedia is to be NEUTRAL and INFORM OTHERS. HurricaneOcean (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , what was your previous account, if any? Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

HurricaneOcean (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Given your pattern of editing,, I find that difficult to believe. But if that is what you are saying, I will take you at your word. You are precocious, I guess. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't really been paying attention to individual users' conduct, but I do feel like Zaathras, like quite a few other editors on the GAG article, has been kind of... stonewall-y. I want to emphasize that this is just my personal feeling, and I just wanted to throw something out there before I go to bed. I think I'll deliver more tomorrow. Oktayey (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Following a request at WP:RPPI, I semi-protected Talk:Gays Against Groomers for a week. While it might be nice to have an influx of new and returned users, a dose of reality shows that there is a flood of SPAs and that is not helpful. A suggestion for those concerned about "completely biased opinions" would be to take things slowly and focus on one point of content at a time. Talking about "misinformation" and so forth is not helpful—specific and brief examples of article content, with reliable sources, are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I blocked User:HurricaneOcean is a sock of the recently blocked SPA User:NeuroZachary at least. Maybe more to come... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that told me a lie right here at ANI, ? That shakes my faith in humanity. Or at least in one member of it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Should Oktayey be blocked? They’re only recent activity has been WP:SEALIONing and WP:BLUDGEONing related to GAG. Dronebogus (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * AS they have not even been warned yet, no. But I think they do need to drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They’ll likely end up blocked, but who knows? I once gave a right-wing POV warrior several stern warnings (along with another user) and they actually did drop it. Dronebogus (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Newsflash: Far-right bigots object to being characterised as far-right bigots. And now here's Dave with the weather. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cloudy with a chance of WP:MEATSOCKs. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  09:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And now, the sports report with Liliana: admins 1, sock 0. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 09:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A bloody shambles for the socks team too, as they tried everything to win this time, including a whole bunch of personal attacks, retaliatory ANI filings and even lying about not having a previous account. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 21:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s just not cricket! Dronebogus (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Racism in Teahouse
User Magamanranchero refers to the third anniversary of the Murder of George Floyd as Floyd's "third year of sobriety" here. So far the account's only "contribution". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Yoouq persistently disrupting and vandalising
All this editor has done so far is deleting or changing sourced information, usually in regards to ethnic terms:, , ,. Multiple warnings issued on their user talk page. Their unhelpful edit summaries include one apparent insult, as does this latest message. Evidently WP:NOTHERE.

There's a chance that they're also logging out to repeat their edits (e.g. compare this with this), but at any rate this account is still actively edit-warring and vandalizing. R Prazeres (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed for ethnic POV pushing and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

IP user making 100+ invisible edits
Maybeitsmir (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Maybeitsmir This report is completely meritless, the edits are fine, they certainly are not "non-constructive". The IP is making small but correct changes, swapping hyphens for dashes, fixing mistakes in references , fixing incorrect URL's and so forth. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake, then. Sorry for the trouble! Maybeitsmir (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Single purpose account
- appears to be a single-purpose deletionist account. Has nominated numerous articles for deletion - mine within three edits of creating it - without due diligence or checking. Various other serious issues about this user have been flagged up on their User and Talk pages within days of the account being created. Jack1956 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are required to notify the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Now done. Jack1956 (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a SPA to me... see https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Jeffhardyfan08. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How does that page tell us whether this is an SPA or not? To do that we have to look at individual edits, not such summaries. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an individual edit by the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Completionist&diff=prev&oldid=1151705351. The user has also created multiple draft pages, and the top edits on this list show that the user has been positively contributing to the Wiki. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Jeffhardyfan08/0. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since being called out by myself and at least one other editor for their numerous nominations for deletion the user has, within the past 24 hours, been trying to edit properly. I suggest you start looking from here:

Jack1956 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article William Charles Hood was nominated for deletion a minute after creation and while it had an inuse template on it. That is obviously sub-optimal, but if the editor responds to concerns I don't see the need to bring the matter here. It would also be nice if the editor would communicate a bit more. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true, and verifiable with just an ounce of due diligence. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jeffhardyfan08&target=Jeffhardyfan08&offset=&limit=500 this account has been constructively editing multiple pages since early April. Hence, not a SPA. Despite that, yeah would be good for him to review WP's deletion policy, but I think we can assume good faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let’s not assume good faith. I think the rapid and numerous nominations for deletion suggest otherwise. A look at the user’s talk page will show there are a number of serious issues with their editing here. Jack1956 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok breathe. Again, most of their edits seem constructive, and this is a relatively new user. I think you are deliberately misrepresenting this user as an SPA, when that is not really the case. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not deliberately misrepresenting anything. This editor nominated a long list of articles for deletion without due diligence or even the most cursory of checks. My article, clearly labelled ‘inuse’, was nominated for deletion within a minute of me publishing it! Articles were nominated quickly and in large numbers! They are now incorrectly closing AfDs! See here and here . There needs to be a consequence. Jack1956 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the user for one week and undid their recent AfD closures (I believe 3 of them - there was one closed as withdrawn that I left alone). There's something very wrong with this user's obsession with deletion, and I suspect an inevitable indefinite block will come later.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The user has now been CU indeffed by NRP for logged-out vandalism. Some people are incapable of taking good advice. Curbon7 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Jexta8866


Last night I responded to a semi-protected edit request and cleaned up the lead section of the BLP article Omos. This article has had a lot of poor editing done to it recently, particularly by Jexta8866. Jexta had already received several warning templates by established editors based on their editing of the page. I left a message to them suggesting they better understand the WP:NPOV policy before continuing to edit. This morning, Jexta restored their version of the article and accused me of vandalizing the article in 4 separate edit summaries. I do not wish to waste my time engaging in an edit war on a wrestling BLP and the personal attack (which they have levied at others whom they disagree with in their very short editing history) and very narrow interest scope leads me to conclude that they are WP:NOTHERE. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You removed everything on the article including his championship, ratings and his ring name and edited the article the way you want. If you check i only restored few revisions which i think you removing them was wrong. Jexta8866 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed a bunch of in-character diatribes that have no place on an encyclopedia, let alone the lead section. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, can you do that on Seth Rollins page or maybe Roman Reigns page? I have already stressed myself because of this and i want to linger on this no more. Jexta8866 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see both WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:VOLUNTEER. I responded to the IP's request on Omos because the page lingers on my watchlist from when I started a requested move on it two years ago. I do not have the other pages on my watchlist and frankly, I don't have the time right now to go over them, although I'm sure there are issues. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you need to explain why you think removing them was wrong, not edit war to continue restoring your preferred version. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Were you not supposed to wait until your report is reviewed? You went straight and removed bunch of what makes up his career because he’s Nigerian. I highly recommend you concentrate on articles you’re familiar with and leave professional wrestling edits for editors who are experienced in it to edit them. You removing the name he was billed with “The Nigerian Giant” and stated that is not a ring name and removed all the things that makes up his career such as his championships, ratings e.t.c shows you’re inexperienced in professional wrestling edits. Can you do that on Seth Rollins or AJ Styles’s? You can do whatever you want now im already stressed out. Best Jexta8866 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you concentrate on articles you’re familiar with and leave professional wrestling edits for editors who are experienced in it to edit them – ABSOLUTELY NOT. What "professional wrestling" (i.e. fake, staged plays featuring hulking ballerinas in spandex) articles need is more outside editors. All these articles should be sunk to the bottom of the sea. For too long Wikipedia has been used as an extension of the wrestling industry's promotional machinery. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This comment borderlines on WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Callmemirela  &#127809; <b style="font-family:Open Sans; color:#9cadad; text-transform:uppercase;">talk</b> 14:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Attention, soldiers: Sinking bad stuff to the bottom of the sea isn't a recommended procedure. The recommended procedure is incineration under controlled conditions. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * don't pussyfoot around: tell us what you really think. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Um what?. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 14:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Warned for edit warring because this is what it's turning into at this point. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 15:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As a reminder, professional wrestling is a contentious topic and special rules apply. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there a code so I can add it to the /Aware table at the top of my talkpage? "pw" doesn't seem to work. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as it's a community-authorised CTOP and not a ArbCom one (the two generally have different templates). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the following are almost certainly the same person:
 * It's tempting to block them all, but there isn't really much overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is enough overlap to block them all, and I will do so unless you object.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And in reviewing the edits of the various accounts, in addition to other kinds of disruption, it looks to me like the person is an undisclosed paid editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's tempting to block them all, but there isn't really much overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is enough overlap to block them all, and I will do so unless you object.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And in reviewing the edits of the various accounts, in addition to other kinds of disruption, it looks to me like the person is an undisclosed paid editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And in reviewing the edits of the various accounts, in addition to other kinds of disruption, it looks to me like the person is an undisclosed paid editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Tiny-house movement IP


User came out of the gates being all WP:SHOUTy. They think that the article about tiny-houses is written like an advert. Fine, that's cool. Users like Hipal have agreed with them, but the IP refuses to calm down.

Can I get a partial block on the article and talk page, please? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Both IPs p-blocked. That's way too much battleground conduct. Also warned for personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Sinister Seven and WP:BLP violations at Paul Ji
Mass attack at both articles, by IP and registered account. Problem has been compounded by, who believes they're restoring legitimate content. Requesting restoration of redirect, page protection and user blocks of and. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Going over my case:
 * While using Huggle I noticed the reporting IP replaced an article with a redirect to Sinister Six. SinisterSevenSam had reverted it and then reporter had reverted them.
 * I reverted it as I didn't notice the redirect was there before SinisterSevenSam's edits (instead of creating a new article, SinisterSevenSam edited the redirect)
 * My edit was reverted by the reporting IP and so I reverted back, leaving a comment in the edit summary
 * After this I looked deeper in and noticed the redirect was there before
 * I left a helpful comment at SinisterSevenSam's talk page and noticed that the reporting IP that they were using high level warning templates
 * The page has since been PRODded by @HeartCat1, who I assume has made the same mistake that I did
 * Summary:
 * Reporting IP has not assumed good faith and is now (somewhat needlessly) escalating here
 * I didn't look deep enough into this before reverting (despite Huggle's history window)
 * SinisterSevenSam made a good faith attempt at making an article, but edited an existing page instead of creating a new one Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 03:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did notice that SinisterSevenSam has made a new article: Draft:Sinister Seven (group)
 * Searching through the sources cited, I was unable to find the group. I am assuming this is not a real group and just a joke. HeartCat1💬📝 03:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me for erring in the process—this is my first edit. The new article is indeed legitimate content, and the edits to Paul Ji are to add his affiliations with the group in the new article. I have since created a draft of the new article for further review, and designated it as "Sinister Seven (group)" (which will require an accompanying disambiguation page later), thus making a new article and not an edit. I have no idea what a high level warning template is, but any use of it was a mistake and I would like to declare good faith. Thank you. SinisterSevenSam (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, @SinisterSevenSam.
 * I looked at your source for your article, but I am unable to find the group. Could you directly link the group's page if you are able to? Thanks! HeartCat1💬📝 03:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies—I thought that page would have update by now, but I suppose not. I'm not sure if the organization has an online presence, but I would hope that the attached picture is at least some evidence that the club is real. How may I proceed? SinisterSevenSam (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The attached picture being that inside the info box on the draft page. Thanks! SinisterSevenSam (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My best suggestion would be to wait to start a draft page until you are able to gather the required sources for this group. Otherwise you risk speedy deletion, as there is not enough evidence for the article to be created. HeartCat1💬📝 04:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the draft claims that the group is "formally known as the Yale Pep Club." It would be good to see evidence of this, since it is not listed at the Yale source, either. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blocked. Edits like Special:Diff/1152070974 indicate to me that these editors (i.e., SinisterSevenSam and 130.132.173.188) are not contributing in good faith. Any admin may unblock at will if they are sufficiently convinced by an appeal, but I'd expect a good explanation for why they thought changing all instances of "Ji" to "Juh", and then alleging that they're part of a group called "Sinister Seven", was appropriate in any way for a BLP. DanCherek (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @DanCherek, could you also sort out Sinister Seven, as I have proposed article deletion? Thanks, HeartCat1💬📝 04:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . The motto of continuing Yale's tradition of "merriment' was something of a giveaway, too. If the club turns up in Yale's listings and proves legit, Terrific. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored the redirect to remove the BLP violations; I see no need to leave those up for a week. DanCherek (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent WP:BLP violations at Madison Bailey
Accusations of skin color bias by multiple accounts in recent days. I've requested page protection, but this may merit rev/deletion as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the boundaries of rev-deletion, but better safe than sorry. Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Lovely_Peaches speedy delete
Request for speedy deletion per AfD snow delete. Significant BLP concerns have been raised. Thank you. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also deleted the draft. I suspect a viable article could possibly be constructed here but the sources are clearly not good enough at the moment, especially for material is, or could be argued to be, a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd previously BLPDEL'd this at Draft:Brittany Johnson; didn't realize at the time that there was a parallel draft. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (Am I the only one who gets frustrated when things like this get archived? Like, what's the point? Anywho...) FYI, personally identifiable information about a minor, especially one who was the victim of a crime, should usually be oversighted per WP:OSPOL #1. I've had that done here. Good job getting this taken care of quickly, though.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Lovely_Peaches speedy delete
Request for speedy deletion per AfD snow delete. Significant BLP concerns have been raised. Thank you. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also deleted the draft. I suspect a viable article could possibly be constructed here but the sources are clearly not good enough at the moment, especially for material is, or could be argued to be, a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd previously BLPDEL'd this at Draft:Brittany Johnson; didn't realize at the time that there was a parallel draft. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (Am I the only one who gets frustrated when things like this get archived? Like, what's the point? Anywho...) FYI, personally identifiable information about a minor, especially one who was the victim of a crime, should usually be oversighted per WP:OSPOL #1. I've had that done here. Good job getting this taken care of quickly, though.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor voting for 38 AfDs in 12 minutes
has !voted for 38 AfDs in 12 minutes. Some of these !votes were simply keep like, or "delete as per nomination" like and  or plain delete like. There is no way someone could review 38 articles and relevant AfDs in 12 minutes. The community has previously implemented an AfD topic ban for such behavior. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like they found User:Awesome Aasim/xfdvote and decided to play with it., please knock it off. AfDs are discussions based on policy and sourcing, not quick votes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * WTH is that, that's ridiculous. That is a tool with no legitimate reason to exist, it needs a serious discussion beyond the perfunctory MFD it saw once. Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like it would be excellent for responding to AfDs when using the desktop site on mobile. The tool itself is fine, it's the use that's a problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the concerns. It seems the accusers here want to cherry-pick the simplest !votes and ignore the ones where there was an description of the vote like: Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Touch%C3%A9_Restaurant_%26_Bar&diff=prev&oldid=1152433177 Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fernhag&diff=prev&oldid=1152433149 Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Site_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1152433019 Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marius_Pharmaceuticals&diff=prev&oldid=1152432843 Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lovely_Peaches&diff=prev&oldid=1152432264 Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moto_Guzzi_Quota&diff=prev&oldid=1152432558

Alas, if the community wants the backlog to continue to grow, so be it and I won't be on that part of the project anymore. It's up to the community. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Mr. Jenkins, perhaps you could explain what "Keep, Passes CNG" actually means, as seen here? Zaathras (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he was an avid fan of China Natural Gas? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 05:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: Blocked indef as a sock by. &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case all of their AfD votes can be struck-through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Defamation in edit summary
Please delete this edit summary, as it violates WP:BLP. SFBB (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * These edit summaries are equally disturbing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Though my understanding is that BLP applies to articles and not edit summaries. Nonetheless, I see gossip and forum in the edit summaries. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 23:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Callmemirela Have you read WP:BLP? The policy is quite clear that it applies to this kind of stuff.
 * 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've notified the editor making those for you:
 * DMacks (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked HelloHelloABCtraiin for one week for violating WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * DMacks (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked HelloHelloABCtraiin for one week for violating WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User harassing me
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dronebogus&diff=prev&oldid=1152410816 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dronebogus&diff=prev&oldid=1152410058 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J1DW&diff=prev&oldid=1152410247 I don’t know what this guy’s beef with me is but they’re obviously WP:NOTHERE when their other most recent edit is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1152412910 Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there's a reasonable case for a WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIVIL block. In the 4 years they have been here they have made two edits to articles. A significant proportion of their remaining edits consist of accusing other editors of racism, bias lying, being anti-trans  and other forms of misconduct, and making WP:NOTFORUM posts on article talk pages about how terrible wikipedia is, complaining about how their comments get removed as part of some kind of conspiracy  and generally snarking on other editors . 192.76.8.88 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed. Long term problematic editor who does absolutely nothing useful to build or maintain an encyclopedia. Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Genre changes by an IP
The IP has been consistently changing genres without consensus, past a level 4 warning. They also attacked another editor at one point. Please do something about it.  interstate five   16:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I forgot to mention very controversial unsourced edits on a BLP, Craig Frost.  interstate five   16:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the /64 range for a month since it appears to be a continuation of long-term abuse from a broader range (a /41, which is currently partially blocked from certain pages). A more experienced administrator might want to consider blocking the /41, though that might have too much collateral. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Lovely_Peaches speedy delete
Request for speedy deletion per AfD snow delete. Significant BLP concerns have been raised. Thank you. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also deleted the draft. I suspect a viable article could possibly be constructed here but the sources are clearly not good enough at the moment, especially for material is, or could be argued to be, a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd previously BLPDEL'd this at Draft:Brittany Johnson; didn't realize at the time that there was a parallel draft. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (Am I the only one who gets frustrated when things like this get archived? Like, what's the point? Anywho...) FYI, personally identifiable information about a minor, especially one who was the victim of a crime, should usually be oversighted per WP:OSPOL #1. I've had that done here. Good job getting this taken care of quickly, though.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of facts and important information
Dear Wikipedia Admins,

I am writing to report a user who has made unexplained and irrelevant edits to the Mohammed Zubair (journalist) Wikipedia article. The user in question removed several important pieces of information from the article, all of which were from reliable sources such as BBC and Bar and Bench.

I have already reverted these edits and warned the user from making such edits, but my edit was also reverted. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and I believe that admins' intervention is necessary to address this issue.

The information that was removed includes:


 * In 2020, Pratik Sinha said that Zubair is being targeted for his work as number of FIRs were lodged against him.
 * On 10 June 2021, Zubair received a notice from Twitter alerting him that Twitter had been approached by Indian law officials regarding a tweet Zubair had tweeted in March 2021, which Indian authorities claimed breached Indian laws.
 * Extremist Hindutva leaders named, Mahant Bajrang Muni 'Udasin,' Yati Narsinghanand.
 * Police case (FIR) was filed in Khairabad, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh in early June in response to a complaint by a Sitapur leader of a Hindu group. The complainant accused Zubair of "outraging religious feelings" of three seers by labeling them "hatemongers" on Twitter.
 * In mid-June, Zubair posted e-mails from Twitter informing him that one of his tweets criticising the comments by Yati Narsinghanand Giri the leader of a Hindu group were being 'withheld' in India under the country's IT laws at the request of law enforcement authorities. 'Withholding' a tweet meant that it would no longer be visible in India. Twitter said this was done "in order to comply with Twitter's obligations under India's local laws". Later two more of Zubair's tweets were withheld, they were about the provocative comments made by a Hindu priest Mahant Bajrang Muni threatening to kidnap and rape Muslim women.
 * The charges under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the IT Act were pressed against Zubair. He was then brought before a magistrate, who granted the police one day custody. Vrinda Grover, Zubair's lawyer, asserted that while many social media users tweeted the same message, only Zubair was targeted by police. Grover also alleged that Zubair was a target of police because of his Muslim faith, name, and profession.

These pieces of information are important to understanding Zubair's situation and should not have been removed without a clear explanation from the user. I kindly request that the admins review the edits made by this user and take appropriate action to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the Mohammed Zubair (journalist) Wikipedia article.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,  ❯❯❯  Chunky aka Al Kashmiri   (✍️) 09:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The user (User:REDISCOVERBHARAT) that is edit-warring to remove what appears to be well-sourced material has not engaged on the talk page, so I have restored the edits and left them a warning. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've partially blocked them from the article for a week after reviewing their talk page including deleted posts. They've been on my watchlist for quite a while. Next time, as they were given a DS alert for IPA last May, I think a TB may be in order. Doug Weller  talk 12:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @TheChunky: You have failed to notify of this ANI report, even though the red notice on top of this page clearly requires you to do so.  I have done so for you this time, but please remember to perform this mandatory task next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 12:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is biography page each and single incident should not to be describe here. Moreover I have only simplified the paras. Neither any fact nor any important information is removed. Its seem that @TheChunky is forcing his propaganda here. @AdoTang has also notified that the tone used in article is not neutral. I request Admin please check my edits and conclude your opinion.
 * REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did check your edits, and found no good reason for removing that sourced information. As I said above, you need to explain on the talk page why you insist on removing it. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, pardon my language, but seeing me get pinged in the Admin noticeboard scared the shit out of me.
 * But anyway, I don't really know what this is about, and I know literally nothing about this guy, I just stumbled upon this page from Arma 3 and wanted to make some fixes.
 * I have nothing to input other than a recommendation that further reverts in this stupid edit war only revert to my edit, because it has some text edits and an actual proper lead that doesn't dedicate most of it to a recent event. AdoTang (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:GrantKereama
This is either an account impersonating Grant Kereama or the subject themself. It may be (can't say for certain without checkuser) block avoidance by the similar User:KereGrant account. --SVTCobra 05:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps anyone trianguate technical details of or look for style matches, 222.154.94.68 self-identified on-wiki as being the subject. DMacks (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Rant at Talk:La Porte County Herald-Dispatch
[Sorry if this is not the most appropriate place to post this] Noticed when I did a page move. I would have just deleted it myself except for the discouraging of deleting others' words on talk pages, plus the topic is contentious. Only edit from the respective IP address. Mapsax (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed it as soapboxing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mapsax: You have failed to notify of this discussion, even though the red box on top of the page clearly requires you to do so. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 02:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The complaint was posted a year ago, I very much doubt the IP editor has been monitoring their talkpage since then anyway, so not notifying the IP isn't a big deal.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...How did I miss that it's from 2022? That's a rhetorical question, because I guess it is pretty obvious; I'd just assumed it had happened recently. If I had known I probably wouldn't have left that message re notification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 12:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Volgabulgari's disruptive editings in Tatar confederation
These claims below were originally posted in Tatar confederation's talk page (though I've also minorly modified them for here).
 * Here Volgabulgari changed the wording
 * to:
 * The reason why the original wording had been:
 * was because in the original Chinese wording in Songshu, vol. 95 is:
 * , which, when translated to English, is:
 * Songshu, vol. 95 did not claim that 大檀 Dàtán and Tántán 又號檀檀 were "also used as another name for the Rourans"
 * It's very apparent that Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese. From the article's edit history, Volgabulgari wrote these:
 * Here Volgabulgari asserted that: "He [i.e. me, Erminwin] is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols." when in fact the source I cited for that is "Note 144 on "The Kultegin inscription" in Türik Bitig. Russian original: " Otuz Tatar – кочевые племена монгольского типа. В китайских источниках их называли «татань, дадань». Проживали на Байкале и маньчжурии." rough translation: "Nomadic tribes of the Mongolic sort. In Chinese sources they were called 'Tatan, Dadan'. They lived between Baikal and Manchuria."
 * Volgabulgari also asserted: "When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time." I did delete "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples." from the section "Name and origin" because it is a repetition of "they [Tatars] were proposed to be Turkic speakers (e.g. by Encyclopedia Britannica or Kyzlasov apud Sadur 2012) related to Cumans and Kipchaks." in the very next section "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations", where the Nine Tatars' ethnic and linguistic affiliation/association would be relevant. I even wrote here "No need to repeat same claims by same sources too many times." to explain why I deleted "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
 * Volgabulghari themself edited then deleted one whole section [EDIT: "Legacy"], even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
 * The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:
 * On their talk page Volgabulgari even told Nishidani "Kys (very likely standing for Kill yourself, 1, 2)" when critiqued by Nishidani for "editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor" and "ignoring standard rules."
 * EDIT: and many more actions... as can be seen on the Tatar confederation's page revision history
 * Volgabulgari also asserted: "When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time." I did delete "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples." from the section "Name and origin" because it is a repetition of "they [Tatars] were proposed to be Turkic speakers (e.g. by Encyclopedia Britannica or Kyzlasov apud Sadur 2012) related to Cumans and Kipchaks." in the very next section "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations", where the Nine Tatars' ethnic and linguistic affiliation/association would be relevant. I even wrote here "No need to repeat same claims by same sources too many times." to explain why I deleted "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
 * Volgabulghari themself edited then deleted one whole section [EDIT: "Legacy"], even though the claim "Turkic-speaking peoples of Cumania, as a sign of political allegiance, adopted the endonym of their Mongolic-speaking conquerors, before ultimately subsuming the latter culturally and linguistically." in that section is sourced.
 * The source is Pow (2019). On page 563, Pow clearly wrote:
 * On their talk page Volgabulgari even told Nishidani "Kys (very likely standing for Kill yourself, 1, 2)" when critiqued by Nishidani for "editing a top class 4 article with virtually no prior experience as an editor" and "ignoring standard rules."
 * EDIT: and many more actions... as can be seen on the Tatar confederation's page revision history
 * EDIT: and many more actions... as can be seen on the Tatar confederation's page revision history

Erminwin (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A report by Volgabulgari about this was closed on AN as a content dispute, which is what it appears to be. The advice there was to discuss it on the article talk page, which I reiterate to Erminwin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be unrelated to this thread, but User:Ermenrich and I had a bizarre encounter with User:Volgabulgari in Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages, where they tried to defend the notability of a POV fork with entirely made-up "citations" allegedly taken from diverse scholarly works. Having access to these sources, we quickly exposed the "citations" as fabrications. I posted a hoax warning on their talk page, which was reverted. I haven't given a thought about it because @Volgabulgari self-reverted their POV fork back to a redirect—case closed. But upon seeing this report now, I wonder if User:Erminwin can spot similar "put-on" attempts in their interactions with @Volgabulgari. If not, I will be happy to acknowledge the bizarre incident in Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages as a singular misstep. Otherwise, the interaction reported here might turn out to be more than just a "content dispute". –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tatar
 * "The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century CE. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars (or Tartars)." Volgabulgari (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "However, identification of the Tatars of the Orkhon inscriptions with "Dada" from Chinese sources is contested."
 * link
 * 10th century geographical treatise Hudud al-Alam mentioned Tatars as part of Turkic tribal federation called ToquzOghuz.
 * Golden, P. B. (1992). pp. 155–157 (Source repated in page, original citation did not given by me)
 * "From the 10th to 13th centuries, Shatuo Turks joined Tatar confederation and became known as White Tatars branch of the Tatar" (Repated in Shauto page)
 * "Actual Tatars, the Nine Tatars are associated with Turkic peoples. They might be related to Kipchak and/or Cuman peoples."
 * lnik Volgabulgari (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When I demonstrated that User:Volgabulgari had bald-facedly lied about me, this is their response : "Flatheartism [sic] is better for you." Erminwin (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say about lie. I said for the guy who really believes I'm getting paid for Tatarstan government. He really believes that. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "[Erminwin] the guy who really believes I'm getting paid for Tatarstan government. He really believes that." When I wrote: "There's this Vietnamese idiom: chưa đánh đã khai 'already confessing before getting beaten'." I was being sarcastic. Erminwin (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Salty irony then. I'm really tired of speaking nonsense that leads us nowhere. You trying so hard to ban me. You reported all history and I explained myself. So, case closed. It's administator's decision. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol it is you HAHAHAJSJADHAHS. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment While I agree there is something strange going on with this editor - the use of faked sources mentioned by Austronesier was very odd, although to their credit Volgabulgari did revert their additions once it was clear that they were unsupported by the sources used - I'm not sure that this particular ANI thread is shedding any fresh light on the problem., can you show any places where Volgabulgari seems to be making things up (possibly while claiming they are supported by sources)? Otherwise, I'm not sure there's much to be done at the moment.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize. As soon as I realized that the resources provided to me by the website I used were fake, I deleted them when you two checked them. I didn't create these resources myself, and it would have been unnecessary for me to have the intention of producing fake sources while you two were monitoring and evaluating me through "Talk" section. I was looking for all academic websites in internet for Hunno-Bulgar languages in few hours, so, i came acrossed with some Bulgarian fabricated sources. I even added quotes to them for readers to find it. Volgabulgari (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Yet I've encountered this one instance which involved User:Volgabulgari misinterpreting a source and then insisting on making a source-misinterpretation-based claim. Let me summarize:
 * There's this Classical Chinese quote in a primary source: Book of Song, vol. 95: "芮芮一號大檀，又號檀檀"; my rough translation: "Ruìruì [aka Rouran], one appellation is Dàtán, also called Tántán". From this one may conclude that Songshu's compilers thought that Datan & Tantan were other names of the Rourans.
 * a secondary source, Turkologist Peter Benjamin Golden's 2013 article "Some notes on the Avars and Rouran", contains this claim on page 55 "Datan may refer to the Tatars."
 * From these, one may conclude that the ethnonym Tatar was possibly transliterated by Songshu's compilers as 大檀 & 檀檀, which they thought to be merely other names of the Rourans.
 * However, User:Volgabulgari changed the wording of this sentence "The name 'Tatar' was [possibly] [I think the word "possibly", absent in the sentence's original version, should be included] first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *daH-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) as another name for the Rourans" based on those two sources to "The name "Tatar" was [possibly] first transliterated in the Book of Song as 大檀 Dàtán (MC: *daH-dan) and 檀檀 Tántán (MC: *dan-dan) also used as another name for the Rourans"; as if User:Volgabulgari implied that Songshu's compilers also used the word 大檀 / 檀檀 (transliterations of *Tatar) to transliterate the name Tatar of another people (whom User:Volgabulgari unfailingly asserted to be exclusively Turkic), even though the text did not indicate that at all.
 * While in almost all likelihood User:Volgabulgari cannot read Classical Chinese, I do not think it excusable that they again changed the wording to "also used for [sic] another name of the Rourans", then to "also used as name of the Rourans" in the Tatar confederation's latest version; as Competence is required.
 * Another user, Folly Mox (who can read Classical Chinese), also wrote in here:
 * Erminwin (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have said that you "came across" these fabricated quotes in the internet on some website. Can you kindly provide the URL of the source of these fabricated quotes? –Austronesier (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are talking about Hunno-Bulgar languages or Tatar Confederation? Volgabulgari (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about these quotes, which Ermenrich and I found to be forged in the further discussion. If you didn't make them up, as you say, who did? –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I send all these side-by-side as a mail, explaining which website and/or referance link where I used? Otherwise, you can feel free to add another topic. When I realized that the article contained errors, I removed it before it was published. I do not believe that I am obliged to disclose where I obtained them. However, if you are asking me personally, I can explain. Volgabulgari (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about these quotes, which Ermenrich and I found to be forged in the further discussion. If you didn't make them up, as you say, who did? –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I send all these side-by-side as a mail, explaining which website and/or referance link where I used? Otherwise, you can feel free to add another topic. When I realized that the article contained errors, I removed it before it was published. I do not believe that I am obliged to disclose where I obtained them. However, if you are asking me personally, I can explain. Volgabulgari (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
This edit alone merits a block.  // Timothy :: talk  10:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. There are also suspicious things involving sock and or meatpuppetry with other, now banned accounts, see I was editing first Bulgarian empire and mailed Karak1l1c if he can help me to do some revision and this sock puppet investigation.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef block This is obviously a user who cannot be trusted to edit unless their edits are carefully scrutinised by other volunteers, which is just not a sustainable use of other users time. The civility issues means that an indef block is probably the best solution. The last thing Wikipedia needs are more nationalist POV-pushers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for sockpuppetry. Luckily, we can put this case speedily to rest. This user has been trying to gaslight us for too long already. –Austronesier (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User WikiEditor9599 at article G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi
is a WP:SPA who has added and re-added large amounts of content to G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi. If I revert again I could be open to accusations of edit warring, so could an admin intervene? Aside from possible page protection, there is an apparent WP:COI leading me to suspect WP:PAID issues in need to administrator review.

The added content is poorly referenced and badly formatted, but the COI concerns are the most egregious: the images look like architects' promotional drawings and the text is both spammy and/or written in the first person (example: Today to name a few, we have our proud alumni in Apple India, Oracle USA, Nike USA, ISRO, Indian Navy etc).

Link to page prior to changes: ; link to page after changes:.

Many thanks.

Dorsetonian (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A copyvio from https://dseu.ac.in/okhla-i/ Most likely a student. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of we and our makes it clear that its obvious COI at least. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely pageblocked WikiEditor9599 from editing G. B. Pant Engineering College, New Delhi. They are free to make well referenced, policy compliant edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cullen, the content has been cleaned up and merged into an existing section at Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University, so the page block may also be needed on this page.
 * Re: I think the copyright issues have been cleaned up, at least as far as the merged material. Here is the Earwig report, in case I am wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  09:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Block extended to cover Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University, Cabayi (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited the page as there was very least information was updated on the page, I updated all the correct information, and it is not a copyright issue as the content was from the same university website whose wikipedia page is WikiEditor9599 (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * explanation that "the content was from the ... university website" is a clear statement of copyright violation. The website claims (at the foot of the page) "© Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) 2023. All Rights Reserved." Copyright would exist even if they did not explicitly claim it. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I was unaware that the content I used on Wikipedia page was copyrighted and I have learned that it is a violation of copyright law as per Wikipedia Rules. I understand the importance of taking corrective action and will do so immediately. But, the point is that it is an government organization and it is meant to share the information regarding university. and also under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
 * Regarding my request to revert the old page so that readers can find information about the college, as the Admission are going to start soon and students will get confused if they will not find the wikipedia page of the college .I understand that it is important to find a solution that does not infringe upon the rights of the copyright owner. I will work with the Wikipedia team to explore alternative options such as creating new content or finding alternative sources of information that are not subject to copyright protection.
 * In the future, I will be sure to respect the intellectual property rights of others and ensure that any content used on Wikipedia page is either original or used with the appropriate permissions. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Fair use' argument can only be invoked in limited circumstances. I am unable to see the deleted text, but looking at the amount of bytes added and removed in the page history, it seems to be large chunks of text being copyright-violated, which runs contrary to the 'fair use' doctrine of limited content being copied. The relevant policy can be read here: WP:FAIRUSE.
 * There is no 'Wikipedia team' on Wikipedia. We are just individual editors editing here mostly independently of each other. If you have a content team, you are encouraged to use the article's talk page to requests for edits, or even create new drafts for experienced editors to review, in line with WP:COI. – robertsky (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your feedback. Now, I read all the policies and rules of Wikipedia and understood its importance.
 * Thankyou WikiEditor9599 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Admission Session is going to start this month and students will get confused if they will not find the wikipedia page of their college so, I request you to please think on your decision and revert back the page. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a platform to promote or advertise any organisation. – robertsky (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robertsky you are right, But I was not trying to promote or advertise any organisation. And Now I have understood my mistake and I have read all the policies of wikipedia carefully. So, now I will never do these mistakes again WikiEditor9599 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All the content of the page was accurate as the university, recently changed its name so there was a lot of new information . So, I request you to please don't delete this wikipedia page as it is a very Renowned Government college of Delhi. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I told you previously, we have no interest in helping prospective students of your college. You should use your college website to do that, and direct prospective students there for the most current information. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, But I was not trying to promote or advertise any organisation. And Now I have understood my mistake and I have read all the policies of Wikipedia carefully. So, now I will never do these mistakes again. But, I also believe that due to my mistake the original article should not be removed or merged . So, I request you to kindly revert the original Article of the college before my editing.
 * Thank You for your valuable time WikiEditor9599 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This editor has made it clear in their comments they are only here to edit the above articles and are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. There only concern is having the article restored so they can continue to promote the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern and want to clarify that I have no intention of promoting the college. I want to emphasize that I do not have any connection with the college. I apologize for any confusion my previous message may have caused.
 * I want to clarify that my intention was to update the article for good reasons, and I didn't realize that my actions could result in the page being deleted. I feel guilty about this, and that's why I am requesting that the original page be restored and my edits be removed from the page. I hope this clears up any confusion and that we can find a way to move forward. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is false that this editor "has no connection to the college", they state on their user talk "The college has no objections to this information being used on Wikipedia" and " I collected all the necessary information for this college from the college authorities, they mentioned me that this college has been recently gone through many changes", 331dot (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had already mentioned that I don't have direct connection with the college . But, for details I've contacted the college.
 * At last, I just want to say that if it is against the COI rule of Wikipedia. Then, I will never edit any article which I have COI.
 * So, Now, I will never Edit These college articles.
 * I feel guilty about this, and that's why I am requesting that the original page be restored and my edits be removed from the article. WikiEditor9599 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Busy editor
User:Softsword has been going through seemingly unrelated articles at a rapid rate. Within five minutes they have made around fifty "good faith" edits to SS Gothenburg that took me around ten minutes to go through. I wrote a reasonably helpful summary before checking the user's history. Is there a problem here? Doug butler (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I just looked at their most recent edit. I'd call it a good faith edit, with plenty of grammatical improvements—but also with errors, including quotation and ENGVAR spelling changes. I'm guessing the editor is using Grammarly (or something similar) and being careless. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, it doesn't look like you notified the editor about this thread. I've done that for you, but please remember to do so next time. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Even a redlinked userpage? OK, will try to remember. Doug butler (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I left a comment on their talk page. A lot of edits involve unnecessarily adding the words "the" and "a", changing British English to US English on European articles, or creating redirects and other minor errors, but I also see some positive changes.  APK  whisper in my ear  03:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User gaming the system
Hello! I've discovered the user who appears to be gaming the system. They've been making a bunch of edits either adding or removing spaces, seemingly to gain a bunch of edits. I brought this up on their talk page but they've continued to edit while ignoring my query on their talk page. If this isn't an ANI matter then sorry I didn't know where else to take this. ― <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 12:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look like an accurate description of what HE is doing. They are closing up refs, removing hyphens, things like that - most of the ones I looked at are good. They are doing each one in a separate edit, but there's nothing wrong with that, even if it does increase their edit count.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh. I guess I just looked at the first edits I saw, saw them just removing spaces, and just assumed they were gaming. Bad move on my part (Though I wish they would've explained it when I brought it up), sorry about that. I'll withdraw this report then (if that's something I can 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 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could possibly be, but the AGF answer is given above. I would hesitate even if it were more suspicious, as the examples at WP:PGAME all include "...then makes controversial edits..."  If the user in question doesn't do anything controversial, then it seems like the kind of thing we would let slide.  If they jump feet first into some 30/500 restricted area, I would consider it something to discuss for sanctions per obvious WP:GAME, but if this is someone just wikignoming, it's likely nothing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Raj sahu z


I noticed a few non-neutral edits from Raj sahu z. After some follow up on their talk page, it is quite clear that the person writing talk page comments is not the person writing the article edits. Raj sahu z says my sister is writer at news publication so she do rewriting things diff. I'm not sure if this is copyvio, ChatGPT, or a shared account, but something does not seem right to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to not here this editor. They can barely construct a meaningful sentence on the talk page while the words just flow on articles (yeah, sister, sure!). I guess this is a chatGPT case since I can't find the text online and there are dozens of non-working links (an endemic problem with chatGPT which tends to just make links up). RegentsPark (comment) 19:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I succumbed to the temptation, RegentsPark. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC).

user:Bon courage
Not requesting any sanctions beyond what I'm about to describe but can someone please kindly remind the aforementioned editor to assume good faith with fellow editors in FT/N discussions? I will acknowledge my first comment could've been a bit more diplomatic, but I don't think the response was entirely deserved. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't question your good faith at all. I do question some of your edits however (and rather than engage with the detail of my concern or answer my queries, you complain I'm attacking you). Bon courage (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From the Department of Deja Vue, I'll link to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123, and just say here what I said then. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But it looks to me like an admin should full protect Aquatic ape hypothesis while the discussion at WP:FTN goes on. And this is content that is subject to Contentious Topics in pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As the original reporter of that thread, I'd like to say for the record that I believe this is a continuation of the same behavior, and would very much like an official warning at this point. Loki (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What you mean you should get the WP:BOOMERANG being mooted there? Bon courage (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note here that BC's reaction to this comment was even more WP:ASPERSIONS. Loki (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not wrong, though. You should've gotten a Boomerang last time around, and you're doing the same stuff again on a new article. MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not a cast aspersion, but a directed criticism for a particular thing. Read that old ANI thread; plenty of editors were telling you to drop the stick. But you've taken it up again for a different topic and are now at - what - 4RR? I can understand your desire to 'take out' an opponent with a classic ANI pile-on attempt, but remember everybody contributing here gets scrutinised. Bon courage (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of the participants in that thread other than the two of us, the only person who told only me to drop the stick was MrOllie, who was also involved in the underlying content dispute. SandyGeorgia, Tryptofish, and Horse Eye's Back all told both of us to back off and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Loki (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to read that again MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I did indeed miss Jojo Anthrax. Loki (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So for you, probably a TBAN from pseudoscience broadly construed would be the way forward I think. If it doesn't happen now and you continue on with your quirky misreading of the WP:PAG it'll happen at some point. Bon courage (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You missed JoJo, but you also mischaracterize what I said at the time. I pointed out that you (Loki) were on the wrong side of consensus. In no way did I create a false equivalence. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think Loki has misrepresented 's position in that thread. As I read it she was not telling "us both to back off" but rather was recommending that more be done to make make the EMDR article's pseudoscience aspects clear. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bon courage is correct. Loki, you seem not to have understood either Jojo or Tryptofish or me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sigh. One of the diffs you linked to was by Loki, but I assume you meant to link to the diff above it. "Watering-down" is a correct describing of this edit, and not a personal attack. is classified as a pseudoscience has been changed to has sometimes been classified as a pseudoscience. That watering down was justified using an IMO clearly wrong reading of WP:FRINGE/QS, that argues that we can't call it pseudoscience because not all critics have used the term "pseudoscience" when they wrote pieces debunking the theory. But clearly, WP:FRINGE/QS does not apply (WP:FRINGE/PS does), since sources are unanimous that the theory has no academic support. DFlhb (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit was probably linked to emphasize the title Bon Courage added ("PROFRINGE") and not the description of my edit as "watering down". Even I don't think there's anything sanctionable about describing that edit as watering down, but I do believe that calling it WP:PROFRINGE is an WP:ASPERSION, especially since nobody involved is even trying to argue that the AAH is not WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the 'watering down' itself should be sanctionable, especially given that it is a continuation of your misunderstanding of policy from the EMDR arguments that wasted so much time. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said to BC over at FTN, I'm not going to rehash every argument I've ever had with you. Loki (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, another one of the diffs in the OP was Bon courage's reaction to this diff, which was understandable given that it literally the sentence to say it's "not" pseudoscience in Wikivoice; only, the diff was an unfortunate typo, as Bon courage readily conceded. DFlhb (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Such an aggressive reaction to a typo is not really understandable IMO. You can see what I think is a much more reasonable reaction from MrOllie's comment on the talk page. Loki (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One other thing I'd like to add is that before BC posted the thread in WP:FTN, he and MrOllie were having a separate content dispute with another editor, who also felt that the two of them were failing to assume good faith. Loki (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone close this thread? It seems to be serving absolutely no purpose. There is a reason that WP:WQA was shut down, and it wasn't so that all those risible conversations could happen here instead. jps (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, WQA was closed because it couldn't do anything about the problems raised there, not because those problems shouldn't be resolved potentially in a central location. IznoPublic (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to all involved, if the remedy you seek for your problem is a "reminder" or a "warning" or the like, and not concrete admin action, I would like to suggest that it's best not brought to ANI. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A warning is a concrete admin action and can be used in future proceedings as evidence of a pattern of behavior. Loki (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And sometimes they miraculously manifest without a new topic at this board. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's not as if WP:FTN isn't watched by a substantial flock of admins (if flock is the correct collective noun for admins). Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) I believe the most widely-accepted collective noun is "cabal". Narky Blert (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We obviously need an RFC on what the correct collective noun for admins are. I like "choir". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * a horde? a mob? DFlhb (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Flange! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I wasn't planning to take this to ANI. I usually don't take things like this to ANI. but I got a little annoyed when Bon courage decided to call me a troll and for me to be blocked over this edit, specifically. As I told him, if you look at the two edit summaries you see when you review that change, it is blatantly obvious that I was trying to workshop the sentence and simply accidentally left a word in. Bon courage did not read any of it and instead immediately assumed bad faith. He's been doing that continuously throughout the discussion. I don't mind being told that I am wrong, and I have no bone in this fight, but I would like to receive the basic courtesy of WP:AGF. The thing that ticked me off enough to come here is that I was trying to de-escalate the situation while this was going on, and get back to a constructive discussion, and this attempt was completely ignored in favour of calling me a troll for something that even the most basic due diligence would've shown was a honest mistake. A honest mistake, I might add, that was intended to add the majority of his preferred wording back into the article. Either way, I'm signing off from the discussion.--Licks-rocks (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine to close from my perspective too. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editor
User has been continuing to add unsourced and/or unhelpful content into various music articles, which they have previously been blocked twice for. (Recent example) As of recently, they have been going on a mass genre-warring spree, adding and changing genres without sources or discussion, causing a significant amount of work for other editors to revert. Magatta (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, even on a mobile device the format is awful. That said, this has gone on for quite long enough. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User making legal threats
See this diff here where this user threatens legal action if a content dispute is not resolved in their favor. The Night Watch    (talk)   14:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for NLT. NOTHERE, RGW and some other acronyms would have applied as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Noice Catto
told an IP editor to "commit suicide", because the IP vandalized Yemen. He's also been engaging in a pattern of Yememi nationalist WP:POV pushing, where he disruptively removes sourced content about other countries or that he disagrees with, and engages in random disruption. He's gotten a lot of warnings about it but the disruption persists. I think he's WP:NOTHERE/there's also WP:CIR issues here. Galobtter (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Straight to an indef. They can explain it to an unblocking admin. That is one of the most appalling comments I've ever read and there is no way this project benefits from someone who thinks it's acceptable to say such things to another editor. I know another editor brought it up with them, but they didn't seem to think it was that big a deal and excused it due to someone mildly vandalising the Yemen page. And what's even worse is the edit by the IP was 6 days ago, They had to go hunting through the history to check the diff to even see it (it was reverted pretty quickly) and then go and attack the IP with self harm messages. That doesn't speak to a well intentioned editor. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 07:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note they're making an unblock request. I leave it to another admin to determine if it's acceptable. I know to me it's not considering all the circumstances, but I'll let others make the call. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both unblock requests have been dealt with twice, and they've responded to the latest with some low-level juvenile harassment of the person who declined the second one. Probably just let them spin in the wind for a while is the best option.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Long-term CIR behavior by ChiserYT
User:ChiserYT has been editing since 2021, and from the start has been demonstrating CIR behavior. They received multiple warnings in January 2022 for edit warring, and trying to use "hands on expirence" [sic] as a citation. I tried to reason with them towards the end of January 2022, and initially it seemed promising, but they also said I understand, but i also need you guys to undestand how to co-exist with someone that has adhd or other mental disabilities. I know im stubborn. But impulsive control isnt easy. suggesting that this user openly has CIR problems and difficulty participating in a collaborative environment.

Next month, ChiserYT created a draft that was copyvio and seemingly did not understand why it was deleted. Around this time, they changed their signature to (and this is not a joke) ADHD and i hate speedy accusations of bs. Then there was this rant which really speaks for itself.

Now we come to April 2022, where ChiserYT blanked an article and was reverted and warned. Their response? i cleared it to start an article about m&w mfg. We also see their new signature, and again I'm not making this up, ADHD Ginger Boi. Jumpy to conclusions. I like Trains. #ALDM ChiserYT (talk)

Next, ChiserYT decides to hijack a redirect, and we see this incredible display of maturity. Here another editor raises the issue of their signature, and we see stonewalling. its my signature. too bad. you ever heard of privacy, or leaving someone alone instead of harrasing every single aspect of their prescents. now answer my question instead sidetracking into useless nagging. And we now have an even worse signature. It reads: ADHD Ginger Boi. Jumpy to conclusions. I like Trains. #ALDM ChiserYT (talk) (talk) Yes, all of the markup is fully visible in the signature.

And then we get another rant from ChiserYT, complete with an (admittedly weak) personal attack of You think i know how to customize my signature how id like too. u stupid. Shut up. Leave me alone. This prompts a warning from Primefac. Eventually even ChiserYT seems to realize they've messed up their signature. It has become even worse, and is now ADHD Ginger Boi.#ALM2M ChiserYT (talk) (talk) again with all the markup visible.

In May 2022, we have more warnings about ownership behavior and disruptive editing   at Tractor.

After this, ChiserYT becomes less active and generally makes smaller edits, until March/April this year, when they unsuccessfully request undeletion of two articles they wrote that was deleted. When that doesn't work, ChiserYT promptly forum shops by asking Liz to undelete one of the articles instead. Liz notes ChiserYT's absurd and confusing signature. Unsurprisingly, Liz does not action the request.

This week I saw ChiserYT's comments at Talk:Illinois Central Railroad. I informed this user their signature is a clear violation of our signature policy, and was told to "lay off". Clearly, trying to reason with them won't work. Yesterday, they also left this aggressive message on an admin's talk page. I'll also note their userpage reads HI Adhd sucks living with. Also i hate my life, SO f'ing much. With CIR history going back over a year, I don't see any hope of their behavior improving, and am requesting an indefinite CIR block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. On top of that, people who use their disabilities as an excuse to behave poorly should be blocked. Disabilities don't manifest in the same way for everyone, but there are plenty of neurodivergent Wikipedians who have become prolific editors, so I feel Chiser's behavior is also very disrespectful. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ableist ADHD Ginger Boi.#ALM2M &#91;&#91;User:ChiserYT&#124;ChiserYT&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:ChiserYT&#124;talk&#93;&#93;) (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For one, you need to remove the personal attack. Second you MUST change your signature. This clearly does not meet our guidelines. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * User indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User edit warring & unsourced edits
The user in question has been warned many times this year alone regarding their edit warring behavior and unsourced edits, and was blocked last month for unsourced content as well. As apparent from discussions on their talk page including 'Nomination for deletion of Template:Nick Jr co-productions', 'April 2023' 'Disney co-productions', and some others, the user is usually either edit warring with users, adding unsourced content in articles, or just being plainly disruptive.

Currently, they continue ignoring what I say (such as this and this) regarding what belongs on Template:Nick Jr., which they had already previously been warned about before.

At this point, despite my warning yesterday, the user is continuing with the same disruptive behavior they have already been warned on multiple times for. It's seeming to become evident that this user does not intend to change their behavior despite all the times they have already been warned.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Magitroopa im about to message you about the Nick Jr thing so be there when I send it DaRealToonChance (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And yet again, they continue to edit war and ignore all the warnings they received regarding Template:Nick Jr., as they have (once again) reverted my edit. Apparently they are only interested in edits that they believe are correct and nothing else. A block of some kind definitely seems to be necessary at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked for continuing the same behavior that led to the April block including the edit warring, persistent unsourced content addition and the continued lack of talk page usage. Edit summaries while repeatedly hitting "undo" are not a substitute for talk page discussions. They've shown that their behavior will continue, so it isn't a matter of having a timed block that they can just "wait out" and resume the same problematic editing. Their talk page shows a pattern of this behavior and no sign of it letting up. - Aoidh (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Swarm of promotional SPAs at Harley Pasternak


Over at Harley Pasternak, there are a bunch of SPA accounts that are being used to tag-team edit war promotional spam regarding hotel gyms he has worked on, none of which is sourced is to reliable sources. has removed some of this material, but was subsequently reverted. I gave a COI notice to SusanforHarley, and they did not deny the COI allegation. . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a start, I semi-protected Harley Pasternak for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked as well. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editor removing indentations despite warnings/without discussion
Hey there – hope everyone's doing well. Just wanted to bring a problematic WP:AFL editor,, to your attention, as they've been continually removing indentations from AFL player infoboxes (for games and goals, to align them properly) despite several warnings from myself and another editor trying to open a separate discussion with them. See this recent edit, for example – I'd already updated the player's statistics for the round, but this editor's gone out of their way to still remove the indentations without discussing, and you can see from their contributions that they've never edited talk/user talk pages full stop. Anyway, just wanted to reach out in the hope that someone might be able to step in – thanks. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  02:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a personal preference thing, I see nothing in the infobox instructions or examples that suggests that adding alignment padding is a requirement or even suggesting its use. Additionally I see nothing in your communication with this user that attempts to explain the situation and why the 0 template is being used, just templated disruption notices. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 02:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Infobox parameters which are lined up are easier to read than those which are not lined up, but the annoying thing about people adding or deleting spaces in infoboxes to line them up is when they do that and nothing else, and I've wasted a bit of my time examining the edit only to see those non-rendering changes. I have no objection to non-rendering changes that have a purpose and help in making it easier to edit by making a better visual impression in edit mode, but I wish people (myself included) would do so only when they are make other changes to the article.  Further, I've come across editors who do nothing but that kind of edit, who are adding to their edit total without actually substantially improving articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The formation is more than a personal preference - it's more on the WP:AFL project consensus level. Also, as you can see from this talk page post that also linked above, I have tried communicating with MF2022 about it, but recieved no answer and they continue making these changes. Also often it will be the only change they make. The problem imo is a less a content issue, but much more a communication issue - if MF2022 isn't willing to communicate, it's very hard to work with them to build this encyclopedia. --SuperJew (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not believe that WikiProjects have the power to enforce such decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, the decision is less the problem. The lack of communication is. --SuperJew (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I left a strong warning at User talk:MelbourneFan2022. Please let me know if problems continue. As mentioned in my warning, the issue is trivial but communication is required and it is not reasonable that contested edits be continued further. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I support an indefinite block of s/he fails to respond to this ANI. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Another anon adding unsourced material


I seem to notice this IP making unsourced changes across much of Wikipedia, mainly at the page for The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, where the IP tried to source IMDb for some of the cast, a source already confirmed unreliable per WP:IMDB. For all other articles this IP has edited, the IP has not provided a source for their claims, regardless of relevance to the film. Talk page posts have not deterred their actions, and at least one edit summary has suggested the person behind the IP might have a COI with the film. Perhaps a day block might give them a chance to rethink their actions? Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This would probably be better suited for WP:AIV. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ray Russell
Hello, A member called Melcous deleted all my work on page Ray Russell. They even removed his PhD which I cited from the university website itself. If I need to improve cited links I shall, but to have all my work destroyed is heartbreaking. I have seen that this same user has done similar activity before with several people finding their conduct aggressive and unjust. Please help by placing a partial band on them.

07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) regards, MsMaui I have given the user a warning which they ignored and have notified the user about this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMaui (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a new WP:SPA editor who does not appear to understand core policies. I don't think it belongs here, but that's not up to me. I did not ignore their warning but have in fact been engaging with them on our talk pages. My edits to Ray Russell (musician) have included edit summaries with links to the relevant guidelines e.g. MOS:DOCTOR for the PhD in the name/lead; and more importantly to WP:RS and WP:V for the inclusion of poorly sourced content and WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV for content that reads like it belongs on the person's own website. Melcous (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your lengthy edit included overtly promotional wording like and . And that was in the first few sentences. Promotional, advertising and marketing activity is not permitted on Wikipedia, and any evaluative assessment must be attributed to a reliable source entirely independent of Russell. Please read the Neutral point of view carefully, and avoid promotional editing. What is your connection, if any, with Russell? Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first few words are taken from a professional source if that is the issue I will cite it. He is internationally renowned because he is known globally in the music industry I can cite over 20 sources that would confirm this and he has won 2 Gold Disks, 3 BAFTAS, 2 Royal Television Society Awards and more. So calling him award winning is justified. May I advised administrators to look at Melcous other Talk conversations where users report similar poor conduct by Melcous. Melcous claim has be that I have a conflict of interest, I do not. I also fully understand the core policy and have made sure I follow WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV guidelines. If it pleases Melcous I will improve my citation further if required but ask not to have my work removed without a prior warning. Non of my writing was my own opinion everything is taken from professional reports, educational documents, published sources and University publications. Information taken from the persons website has then been cited with other external sources. Again this behaviour from Melcous is unjust and aggressive.
 * MsMaui MsMaui (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having just looked over the disputed sections, while this is a content dispute, I agree with Melcous: the great majority of MsMaui's additions are heavily promotional and chockfull of gushing praise far more suitable to fan reviews (never mind being in dire need of a proofreader for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors). Beyond that, MsMaui, while I recognize your distress, edits are a fact of life on Wikipedia. The terms of service to which you agreed allow any editor to change, heavily alter or remove outright any edit you make, and there is nothing inherently "unjust" or "aggressive" about doing so.   Ravenswing      07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So do I. It came up on my watchlist for some reason. I wonder who puts them on the watchlist. Anyway, it seems to be lots and lots of dodgy references being added that are non-rs and a spam link. It is a WP:BLP as far as I see.    scope_creep Talk  07:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Fine let me improve my citations - although I don't see how a book citation or university link or links connected to websites that provide factual information on published Albums is wrong in any way.
 * MsMaui MsMaui (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , this is not ridiculous. You will not be allowed to add promotional content to this article. If you do not understand what you have been told, then you will be blocked from editing this article. Please state your relationship with Russell. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no relation at all to Ray Russell. Im just upset that I spent so long looking up all this info to have my work destroyed.
 * I don't see how stating who he worked with which was all factual or mentioning his Royal Society Awards which was cited from the awards website was wrong or promotional. Why was that removed? MsMaui (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , several experienced editors have told you that your edits were too promotional. I hope that you will not continue arguing about it, because that would be a waste of your time and other people's time. Please move on to writing neutral content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No because it was not promotional! And you are still avoiding telling me why and what parts exactly. Especially when I have stated I have no connected to this person and that I have cited facts. MsMaui (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have decide to take this matter even further. MsMaui (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No because it was not promotional! And you are still avoiding telling me why and what parts exactly. Especially when I have stated I have no connected to this person and that I have cited facts. MsMaui (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have decide to take this matter even further. MsMaui (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have partially blocked MsMaui from Ray Russell (musician). You're welcome to use the talk page to gain consensus for your edits. Star   Mississippi  22:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

France IPs adding wrong song credits


For at least 14 months now, someone in France has been adding many wrong names to album and song credits. Typical wrong names include Mina Myoui, Yoo Jeong-yeon, Jihyo, Son Chae-young, Chou Tzu-yu, Zedd, Madeon, Jeongyeon, Tzuyu, Porter Robinson, Hugo Leclercq (birth name of Madeon) and more.

Can we get preventive block on the France range Special:Contributions/2001:861:3702:1440:0:0:0:0/64 and the larger range Special:Contributions/2A01:CB1C:400:0:0:0:0:0/40 which is wide enough to catch four of the listed /64s with very little collateral? Can we get a block on static IP Special:Contributions/86.198.138.62? This vandal has been a thorn in the side of editors such as, and  who work to revert back to the correct facts. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked the /40 and the other /64. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep an eye on the static IPs. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Roger Ogden/Chicano Park
I am requesting that user Roger Ogden be banned from editing the article on Chicano Park. I go into more detail on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell the user has a clear conflict of interest as he personally was directly involved in political protests at the park (news outlets cited him as the organizer of at least one of them, though he claims on the article's talk page not to have been), and the majority of his edits have been heavily rewriting the section regarding his protests in an extremely self-serving way, as well as inserting various political attacks on the park itself. Some edits also include links to his own web presence (a Scribd account under his name) and seem to constitute original research, again pushing a particular political agenda.

The edits have taken place in two long batches, one in 2018 and one in 2023. Comparing the versions before his edits to the versions after illustrate the issue pretty clearly: 2018 edits, 2023 edits. Note that the diff links above also include a number of anonymous edits, but these coincide with both the timing and the nature of Ogden's logged-in edits and are almost certainly the work of the same person, just not signed in.

Due to the clear conflict of interest and disregard for NPOV, it is my recommendation and request that this user (along with an apparent sock puppet account TRobles, which he seems to admit is also his account on the article's talk page) be banned from making edits to Chicano Park. -Literally Satan (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the TRobles account has never posted an edit besides the one on the talk page that he immediately admitted was his, and the user talk page was created with the only text being "this is a test", so I think this may not have been necessarily intended as malice. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The post by TRobles was a mistake. That is a dummy account that I was experimenting with, but had not used.  I just forgot I was logged in on that account.  I am a video blogger and I have never organized a political protest at Chicano Park.  I have recorded protests at the park on both sides of the political spectrum, left and right. Just because I have a critical opinion of the park does not mean I have a conflict of interest.  I should not be prohibited from making edits on this page.  It is Literal Lucifer who has actually a bias and is operating on his bias.  He doesn't want certain objective information about the park to be made public, even when it is supported by court documents and valid photographs.  I recommend that you ban Literally Lucifer from the page because he erased wholesale all all of my edits, including from five years ago, which have never been contested before.  Also, it appears that he deleted a number of actual photos of the park that I made myself.  Those were completely valid photos of the park that showed the revolutionary nature of the park murals. There was nothing wrong with them in regard to uploading them to the page.  They did not misrepresent the Park in any way. He has also misrepresented me as "alt right" to demonize me, which I am not and never have been "alt right".  RogerO   (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is correct that a "critical opinion" does not in and of itself constitute a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest comes from Ogden's direct involvement in an incident being discussed in the "controversies" section. All (or maybe almost all) of the edits Ogden has made to that section of the article were clearly intended to portray his involvement in a positive light and his opponents in a negative light, which demonstrates to me that the user is either unable or unwilling to adhere to the policy of NPOV, particularly when describing his own involvement.


 * This is the second time he has accused me of trying to smear him as "alt right", which is not a statement I have ever made about him or inserted into the article. I did use the term "far-right" in an edit I made before discovering his involvement in the editing of the article, but this term is used in the Los Angeles Times article I cited for that paragraph. He has also accused me both here and on the talk page of trying to suppress information about the park in pursuit of a particular agenda, which is not the case. The only edits I have made to the article are:
 * rewriting the Controversy section (and fixing a typo) to change what I saw as an extremely biased account of the incidents described. These changes included providing context about Ogden and his motivations, more information on other attendees and their political affiliation, and removing an extended rant about the criminal history of a man who had nothing to do with the event (on either side) that seemed to only have been included to associate the park and its supporters with criminality. These changes were made before I realized Roger Ogden had been involved in editing the article, and included citations to local and regional media articles. (A couple of these edits were made when I wasn't logged in.)
 * removing material written by Ogden, which I did after I looked through the article history, realized his involvement in the article, and saw the nature of his edits. I felt these deletions was necessary for reasons I have explained repeatedly both on this very page and on the article's talk page. Some of these changes involved removing material that didn't directly have to do with the incidents in question, including the deletion of the aforementioned photos. This was done not in an attempt to suppress information; it was done to remove material inserted by a source who should not be providing material to this article due to the conflict of interest, regardless of the validity of any individual deletion. If other editors who do not have conflicts of interest feel that anything I removed or rewrote should be restored to the article as proper context, and that said material is not a violation of NPOV, they are of course free to reinsert it. Again, my reasoning for removing much of the material was its source, not necessarily the material itself.
 * As for the alternate account TRobles, while I agree its use does not seem to have been malicious, I included it in this request because of the possibility that it could be used to evade the ban I was requesting. My ultimate concern is not which account has this or that action taken against it; my intention is that the person Roger Ogden (regardless of which account he may or may not be using) should not be allowed to edit the article on Chicano Park for the reasons outlined above. -Literally Satan (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple stated, and to not be argumentative. If I broke Wikipedia rules with some edits that would be due to not having much experience. Those edits could be reversed or deleted, though the edits I made are actually the truth.  I think the motivation here, though, is to have me banned mainly because I have information about the Grand Jury investigation of the Chicano Park Steering Committee and also I have have information about the conviction of David Rico, one of he Founders of the Park and a member of the Steering Committee for about 50 years.  David Rico was charged and convicted of criminal syndicalism for planning to firebomb a local college and it was believe they also intended to attack critical infrastructure in the hopes of starting a revolution.  Criminal syndicalism is a law that they charged terrorists with before the current anti-terrorism laws.  Rico was convicted of a crime of terrorism.  The Park insiders do not want that factual information shared on Wikipedia.  Also, my photos of park murals that show that promotion of radicalism should not be deleted.  Chicano Park is a far-left political park similar in concept to the People's Park in San Francisco.  Chicano Park has a large political following who want to suppress any negative information about the park.  I believe that is what's going on here.  So in the interests of fairness and truth in Wikipedia, I don't think I should be banned.  Neither LL nor the other editors who have edited out my contributions ever tried to discuss this with me earlier, he just went straight to trying to have me banned by the admins.  I am actually trying to input some objective information in this page, but I don't think they are concerned about objectivity. RogerO   (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * People's Park isn't in SF. Better check. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's not why you're here. The reason you're here is that you're acting in violation of WP:COI, which is a simple policy that does not have to result in a ban and is honestly quite lax, but in my experience a lot of people end up getting banned because of it anyway, because they don't listen to the warnings. I strongly suggest that you step away from the article and leave it to uninvolved editors to decide what is and is not worthy of inclusion. We really don't care about whatever magic secret knowledge you have, the WP:CABAL is not after you, we're just random people and we like to keep this place clean and organised, so if you break the rules and make things messy, we get grumpy. That's all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were after me. However, I wouldn't classify "court records" and photographs of the murals as "secret knowledge".  I had already decided to sit back and see what happens. :-) RogerO   (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched the article, since this started and had no intention of doing that. RogerO   (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * good! then I think we're likely done here. Take care to read the policy I linked (and maybe consider reading WP:NPOV as well, to be on the safe side). That way you may well be able to avoid ending up here a second time. ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, poorly sourced material at Midlothian, Virginia
Writing this to preempt my violating 3rr (though I don't believe I would be based on WP:3RRNO). It looks like is | attempting to insert poorly sourced BLP content into Midlothian, Virginia. In the spirit of full disclosure, I think that Chris-Chan is the victim of a nearly decades-long harassment campaign, but I recognize WP:RGW. Once again - since the content is in violation of WP:BLPRS I don't think my reversion would run afoul of the 3 revert rule, but I also think it's in the best interest to raise this matter here. PriusGod (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Vandalism is now blatant. Nothing to do but block PriusGod (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I was going to say! Honestly If I see doing [his/her/their/your/my] mom I typically stop reading because there's no way anyone with competence would type that. No matter what sources they doll the contribution up in or how plausible it sounds, some things will always be giveaways. There's nothing wrong with being cautious around 3RR though. I threw them up at AIV. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, they began socking. appears to be on top of it though GabberFlasted (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Protected and RD2'd by Ivanvector. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple, if it's Chris Chan related, it needs to be removed immediately. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If any oversighters are watching this, most of the edits have been zapped, but there are still a couple that are merely revdelled - I think there's a bit more that needs doing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I sent a request to the OS team earlier on this in fact. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the username also be nuked from orbit? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 22:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also watch Commons; we had to get some KF-contributed 'content' obliterated earlier.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Incivility in talk and edit summaries from MrOllie, ultimate result is disruptive editing.
I've been IP editing since yesterday under 142.115.142.4 and 66.207.202.66. I have declared this since first I was using both.

Editor MrOllie has been uncivil in the short interactions with me and a brief look into his contribution history and talk page history shows a very similar interaction with another user running concurrently with me, and similar behavior going back. MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV after a revert with the edit summary "no", which is apparently in reply to my edit summary "see the talk page", which is in reference to this detailed talk message.

I would have let it go, but MrOllie's history shows a pattern, not just this instance. So I added a talk page incivility message. MrOllie almost immediately reverted it with edit summary "Rv more nonsense". I realized that I was on the other IP he had not seen yet, so I thought he might have mistook me for spam/trolling. I posted another talk message to clear that up. It was also almost immediately reverted with the edit summary "take a hint". I have taken the hint: MrOllie has no interest in civilly discussing my edit and his revert of it, in clear violation of WP:Civil and WP:BRD.

Another IP user made a reasonable edit and was equally mistreated in almost exactly the same way: Message incivility and Edit summary incivility:. MrOllie has been uncivil since the start with this IP, just as he has with me. Some other instances that looks similar at first glance. . Thank you. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV. No, he accused you of an obvious POV. It's possible to have a POV and still edit neutrally. And if you are going to put a news outlet's Pulitzer win in scarequotes it's a bit rich to come and complain when someone suggests that you might have an obvious POV!
 * MrOllie could have been less brusque with you, but I'm not seeing any sanctionable incivility here. Nor do I see it wrt the other IP – when you reinstate a message on an editor's talkpage that they have removed,, an edit summary of "rv harassment" is about what you should expect. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are equivocating two senses of "POV". You are suggesting MrOllie merely criticized my personal and reasoned perspective, rather than accusing I'm violating WP:NPOV. I'll admit my perspective, and reject the accusation at the same time: the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows. How they decided it won the Pulitzer is questionable and part of the controversial nature of topic. Every historical authority is shaking their head about this.
 * But so what? MrOllie is terse and disruptive. He reverts and doesn't discuss. He actively tells those he reverted to go away, but will revert again if you edit. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows"...consider yourself very lucky you haven't blocked yet. Nothing actionable, and MrOllie warned you appropriately for obvious POV editing and was terse because of removal of well-sourced content. I'm going to be even more terse here; knock it off, now.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any content from that article. Do you have a diff that you're referring to? 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you going to take back your claim I removed sourced content and concede that you didn't actually look very far into this? This argument with MrOllie (which I consider resolved) was about a very simple addition of a word. I don't appreciate that you'd fly at me with both fists up like this while clearly not even bothering to read the discussion and edit diffs. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the other IP edit..."Morris is not a medical doctor but has authored over 100 academic papers"...he's not a doctor, and again, reverted appropriately and we don't template regulars with sarcasm about civility.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * we don't template regulars. I can remember that. But I can assure you, there is no sarcasm here. I'm dead serious about MrOllie's behavior. This is my first ANI submission, but not the first time I've endured this kind of abuse. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's the IPs conduct here rather than MrOllie's that is the real concern. They are engaging in tendentious POV-pushing against the talk-page consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which preexisting talk discussion do you think is giving consensus that my initial edit and talk post address? And if you'd like to address how the message of my small edit is contrary to the existing article message (since it is a lede edit), I'd love to hear it on the article talk page. The fact is, the article is very critical of the topic, since that is the prevailing opinion among historians. The 1619 Project is and has been resoundingly criticized, and the leading sentence should reflect this, just like all other heavily expert-criticized topics. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The honorable IP needs to educate themselves very, very quickly on WP:RS if they want to continue having an editing career on Wikipedia. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the RS policy. You should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided.
 * I understand Wikipedia puts NYT as WP:GREL. I also understand sourcing is evaluated on each individual case. I also understand that grel doesn't mean infallible, and that despite this many regular Wikipedians will argue "but it's grel" like that does confer infallibility. The NYT left a big mess in the bed on this one, and the Wikipedia article shows this. It is filed with heavy and aggressive criticism from history experts, and virtually no positive responses (because none exist). See my above reply for more info.
 * But like I said, you should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided, since the grel status of NYT and sourcing in general is irrelevant to this issue. It hasn't even come up! This is about MrOllie behaving incivilly and ultimately editing disruptively. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, when multiple editors are bringing up a concern, even if it's not the one you started with, it's usually a good idea to listen. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sound advice. However, the responses here are not giving a unified message. I also have doubts they've looked into the topic. But if they want to make this about POV, then they can take it to the NPOV notice board, then we can come back and settle the ANI. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to be trying to use this complaint at ANI to recruit assistance in a content dispute. We do not do that. We address behavior. Multiple editors have expressed concern, with varying degrees of asperity, that you are pushing a POV against consensus. That appears to be the primary issue, not MrOllie's conduct. Your conduct here only reinforces that perception.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I said the exact opposite. If they want to discuss the POV of the article, then do so at the article or the NPOV message board. If they really want to double down, put an ANI on me for POV pushing. I talked about behavior. One admitted MrOllie is terse, but it's apparently ok because he thinks I'm POV pushing. I don't have much faith in his assessment, since he also thinks I deleted sourced content. I didn't delete anything from the article. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What you think you're doing and what you're actually accomplishing are two different things. When many people advise that you're doing something wrong, it would be wise to consider that they have a point. ANI is a bad choice of venue to try to direct an outcome to your specification.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's your actions that are being scrutinized and not what you said. Honestly, I suggest you do yourself a big favour and drop it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IP, I will refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, but for your convenience, it says: A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, it's about them", as if discussion is restricted to the original complaint, so that discussing the behavior of the original reporter would be "changing the subject". But that isn't the case: any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny. A reporter whose behavior is or becomes out of line may find themselves be bludgeoned with their own boomerang. I would take M Bitton's advice.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, MrOllie's user Talk page (what he hasn't reverted of it), unfortunately is overflowing with petty bickering with other users. Much of it seems to spark from a pattern of behavior: reverting entire edits and refusing to discuss, often antagonizing users who attempt to engage with him. I politely pointed out that these practices are bad practice and noted that this erodes civility on the platform.
 * This kind of behavior absolutely merits addressing with sincerity, not yet more bickering and finger-pointing. 2604:4080:13F8:8320:D972:8646:9B07:D794 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that coming in as a meat/sockpuppet in an attempt to make it seem like your POV has support is going to work here? It's more likely to earn you rangeblocks.   Ravenswing      03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This IP isn't me. It's not even the same protocol... Range block that whole /64 if you want. I've been upfront since way before this ANI that I'm on 2 IPs at the moment. Why would I do that while also socking? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, all three of these POV IPs need a time-out from editing in order to fully understand Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ^This, particularly with meat/sock puppetry now entering the picture. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Proposal: a one week siteban for OP so they can read up on Wikipedia policies. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this ANI. I believe I've overreacted a bit, though still believe MrOllie's contribution history shows he is quickly and unnecessarily curt, especially in discussion about his reverts. I've attempted to make this right with him.
 * As for this boomerang, ulgh. You guys jump to conclusions, out for blood, makes you feel powerful I guess. It was me that posted to NPOV about the argument and it was me that conceded to MrOllie's position.  So, I feel quite justified at this point to tell you guys to go do something uncivil with yourselves. Good day. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Following this edit, the IP made a series of POV edits to Xenophobia in the United States, removing the entire section on Donald Trump and much other material critical of US policy. The POV editing is indeed clear, and it looks as though a boomerang would be justified here. RolandR (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I cite policy on three talk sections I created, you cite nothing on your revert. And wp:onus applies to some of the edits. I'm happy to discuss with you there or on NPOV. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently my IP changed again... 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Follow up / proposal
I wasn't planning on responding to this at all, since the IP editor has been doing a good job of making my case for me. But now I want to draw attention to this non-apology apology that was posted to my talk page about this ANI: ANI about your recent behavior posted. Between the inability to walk away without another round of personal attacks and the edit warring about Trump at Xenophobia in the United States I think some sort of boomerang sanction is warranted. Perhaps a topic ban from American Politics for the person behind these IPs? - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support though I'm not sure how enforcable such a topic ban would be. Regardless, these IPs need to be dealt with to curb their disruption. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, they're clearly here to right great wrongs and don't care if they disrupt Wikipedia to do it. A topic ban seems like an appropriate way to push them towards editing in less contentious areas where they're less likely to continue running into these arguments (though I suspect they won't bother). Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 00:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam in prisons
Source number 20 is prejudicial and unreliable, a systematic review should be done of FOX news as a source. It should be discounted from every potentially biased article (on Religion, Race, Sexual Proclivity, Sexual Identity, Mental Health, and all American Partisan politics generally, I'm sure I missed some) on the grounds that it is a propaganda engine not a news service. Wikipedia should uphold the high level of editorial impartiality we, the public, have come to expect of it. I love this site and plan to become a content contributor when I have time and energy to seek out a wiki-site that I am prepared to fully research and claim expertise on; don't make my trust a folly. 70.113.35.12 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An RfC (Request for Comments) is underway here as to whether Fox News should be deprecated as a source. Please go there if you want to make your opinion known, but it would be advisable to make an account first, as I don;t believe that IPs can participate. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly gets them a wierd look and possibly a removal as an SPA --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An IP isn't an account, and in general it's history isn't indicative of the long term editing history of the person using the address. It would be a strange take to disallow IPs from making an argument at an rfc, especially since they aren't votes. That is my understanding at least Very Average Editor (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Yngvadottir
Yngvadottir jumped into the heraldic tincture articles to take issue with the use of infoboxes. They attempted to build a consensus to make changes to the article on three separate occasions. There was not a single editor who took interest in their suggstions. After this failure Yngvadottir moved the goal post, saying I failed to gain any support. This was strange since I wasn't the one seeking support, they were. I also pointed out to Yngvadottir that this whole issue was already discussed. Another editor, Jalen Folf, withdrew his complaints and supported my edits. While it is only one editor, that is the only other editor that weighed in on this matter. Yngvadottir ignored this, and decided to unilaterally make site-wide edits to every relevant article they could find without consensus.

Yngvadottir does not seem to be interested in heraldry, and states they are not a "MOS wonk", so I am not sure why they are so insistent on making these changes. The information that Yngvadottir wants to include in the articles is trivial at best, and I believe they are giving undue weight to this information by giving it its own subsection. They even falsely claim that the heraldic tinctures were "often" described by these "poetic meanings", but this claim is not backed by their source. In fact, it is even contradicted by other entries. These "poetic meanings" seem to be one-offs or wholly unsourced. Basically one guy a few hundred years ago used planets to describe the colors, and a different guy a hundred years later used gemstones to describe the colors, but these systems never caught on with anyone. Even Yngvadottir seemed to have discovered the uselessness of this information during the process of making their site-wide edits, saying no serious heraldist uses these poetic meanings and that sources can't even agree on what these "poetic descriptions" even are. It's dubious that the information should even be in the article, let alone be given its own subsection.

I am trying my best to clean up and expand these heraldry articles but this constant obstruction is making it difficult. Yngvadottir seems to think they can make undue demands of me at the drop of a hat. They think they can make site-wide edits without consensus. They think they can ignore the input of others. And for what? To include information they themselves think is useless and suspect? I believe Yngvadottir is only interested in winning, even if it means including misinformation in articles. I would ask an admin to step in to revert Yngvadottir's edits, warn them that these controversial site-wide edits shouldn't be made without a consensus of the community, and explain to them that a lack of interest in their suggestions is not the same as a consensus. Giltsbeach (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See top of this page: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Which this clearly isn't, on the evidence presented. This is a content dispute. Start an RfC or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary fighting
An user named suddenly started to revert my edits without valid reason. As per the sources[, [[Paethongtarn Shinawatra]] is the head of Pheu Thai Family but the user keeps changing the word "Family" as "Party". I added the latest image of Chonlanan Srikaew but he reverted that edit to old image (I restored his edit now). Vish Yuva (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is titled Pheu Thai Party, not Pheu Thai Family. Reverting the image was because the name on the caption was inconsistent with the name of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please understand one thing first. "Head of the Pheu Thai Family" is a specific post created specially for Paethongtarn Shinawatra. It does not equal to Head of the Pheu Thai Party. In October 2021, Paetongtarn was named chief adviser on participation and innovation, her first role in the party. In March, the party introduced her as head of the Pheu Thai Family, a party component. Since then, she has campaigned and participated in Pheu Thai outreach programs.  Vish Yuva (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit at Pheu Thai Party looks correct, the Title is 'Family' not 'Party'. @DarkAudit You made a mistake there. Nobody  ( talk ) 06:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That one's on me, then. Apologies. DarkAudit (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI
believes that ISBNs should be formatted as 0123456789 or 978-0123456789, and has been mass-converting correctly-hyphenated ISBNs to this form (e.g. ), despite guidance in WP:ISBN to "Use hyphens if they are included", and cite book that "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Often the rationale given for the edits is consistency; the changes invariably aim at consistent use of the above format. Between December 2016 and now, many editors have asked Srich to stop these edits – most recent attempt here.

Certainly the content issue is somewhat arcane and opinions will differ, but that is best discussed elsewhere, e.g. WT:ISBN, where Srich has not succeeded in getting support for his position.

The issue here is WP:FAITACCOMPLI: attempting to force his preference on others with mass edits over years, ignoring contrary guidance and the objections of many editors. I ask that he stop making these edits (removing correctly-placed hyphens from ISBNs) until and unless he can show consensus for them. Kanguole 12:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the rationale for removing the hyphens? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Hyphens are used as standard in ISBN composition. Makes no sense and doesn’t benefit the project in any way. Don’t usually comment on ANI cases because I am not an administrator but this one just appears very odd. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * mis-construes what I "believe". Out of my many edits, 7 recent examples are selected where I've taken a mix of ISBN hyphen-citation styles and established a consistent style. Were ISBN-hyphenations "correct" or "proper" before or after my edits? In a sense, yes – all the "checksumss" verified that they were valid. But were the citation-styles consistent? No. (And Consistency is one of the "5 Cs" that copy-editors cherish.) Moving along with another example, todays' Featured Article (Renewable energy in Scotland) has 7 references with ISBNs. One of the 7 comes from an edit I did — the expand-citations bot/tool added an ISBN-13 with no hyphens. (Later it was manually hyphenated to 978-1234567890.) My point? This is an FA with a consistent/established citation style and that style involves ISBNs with either 0123456789 or 978-0123456789. Should all WP articles have this sort of ISBN hyphenation? NO WAY. It is too big and clumsy to impose that sort of MOS. Again moving along – a few editors have admonished me. Kanguole is one, another admonishment is for a typo I did. Another recognized that the issue was one preference verses another. But is this "many"? No, in fact I've received "Thanks" and Barnstars for my ISBN-hyphen-related edits. So I will thank Kanguole for noting that my edits are invariably adding consistency to individual WP articles. And I will give even more thanks when Kanguole uses available tools to add consistent hyphen-citation-styles to references. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly self-evident to me that where a number of Wikipedia documents show a consensus that hyphens should be used, the reasonable thing an editor should do to improve consistency is to ensure that all ISBNs use hyphens. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The presence or absence of hyphens makes absolutely zero difference to the meaning of an ISBN (I won't write more on that matter here, but see my posts at Wikipedia talk:ISBN). Therefore, adding or removing them is a purely cosmetic change. If done on the grounds of consistency, I would point out that WP:WIAFA says nothing about ISBNs; it links to Citing sources which basically says that ISBNs can be provided if available (it stops short of requiring their use), but says nothing about how an ISBN should be formatted. To my mind, if it's good enough for FA-Class, it's good enough everywhere. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll dispute that the hyphens make "absolutely zero difference to the meaning". They make no difference to which book is meant by the ISBN but they indicate whether the book was published by a large publisher (small registrant element) and is potentially more reliable, or a small publisher (large registrant element) and is potentially self published. The inconsistency of component length, and hyphen placement, is a part of the system. Where the hyphens are used incorrectly their removal is good. Where they are used as assigned their removal is a removal of information based on a misconceived idea of consistency. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem here is the mass changes to impose the preferred style, despite the objections of many editors. Kanguole 06:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is little functional difference between converting all the ISBNs on a page to your preferred format, e.g., and performing the same conversion when there is variation, e.g. . In the latter case the ISBNs were uniformly correctly hyphenated until a bot introduced a single unhyphenated ISBN, which you took as licence to convert the others to your preferred format.
 * In any case, consistency is not a sufficient reason to override the existing guidance and the objections of many editors.
 * However, there need be no conflict: you can achieve your stated aim of consistency by subst'ing the newly-resurrected Format ISBN template to correctly add hyphens to ISBNs that lack them. Kanguole 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ISBNs with hyphens are more informative than without, as they indicate, roughly, whether the book is from a major or minor publisher. Information is lost if hyphens are removed. Yes, an article may look inconsistent if ISBNs in one article are in a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated, but a partly-hyphenated set of isbns is more useful than a totally-non-hyphenated set, so the hyphens should not be removed in pursuit of consistency. If the inconsistency worries anyone, they can fix it by searching out and adding the correct hyphenation. Otherwise, just walk away. Pam  D  09:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, I've just read more carefully the above post: Format ISBN seems the answer. Perfect. Pam  D  09:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The template "Format ISBN" is a very good answer. But there is only one configuration that solves the problem – "ISBN " renders as "ISBN 978-0-631-18428-7". That gives the reader the Book Sources magic link and hyphens. The Format ISBN template instructions need clarification. E.g., the examples are non-linking-examples or they are parameter-error examples. But this Book Sources-linking version should be encouraged. I intend to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A note that  was changed by a bot to   almost immediately. I don't know if that means anything. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's expected; it was noted in the parallel discussion at that [the] template is auto-subst'd by AnomieBOT.  XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. We now return you to talking with people who are less technically incompetent than me ;-) — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the bot works fast! – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Format ISBN should be subst'ed – then there's no need for the bot to clean up. That is, you use
 * if you're not using citation templates, and
 * inside citation templates. Then the formatting happens when you save the edit, so these are saved as
 * and
 * respectively. Kanguole 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that when either of these is used between <ref ></ref> tags, substitution doesn't work. This is T4700, and having been open for almost eighteen years, doesn't look like it'll be resolved any time soon. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One for the next version of the Community Wishlist, perhaps. In the meantime I've added a comment there on phab: perhaps all other interested parties should do so too, just to show those interested that this is a real issue of concern to current editors. Pam  D  07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * respectively. Kanguole 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that when either of these is used between <ref ></ref> tags, substitution doesn't work. This is T4700, and having been open for almost eighteen years, doesn't look like it'll be resolved any time soon. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One for the next version of the Community Wishlist, perhaps. In the meantime I've added a comment there on phab: perhaps all other interested parties should do so too, just to show those interested that this is a real issue of concern to current editors. Pam  D  07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One for the next version of the Community Wishlist, perhaps. In the meantime I've added a comment there on phab: perhaps all other interested parties should do so too, just to show those interested that this is a real issue of concern to current editors. Pam  D  07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Since we now have a workable method (namely Format ISBN) to obtain consistency without removing hyphens from ISBNs, will you agree to not remove them going forward? Kanguole 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems the answer is "no", as the campaign continues.
 * This low-level disruption is not as dramatic as some of the other matters on this page, but it has continued relentlessly for more than six years, despite the requests of many editors (diffs at the top of this thread). It is time for it to stop. Kanguole 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Back with more "but they don't serve any purpose anyway" at Wikipedia talk:ISBN as well: . If having the next best thing to a set-and-forget formatting tool is still not good enough for consistency's sake then I don't know what will be – unless, that is, "consistency" is merely a veneer over "IDONTLIKEIT". XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 20:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The OP's report seems at least formally warnable. WT:ISBN does seem to have generally resolved in favor of dashes, but that page is not a guideline (a showing of a half dozen in favor to one is a good start perhaps for a WP:MOS addition along the lines of "prefer dashes" if you have a choice).

I separately don't find the "make the ISBNs on one page all consistent" argument as defensible for removing dashes from a page. Izno (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A formal warning ought to suffice. Could that happen? Kanguole 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Janglyguitars and logged-out Wisconsin IPs


has been editing logged out, using two Wisconsin IP ranges. They are all involved with music genre edits; a contentious field for sure. They've been enjoying the benefit of identity confusion, of not having poor behavior attached to their username. Both the IPs and the username have been edit warring. To me, it looks like the system is being abused for the benefit of Janglyguitars at the expense of the community.

This edit confirms explicitly that Janglyguitars has used a Wisconsin IP. Similar editing style and the topic intersections would have confirmed it anyway. The two IP ranges are from the exact same area.

Back in June 2022, added a perfectly good, well-sourced genre to the article Book of Love (band), but one of these Wisconsin IPs reverted it. In fact, most of the edits by Special:Contributions/2603:6000:8000:EADF:6DAB:6561:21E4:63FA were reverts of Msftwin95. Janglyguitars also reverted a good reference added by Msftwin95. Looks personal.

In this sequence, Janglyguitars and a Wisconsin IP violate WP:MULTIPLE by edit-warring over the same text. Here's another example of the same thing. All of these were reverted by, who is welcome to comment.

All of the listed identities have recently been active at The Lexicon of Love article, adding genres and reverting other editors to establish their preferred version. This article is where 143.44.38.78 says they are Janglyguitars editing logged out.

With this edit, Janglyguitars-editing-as-IP said that their "OCD" is why they must continue to edit war to restore their preferred version. They are saying that Wikipedia must adjust to their behavioral condition rather than the user adjust to Wikipedia's policies. Can we encourage Janglyguitars to log in by blocking the IP ranges? It will help greatly to keep the conversations about behavior in one place. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is hardly any collateral on the /17 and of course none at all on the /64 so I have blocked both ranges for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I apologize for my logged-out editing and will refrain from now on. Using this account, I’ll leave comments on the talk pages of respective articles about why I prefer my version of pages I’ve edited, and should no one object I’ll edit them accordingly. And by the way, I am in fact officially diagnosed with OCD, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that pages shouldn’t follow site policies with consistency. Janglyguitars (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Symmetry (journal)
A few IPs insist on adding some critical text, but their sources don't mention this journal, just its publisher. A few moments ago they added a reference that mentions this journal but it's just in-passing mentions on somebody's personal blog. The publisher certainly is dodgy, but the way the IPs go about it seems wrong, too. Per WP:BOLD, they should have taken this to the talk page but instead they have edit-warred and their edit summaries also contain personal attacks. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but some extra eyes would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

DePiep breaking Editing_restrictions
is subject Editing_restrictions which impose immediate sanction for any failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor, or uncivil remarks. He is currently engaged in editor-baiting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and has gone on to make a remark at User talk:XAM2175 (diff), which I believe goes directly against the editing restriction. I believe his comments to in the MOS discussion are also in contravention. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * to be slightly more precise, starting from EEng's line NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission... I wouldn't describe DePiep's conduct as editor-baiting, but rather exceptionally-obstinate civility policing where only the faintest shadow of a civility problem originally existed. I had hoped that my message would be read for the DROPTHESTICK suggestion I intended it to be, but alas it wasn't, and their referring to my message as one-way whitewashing in their post on my talkpage is bad faith in abundance. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 17:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by editor-baiting I meant that he has deliberately joined in several days after the fact to have a direct pop at EEng, i.e. baiting him, using a pointy stick to get a reaction. Apologies if that causes any confusion and detracts from the very obvious poor behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see what you mean now. No worries. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we have some diffs, please? Makes everything easier to assess. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * EEng's original post on 4 April:
 * DePiep's reply on 21 April:
 * (skipping a few more back-and-forth exchanges, still visible in the page currently, then)
 * My interjection this morning:
 * DePiep reverts a further reply from EEng:
 * DePiep is reverted by Dondervogel 2:
 * DePiep leaves Dondervogel a talkpage message objecting to the revert:
 * ... then leaves me a talkpage message chastising me for not reverting EEng :
 * XAM2175 <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In which universe is this kind of remark acceptable?
 * ":Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia. <b style='color:red;'>E</b><b style='color:blue;'>Eng</b> 10:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)"
 * What some might consider to be 'just banter" – especially when directed elsewhere, a reasonably dispassionate viewer would have to interpret as an ad hominem attack and bullying. It seems to me that DeP has been remarkably restrained in the circumstances, in merely deleting it. WP:boomerang time. I suggest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * XAM, what "It" do you refer to? DePiep (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, it is about the 10:49 EEng quote (not a post). -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed if any editor baiting is being done, it certainly looks to me like it is DeP who is being baited into breaking the civility sanctions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  (ec) reply by DePiep (1/n):
 * - did not provide diffs, nor in 2nd post (17:47). That's very unspecific then, and still cause for misunderstanding.
 * - 's list of diffs leaves out EEng's posts ("skipping"), thereby hiding essence. For a judging editor, this does not look balanced. I will (have to) provide these, annotated, when I have time for this.
 * - Re XAM2175's #8, I object to "chastising" as characterisation. Since XAM2175 stated Further discussion here will be completely unproductive (#4), that should be the final post in the indents. I respected. To my surprise, EEng continued (omitted by XAM here) and so I asked XAM to maintain (enforce) their DROPTHESTICK statement (#8). It has not been explained to me why that did not happen. As for "one-way whitewashing": that refers to XAM's multiple judgements in #8, exonerating EEng, which I was probibited to challenge. For the dispute-solving editor role XAM took, this does not look balanced.
 * As said, later more.
 * DePiep (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I omitted those diffs because I judged a diff-by-diff playback of the entire incident to be excessive. Nothing has been redacted or even substantially modified at any point, so it's easy to read the comments visible on the page before the diff in question. In retrospect it may have been better to simply insert an anchor at the correct place on the MOS talkpage and link to it, but that didn't occur to me at the time.
 * I characterised your message to me as chastising because it seemed obvious to me that it would be inappropriate to remove another editor's talkpage posts for the simple reason of "enforcing" my suggestion that the discussion should be ended. I am backed in this interpretation by WP:TPO.
 * I did not prohibit your challenging my "exoneration" of EEng – I very clearly stated that you were welcome to challenge it here at AN/I, the appropriate venue.
 * For the further avoidance of doubt, the root cause of us being in this position now is that your reply to EEng on the 21st was unnecessary. EEng's remark was not uncivil, so you did not need to reply to it, and you should not have replied to it. You especially should not have replied to it after seventeen days had passed. You are the person I was telling to drop the stick because you refused to see that you were making a tiny insignificant problem bigger, and I wanted to help you avoid taking it any further. But I do not particularly wish to see you blocked for continuing, nor I am not attempting to provoke you into responding badly. Just please acknowledge that you made a mistake and that it would probably be best if you left civility policing to other people.
 * All of that said, this should not detract from the fact that in the course of converting this molehill into a mountain EEng has latterly been unwise and made at least one remark that actually is uncivil, as opposed to just irreverent and flippant as usual. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , this post is still present. It is contravening your Further discussion here will be completely unproductive statement/attempt to dispute-closure . Above here you state It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes about that very same post 18:36. Why did not you (or anyone else) remove it? ftr, I propose to have it removed right away. DePiep (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * DePiep, please stop. My post was intended as a suggestion, aimed mainly at you, that pointless discussion be ended. It was not a closure – or attempt at closure – that could be contravened, and I have already explained that per WP:TPO I do not believe that I have grounds to remove EEng's posts. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And, for clarity's sake: I will not be removing them. Please don't ping me about it again. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 10:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I realize there are people that have trouble grasping social situations, but such people usually come to understand that fact about themselves and exercise circumspection in injecting themselves into others' interactions. Not DePiep! For almost 20 years he's been not only taking umbrage at random innocent things others say to him, but sticking his clueless nose over and over and over into conversations among other editors for the sole purpose of acting the incompetent civility cop. In an hour I could give you a dozen examples; here are a couple (in addition to the one already described by the OP):
 * In 2019 I said somewhere: Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. Naturally DePiep got right to work defending innocents from my "aggression": WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018. A dozen editors told him to drop the ol' stick, but nooooooooooooo, DePiep kept Mrs. Malapropping himself into a deeper and deeper hole. At one point someone said:
 * I had a friend once ... who was literally incapable of understanding hyperbole, jokes, or other non-literal forms of speech. It was very amusing telling him things that we all understood were not literally true but he didn't, watching him react, and then letting him know that it was not true so that he'd be in on the joke as well (as he was a friend and we wanted to laugh with him, not at him). This somehow reminds me of that, except for the part about being in on the joke once informed that it was a joke, and also the part about ending on ANI instead of in laughter.
 * Did DePiep get the hint? Noooooooooooooooo. Here we are years (and several similar ANI threads) later, and he's still prattling on with the same nonsense.
 * In the very ANI thread in which DePiep get his editing restrictions slapped on him, I happened to mention as an aside:
 * the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {M} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil
 * (I have to admit -- I seem to have a lot of fantasies of doing bodily harm to my Wikipedia colleagues.) And sure enough, we've got DePiep scolding me about this, not to mention spouting gibberish about the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily, whatever the fuck that could mean (and that right after asserting that his English comprehension isn't part of his problem).
 * One of DePiep's editing restrictions is that he's subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. And like it says WP:No_personal_attacks, it's a personal attack for him to make Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. So I'm telling you now,, for the very last time: stay out of my fucking business, or the next time you call me uncivil when the actual problem is that you don't understand human behavior, I'm not going to bother reminding you to get a clue. Instead I'll just have you blocked.
 * Actually, here's another idea: can I please have a one-way interaction ban against this pest? Then I wouldn't have to waste my time with him and he won't have to get blocked. I'd really appreciate it. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If I might add a comment from someone not involved in any of the original discussions…
 * DePiep is subject to previous sanctions issued at ANI, as listed above. They have been to ANI multiple times for this same issue. They replied to a two week old comment by EEng which had a gentle jibe inside, and took that miniscule problem and blew it up beyond all proportion, which is exactly what they have been told not to do in previous ANI discussions and in their sanction.
 * While I do not condone EEng’s behaviour in response to DePiep, surely some action must be taken given the latter’s obvious disregard to their existing restrictions? Danners430 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, see below. Accusing me of gaming the system is a failure to assume good faith. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your statements & judgements here are not based on (absent) diffs. Instead, they are speculative and inconsistent. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My statement here is based on the diffs and talk page link linked in previous comments. It’s not anybody’s responsibility to repost links that have previously been added to the report. Danners430 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As said : diffs are absent or incomplete. As for inconsistency: you apply the phrase condone asymmetically. DePiep (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do love how you appear to be accusing everyone who is commenting on this thread instead of looking at yourself… not sure how I can use a phrase asymmetrically when I only use it once… Danners430 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are judging unbalanced, prejudiced. Your judgement is based on incomplete diffs. You are reflecting roused talks. DePiep (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

AA. Discussion started at talkpage (27 Mar)
 * The diffs, annotated

AB. EEng .. NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission, .. (4 Apr).

AC. DePiep, regular contributions    (17 Apr)

AD. DePiep re AB: Needless violent language here, EEng (21 Apr).

AE. EEng Needless comment born of your misreading of social cues three weeks after the fact, DePiep.

AF. DePiep You wrote it. It's agressive. If you mean something else, write something else.

AG. 25 Apr (+4days), EEng stop trying to referee the interactions of other editors, because you lack sufficient awareness of social cues to understand what's going on .. I'm not going to use kindergarten baby-talk .. Really, just butt the fuck out of others' conversations.

AH. 26 Apr, DePiep agressive and condescent language here, again .. Civility is a pillar .. My question stands: EEng, please avoid agressive language.

So far: DePiep joined the ongoing talk on 17 Apr. The post re AB was on 21 Apr, 4 days after joining. Talk was still open, so all texts are active. Don't see why "three weeks", incorrect by itself, could be an issue.

Note that DeP is asking, no problematic wording. Aimed as keeping the discussion free of bad language. Replies by EEng: Personal attacks. No civility. Steep escalating. Personal, i.e., not helpful for the discussion.

AI. , closure post: .. Further discussion here will be completely unproductive.

AJ. EEng. After XAM closure. Trolling. Personal atacks. Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia .. he doesn't know what he's talking about .

AK. DePiep reverts, es .. As XAM2175 says: "Further discussion .. unproductive".

AL. Dondervogel2 reinstalled AJ, usertalk no further effect 3x.

AN. DePiep on usertalk, request XAM to maintain their closure i.e., delete AJ ; not acted upon.

Current state: AJ (after-closure trolling post) still present.

AQ. cf this, from an other talkpage, illustrates EEng SOP.

EEng.

DePiep: (22, 24 Sep)
 * -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My judgment, which acknowledges this complete list of diffs, is that you should have abided by your editing restriction. You assumed bad faith in your April 21 response to EEng. You have likewise assumed bad faith in your responses to Danners430. Furthermore, in your 'report reject' subthread below, you have assumed bad faith by alleging that the OP is Throwing mud to see what sticks. I don't condone EEng's overreaction, but none of this would have happened if you hadn't assumed bad faith in your unnecessary response to a stale comment that was clearly a joke. Floquenbeam is right that it would be better if editors ignored your 'out of left field' comments, but at this point it's probably too late for that. If you do end up blocked, it will be a reasonable consequence that you brought upon yourself. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

10mmsocket: report reject
OP report lacks diffs, therefor causes misunderstandings & speculation. Cannot be a base for discussion. Due and careful process broken.

The initial report here lacks diffs for its accusative remarks (which are unspecific otherwise too). Cause for misunderstanding and so projection, which is inexcusable in the ANI process. No diffs added in 2nd post either. Nor after explicit request for diffs (1st). Their second post, 10mmsocket has disappeared.

Given the unspecified report, and the reluctance to provide diffs, I conclude that the report is useless and not worth nor deserving replies. Every response would imply assumptions, speculations, and failed process. So I will not, can not reply thoroughly to the 10mmsocket report/posts. Treat as nullified, not present.

Throwing mud to see what sticks, and then let others deal with it, is gaming the system. The ANI community & processes are failing due proces here. I propose and take for granted that the contributions of 10mmsocket are not part of the considerations.

One could also consider disallowing 10mmsocket to interact with me or with ANI in a wider sense. -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Diffs were provided subsequently so I saw no need to add anything further. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't really see this closing any other way than a pretty long block for DePiep. Nobody is going to just drop it, and eventually, a "This has gone on long enough" type admin will come along. And I realize admins shouldn't just ignore editing restrictions, so this is just me venting, not "acting in an admin capacity" on this.  But... is it just me, or is 51% of the problem that (a) DePiep is incapable of letting go of something once they latch on, even though they are often wrong on the subject, and also 49% of the problem that (b) there seems to be something about DePiep that causes otherwise sane people to be incapable of ignoring them when they say something out of left field.  I mean, I suppose I understand enforcing rules and stuff, but couldn't everybody just ignore them? If the "this is violent imagery" comment had just been ignored, what would probably have happened? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. Every month or two I'll pick a random discussion you're involved in, and into it I'll interject a largely unintelligible string of gibberish scolding you for doing something which I clearly have no clue about. Once in a while I'll open an ANI thread accusing you of misbehavior, into which I'll dump some kind of acrostic like DePiep's AA, AB, AC junk above, and a lot of people will spend a lot of time telling me to cut out being such an ass all the time, but their time will be wasted because that advice will sheet off me like water off a duck's back. I'll keep this up for years and years. Then we'll see how long you're able to ignore that. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds awfully close to describing WP:Harassment to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity and because people sometimes miss EEng's point, what EEng wrote is what he believes happens to him. That is in response to Floq's wise advice to ignore inappropriate replies, and EEng is saying that asking him to just ignore it is unreasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When I was younger people saw my point all the time, but I changed my hairstyle a few years ago and now I'm told my point is difficult if not impossible to see. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a much better version of a joke I tell frequently. I'm stealing this. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm available for children's parties. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I lost my hairstyle more than a few years ago, and now all anyone can see is my point. (I'm available too, and I work for union scale.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but just to be clear, that is exactly what I got from EEng's comment, and what I characterized as being close to harassment (of EEng) is DePiep's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing most of us here know how to read EEnglish (and sometimes speak it, though with not as much success). ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I had interceded with the intent of preventing further escalation. Obviously that was naïve of me. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 10:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Turns out you were WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose a one-way interaction ban for DePiep on interacting with EEng is something that could be done. But really, as Floq says, one does have to wonder exactly how long this extended time sink of multiple contributor's time is going to go on for - after all it will just be someone other than EEng next time - and there will be a next time, previous experience tells us.  Indeed, the paragraph that this comment is part of tells us quite a lot. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I really shouldn't have proposed the interaction ban, for a couple of reasons. (1) I've never "banned" someone from my talk page or asked for an interaction ban; it's kind of a point of pride to deal with things myself. (2) It's selfish. It would solve my problem, but not that of the teeming millions who suffer DePiep's inscrutable, infuriating ministrations year in and year out. The problem with the current block is that it's clear that, as always, DePiep not a clue what he's been blocked for. (See User talk:DePiep.) He thinks, as he's expressed many times before, that he's being blocked because everyone's against him, that I've got more friends than he does, etc. (See here: Looks like EEng has more friends than I have. Of course, that might actually be true, and DePiep might want to think about why that is.) His block will expire and he'll go right on back to doing the same thing, because he sees no causal relationship between his behavior and getting blocked -- it's everyone else that's at fault, and he's a martyr bravely enforcing the civility pillar. This will only be solved with an indefinite block, to be lifted only when he can convincingly articulate that he accepts that, for whatever reason, he is incompetent to judge or comment on others' behavior, and that he understands the he must restrict the subject of his posts strictly to article content only, on pain of a final indef. WP:HIGHMAINT indeed. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My selfishness again: my post just above really only addresses DePiep's I'm-the-civility-enforcer complex. Other reassurances from him would be needed to address his other forms of misbehavior. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 11:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * b.t.w. I didn't report DePiep because I am your friend. I saw his post on XAM2175's talk page, which I follow due to previous interactions, and clicked through to see the offending discussion which frankly shocked me. I then thought "surely this guy has been blocked before" so looked at DePiep's contribution history and block log, which mentioned the editing restrictions. At that point seeing how many times he had been blocked I knew this was something that should be reported. I confess I'm surprised at him receiving just a month block after so many infringements. Not an admin, but I'd be leaning towards a permanent block this time.
 * As an aside, I encountered an editor this week who I quickly judged to be a bit of an a'hole. Then I saw on their user page that they had a condition on the autism spectrum. I thought that was brave and my attitude has changed. I'm now a little more tolerant of their edits. Everyone should follow Don't be a jerk, but it helps to understand that (occasionally) there may be reasons for that degree of jerkitude someone is displaying. It makes me wonder about this case... 10mmsocket (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Autistics are capable of learning their own limitations. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 11:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, depending where they are on the spectrum. Others are also capable of using it as an excuse/shield for continuing dickishness. But it still pays to assume good faith (initially). 10mmsocket (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Those that are not capable should, like anyone else who can't learn their own limitations, find somewhere else to spend their time. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup 10mmsocket (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month
I've blocked for one month for violation of their editing restrictions. I bumped it from from the two weeks given for their last violation. I'm leaving the discussion open to allow for further discussion about a possible 1-way iban with EEng, or another sanction. I'll keep an eye on the section and if it looks like no discussion or consensus is forthcoming on additional points I'll close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the fifteenth time this user has needed to be blocked for their terrible attitude. I cannot for the life of me understand why they keep getting off so lightly. An iban won't fix this problem, it has to come from the user, I guess we'll see how their sixteenth second chance works out.... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup. In the circumstances, SFR, I think that sanction was too weak.  Leniency towards this user is injustice to his victims.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs to be a more substantive block. No fewer than three months, I would think, given the lengthy block history. This is a case of WP:HIGHMAINT where we are granting far too much leniency. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  22:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a month to work out a consensus for a longer block. I just looked at the most recent block which was for two weeks and doubled it. With the number of blocks and the restrictions that were necessary are we at the point where an indef should be considered? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To my eye, as someone totally uninvolved who's never clashed with DePiep at all: we are clearly at the point of indef.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. We are past that point. This at minimum should have been a year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As detailed above (I really shouldn't have proposed the interaction ban...) I really think that there's no long-term resolution that doesn't involve DePiep clearly articulating an understanding of what he's doing wrong. And an indef is the only way to get that. Any block for a term (month, year, 5 years) will expire, he'll go back to doing what he always does, and here we'll be again. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Community Ban (CBan) for DePiep
For their long, long history of disruption, personal attacks and harassment, User:DePiep is indefinitely banned by the community from editing English Wikipedia. If this proposal is approved, an administrator shall impose an indefinite block on DePiep and any known related accounts. This ban can be appealed after 1 year, and every 6 months afterward. It can only be lifted by a community-wide discussion on WP:AN. Should the ban be lifted, DePiep's current editing restrictions will remain in effect.


 * Support - as proposer. The editor's block log, their history on the noticeboards , and the evidence presented in this thread above all support the necessity for banning DePiep from editing here. (Note: As far as I can recall I have never been involved in a dispute with DePiep.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: How in the pluperfect hell did this editor rack up a block log like that and avoid being indeffed much earlier? Or is this just another MickMcNee-esque case that if you rack up enough edits, you've got a measure of immunity for behavior that'd get a newbie indeffed twenty times over? (My reaction to the admins above musing over whether they should've just dropped the hammer on DePiep is "Who stopped you?")  I haven't had any interaction with DePiep either, to my knowledge, but this is ridiculous.   Ravenswing      11:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but with regret, and here's why. I have not the tiniest doubt that DePiep means well. And I have no belief at all that he means to harass me or anyone else. Instead, what we have here is a CIR problem. The essence of CIR is not knowing the boundaries of one's competency. One doesn't have to be competent in all areas of WP endeavor to be a useful contributor, but you do have to know where you are able to usefully contribute and where you are unable to usefully contribute. If you do not know this, and will not take advice from others on the subject, that's when you've got a CIR problem. So, for example, the fact that DePiep apparently has a cockeyed idea of what civility means, doesn't mean he's incompetent overall; but the fact that he's been told that over and over, yet continues to take on the role of civility cop, does. Until DePiep somehow gains self-knowledge in the area of where he's competent and where he's not, and demonstrates that knowledge to the community, he can't contribute usefully here. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The only reason I haven't changed the block to an indef already is out of respect to SFR and to not wheel war a block with them. The block log speaks for itself and again I will say what I have said countless number of times: no one is bigger than the project. You have to show you can work with other people collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really not a fan of this sort of "votes for banning" stuff, but I'm also not a fan of how we extend almost endless patience to editors who are only just this side of the line, even if that sees off good editors. This is so counterproductive, and yet we do it at least once a week on this board, because we'd rather spend a year or so redeeming someone who will eventually end up indeffed anyway than spend 20 seconds helping someone who would be an asset without the damned problematic editor on their case all the time. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think there's a fundamental CIR issue here where I don't see any other option. Galobtter (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support - I'm not convinced that DePiep is a net-negative, so I have some misgivings about this. However, there is a clear evidence of a long-standing problem that has persisted for a long time in spite of numerous attempts to get the user to adjust his behavior. At this point, it is apparent that fixed-length blocks are inadequate to prevent the behavior from reoccurring. We now have to decide whether to tolerate the behavior or escalate to an indef, and I find myself leaning toward the latter option. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a Site Ban – As additional evidence, I will cite the long history of periodic table disputes, where, as I tried to explain, the original issue, the arrangement of the elements in the periodic table, was not a technical content dispute at all, but a matter of formatting that should simply be decided. Those disputes led to a Request for Arbitration, in which I said, in November 2020, that ArbCom should consider whether DePiep is a net negative for the encyclopedia:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=990863692#Elements
 * ArbCom declined the arbitration request, but I think that the community should answer my question with a Yes. Search for ANI reports on the Periodic Table, and three of them were complaints about DePiep: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Alleged_interference_in_RfC_by_DePiep
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Disruptive_behaviour_by_User:_DePiep
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#Uncivil_behavior_by_User:DePiep
 * Nothing has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So it's been a periodic periodic table dispute. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That was elementary, my dear EEng. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was as if DePiep was on the left side of the periodic table and was mixing it up with someone on the right side of the periodic table, and the reaction was predictable (since prediction is one of the uses of the periodic table).  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just in case this wasn't clear from my contributions to the debate above, I wholeheartedly support the proposed community ban. DePiep will not understand why, and that's unfortunate, but the greater injustice is to let him continue this behaviour.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The editing restriction, which is about to turn five years old, was put in place as the result of two massive amounts of work: one was the building of the restriction by people who wanted User:DePiep to remain a part of the community long after he'd earned removal from it and the other was all the explaining of WP:CIVIL to an editor whose block log meant he was owed no such consideration. That second effort would have started well before his first civility block in January 2009 and 14 years later there's still plenty of evidence this guy still doesn't know when he's insulting people and he's still completely incapable of comprehending WP:AGF.Since the restriction was put in place, DePiep has been blocked either four or five times for incivility. (The April 2019 block was arguably just for edit warring but if I said it was also for incivility I doubt the blocking admin, User:MSGJ, would correct me.) I don't think he should be indefinitely blocked because he won't stop insulting people or assuming they're acting in bad faith. I think he should be blocked per WP:CIR because he genuinely has no idea if what he's saying is an insult and he has no idea what he's doing that means he's assuming another editor is acting in bad faith. I hate coming to that conclusion but there you go. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 17:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've been an admin here for nearly 16 years and I've literally lost count of the number of times we've had this discussion. It's time for it finally to be dealt with, or it will, inevitably, be back here yet again soon. It is unfortunate, but such is the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia; if you can't behave collaboratively, you do end up being shown the door. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current evidence presented doesn't lead me to believe this editor is a net negative. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the evidence of previous AN/I discussions, in particlar, , , , , , , , , , ...? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's certainly a fair perspective. But Sasha talked about not being convinced of the "net" effect of DePiep's editing being negative~. That requires considering the positive contributions of DePiep as well as the negative. Some of those positives include foundational content on the Unicode Standard, an incredible amount of maintenance and functionality building in both the template and module namespaces, as well as a consistent pattern of assisting people undertaking large WP:AWB projects. Those kinds of contributions to this project can't just be ignored, just as civility issues can't be ignored. This should be a decision made taking the whole into account, and not just a narrow snapshot of when we fail to be our best. If the only thing that matters is our mistakes, then no editor of sufficient standing will be able to remain. Because while 300,000 edits is absolutely not a get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of behavioral standards, it is also a contribution history that is very easy to cherry-pick worst moments from. I don't think we can have a real conversation about the best thing to do in this circumstance if we are only talking about this editor's shortcomings and not their redeeming qualities as well. VanIsaac, GHTVcont<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex"> WpWS 00:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with what you say, but I think the situation here is that DePiep's positive contributions have been a major factor in his getting many passes in the past despite his incivility and disruption, and that people are pretty much fed up with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * DePiep's template editor privs were revoked for misbehavior in that area as well, so you might want to drop that from your list of +ives going forward. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Fifteen blocks is enough rope to build a spider-web, let alone a proverbial noose. As much as I like to believe that everyone can change given time, I honestly can't see DePiep changing enough after 14 years of blocks. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support 15 blocks is enough. It's time for a C-block on him because he's obviously not changing. Din  oz1  (chat?) 16:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support If they were an employee, their loaded write-up file would've had them out the door seven blocks ago. Time to drain this time sink.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ohairtneada's conservative/christian pov
It appears that User:Ohairtneada has been editing many articles from Love to Heartbeat bill, adding information from a conservative and/or Christian point of view, including a massive edit of over 750 bits on Love. I'm requesting a block from editing for a couple of weeks due to persistent Neutral point of view violations, of which, the user has been at for a while and has been warned multiple times for. --AugustusAudax (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So yes their edits are not helpful to the project. However you appear to have missed the fact that they have not edited in well over 4 years. A couple week block is pointless and it's unlikely we'll ever see that editor again. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they took a 3 year break. Maybe a longer break would be good, given the fact that they appear to off-and-on disruptive edit. So, who knows. Didn't notice the year though.
 * --AugustusAudax (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think they've done enough to warrant a block. A talking with yes, but not a block. We've started a talking with them and we can continue that should they return. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert Drinan article again.
Back on April 19th, an IP (User:108.26.171.7) was blocked after making a legal threat in an edit summary. Since then, a succession of IPs have tried to remove the same content that the original IP did, and now User:Most Faithful has appeared, making the same edits, with the same arguments, along with (implausible) claims to be an attorney, and comments approaching further legal threats. . Given that this seems to be more than a simple edit-war, I brought this here. I'm not sure if another 'legal threat' block is justified, or one for block evasion, but this clearly can't continue, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure whether the disputed content is entirely justified. WP:BLP doesn't apply, and supposed 'defamation' obviously can't, so the IP/Most Faithful arguments are invalid, but maybe we need to look into this further? Anyway, we can't let fake 'attorneys' decide for us... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What ... you think it implausible that someone who knows neither the spelling nor the meaning of the word adjudicated might be an attorney? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted, I think they're over the 3RR. The allegations are published in Slate and the HuffPost so there isn't an issue with source reliability, as to whether it is due, I agree that there may be a case for omission, but their behaviour is disruptive and not conducive to getting consensus on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just reverted an additional unconstructive edit to the page. Foxtrot620 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they've been revered by over 4 different people and yet they continue to persist, blowing way past the 3RR, which I have just notified them of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Most Faithful for legal threats, aggravated by edit warring. I have semi-protected the article for two months. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the legal threats, I find them . . . unpersuasive. Drinan, after all, died 16 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:ApprenticeFan continuing to edit as IP editor
User:ApprenticeFan was banned from the English Wikipedia earlier this year, yet has continued to edit in the same topic areas while logged out as an IP editor. I have opened multiple sockpuppet inquiries (Sockpuppet investigations/ApprenticeFan), but there has been no action taken. This editor confirmed yesterday (User talk:124.6.179.62) that they are continuing to edit despite being banned and they do not seem to understand that they (the editor) are banned and not just the account. Can anything be done - a range-block, or a sternly-worded notice from an administrator that continuing to edit as an IP editor is still sockpuppetry? Bgsu98  (Talk)  01:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I range blocked the latest two IPs used. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Srj.cooldude and Love jihad


Because I might appear to be WP:INVOLVED, I am bringing this issue to ANI for review. I propose that, at minimum, Srj.cooldude be WP:PBLOCKed from Love jihad and its talk page. This could be done as a sanction under WP:ARBIPA, but the severity of the behavior would likely warrant a regular WP:DE block.

Srj.cooldude is a zombie WP:SPA that has re-awoken after 6 years of inactivity to push for various inclusions of "love jihad". The user has assumed bad faith, cast aspersions, and been overall disruptive including calling users biased in favouring jihadi... and promoting violence, promoting terrorism.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I indeffed. I went over their contributions after their DRN post this morning and almost blocked, and I see there's been quite a few more edits recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gracias!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block. --bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * May want to look at revoking TPA. They've made themselves clear that they've no intent on appealing the block but are continuing to make bad faith allegations CiphriusKane (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jhofferman accused of paid editing at Vivek Ramaswamy
I have no idea if this is true or not, but Vivek Ramaswamy Paid Wikipedia Editors to Erase His Soros Fellowship and Covid Work] says "Mediaite reports that Ramaswamy seems to have paid Wikipedia editor “Jhofferman,” to remove information from his page that he presumably thought would damage his candidacy in the Republican primary. A few days later, he announced his 2024 bid." Posting here as I don't know where would be better. Searched to see if it's been posted elsewhere but didn't find anything. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Jhofferman disclosed the paid editing both on his userpage amd the article talk page . - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So it's technically not undisclosed paid editing, but considering the contentious topic, I think it's just as bad as if it were undisclosed. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but in this case it looks like the disclosure meant that other editors stepped in and fixed many of the problems the paid editing made. Far less than ideal, but something. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They have extensively edited the article itself, both before and after the disclosure on July 14 2022, instead of proposing the changes on the talkpage. WP:PAID very strongly discourage[s] such conduct (bolding in the original). Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) User: Jhofferman has disclosed on their userpage that they have been paid to edit Vivek Ramaswamy, a long-shot Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. Here's the context: Ramaswamy received an academic fellowship from a group run by the brother and sister-in-law of George Soros. Association with Soros is the kiss of death in Republican primaries these days, so Ramaswamy has an obvious motivation to remove mention of his "youthful indiscretion", as it were. This is being discussed somewhere else,, but I can't remember where right now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 At the obvious place (I should have looked!) Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy.  Doug Weller  talk 07:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (Fixed the link for you - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC))
 * @Boing! said Zebedee Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 13:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, Jhofferman commented on this on their talk page responding to someone else, before this ANI thread was created: . My initial reactions is this is a lack of wisdom rather than evil intent.  But there are multiple threads on his talk page about problems with his paid editing, and yet problems keep happening.  It seems that at the very least the "very strongly discourage" recommendation against declared paid editors editing articles directly should be made mandatory for him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. A partial block for the article, leaving him to edit the talk page, seems appropriate. Doug Weller  talk 16:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on issues raised about his other paid work, I'd say that's best for all articles he is paid, or has been paid, to work on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Doug Weller  talk 17:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hanlon's razor applies but even innocent error is less forgiveable when a professional editor getting paid for their work creates clean up work for volunteers. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PAID is (IMO) not the issue here. What appears to be the issue here is that WP:NPOV has been compromised for pecuniary benefit, and against Wikipedia policy. I am not comfortable with this. Propose indef block.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Giltsbeach
I regret having to do this, but I think it's time to talk about 's battleground attitude. I considered going to the edit warring noticeboard, but it goes beyond that.

Giltsbeach created their account on March 23, and began editing heraldry articles. Their early edits had no edit summaries, and at one point their unexplained rewriting and removal of referenced information at Rule of tincture was reverted by, who templated them (but did not respond to their request for an explanation). They then got into an edit war with at Sable (heraldry) over their removal of the "Poetic meanings" section. They left the information in the infobox, but removed the references on 2 of the 3 points, which had been only in the text. They accused JalenFolf of accusing them of removing a template, and in later edits reintroduced a one-sentence summary: cumulative changes. After a rollback by, they brought both editors here: archived section. JalenFolf then saw the single sentence and dropped their objections. Previously in the section, rather than pointing out that they had added back a sentence and before responding on the article talk page, they responded to Mako001: "You accused me of "disingenous editing" because I moved information from a stub of a subsection to an infobox. An infobox that every other heraldic tincture article uses, mind you. You threatened me with a ban, but not the other user who refused to engage in dialogue with me. I don't think you'll be happy until I step back off a cliff."

The claimed local consensus to have information in the infobox but not in the article prose violates the guideline at Manual of Style/Infoboxes and is detrimental to the encyclopedia to the extent that it requires the reader to read the infobox as well as the article prose. (The Sable article is also short, and expansion would be a better service to the encyclopedia than cutting a section of referenced information.) I joined the discussion on the article talk page, where Giltsbeach responded to me with the further assertions that the material is "trivial" and that the MOS is not a policy. (They have since informed me that they are only prepared to discuss explicit policies.) At one point they reverted me with an accusation of vandalism.

I took the discussion to WikiProject Heraldry to clarify whether there was indeed a consensus to override MOS on the heraldic tincture articles, and if so on what grounds, but only Giltsbeach responded, ultimately with incivility; perhaps as a new editor they were unaware of its inappropriateness. I ultimately did some research myself, found what I thought was the origin of the practice that Giltsbeach claimed to be conforming the article to, reported it there, then took the issue to the talk page for the MOS guideline. Both of those who responded—and subsequently —agreed with me that there is no reason for these articles to be an exception to the guideline. I notified Giltsbeach of the section, but they did not respond until I gave them the courtesy of another ping in my summary at the end of the section: they accused me of "fighting a war of attrition" and lying.

When I then went through the articles to conform them to the guideline, I discovered that my extension of good faith to Giltsbeach had been entirely misplaced; their assertion that Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox was an equivocation. There was no consistency in placing the "poetic meanings" only in the infobox: several articles had the section, with similar wording, at least one had the text but no section header, and some lacked references for the material. Giltsbeach's response has been a section here (soon closed), wholesale reverts (two rounds, the first of only half the articles I had worked on), claims of misreferencing including at the OR noticeboard (I suspect the initial issue was they failed to query the UWisconsin library archive we were referencing in the Sable article and thus did not find the relevant passage, but they are now quibbling over whether the word "often" is justified. And accusing me of advocating expansion of the articles, while also arguing (here) that I am inhibiting their expansion of the articles.

I would be happy for Giltsbeach to bring the knowledge of heraldry that I presume they have to bear on Wikipedia's heraldry articles. But I have not seen them add referenced information. Most of their additions appear to consist of adding images, in many cases images they have uploaded themselves. As can be seen from the history of their talk page on Commons, many of these have been deleted as copyvios. That can be regarded as a newbie mistake (uploading from a site with an incompatible licence), but replacing the images in an article with their own versions of the same arms is uncollegial, and is churlish. (And their dismissal of anything except explicit policy concerned their reinterpretation of the arms of Trøndelag so that en.wikipedia would use their version.)

Giltsbeach appears to want to leave their mark at all costs and to be unable to brook having their work challenged or changed. They have learned to make edit summaries and belatedly re-fixed their typo that I had corrected in an edit they twice reverted. They haven't recently accused me of being upset or aggressive. But they are edit warring furiously and arguing dishonestly in pursuit of winning, and they demonstrate little respect for guidelines or much else except for what they have decided they want to do. I see they have just called me a troll :-) Can they be induced to stop the reverting and the escalating outrage and focus on article improvement? (Apologies for length; I have tried throughout to be fair, and so there's a lot of back story. Also, apologies, but right after notifying, I must go to bed. I'll return first thing to see whether I've been blocked, or taken to Arbcom). Yngvadottir (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to make the main points clear below, but you should really read the above to get the full story, there is a good deal here for a fairly new editor to have got themselves into:


 * Giltsbeach treats Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND.


 * They have often got into heated disputes, whilst refusing to properly listen to others, taking editors to noticeboards as a tactic to gain the upper hand, and generally being highly tendentious.


 * They got in a dispute over information being removed from the article body and placed in the infobox instead. They claimed that consensus from WP:HERALDRY supported them.


 * The claimed local consensus to have information in the infobox but not in the article prose violates the guideline at Manual of Style/Infoboxes.


 * Yngvadottir joined a discussion on the article talk page, where Giltsbeach responded with the further assertions that the material is "trivial" and that the MOS is not a policy. (They have since informed Yngvadottir that they are only prepared to discuss explicit policies.) At one point they reverted Yngvadottir with an accusation of vandalism.


 * Yngvadottir tried to clarify whether the consensus Giltsbeach claimed actually existed by asking at WikiProject Heraldry. But only Giltsbeach responded, ultimately with incivility. The consensus was determined to be against Giltsbeach's position in a discussion at the MOS talkpage. Giltsbeach responded by accusing Yngvadottir of "fighting a war of attrition" and lying.


 * Yngvadottir has since found that Giltsbeach had not been entirely truthful when asserting that Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox. There was no consistency in placing the "poetic meanings" only in the infobox. Giltsbeach's response has been to apparently declare war on Yngvadottir.


 * They also don't add referenced information, but do add images that they upload. As can be seen from the history of their talk page on Commons, many of these have been deleted as copyvios. That can be regarded as a newbie mistake (uploading from a site with an incompatible licence), but replacing the images in an article with their own versions of the same arms is uncollegial.


 * They have also behaved tendentiously on Commons.


 * Giltsbeach responds extremely poorly to criticism or percieved rejection. Some promising signs have been shown, but they are still apparently fighting a one-user war against a percieved enemy. They called Yngvadottir a troll. This needs to stop, and they need to be useful. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The easy way to deal with this would be to either TBAN them from heraldry or site ban them for a few days to let them cool off and read the relevant Guidelines. Nobody  ( talk ) 12:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @1AmNobody24: They've had plenty of time to read those guidelines and been directed to many of them, but have chosen to act the way they do anyway. Blocks aren't really for cooling off, they are to prevent disruption. About a TBAN, a heraldry TBAN would do one of two things: stop them editing entirely (might as well block), or move the problem elsewhere. The latter would result in them being blocked anyway. A TBAN seems unlikely to gain consensus, but not because they don't need sanctions. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Block Giltsbeach. Indefinite in length and for the cocktail of behaviors they bring to the project: not listening to anybody, raging incivility and a failure to assume good faith since they've been here, and general inability to work in a collegiate environment.After their tirade here yesterday, I thought they might become more reasonable. Yet the opposite is the case. Not only the recusancy but calling Yngvadottir a troll with no cause whatsoever is outrageous. If it hadn't been for that, I'd support a TB, reasoning that they might just need to gain experience in our myriad policies and guidelines. But their attitude makes a TB pointless; they will clearly continue to be as offensive anywhere else on the project.  SN54129  15:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite me rescinding accusations of removal when I had reverted Giltsbeach, I’m looking back at contribs, and the incivility on display scares me. I had considered proposing a site ban, but given this user has only been with us for a month and a half, I later thought against it as possibly taking it too far. However, if another editor wishes to propose either a TBAN or CBAN given the current situation, I will not oppose. Jalen Folf   (talk)  16:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we're so keen to launch straight into site bans nowadays. To me, in a case of common-or-garden semi-trolling like this, an ordinary indef seems no more complicated than it has to be. As you say, they've only been here a few weeks; hardly time enough to demonstrate irredeemability.  SN54129  18:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Giltsbeach as a normal administrative action. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Basombrio: POV-pushing, edit-warring, canvassing
Hello ANI, first or second time posting here, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. I think this has gone for long enough to warrant an assessment from a wider range of administrators. The user in question is.

POV-pushing / Edit-warring:
 * Special:Diff/1150564609: removal of categories Category:Anti-indigenous racism in South America, Category:Class discrimination, Category:Genocide of indigenous peoples of South America from the article Forced sterilization in Peru. This speaks for itself.
 * Special:Diff/1073969975, Special:Diff/1149991780, Special:Diff/1150155145, Special:Diff/1150206572: addition of far-right ideologies including Nazism, National Bolshevism and Neosocialism to the Socialism navbox, some of them as "minor" edits, revert-warring after being asked to gather consensus on the talk page first time (per WP:ONUS). Special:Diff/1150156515: similarly for National syndicalism on Syndicalism. WP:FRINGE and against consensus.
 * POV edit-warring on Ayacucho massacre (look throughout the history log, the article's talk page and the user's talk page).
 * Other general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics that constitutes their entire contributions log, too many diffs to list. Mostly removing "fascism", "Neo-fascism", "Neo-Nazism" and replacing them with "conservatism" or "nationalism". This includes Special:Diff/1150219971 on Nationalist faction (Spanish Civil War) and Special:Diff/1150388314 on Francoism sidebar (again, "minor" edit, presumably to try it fly under the radar), against already established consensus (if they had time to even acknowledge it during this widescale POV-pushing campaign).

Canvassing:
 * Special:Diff/1152054618: openly asking a partisan audience to support their campaign on Talk:Far-left politics.

I admit having made ad hominem here, while trying to bring some light on this user's activities, and I'm standing behind my assumption that they were very selective in who to ping among many who participated in previous three sections. Whether I'm wrong or not about it, I'm leaving to the judgement of Wikipedia staff. –Vipz (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the POV at categories, looking at the edits: The added/deleted templates/categories of the user seem to be mainly used as more or less subtle associations to discredit/credit. For example the person did add to the Black Power movement the perpetrators and ideologies of the Rwandan genocide and vice versa   . What has the genocide of Hutu militias against the Tutsi in Rwanda to do with the Black Power movement? This makes no sense (net search shows only Wikipedia as result too), other than to associate negatively with a supposed "gotcha" (yes black people can do crimes against humanity too). --Casra (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Page 49 from this issue in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40466134?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents) claims: "The "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement" or MRND changed its name in 1990 to "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement et la Démocratie" after multiparty democracy was authorized in Rwanda. It retained the acronym, MRND. Other important political parties at the time included: the MDR (Mouvement Démocrate Républicain), the PL (Parti Libéral), the PSD (Parti Social Démocrate), and the CDR (Coalition pour la Défense de la République). In 1993, both the MDR and the PL split into two factions. In each case the faction opposed to RPF participation in the government called itself "Hutu powa" after the English term, power. The "MDR powa," "PL powa," MRND, and CDR parties all counted many among their numbers who later became active in the genocide against Tutsi.". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source mentions on p. 49, in a footnote describing the names of organisation in the conflict, that the faction used the English term power. Without mentioning the faction as part of the Black Power movement at all. That's no reason to include them as part of the Black Power movement, unless we want to add everything from Power Rangers to Power Forward (international used basketball term) to the template. With good faith in mind, I find it still hard to believe you really thought that when the rather common term "power" is used (with English being an international influential language) it makes the topic an automatic part of the Black Power movement, no matter if the source includes it as part of the Black Power movement, and that just by coincidence you added a genocide topic to the movement. Casra (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. About the "forced sterilization in Peru", the terms "class discrimination" is not present on the article, nor it is inferred. The "genocide" label is still debatable. The article uses more the term "ethnic cleansing".
 * 2. While I recognize national socialism is still debatable if it's a form of socialism, which I apologize to add without consensus, national-bolshevism or neo-socialism are not. National Bolshevism is a variant of Bolshevism, which is included in the socialism bar. NB was also included far before I added it again, because someone removed without consensus. On other neo-socialism is included in the "French Section of the Workers' International" bar. In fact, the article describes it as a "revisionist" socialism.
 * 3. All my "Ayacucho Massacre" edits were entirely extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia. If you were actually informed about my country's events or at least you learned some Spanish, you would not complain about the changes I made or you would complain about Spanish Wikipedia's information. In that case, go check the talk page, since it's not only me the only one who thinks the page already violated the NPOV rule far before I edited it.
 * 4. About the "Nationalist faction" article, the label of fascism is questionable since the nationalist faction included a diversity of right-wing ideologies, which not all were fascist. Conservatism, Traditionalism, Carlism, Alfonsism, etc. The main ideology of the faction is "Spanish Nationalism", not "Fascism", which in the infobox the ideology used in a faction is "falangism" and "semi-fascism", not fascism entirely. On other side, while I apologise for removing "fascism" from Francoist sidebar, Francoism is also considered by a lot of academics as a form of conservatism rather than fascism, reason I added "conservatism" category too.
 * I apologize, such as how you apologize for ad hominem, for "canvassing" since I didn't know it was against the rules. Some user tagged me on a talk page before and then I thought it was allowed to do. But I only committed the pinging once with a user called "trakking", not with the others, which you claim I tagged them for canvassing purposes. You were also called out for being dishonest in your last comment by Spookytalk Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Forced sterilization of indigenous peoples constitutes genocide, it is not debatable. It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to justify attempts at denying this. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not mutually exclusive, they go hand-in-hand.
 * Nazism ("National Socialism") being a form of socialism has been debated and proven WP:FRINGE more times than you can imagine; it is not. Its offshoots "National Bolshevism", "National syndicalism", "Neosocialism", "National anarchism" and such have not received as much attention. I told you on your talk page to start a request for comments that will cover all of these, either together or separately. Even if you're acting boldly, tagging some of these controversial edits as "minor" is very questionable.
 * Since I did not participate on this article, someone else who did will have to attest.
 * You've now been informed about the RfC that resulted in clear consensus that Francoism and its followers were fascist. Likewise, not mutually exclusive with other ideologies. While WP:CCC, it's only a little less unlikely to change compared to Nazism. You're welcome to present all of the academic work that has not been brought up yet (on the article's talk page), gather consensus, then act accordingly; as opposed to just casually changing this under a "minor" edit tag.
 * I look forward to responses from others. –Vipz (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "debate" over whether National Socialism is "a form of socialism or not", the consensus of subject experts is that it is not. The Nazis added "socialism" to the title of their party in the hope of attracting disaffected workers who might otherwise align themselves with the Socialists or the Communists, and to do so they redefined "socialism" to be something that is not socialistic at all, thereby setting up the current situation where right-wing cranks and wannabe Nazis pepper us with complaints and constant requests to redefine Nazism as "left wing" and not "right wing".  Fortunately, the experts are perfectly clear than this is not the case, so we should not even allow a hint of that to remain unquestioned on English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True. I was actually referring to Wikipedia talk page debates that keep popping up about it and which always result like you explain above. Thanks for the clarification, however, as I might not have worded the above reply too well. –Vipz (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vipz's assertions, broadly speaking. While on a few occasions, seen in isolation, his edits may be/seem reasonable, this editor's overall activity consists precisely of general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics. The editor has been attempting to enact a series of bold changes on pages that are thought to be less watched like nav templates and categories in a predictably bivalent pattern: adds nazism to socialism navbox on one hand, removes integralism category from the fascism category (diff ... but doesn't remove fascism cat from Integralism or discuss this on the main 's talk page, which would be the starting point for such a change ) on the other etc. Their Ayacucho massacre edits are discussed on the NPOV noticeboard, and probably shouldn't be discussed in detail here, but one of those edits is this preposterous 18k removal of the entire 'Background' section. —Alalch E. 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This. Glancing at the edits they look innocent, but for instance with the Template:Conservatism in Peru, they try to separate the newspaper El Comercio (Peru) from conservatism. Not to mention that with the Ayacucho massacre, the user tried to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, though this may be partially to blame on the media situation in Peru (with their El Comercio edit, I doubt this is the case, however). Another questionable edit would be this one where they remove information about Go on Country – Social Integration Party being described as "far-right" by multiple sources. So as other users have stated, this appears to be a whitewash effort regarding right-wing politics and Peruvian topics specifically. WMrapids (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you complain about the Avanza País article when you were the first one removing sources, such as the one from Amerika12.de? I moved the sources claiming that the party is "far-right" to the "far-right bloc" paragraph, where they fit more properly. Also about the Conservatism templates, I highly suggest you from checking the format used in the ones from Spain, Germany and Russia (the last one completely made by me). When recurring at media, people are not mentioned, like you added Erasmo Wong Lu, but newspapers and TV Channels. The claim about El Comercio being "conservative" is debatable and most sources describe it as "liberal" or "center-right". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Your edits reverting multiple reliable sources makes it apparent that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and are rather an ideology warrior for the promotion (or whitewashing) of right-wing/conservative articles. Your questionable edits far outweigh the few good ones. WMrapids (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit you just put there to make the claim I'm "reverting multiple reliable sources" shows the reliable source from Amerika12.de you removed before. The modifications I made was not removing sources unlike you, but moving there to a place were they fit better, like the claim you literally wrote about Avanza País being part of a "far-right bloc". Also you wrote that globally the party is considered "far-right" and apparently only the national "mass media" claims that the party is center-right, then cherry-picking sources to make the claim that it is a far-right party. I highly suggest to check this Wikipedia essay and check if the biased sources make that claim because of ideological purposes or if they want to make a valid claim. As the article says: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since much of the content is WP:USERGENERATED, it is a dubious source. Seeing that you recognize Amerika21.de as a reliable source for such information (it strangely describes Prensa Latina as a “partner” too), you either need help with determining reliable sources or you could be making quite the reach to support your ideological edits. Could be both. WMrapids (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you tried to replace well-cited information with an opinion article, a site named “Olive Press” (?) and a .info site. Clearly making some reaches here. WMrapids (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you tried to replace well-cited information with an opinion article, a site named “Olive Press” (?) and a .info site. Clearly making some reaches here. WMrapids (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Propose 6 month topic ban for User:Alejandro Basombrio from Politics, broadly construed
This has gone on long enough. Despite multiple users giving strong polcy-based reasons that gis bahavuir is wrong, Alejandro refuses to back down and has done nothing but attempt to deflect and Wikilawyer his way out of this. A topic ban should give him the chance to prove he can edit constructively let he get caught on the receiving end of a WP:NONAZIS based ANI.

Support as proposed. 50.214.130.225 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Guns & Glory
I removed two sources on the EF88 rifle in Steyr AUG as they were forums per WP:USERG and added a Citation needed tag.

Guns & Glory has removed the tag and added an Army source for the rifle. The source did not clearly support the material as presented in the article per WP:BURDEN. The user misrepresented a reliable source per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

I then substituted material on the changes to the rifle from the Army source and removed material not in the source.

Guns & Glory then reverted my edit re-adding the disputed material with the Army source.

I left a disruptive editing warning on Guns & Glory user page for the article.

I then removed the disputed material on the rifle and Army source.

Guns & Glory then reverted my edit re-adding the disputed material with the Army source. Melbguy05 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're removing information that is important of the said topic. The list provides the changes/improvements of the EF88 from the F88. Know your weapons before you start crying like baby Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) Wikipedia can do without insults like "crying like baby"; see WP:CIVIL. I suggest you strike it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me ask everyone, what is the main purpose of Wikipedia? To educate and prove reliable information. What this guy is doing is removing information just because the new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before. New citations have been provided due to a different editor who removed previous citations. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore it shows your lack of knowledge of this particular firearm. Read the paragraph, it talks about the Thales F90, not the adopted EF88 by the Australian Defence Force. The F90 is capable of equipping the said new rifle grenade technology. Before you remove that list again, I suggest you do your research, cause you clearly need it instead of removing it. I already provided a citation for the main website and have added the need to provide a better source to accommodate every single detail that contains on the list. That list has been on the article for as long as I can remember. Maybe since 2012. Obviously whomever added it at that time, because the original citations were removed, it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list. But I read it, and I don't see anything that is misleading or incorrect with the information given. It feels like you just wanna remove content for the sake of it. Not even providing a better alternative just a straight up deletion which is absurd and contradicts the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide information. Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY requires that "All content must be verifiable.. and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The Army citation you provided did not verify the content in the 10 points. You even admit it did not saying above that the "new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before" and that "it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list". Per WP:VERIFY "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." You restored the material without a citation that supports the material. The Army citation did not support the 10 dot points. It is disruptive editing to mispresent a source as you did for the Army source. I placed a disruptive warning on your talk page and you ignored this and re-added the unverified content to the article. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the original citations were removed by another editor. Then asked for new citations. I placed 2 citations, and added 'need better source' Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You added the Army citation discussed above which misrepresented a reliable source. Later, which I did not discuss above, you added Better source needed with "The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS)" you then added another source  Lithgow Arms citation. You kept Better source needed after adding Lithgow Arms. Since those edits you admit above that the ""new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before".--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a revision dated June 2017 that has three citations for the list, which at that time contained 12 points: . How about you two have a look at these 3 citations and see if they cover the points and look reliable. Do this on the article talk page, not here. — Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an archive url for citation #28. The other two might be forums. Unsourced content can and should be removed if a supporting citation cannot be found. It doesn't matter if it's been there a long time. — Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2011 Thales document has information on the F88SA2 rifle and on its planned replacement the EF88 rifle. The EF88 information on page 20 is potential design changes "areas for enhancement". The disputed material is the actual design changes implemented which came from the forum w54.biz. My edit comment was "remove WP:USERG forums, not in WP:RS ref" by WP:RS I meant the Thales document. --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If the previous supported the material in question, then just add the previous source. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by previous supported. There were three citations that I removed when I added the Citation needed tag: two were forums (removed per WP:USERG) and other a 2011 Thales document that did not support the material. The forum indiandefence is a dead url and it is not available from an archive. The material in the most part comes from the forum w54.biz.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was mostly addressing Guns & Glory / their argument. I haven't taken a deep dive into the article/issues. Their "Because the original citations were removed by another editor" implies that the material in question was supported by a now-removed source. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source was a forum, which is not an RS. So yes, the material in question was "supported" by a now-removed source, but the source was invalid. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With this edit they've continued the same behaviour of restoring unreliable sources. They've had the verifiability policy explained to them both here and on the AUG talk page several times now, so I'm really not sure why they're still having this much trouble getting the point. Loafiewa (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please speedily delete Josh Alcorn
This redirect page violates Wikipedia's policy on deadnames, when the transgender individual was not notable under the deadname. This individual wasn't notable under her deadname, Josh Alcorn. WarriorPlate (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't the right place for such requests. Please see WP:Deletion process. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 02:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’m new to Wikipedia. How do I request speedy deletion? WarriorPlate (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion. It would need to go the regular process. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 03:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How would this square with the second paragraph at MOS:GID? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 03:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't fall under any criteria for speedy delete. It would need to go through PROD or AfD. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which wasn't really what I asked (and it isn't eligible for either of those) but okay. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 03:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I have no idea what your comment meant, it seems. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 03:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ec: And since WarriorPlate has already PRODded it, it should not go to AFD unless the PROD fails. Meters (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would not go to AFD anyway, it would go to redirects for discussion. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. Thank you. Prod removed. Meters (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Listed at Redirects for discussion for user:WarriorPlate Meters (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Abusive language from User:Cesarbongon
This user has engaged in disruptive edits and after being warned, used abusive language against me on their talk page here:. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first admin who reads this ought to indefinitely block User:Cesarbongon and revdel that message. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Warned. I suspect it's a teenager. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 03:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Easy one to address, in keeping w how we address personal profanity insults. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:40C6:2E91:2ACA:FD97 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Histrionic editor
I am dealing with a pretty shrill editor who hates my edits. Can you calm him down? Talk:Justice_League Kurzon (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, @Kurzon, you should send a message on their talk pages to warn them of the ANI discussion. I did it for you. (Admittedly, I haven't let you take the time to do so, but I did it for you anyways.) Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's silly, I assumed it involved the named editors. I didn't see the IP. Oh well, it sorta concerns them too, I guess. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's well out of order and I have pblocked the IP /64 range from that page and the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for assistance (and potential tutoring) with user
A user named BlackRain1989 has openly identified themselves as a sock account of LemonJuice78 on my talk page. I have lodged sockpuppet reports against them before for, alongside the sock reasons, erroneous edits to Wikipedia military articles, but with each return they are communicating with me with increasing desperation and asking for forgiveness, stating they will not stop creating new accounts until they have the "right" to edit Wikipedia. There is some hostility, as I am the only user to lodge reports since the pages they edit receive lower editor traffic.

LemonJuice78 has admitted to being unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and procedures, and is trying to learn, but creating sock accounts is not the way to do it. Their request for unblocking on their original account was denied by administrator Yamla due to not specifically addressing their mistakes. I have stated to him that his original block was administrator-applied, and to return to editing means direct contact with administrators. I have thus lodged this report to open up communications before the situation spirals out of control.

Respectfully, LemonJuice78 may need assistance from another Wikipedia source (mentorship by a veteran user, I'm unsure), as I only have so much time on my hands and cannot have this user persistently following me as if I am the arbiter of their fate. ''I cannot keep handling this on my own. I literally can't.'' I hope an administrator can step in here and take necessary measures. I leave it up to admins, but if you can render assistance, rather than an immediate, unconditional block to the BlackRain1989 account, it would be noted.

For further details, see Sockpuppet investigations/LemonJuice78/Archive. GirthSummit has usually been the one to handle their CheckUsers. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are WELL past WP:3X at this point, and creating socks over and over to continue editing is only going to dig the hole deeper. The BlackRain1989 account is being blocked as sock of a now effectively banned user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

58.169.208.18 disruptive edits to Maggie Smith


The IP editor above edited after final warning on BLP article Maggie Smith, changing her birth year to 1788 and changing the caption of the photo. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @JML1148: It's moot now that they've been blocked, but you have failed to notify of this thread. Please remember to do so next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the mistake; I forgot to do so. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 03:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Stalking user who previously used multiple IP addresses now edit warring with a new account
A user who was using multiple different IP addresses from different ranges was undoing my edits on multiple articles: Basketball at the 1988 Summer Olympics, Basketball at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, 1988 United States men's Olympic basketball team, and Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament. Obviously this made it difficult to discuss. They recently created a new account, but still refuse to follow WP:BRD despite my asking them to not revert until a discussion is complete. I have abandoned the reverting because they simply revert back in their edit warring. Posting here in the hopes that they will self-revert and continue discussion. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can add Miracle on Ice to the list of articles this user stalked and reverted my edits, as they just admitted to that behavior as well. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon further review: This is probably a sock of Max Arosev. These same disruptive edits, almost verbatim, go all the way back to 2020, when this IP's edit ended up getting the IP blocked as a sock of Max. It appears he is holding a long grudge against me. Explains all the reverts and different IPs, as well as how knowledgable this "new user" is about policy. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Naming the user would have been nice, but now blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Markeis McGlockton
Two separate, related issues. The first pertains to disputed content about the victim's criminal record--Though it received extensive coverage, a case can be made that it's irrelevant here, so I'm not inclined to war over that, but would like further opinion. The second is the restoration of talk page comment that's a personal attack. I do not wish to engage there while using different IPs, nor join the discussion after the 'racist' comment. Time for administrative input. More eyes appreciated. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the talk page comment again and explained on MayDay2099's talk page my reason. They are correct, normally you don't remove talk page comments, but calling someone "racist scum" is about as blatant a personal attack as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that collection of titbits inserted to smear the victim is completely undue, and MayDay2099 and the IP were right to remove it, even if MayDay's rant on the talkpage was not optimal. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I was notified of this forum.
 * I'm not the one who left the message. I merely restored a talk page entry that was removed by someone else because, as I read recently on the rules, it's not right to edit or remove someone else's talk page entry.
 * I'll let it stand though, apparently there are admins. Thanks for not being crude or cruel to me for whatever misstep I made. MayDay2099 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, WP:FORUM covers the removal of messages that are not specifically meant for article improvements. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. I will read that. Thanks. MayDay2099 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

131.251.253.0/24 disruptive editing on book articles, incivility & attacks
I'm reporting the IP user:



for disruptive editing and uncivility, on the following articles:



As a recent changes patroller, I initially came across this IP editor edit-warring with User: on the General Relativity article. Although I'm generally not highly involved / interested with articles outside of computer stuff, I had a close look at it anyway, and could not legitimately see anything wrong with the "Table of contents" and "versions" sections from an encyclopedic point of view, plus I looked at many other book articles to see if they had these sections or not, and quite a number of them did, so I shared my insight into this with this revert once, pretty much agreeing with Nerd271, although mildly at that. I also wrote in that edit's summary suggesting to take this to a talk page instead of continually reverting. Which was successful.

They got back to me on my talk page, calling me an editor who started editing Wikipedia only recently, and mostly concern yourself with reverting and leaving warning messages (diff). The only content-related piece from that message was their mention of the WikiProject Books guideline WP:NONFICTION.

However, I was not so sure if Nerd271 would agree with the reasoning citing the guideline above, so I started a discussion at the article talk page, inviting both the IP editor and Nerd271 into the discussion, with me both writing the message with a neutral stance and sharing my own thoughts on the matter besides it.

Nerd271 and I both provided some high-value content-based arguments on said talk page, while the IP editor just blasts us with ad-hominem personal attacks, focussing their messages very little on the actual content of the article, if at all.

Here are some quotes from that talk page:
 * Metadata that a monkey could copy and paste in adds absolutely nothing to any reader's understanding of a book. It is a pity that someone with just a few months of editing experience and no evidence of any prior interest in this topic has decided to assist an editor with a years-long history of ignoring guidelines and editing disruptively.
 * How many times have you reverted those who take them out with dishonest edit summaries like "restored good version" or "restored stable version"? Dozens? Hundreds? Even once would have been too many. The account which decided to support your years-long campaign of disruptive editing despite no prior interest in the topic and no familiarity with the guidelines should undo their most recent revert.

Since then, the IP editor went on to edit war with three other editors on the article Principles of Quantum Mechanics, removing those same table of contents and versions sections from that article again, despite there being clear consensus on the General Relativity talk page in favour of keeping those sections. One of the edit's summaries accuses User:Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 of being a revert-and-warn SPA editor. A 48-hr block was placed on 131.251.253.112 by shortly after they made their third revert on that article in less than two hours (block log).

However, after that 48-hr block, the IP editor still continues to edit war on the General Relativity article, instead of seeking consensus / dispute resolution for their edits first, as well as commenting on editors instead of purely content in their edit summaries.

I genuinely tried to be helpful here – I wrote a message on their talk page, recommending to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution protocol, even suggesting them to use requests for comments (RfC) to get some more feedback / input from other editors on whether those ToC and Versions sections should be included on these articles or not.

But instead, they are not listening at all to my recommendations, not even noticing the clear consensus from three different editors in favour of the ToC and Versions sections, just continuing to remove them on the article disruptively instead of seeking WP:DR options. It seems they are blanking the messages I and other editors have left on their talk page without reading them.

By now, a total of six different editors (including me, as well as both involved editors and recent changes patrollers) have disagreed with this IP editor's content removal. No one else has sided with the IP's edits (both edit-wise and talk discussion-wise) as of yet.

I am making this report after a final warning for disruptive editing on their talk page: Special:Diff/1153283775 (which has been blanked already of course).

Important note (for admins):

If a block is to be handed out to the IP editor here, a range block needs to be placed, not a single IP block. They started out as 131.251.253.112, moving on to 131.251.253.41 a week later. The WHOIS info for the IPs suggest the range is /16, but considering the first three groups of these two IPs are the same one here, only the last one changed, I believe the range here is /24. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  12:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I was one of the involved editors and I agree that the table of contents should be kept as I stated on the article talk page. This IP editor has been very uncivil and has repeatedly chose to revert edits without proper consensus. AP 499D25 handled this in a very professional manner however the editor still chose to be uncivil. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a bit of a BKFIP vibe here, to be honest. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * His attitude towards those who disagree with him is unbecoming for a Wikipedia editor. Thank you, for bringing this up. Nerd271 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is really just common sense that a bare table of contents of a book has no encyclopaedic value. This is clearly stated at WP:NONFICTION: "An exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included". Unfortunately, User:Nerd271 has added such bare tables of contents to many articles about textbooks. I've seen many people removing them at many different articles, but User:Nerd271 invariably reverts, with misleading edit summaries like "restored stable version". A succession of oddly similarly named accounts, all just a few months old and with no prior interest in the article, tag-team reverting in support, is strange indeed. 131.251.253.41 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked the /24 range 1 month for clear violations of WP:EDITWAR. Additionally, the bizarre comment above where they cast aspersions against Nerd271 with no evidence is beyond the pale.  Let us know if they move to another range.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Malformed RfC may need closing.
Things are getting somewhat heated at Talk:Love Jihad, where an RfC seems to have triggered a broader debate. The debate clearly needs to continue, but in my opinion, the RfC itself is malformed, and totally noncompliant with the way they are supposed to be conducted: it isn't simple, it isn't neutral, and it seems to be discussing three different things. Plus there is at least a whiff of possible sockpuppetry. Could I ask an admin (or at least some uninvolved experienced contributor) to take a look, and close the RfC if they think it appropriate, before it generates further antagonism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Fwiw, I believe the IP editor who started the RFC was well-intentioned but inexperienced since IIRC they asked about the issue at User_talk:RegentsPark and at WT:INB before starting the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This may now be overtaken by events, but there was also a request for mediation at DRN filed by saying that the article was biased.  I closed the thread because there is already an RFC, and I also recommended that discussion about bias in an article could be taken to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard.  The filing editor has since been blocked for disruptive editing.  I don't have any other comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent Unsourced and Unconstructive Edits from IP Hopping Anon
User in Question:

Anon has used multiple IPs to make several unsourced and unconstructive edits, which include overlinking and not following MOS:DATE. All edits are directly related to Hockey or Trains. At least two different users ( and myself) have issued multiple warnings, but the user is hopping between IPs (likely unintentionally). A final warning and attempt to communicate was issued, but anon has persisted.

Some of the Warnings issued:
 * 1) First Warning
 * 2) Second Warning
 * 3) Third Warning
 * 4) Forth Warning
 * 5) Fifth Warning
 * 6) Sixth Warning
 * 7) Seventh Warning
 * 8) Final/ANI Warning

Edits After "final" warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)

ANI Notice:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:408:C181:8B80:EC08:2518:42B9:6544&oldid=1153345090]

Any help would be appreciated. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IPv6 range for a week. IP, you should be reading this: you are blocked for persistent unexplained and unverified edits. Please communicate with your fellow editors, and explain your edits--which should have secondary sourcing--in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Jacona
Hello, I’m writing to report behavior of User:Jacona that I believe constitute personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:OWN, and WP:TEND concerning Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas). I’m an employee of the school being attacked, which has more than 1,200 students and a minority population of 17.5% as of 2021. Jacona has been forthright in making these personal attacks against the school on both the article’s Talk page and my user Talk page. This includes asking that I get the school’s administration to issue public statements in line with Jacona’s agenda and an outrageously false and libelous claim that the school “successfully continues that mission [perpetuating segregation] today.” Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page in many ways, which I will detail later.

Here are examples of Jacona’s attacks against the school (ital emphases are mine):: We all want the article to be better, but not everyone is interested in accuracy - the Wikipedia article should not look like the school's website, which tells this | fairytale about the school's founding. It makes me very sad to see racial discrimination equated to "the glory of God". Since you're connected to the school, perhaps you could encourage the administration to publicly acknowledge their founding and demonstrate how they've grown despite of it, rather than claiming that very sordid beginning to be glorious and divine. (emphasis mine) The school has certainly come a short way in a long time, so far as diversity is concerned! 

Note: the school website Jacona links to describes the school’s religious mission and makes absolutely no mention of racial discrimination or equating racial discrimination to the glory of God. If this article were an attack piece, it would likely dwell more on how this school was founded to perpetuate segregation, ''and successfully continues that mission today. (emphasis mine).'' It saddens me to read your school's website and it's fairytale history of the schools founding that states "Founded on the purpose of educating and developing the whole person for the glory of God, we believe there’s more for us to do than simply teach and ultimately, there’s more for our children to do than simply learn" and "TCA was started by a small group of parents who were committed to building a school with a strong curriculum within a framework of traditional Christian values". It implies that the "glory of God" is to keep Black people from getting uppity and think they are good enough humans to attend the same school or ride the same buses as White kids, and that "traditional Christian values" include providing rich White and Asian kids an education free from the influence of poor black kids. (emphasis mine) I don't believe either to be true, and am inexorably drawn to Matthew 25:45-46. When we're talking about education in the United States in 1970 and today, it is obvious to me that when Jesus was speaking about "the least of these", he was talking about the students that were then and now are excluded from an education at TCA. (emphasis mine) For the record, Trinity is committed to promoting diversity, including with scholarships, and as noted, has a 17.5% minority enrollment as of June 2021.  It’s worth noting that this pattern is not limited just to Trinity, but can also be seen with similarly disparaging Edit Summaries on pages about other Christian academies. In these two examples, Jacona inserted the term “segregation academy” into the lead of two articles about a private Chrisitan school, and then removed it shortly after, but left a disparaging comment in the Edit Summary about each school: (Removed the term "segregation academy" to avoid offending whites who want to feel that an all-white school that admitted no black students is somehow not a segregation academy.) (Removed the words segregation academy; although the school certainly fits the definition quite well, I can't find a source that uses those exact words. Split the current demographics into a separate section.). Jacona has also demonstrated a pattern of altering the leads of articles about Christian] academies with content that is original analysis based on WP:PRIMARY sources or no sources at all. For example, Jacona added this sentence to the lead of Trinity. The source does not have any information about the racial demographics of the area, and certainly does not make the comparison Jacona does. The White enrollment is now 80%, in a community that is 48% White. (emphasis mine.) The school serves pre-kindergarten through grade 12. 

Jacona does the same thing, using Primary sources, in the lead of another Christian Academy: The public school district, Clarendon 02, had a student body population that was 47% Black and 46% White. (emphasis mine) (contrasting public-school district demographic stats with those of a single private school.) As I said at the top, Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page about Trinity Christian Academy in many ways. These include: 1) fabricating grossly inaccurate stats to attack the school (i.e. saying in the lead that the school had only 4 black students in 2020) . 2) When User:Archer1234 | removed this fabricated information, Jacona added in a wholly original analysis comparing the region’s racial demographics (without any source), to the school’s racial demographics – stating that “to not include [it] looks like whitewashing.” | Edit Summary. 3) Jacona also cherry-picked this stat for the lead of Trinity on November 7, 2022: “...as of 2020, 4 percent of the student body was Black” (ignoring the overall minority enrollment from the Primary source.) Yet the body of the article, where Jacona got the stat, gave the full demographics of the student body, including Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and African Americans. By choosing to highlight only the recent Black student population in the lead (rather than all minorities), right after a statement about the discriminatory 1971 history, Jacona created the false impression that the current student body is 96% white. 4) Importantly, Jacona has blocked efforts to expand the page about the school from beyond attacks. They answered a Request Edit proposal I made last October in less than 24 hours, declining with thin rationale Request Edits regarding reliably-sourced school information (e.g. sports, curriculum, school activities) that comport with WikiProject Schools/Article advice. The result is that the page remains about little else but the controversies. Jacona says they believe the school is only notable because of controversies, and should be deleted. Apparently in their mind this means the page should only be about the controversies. So anyway, the only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. In my opinion, the article should be deleted.  Of course, it’s Jacona who has blocked the expansion of the article to include other topics, such as the curriculum and sports, in part by questioning the legitimacy of multiple local newspapers or topics not to their liking, despite the detailed content recommendations of the WikiProject Schools. There are many dozens of stories about the school in the local press over the past five decades, enough for it to even perhaps reach GA status, if future rounds of Request Edits are not blocked by Jacona. Given their history of making personal attacks and undisguised agenda editing, I do not see how Jacona can continue to make direct edits to the page in a neutral manner or evaluate/close Request Edits. Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Quite aside from my agreement that Wikipedia's civility policies do not remotely allow someone to claim that they're personally attacked by purported "attacks" on an organization with which they are connected, however much the OP has conformed to COI, I looked over JoJo Anthrax's link myself. If we're not mistaken in our surmise, the OP is just about the last person on Earth justified in pointing fingers about "agenda editing," dealing with this page in a neutral manner, or over violations of NOTADVOCACY.   Ravenswing      01:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why you brought this up 4 months after the last interaction you had with Jacona? This doesn't appear to be a pressing issue and I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. Attacks on the subject, sure, but not on you or any other editor. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Golbez note that this editor says they work for the school, not sure in what capacity. Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This should be closed. There are no apparent personal attacks here, and this is not a forum for resolving content disputes or for determining if an article should or should not be deleted. For what it's worth, a quick inspection of the school's web cite here provided me with good evidence of the OP's job description. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JoJo Anthrax yes and yes. I’d close it if I weren’t on my iPad. I’m as likely to mess it up as do it properly, clumsy fingers.😀 Doug Weller  talk 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A) Personal attacks specifically include: “Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on [. . .] religious or political beliefs [. . .] directed against another editor or a group of editors.” Jacona singled me out as an employee of an evangelical Christian private academy to falsely accuse me and my school of equating racism and segregation with “traditional Christian values” and “perpetuating segregation”, and to demand that I pressure the school into issuing a public statement – outside of Wikipedia.
 * B) And even if it’s not technically a “personal attack” under Wikipedia policy, Jacona is openly editing to advance an ideological viewpoint in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. Aside from infusing their viewpoint on the page and Talk, even in their response here on ANI, Jacona says the school has “made progress”, as though their personal evaluation of whether the school is meritorious should influence Wikipedia decisionmaking. Lkspears (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * [T]he only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. This line amounts to complaining about WP:NOTCENSORED  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)  Oops, misread the history — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made no personal attacks. As the self-acknowledged paid editor mentions, I've acknowledged that the school has made a lot of progress, being rougly 83% white/17% minority (albeit in a community that is majority minority), but that does not change history. It was founded as a seg academy. Their complaint boils down to non-acceptance that Wikipedia is not censored. They (or IPs I strongly suspect to be them) have just been trying to censor it for a long time. Jacona (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Logged out edits
Can confirm that they are not responsible the recent wave of IP edits that resulted in the semi-protection of the article? ,, ? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I am not responsible for any of those other edits and I have no idea who is making them. I didn’t go to the trouble of disclosing my COI on the page’s Talk, proposing Request Edits with COI disclosures over many months, and posting this extensive ANI complaint with another COI disclosure today, just to turn around and wantonly violate Wikipedia policy with undisclosed COI edits from an IP address. Lkspears (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Long term pattern of unsourced edits and ignoring communication attempts with User:Masonjcole
I have posted to ANI twice about this editor and both times there was no comment or anything. This user has about 10 months worth of unsourced edits, including adding birthdates and birthplaces to football related articles and prematurely updating articles before transactions (including number changes) are official. This user continues to do this despite a multitude of comments on their talkpage and multiple comments advising they need to communicate on Wikipedia. This user promised to start checking their talkpage more often in December but hasn't kept their promise because there is still zero communication and the editor is continuing the same pattern.-- Rockchalk 717 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another case of someone who should take "collaborative editing" more seriously. There's a talk page full of warnings, with one single response from them, promising to be more careful--that hasn't panned out. Blocked for a week; let's hope this convinces them that we are serious about communicating with other editors and responding to messages. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Yes I agree and I hope this does help the user understand how important this is.-- Rockchalk 717 01:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:CXDS
The User:CXDS has been making disruptive edits on a couple articles such as the Siad Barre article and the Jigjiga article removing sourced information and accusing their references of being "biased lies" and "old and inaccurate" without any evidence of course. I reverted these edits and left a warning on his talkpage but he later blanked it with an edit summary of "you have no authority" he then brought back his edits on the Jigjiga article, I reverted it again and sent him a second warning on his talkpage to not engage in disruptive edits, he of coursed blanked the page again accusing me of "impersonating the admins" and then brought back his edits on the Jigjiga article محرر البوق (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. It's you who is changing the founding date to 1916, even though the article references it back to the 1840s, and the 1916 information in the text that you are adding talks about it being a garrison town until 1916? That seems inconsistent to me. Either way, this is not the forum for editing disputes - neither of you have tried to discuss this - heck, there's nothing this decade on the talk page! I'd suggest closing this, and both of you go read H:EC before a boomerang hits someone from behind. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You may also want to read up on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa before one or both of you and/or the page end up attracting the attention of DS team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B18F:9F09:20C3:77CE:9F91:480F (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added context to my previous edit with early sources from Richard Francis Burton debunking this myth created in the reign of Haile Selassie that Jijiga was founded in 1912 by a Abyssinian commander. In the Demographics section the main source used in the article doesn't breakdown the city by ethnic groups at all. Someone just made their own pie chart with percentages they conjured on their own.
 * My edit regarding Siad Barre article was about the Early Years section specifically that he witnessed the murder of his father at age of ten and that it was in a raid done another clan. In the 3 sources used in prove this supposed claim was a magazine and two books. None of them having a source or evidence for this supposed raid. The Marehan and Habr Yunis live nowhere near each other for this raid to a have happened in the first place. Also the proof that Siad Barre's father being buried in Garbaharey. CXDS (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nfitz@CXDS I didn't add the 1916 information on the article, that was already there. The problem is not the founding date on the infobox, the problem is CXDS removing sourced information in the article, Pankhurst reference is reliable and there is no reason why it should be removed even if there is conflicting sources, WP:BALANCE. Also I added 1916 because I saw that number floating around in the article and the previous year of 1727 was unsourced, if CXDS just changed that to 1840 or whatever other year the article says then that wouldn't be an issue. The census for Jijiga DOES breakdown the city by their ethnic groups, its pretty obvious you haven't read the source.
 * Your edit summary on Siad Barre's page was quote "This is just historical revisionism with no proof or even source of this supposed raid. Habr Yunis live nowhere where Marehan live." You obviously didn't go into detail as to why this was "historical revisionism", hence I obviously intepreted this as disruptive. محرر البوق (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the source again it breaks down the whole Somali Region by ethnicity not the city of Jijiga. Pankhurst is not reliable and makes many erroneous claims about Somali clans and isn't well versed on Somali history or in the history of the horn of Africa. I suggest we continue in the Jijiga talk page and we go back and forth there not bothering the admins. CXDS (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent POV pushing and edit warring by User:VeritasRIGHTNOW
has engaged in a particular at POV pushing, edit warring behaviour at 2023 Spanish general election, which is exhibited in their aggressive edit summaries and their persistent reverting of multiple users (violating WP:3RR by this point): This user's contribution history shows their editing is limited to these edits. They also exhibit a similar fringe behaviour in their own talk page, both with this essay there and with their responses to warning messages posted by a number of users: Also, while I was writing this section, this user outrighly attacked me for no reason in the article's talk page with some racist remarks: Clearly a single-purpose account that seems in need to right great wrongs and that is not here to build an encyclopedia. An indefinite block is in order in this case.  Impru 20 talk 12:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "They told me it has to be constructive. So I am making this accurate. First of of they are not far right, stop pushing that propaganda. Secondly you won't allow the edit of tagging the communist parties as communists or Yolanda Díaz as communist, when they have self proclaimed communist this several times... ridiculous."
 * "This is more accurate. Some editors push leftist propaganda."
 * "I dont care if you cherry picked articles to push your propaganda. The fact is they are not far right and you are misingforming the public. It's public defamation and by editing back you dont scare me or everyone else you are lying to."
 * "Dude of course its constructive. What's not constructive is your left leaving bias. Stop brainwashing foreigners and allow Spaniards to write about their own elections and their politicians. Go write about your own countries."
 * "Fucking ridiculous. Who pays you? Soros? Xi? Biden? Fucking nonsense."
 * "Impru20 always a gestapo officer. Dude are you even spanish?"


 * LOL
 * Its racist to call you gestapo?? Hahaha
 * You are so bored... get a life instead of enforcing brainwashing thorugh misinformation.
 * I VeritasRIGHTNOW (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * we are definitely in indefinite block territory for WP:NOTHERE reasons, please. ValarianB (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed. The adage that a username containing "truth" is a red flag continues to be valid.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User edit warring and not responding
User @Sundayclose keeps editing in false information on wiki page Codrus. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaUZz LYte (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See PaUZz LYte's talk page. They were blocked about two months ago for edit warring the very same edit to the article that they just made, with no additional discussion, no additional sources, and certainly no consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely pageblocked PauUZz LYte from Codrus for returning to the same behavior that led to their previous block. They can try to find consensus on the talkpage, preferably with a more collegial attitude toward other editors than they're presently displaying.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, as is usual with obvious WP:BOOMERANG victims, they didn't even have the basic courtesy to notify the person they were talking about... I wonder if it was intentional. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 23:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Revenge Edits by an IP
This IP has been following behind me and reverting my edits. I believe it has something to do w/ my having gotten the List of Passions Characters article redirected. This same IP reverted my PROD on the article, which led to my subsequent AfD, resulting in the redirection. User:JalenFolf suggested this IP may be connected to an LTA. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Relevant talk page discussion. I agree with that this is some form of sock; that being said, they haven't been warned about their conduct on their talk page. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I warn them, if only just for procedural purposes? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that we are at AN/I and the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, it probably isn't necessary at this point in time. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't be surprised if this even is a sock as I only made an educated guess based on the large history of edits targeting Cringy from this IP address alone. I remember other IPs in the past have targeted Cringy before, but my memory cannot allow me to remember exact IP details. Nor is my mental state allowing me to search through a long list of contributions just to see exactly where on the encyclopedia Cringy was targeted. Jalen Folf   (talk)  06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, for article history purposes, the actual page in question is List of Passions characters. Jalen Folf   (talk)  06:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IP blocked x 2 weeks for hounding and harassment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

PettyCache
This editor is making me very concerned, as they have been creating articles on Simpsons episodes, which should've stopped a while ago. I don't know if the episode articles are under notability, but this user also did create an article of a Family Guy episode, the article only has one source of backup and it doesn't follow notability. Although the warnings the user got maybe limited when compared to some others I reported, this user maybe WP:NOTHERE. This is Wikipedia, NOT Fandom. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Simpson episodes are regularly the subjects of Wikipedia pages. Nothing broken in that regard, so NotHere doesn't seem to apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is that this is NOT a Simpsons Wiki. Episode articles would have to follow notability in order to have articles. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a Simpsons collection, just as it has collections of thousands of individual topics. So there is no problem. Individual episodes of many television shows, including The Simpsons, have been recognized as notable since 2001, and you say above that you don't know if the created articles follow notability. I don't know either, so why bring this here? I looked at one and it at least needs to follow sentence case in its presentation. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that most of the drafts that have been created are duplicates of existing episodes. Some of the reviewers picked up on this and left messages saying so, however the editor has repeatedly continued to do so. The reporting editor is making it sound like that Simpsons episodes shouldn't have episodes at all. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not say that The Simpsons shouldn't have episodes, the articles for the episodes that do follow notability can always stay, especially the good article criteria ones. What I was pointing out is that articles of episodes from the series have been created, but some do not follow notability. Given the over 700 episodes the show has, redirecting the articles might be a difficult task. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the article the user that you have reported have are drafts, which aren't redirected to mainspace. Frankly, the issue here is the editor not listening to people telling them to stop making draft duplicates of mainspace articles. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 05:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is another problem with there creations - large direct 'quotes' that are actually just copyright violations - for instance Draft:Bartless was mostly direct copied content. KylieTastic (talk)#
 * This user does not listen to everyone. We tried helping but they ignore us and just continue to make policy violations with copyvio and notability. Clearly NOTHERE behavior and wanting Wikipedia to be more like Fandom. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the notability/duplicate draft issues, the volume of copyright violations is unacceptable. I have blocked for same. Star   Mississippi  16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Given that the user is also possibly WP:NOTHERE, I think its time to set the standard offer clock. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @KylieTastic I think I got all the ones you flagged (thank you!) and a few others I found. If I missed any, feel free to flag. I'd reject any standard offer until they indicate they understand what was wrong with the copyright creations-much larger of an issue than whether an episode is notable or not. Star   Mississippi  16:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from C. A. Russell
C. A. Russell has repeatedly attacked the competence of Steel1943 in the RfD nomination for that was created by them, with comments such as: Relevant RfD diffs:
 * This request could have only arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article.
 * If you feel there's something unclear about the statement that stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"), then please take some time to consider whether you should be participating in, let alone initiating, the "discussion" part that's intrinsic to the "Redirects for discussion" process.
 * The person who opened this RFD lacks the attention span to read five sentences that directly address the claims they made in the RFD. Nominally, this is written as an example of a sentence about a topic that doesn't directly have the exact name of the topic. However, the choice of this exact wording rather than one that doesn't attack a user should still be considered a personal attack.

In addition, C. A. Russell has made edits to the target page with the specific intent to be reverted as to "demonstrate a trivial edit" to add the exact wording "FILE pointer". This also should fall under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, however the amount of disruption here is immediately self-reverted edits in the article history rather than serious vandalism.

I'd also bring attention to an earlier ANI report that seems to have went unnoticed by administrators before being archived. Randi Moth Talk<sub style="margin-left:-20q;">Contribs 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, it seems this editor has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. There are also warnings regarding personal attacks in the editor's talk page history. Steel1943  (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ...Anyone? Steel1943  (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Anywho, I suppose I'll bring up some things that I feel the need to point out since it seems as though this editor is preparing a response statement and ... well, this whole scenario has caused me a lot of grief already:
 * A day or so ago, I replaced my user page with a link to Artificial intelligence and then reverted after I saw this report. Obviously, the former edit was in response to this editor causing me emotional grief. Ultimately, any such mention of this occurrence as a negative towards me is a strawman-type argument since it strays from the content of the argument that resulted in this report, but rather validates the grief that this user caused me, thus any such mention will probably be a WP:BOOMERANG.
 * As pointed out above, the editor's initial "keep" vote in the RFD discussion was identified to include a personal attack not just by me, but by another editor. In addition, the editor accused me of wasting the community's time with RFD ... which is a rather odd thing to accuse someone of and definitely did not seem like a "good faith" statement, considering RFD is one of the various WP:XFD discussion forums out there that literally is built on community participation, and thus utilizes the attention of the community. In addition, there are cases where such discussions will literally receive no community input, and will this result in "soft delete" or something similar: In other words, there is no requirement for there to be excess community participation in anything other than closing an open discussion ... which is really cheap resource-wise.
 * A few days ago, when this all started, I took it upon myself to see if this editor had a history of causing editors grief such as this ... and the results were astounding. In 2020, the editor was blocked for 48 hours due to personal attacks. In a recent RFD for a redirect titled Primus sucks (see Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29), the editor posted a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers that, to me, seems to have came off incredibly unhelpful for forming consensus and may have resulted in the nominator wanting to withdraw the discussion. (I mean honestly, if I had seen something like that in one of my nominations, I'd probably would have decided to ignore it and move on to actual consensus-building inquiries ... a lot of those questions seemed to be snidely attacking the nominator rather than having any sort of consensus-building purpose.)
 * ...With all that being said, this editor, with their statements, has caused me the most unreasonable amount of grief I have had to deal with on Wikipedia for a good while; I'm no stranger to dealing with (and previously, finding) stress on here, and have over the years learned to do my best to avoid extremely controversial areas in response (but in no way am I diminishing the efforts of others who do so since thanks to them, policies and precedents are established on Wikipedia), but the responses from this editor were like a figurative land mine that I would not have been able to spot with the best mine-detecting equipment; their attitude comes off as needlessly defensive to a point of lashing out. Steel1943  (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's a draft of the response they are writing. Steel1943  (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm guess I'm tangentially involved here, in that I originally put a comment supporting Deletion on this RfD, which I since vacated because the thing has become a wall of text that has more words than that redirect has seen page views in its entire lifetime and I don't want to be a part of that. Still, it's pretty clear that @C. A. Russell's behavior at that RfD is uncivil. They seem to feel ownership over this page and redirect, to the point of saying @Steel1943 is wasting contributor time by proposing it, requesting that Steel1943 not only change their mind about this particular redirect but stop participating at RfD altogether, and willingly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point . It's evident that they're someone convinced the only valid outcome of a discussion is one where everyone else acknowledges they're right. I think at the very least C. A. Russell should be formally warned here, and given that their behavior is enough to drive other editors away from discussions, I'd favor something more. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a person intimately involved with the Primus sucks RfD and has started the "earlier ANI report" (already linked above) regarding that RfD, I broadly agree with Dylnuge's assessment of Russell. However, I do believe that we can probably start with warning Russell this time around but ensure that we emphasize the OWN-related issue that they have, given that Russell themself had created both "Primus sucks" and "FILE pointer" and proceeded to use that attitude when their redirects are challenged over at RfD.
 * I would also like to alert you to this page in Russell's user space, which contains the list of "a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers" (using Steel1943's words) that first appeared at the Primus RfD. I do deem the page pretty POINTy, but I don't know about you.
 * (NB: Unless there is a comment directed specifically against me - whether I am mentioned explicitly (pings) or implicitly - or for minor, clearly-noted refactoring, I plan for this to be my only participation in this ANI thread. Need to cut down on drama after my previous ANI report.) NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is regular behavior on "their" redirects at AfD pretty much no matter what the redirect is, see also Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_17. It may also be worth noting that the collection of quotes from themself they have at their talk page seems to be all surrounding an incident with another user that ultimately ended up at ANI and got them a short block. Their user page isn't a problem in-and-of-itself, but it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that they'll listen to a warning here when they've got that little monument to how they were right and everyone else was wrong. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They're definitely combative and seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality based on my interactions with them. I certainly didn't appreciate Russell telling me that if I don't like the redirects they create I should stop patrolling redirects as part of WP:NPP. They also initiated a long back and forth with me on my talk page because I said they were taking the nomination too personally, badgering me to remove said comment and ranting about how inappropriate it was until I refused to engage further. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will an admin respond to this report please? I feel this needs a proper close since this is not the first time there has been a report like this against this editor in the past few years, and since the report posted a month or so ago never got answered and ended up being archived. Steel1943  (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked C. A. Russell for three days. See the block log for details. I didn't think a warning would be effective or sufficient sanction for their conduct. One of the itemsI listed in the block log that really troubles me is they appear to have no insight into their own behavior, which is a problem generally in a collaborative environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have come here as a RfD regular, and had seen the FILE pointer RfD unfolding. I wanted to close the RfD (since it is ready for close) and I wanted to keep the behavioural aspects of the discussion separate from the merits of the redirect. I had planned on adding a gentle and non-antagonizing note at the talk of C. A. Russell on my observation of his conduct at the RfD. I had read Steel's comment, so I proceeded to see if the user had a prior history at RfD. Which is when I found the Primus Sucks RfD, and recalled that I had seen that unfolding as well. As suggested at this ANI, he has taken too personally, deletion nominations of redirects created by him, and as hinted by Bbb23, may not be aware that it is a problem.
 * Today I saw that he has been blocked, and there is this ANI already, so my gentle note at the talk is not going to happen, and I'll have to be blunt here. Dylnuge has covered most of everything I had to say. The user was not civil at the RfD, did not assume good faith about the nomination, and disparaged the nominator repeatedly. This amounted to a personal attack, and vitiated the atmosphere at the discussion. I have feedback about Steel's behaviour too, but this being the ANI about Russell, not bringing it up. Jay  💬 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Range-hopping stealth IP vandal
Someone or something has been editing nonsense into number articles and their talk pages over the last 48 hours:

This may be a continuation of previous similar vandalism in April:.

Warning and ANI notification, on the offchance they haven't already moved on from that IP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Marrakech
I removed this comment that made to Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders because it seems blatantly transphobic to me, and to ignore styling guidelines for names of transgender individuals at Manual_of_Style/Biography. After I informed then of the guidelines, they doubled down,. Given their previous edits in the transgender topic area (eg ) I think a topic ban or an indef block may be warranted. Admittedly my original "taking out the trash" edit summary when initially removing their comment was not ideal and did not adequately explain the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because I'm from that area and go there with some frequency (though I don't know anyone involved in this, it was a huge news story that was unavoidable around here), but given the context I'm having a hard time getting past referring to this specific person's previous name as a "deadname". The Linehan thing I don't know enough about, this isn't my topic area, so I'll defer to those more familiar. That said, the removed comment from Marrakech was totally inexcusable, I have no sympathy for Hayes but that was obviously intended to be as incendiary as possible. At minimum it deserves a strong warning, repeating it would certainly be worthy of (at minimum) an indefinite p-block from that page. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah the person was clearly notable under their old name due to their crime, and I agree the name should be include. My issue was with Marrakech calling it a "disgrace" that their current gender identification be respected, which is part of Manual_of_Style/Biography. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Enough with the hyperboles. It is not 'blatantly transphobic' to call the guy who raped and murdered an innocent woman a guy. Nor was my comment 'intended to be as incendiary as possible'. I am merely criticizing the article for treating Steven Hayes as if he were a woman. You may not agree with that, but voicing an opinion can hardly be a reason for any ban whatsoever. At least not in an environment that respects basic rights and principles. Marrakech (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, voicing transphobic opinions transphobic.  "I'm just voicing my opinion" is not some magic protection from criticism, and being permitted to edit wikipedia is not a "basic right". Wikipedia's guidelines on gender identity are very clear, and you wouldn't be the first to be blocked for blatantly refusing to follow them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking further into this I'm deeply unimpressed by Marrakech's recent contributions as a whole, which are largely concerned with pushing their PoV on trans issues. Since the beginning of 2022 they have made 19 edits as I write this, including: the comment on Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders (once, twice, three times); this edit using Quillette as a source (generally unreliable according to WP:RSP), this edit sourced to a Forbes Contributor article (generally unreliable according to WP:FORBESCON; and the source doesn't strictly support the claim made anyway); this edit to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting where they argue that WP:DEADNAME should be ignored "as a general rule"; twice adding the word "alleged" to the description of Graham Linehan's anti-trans activism, and this edit to Talk:Ezra Miller arguing that the use of singular they in reference to a specific known person is ungrammatical. Some of these might be excusable individually, but they make up the majority of Marrakech's edits in more than a year, and together they constitute a clear pattern. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not helping yourself here. I can attest that, especially for anyone from here, this is about the least sympathetic subject imaginable on any level. Your problem is with choosing the most inflammatory way possible to express it, and I have a hard time thinking that you wouldn't intuit this would result; if you honestly didn't, that's a problem in and of itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Marrakech's original comment - the one linked to by and removed by Hemiauchenia - was pure transphobia, and expressed in the most despicable way. They need to apologise and voluntarily back off, or I would support a block of some kind. GiantSnowman 22:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologise to poor Steven Hayes? Because my crime is on a level with what he did? Anyway, not believing in something does not equate to hating or despising it. I do not for a moment believe that Hayes is a woman, but that does not mean I hate and despise him for self identifying as such: no transphobia there. There are of course plenty of other reasons to loathe the guy. Marrakech (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're taking a very moralising stance about Hayes here but you've been doing the same thing on the dutch Wikipedia with regards to respecting the pronouns of Suzy Eddie Izzard. where, among other things, you've been repeatedly claiming that (paraphrasing slightly to accommodate translation): "just like a man claiming he feels like he's twenty when he is actually fifty, a man who feels like a woman obviously isn't a woman". I don't necessarily believe we should sanction people for behaviour on other platforms save for extreme cases, but it does lead me to believe that your behaviour on that talk page has less to do with Hayes, and more with you. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 'You're taking a very moralising stance about Hayes (...).' Well, about as moralising as the stance you guys take about me for opposing the view that Hayes should be treated and described as a woman. Because that is what this is all about: wrongthink. Marrakech (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When looking at your edits more broadly, this clearly isn't about Hayes, but your contempt for people changing gender identity in general. The fact that you have an entire ArbCom case on nlwiki just dedicated to your disruptive editing regarding gender identity/pronouns suggests you have a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See, someone killing and raping another someone doesn't give a free pass to misgender them. I'm honestly surprised no admin has indeffed you yet, it's an obvious open and shut case. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I should probably know this, but my eyes glazed over when they talked about the new contentious topics regime in class. Do you still have to have some kind of official templated warning before making a contentious topic sanction? I looked at WP:CTOP and didn't see such a requirement, but surely they're needed, right? Anyway, I'd suggest an official warning (if required) or a CT topic ban (if not). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, sorry. They already got one last summer (although I'm still a little curious if they're officially required; did I miss something at WP:CTOP?) .  I'd suggest an admin more familiar with the i-dotting and t-crossing of CT sanctions just unilaterally topic ban them. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See Contentious topics; there's still some formality involved but they've tried to reduce it. Galobtter (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: in case english-only people here are unaware, this user is currently the main party subject to an unresolved ArbCom case on dutch Wikipedia for a related issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * has used a previous account. Per Clean start they should disclose the previous account. I was going to impose a WP:GENSEX topic ban, which should be done as a minimum, but this edit suggests that the problems extend beyond the topic area. Galobtter (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is problematic about that particular edit? Apart from this, LilianaUwU's comment 'It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy' sums it up nicely. You guys present mere opinions as facts and want to silence wikipedians who do not happen to agree with you. Is Wikipedia still a free and democratic encyclopedia, or an environment similar to countries where strict blasphemy laws continue to be in place? Marrakech (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure which Wikipedia you're talking about, but this one is not and has never been either a democracy or a platform for free speech. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, but I see this user finds it difficult to resist GENSEX-related topics, where their viewpoint becomes evident, and as far as I can see all their edits in this area get reverted. That, combined with the Dutch ArbCom case, makes me believe that Marrakech should indeed be topic banned from the area of GENSEX. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 15:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Editing Wikipedia is a privilege. Having seen Marrakech's recent edits, their replies in this thread, as well as their behavior in the nl wiki, it's clear their editing is hateful and disruptive and not collaborative, as such I've indeffed them. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block. Looking at some of their previous edits, they should probably have had at least a GENSEX ban a while ago.  I suspect that their very erratic editing contributed to that.  And I'm surprised that this took over 24 hours;  we indef racists and misogynists on the spot, but apparently not transphobes. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. There's some types of hatred that we handle better than others, and how we handle transphobia is definitely not great. We should be faster at handling it in general, as there's a lot of disruption in the GENSEX content area that goes unresolved, especially so in clear cut cases like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block. GiantSnowman 10:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Entirely correct. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 23:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse the block. Way out of line, and digging themselves deeper.  At a minimum, any unblock should be contingent to them agreeing to abide by a WP:GENSEX topic ban as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Marrakech's pre-block contributions and their post-block comments on their talk page indicate that a GENSEX topic ban would be the absolute minimum before any unblock request should be granted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the comments mentioned by OP at Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders be RD2'd? They're particularly egregious compared to other problematic edits by this user, as they deadname a living transgender person with intent to discriminate against them. These edits by an anonymous editor, immediately before those by Marrakech, have a similar tone and content as well, plus an accusation of Wikipedia advancing a pro-transgender agenda. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 09:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They're currently indeffed, so this may be a moot point, but endorse GENSEX topic-ban in case we ever lift the block. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on sub section semi-high speed rail of the page High-speed rail in India
There are are instances of repeated disruptive editing from the User talk:71.183.235.166 and possibly their sock puppet account User talk:2600:4041:7B25:C500:4029:511F:561A:1E8C on the semi-high speed rail section of the High-speed rail in India page. The user in question keeps removing the clarified content and adds their own content without sources. The sources were sent to my talk page but none of those demonstrate any evidence to the user's content.

It's about a list of semi-high speed routes in India that are operational, under upgradation, planned to support a speed of 160 kmph. But the user has confusion with the trains sets that are capable of running far beyond these speeds but don't do so due to incapable tracks. The user is trying to add routes that these trains run on, those routes are either not planned to have speeds beyond 110kmph - 130kmph or are part of the already mentioned greater section.

I request you to stop these disruptive edits as they mislead people into thinking India has far greater amount of tracks that support 160kmph speeds when they do not.

Footy2000 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Footy2000 sūçk my rōd. 2409:408C:AE95:2219:0:0:4308:F70C (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Charming. Sitewide block (on top of the pblock) for a week.  Mini  apolis  21:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeated addition of Vietnamese spam links using various IPs/IP ranges
There is a user who has been inserting the same few spam links (always Vietnamese sites afaict) to a selection of articles using various IPs, particularly in the last month but also earlier (see Betway). I'm not sure what to do here and was told after a few reports at AIV to take it here. Here are all IPs I'm aware of (grouped roughly by similarity, sorry for the long list):

Here are the articles affected so far (all the ones I'm aware of; sorted roughly by edit frequency):
 * Image file format
 * Laws of the Game (association football)
 * Betway
 * Casino Royale (novel)
 * AVIF
 * Game Arts
 * 2007–08 Bundesliga
 * 2007–08 Premier League
 * Football records and statistics in England
 * Premier League of America
 * Norway national football team
 * Premier League–Football League gulf
 * Footballers' Wives
 * Premier League of Belize
 * PDF
 * 2003–04 FA Premier League

Some of the IPs are/were already blocked and some of the articles are/were already temporarily protected. I have only notified the most recently used IP (1.52.41.60), I hope that's ok. <b style="color:black">Felida</b><sup style="color:black">97 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the spamming has been going on in high volumes for quite a while here, from too many different IPs on too many various articles to make neither blocking nor page protection effective, what you could do, is request that the links being spammed by these IPs be added to the spam blacklist, over at Spam blacklist. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  05:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created a spam blacklist request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AP 499D25: That was a good idea, thanks for going through the articles and making the request, which has already been answered. Let's hope this hinders the user somewhat, although I have my doubts about that (for similar reasons you believe the many IPs and articles make blocking/PP not an effective option)... <b style="color:black">Felida</b><sup style="color:black">97 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AP 499D25: Looks like (using one of the above IPs to edit one of the listed articles)... <b style="color:black">Felida</b><sup style="color:black">97  (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Felida97 If it gets spammed enough times, then I would make a request to add it to the spam blacklist, like I did above. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of opposing views
User DarkSide830 initiated a requested move here and removed my opposing view in this edit. In the same edit, the user has replied to another opposing view by the page creator. This seems to be an attempt to artificially build a consensus.--Mixmon (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mixmon Given that DarkSide830's edit was made only a couple minutes after yours and that they were using the source editor this seems far more likely to be an edit conflict than a deliberate, malicious attempt to remove your comment. Why have you immediately assumed ulterior motives and escalated this to the administrative noticeboards? You should assume good faith about the edits made by others. A much better first step would have been to raise this on their user talk page. 192.76.8.75 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to the IP; it was a gross over-reaction to bring this here before calmly discussing it with DarkSide830. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't remove any edit, not sure what you're talking about. I normally just add a new section, but edited the overall talk page to add the move request. Also not even sure what is meant here by "opposing views" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

IP editor inserting NPOV violations, casting bad faith accusations based on religious affiliation
IP editor 174.94.67.56 has made several disruptive edits to the Keith Self article, including prose with a non-neutral tone that very plainly violated WP:NPOV. After removing the content twice, I ceased making further edits to the article while the IP restored the content with some revisions. In doing so, the IP editor seems to have made a pretty clear violation of not assuming good faith by calling out my own personal religious affiliation (as stated on my userpage) and assuming it motivated my removal of the content. Kafoxe (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1153707311
 * Special:Diff/1153707311

SimoooIX and M.Bitton - round 3
(also previously known as Simoooix.haddi)

Previous ANI discussions:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125

Two weeks have passed since the last discussion, and I was recently called in to Talk:Ahmed Ben Bella to intervene in a latest round of dispute, taking place at Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella and Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella. While there's some mild PA-sparring going on there and at discussions linked in those sections, what ultimately motivated me to bring this back to ANI is the exchange related to Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella and misrepresentation of sources. Reviewing the source in question and the diffs carried out by SimoooIX (Special:Diff/1152380324, Special:Diff/1152392502), while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive, and leads me to recommend that the community pass a topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. If this were a first time offense, WP:ROPE would be appropriate, but coming as it does after months of bickering, a p-block and 2 ANI threads (not to mention this opening shot to their relationship), I think that we have collectively been more than enough patient in waiting for SimoooIX to edit constructively. I would also note that the specific concern that SimoooIX was misreading French sources has been raised before by M.Bitton but does not appear to have been investigated in detail in the prior threads. signed,Rosguill talk 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Enough is enough, this has to stop. --Yamla (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding the issue of sources misrepresentation (which is not the real issue why i pinged you, and i think you should have mentioned the edit warring and properly sourced content removal stuff):
 * 1)- the content i added is a matter of fact even if it wasn't mentioned in that specific source, It is supported by other reliable sources.
 * 2)- the author of the article, did also write an other article in which He is clearly confirming what i added.
 * 3)- The author of the article made this conclusion at the end of the paragraph. Why would He even do that? SimoooIX (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. The above post does not help their case.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per evidence above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here are some reasons why a Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics is not a good idea:
 * 1)- It simply means that i should definitively stop editing on Wikipedia (see my userpage in order to know why):
 * 2)- I have contributed many times on this topic and the majority of my edits were constructive (feel free to check my contibutions). i have also created the articles of Almohad conquest of Norman Africa and Awraba. and i have intentions to improve them in the future, also i have plans to create more articles.
 * 3)- the most important reason to me is that M.Bitton clearly has something against Morocco and you can see that in many instances. For example they have labeled mentions of Morocco 'stupid' and i have highlighted their mistake  and another editor did that too . Also they have referred to the Moroccan policies as being 'colonialist'. Unfortunately there is no one to stop their POV pushing. if i get banned that means they will feel free to do whatever they want.
 * As for my third edit. I admit that it was a mistake, and i have already apologized for it. i re-apologize if this was needed. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of SimoooIX's edits have been either disruptive or questionable at best. Here's their sole contribution to the Awraba article that they "created" (a single line with a factually incorrect nationalist POV that their tried to reinject after it was removed). The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view) that consists of 80% background that is covered elsewhere.

Three days ago, they accused me of POV pushing and when asked to either substantiate their accusation or apologize, they referred to a discussion that proves the exact opposite of their assertion (this comment by Apaugasma sums it up quite well).

Look, i'm aware that an Algerian president being Moroccan Berber by his origins is a bothersome to you. But Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV. yesterday's personal attack (that they tried to hide 12 hours after making it) is beyond the pale. It's also near identical to the first they made on the day they joined the project. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Now you are clearly making baseless accusations. When I created the article of Awraba, I simply translated a part of the French article that referred to the Awraba as a tribe of Morocco. When you changed "Morocco" to "North Africa" and mentioned that you've adressed the anachronism, I initially thought adding "modern-day" would address the issue. However, after you explained the issue more clearly, I agreed with your reasoning and moved on. I was assuming good faith throughout our interaction.
 * "The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view)" you clearly understood nothing from my comment ( I don't have to explain it now). So i suggest you refrain making accusations based on misunderstandings.
 * Now let's talk about your behaviour as an editor. You've personally attacked me more than once, you have threatened me , accused my properly sourced addition of being "a POV serving a political agenda" and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry . As for the reason why i pinged Rosguill (apparently that was unhelpful), the following is a copied comment of mine that i have left in the talk page of Ahmed Ben Bella:
 * I have added properly sourced content, but apparently M.Bitton didn't like what i added, and removed it as well as other relevant content for being 'undue' (which is clearly not). i have reverted their removal and respectfully asked them not to edit war and discuss their removal in the talk page first. but they clearly seem unwilling to cooperate and cotinued edit warring. (you'll notice that they are refusing to continue this discussion). SimoooIX (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, SimoooIX, unfortunately here at ANI we don't care that if you're t-banned, It simply means that i should definitely stop editing on Wikipedia. In fact, that hurts your case, as to most experienced editors it's a sign you may be here to WP:RGW.
 * A topic ban means you apparently aren't currently able to contribute in a certain area in a way that is a net-positive. It doesn't have to be permanent if you can show you're capable of editing in other areas productively. It's possible you simply need more experience to understand that, yes, Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV is indeed a personal attack.
 * (That said, I agree M.Bitton has made the same kinds of personal attacks on you, and while I think they definitely need to be warned, it's a little hard to understand why you can recognize it when they throw it at you but not when you throw it at them. Although that's true for them, too. Really both of you are behaving badly.)
 * At any rate, if you stop editing because of a topic ban, rather than attempting to learn how to productively contribute in other areas until the t-ban is lifted, we kind of consider that evidence you were WP:NOTHERE. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did my best to avoid them since the last ANI, but they kept casting aspersions and justifying them by referring to a discussion that proves the opposite of what they claim, culminating in the last PA (see above) that I simply ignored. They have a thing against me (as clearly highlighted in their third ever edit and repeated numerous times since) that I simply cannot ignore, and while turning the other cheek is what we're supposed to do, there are limits to how much harassment and abuse one can take. Also, if they can try to justify that to themselves, I don't see how they can possibly justify insulting the Algerian president (in wikipedia's voice). If that's not the sign of someone of who's here on a mission (one of which is to drive me up the wall), I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it, but when you retaliate with the exact same kinds of personal attacks, you've kind of forfeited that moral high ground. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not retaliate since the last ANI where I promised to avoid them. See the last two blatant PA (highlighted above) that I ignored. Also, what did the Algerian president ever do to them to deserve being called a pussy in Wikipedia's voice? M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is actually based on another editor's false accusation (on french wiki). Now tell me, why do you think that i called the Algerian president a 'pussy'? Please be precise! SimoooIX (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation, it's a fact. I saw what you wrote with my own eyes before it was RevDeleted and you blocked indefinitely on fr.wp.
 * The disgusting insult towards the Algerian president says everything there is to know about you as an editor. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating things. I asked for an explanation! Do you even undestand Arabic, Amazigh or whatever the language? You should explain your accusation, otherwise this will not be tolerated anymore. SimoooIX (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Exchanges like the above are the reason I'm still not sure there isn't fault on both sides. M.Bitton must have mentioned this insult to the president of Algeria -- which none of us can see unless someone here is an admin on frwiki -- at minimum a dozen times in various discussions. Valereee (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, i should make this clear now, i cannot stand more false accusations! Here is the edit i've done on the french wiki:
 * تبون -->طبون.
 * Probably i was wrong, but that was actually the spelling i used to see in social media, so i thought there was some mistake in the arabic spelling. (Apparently there wasn't)
 * Also as far as i'm concerned, the pronunciation of 'Tebboune' in french is more like طبون than تبون. (You can compare the Arabic pronunciation of both Arabic words on Google translate)
 * Now M.Bitton should explain to us how is that an insult or how exactly that means that i called the Algerian president "pussy". SimoooIX (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valereee: since I'm damned if I respond to them and damned if I don't, I might as well do myself a favour and keep away from this nth time sink altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For me, you're totally free to respond. you have replied to me multiple even after the last ANI (including instances where you personally attacked me). Thus, I am curious as to why you are unable to provide a response to me at this specific moment. SimoooIX (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee, I understand that you may be tired of this unnecessary conflict (which is understandable).
 * First of all, i would like to apologize for any actions that may have been interpreted as a personal attack.
 * An yes, my main reason for joining Wikipedia was to contribute to articles related to North Africa, and I also engaged in anti-vandalism efforts such as reverting edits and warning vandals, but that was secondary to me.
 * As a former reader of Wikipedia, I noticed that certain mentions of Morocco were being removed, and upon checking discussions on talk pages and the contibs history of some editors, I identified M.Bitton as a frequent contributor to these edits. I didn't like their edits (especially that they had started their editorial careed by edit-warring). And that was the moment when i decided to open an account and personally attack them (again, i'm not justifying anything).
 * In my early days on Wikipedia, I also engaged in edit wars frequently. Interestingly, M. Bitton was also involved in these conflicts consistently. What I found funny was that while they were sending warnings on my talk page about edit warring, they were simultaneously engaging in the same behavior. This led me to believe that edit warring was a typical occurrence on Wikipedia, even among experienced editors.
 * To avoid an unnecessary t-ban, I propose a solution to address one of the root causes of the problem. Admins should tackle two problematic behaviors exhibited by M. Bitton, namely
 * Edit warring.
 * Refusal to discuss.
 * I strongly believe that resolving these two issues with M. Bitton can eliminate the larger problem altogether, as other issues can be easily resolved once these two main issues are addressed. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no difference, none whatsoever, between your so-called early days and the way you've been conducting yourself ever since you joined the project (including you last comment). You're clearly here on a mission that includes, among other things, driving me up the wall.


 * Did you "discuss" anything with the Algerian president before you decided to describe him as a "pussy" in Wikipedia's voice? M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. The current dynamic is toxic; I'm happy to revisit if SimoooIX demonstrates they can edit productively in other areas. The misreading of the Ahmed Ben Bella source is fundamental. One other matter: M.Bitton, I appreciate that dealing with SimoooIX is aggravating, but you need to disengage and de-escalate. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but did you read what i wrote above about the sources and the content i added? Anyway,  I'm not the only who has had issues with this editor (I can give names if you insisted, but for now, i don't feel the need of involving other editors) I was unlucky enough that my first interactions were with them and that they are editing on the exact same topic for which i've came to wikipedia to edit on. (I'm not justifying some of the mistakes i've done but i think the entire conflict could have been avoided. In fact, i have noticed that the exact same problem happened somewhere else with other editors, i was fan of how the experienced editor had dealt with the issue).  SimoooIX (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unlucky enough that my first interactions were with them By which you mean you sought them out and made an unprovoked personal attack. Yes, very unlucky. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the whole comment in order to undestand why i said that. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support t-ban. SimoooIX, your best bet is to go edit somewhere less contentious while you gain experience. If you really don't have any other editing interests at all, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban as proposed. Since the previous ANI report, SimoooIX has continued wasting precious editors' time at Talk:Azougui and Talk:Almoravid_dynasty over an issue which seems to me to be tendentious in nature. Among three cities commonly called by sources 'capitals' of the Almoravids, SimoooIX insisted that the only non-Moroccan one should not be called capital, keeping multiple editors who disagree busy with this over several days, and utterly refusing to drop the stick.I already suggested to SimoooIX that they consider staying away a bit from Morocco-related subjects and look for other subjects to edit, but apparently they are only interested in editing North Africa-related stuff.However, interpreting "la sainte éponyme, qu’on dit originaire de Marrakech" as meaning that the Algerian politician Ahmed Ben Bella himself is from Marrakech (Morocco), and doubling down on that even after an English translation of the relevant sentence has been presented, is ... strange. Either it's extremely tendentious, or (perhaps more likely) it's a combination of lacking French language skills (a rather serious wp:cir problem for anyone insisting on only editing North Africa-related topics) with a failure to assume good faith on the translation given. In any case, it's another talk page filled with pure wp:timesink stuff keeping editors busy for days, and if nothing else that needs to stop. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apaugasma, i suggest you are more precise. I insisted that Azougui mustn't be described as the "first capital" as per reliable sources that described Aghmat (another city) as the "first capital" and i have explained that here talk:Azougui and here talk:Almoravid dynasty.
 * Have you read what i wrote above about the sources and the content i added? The content i added (that Ben Bella's parents came from the Marrakesh region) is a matter of fact and supported by other sources! SimoooIX (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is not 'capital' or 'first capital', the point is that you at least seem hell bent on diminishing the status of that non-Moroccan city, that you appear to resort to tendentious reasoning to arrive there, and –most importantly– that when multiple editors do not agree with this reasoning, you refuse to drop it.Yes, you added to the Ben Bella article that his parents were originally from Marrakesh, while the source you cited only says that the patron saint of his native town Maghnia was originally from Marrakech. It's true, other sources like do confirm that Ben Bella's parents originated in the Marrakesh region, but you only came up with a new source after making this whole stir about it, and even then you did not admit that you misread the first source, nor that you clearly do not known enough French to read it correctly.Look, this is not about whether you're right or not, it's about the way you go about it. As Rosguill writes in this t-ban proposal, while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive. It's not normal for a Wikipedia editor to create so many sprawling talk page disputes over seemingly simple edits. It's not normal for a Wikipedia editor to waste so much of their fellow editors' time. You need to learn how to communicate more effectively, to admit your mistakes, and to drop the wp:stick when appropriate. The best way to learn this is by editing in other subject areas for a while. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the point is that you at least seem hell bent on diminishing the status of [that non-Moroccan city that's an accusation that you should prove!
 * Well, if that makes others happy, i apologize for any actions that have been seen as a misrepresentation of sources. SimoooIX (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban: as proposed. SimoooIX's tendentious editing and unwillingness to stop digging deeper holes is apparent here. It also takes a high degree of chutzpah to suggest -- as they did below -- that the best way to avoid hitting SimoooIX with an "unnecessary" ban is to sanction the other guy instead.  With that degree of willful ignorance, I wouldn't consider them a strong candidate for improvement to the level of collegiality and collaborative editing we need.   Ravenswing      20:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can support whatever you want but please do not misrepresent what i said. I didn't suggest to sanction M.Bitton instead. i have heard enough reprimands for some of my actions. I just find it unfair to ignore M.Bitton's violations. With that degree of willful ignorance didn't you see me apologizing above?
 * @Rosguill, look, i can understand that you may hold some sympathy for M.Bitton (this diff is showing it quite well ), but don't you think that the way you filed the ANI was not impartial enough? i mean you didn't mention even a single violation of M.Bitton's (which i mentioned above, in addition to violation of 3RR in the Marinid Sultante article) which i found to be odd. Also while I may have misrepresented a source, it did not result in any significant damage given that other reliable sources support the information I added. Your ANI made it seem as though I was the villain of the story which made everyone support the t-ban.
 * I was previously blocked for edit warring, and Valereee insisted that i should learn how to discuss issues instead. I have taken this lesson to heart and have been more engaged in talk pages. During the second ANI thread, @Valereee suggested a two-way IBAN, and @ScottishFinnishRadish seemed to support it. This implies that both administrators agree that the problem was not one-sided. However, I am curious as to why they are supporting sanctions against only one side of the conflict now (i mean what made them change their opinion?). The ANI concluded that M.Bitton should avoid interacting with me, but in reality, they continued to interact with me (which is understandable given that we both edit the same topic, making it impossible to avoid me).
 * Rosguill, i preferred to ping an administrator (which was you) instead of being engaged in an edit war, but apparetly the award i will get for that is a t-ban. i didn't want to ping Valereee as i was pretty sure that she may had enough with this conflict, i thought that pinging a relatively less engaged administrator would be a good idea (apparently that was a stupid idea). If i had opened an ANI discussion by myself, certainly the damage would have been lesser than a t-ban.
 * Finally,I don't blame M.Bitton for not assuming good faith whatever comes after this sentence, i find it intolerable especially when it comes from an administrator. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Apologies" are just empty words when they are not matched with actions. Disabusing yourself of the notion that you will win an argument if you just bludgeon it with rebuttal after rebuttal, walls of text upon walls of text, would have been a good start.  It just doesn't seem like one you were willing to undertake.   Ravenswing      02:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * To avoid an unnecessary t-ban, I propose a solution to address one of the root causes of the problem. Admins should tackle two problematic behaviors exhibited by M.Bitton, namely:
 * Edit warring.
 * Refusal to discuss.
 * I strongly believe that resolving these two issues with M. Bitton can eliminate the larger problem altogether, as other issues can be easily resolved once these two main issues are addressed. Thank you.
 * SimoooIX (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ready for close?
Consensus seems pretty clear here. This could use action and close before the archive bot sweeps it away. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, not yet. I've provided evidence of M.Bitton's violations of Wikipedia policies through the diffs I presented above. It's strange that except Valereee, no one else has acknowledged or dealt with these violations.
 * I have also suggested an alternative (more reasonable and peaceful to me) solution above that should be taken into account.SimoooIX (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With unanimous sentiment of those other than yourself supporting the consensus, it's plain that whatever you feel about your own arguments, the other editors are unmoved by them. I find myself unmoved by them.  As to the "three reasons" you list above for not being topic banned, the first one (that it would effectively bar you from editing Wikipedia) engages my sympathies as little as any other editor; if this is a declaration that you refuse to edit collaboratively and in accordance with civility policies anywhere if you're demonstrated to be incapable of it in this topic area, that's useful to know. In the second reason, claiming that the "majority" of your edits were constructive begs the question: why weren't they all constructive?  In the final case, your allegations against M.Bitton don't hold water.  He did not call Morocco "stupid" -- he said that referring to the Marinid rulers as a Moroccan dynasty, long before Morocco existed, was stupid, a defensible assertion.  (Would you likewise consider imperial Rome, the Kingdom of the Vandals, and Carthage "Moroccan" states?)  And while he referred to Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara as "colonialist," that is indeed the position of the United Nations, and only one other country on Earth recognizes Moroccan control over the territory.   Ravenswing      00:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you don't seem to fully understand the issue. By describing the mention of Morocco as "stupid," they are essentially labeling the numerous references (from reliable sources) to the dynasty being either Moroccan or a ruling dynasty of Morocco (which I have provided examples of on the talk page and can provide more) as also being stupid. This is the crux of the matter, and I find it indefensible. (The examples of Rome, Vandals, and Carthage are irrelevant and have little to do with the history of Morocco compared to Marinids).
 * Please correct me if I am wrong, but when did the UN refer to Morocco as "colonialist"? While they may have referred to Morocco as an "occupier," there is a significant difference between the two terms. While I understand that editors may have biases, they should do their best to conceal them while editing or discussing on talk pages to maintain neutrality. Even if the UN did refer to Morocco as such, it is still not justifiable. "Moroccan Sahara" is actually the most widely used term to refer to Western Sahara in Morocco, and it is commonly used by Moroccan politicians and Moroccan citizens, as well as individuals from other Arab nations. Therefore, when M.Bitton refers to them as "colonialist" and "cheerleaders of colonialists" it borders on hate speech towards people from a specific country. (Note:and only one other country on Earth recognizes Moroccan control over the territory your wrong statement proves somehow you're not familiar with the subject of Western Sahara)
 * Lastly, those were not the violations I was referring to. Please refer to my comment above where I highlighted some of the personal attacks, false accusations, content removal, and edit warring. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue quite well, thank you, and stand by the accuracy of my statements. I just don't happen to agree with you, and you should be capable of understanding the distinction, as well as recognizing that no other editor here agrees with you either.  As it happens, your personal approval is not required in order to tban you.   Ravenswing      20:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Aradicus77 edit-warring to puff up the importance of Red Krayola

 * Red Krayola
 * Draft:Steve Cunningham (musician)
 * April 2023: WP:ANI archive 1126: Non-neutral inflation of importance: Houston–London avant-garde band Red Krayola
 * Industrial music
 * Free improvisation
 * Proto-punk
 * Noise music
 * New wave music
 * Noise music
 * New wave music

Two weeks ago, I reported Aradicus77 as editing in a non-neutral manner, inflating the importance of the semi-obscure avant garde musical group Red Krayola. The problem has been continuing, with Aradicus77 edit-warring across multiple articles to re-insert mentions of the band. Aradicus77 has reverted to their preferred version 11 times today across multiple articles. This is a behavior issue.

Static IP 92.9.57.106 has been involved in the same effort, along with other IPs who have not edited recently. Aradicus77 created the biography Draft:Steve Cunningham (musician) but it was deleted by Liz three weeks ago for inactivity and not being notable enough.

To me, this looks like someone associated with the band who wishes to leave behind a legacy of a critically important band rather than a fringe band with a small following. Accordingly, I have placed conflict-of-interest warnings at User talk:Aradicus77, along with many edit-warring warnings. Note that University of London musicologist Stephen Graham explicitly states in his book Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music that he chose not to write about little-known bands such as Red Krayola. That makes Red Krayola too fringe for the book about fringe music.

Aradicus77 has been searching for any mention of Red Krayola in published sources, and inserting these tidbits in multiple articles, to make it seem that Red Krayola is important across a wide array of music genres. Aradicus77 is ignoring the policy of WP:ONUS: disputed text must stay out of the article until consensus is formed for inclusion. The edit-warring has to stop. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Consider myself fairly well-versed in music, esp. alt, punk, and industrial metal. Never heard of em, this is clear agenda editing, possibly paid. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because some 73 year old guy is definitely going to pay a 17 year old kid to edit their band on wikipedia lmao. How hard is it to believe that these guys are influential in the same way the Velvet Underground was, you've been ignoring my talk page discussions every time I provide a rebuttal. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very hard, actually. But I'll give you a simple metric: Google hits for the Velvet Underground run over a hundred times as many as for Red Krayola.  What rebuttals, by the bye?   Ravenswing      01:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well if you've never heard of them, now you have, you can't know them all. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't even edit warring in new wave or free improvisation, we disputed those. We also disputed the noise music page, I deleted the whole section as by your definition none of the bands mentioned fit the criteria to be featured. The industrial music page is also apt given the sources. Proto-punk/punk too, and if this is aimless promotion how come there's so many sources from cites like Pitchfork, AllMusic, Chicago Reader... etc noting the band's presaging of so many genres? You don't really come across that with any other bands, shows that their influence hasn't been properly documented on Wikipedia, to add on you act like I'm aimlessly promoting them and just exist to promote them, when I've added information on pages for a variety of bands, they just happen to be the one I stumble on the most when it comes to information. For example, I'm looking for a source I read a while ago from Far Out Magazine that cited Wire's 154 as a precursor to shoegaze and post-rock, would that not be an important and valid addition to those pages? Anyway do what you will, if I'm blocked so be it, would rather be blocked and stop wasting time on a site that doesn't take my contributions. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I genuinely don't care anymore, I'll say some shit to get me permanently blocked so I don't have to be tempted to come back here again to waste time contributing things that will just get removed for no reason:
 * I am a member of both the Counter-Counter-Vandalism Unit and Anti-Anti Vandalism Group. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indefinitely blocked Aradicus77 and blocked their IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Mottezen at Jorge Otero Barreto
User:Mottezen, a participant in an active discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Yahoo!_News,_Noticel,_El_Mundo,_Home_News_Tribune,_and_Hartford_Courant regarding this matter, and thus aware of the actively running discussion taking place, unilaterally made changes that directly impact the matter under discussion. After I reverted him with an exhaustive explanatory edit summary that included directions, the user, again, made the same changes. I have reverted him again but his actions are disruptive to the process taking place at the WP:RSN. Can an admin please address this? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I find your actions more concerning than anyone’s here. Please do not engage in any further reverts. Courcelles (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks but, mind being a bit more specific as to which "actions" you are alluding to? And, what do you perceive as my (apparent) violation of WP policy that necessitated such judgement on your part? Also what would you have done differently (other than --obviously-- not revert? Want, to point out, I have no interest but to stay within WP:PG, and protecting the article from how it has read for years if a discussion was active and onging where no agreement has been reached, seemed like staying within policy and is for everyones benefit, no? So, I am not sure which "actions" you are referring to, why exactly they "are more concerning that anyone's", and what is the "here" supposed to mean. Can you clarify a bit? Please don't take this personally, I am looking for specific guidance. Can you provide it? Your response seems quite short and incomplete compared to the more precise responses of the other admins on this board. Not looking for a battle with you or anyone, looking so specifics on what not to do so I can do an even better job as an editor, that is, looking to stay within your expectations, but it seems your response is simply a taking of sides as opposed to fairly addressing a problem based on WP admins Best Practices. So, where do you feel I went wrong? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think 's comment was absolutely clear. Your reverts at the article were disruptive, not the other user's. And your description of what transpired was grossly exaggerated. I note that another user reverted your last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to finally see a concrete answer, as in disruptive. Sad it had to take so many questions to get one concrete answer, though. Warmest regards, Mercy11 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog
I have no idea what to make of this, and if it's worth an ANI topic. The involved IPs are the same person, from likely switching internet and devices:

It started with an edit request at Talk:Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog where intially commented on the request. I eventually erroneously closed the request having misread the article's page protection expiry date. Another edit request was made the next day, which I have no issues with, but was declined by both me and for lack of sources. They then proceeded to remove our comments by lashing out and change the request to unanswered. They later apologized in another edit summary. I restored the removal and most recent edit request, where I tried to engage in a discussion with the user. It was unclear what the changes they wanted to be made, given the article already mentions them. I closed the request but willing to continue the discussion. That's when they did this and this as edit summaries and removing my comment once again when reverted. Potential WP:OWN issues with these edits:, , , and their message on my talk page. Another involved user was with their reversal.

I have no idea what to make of this, and I have no idea if an admin needs to be involved but it's gotten unconstructive and probably disruptive. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 21:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that I have notified the user in question but removed it. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 21:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally they have removed the comments once again. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the range and the single IP each for one week for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They've returned with the IP 73.68.19.118 and 96.84.196.217 . Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked, page protected for a week. Courcelles (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Aerielen
Series of personal attacks and non-constructive edits by, ongoing and TBH getting a bit OTT now, so hoping that someone could stop this. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * i hope the same way Aerielen (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * seriously how much you earn to be hostile towards me? Aerielen (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User is indef blocked for WP:NPA. ― <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 19:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, blocked indef. This isn't an instance of an editor getting a little heated and lashing out, it's just blatant incivility and personal attacks.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

208.98.140.46 now lobbing bigoted personal attacks against me
IP CLEARLY only here to vandalize.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

When I warned IP for edit 5, IP relpied with a bigoted personal attack
 * x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll 3: Tokyo Drift


Last discussion about them here. Still edit warring in See also sections while IP hopping, as is their modus operandi. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 06:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like all of these were picked off by a number of other admins; they're all webhosts/open proxies, etc. Thanks for being vigilant.  Feel free to rollback at will anything that hasn't been already.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Found more while checking to see if the rollbacked edits were reverted again:, , , and what seems to be an actual user for once: . Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @LilianaUwU Thank you for dealing with this. TylerBurden (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These are all IPs associated with Stark Industries Solutions., who I believe works frequently with WP:OP to block open proxies.  Is there any rangeblocks where we could take this down?  It looks like this person is using Stark Industries Solutions, and I'm not sure there's any good reason not to block them; googling the name turns up a lot of red flags.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32: I've gone through and blocked the ~150 unblocked Stark ranges I could find. There seem to be some other webhosts involved here too, but I'm hoping this will help a bit. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was done with them (and had closed the discussion), but they made at least one account, in the form of. Already blocked, but worth checking out. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 10:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Creating fake article for insta likes??


From what I understand and what I believe is that; I just like to point out that this user has created a complete fake article (Albion Demiri) that went to AfD. I looked at the list of keep and retain players at Everton FC, no player by Albion Demiri has ever been at the club. From what I understand, this is just a ruse to drive traffic to the instagram account of the same name. It's basically a con in the numbers game to boost the insta account. I am not sure how the admins will deal this this. But that is what I suspect. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking for other reasons, but needless to say this can be closed. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Had an EC there, just wanted to say thanks for sorting that, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Opereetveritate
I'm going to guess that making 11 edits that include the edit summary "gfys" breaks a few of our policies? The impetus for this was this editor inserting copyvio multiple times and getting reverted for it, and then adding more copyvio today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not the first time either; while he religiously blanks his talk page, the copyvio complaints go back years: . Looks like a fellow we could soldier on without.   Ravenswing      19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Blocked. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Hailey's On It! page by JamontW2005, leading to an edit war
Hello everyone. This all began when @User:JamontW2005 improperly created a page for this animated series instead of submitting the Draft:Hailey's On It into the mainspace. I have posted on their user talk page multiple times and have mentioned them in various reversions. But, I can do no more as I'd be violating WP:3RR. They are adding in badly sourced content, copyrighted content, and are engaging in an edit war. This all occurred from May 5th to today, May 8th. I also suspect that the user discussed in this post, JamontW2005, is trying to own the Hailey's On It! page as their own.

Actions by JamontW2005
 * First removal of content (adds in badly sourced content, copyrighted synopsis, and copyrighted episode description) [19:57, 5 May 2023]
 * Second removal of content (says "This is fine how it is.") [20:00, 5 May 2023]
 * Third removal of content (no edit description, but re-adds badly sourced content, copyrighted synopsis, and copyrighted episode description) [23:40, 5 May 2023]
 * Fourth removal of content (says in edit description, claiming "Thanks, but there is nothing wrong with this page. It was looked over by an admin and they made no changes") [23:41, 5 May 2023]
 * Fifth removal of content (says in edit description, stating "Stop removing the episodes, they've been confirmed.") [13:29, 7 May 2023]
 * Sixth removal of content (says in edit description, stating "Removed casting") [19:33, 7 May 2023]

My responses
 * First reversal (21:25, 5 May 2023)
 * First warning (I say in the edit description "um, this edit isn't helpful. I added MOST of what you originally posted... and you created this article in the improper way") (21:26, 5 May 2023)
 * Second warning (I say in the edit description "can you please stop doing edits like this? Thanks") (23:57, 5 May 2023)
 * Third warning (I say in the edit description "I'm sorry, but your version of the page uses links which are badly cited and has other issues") (23:58, 5 May 2023)
 * Incorporated edits by JamontW2005 to article opening (00:08, 6 May 2023)
 * Incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:12, 6 May 2023)
 * Again, incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:15, 6 May 2023)
 * Once again, incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:20, 6 May 2023)
 * Once more, incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:25, 6 May 2023)
 * Write in an edit summary "added in a source used in JamontW2005 edit, which I feel like used a lot of copyrighted content and/or paraphrasing from copyrighted sources" (00:34, 6 May 2023)
 * Re-add content, provide another warning (I say in edit description "Since an edit war would help no one, I'm just going to re-add back in the sources incorrectly removed by @User:JamontW2005. There should NOT be a description until the series airs. Please STOP re-adding it. Better sources are needed for premiere dates. Made other necessary revisions.") [18:12, 7 May 2023]
 * Improve sourcing for link to trailer on YouTube originally posted by JamontW2005 [18:16, 7 May 2023]
 * Final warning, re-addition of content (in edit description I say "The synopsis was a copyright violation. Making some other changes. @User:JamontW2005, can you please stop adding in subpar sources to this page. It helps no one. Improved the page a bit more") [00:15, 8 May 2023]

Postings on JamontW2005 talk page:
 * I post on talk page on 21:30, 5 May 2023, and say, in part that their edit isn't "helpful, to be honest. Not everything you added is bad, obviously, but it should be added in section by section without erasing the work of other editors on the page." I add to this at 18:25, 7 May 2023, adding, in part, "The episodes have now been kept, so can you stop messing with the Hailey's On It! page? It helps no one."
 * I post on talk page on 00:04, 6 May 2023, and warn them, stating "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation...you may be...blocked from editing". I later revise this comment on 0:06, 6 May 2023 and on 00:26, 6 May 2023. In the latter comment I state that "the series description you used is copied from...the Disney site for the show! Copyrighted content for the series description is not good, as it makes it possible to be removed, causing issues for users and editors."

Any help in resolving this issue would be appreciated, as I feel I should have posted this sooner, and probably could have handled this better, admittedly. Maybe I was too hard-nosed at times.. I would love the Hailey's On It! page to remain intact, if at all possible. I am not sure why this user is doing this, but I am hoping this issue can be resolved. Historyday01 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Protected for a week to allow for discussion on the Talk. If another admin feels a block is necessary, feel free. To my eyes it was edit warring all around.
 * Star  Mississippi  02:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I admit I unfortunately participated in some of that edit warring too, but... in the future, if something like this happens again (which is altogether possible), I'll come here SOONER rather than later. Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While yes I have seen people have ownership of their articles, in fact some articles of mine I stated were my own, I still want to follow the guidelines with them no matter on what cost. JamontW2005 on the other hand does not understand the guidelines and are probably WP:NOTHERE, much like with PettyCache who I did report previously. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I left various messages on their talk page and they never responded to any of them, so I have to think they are not here. It is pretty clear that JamontW2005 doesn't understand the guidelines. Historyday01 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think some kind of protection should remain active until June 9 (after the show's first episode does air), as right now anything that is said not confirmed by Disney PR is 98% likely to be made up.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree with that. Apart from the first episode name "The Beginning of the Friend", which is confirmed by Disney PR, NONE of the others on Hailey's On It! are currently confirmed, as they were added by JamontW2005 based on this tweet by a Disney fan account and a forum page listing, neither of which provide sources for those episode names. Historyday01 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw jeez. I've been pinged into this because I declined a draft for this a few months ago (how did you remember my username?). Articles about children's television have a tendency to attract unsourced content, unfortunately. I find this edit summary to be misleading. I see no evidence any admin has okayed the disputed content, as JamontW2005 claims. I think Historyday01 and others should probably calm down about the whole thing and assume more good faith. Anyone have any opinions on whether pending changes protection would be a good idea here? My personal opinion is that this situation is part of a more systematic issue with how we handle our pages on children's content. I'm not sure what can be done to improve it. I think @JamontW2005 should probably engage here at ANI with greater explanation of the situation then can be provided in an edit summary. casualdejekyll  23:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with when PC should be applied, but please feel free to modify my protection if needed. Star   Mississippi  02:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edit requests at Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes
Recently, an anonymous editor using the IP range 148.76.224.0/23 has been making numerous edit requests (at time of writing 13) at Talk:List of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius episodes, and apparently not understanding how to create one, to the point of being disruptive. While I am reluctant to assume the editor is deliberately being disruptive, their intent is no longer relevant. The guidelines on edit requests have been linked to (five times), when that was unsuccessful the guideline was explained to them, when that was unsuccessful examples were provided, finally a duplicate of the article was created so that they might be able to perform the edit themselves, but this was also not successful in resolving the issue. I feel that at the very least a partial block from that talk page is appropriate here. I have placed the notification template on the talk page in question as they do not reuse IP addresses (although they are similar enough I don't assume this is deliberate). Tollens (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a case of (likely good faith) WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I would propose a short block to (hopefully) get the message to the editor. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good faith IDHT? I take it you mean WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? It looks like all the relevant contribs have been mobile edits... Nevermind, upon closer inspection they are responding just only through the use of edit requests. I do highly doubt this is intentional disruption though, to me this looks like someone younger or generally lacking tech literacy struggling to accomplish what they want. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean we're at 14 requests since March, now that the user has made another edit request. There definitely seems to be competence issues in regards to their messages. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 20:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Including, now, using an edit request template to state they are aware that their use of the template is inappropriate. Tollens (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They specify in their most recent edit request that they don't see the Reply button anywhere - I find this extremely hard to believe. They are clearly using a mobile device and cannot be using anything other than the default style as an IP editor - the reply button is incredibly large in this view. It's getting difficult to assume good faith on their part. Tollens (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I don't think this editor is editing in good faith at this point. I think we might need to set the standard offer clock. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 03:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After  18 requests, my good faith for this user is lost. It's become disruptive, and I feel we're being trolled. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 03:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This disruption had been ongoing for quite a while. All IPs geolocate to the same area (near Middletown, NJ). Past IPs are:
 * - now blocked for 2 years.
 * There appears to be edit overlap with w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interesting Soup, but we non-CU don't know any info on Interesting Soup's location.
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was working on this comment as you posted here and have additional information to add, so I'll just add it here. So apparently I should have looked a bit further through the IP's contributions. They claim in this edit summary: I'm good at blocked evasion I'm a sockmaster of disguise Rgalo10. For some brief context, Rgalo10 has received a Foundation global ban (while I am obviously unaware of WMF Legal's reasoning, the account made death/assault threats and legal threats), and is tagged as abusively using multiple accounts. Examining that account's English style it appears to be quite clearly the same person - random samples of Rgalo10's writing include (taken from their talk page immediately before it was blanked by the WMF:
 * Why I can't post no pictures why I wanna hear some reason why?
 * How can I take away my user ID cause I don't wanna a member of the wikipedia's because I want to quit if I don't discontinued they I'm stuck on wikipedia's help me to get rid of me cause I want to leave this website please.
 * Okay I'm out of hear now I'm not good at wikipedia's I try my best and you didn't tell me why is a shame
 * These follow a very similar style to the IP range's style (taken from the edit requests):
 * Okay thanks but i need to edit the season 1 because we don't need the viewers of millions because i want to make it normal.
 * I have to find out how to edit this series because everyone edit the Jimmy Neutron Series but i don't know what to do to edit with the semi-protected.
 * Okay thanks i know i can count for that to not used the template from now on.
 * A pblock is clearly not appropriate here - a long-term IP block is probably acceptable on this range as I see no activity on the range before the global ban of Rgalo10, and no edits that do not match the English style seen above. Tollens (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, guess where these geolocate to...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not seeing the particular ones that geolocate to the same place? Might be looking in the wrong place though. I agree the IPs you list also match well. Tollens (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see them now - just got really unlucky with the sample I picked from that list. Tollens (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An early sock uses Jimmy Neutron in its username too.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll definitely look more carefully through contributions when something seems off. Seems clear to me. Tollens (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While there is edit overlap with the Interesting Soup SPI, I'm not seeing the English style that all the Rgalo10 socks had (unless I've gotten unlucky with the sample of edits I looked at again) - perhaps a CU check of the whole Interesting Soup SPI to the Rgalo10 SPI would be of use here, but I'm not sure that this is enough evidence to justify that? Tollens (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also forgot to mention that Rgalo10 and associated socks clearly demonstrated the same 'competence issues' as the IP range this started with - don't believe they are actually competence issues though based on the fact that Rgalo10 made use of replies but the IP range "didn't see the reply button". Tollens (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll definitely look more carefully through contributions when something seems off. Seems clear to me. Tollens (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While there is edit overlap with the Interesting Soup SPI, I'm not seeing the English style that all the Rgalo10 socks had (unless I've gotten unlucky with the sample of edits I looked at again) - perhaps a CU check of the whole Interesting Soup SPI to the Rgalo10 SPI would be of use here, but I'm not sure that this is enough evidence to justify that? Tollens (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also forgot to mention that Rgalo10 and associated socks clearly demonstrated the same 'competence issues' as the IP range this started with - don't believe they are actually competence issues though based on the fact that Rgalo10 made use of replies but the IP range "didn't see the reply button". Tollens (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked the range for a month. Any admin is welcome to adjust the range/duration as they see fit. Abecedare (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the IP range should be indef banned. They are clearly not acting in good faith, and it appears that they may be a sock. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef blocks of IP addresses are very rare, for good reason. IP addresses can change users over time - it's quite unlikely the same person will be using the IP a decade from now. Blocks are for the protection of Wikipedia only, never as a punishment, so the block should only be as long as the person behind the IP is expected to edit using that IP. IP ranges are even more of a concern, because they cover so many IP addresses that there is potential to block other users inadvertently (the /23 range blocked here covers 510 different IP addresses). I'd support a much longer block of the range if there is continued disruption, but a month is a reasonable first block. For more information, you could look through Blocking IP addresses, specifically #Block lengths. Tollens (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't think of the implications of accidentally blocking multiple users. If this was a user, it would make sense to indef block considering their actions, but I guess a month is sufficient for an IP. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thewatcher007
posted this comment, which I do believe violates the rules about civility. Beyond that, this editor under the very misleading claim of only following the sources has altered the content in a manner that does not follow the sources; [] or. There appears to be a fan-based quality to this editor as he changed the material from reading that the Independent Soldiers from a "mid-level" to a "high-level", which is not what the source says at all. Beyond that, this IP posted this edit   a week earlier on 20 April, which appear to be a violation of the rules about civility. It is not very likely that an IP would go edit a low-traffic article, post an insulting edit summary about another editor, and then a week later a new account shows up to edit the same article and again insult the same editor in their edit summaries. There does seem to be a strong probability that this IP and TheWatcher007 are one and the same. This IP 199.7.157.89 has been identified as a sock-puppet for the blocked editor, who has a long history of insulting editors, see here for examples: , , and. For all these reasons, this seems to be a case of someone who is not here to build the encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and patience. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist: GENSEX topic ban warning disputed


User TheTranarchist is topic-banned by the community from the topic covered by the scope of the WP:GENSEX arbitration contentious topics case (Special:Permalink/1142680274). They were advised about testing the edges of this ban on March 3, and have previously been formally warned about editing in GENSEX contentious topics, though the current ban is a community sanction.

Today they reverted a series of edits on the above article, and were reverted by another editor noting the topic ban. I left a warning on their talk page noting the previous warnings and advising that any future violations would result in a block. Several other users have responded that TheTranarchist's edit did not change any content related to a gender-related controversy and asked that I retract the warning; I have countered that the topic cannot be separated from the anti-transgender advocacy it is widely known for and thus any edit to the page violates the ban. I am asking for a review of this warning per WP:ADMINACCT. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Users notified. Please note that I have invited TheTranarchist to participate in this review notwithstanding their topic ban, per WP:BANEX. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is almost entirely about CRT and the group's pushing of anti-CRT topics. The edit made had nothing to do with the limited gender section. This isn't a violation of the topic ban. This seems like an attempt by OP above to do a run-around on an edit war. Silver  seren C 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, you yourself made the exact same edit as TheTranarchist afterwards. What the heck is even the point of this report? Silver  seren C 17:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would read the revert by Ivanvector as a procedural one. Another editor reverted my restoration of the edit, even though I had taken accountability for the edit by virtue of restoring it.
 * Otherwise the purpose for this discussion is to review Ivanvector's, which I and another editor believe to be erroneous. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is the case. Any editor in good standing may restore a WP:BANREVERT-reverted edit if they have good reasons for believing that the content of the edit is appropriate, and they then are viewed to have made that edit themselves. BANREVERT was the wrong shortcut for me to have put in my edit summary but that is written somewhere, I just couldn't find it at the time. When Sideswipe9th was reverted again, my revert was an attempt to explain this and also to cap off a brewing edit war which was over the status of the edit and not its content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — It's in WP:PROXYING, although I've felt for some time that it should be moved somewhere more logical. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The TBAN is invalid to begin with, but that's another story for another day. I'm not an admin, and I'm a GENSEX editor, so my opinion doubly doesn't matter here, but indeed, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is so focused on CRT that I think it isn't a violation of the TBAN. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is as valid here as anyone else's,, this is a community noticeboard and does not limit participation to administrators. But you are right that whether or not the TBAN is valid is neither here nor there: it is the result of a community discussion and has the backing of community consensus; my action was in a good-faith effort to reasonably enforce it, not a commentary on its merit. TheTranarchist is free to appeal, though they were advised that they should wait six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the editors who challenged this warning. I reviewed prior to, after first checking to see if any changes were made that altered any gender related content in the article. As there were no changes made to content that would be covered by GENSEX, and I agreed with the policy reasons for the changes, I restored the edit.
 * With regards to the scope of the TBAN, back in March, TheTranarchist the non-GENSEX content in the FAIR article would violate the TBAN. My reading of CaptainEek's  was that the gender related content was obviously covered by the TBAN, and that editing the non-gender content in the article would not be a TBAN violation, though it was otherwise unadvisable due to the controversial nature of the organisation.
 * I would disagree that the sum of the organisation's actions, particularly those involving critical race theory and racial inequality lawsuits, are intractable from their anti-transgender advocacy. While the gender subsection of the article is sizeable, it is dwarfed by the critical race theory, and other lawsuits sections. And while critical race theory is another controversial topic in its own right, it is, in my opinion, a stretch to consider it a gender-related controversy and subject to the scope of GENSEX.
 * Also procedurally, I believe this is the wrong venue for a ADMINACCT review. I believe these discussions are supposed to be held at WP:AARV or WP:AN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Ivanvector made a simple mistake in filing here rather than at AN, where he recently filed a request for review of his actions. As for AARV, what I have to say about that noticeboard is not printable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I figured this was more an "incident" than a "thing administrators should know about", and until just now I didn't know we had actually created WP:AARV. My decision was whether to file here or at WP:AE, and this was the obvious choice among those two pages. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that there were no changes made to content that would be covered by GENSEX. Just because an organization takes positions that do fall under GENSEX doesn't mean that everything about them does. Otherwise, any GENSEX topic ban would be an AP2 topic ban de facto. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is a 'gender-related article'. It has a 'gender' subsection, and a big message on the talk page that says This page is related to gender-related disputes. I don't think arguing about this is helping anyone.  Tewdar   08:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The talk page for FAIR contains a GENSEX warning box, and my reading of CaptainEek's response to TheTranarchist's question is that they should most definitely avoid editing that article in its entirety, for this exact reason. In my opinion, Ivanvector is correct in their warning issued to the editor. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that one of the issues mentioned by the closer of the discussion that imposed the topic-ban was TheTranarachist's editing of the wikipedia article on an anti-transgender rights activist and given FAIR's views on gender, I see their edit to the page as a clear violation of the topic-ban. A warning is merited, if only to prevent future missteps that may end up requiring stricter sanctions on a clearly dedicated and well-intentioned editor. This is not a comment on the merits of the edit (and therefore other editors are free to restore it in part or in whole, once they have reviewed it) or the merits of the topic-ban itself (whose close can be appealed, if needed, assuming that hasn't already happened). Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to state for the record that I haven't appealed it yet. A very brief recap of the case is on my userpage here.
 * I'll also confess I've thought about appealing often, either for the ban to be lifted, restricted to the specific subset of GENSEX touched on in my case (anti-trans BLPs/ORGs), or at least a partial exemption to edit in GENSEX where my work was purely uncontroversial (trans healthcare articles, LGBT rights in articles with WP:USALGBT (which I created), and historically notable trans activists and rights organizations such as Angela Lynn Douglas and Tri-Ess). Honestly, it really hurts to be completely banned from GENSEX. I freely admit I fucked up when it comes to writing about hate groups that do nothing other than seek to restrict transgender people's rights (and even then, I might add only a few articles I wrote there really showed problems, with the clearest wrongdoing on Posie Parker And even then, only after she publicly called me a liar and insulted me with sexualizing transphobic insults for writing her article, which has had a repeated talk consensus that the description of her is accurate, according to RS, and that descriptions of it as a hit piece were unfounded and stemmed from SPAs ). Even the close decision stated it was apparent I was dedicated and willing to work on improving as an editor. Lesser sanctions, or even an initial warning, could have helped me improve as an editor. Now, I can't any article even vaguely related to trans topics. I can't even participate in the LGBT noticeboard. I can't take Gloria Hemingway to GA. Apparently LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations, even though it doesn't mention trans rights once and I only asked to reformat the pre-existing content. I got dragged to AE for that explanatory message I left on my userpage, literally acknowledging my ban and saying goodbye to GENSEX just after my case closed. I can't continue collaborating on articles I wrote even on talk, even where fellow editors praised my dedication to NPOV and collaborative editing. I wanted to take all my old articles to at least a B, but am unable to.
 * I went from being a well respected editor in GENSEX, known for doing good work across various subsets of GENSEX, to being completely cut off from anything vaguely trans related after a sockpuppet started a case against me, even though half the participants (who while I didn't exactly poll, were notably often other frequent editors in GENSEX, including those I've had civil content and policy debates in the past) vocally supported me.
 * With all that weighing on me, why haven't I appealed? Because multiple editors have privately counseled me to just wait it out. Even though it really hurts, and even when they agree it's unjust, the constant thing I've heard is that by merely asking for an appeal, reformat of the ban, or limited exception, I'll risk making my ban longer and damning my chances. I've been told my eagerness to rejoin GENSEX will be considered evidence against me instead of stemming from the obvious fact that I am a trans person, I wrote a lot of trans related articles, all of it fell under GENSEX and WP:BMB, only a specific subset of articles I wrote were even mentioned in my case and shown to have issues, and it hurts to be so fully exiled from anything vaguely trans-related.
 * Perhaps I've become too jaded by my last time at ANI, so I'll ask anyone who cares to answer: is there some way the community might see fit to make this ban a little less stifling? To recognize my previous good contributions in GENSEX, my dedication to improving as an editor, and my improvement since and just allow me to edit some trans-related articles? I wasn't going to ask, but since I'm here at ANI a quick informal poll seems prudent, would the community support a limited exception to the ban starting June 1st for Wiki Loves Pride on LGBT rights in <XYZ> articles? I'll do anti-bludgeoning restrictions, 0RR, talk page only, any intermediary sanction the community finds appropriate. I just want a little WP:ROPE, opportunity to prove my ability to make valuable contributions to GENSEX, and honestly I don't want to spend pride month feeling awful about the fact I can't make a single edit related to trans people (which, per WP:BMB, even includes general articles about LGBT rights and content unrelated to trans people). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This may be better framed as a request for a clarification of the current TBAN - are articles about LGBT rights in <XYZ location> included within the scope of the ban? And if so, as a limited exception to the TBAN, can you edit these specific types of articles subject to restrictions such as talk page proposals only, or 0RR? These seem to generally be articles that may have regular editing disputes, but not similar to the level of disputes in articles with WP:GENSEX banners on their talk pages.
 * As to the review of the warning, the TBAN scope seems somewhat unclear due to what said and the policy language. I can find content in the midst of the large edit, i.e. FAIR describes itself as non-partisan and "pro-human" with a source about a gender-related dispute, which may generally support Ivanvector's view on how inseparable the topics are for this organization; gender-related dispute content is also not contained only to the Gender section, see e.g. at the end of the Opposition to critical race theory section and the Emory Free Speech Forum section, which seems to further support Ivanvector's perception of the article as within the scope of the TBAN. I think under these circumstances, it could be helpful to clarify the scope of the TBAN as covering the FAIR article and move on without a formal warning. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This may be better framed as a request for a clarification of the current TBAN yes and no. While this obviously has an impact on TheTranarchist's editing, it also has an effect on a multitude of other editors who are also subject to a GENSEX TBAN. If we're construing GENSEX this broadly, then as, , and myself have pointed out below this would also amount to a defacto AP2 TBAN, as well as a British politics TBAN. This question on scope how broadly we define the scope is probably something that ArbCom needs to resolve, given the impacts it will have on many editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the request for a quick informal poll in the bolded part of TheTranarchist's comment as something that may be better framed as a request for clarification, along with a way to propose a clarification that emphasizes a straightforward distinction for the specific type of articles. As to the rest, in my own peanut gallery way, I previously cautioned TheTranarchist to show clear distance from the topic area, because I think this provides the easiest path to minimizing conflict that could arise, as it has here, over how to interpret the scope of the TBAN.
 * From my view, the content and talk page history of the FAIR article, as well as the totality of CaptainEek's general comments, indicates to me that Ivanvector was acting within admin discretion to issue a warning - I have tried to suggest a mitigating factor based on how CaptainEek's comment and the policy language might have been interpreted, and to suggest an informal warning along with clarification that this article is within the scope. The idea is to resolve this conflict and help guard against future conflicts, with a reminder about not testing the limits of the TBAN even if an edit seems technically defensible.
 * So I don't think the TBAN applying to this article, with GENSEX sources and content identified in various areas of the article, necessarily risks transforming GENSEX into a defacto AP2 ban. From my view, there seems to be enough evidence for Ivanvector to find a TBAN violation here - the concern about a slippery slope seems based on a view that GENSEX had no connection to the edit, but there seems to be disagreement with this assessment in this discussion. And these kinds of differences in opinion seem to emphasize the risk of skating close to a topic area that does overlap to varying degrees with a variety of other topics. Beccaynr (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I was having such a nice morning... Woke up early, got fresh air, got a little editing done on Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, while I was on WP quickly reverted some obvious vandalism, and went to an event I'd been looking forward to for a month. Starting heading back, thinking about how I'd enjoy continuing to work on UHAB since I had some time (which I now spend writing the following), only to check my phone and realize somehow I ended up here again...
 * Quoting WP:TBAN: a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". and For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also ... weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
 * From the second quotation more specifically, I'll paraphrase as if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with Gender: the section entitled "Gender" in the article FAIR, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
 * The edit did not touch any parts covered by GENSEX
 * I think anyone looking at the edit can see I had firm policy reasons for reverting the content. I don't think a single editor would disagree the content was not encyclopedic in the least, and per WP:BANEX: The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree
 * As noted by others, I asked CaptainEek does the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism count as GENSEX? Talk page consensus there was that they are not an anti-trans organization and their dealings with trans topics are not notable enough for the lead, so I want to be sure whether I should avoid it or not., to which the response was When it comes to the gender aspect of FAIR, certainly. Further, as a matter of becoming a better editor, I would advise you stay away from controversial topics for the time being, so I'm not sure that touching the rest of the FAIR article is a good idea either.
 * As noted above, there was a talk page consensus that the organization's stance on transgender rights is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic or reason for a category related to transgender rights. The fact they opposed transgender rights was removed from the lead by another editor (however, whether that is appropriate per LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the fact there is a gender section is a separate matter).
 * As a recap, I reverted obvious vandalism for sound policy reasons, not touching the section devoted to GENSEX in an article about an organization primarily known for campaigning against what it deems "critical race theory". An organization local consensus determined was not notable for its positions on transgender rights and which doesn't even mention the organizations' positions on trans people in the lead. This fits into both the definition of WP:TBAN (the part of the article about the CTOP, not the entire article) and for extra safety the provisions of WP:BANEX. I had previously asked the closing admin about whether the page was covered by my TBAN, and while obviously the section devoted to GENSEX is, the rest of the article was fair game while not advisable (I also want to note, I asked that weeks ago, and only touched the page since to revert the aforementioned vandalism this morning). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * About a quarter of the current version of the article (roughly 900 out of 3700 words) is devoted to "Gender", a topic where I believe we can reasonable assume that your views don't mesh with the organization's. So when you edited the lede and the Reception section to restore a version of the article that highlights critical views of the organization instead of its self-description, the edit may well have been reasonable on its merits, but it cannot be said to be unrelated to GENSEX. As an uninvolved admin, I don't think the question of whether this was a violation of your topic-ban is really debatable (it was!), although I understand that you may not have realized that.
 * So my sincere advice to you is:
 * Either formally appeal your topic-ban to be rescinded or narrowed, or
 * Follow it strictly without even skating close to the edges
 * If in doubt ask any uninvolved admin of your choice and if they advise you to not to edit a page (as did wrt Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) don't mistake their polite phrasing to be an implicit permission to edit the page. If I may be blunt here: IMO, editors who are arguing otherwise are (unintentionally) setting you up for further TBAN violations that are likely to lead to actual sanctions and diminish the chance of the current topic-ban being overturned. And, ironically,  is doing you a service by warning you off actions that are not in your long time interest if you wish to ever edit in the GENSEX area again. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I make no judgement as to whether this was or was not a tban violation, my thinking most aligns with Abecedare's. While my phrasing was not an absolute proscription on editing FAIR, it was not an invitation either. The fact that TA has decided to edit it regardless speaks to poor judgement on her part. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 22:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ivanvector, I only just saw your reference to my previous official warning. I just want to quickly note that warning was before my case and was not in relation to my editing but improperly confirming a COI on KJK's talk page (an editor said another had a COI, I did some digging and confirmed it, the evidence was oversighted, and the COI editor later confirmed the evidence, to which there was later a consensus it was a COI)., who left it, stated at my case that I feel that the oversighted content issue was an oversight in judgement, and from my discussions, I doubt it will reoccur from TheTranarchist. I don't think this rises to "poor judgement" as that would require reckless disregard (aka an intent to disregard), where as I see this as being unaware of the rules in a sensitive topic area. I only note this because it was a real pet peeve to have the warning noted repeatedly at my case, without the context for what the warning was actually about, ie reporting a COI not my actual editing. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We all agree the content of the edit itself has nothing to do with GENSEX, right? So this is about whether any edit to an article on a subject that has opinions about gender is covered by a GENSEX tban? Or perhaps the questions are (a) whether Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people should extend to "associated organizations", and (b) whether someone/something is "associated" by having expressed an opinion (among other unrelated, more prominent opinions)? If the organization were first and foremost focused on gender-related issues I think there's a case for the tban to extend there, but otherwise we're effectively turning any GENSEX tban into an American politics tban. One of the two major parties, along with its various think tanks, PACs, and publications, has made transgender rights a standard talking point. If we're looking at article-level rather than content-level edits, all of that would be off-limits, as long as a mention of a position on gender/sexuality made it into their Wikipedia page. Perhaps there are precedents here I'm not aware of, but IMO we treat a GENSEX topic ban as relevant to content except where the subject's notability is tied to gender/sexuality. If problems persist, rather than say "GENSEX tban should be treated as an AMPOL tban", consider whether an AMPOL tban should be added (clearly that's not the case here). They're separate tools, so use them that way. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. The edit was reversion of obvious vandalism, not related to GENSEX. The article subject is not directly related to GENSEX, though a subsection is. If the topic ban applies in this case, it becomes absurdly broad. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with this (as my comment somewhere up there indicates). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * otherwise we're effectively turning any GENSEX tban into an American politics tban I have to agree here, and this cuts both ways as a AP2 TBAN would also become a defacto GENSEX TBAN. While "broadly construed" is standard terminology in TBAN applications, what has been said by other editors above is I think stretching that far beyond what was originally intended.
 * Also sidenote, while it's not designated a contentious topic, such a broad definition of GENSEX would also mean that a TBAN from GENSEX would also be a TBAN from British politics. Why? Well two of our major parties, along with several think tanks, non-profit organisations, one loud and contentious charity, and substantial elements of the British media establishment have also made transgender rights and to some degree denigration of trans and non-binary people a standard talking point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can’t speak for American politics, which I don’t edit, but I strongly disagree that a broadly construed GENSEX topic ban would be in effect a ban on editing British politics. You can talk about, for instance, Brexit, the NHS, immigration, tax, trade unions, the cost of living, without mentioning anything to do with GENSEX . In British politics, GENSEX is a minor subject. I have not seen any mention of it in the discussions about the recent local elections results. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In British politics, GENSEX is a minor subject. I hard disagree. Every single day, for the last three/four years, both The Times and Telegraph have ran anti-trans articles, targeting individuals and charities in their coverage. Both the EHRC and Tory party are seeking to amend the Equality Act in a manner that would make it legal to ban trans people from spaces that align with their gender, as well as pushing for the Department for Education to issue guidance that will forcibly out trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming pupils to parents, regardless of whether or not that will put the child at harm (ie transphobic parents), while also banning them from the facilities that align with their gender presentation. It's such a defining issue in UK politics at the moment, that Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity has been in the country since late April investigating the current state of support for LGBT+ individuals in the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sideswipe, these are, in terms of British politics in general, minor issues. The Telegraph, the Times and the UN do not define what are major issues in British politics. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Conservative Party article contains only minimal GENSEX content about same-sex marriage, does not have a subsection titled 'Gender', and does not have a big GENSEX warning on its talk page. I don't think anyone wants to play TBAN-Gotcha here, but I'm reasonably sure that articles that were created with subheadings that include 'Opposition to transgender rights' are within the scope and spirit of the TBAN. Unless it was a revert of obvious vandalism, of course...  Tewdar   19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case where TA can with some credulity claim they didn't see this as an GENSEX article as the specific content of their edit was not GENSEX specific. However, I can also see why editors would say this is a violation similar to how we might see an edit to Trans rights as a violation even if the specific edit content wasn't GENSEX.  What I think hurts TA's argument here was pointed out by Tewdar, TA created the article and did so by saying the group opposes transgender rights.  The article was also part of the ANI that resulted in their Tban. That TA sees the group as clearly GENSEX related should have been a redflag to at least ask or alternatively, ask someone else to review the edit.  In the spirit of AGF, I think this discussion is sufficient warning to at least ask in the future.
 * As for the discussion if GENSEX is basically all AP2, no, I don't see that. I think the question is if the article is primarily or heavily associated with the GENSEX topic.  So a YT commentator who talks about politics and "culture war" topics that may occasionally include GENSEX wouldn't be off limits (excluding GENSEX specific material) but a group that the sanctioned editor sees as a GENSEX related group would be because the editor themselves has said the topic is under the umbrella. Springee (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is integralness ("integrality"?). For instance, Political positions of Joe Biden has a lengthy section on Biden's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I don't think we'd generally say that an ARBPIA topic ban covers edits to other parts of the article, because those views aren't really central to Biden's overall political ideology. Gender isn't mentioned in the lede at FAIR, and honestly the current gender section looks UNDUE in its length, just judging at a glance from text:citation ratio. "Broadly construed" does not override the general principle, codified at WP:TBAN, that in "related content" a TBAN only applies to relevant portions of the page. It's possible to enact a TBAN that's stricter than that ("X is banned from any page that in any way mentions gender-related disputes"), but that's not what was done here. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Integrality (it's a real word), hmm... well, according to, er, TheTranarchist, A WP:DEFINING characteristic of the organization is that it campaigns against protections for transgender students which prevent misgendering from other students, opposing their right to be respected in schools. How about we all just close down the discussion and go do something else?  Tewdar   09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's true that in February TheTranarchist said that, however the consensus on the article's talk page seems to be that it is not a defining characteristic. It doesn't seem to be a fair or objective measure to hold the article to one definition for content, while holding it to another for the scope of a TBAN based on an individual's contributions.
 * Let me put it another way. Let's say User:Example contributed to that RfC, and in doing made a comment to the opposite effect of TheTranarchists, that FAIR's activities against transgender rights are not a defining characteristic of the organisation. Shortly after making that comment, they get TBANed from GENSEX and then a couple of months later made the same edit that TheTranarchist did. If it's User:Example's view that FAIR's trans related activities are not defining, in line with the consensus on the article's talk page, then would they have breached the TBAN? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. It doesn't matter whether TheTranarchist thinks FAIR's views on trans issues are defining or not (although they clearly at one point did think that they were). What matters is that the article is nearly one full quarter Gender, probably 100% of that quarter added by TheTranarchist, which makes me find this whole discussion a bit preposterous and slightly annoying. I wish I hadn't seen it, really I do...  Tewdar   19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet, none of that gender content was touched in the edit that lead to the warning. Tamzin's comparison of Political positions of Joe Biden is an apt one, as the Arab-Israeli conflict content in that article takes up a similar proportion of that article's content, yet we don't consider the entirety of that article to be covered under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures, only that section.
 * If we're going to treat FAIR as an article for which GENSEX applies to the entirety of the page, and not just the gender section, then we would also have to treat the Biden article linked above as being wholly subject to Arab-Israeli, abortion, gun control, gender and sexuality, COVID-19, Balkans or Eastern Europe, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and post-1978 Iranian politics contentious topic procedures, in addition to the obvious post-1992 American Politics designation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This would also have knock on effects on thousands, if not tens of thousands of other articles, wherein they contain partial CTOP content and by this standard the relevant CTOP designations would apply to their entirety. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support immediate overturn of TheTranarchist's TBAN if Sideswipe9th agrees to represent my case pro bono at my next trial. "T'would be unjust in all the circumstances, yer honour..."  Tewdar   20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On a balance, I agree with Rhododendrites: if people want this user topic-banned from AMPOL (and 'BRITPOL'), then topic-ban the user from AMPOL, but saying GENSEX = AMPOL and someone can't revert vandalism or puffery or whatnot to articles about anti-anti-racism groups because those groups also mention trans people sometimes is ... well, such an interpretation would not only prevent editing politics, but prevent making similarly non-GENSEX-related edits to e.g. update the editor-in-chief parameter in an article on any major news media (BBC, NYT, etc have sections or sub-articles detailing the contention around their coverage of GENSEX issues) or other media organizations (e.g. Disney is the subject of some contention involving GENSEX issues), reverting puffery in articles on actors (any major one has usually made comments or actions on GENSEX issues, e.g. Emma Watson, Mark Ruffalo, Cara Delevingne, etc), cleaning up articles on censuses (recent ones either asked or attracted contention for not asking about GENSEX) ... We all seem to agree that the edit in question did not add, remove, change, or touch GENSEX content, yes — the question is whether an organization having expressed an opinion on GENSEX issues at some point makes everything else they've done untouchable, and GENSEX = AMPOL? Such an interpretation is implausibly over-broad IMO, but as highlighted by other users above, it would also effect any user with a GENSEX restriction (and perhaps any user with an AMPOL restriction), so this seems like something that needs to be discussed as such, perhaps with input from ArbCom, rather than as part of a discussion of one warning to one user. (In the meantime, perhaps the best lesson this discussion offers is to the vandal or PR person: next time, also puff up some GENSEX content to more clearly reduce the number of editors who are allowed to challenge your puffery — in general, the more contentious topics you mention, the fewer editors are allowed to challenge you.) -sche (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with -sche. While TBANs are generally "broadly construed", this construal is so broad as to be an effective ban on not just AP2 but essentially any page about any person or organization that has expressed opinions at some point.
 * GENSEX also covers abortion, so, can an editor banned from GENSEX not edit United States Supreme Court because of Roe or Dobbs? It covers the gender pay gap, so can an editor banned from GENSEX not edit the United States Department of Labor? Anheuser-Busch is currently in hot water in conservative circles over an advertising campaign, but they're also not by a long shot the only corporation to have advertising tied to LGBT pride in some way.
 * The point is, I think this is not a TBAN violation, that it's not even a close call, and that those who think it is a TBAN violation are voting for an interpretation of GENSEX so broad that it covers most of Wikipedia. Loki (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this were a topic like the example of Disney where the subject is clearly much larger than the LGBQT issues then I think it would be easy to agree. However, in this case TA created the article as a group with a clear GENSEX focus, clearly argued GENSEX was a critical/notable aspect of the group, was one of the articles that lead to the TBAN, and asked the admin who issued the TBAN if edits to the group page would be viewed as TBAN violations.  When you stack all that up it's hard to see this as totally unrelated to the TBAN.  I agree the specific edit was not GENSEX related but in the eyes of TA the topic clearly is.  It would be a stretch to see all of Disney as GENSEX broadly construed.  It's not so hard to see this subject as GENSEX broadly construed in the eyes of TA.  That said, a one time error may be a misunderstanding so nothing more than a warning to not do it again should be fine. Springee (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, abortion is not covered by GENSEX, but is a separate contentious topic. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would not have taken that as a violation of the topic ban, especially in the light of recent concerted attempts by certain editors to remove those in favour of trans rights from GENSEX topics, which has not even been subtle. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think it is unhelpful for you to make unspecific accusations in a discussion which is not anything to do with supposed attempts to remove those in favour of trans rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's unsurprising. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Got quite a lot of studying and work done on a final paper last night and some time just opened in my schedule for some responses. I think everyone has said what they will, so I'll just leave these notes/responses and put it out of my mind. If anyone wants a response, directly ping me for comment.


 * 1)  I honestly wish I took your advice. I do want to note though, there are broader non-GENSEX edits I'd like to make to the page and broader mostly non-GENSEX edits that are too close for comfort. I have been avoiding both and following your advice to stay away from it despite my desire to clean up the article (the lead needs to better follow the body, there are numerous clean-up tags that were discussed, addressed, but are still in the article, and there is a situation best addressed at COIN). I'd like to take the article to a B, but have not even started to attempt a clean-up since I would be unable to touch a quarter of the article and therefore unable to address concerns raised there. This was a reversal of vandalism unrelated to GENSEX which I found so obviously vandalism that nobody could object (and which other editors seem to agree was very clearly unencyclopedic).
 * 2)  you are linking to my opinion that FAIR's positions on trans people are a defining characteristic. However, consensus was that it is not. Also, per others' notes on how this is becoming an AMPOL ban, I consider a defining characteristic of the Republican party to be their steadily more genocidal positions on trans people, which is much more supported than FAIR. However, their positions on gender are not the or even the primary defining characteristic of either organization. In FAIR's case, consensus was it is not even a defining characteristic. The primary defining characteristic of FAIR has always been its opposition to DEI initiatives related to race and ethnicity.
 * 3)  I really have no clue how to take it that on FAIR's talk page, you vociferously argued that calling FAIR an organization that opposes transgender rights is SYNTH, that student's don't have a right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools, and that the lead shouldn't contain the single summarizing sentence The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the deadnaming or misgendering of transgender students by their peers or faculty (true and supported by sources) because you think this may over emphasize the trans aspects (it appears they are more focused on the CRT type content and DEI). Yet here you argue the org should be defined by it's relationship to GENSEX just because I thought it should be prior to consensus disagreeing with me...
 * Also, quick aside, I've no clue where you got "TA" from. I've seen a lot of mispellings of my username from you, and I'd appreciate it if you used the full thing. Either "TheTranarchist" or "TT" at a stretch for brevity. If you'd like to known my reasoning for my username, it is on my userpage.
 * 1) A quick recap of my wrongdoing at the article for context for onlookers: I referred to FAIR as an "enemy" in a social media post where I wrote about how they mainly lobbied against "CRT", but in recent years has slowly gotten more involved in trans stuff. As a trans person who was recently a minor, with friends who are minors, that is due to the simple straightforward fact they oppose rules protecting trans students from discrimination (personally I find it somewhat funny that at my case, the fact that the majority of the organizations and people I wrote about have no notability outside of opposing transgender rights was not viewed as a mitigating factor excusing me using crude language about them off wikipedia; For all the reasons people want to rein in Jimbo's power, I don't think that he called the holistic healing movement "lunatic charlatans" was ever one, and the only thing worse than pseudoscience is pseudoscience demonizing a minority...). I argued for use a source (Passage) where there wasn't consensus on reliability. To settle the categorization debate (there was no consensus as to whether the org should be classified as one that opposes transgender rights), I created an RFC, was told it was overly broad, so created a more specific one (I respected the consensus that developed). Also, I made a talk page section entitled "undoing the whitewashing and advertification" after an editor with a COI replaced the lead with literally just the organizations WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT (some editors viewed that title as overly inflammatory; I think anyone who replaces the lead of an article with a mission statement, especially a long-standing editor who should know better, should be instantly blocked). My behavior there was primarily just being on the wrong side of a content dispute.
 * 2) I want to note a small irony. When my case was initially closed, I asked CaptainEek that the scope be anti-trans BLPs/ORGs, ie organizations and people notable at least in part for their opposition to transgender rights. (The reason was the only articles even mentioned in my case were in that subcategory of GENSEX, while nearly all my edits had been in GENSEX across a variety of subcategories). While a GENSEX ban doesn't cover all of FAIR, that intersectional ban would have (in addition to articles such as the Republican Party and etc). CaptainEek disagreed that the limited ban would be more fitting, and continued to support a full GENSEX ban.
 * 3) Summarizing the above. Once again, if people want to argue FAIR's position's on gender are a defining characteristic, that should be done at the talk page. However, there is already an existing consensus there that it isn't. The fact that editors who argued it isn't are now arguing it is for the purposes of my ban strikes me as somewhat cheeky. Cheekier that there's often conjecture that I find the org to be primarily GENSEX related, while even while I had argued it was GENSEX related, I have never said their main focus is not "CRT". Just because I consider an organization's positions on trans issues highly relevant, doesn't mean that consensus agrees, or that the whole article is GENSEX. Otherwise this is an AMPOL ban and I can't edit the article on the republican party because they have views on trans rights. One cannot both eat and have a cake; one cannot simultaneously argue an org is not notable for its positions on trans people but also notable for those positions if it means an excuse to go after me.

I ask whoever closes this that in addition to noting the consensus on whether the warning was merited, they also recap the consensus over whether the entire article falls under GENSEX or just the relevant section. I'll respect whatever the community decides. I do ask whoever closes it do to so quickly, as frankly I don't want to end up stuck in this noticeboard for another month and it's hard to edit/concentrate when I'm worried about being here again. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist


 * TheTranarchist, I was using TA as short for T ran a rchist, two parts of your user name. If you prefer TT I'm happy to use that instead.  I avoided the full name for fear of misspelling it.  I won't respond to your point 3 as I suspect such a discussion would be a Tban violation. Springee (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The point 3 comment is a valid one. On the one hand there's a consensus on that article, involving editors who are present here, that FAIR's activities surrounding transgender people and rights are not integral and defining of the organisation with regards to article content, hence why the overwhelming focus of the article content and categories are surrounding its views on critical race theory and racial equality. On the other hand, editors here are arguing that actually FAIR's activities surrounding gender are an integral and defining part of the organisation, with regards to contentious topic enforcement procedures. Those two things are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that (mainly thanks to TheTranarchist's contributions) the 'Gender' section constututes approximately (by my estimation) 23.9% of the total words of the article. How can that not be 'gender-related'? One could certainly argue that this content shouldn't be there, but it is.  Tewdar   19:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This entire situation is rather silly, and you've overwhelmingly dived into GENSEX commentary on this page while being protected under the provisions of discussing your ban. I don't think this warning is without merit. All things considered, with your behavior the entire time while you were under sanction, I'm guessing there won't be a lot of support for your TBAN being lifted any time soon. There are a lot of seasoned editors here giving you good advice but you seem keen to not listen and instead spend a significant amount of your time tilting against windmills. My advice is pretty simple, stop it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think I'd have taken the warning, counted myself lucky, and kept my head down. But good luck with your alternative approach...  Tewdar   19:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate ANI since it's like a black hole, once you get dragged in it's so hard to escape. Just when you think you do, you're proved wrong.
 * @Springee, thank you. I do want to note though, "archist" derives from greek for ruler. It is a part of my username, sure, but "anarchist" has a very different meaning than "archist".
 * @Kcmastrpc I've commented on my ban, the behavior at the article in question during my case, and a recap of discussions on the page concluding the org is not notable for trans stances. That is literally textbook BANEX. I'm not sure what you refer to with my "behavior under sanction" but feel free to point out any issues with my work on Crown Heights Tenant Union, Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, Template:Housing rights in New York, etc. I've not been evading my ban, as much as it hurts, I've found a comfortable niche (housing in NYC) and been editing there. When in doubt, I've asked for clarification/outside input on whether pages are covered by my TBAN and followed it. There are a lot of seasoned editors saying this is very clearly not a TBAN violation and that GENSEX refers to the gender section, not the whole article, so I'm not sure where the windmills come into this. I'm not sure why you're bringing up my TBAN being lifted, the question here is whether the entire article falls under GENSEX.
 * @Tewdar, you may want to reread the case, edits, and notice on my talk page. I was enjoying a nice day and only realized I got dragged back to ANI hours after other editors disputed it being a violation and a case was opened here. From what CaptainEek said when I originally asked about FAIR, I took it to mean the TBAN applied to the Gender section, not the article as a whole. I reverted obvious vandalism that wasn't even related to GENSEX on an article on an org which consensus agreed was not even somewhat defined by its relation to GENSEX. Also, please give credit where it's due, the whole article, not just the gender section, is mainly due to my contributions, and the majority of it is devoted to their campaigning against DEI. I think the question is not whether the GENSEX material should be there, but how it should be incorporated into the lead and categories. I freely admit, I think their lobbying on trans topics is important, but very crucially, consensus determined the opposite. I've asked that whoever closes this also note whether the article falls under GENSEX, and if it does I won't touch it with a 39.5 foot poll even for obvious vandalism. While we've had content disputes and disagreements in the past, I consider you to be a level-headed policy-minded editor (and must confess I appreciate your goldilocks-zone applications of humor and snark since the encyclopedia can be a bit dry) so I earnestly ask you to sit on the situation and consider the separate but related questions of 1) whether the whole article is GENSEX and 2) whether my edit was one I had reasonable grounds to consider allowed. I agree this whole thing is somewhat preposterous, just from the other end lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that it is debatable whether the whole article counts as GENSEX. I think it probably is, but it doesn't seem to be an exact science. Personally, if I were operating under your TBAN, I'd avoid it, and anything like it, and go edit articles about pottery or something. I can see why you might think it was fair game, though, and also how you might think it was just reverting obvious vandalism. Thanks for the nice comments, I reread it three times to check you were actually referring to me.  Tewdar   21:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is a bad warning. Gender and sexuality is such a wide "topic" that it needs to be narrowly construed for editors under GENSEX bans to have any hope of editing. I'm not sure some volunteers are putting themselves in the shoes of an active editor who (apparently) has to have in the back of their minds during every single edit, does something on this page unrelated to what I've touched relate to gender or sexuality? A point raised by another editor is that GENSEX shouldn't automatically include everything under AP2. Here, the edit (correctly) reverted was extensive without focusing in any sense on gender and sexuality; the only possible signs are the indirect implications of "diversity, equity and inclusion", but it seems to be about race in context. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out above the article was created by the editor who was warned, and they at the time believed it to be be related to transgender rights giving it the short description Organization opposing critical race theory and transgender rights. Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what part of my comment you believe this contradicts. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we are in serious danger of overthinking this. Tewdar spotted the issue that TheTranarchist created the article and equally described and documented their opposition to both critical race theory and transgender rights. In the collapsed notes box above they write "CaptainEek: I honestly wish I took your advice." Can we leave it at that then and close this. TheTranarchist, you got into trouble editing a culture-war topic you are passionate about. I know the topic ban doesn't extend to all culture war issues, but "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I second Tewdar's suggestion that you steer clear of other culture-war topics for the foreseeable. Earning the community's trust that you can be a neutral editor will be far easier if you edit topics that don't have these issues. If you created an article because of an organisation/person's stance on gensex issues, then take it off your watchlist now. -- Colin°Talk 16:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With the talk page listing this as under the the GENSEX area this was probably violation of the TBAN. Even if it isn't a violation, this would certainly be a case of edging the topic ban. Either way the Tranarchist shouldn't be doing it if they want a successful appeal in the future. This type of behavior isn't filling me with confidence that this editor is ready to get back into the topic area. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 04:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My view is generally aligned with that of above. I think that this was a TBan violation, and that the warning was valid. No further action seems to be required at this time, and  (amongst other people) has offered the  some good advice above.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly and obviously a violation. The point of topic bans is to ban editors from the topic and anything that could be broadly construed to be the topic in order to make the editor stay far away from the topic that has caused their problematic behaviour. Narrow bans rarely work for this reason (except where someone has a problem with specific technical processes like AFD or article creation etc) because the editor with the problem behaviour cant stay away from the topic. They have to edge around it, or argue over technicalities. An edit to an article that is clearly related to GENSEX, has a warning on the talk page that it is related to GENSEX, and that the editor has edited related to GENSEX in the past, cannot be seriously argued does not fall into that broadly construed area unless you are actively trying to undermine the point of a topic ban. An editor with no history at the article who hasnt seen the talk page could at least be excused for not realising in advance, but they still would merit a warning to cover future editing. The point of topic bans is to keep editors as far away from the topics they are banned from in the hope they can demonstrate normal editing in areas that dont antagonise them. Not to enable them to skirt around them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Alpinegora
Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples   , notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added  to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment by uninvolved editor: I agree, definitely looks WP:NOTHERE to me, only here to push a POV. Together with that user talk page response, should be blocked indef. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  04:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that Talk page comment screams NOTHERE. Indef is the right call. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. They are still unashamedly pov editing under the same dishonest edit summary "simple changes", which I just reverted   . --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the grim comment I was speaking of; "You may better to write and edit the content about your country, Iran. The history of Afghanistan is belong to Afghans and we can write by ourselves correctly! I see that many Iranian wiki writers like you are getting paid by dictator regime of Iran to change everything for their own benefit and as the religious regime of Iran want. You will never be proud by lying about history and stealing the pride of other countries! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been up for almost a month. It goes without saying that I too think that Alpinegora should be indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess the reason why this hasn't been dealt with yet is because there are other methods at Dispute resolution that could have been tried here before ANI, have you exhausted all other DR options before ANI? — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  05:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't an dispute or disagreement, this is a user engaging in outright disruptive (and dishonest) edits and personal attacks. Nothing about them suggests that they are a net worth to Wikipedia (WP:NOTHERE), and thus I'm surprised to see how long this thread has been up. I did also add a warning to their talk page, which led to the personal attack. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Hopefully that makes the message clear here that the remedy for Alpinegora is a block of long or indefinite length.
 * If this thread gets archived, and the user makes the same problematic edits again afterwards, then make a new ANI thread referencing to this one.
 * By the way, just today the user has made an unsourced addition with the same dishonest "Simple changes" edit summary, which also looks like POV-pushing to me as per the examples above: Special:Diff/1153367792. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  11:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to support HistoryofIran here, this is not an editing dispute, but a behavioral issue. Alpinegora is directly accusing HoI of being "paid by a dictator regime." That's a direct personal attack and should not be tolerated. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor I too believe that they are WP:NOTHERE based on their edit history and comments.  Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 18:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also uninvolved, and I know an egregious personal attack when I see one. This report is valid and pushing a month old. The offending editor was properly notified of this discussion and has not seen fit to respond. Recommend an indef based on the evidence and clear editor consensus. Jusdafax (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Request admin action
Can an admin please take action? We're nearing the one month anniversary of a clearly WP:NOTHERE user. And they're still at it with their disruptive and dishonest edits --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by Saptajit D
has been quite disruptive at Dutta in the last few days. They first started changing the spelling of all instances of the article subject to "Datta". undid those changes, but Saptajit repeated the edits and then moved the page to Datta (surname) without discussion. When I restored the long-standing name, they moved it again. kindly move-protected the page, still this did not stop Saptajit from changing the spelling all over again.

In one of intermediate edits, I did some copyediting for conciseness and clarity, and to trim irrelevant information. The user summarily reverted all of it three times, and in the meantime went on with a profanity-ladden rant, essentially a personal attack.

I'm not sure what the user is here for. Even though the account was registered barely two weeks ago, they certainly don't look like a newcomer, and their start of editing by mass adding of short descriptions at random articles feels like an attempt to quickly get autoconfirmed. Perhaps someone more experienced than me could take a look. Thanks. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The short descriptions could be a case of gaming the system so that he can push his ideas onto a page even after protection is activated. Also more NPA [|here] I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They also know how to edit anonymously: Special:Contributions/117.226.210.194. Special:Contributions/117.226.167.165 — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After warned Saptajit D about moving without consensus, Saptajit D agreed to discuss first, then went on a reverting and renaming spree (no talk page discussion). Their comments to Kashmiri on User talk:Saptajit D are unacceptable. I think Saptajit D should be blocked for disruptive editing and violations of WP:CIVIL.  Schazjmd   (talk)  14:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And in the time it took me to post, Bbb23 took care of it! Schazjmd   (talk)  14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gonna put in a SPI investigation as per Kashmiri's reply above. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone who knows this forum better than I, can you please close this? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that the editor persists with personal attacks, obviously learning nothing from the sanction, it might be necessary to revoke talk page access and/or increase the block length. Not sure we at all want editors with such an attitude in this project. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  08:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor proceeded to insult the unblock decliner as well. I have reovked user talk page access. Jay  💬 09:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, ! I've been away for 24 hours or so, and see that in that time this has reached its inevitable conclusion. Thanks also to those who dealt with it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Kevin McE
Continued attempts of pushing a violation of WP:RHOTIC into the article. Summer talk 07:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , the Manual of Style is a guideline, not a core content policy. This is a routine content dispute that should be, but isn't being discussed at Talk: Colchester, instead of at this noticeboard. Please take the matter there. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BOOMERANG. I'm not in a position to comment on the edits made, however I don't think this should go to the "drama board" yet. There has been no interaction between either of you except for edit summaries, no talk page discussion, no RfC, no dispute resolution, nothing. Before bringing this to AN/I, at the very least, have a discussion on the talk page. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Gabrielhussein503 creating hoaxes
Hey, appears to just be making fictional drafts and submitting some to AfC - they appear to be based of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YtyZiv7heY - I assume by the channel owner themselves. "Separated By My Leader" appears to be a fictional show on a fictional TV channel winning fictional awards.

I was not sure if I should just G3 these as hoaxes but it was suggested by an admin this may be a better place to flag to get them dealt with in one go rather than have to comment the rational on each and tag separately. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * NOTHERE block seems good, as he has only edited these hoax drafts. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would consider those to be hoaxes, as they do seem to be based on the YouTube videos. He seems to have created 11 of them, with virtually identical content.  They are problematic in tone, sourcing, potentially the copyright status of the images, lack of notability of the topic... but I don't think they are G3.  I'm tempted to partial block from draft space and article space until he comes here and responds, but he hasn't edited in several hours.
 * My inclination is to not do anything right now (except decline any AFC submissions that aren't already declined, but I think you already did that), and let G13 eventually take care of the drafts. If he comes back and starts being obnoxious, then it may be time to consider a NOTHERE block, but I don't think it's necessary at this point. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that does happen, I wouldn't be surprised if he opens the drawers. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * did you actually find any other videos for "Separated By My Leader" that than the video supposed to be the "Opening Titles"? Also the claims that the people shown are actors in multiple roles and have been #BigBrain2009 winners also seem like sure fiction, thus hoax. However, happy to leave and see if they escalate. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The YouTube channel has a couple videos that seem to be related. I haven't watched them all.  It seems to me to be the kind of thing that straddles the line between A11 (which only applies in mainspace) and G3. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at their sandbox, which is the article they have copied to all the other drafts. The subject was born 3 January 1992 or 30 June 2007, which is quite a range. The picture is a head poorly photoshopped onto a body, which in turn in is photoshopped into another image. And the show they claim to have been in from 2007-2015 won best television drama at the BAFTAs four years in a row from 2007-2011. It didn't, in fact no such TV show ran on UK TV during those years. The related youtube videos are just random pieces of footage edited together, the one supposedly showing the awards ceremony is just live TV record from a selection of different channels. If this isn't a hoax it is obvious misinformation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This editor is submitting multiple drafts to AFC that appear to be a walled garden about a television show and its cast, but with no references, and this appears to be an elaborate hoax. The drafts have all been declined or rejected, because the reviewers know that verifiability is a fundamental policy, but this editing doesn't seem to be intended to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)+
 * I see that this was reported three days ago, but the resubmission of the drafts is continuing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I combined the sections. If it matters at all, this hoax show is basically a fake version of Misfits (TV series). Woodroar (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nuked and NOTHERE blocked. Courcelles (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Saintstephen000 abusing the editing feature
Saintstephen000 keeps undoing my edits, saying I fail to cite my sources. I have provided cites -- the NYTimes and Al Jazeera. He has failed to read the FULL articles I cite. In particular, the Al Jazeera article notes the criticism that I-House has received from both a moral and public health standpoint. He needs to read the FULL articles before deleting my edits and claiming I'm not properly citing my sentences. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You had not properly notified the user as per the notice at the top of this page. I have done so for you. ― <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 16:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened? I followed the instructions re: notifying the user Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The notification message is supposed to go on their user talk page (i.e. User talk:Saintstephen000‎). You instead pasted it as part of this report. signed,Rosguill talk 16:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a content dispute. I can see both editors having a brief stab at communicating on Wikiaccount888's talk page, but no discussion at all on Talk:International House of New York where it would be most useful. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am very confused as to why the user says I am not citing my sources. I provided two sources. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/3/26/panic-as-ny-intl-dorm-orders-students-out-amid-covid-19-lockdown in particular details the criticism I-House has received from a moral and public health standpoint. This is also clearly a controversy so it should go under a controversy heading. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done a lot of research on this -- I have spent days researching and crafting my Wiki sentences. Sources that might be helpful to a neutral editor: In particular https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/3/26/panic-as-ny-intl-dorm-orders-students-out-amid-covid-19-lockdown details the criticism I-House received from a public health perspective (see the Harvard guy's comment) and moral standpoint (see comments from residents and Manhattan Borough President). In addition, this is clearly a controversy so should go under a controversy heading. See also the NYTimes article:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.htm Wikiaccount888 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're new (welcome, by the way!) so it's okay you don't understand our arcane ways and means. But this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting a complaint about a user on this page, consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page or on the article's talk page; that usually works. But if that fails, we have a dispute resolution process you can try. This page is very much the nuclear option, and therefore is not one new and inexperienced editors should be starting off at. I'll drop you our standard 'welcome' template on your talk page – it has handy links to give you a more thorough grounding on how our collaboratively edited encyclopedia works. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit summary on this change appears to be User:Saintstephen000 promising to go to that article's talk page to start a discussion. It's a good idea because, as of your edits from thirty minutes ago, you're both officially in violation of the policy against edit warring. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 17:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. However, I do not believe I can resolve this issue with the user on the talk page. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is resolved now on the talk page, my apologies. Is there a way to delete all of this from the noticeboard? Wikiaccount888 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but no. This page acts like a journal of record for the administration of Wikipedia (as I say, it’s the nuclear option and is treated accordingly), so we rarely delete any threads. But it will be automatically archived to somewhere less public in a few hours assuming everybody has had their say here now. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 21:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok that's fine. Thank you for explaining these things to me Wikiaccount888 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Examining the article, i identified a statement from the house giving their perspective. this was met with someone with a strong pov regarding this event. i have no knowledge of this topic outside the sources given. it needs balance for pov. thanks for helping keep the encyclopedia accurate, Saintstephen000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong POV regarding this event. I offered a very balanced perspective, including only what the NYT and Al Jazeera stated. Wikiaccount888 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that Saintstephen000 has vanished their account, so I guess we're done here?-- Ponyo bons mots 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

206.45.2.52
206.45.2.52 (talk) was given a one month ban for edit warring in March. The ban was recently lifted and they have gone back to continue the war on Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. They have removed substantial sourced content without explanation. I have not notified them on their talk page (only on the article talk page). I would ask someone else do so (as they have told me to WP:KEEPOFF their talk page). Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) The comment above and the editor's response on their talk page are illustrative of their bad faith and WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, in light of their refusal to explain gone back to continue the war this edit (and others). I don't see how telling other editors to touch grass helps us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Notification delivered. FYI KEEPOFF does not apply to notices required by policy and guidelines. That said, I understand the desire to avoid being unnecessarily provocative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article in question? 206.45.2.52 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit history and user page are replete with red flags that suggest you are soapboxing. Most of your edits are blatantly biased and do nothing to help build a better Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it the appropriate forum for amateur muckraking. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bystander observation: this IP with at most several hundred edits exhibits sophisticated familiarity with Wikipedia processes, norms and vocabulary, especially relating to disputes. Might this be the reincarnation of a previously prolific user?
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring by self-proclaimed expert at McAleer
See. There may be something there, but neither sourcing nor content looks real good at this point, and the "who do you think you are?" response from a new user is always a red flag. More eyes would be helpful. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * already on this--thanks! 76.119.253.82 (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Emoji_u1f60a.svg (Page protected for a week, user warned not to continue afterwards.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have offered Queenmedb99 some friendly advice on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)