Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157

User:GamerHashaam
A user, named GamerHashaam has been conducting a series of disruptive edits on the Third Balochistan conflict. He, with no sources or talk page interaction, changed the results of the conflict to “Baluchi victory”. [1 ] When I reverted it and told him to take it to the talk page, he threw what seemed to be a tantrum, calling me a “bootlicker” and a “faujeet” (a merge of Fauj, which means army, and “pajeet”, which is a racist term for Indians.). [2 ].

I have constantly attempted to make him use the talk page for a civilised conversation as seen from my edit summaries, and issued him warnings on his talk page, but it doesn’t seem to make him act any more civil. Even accusing me of being an asset of the Pakistani military, accusing me of spreading “bullshit” and accusing me of being a captain in the Pakistani army. [3 ]

I tried to keep an open mind, but he simply wants to engage in insults and bad rhetoric. I eventually found out that the result I was reverting to (Pakistani victory) had no basis, so I had reverted it to the “ceasefire” result it always had before, I even apologised to him and said I hoped that this would be a fair compromise. But to no avail, he constantly puts it as a “Baluchi victory” despite no sources, and even has the audacity to tell me to use the talk page, when he has been editing the result without the consultation of the talk page, and only eventually using it to insult me.

What’s even more suspicious, is that an IP created the same exact edit to the result parameter he did, only 9 minutes before. I’m not sure if this was merely an accident, but I’d just thought to mention it anyway.[4 ]

This isn’t the only page, he edited the casualties on the 2024 Azad Kashmir demonstrations and simply stated “per local sources”, with no citations and links. And even when it was reverted, he simply re-inserted it back. [5 ]

In summary, I have attempted to rectify the issue, even apologising to him for my mistake.[6 ]

I urge the administrators to take action against GamerHashaam, he has been disruptively editing and extremely insulting and uncivil. His disruptive editing is still on the Third Balochistan conflict page, as I do not want to continue an edit war. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologize to you of any ill behavior but I thought that you were promoting the narrative by the state as a military handle of ISPR but I recognize that claim is bogus without evidence so I apologize for that. I changed it to a Baluch Victory with some more edits such as changing baluchis to baluchs as baluchis is used by only punjabi people in pakistan as they tend to use a "i" with "s" to pronounce plural of ethnic groups or peoples.
 * I changed it to a baluch victory as I clearly defined that the demands of the Baluch had been accepted by the government as even in the article original state it mentions that yahya sued for negotiations and reverted the one unit scheme aswell gave a general amnesty not to mention releasing all captured insurgents. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly defined without a source. 48JCL (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297949740_The_resurgence_of_baluch_ethnicity_and_nationalism_in_Baluchistan?enrichId=rgreq-7b34a998ca96ef754c3352b1de0972d1-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Nzk0OTc0MDtBUzo1MzY5NTQ1Nzc5NzMyNTRAMTUwNTAzMTM1NTgzMg%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
 * This is one source I citate for the research, Its from Multan Zakariya University. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RESEARCHGATE ResearchGate is not reliable according to Wikipedia. 48JCL (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He (VirtualVagabond) continued to make the claim that the rebels wanted Independence or sucession from Pakistan and provided no sources or citations for such claims and as per the demands, we have of the rebels, nearly all were fullfilled. thus I saw it to edit it into a baluch victory from a ceasefire or pakistani victory. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you read my notice, you see that I mentioned that, and you see me mentioning apologising to you, and rectifying my mistake. The links are there to take you to them if you need proof. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean alright but It still constitues a Baluch Victory considering that the Baluchistan province was restored while one unit scheme was abolished and there demand of provincial autonomy was accepted. All Rebel Leaders contested and won election in 1970. Other thing to mention is that they were not arrested or proseucted for any crimes. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether the amnesty was due to pressure by fighters on the federal government, or a strategic move by the government to curtail the insurgency isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that your source for “Balochi victory” (which you didn’t even cite in the article) isn’t reliable. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The military dictator General Yahya Khan sued for a cease-fire with the Pararis. In spite of their recognition of a cease-fire, the Pararis were persuaded a revitalization of hostilities with Islamabad was only a matter of time. The Pararis upheld their guerrilla forces unharmed and enlarged their reach, powers and numbers after the 1969 cease-fire. In certain areas, they were capable to run a virtual parallel government. General Yahya Khan broke up of One Unit on July 1, 1970 and Baluchistan for the first time became a full-fledged province. But no attempt was done to take the internal administration of the province in line with those of other provinces. The general elections were held under the Legal Frame Work Order in December 1970 for the first time in the history of Pakistan and the result of the 1970 elections unleashed a whole set of new and contradictory forces into the political agenda.
 * here's the text
 * We need to verify it in a journal
 * ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). GamerHashaam (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it was a ceasefire, which I had inserted. On the other hand, nothing says about a full-fledged Balochi victory.
 * It doesn’t matter about your claims about ResearchGate doing “fact checking” or whatever. Wikipedia policy deems it as unreliable, through and through. It even states that it does not do fact checking on WP:RESEARCHGATE, and states it as a “self-published source.” VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * yes a self published source although we can find a factual journal on a other site for it.
 * Second I didn't say it was a full-fledged baloch victory rather a simple baloch victory due to there demands being accepted for which we can find other sources in the article other then me as listed below:
 * Third Balochistan conflict
 * Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri led like-minded militants into guerrilla warfare from 1963 to 1969 by creating their own insurgent bases. Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the Sui gas fields with the tribal leaders and lifting of One Unit Scheme. The insurgents bombed railway tracks and ambushed convoys and raided on military camps.
 * Third Balochistan conflict
 * This insurgency ended in 1969, with the Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire granting general amnesty to the separatists as well as freeing the separatists. In  1970 Pakistani President Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy, which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan),  including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and Gwadar, an 800 km2 coastal area purchased from Oman by the Pakistani government.
 * Also I humbly require you to use proper pronoun for the balochs not balochi as balochi is the language not the people. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GamerHashaam: Please stop WP:SHOUTING. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not shouting rather just highlighting the important text in the passages GamerHashaam (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was talking about your response, not the quotes, we can read it just fine without the bold. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright GamerHashaam (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What even is a “simple victory”? Your claims don’t make any sense. Wikipedia policy doesn’t accept that.
 * What is this other factual source? You didn’t send a link or citation, nor any other source, but regurgitated what the unreliable source said.
 * Please, let’s take this to the talk page of the conflict. Let the administrators here do their job easier. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By Simple Victory I meant not a Phyric Victory with too many loses or a Decisive Crushing Victory rather a Moderate Victory. It takes time to find factual information on a source thus I request some time aprox 24 hours to investigate and find one. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not how Wikipedia policy on a military victory works. Again, please take this to the talk page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright take it to the talk page, add some sources and context please I request for it to be a ceasefire or pakistani victory. I have to go now but I will Inshallah Review it in 12 hours and provide a reply. Allah Hafiz GamerHashaam (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also Its baloch not balochi, Please fix the pronoun GamerHashaam (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to ask, does anybody know when an admin will come to make a decision? It seems that the reports before and after this one have mostly been solved or at least have been looked over. But not for this, I understand it might take some time but I’ve heard that ANIs get archived if there’s no activity for three days. Hence my curiosity. VirtualVagabond (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That usually means there has not been sufficient evidence presented that admins are willing to take action. Or that someone who would be willing to take action just hasn't been online to see it yet. If the thread gets archived, oh well. If the problem repeats and requires immediate action to resolve, a new thread can be opened with a reference back to this one in the archives. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby and BATTLEGROUND
is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are extremely bad. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports, warnings , and a block. Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder:
 * Accusing me of inserting fake news and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented:
 * Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons):
 * Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons:
 * When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about having triggered other editors:
 * Related: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 § Elinruby’s conduct. Northern Moonlight 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User talk:Elinruby. El_C 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: On reading the diff, something seems taken out of context. The text is Q[uestion]. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A[nswer]. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO [line break] Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO. I'm not 100% sure what it is saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.By way of context for different editor did heavily maul the article, there is an RSN discussion (permanent link) about the use of unreliable sources in Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "you mad bro" meme, which is related to triggering and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while too hot. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OP put the "triggered" in quotes, and that's where the word occurs in the diff cited. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

copied by Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From User talk:Elinruby :
 * Pinged note, no comment at this point which should not be interpreted to mean anything but a lack of awareness of and familiarity with the situation as I've been offline since Friday and this appears to be an indepth issue. I will read up on this and see whether I can assist. My involvement is as @Elinruby notes it above but I've had no further involvement with the topic as far as I'm aware and standard engagement with Elinruby. Star   Mississippi  01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Elinruby made 145 mostly small edits to the article between 13:14, 17 May and 10:00, 18 May (all times UTC), or a bit less than a day. Flurries of activity on controversial topics like this are often related to real-world events, like the release of new information related to the investigations, but I'm not aware of anything having happened to attract this attention recently. Elinruby wasn't the first mover in this recent activity, though: another editor removed quite a lot of info about a week before this and added some contrary info based on suspect sources, there's active discussion on the talk page and at RSN about it. I don't know if Elinruby was just trying to correct that and found more problems (the article does need updating) but it would have been better if Elinruby would have slowed down when editors started challenging their edits, like the others have, and it was especially poor form to ignore being pinged on the article talk and telling editors on their user talk to go away, and so I can't help but endorse the block as an involved admin. Might I suggest commuting their block to a pblock from the article, so they can participate in the ongoing discussions? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per El_C, I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified. What we're lacking is a reasonable unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can likely explain how Elinruby's edits came about as they did. They and I were involved in a content discussion with that, admittedly, had gotten off topic on the Jordan Peterson page (I concurred such in the thread). In the course of this off-topic discussion Springee raised the contents of this page as contradicting a point Elinruby made in the discussion. Both Elinruby and myself reviewed the page and were alarmed by what we found. However, on account of it being the first warm long-weekend of the year in PEI and me having a rather full schedule I was mostly editing mobile, which leads to me not doing much in the way of labour-intensive editing due to the limitations of the platform. Also my preferred strategy is generally to approach contentious topics via article talk and appropriate noticeboards as soon as I can - which would lead to slower corrections.
 * As a result Elinruby ended up taking on much of the work of fixing the POV problems on the page. In general, and notwithstanding the behavioural matters raised here, I think most of their edits to the page were a net-improvement as it had experienced some profound WP:NPOV failings when we saw it. I raised one of these at WP:RS/N and you can see how that turned out here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page: as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI. Their content work was fine. Their behavior towards fellow editors and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their policy-violating aspersions is the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting TPA revocation and block extension
Elinruby has repeatedly lied about their interaction with me and continued to personally insult me on their talk page: I am not keen on the project allowing further ROPE for someone who has been warned so many times for their personalizing hostile behavior between ANI and the Arbcom enforcement log. Pinging as original blocking admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When asked to provide a reasonable unblock request, they with I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills
 * They falsely claim The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI, despite me having pinged them multiple times previously in a discussion they had started and them having left an edit summary that acknowledged me prior to said talk page warning
 * They claimed a hostile notice they to their talk page mentions no names–despite  with @Pbritti: please see section below immediately after adding it.
 * The block has not dissuaded them from continuing this behavior in the future, as evidenced by their unblock requests and


 * @Pbritti: The diff for left an edit summary is linking to a 2008 revision. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I must've deleted a digit. Fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not see anything there that requires revoking TPA. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficient to revoke TPA. I would prefer not to extend the current block, having to wait for it to expire sends the right signal for now IMO. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I'm not even convinced that the original block was good. Particularly the triggered accusation seems difficult for me to read in good faith: it's very difficult for me to imagine any good faith editor reading that as a reference to trauma triggers. And upon reading them closely none of the others seem to be anything but curt. I agree Elinruby has not responded great to the block, but like, it seems very kafkaesque to me to block someone because of their behavior in response to a block that shouldn't have happened. Loki (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There appears to be an unusual obsession with analyzing that single word instead of reflecting on the totality of Elinruby's behavior. They weren't blocked over one word. They were blocked for repeated BATTLEGROUND behavior. Additionally, if an editor engages in misconduct following a block, that's still misconduct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Friend, if you are watching this thread so closely that you are responding to new comments within five minutes, may I suggest it's not (just) Elinruby that's guilty of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Loki (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a button you can click when you open a discussion that allows you to 'subscribe' to the discussion. This allows a notification to appear when someone replies even if they don't ping you. It spares one from having to add cluttered noticeboards to a watchlist and enables rapid response. Please review what constitutes BATTLEGROUND behavior, as prompt response is not one such action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to discussions regularly. In fact, I subscribed to this discussion right after I first commented, like I normally do when I comment in a discussion. I assure you it does not explain that quick of a response, and it definitely doesn't explain either your bad faith readings of Elinruby's posts nor coming back to the well with more alleged evidence of wrongdoing that nobody else has taken you up on. Loki (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was reading the Wikipedia article on the movie I was watching and saw the notification of your reply. As bad faith readings go, a reply being prompt is not one such sign—which is why I welcomed your reply only 13 minutes after mine. Please review WP:AGF. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pbritti, just ignore Loki's provocation, it's not worth it. El_C 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I have declined their most recent unblock request, and left a warning that any further battleground behavior will result in TPA removal. Let's see if that has an effect. I do agree that, especially since you cannot defend yourself on their talk page, they cannot continue to make personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I haven't been active too much of late, but browsing ANI this caught my eye as one of my most recent experiences here was a very similar situation with Elinruby – they bludgeoned a thread at ANI in which I had participated almost to death, they misunderstood or misrepresented my position in the discussion, then casted aspersions that were completely detached from reality, and when asked to back down they refused. After I posted evidence to their TP (evidence that they said they were going to get and would confirm their stance, but which actually proved they were wrong) they deleted it and doubled down on their position. I do not believe they need to be given a longer block, and they seem to be active and productive in some areas, but they really need to take a good look at their behaviour. Ostalgia (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi, part 2
TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied, not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co., but they were mostly fruitless.

Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

 * 1) Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other . Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
 * 2) Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner
 * 3) At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

 * 1) As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent
 * 2) After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah
 * 3) Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan, trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself . More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
 * 4) When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi

Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

 * 1) Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
 * 2) Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here . They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh   under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
 * 3) Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

 * 1) Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts, which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi
 * 2) Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732), then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi
 * 3) And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war, then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi
 * 4) Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) . Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi
 * 5) Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion

Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11
Jonharojjashi more or less restored the unsourced edit  by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

Closing remark
In made response to my previous ANI, Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
 * "I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.
 * Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.
 * Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.
 * HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of
 * Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?
 * 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
 * The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions . If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
 * more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source  I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.
 * Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing issues of Jonharojjashi
I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.-- Imperial [AFCND]  17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial  [AFCND]  18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again, similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War . Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred . Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.. -- Imperial [AFCND]  18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-
 * The discussion at Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis.
 * Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-
 * I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.
 * Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.
 * Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-
 * Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.
 * I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by  Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind
My god, can they make it less obvious?


 * 1) Both Jonharojjashi and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind  use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
 * 2) Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins
 * 3) Like Jonharojjashi, Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH)
 * 4) Both Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind  are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.

Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.

Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.

Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.

Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for . But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book, we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado . Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind  and Jonharojjashi  misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab

 * 1) Both Jonharojjashi  and indeffed user Sudsahab  use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
 * 2) Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article . Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.
 * I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

पापा जी
पापा जी is a "brand new user", yet they are already aware of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Their first edit was restoring info in an article by Shakib ul hassan, does this edit summary seem like that of a new user to you? using "rv" in their very first edit summary. They then immediately went to support the deletion at Articles for deletion/Arab conquest of Kaikan ‎and Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh. Not even remotely close to the traditional journey of a new user, good thing they're trying to hide it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A remark about closing
@HistoryofIran, please stop non-archiving this thread. You have been warned about this previously. The administrators do not appear to be interested in this report. It's time to close and move on. I have removed the no-archive. BoldGnome (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That was not a warning, it wasn't by an admin either, and the reported user ended up getting topic banned for one year, so clearly it was worth having the DNAU. Have you read this report? Can you please tell me what the report is missing here instead of just simply removing the DNAU, which is not helping this project? It's extremely concerning that we clearly have a Discord group that is slowly gaining monopoly over a section of Wikipedia articles, and no one is batting an eye. It's a shame, perhaps if I made this report more dramatic, it would get more attention, because that's what seems to be popular at ANI these past years - drama. Clearly, my report has validity per this . HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Section 19 of Discord Community Guidelines, they may not be allowed to create accounts that would evade platform-level sanctions, if the server or the user is banned. Discord is very closely regulating the use of servers. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, a big problem is that the key evidence of meatpuppetry coordinated over Discord is something that we can't actually see. You say you sent the evidence to Arbcom and they advised you to come here. It would be helpful if an Arb who has seen the evidence could post here and tell us whether it is compelling. Until then, as an admin and SPI regular I'm not really comfortable taking action based on information that I don't have. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this constant DNAU-adding is essentially WP:FORUMSHOPPING ("raising essentially the same issue ... on one [noticeboard] repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus"). HistoryofIran made a "closing remark" a month ago; they seem to think they have the authority to decide what is worth having at ANI, but as far as I can see, they don't. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I never stated that I have any form of authority. It's disappointing to see a veteran user act like this. I hope you're glad that you got to take that dig at me. Who cares about the Discord meatpuppets right? Let them run amok. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discord meatputppets will be easily detected upon reporting with sufficient evidence to Discord employees. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First time I've been called a "veteran", so thanks for that, I guess. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That was what you got out of my response...? HistoryofIran (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how forum shopping works. The issue is not being raised "repetitively". And quite frankly, HistoryofIran has a very good track record when it comes to ANI reports. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that they have a good track record. I was the one who first notified them about how to use DNAU. I did not think that they would use it to keep their own agitations at ANI indefinitely. Yes, the issue is not being raised "repetitively" in fact, but in spirit it has the same effect, as the same thread, without resolution, is constantly being prohibited from archiving. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You did not introduce me to DNAU, that was another user. Calling my reports (the vast majority which leads to the reported user being blocked/banned) for my "own agitations" is frankly at WP:ASPERSIONS territory, do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * DNAU? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a template that stops a thread from auto-archiving . HistoryofIran (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment about DNAUs by User:HistoryofIran: The near-systematic addition of a very long DNAUs ("Do Not Archive Until...") by User:HistoryofIran to his ANI filings is a probable instance of WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. This ANI page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) is set-up with a 72-hours auto-archive function ("Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III"), designed to expedite process: matters that do not attract traction are meant to be archived, after 72 hours without new input. On the contrary, User:HistoryofIran uses repeated and rolling DNAUs to abuse the system and give undue exposure to his filings. The net effect of such DNAUs is that they distort the usual ANI process, and give unfair prominence to filings that do not otherwise trigger User or Administrative attention, and encourage drive-by input. He recently obtained a hefty Topic ban against me (1 year... ) after forcing his filing for 42 days, despite protestations by User:AirshipJungleman29 for this abuse of the system ("It is not your responsibility to clerk this page on behalf of the administrators by altering this intended feature of how ANI functions" ). Overall his 42-days filing received little input from regular Users or Administrators, even though the filing was top-of-the-page for several weeks: a few veteran users who looked at the evidence explained that the filing was to a large extent without merit, but the lengthy DNAU ensured that a few random users also voted and tipped the balance . An Administrator with nearly no contributions (about 50 contributions a year) then closed with a hefty Topic ban, claiming a consensus . By playing with DNAUs, User:HistoryofIran is obviously abusing the system in attempts to obtain an unfair advantage against users he disagrees with. If I played by his rules, I would recommend a long-term block of User:HistoryofIran for repeated abuse of an administrative system (not even taking into account his constant pro-Iranian POV), and make sure my filing stays 2 months at ANI through repeated DNAUs, with constant repeating of my accusations...  पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a bad-faith revenge report. I never intended on abusing anything, and I wonder why you didn't comment about it at the time (including the arguments I presented to AirshipJungleman29's comment ), and first now. And in the ANI thread you were told to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS (such as the attack you made attack KhndzorUtogh for merely calling you out for WP:OR "Like it or not, and I'm sorry of I hurt some Armenian sensitivities..."), yet you are doing the very same now. And I did not merely "disagree" with you, there were legitimate concerns about you (hence why every voting user at least agreed on you getting restricted from adding images, so the claim that "a few veteran users who looked at the evidence explained that the filing was to a large extent without merit" is very dishonest), the fact that you still don't see that is concerning. For those interested, here is the report . HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Community responses to this long report

 * It seems pretty obvious that something untoward is going on here. I'm not really certain what the propriety is of joining the Reddit in question and observing the behavior in detail and how it may correlate with on-WP action. Probably not necessary, and hard to do without outing-related issues. It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional. That they're frequently collaborating with sock- and meat-puppets to do it is probably only of incidental interest, especially since the puppets are routinely blocked anyway without AN/I needing to be involved. I'm not sure if this just calls for a topic-ban (perhaps a time-limited but non-trivial one), or if further action is needed, like listing various of the crap sources at WP:RSNP so there is less future question about editors trying to rely on them in our material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Subreddits and Discord servers in question must be reported to respective admins of those sites. Provide evidence as soon as possible. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oration - Thank you, User:SMcCandlish, for asking for community responses, presumably including completely uninvolved community responses, to this excessively long thread about this long-running conflict. This drama has been playing out for a month, and waiting for a prince.  A Greek tragedy often ends with a deus ex machina.  A Shakespearean tragedy often ends with what should be called a princeps ex machina, in which a high-ranking person shows up unexpectedly and gives a closing speech.  (Look at Hamlet (play) or Macbeth (play).)  Since Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, we can continue to argue for a long time until someone assumes the role of the prince.  Or we can all be silent for a few days so that this great monster with tentacles goes away.
 * The community has never done very well with cases involving off-wiki coordination. ArbCom has sometimes been able to deal more effectively with such cases.  Here are the ways that we, the community, can end this case:
 * 1. Someone can make a proposal for a sanction that gains support, and a closer can play the role of the prince and pronouncing the sanction.
 * 2. There can be some failed proposals, and then someone can play the role of the prince in declaring that there is No Consensus.  This will have the added value that, when this dispute flares up again, it can reasonably be said to ArbCom that the community was unable to resolve the dispute.
 * 3. Someone can write a Request for Arbitration, focusing on off-wiki coordination, which has sometimes in the past been dealt with by ArbCom.
 * 4. We can all be quiet for a few days, and the sea monster will disappear, as if the community will be silent long enough.
 * I have completely uninvolved to this point, and I don't have a proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by
The user has repeatedly made personal attacks by using blatant derogatory slurs (like F and N words) in their edit summaries, the user continuosly doing poor and disruptive edits, they also seems to be involved in sockpuppetry; see Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammad Umar Ali. Clearly they're WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️)  13:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've left a warning on their talk, and same for the other user they're sparring with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That helps, Thanks. Based.Kashmiri  (🗨️)  15:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 206.188.41.102
This IP user 206.188.41.102 has repeatedly made personal attacks against multiple users despite being warned repeatedly. The user is continuing relentlessly despite all of their attacks being removed. It's clear the user is not going to stop and a block is warranted (IP's contribs). RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * agreed, been having to revert their edits for the past 10 minutes or so (they even made on here on this thread) Gaismagorm (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked 72 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * they are still disruptively editing their own talk page (not sure if its technically vandalism but you might want to still take a look at it) Gaismagorm (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.
See here. where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be  removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Italics mine, bold in original.WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:
 * No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Attempt to goad me into making the response that comment merits duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * that or a BOOMERANG. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No I have not indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase.  I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing.  Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument.  You also have some unknown measure of support for it.  My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign.  On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately.  I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given your telepathic skills, you should already be aware of my reply. Feel free to report the breach of WP:CIVIL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For using examples over a decade old in a discussion about current practices. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:
 * "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
 * "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
 * "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only.  I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas
 * Oh and here's a bonus:
 * "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"
 * Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy. And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I have accepted that submission. It's in the table. Let's move on.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) my comments are not not needed.


 * 1)  opened a thread at WP:ANI referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".
 * 2)  responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.
 * 3)  responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".
 * 4) 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".
 * 5)  hatted that part of the larger discussion.

This is probably why we have Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them. I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjiii  (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point it almost seems like ATG sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again. wound theology  ◈  06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something
 * ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable Maestrofin (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks. I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump

 * Support as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a t-ban from DYK. I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative at that project. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This happened on the 15th. That's three days after his previous disruption on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people as they're walking away. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away.
 * I see it this way:
 * There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan)
 * He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap.
 * Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK.
 * So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. Maybe he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more WP:ROPE should be given here. Call me a softy? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also support a topic ban from Did You Know. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 21:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a t-ban from DYK per Valereee. BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support a t-ban from DYK per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself LevivichTheInsufferable (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors who are eager to go for the nuclear option also create a chilling effect. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.Incidentally, I feel a new-found respect, if not warmth, towards the editor .   ——Serial Number 54129  18:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That question is easy to answer: DYK posts 9-18 8-16 new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again.  ——Serial Number 54129  18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A 9th list item has snuck in today! Levivich (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It does that from time to time. DYK used to get huge criticism from not "balancing" ITN/OTD. Not sure whether this was an attempt at that. Sometimes it's that someone objects to a hook being pulled and not getting a "fair" time run. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129, halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but Being right isn't enough, and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and their own behavior wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a general remark not based on any single editor. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did not call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said of a comment you made that I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about the original title of the thread. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Indef I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223, identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in.
 * What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support non-indef block, weak support t-ban - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's core pillars, but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement.  I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial.  If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow WP:CIVIL with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @4meter4, are you suggesting a logged warning? Valereee (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I would definitely support a logged warning then.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Me too. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, nvm, that's already happened. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria. What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that "There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future." That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own essay on how I learned this lesson), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Just Step Sideways, Andy opened this. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at Andrew Tate (as some sort of reaction to the controversial BLP hook issue), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been officially warned it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, blocks are never punishment, and an indef is not somehow "worse" than a 24-hr one. Indefs can literally be lifted five minutes later if an admin is convinced the person is willing to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef, oppose t-ban, support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I could support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lepricavark, thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from DYK. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth after the old evidence was presented). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both I don't see any new issue, and the rest is a re-do of the last ANI thread. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You realize Andy opened this "re-do"? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then no he did not open this re-do. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He brought the last one(? can't keep up) here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process.
 * Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He. Brought. This. Here. If you think it wasn't worth bringing here, it's disruptive. Valereee (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (Note the comment above was only He. Brought. This. Here. when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to. (This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.)
 * Taking this to user talk. Valereee (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (temporary?) T-ban I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Response from AndyTheGrump. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you have anything new to say here, please just get over it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly idiotic (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is not ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The exact same reason as my previous wikilink for you. Because no one is obligated to satisfy you. In summary; you're not entitled to an apology, even if you deserve one. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Taking to user talk. Valereee (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference sake see BLP incivility warning that was given. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * oppose This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am not bloody-minded enough lacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Christ on a cracker, Mangoe, would you get the facts straight. Levivich (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve."
 * The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome.
 * TFD (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offense, though it may become proportionate later if the behavior continues. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Close reading of this thread reveals a link Levivich provided: Special:Diff/1223676400. See also the exchange beteen Andy and ScottishFinnishRadish on Andy's talk page here. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---Sluzzelin talk  01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef. Was his first logged warning for incivility this week? Rjjiii  (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I believe he's had a number of temp bans before. wound theology  ◈  13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia. He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly.  He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil. I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what.  It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.)  I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing.  I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human.  If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't make a statement about a topic-ban from DYK, and I am still not making a statement about that, so I don't think that I am disagreeing with User:Valereee. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time.  I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support non-indef ban and perhaps a topic ban based on the above. Warnings clearly aren't doing the trick. wound theology  ◈  13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this not an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. The way we know this is that the person who was reported here by Andy agrees with Andy about problems with the status quo, as do many of the people supporting sanctions. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Prefer T-ban from DYK but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support indef block also fine with DYK topic ban Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: to make everybody happy, I support a three months block from DYK. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef. I thought long and hard about this.  Andy has attacked me many, many times in the deep past, and frankly, they have never really bothered me, because I knew they were coming from someone who had good intentions, intentions which make nice, decorative paving stones on the golden road to Hell. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose sanctions as shooting the messenger, though Andy would be well advised to tone it down. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Just Step Sideways ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. There's certainly nothing like cause for an indef here. I could see a T-ban happening if AtG continues this level of DYK-related invective and we end up back here again with the same approach still in evidence. But some of AtG's concerns are valid, and this is not TonePolicePedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose block or topic ban per Bon courage, if further incivility occurs though, I may vote differently in the future.  starship .paint  (RUN) 06:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TLDR I think I got the gist, but seriously, sheesh. From what I did gather, though, no. Don't do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom
I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of User:AndyTheGrump, and the second is conduct and interactions at Did You Know. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others.

I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of unblockables, who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK.

I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether the biographies of living persons policy trumps or is trumped by the civility policy are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in Did You Know, but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that the biographies of living persons policy is non-negotiable, and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, because those principles apparently need to be restated.

It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at Did You Know and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom is to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording: "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they said a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive. It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, please do!. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet.  Pinguinn     🐧   03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Pinguinn - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues.  For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks.  I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue.  If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run.  If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. CMD (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is the wrong venue; it's for the community to decide what (if anything) to do about DYK. For example, a fundamental question might be how compatible with a serious encyclopedia it is to have click-baity trivia on the front page. Arbcom doesn't decide stuff like that. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ArbCom has widened the extent of its advisory authority in certain respects over recent time--and to be perfectly honest, not always in ways that I think are entirely right and proper within this community's framework of consensus authority--but something like the issue of the tonal character of DYK and how the space intersects with core content policies is still very much a broader community issue in both scope and subject matter.That said, ArbCom may very well take an interest in users who cannot contribute to DYK (or any space) without calling users idiots and morons and otherwise just acting in a pernicious and disruptive fashion.  Those kinds of matters are very much within their remit.  And unfortunately, that's probably where things are headed, now that the idea has been floated here.  It doesn't take a community resolution to petition ArbCom to look into such a matter and at this juncture, sooner or later someone is going to become frustrated with the community's failure to act on brightline violations of WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND and just follow that route.  Honestly it's really unfortunate: all of these people who thought they were cutting Andy some slack even as he has popped up repeatedly here over the course of weeks, have unwittingly contributed to a much more negative likely outcome for him.  He's going to get burnt ten times worse at ArbCom that the comparably very tame measures that have been previously proposed to try to drive home the point about his more altogether unacceptable conduct towards his fellow editors.  But not only did far too many editors fail to tell Andy that his PAs were unaccpetable, but, even more problematically some even endorsed his belief that he is entitled to make such comments if he's convinced he is pushing the right idea or can provide a reason for why he is just too valuable to the project.  This was the last thing this editor needed to hear in the circumstances, and by trying to supplant established community consensus as codified in our core behavioural policies with this subjective standard, Andy has now been left exposed in situation where ArbCom comes into the picture, as a body which has both a broad community mandate to enforce our actual policies, and a very meticulous and formal approach to those standards.  Basically some of Andy's would-be allies and those uninvolved community members who endorsed kicking the can down the road have possibly traded a short-term block for a TBAN or indef, in the longterm.  The whole situation is all very foolish and self-defeating, all around. Sno</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. The RFC is now open at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. All are welcome to participate.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This solves the procedural issue at DYK, but the second overlapping issue, which relates to user conduct, is still open. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion on saction for user conduct is closed now.  starship .paint  (RUN) 08:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm
WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me ), likely a sock, though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.


 * 1) At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information, when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
 * 2) After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring
 * 3) Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect
 * 4) Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
 * 5) Same here
 * 6) And here
 * 7) And here
 * 8) And here
 * 9) And here

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please . HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect . HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras. Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a valid point buried in this. If a modern translator/editor of period manuscript material is injecting their own interpretation about what the original material probably really meant, then that translator/editor is a primary source for that editorial judgement/claim/change (it's their own personal opinion), and while they may be within RS definitions as a subject-matter expert, their view needs to be attributed to them as a modern scholar, not masqueraded as a statement of the original historical manuscript writer. This sort of thing comes up pretty frequently with regard to modern scholarly intepretation of ancient writings, and more often than not other scholars can also be cited in support of and sometimes against such a modern analytical intepretation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
 * According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
 * According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
 * According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.
 * I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ,
 * They are not removal but restoration.
 * I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced". WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "More unsourced" not "unsourced"
 * I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".
 * And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure
Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.
 * User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect . --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.
 * This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents ) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I second the request for closure and have removed the non-archive from this report as well. BoldGnome (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. BoldGnome (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report.
 * This is a ridiculous argument. So if the case is too long, just screw it and let the user continue their disruption? It seems you didn't even go through the diffs yourself, and yet you still removed the DNAU, because harassing an admin was apparently not enough . HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). BoldGnome (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is a complex report, and it involves a topic area that most administrators and veteran editors know little about. In addition to the language barrier, most of us lack the necessary cultural context on Central and South Asia topics. That makes it hard to evaluate sources and figure out who is right. Another issue with editors from these parts of the world is that there's a ton of POV pushing and sockpuppetry on all sides. In my SPI work, I see articles in WP:ARBIPA topic areas where multiple sock/UPE farms are fighting and reporting each other as sockpuppets. The way ISPs in this region hand out IP addresses makes it very difficult for Checkuser to produce useful results. SPI is also incredibly backed up, so unfortunately these cases can linger for a while without more volunteers.
 * If you want your reports to be more actionable, I can make a few suggestions. Focusing on user conduct issues like incivility, ownership, personal attacks and edit warring are more likely to get results, because the evidence for them is usually pretty clear. A lot of this report looks like content disputes, and we can't really determine who is POV pushing. It might also be better to use WP:AE; the format there is better for demonstrating problems concisely without participants arguing amongst themselves. One other suggestion is to open discussions about the more common sources at places like WP:RSN. As an example, I don't read The Times of India or Telesur and can't evaluate their reliability the same way I can with something I do read. But they've been discussed at RSN, so now we have WP:TOI and WP:TELESUR to tell editors and admins how to handle them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks The Wordsmith, will keep that mind. It also doesn't help that Bravehm is blatantly lying, this is perhaps the clearest example I can show; I restored sourced info removed by Bravehm, restoring +605 bytes. They then not only revert me, but remove more sourced info (-1189 bytes) , having the nerve to ask me to go to the talk page, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. This is manipulative. I then revert them again , only to get reverted again, but this time they removed even more bytes (-1751), still asking me to go the talk page . HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, they just violated WP:3RR, so I guess this thread won't needed anymore. Bravehm will be back after their block though, as have all the previous (indeffed) users trying to do the same in that article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Boldgnome's and The Wordsmith's advice is pretty good, actually. And it can sometimes be better to close a drawn-out report that is proving too "TL;DR" to attract input and action, and open a new one later that concisely presents the evidence, from most egregious down to supporting-but-not-itself-actionable. It's also not helpful to just keep repeating "is being disruptive" over and over again. If the actions in question were not allegedly disruptive, then they wouldn't be at AN/I in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks SMcCandlish. And I apologize to User:BoldGnome for my remark, hope we can put it behind us. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! BoldGnome (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of automated translation tools by User:Bafuncius
is using automated translation tools to add content to Eastern esotericism. They have massively expanded the article with material that essentially duplicates our article on Vajrayana, apparently translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia article Esoterismo no Oriente. See also this comment, where they assert ownership of the material because they "wrote" the Portuguese article. Two editors oppose the extensive duplicative addition of badly automated translated material, but Bafuncius has reverted both of us, and their rhetoric suggests they will continue to do so. I'd just take it to 3RR, but the major issues is the misuse of automated translation. Skyerise (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proof? Anybody can see in the discussion page that I was always civil, compromising in editing and making the article better, while and  were threatening, not presuming good faith, and impatient. Also,  offended me here, with perhaps a depreciative tone against my language/nationality: special:diff/1225694928 Bafuncius (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems this editor was also involved with the massive autotranslated article on Kardecist spiritism, which is still full of broken citations and other serious issues. I tried to fix it at one point, but gave up. Don't our rules on the use of automated translation require the editor to have enough knowledge of the subject to correct and revise the translations? Also, both and I have tried to explain that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE does not allow for the duplication of 60,000 bytes of material which belongs in another article entirely, but  has failed to respond about or otherwise address that issue. They argue that there may be information in the material which was added to Eastern esotericism that is missing from Vajrayana, but the answer to that is that it should have been added to the most relevant article rather than essentially creating a WP:POVFORK of an existing article. Skyerise (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree., you're not really listening to the main point here. In addition to what was said by Skyerise, you can't have a section of an article that is both a POVFORK and is almost the same length of the main article itself. Not all the content from both versions can be included in the Vajrayana article, too, as that would put it over the readability word count. Just because the combined content from two wikis on a subject may have some stuff one doesn't have, doesn't mean that both wikis need all the content from both language articles. We all must adhere to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The article was created by User:Isaguge, not Bafuncius. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They were the one who auto-translated it, but Bafuncius wrote the original content on the Portuguese wikipedia. As the writer of the original article (in the Portuguese version, before it was translated to the English version) from the talk page of Eastern esotericism. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there seems to be a cross-wiki ownership issue here. Different language Wikipedia editors may make different editorial decisions about how to present material using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It's not correct to try to force or coerce English Wikipedia to adopt the monolithic style chosen by Portuguese Wikipedia through edit-warring to keep the same structure as the Portuguese article. Skyerise (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point I was making above — not every language version wiki has to present content in the same manner or have the same specific content on a topic. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In no way was I or am I claiming ownership of the article; when I said As the writer of the original article (in the Portuguese version, before it was translated to the English version), my intention was to show that I am knowledgeable about the whole of the article and to intellectually reinforce my argument of why I completely disagreed with the massive removal: thus I stated some specific reasons, and in no moment did I say something like: "this is my article, no one can edit!". Also, it served to show my indignation against that destructive removal: many of the paragraphs are not found duplicated from other articles, and a good proportion of the removed content is also not found in the article Vajrayana. I see now that here in the English article there is indeed a duplication of some main topics: I've created the article in Portuguese, so I was not aware of the situation here. But as can be seen in the talk page, there was no effort in explaining this to me before this report, and most of the replies were unfounded threats that I was edit-warring or inserting bad automatic translations. Bafuncius (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND User:BilledMammal
This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them.

My first intereaction with BilledMammal was back in November, back then, I reverted a single one of their edits. And the user responded by digging through my editing history, in order to find wherever I may have violated 1RR rules and subsequently opened an arbitration notice against me.

Fast forward to present day, I've reverted another one of BilledMammals edits. And how do they react? By once again, digging through my editing history, searching for possible 1RR violations. Threatening to have me blocked unless I restore their edits.

I don't know if this is behavior is allowed on Wikipedia or not but it's certainly immoral. Ecrusized (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For context, the full November AE report. In addition, prior to that report I had asked them to self-revert; they responded by reverting my requests, which prompted ScottishFinnishRadish to say an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here
 * That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting a without responding to it, and then today a
 * Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here"
 * "That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting"
 * You are so manipulative, I don't even know where to begin. I was talking to you on the article talk page about the issue, which you did not respond to. However, you did find time to leave me a strong worded warning on my talk page, simply for just reverting you once. This was followed by digging through my edits from past weeks in bad faith, presenting incorrect 1RR violations. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pot, meet kettle. That is pretty much how I would describe construing a note as a block threat and escalating it immediately to ANI. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago (permanent link): I must admit my confusion about this link from BilledMammal (and therefore also about the forumshopping charge leveled against Ecrusized's behavior). The link isn't to a concern about BilledMammal brought to Arbitration Enforcement; it links to an Arbitration Enforcement request that BilledMammal submitted about a different user, Dylanvt.Without commenting one way or another on Ecrusized's behavior and whether boomeranging applies, the concern about some of BilledMammal's edits verging on (or becoming) battlegrounding seems unfortunately plausible. BilledMammal has been previously sanctioned for abuse of process also in this topic area that the admin called using boards for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing. In April and May, BilledMammal was advised about unproductively bludgeoning discussions and received an Arbitration Enforcement block for edit-warring in the Israel–Palestine topic area. At a minimum, I would hope that the present thread reminds BilledMammal to exercise restraint when contributing in contentious topic areas. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have indefinitely topic banned Ecrusized from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. Opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations is bad enough, but combined with the 1RR violations, lack of understanding of 1RR, and personal commentary towards other editors, we're firmly in topic ban territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. Parabolist (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For bringing concerns to ANI combined with expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns, seemingly. I don't wholly follow what brought on the indefinite topic ban. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about it. I probably should have explained that earlier. I left this open so community discussion could continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I find posting on an editor's user talk about edits that occurred a week beforehand, with an edit warring notice, to be problematic and it is not unsupportive of the OP's claim that BM has gone trolling through their edit history the moment they've come into some sort of conflict. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That indeed seems problematic. But you should use trawling rather than trolling to express such purported WP:HOUNDING. Thanks. El_C 12:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C thanks for the correction. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which would y'all rather have:
 * Editors complain about 1RR vios right away each and every time they happen
 * Editors never complain about 1RR vios
 * Editors let 1RRs slide for a while until they get to be too many, and then bring all the recent ones up at once to show it's not a one-time thing
 * I prefer # 3. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer that editors let one another know when there has been a violation of 1RR that can be remedied instead of escalating to WP:AE, which is what I hoped would happen when I proposed the gentlemen's agreement here. Asking for self-reverts is standard practice. There was no threat of a block, just a request for self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you and others in this discussion are operating under an incomplete understanding of the facts, so let me lay it out:
 * Key background: on 13 May, Ecrusized filed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, reporting 1RR violations by another editor, with diffs going back to 19 April (which requires "trawling" through others' contribs)
 * Here are Ecrusized's edits to Israel-Hamas war
 * On May 14 they made a bunch of edits to that article, crossing 1RR
 * Among those May 14 edits is this edit, which they self-reverted with edit summary "This probably puts me in 1RR" (true), only to reinstate that same edit a few hours later at 16:43. Their first revert was on 15:49 13 May, which is why they waited until 16:53 14 May to reinstate it. Unfortunately, despite the rather obvious gaming involved in waiting 25hrs to make a revert, because of other intervening reverts, that 16:53 14 May edit was still a 1RR violation.
 * The 14 May edits included adding inline tags and a hidden HTML comment telling other editors not to change content, while also removing an inline tag placed by others (while discussion was still ongoing on the talk page, the most recent talk page message was made only 16 minutes prior)
 * Ecrusized made no edits to the article between 14 May and 20 May
 * On 20 May, they once again removed another editor's disputed tag, while discussion was still ongoing, with the most-recent comment was made only 2 minutes prior and Ecrusized made a comment 2 minutes later, and they restored their hidden comment that had been removed by others
 * On 20 May, BM posted a message on Ecrusized's talk page asking them to self-revert the removal of the disputed tag. No block threat, no incivility, just a please self-revert request.
 * Ecrusized's response was to post this message on BM's user talk page, and blank BM's post on their own user talk page, 10 minutes later
 * Then BM posted a second message bringing up the 1RR violations on 14 May. It was a request to self-revert. There was no block threat, no threat to escalate.
 * Ecrusized's response was to call BM a "wiki warrior", and to accuse BM of "threatening to have me blocked", which never happened. Here is that whole discussion, which took place over the course of 18 minutes, 10:50-11:08
 * At 11:17, Ecrusized opened this ANI
 * Now: (1) violating 1RR (on 14 May, at least); (2) not understanding 1RR (as seen from their attempts to game it by waiting until 15 May to re-make a revert); while at the same time complaining about someone else's 1RR violation at AE; and being uncivil towards other editors ("wiki warrior", plus other stuff like "virtually inexperienced editors ... with a heavy Israeli bias" ... I'd add: removing others' inline tagging during discussion, while reinstating their own inline tagging that's been removed; and accusing others of "digging through my editing history" when they're doing the same thing to someone else at AE... this is all classic battleground, disruptive editing. This is one of the most obviously-deserved TBANs I've seen this year.
 * I don't really see how anyone can look at this history and think that BM's behavior is problematic, that BM did something wrong by bringing up the 14 May 1RRs, or that this TBAN was issued because Ecrusized brought concerns to ANI. But I can see how someone who didn't look at any of the history might think that, though. Writing this bill of particulars out has been a waste of my time, but it was necessary to correct the misinformation posted here by multiple editors who clearly didn't do the reading before participating in the class discussion. So in the future, let's take more time to research the history of disputes before we opine at noticeboards about appropriate remedies. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * virtually inexperienced editors and heavy Israeli bias is strong wording that I don't like, but the recent experience of this very board goes to show that expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns in much stronger language has passed muster for many editors, hence my surprise. You're right that one doesn't look at this history (that is to say, a different user's behavioral history) and think that BM's behavior is problematic; rather, one draws such a conclusion by looking at BilledMammal's history. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I do a lot of my monitoring and editing on my phone, so I don't really have a way to keep a diff dossier of disruptive editing patterns, edits, and interactions. I'm glad that laying out the reasoning in the notice was sufficient to figure out the wider context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that @Levivich. I was already in complete agreement that Ecrusized's TBAN was appropriate. What I was calling into question specifically was leaving an edit warring notice for edits a week after they occurred. From your timeline it looks to me that Ecrusized crossed 1RR on the 20th and it would have been more appropriate for any notice to focus on that. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just like to point out what you said here. Not arguing against my topic ban but...
 * On May 14 they made a bunch of edits to that article, crossing 1RR.
 * I did not cross 1RR on that date. There is only 1 revert, there are 2 self reverts. revert., self revert. tag added by me earlier, self revert. The only revert made in the 24 hour period. Ecrusized (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree that opening an AE notice against another editors past edits while complaining about another user opening edits against me is hypocritical. Additionally, I would like to point out that I'm not writing these to object to my topic ban. I fully agree with 's decision, however, I would like to point these out because there seems to be some misunderstanding between other editors participating in this notice.
 * I initially opened an incident notice against user Galamore, before the AE notice. This incident notice was regarding perceived gaming the system by Galamore to get ECP access. There, it was suggested (or I accidentally perceived) from ScottishFinnishRadish that this topic belonged to AE. Which prompted me to open the AE notice.
 * I'm not exactly sure how AE notices work, and I first participated in them when BilledMammal opened one against me in November, which is linked above in this discussion. Having being inexperienced with the process, I copied the material of the November notice against myself for user Galamore.
 * Since I've responded all the point notes by Levivich, I would also like to say that despite being fully aware that words like "virtually inexperienced editors" and "with a heavy Israeli bias" are against Wikipedia guidelines, I said those words to other editors. Which is inexcusable. Ecrusized (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Self-reverting a 1RR violation doesn't mean 1RR wasn't crossed, at least in my view. Levivich (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Self-reverting a 1RR violation doesn't mean 1RR wasn't crossed, at least in my view.
 * That may be your opinion. That is clearly not the policy of Wikipedia. And the contrary is specifically instructed in the guideline page covering 1RR. WP:3RRNO:
 * The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). Ecrusized (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you taking the time to put this together. BilledMammal (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd be more concerned about this if it was on a different article where BilledMammal had never edited. Both of the editors had a history of edits on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TarnishedPath, "a week old" is not very old at all. Some of us do have lives, and problematic patterns sometimes take a while to become evident; sometimes the decision to let something slide has to be rethought because the behavior worsens. If this had been about an incident from many ago, I could see the concern (though evidence, when it fits a pattern, is often relevant for, even if a newer incident is expected as the cause of the report). But "it happened more than 6 days ago so it has magically become unactionable" is not a WP principle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Years of disruptive edits by IP incorrectly updating maintenance templates
is the current IP used by an editor who has, for years, consistently updated the dates on maintenance templates across many articles, while ignoring requests to stop and not responding to any talk page message. Although currently based in Iraq they have previously used IPs in Turkey in 2022 and 2023. The history of Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines shows many, many updates to the date in the sentence "As of [date], [number] COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide" without changing the number of doses administered (as well as changing the date in the "Use dmy dates" template)

I decided to stop once I reached 2021. They also make the same maintenance date chang edits to articles, generally relating to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East but also ongoing conflicts elsewhere, which connects the Turkish and Iraq edits to the same editor (see for example and  for the Turkish IPs and  and  for the Iraqs IPs, as well the as current IP at the top of this thread).
 * May 20, 2024
 * May 7, 2024
 * January 3, 2024 (second change on this date)
 * December 4, 2023
 * November 9, 2023
 * October 16, 2023
 * September 24, 2023
 * April 16, 2023 (second change on this date)
 * January 11, 2023
 * December 6, 2022
 * November 21, 2022
 * November 7, 2022
 * October 2, 2022
 * September 9, 2022
 * April 4, 2022 (second change on this date)
 * March 2, 2022
 * March 1, 2022
 * February 27, 2022
 * February 17, 2022
 * February 9, 2022
 * January 25, 2022
 * January 19, 2022
 * January 11, 2022
 * January 2, 2022
 * December 16, 2021

The history of Sudanese civil war (2023–present) shows their approach on conflict articles. As well as incorrectly updating any maintenance templates, they constantly update map captions to the current date even when the corresponding image hasn't been updated (you'd think instead of making pop songs mimicing famous artists, someone could make AI do live updates for us)


 * May 25, 2024
 * May 20, 2024
 * January 9, 2024

Similarly at Darfur campaign.


 * April 11, 2024
 * December 15, 2023

Same behaviour on many other conflict related articles, no need to hammer the point home any more I hope. As well as that, they also incorrectly update dates on other maintenance templates such as "one source", "More citations needed", "Original research" and "Expand", "very long" and many more, I hope I've already provided enough.

asked them at User talk:91.106.57.8 in December 2023 to stop updating dates on maintenance templates, as have I at User talk:91.106.61.248 (16 April 2024), User talk:91.106.58.243 (28 April 2024) and User talk:91.106.57.222 (repeated posts in May 2024). They don't communicate in any way. A range block on would appear to have zero collateral damage, so if deemed necessary perhaps this could be enacted please? Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

possible multiple account abuse by user:cheezitspullens and user:cheeseitsspecial
these two accounts are making disruptive edits of the page for pullen adding info about a fictional country called "pullenisti". both of these accounts also have somewhat similar names.

links to users: user:CheezItsPullens user:Cheeseitsspecial

Gaismagorm (talk)
 * Clear sockpuppetry; blocked both as vandalism only accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * alright thanks! glad that's dealt with! Gaismagorm (talk) Gaismagorm (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs that persistently harass me
Since the 23rd of May, those IPs have reverted my edits and talk page without any explanations. It seems that those IPs are 'stalking' and trying to disrupt my edits to harass me. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the listed IPs are VPN proxies. I've blocked all that have edited today or yesterday (a couple haven't edited since May 23). That said, I have no idea what's going on, i.e., the merits of 117.'s edits, in other words should they be reverted in the first instance. Given the number of proxies, I would expect this would continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The usual response to persistent disruptive behavior by a range of random VPN addresses would be semiprotection. But if the disruption is happening on an IP editor's talk page, that would be counterproductive. I guess the only advice is: why not make a login? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Need advice for courtesy on problematic user
An editor who has recently been unblocked for ARBPIA after a month and who has been flagged for WP:CIR has resumed making the same WP:CIR violations and inserting poorly-written content into certain articles, the most terrible of which is this on Timeline of Isfahan. I have just bluntly warned the user, but given that they have had a record on ANI, can a third case be filed directly against them? Withholding full name of offender until I get clarification on this. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not if their edits outwardly demonstrate lack of competence. The   Kip  (contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, can I rename this section or do I have to file a separate section for this? Borgenland (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might as well just rename the section, since this section doesn't serve a purpose otherwise, and everyone can tell by the diff who the user is that you have in mind anyway, so this pseudo-secrecy is pointless. However, the diff provided above shows this user, Baratiiman, correcting and otherwise improving their own earlier claim that 60 Baha'i women were "persecuted" (somewhere unspecified), with a revision that agrees with the cited source that it was 10 women, and in Iran. (While it would have been nice if Baratiiman had gotten the information correct in the first edit instead of the second, no one is perfect. Baratiiman should also have replaced the PoV-laden "persecuted" with the "prosecuted" used by the original source, or rather as translated from the orignal source which is not in English; "prosecuted" and "persecuted" are radically different things despite the spelling similarity. And Baratiiman had no reason to write "Iranian Islamic state government" when "Iranian government" or even just "Iran" will do. But ANI is not a venue for punishing people for insufficiently beautiful prose.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) PS:, on multiple pages I see you inserting broken link code in the form  That's the format for internal wikilinks like  . The format for full-URL links is   with single square-bracketing. So, I'm not sure you're in a position to make "competence"-related criticisms. If anything is to be actionable here, you need to demonstrate an actual pattern of policy failures on the part of , not vague claims of "incompetence".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)  PPS: this is also a bit concerning, being aggressive and menacing: If I catch you making such WP:CIR edits again I'm afraid I will have to file an ANI against you for a third time. It's not Borgenland's or anyone else's job to try to "catch" people doing things they don't like and make threats to gin up WP:DRAMAboard trouble as a punitive measure to try to get what they want.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate pointing out that I do get confused sometimes in coding. But it does not absolve them from the fact that the user I am referring to has had a edit history of incoherent editing, misinterpreting and exaggerating statements and has not once made any response or commitment to address this behavior, even when they were still being addressed in a civil manner. This was also raised by other editors in a previous archived report involving them last month. And now that you are asking for proof, I might as well build up again the case using the archive and their most recent cases within the day. Borgenland (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since their unblocking these have been some of their most problematic edits:
 * a restoration of incomprehensible and WP:NOTNEWS content they inserted in Timeline of Isfahan
 * a confusing holiday count in Economy of Iran
 * inserting references to unidentified presidents in 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash.
 * Borgenland (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was the recent ANI that was filed against them in April, during which issues I had raised were also seconded by other editors. Although in the end they were blocked for edit warring. . Borgenland (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no selection criteria for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria Baratiiman (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There may be none, but the way in which such info was written left doubts over the veracity of such events. Furthermore for example, is it really due to an event for 2023 to include something that would happen in six years, as you stated in desertification? Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an article-talk-page or user-talk-page discussion, not an AN/I matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To catch up a bit: Yes, there have been some issues with this editor, Borgenland's original diff here did not in any way add to that problematic history, but shows the editor in question improving their own edit, with a total result that looks reasonable (if not perfect). So, this AN/I thread doesn't seem to have a point; there's not a new "incident" of an actionable nature here. To go over the new diffs in the order presented above: 1) Nothing "incomprehensible" about any of it. A few entries are in telegraphic writing ("headlinese") or not-quite-right English and should be improved. A few entries also seem to make use of non-Latin script, and should be improved with Latin-alphabet transliterations of the names in question. And some entries might be too trivial/indiscriminate to warrant inclusion (and in the "desertification" instance, there's a question of relevance and perhaps WP:NOT). These are all matters of just improving the material, the third sort of concern perhaps after some article or user talk-page discussion. Whether all the sources cited are reliable enough could be a question (that I can't answer; I'm unfamilar with them and don't know the language). 2) I don't know what "a confusing holiday count" is supposed to mean. What is a "holiday count"? The material added (with sources) is in not-quite-right English again, but is easy enough to parse after looking at the sources, and should read something like the following (for better linguistic sense, to better match the sources, and for more clarity to non-Iranians): "In 2024, Iran amended Article 87 of the Civil Service Management Law to reduce the workweek of government employees to 40 hours per week (after previously reducing it from 44 to 42.5 hours). This was done by extending, for that set of workers, the Iranian weekend to include Saturday as well as the traditional Thursday and Friday." We like our non-native-English-speaker contributors to try a little harder to get the English grammar correct, but we're unlikely to block them from editing for a few simple syntax errors or for not being maximally helpful to readers who are not steeped in their culture. 3) So just fix it. The source is clear and short: "The three [living] former presidents of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Rouhani". Looking at our article, I see someone has already patched up that sentence, so there is no issue to resolve. In short, it seems to me that Borgenland would like there to a principle by which WP banned editors who mean well and add some good material but who also sometimes create typographic-cleanup and clarity-improvement work for other editors to do after them. I'm unaware of any such block rationale, and we would not do well to create one. It's far more practical, on multiple levels, to coach and coax an inexperienced editor into becoming a better encyclopedic writer than to try to banish them for not already being one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was the one who patched up number 3 but because I found an English-language source that can verify whatever claims they made. The fact is, they had been coached and coaxed several times to improve their writing to the extent that you had seen, to little avail. How far should their behavior be tolerated without compromising the encyclopedic quality of articles in this project and how long should it be for them to learn how to be responsible in providing factual and comprehensible information?. Borgenland (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Repertoire18 is ignoring repeated warnings about WP:PUFF and WP:NPOV
I hate to haul another user up here but, I feel that, at this point, it has become a necessity. This user routinely inserts WP:PUFF wording into articles, and fails to comply with WP:NPOV  despite several warnings , he has continued to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I looked through their edit history. I see no edit summaries or any replies in chats. Making me think this is a WP:NOTHERE user.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They have repeatedly blanked their talk page, so they have seen those previous messages. Seems like a WP:RADAR strategy. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do have to say I don't feel like I'm seeing a "smoking gun" in any of these diffs though. Lack of communication is a real issue, but I'm not sure a good case has been made that their edits are all that problematic. I'm willing to be convinced but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess this is a new user who doesn’t understand the goal of Wikipedia. But still I do think they might need some kind of block.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact users can get blocked for being non-communicative. Just don’t remember the page name for that policy.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would either be WP:ENGAGE or WP:RADAR Supreme_Bananas (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Amigao (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so I'm blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced material after final warning by 72.240.103.78
IP has continued adding unsourced material to articles after receiving a final warning. Diffs:

voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1225799736
 * Special:Diff/1225799864
 * Special:Diff/1225800135
 * Special:Diff/1225800257
 * Note they appear to be making stuff up same film as Diff1 above yet a different runtime? Lavalizard101 (talk)  20:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This calls for a block. Literally every single one of their edits have been reverted for the same reasons. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 20:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most likely LTA IPs. This is very common on film articles. They are reverting back the reverts as I type this.  Mike   Allen   20:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, now this IP is spamming. PLEASE, some admin step in. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 20:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reported the IP to WP:AIV as this is obvious vandalism now. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm tired of having to refresh the contribs of the IP every 5 seconds to check for vandalism. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now they've been blocked for 31 hours by for vandalism. <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 21:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Article hijackings (with pages that actually should exist) by 2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64
This IP has been 'creating' a fair amount of human name pages by inserting a new page inside of existing pages by similar names. The pages are all good, to be clear – the only issue is that they are going in the completely wrong place. They have been asked to use drafts many times, but given that their address is so variable I really have absolutely no idea that they've even seen those messages. I don't want to see them gone, their work is useful, but it is currently creating extra work for others. Perhaps a block with a pointer to a detailed explanation of what they should be doing instead, and an unblock after they simply confirm they understand, would be able to get their attention. They've been temporarily blocked before for this exact thing but the block message was less than useful so they just kept doing what they've been doing after it expired. Tollens (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if they keep bouncing around to different IPs, it seems they're also unlikely to notice that one has been blocked. I wonder if they are at least within a blockable range that wouldn't clobber a bunch of other, unrelated, users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they seem to be entirely within the /64 range I've linked, and it doesn't look like anybody else is. Tollens (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case I would support your idea as perhaps the only way to get their attention clearly and long enough to get the point across, and see if they absorb it and do better after actually responding to the block with an indication that they understand and will edit in a more practical manner. We should be clear that we're not angry with them or don't value the content they're adding, just that it needs to be done properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The /64 earned a block a couple weeks ago. I've made it a week this time and left a specific note on their talk page. Izno (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IP editor, if you are reading this, you can create an article by adding Draft: in front of the title you want (like Draft:Article name) and add at the very top when you're ready to publish it. Tollens (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you can likely be unblocked at any time assuming you've seen all this and understand - just add  on your talk page, which is at this link. If you don't understand, you can ask on that page as well (include the text   in your message to alert me of it). Tollens (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Wiki wikied retracting other editors comments
is repeatedly reverting one specific comment made by at Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1225346948
 * 2) Special:Diff/1225348091
 * 3) Special:Diff/1225636335
 * 4) Special:Diff/1225644502
 * 5) Special:Diff/1225645092
 * 6) Special:Diff/1225645797

In Special:Diff/1225348091 they wrote "Deleted due to assumed pronoun usage" as a rational.

I explained in great length that this was inappropriate when I reverted instance number 3, and I also explained what i thought would be the appropriate steps (Special:Diff/1225642015). I also left a similar explanation at their talk page along with uw-tpv1 (Special:Diff/1225644072). However, Wiki wikied keeps deleting these comments (I know this is their right) and seemingly ignoring them. I most recently escalted to uw-tpv3 (Special:Diff/1225645397). Howrever, edit number 6 above came about 6 minutes after I posted that notice (and Wiki wikied is aware of that notice, because he they deleted it). Please can an editor of higher standing assist in this where I have failed. Thanks. SSSB (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone keeps reverting things because they don't like having their pronouns assumed, perhaps the solution is to stop assuming their pronouns? ( Underlining added, not in original post.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 01:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree but the user needs to realise that "he" can be used to describe someone whose gender is unspecified and people make mistakes - like above where auto-correct appears to have corrected a typoed "they" into "he". They can't just delete every comment where the incorrect pronoun is used. SSSB (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous response. Using "their" is clearly a neutral pronoun and is not an "assumption", aside from Wiki wikied refusing to clarify or engage in any way to constructively resolve the disagreement (which could have been rather straightforward). "If someone keeps reverting things because they don't like having their pronouns assumed", then that's petty, childish, and most importantly disruptive. We don't accept disruption because someone "doesn't like" the situation. That's not how we resolve issues and disagreements and "not liking" a simple error by Island92 (who I believe does not speak English as a first language) does not excuse or justify this disruptive behaviour. In fact, this has been the only thing they have engaged with on-wiki since April – a pretty strong indication that they're WP:NOTHERE to do anything constructive at all. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure Shirt58 is referring to the original comment which did use "he" throughout. I actually agree with Shirt58 regardless of he and she sometimes being used when gender is unspecified, it's increasing controversial and so should be avoided and especially avoided if someone objects. However, I don't think removing the comment was an acceptable solution and getting into an edit war over it even less. That said, if Island92 was one of those involved in the revert war, the immediate solution was for them to simply modify their comments. Editors could still discuss with Wiki wikied somewhere about better ways to handle such objections, but it benefits no one to insist in the right to call someone "he" when they've clearly objected no matter how poor their objection may be. But it doesn't look like Island92 was involved which complicates things since I'm unconvinced another editor should be editing Island92's comments. Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, SSSB's original post here used "they" and "their" throughout (diff). Island92 has not been involved since posting the original comment, which was about a seperate disagreement that has since been resolved. The message in question was posted on 21 April, and Wiki wikied let it stand without any engagement until 23 May. Nobody is trying to establish a right to call Wiki wikied by "he", the goal is here is to escalate the disagreement to prevent an editor from continuing to be deliberately disruptive. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but that has nothing to do with what I said which is that Shirt58 is saying the comment being warred over was a problem, not that SSSB's comment is a problem. There is nothing in Shirts58's comment to suggest they were objecting to pronoun usage here. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean adding underlining to SSSB's post isn't such a suggestion? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought Shirt58 was suggesting that the solution was for Island92 to use they rather than he. However it seems their underlining was probably an emphasis that SSSB should have stuck with they rather than using he once, now acknowledged and due to a typo. Regardless, my main point remains. It seems clear Shirt58 wasn't objecting to the use of their etc. They were supporting it and emphasising all editors need to stick with it and not use he even once. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then I have no problem with Shirt58's comment, I agree it's always best practice to use a neutral pronoun until certain of what is appropriate. 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs)
 * I used "he" once (where I struck it out). Everother instance used they or their some of which were later underlined by Shirt58. This was not an assumption, it was a typo being auto-corrected. My assumption right now would be to use "she" (balance of propabilites, only a small minority use pronouns of "they/them"). I agree with everything else you're saying - I tried to explain to Wiki wikied that if they objected to the pronouns someone used to describe them to take it up with the offending editor (and by all means consider it a personal attack if they refuse to acknowlegde your obejction to pronoun usage). But however controversial it may be, "he" is and can be used where gender is unspecified, and people do still make mistakes where gender is specified. People make typos, and in 6 months I may forget Wiki wikied's pronouns and default to "he" in a case of unspecified gender (linguistically acceptable even if contorversial). But to flat-out remove the comment is not appropriate or helpful and if we can't edit comments to correct grammar we shouldn't correct them for pronouns either? SSSB (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can't remember preferred pronouns I strongly suggest you stop using he by default. If you refer to Wiki wikied ever again in a situation where it is not a typo, I'd support an indefinite block of you. And if you made a typo which resulted in incorrect pronoun usage, then even more reason for Shirt58 to object. The correct response is to apologise for your offensive typo and not claim it doesn't matter because it was simply a typo. The fact you did not set out to offend, doesn't change the offence caused by your actions. As I said below, this whole war is made even more silly by the fact the comment itself was a fairly pointless comment which doesn't even belong on the article talk page. So regardless of the poor way Wiki wikied handled this, I think it's a reasonable question to ask whether there's any real advantage to bringing this to ANI, and then make an offensive typo while doing do. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you refer to Wiki wikied ever again in a situation where it is not a typo, I'd support an indefinite block of you. That's an entirely unwarranted response and I cannot think of any administrator that would seriously consider that an appropriate course of action. But I think it's clear to everyone here that using a neutral pronoun is best practice, that's not why we're here or what the core issue is. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I find that Template:They is useful in these cases. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I had warned with uw-tpv1 here for edit #1 (which had no edit summary about pronoun use) before those three warnings, so there were technically four warnings. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 01:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the pronoun issue, IMO the dispute is fairly silly since the actual comment being warred over doesn't really belong to the talk page. If Island92 wants to warn another editor they're free to do so themselves. But they should be doing so on the editor's talk page not the article talk page. Then the editor warned would be free to remove the comment without issue. The talk page should be used for discussing the changes rather than warning others. I still don't think Wiki wikied should have removed it like that especially without a decent explanation, but the fact remains if we step back the whole dispute is IMO very silly. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's petty and unproductive. However, Wiki wikied is still acting disruptively, and their editing activity since April (which has only been reverting the comment in question and removing warnings from their own talk page) suggests that this disruption could actually be deliberate. A warning that this disruption will not be tolerated, and that a block may follow if their activity continues to be purely disruptive in nature, is an appropriate response to resolve this. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then give such a warning. My point is that ultimately anyone involved was always free to do so so there's no reason this needs to be at ANI. ANI is for serious issues not those that can be resolved by someone recognising that even if the reasoning was poor, in the end there is no harm to removing that comment since it's something that simply didn't belong on the talk page so they could simply warn everyone who needed it not to repeat that shit again. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're at ANI because Wiki wikied has ignored all warnings (consult their talk page's history) and is continuing to disrupt. This may warrant administrator intervention to deter further disruption. 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs)
 * I ran out of time to post this but if an admin wants to block Wiki wikied I see no harm in that. However I've tried to resolve the immediate issue by removing the misplaced warning and explained to Island92 why I did so and what to do with warnings in the future and also asked them not to refer to Wiki wikied as "he". I've also warned Wiki wikied against doing such removals again emphasising that even if they've asked an editor not to do that the correctly solution is to report it rather than remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your initiative Nil Einne – I see Wiki wikied has removed your warning so they have seen it, hopefully they heed that advice and there won't be any further disruptive behaviour. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 07:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already said quite a lot so I'll leave probably one final comment. First I'll acknowledge I missed that the comment being removed was over a month old, I had thought it was quite recent. Even so, this only makes a minor change to my thinking. I feel we and I'm definitely including myself in that, have a tendency to miss the forest from the trees in some disputes, and this is IMO one such example. As I've said, being generous the comment was at best a misplaced warning to a specific editor which would belong on the editor's talk page and not the article talk page.  IMO, it wasn't even one of those warnings that was a combination of warning plus possible starting point for discussion over some dispute. At least to me as an uninvolved editor, it's very difficult to parse from that comment why Island92 objects to the change and feels it's not an improvement other than something about "see history".  Assuming the history most likely refers to the article, I had a look and found comments like "We've already discussed this with no consensus to change" and "We've just discussed this". But this is by itself fairly useless as an explanation for the problems with the change, what we actually need is the older discussion.  The older discussion is I guess the discussion Grands Prix Results one which is at this time right above that comment[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Formula_One_World_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=1225708563#Grands_Prix_Results]. So all that comment actual does is direct us through a very roundabout way to see the discussion which is now right above that comment!  In other words, it's fairly useless for any other editor and I see no purpose to keep it on the article talk page. I said "being generous" earlier since it wasn't even actually a warning. Instead it was asking some other unnamed party to warn the editor. If I had to guess, Island92 is an inexperienced editor and incorrectly thought and maybe still thinks there are mods responsible for monitoring behaviour and warnings editors which of course isn't how the English wikipedia works. So in some ways the comment was even more pointless.  Yes it's very common that editors have such confusion and misplace warnings, and a lot of the time we just let it be. But it's also very common we collapse, in-place archive, immediately archive to a subpage or simply remove such comments. In this particular case, it seems that the comment was causing offence, maybe even distress to the editor concerned. That being the case, there seems to be even more reason to just remove the comment rather than keeping it up.  While this was not an editor's talk page, the same principle actually applies. In so much as it was intended as a warning to a specific editor, we can assume that editor has already read the warning otherwise they wouldn't be removing it. So even more reason why it was simpler just to let the removal stand.  Yes the stated reason for removal might have been flawed, but it was simple to annotate the edit summary or alternative for some editor seeing the edit war to take over the removal and give a better explanation for why they were removing it like I did. They can approach the editors concerned and explain the situation as I did.  As an alternative, perhaps Wiki wikied would have been fine with the comment being archived to a subpage. Although frankly, removing pointless comments on talk pages which haven't yet been archived rather than archiving them, even after a long time isn't uncommon either.  Let's also consider the alterntive which is that someone needs to ask Island92 to change their comment, and Island92 need to go an modify a comment which as I now realise was over a month old and which did not belong on the that talk page anyway, and where the actual issue seems to be dead. (At least so far Wiki wikied hasn't returning to trying to change to their preferred version of the table.)  So I guess what I'm reminding editors is always consider taking a step back in disputes like this and rather than looking at issues of simple black and white, 'you removed the comment for a unjustified reason so I'll revert you' and when you keep on insisting on removal, the bring you to ANI to get you blocked probably also resulting in a bunch of editors needing to look into the dispute. While all these actions might be technically justified, I think we (and again definitely including myself in that) should never forget to look at the wider picture and ask ourselves, is there actually some way I can resolve that without all this? And also, even if an editor might not have left a good explanation in wikipedia terms, for their change but is there actually a good reason for their change nevertheless? (I.E. Remember to always consider the change rather than just the explanation.)  Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Nil Einne's wise advice both here and at at User talk:Wiki wikied appear to have been ignored by the user. They haven't edited recently. Instead of a WP:PARBLOCK from Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship, perhaps I could create an interesting but wildly inaccurate note about how the "singular they" entered the English language when the Vikings established an Australian Football League expansion team in Northeast England on their talkpage? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE user User:DisciplinedIdea
DisciplinedIdea has been doing some large edits to articles such as Universe and Teleology which are simply WP:OR and WP:PROFRINGE. Particularly their rejection that the term universe is defined, and edit summaries like:


 * Trigger warning for physicalists: but this retooling of the intro is entirely warranted

and following up discussions on the talk page with lengthy personal-attack laden rants which are, generally, not particularly comprehensible:


 * diff


 * diff

From how combative they are with everyone attempting to engage them (see their talk page, plenty of aspersions cast in there as well) and the low quality of their edits coupled with an insistence that they were in the right all along, I think this is a cut and dry WP:PROFRINGE WP:NOTHERE. In a 24 hour window they've been warned for disruptive editing and personal attacks, and have made it very clear they do not intend to listen to feedback


 * For now, it is you who is being disruptive and breaking site policy to silence me, and all but completely. I have to hear “universe, universe” every damn where, but you can’t even tolerate the tag “disputed.” (from user talk page)


 * address the substance or don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again (second diff above)

Many of the historical edits do appear to have a bit of a word salad, prose, and/or citation issue, though some of them fall outside my ability to figure out their quality beyond some clarity issues which would fall outside the scope of an ANI. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What peddles is New Age mysticism, not science. tgeorgescu (talk)  09:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. Enough time wasted on that. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Second Skin violating topic ban and other issues

 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141

In two previous ANIs Second Skin was first advised to tone it down then topic banned from music genre writ large. Specifically "Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres. talk 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)". This user appears to be violating this topic ban wholesale. 

User also has a history of flagrantly ignoring communications and warnings from other users and admins and directives from admins and using edit summaries to have discussions despite being told by to cease doing so, and ignored suggestions from other admins such as  (these include arguably legitimate blanking of own talk page but reflect ignorance of the messages): "fuck off" to Drmies"lol go away""fuck off""fuck off""fuck off""fuck off"

Currently engaged in a silly dispute over whether Aztec, New Mexico, apparently legally classified as a city, should be called a town. Refuses to see that inserting user's own opinion on this is OR, cites other Wikipedia articles as sources for it being called a town. (alters citation to US census describing it as a city)"empty threats"

Due to long history of problems, disrespect for admins and other users and Wikipedia processes, I am asking for an indefinite block at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My edits to the first few things that are linked were to remove him supposedly being a fan of a type of music, how does this fit any "topic ban" of any kind? If I am not mistaken that was a past problem of genres being sourced directly on music articles. What I edited above were not music articles. If something (indirectly) runs into the broad category of a music genre I am in violation somehow? I only removed stuff about music that supposedly motivated a school shooter, which is completely different.
 * Also my "silly edit war" about a small town in New Mexico was 2 reverts and I stopped doing it and took it to the talk page??? What?
 * Never told Drmies to fuck off.... That thread was started by an IP address and I was already brought into scolding about that anyway
 * Everything else you linked was 8 years ago or. Seriously. 8 or 9 years ago. Do you have any better ammo? Are you seriously this mad because of a small dispute on a article about a town that i stopped involving myself in immediately after? So you bring up ancient stuff (and in some cases inproperly address me for some of these things of stuff I didnt actually do). Ever since I took a break and came back I have been very careful with the way I engage and try to improve pages. If I accidentally run into the theme of music indirectly concerning an article then I'm not sure how that's invadable. Music is very commonly connected to a lot of things. I have never edit warred with anyone about music genres for a very long time Second Skin (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : 7 edits this year. It's literally an article about a music genre. This could get into WP:COMPETENCE if you don't see how an article about a music genre violates a topic ban on all pages and discussions related to music genres. The history is not all years ago some of it is recent, and it's necessary to show the pattern. You don't give a damn what people say to you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as this one and others since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. Second Skin (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to understand that Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres requires you not to make any edits to articles about music genres, it is probably a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Not to mention the other edits related to music genres I showed above. As to "fuck off", how are we to know whom you were addressing with "fuck off" as the last person to comment in what you removed appears to have been Drmies - maybe part of why you were told to stop having discussions in edit summaries, which you did not stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? - Short answer is No. Here is where it explicity states: If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. What made you think that Witch house (genre) and Horrorcore were not music genres? Why didn't you ask an admin as advised?<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 07:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well?" No, you cannot.  If you have a logged, community-endorsed TBAN that was not given a set expiration and has not been appealed, you are proscribed from making  any  edits to articles which fall within the scope of that ban, as is clearly the case here.  Honestly, I'm finding myself in alignment with DIY's analysis of your responses: if you're telling us that that after at least 11 years on this project, you do not understand such basic truisms about community sanctions that have been applied to you, you are either feigning ignorance or there very likely is a basic competency/literacy with baseline community guidelines concern here.  Nor is that the only issue with your conduct that DIY has diffed here.  First off, you are not allowed to tell anyone to "fuck off" here, admin or IP.  Nor does your argument that DIY is fixating on old behaviours from a much younger and less put-together person track, because some of the instances are from within the last six months.   I'll be blunt with you: I'm not sure you can avoid a block at this point--your violation of the ban has been so blatant, and your inability to address the issue so complete.  The community understandably takes a dim view of having tried to apply a tailored approach to keeping a user on the project and away from their problem areas, only to have those restrictions utterly disregarded.  But if you want to minimize the duration or scope of any further sanctions, you will at a minimum need to stop trying to obviate (and arguably obfuscating) concerns regarding your ban evasion.  Your effort to cast the concerns raised by the OP of this thread as invalid, exaggerated, or representative of some sort of obsession by DIY do not hold up to scrutiny of even just the diffs already linked above. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a useful observation, Nil Einne, and I agree with both the main thrust of your point and the caveats. That said, the core issue of the TBAN violations themselves remains, and I do have lingering concerns about the discussion style/respect for WP:CIV, even if we decide to AGF that the worst PAs will not repeat. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging everyone involved in the ANI that resulted in a TBAN other than those already pinged:    (omitting Tazmin because I believe they don't wish notices about admin-related things)                    —DIYeditor (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , it is pretty simple: First, you were topic banned from music genres. Then, you made several edits pertaining to music genres. Ergo, you overtly violated your topic ban. Trying to wriggle your way out is not going to work. Recommendation: Admit your violation and promise to never repeat it. Keep your promise. Frankly, about 95% of the editing about "music genres" is unproductive bullshit of zero value to readers. Why not edit the encyclopedia productively instead? Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that I've been pinged to this discussion, I do concour that the above doesn't give me confidence that Second Skin truly understands topic ban and that it alone is sufficient to prevent disruption. Although I'd wait for any further specific sanction discussions before weighing in on those. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As Cullen already said, [User:Second Skin]], it's simple. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Doug Weller  talk 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. @Second Skin Cullen has given you an off ramp. I suggest you take it. Acknowledge your mistakes, and please give us unequivocal assurances that you will respect the topic ban and be civil in your interactions with other editors going forward. I will simply add that this is likely to be the last stop on this particular train before it goes to a block. You obviously have the capacity and desire to be a productive member of the community. Let's not drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur with others above. This is a clear cut violation of the topic ban and is not tolerable. That's a lot of voices saying it's a topic ban violation. I'm going to place a final warning on Second Skin's talk page, and hopefully make it unequivocal. Indeed, this is the last stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with all stated here. -- A Rose Wolf  16:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As do I.   Ravenswing     18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary Indef
Proposal: Second Skin is to be indefinitely blocked until such time as they make an unblock request which satisfies the reviewing admin as to the fact that Second Skin acknowledges and understands the previous breaches of their topic ban and commits to avoiding the topic area they are meant to be proscribed from. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support/Nom: It's impossible to know whether or not the lack of response here, since the community made it's perspective on these violations of the TBAN known, is a case of ANI flu or not. On the other hand, I don't think it matters.  All we have from this user so far is a lot of IDHT on the violations, and then complete radio silence as soon as it became clear that the unanimous community response was that the violations were quite obvious and flagrant--after which the community gave Second Skin an entirely easy and convenient out, that merely requires them to make a minimalistic statement of acknowledgment and acceptance of what their TBAN requires of them, going forward.  Until we have that kind of basic commitment that Second Skin understands and will abide by their existing sanctions this time around, I don't think we can be confident that this user will not be further disruptive in the area in question.  Of course, ideally, Second Skin will respond before this resolution passes and obviate the need for it to be applied. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support You guys are more patient than I am. This user seems to me to be at the far end of not liking rules and not liking to be told what to do. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I believe they need some kind of block.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support After blatantly violating the topic ban and being combative when discussing the ban, this is absolutely appropriate. Editing is inappropriate until a reviewing admin has a good faith belief that their conduct will improve. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per pretty blatant violation of their topic ban and seeming refusal to accept how they did so. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Didn't we see this back in October? Honestly, I just don't get the people for whom the reaction to a TBAN or a block of any length is anything other than (a) sit down, stop squawking, and follow the rules; or (b) just walk away from Wikipedia for good, if doing (a) is intolerable.  I have never had a block, ban or anything of the sort, but if I had, I'd wrap my head around the premise that following the rules is not optional.   Ravenswing      06:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Usually when someone flagrantly disregards a topic ban and shows no sign they can/will abide by it and/or starts causing similar issues in other topic areas, the remedy is an indef. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor adds unsourced content to JP writing system articles
, and  have repeatedly added unsourced content to the Kana and Small Kana Extension articles: are just a few of the edits those IPs have done. You can see the history of the articles for more examples. Communicating with this person is impossible because they never use talk pages. I got the two articles protected at RfPP and this user just waited the protection out and kept doing the same edits. Nickps (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * (Comment) All of the edits seems to have been reverted. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor is still . Nickps (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See also  . Nickps (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now semiprotected Kana, Small Kana Extension and Katakana for two months each. If you see the problem spreading to more articles consider reporting at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It will just be a game of whack-a-mole. This seems to be a systematic targeting of Unicode block and chart articles using various IPs. In the past month I've revert vandalism for the following articles/templates: Alchemical Symbols (Unicode block), Cyrillic script in Unicode, Dogra (Unicode block), Dogri script, Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement, Enclosed Ideographic Supplement, Ethiopic Extended-A, Ethiopic Extended-B, Grantha (Unicode block), Khojki (Unicode block), Latin Extended-F, Old Uyghur (Unicode block), Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs, Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A, Template:Unicode chart Alchemical Symbols, Template:Unicode chart Dogra, Template:Unicode chart Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement, Template:Unicode chart Enclosed CJK Letters and Months, Template:Unicode chart Enclosed Ideographic Supplement, Template:Unicode chart Grantha, Template:Unicode chart Kana Supplement, Template:Unicode chart Latin Extended-D, Template:Unicode chart Small Kana Extension, Template:Unicode chart Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A, and Template:Unicode chart Symbols for Legacy Computing. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Second Skin violating topic ban and other issues

 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141

In two previous ANIs Second Skin was first advised to tone it down then topic banned from music genre writ large. Specifically "Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres. talk 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)". This user appears to be violating this topic ban wholesale. 

User also has a history of flagrantly ignoring communications and warnings from other users and admins and directives from admins and using edit summaries to have discussions despite being told by to cease doing so, and ignored suggestions from other admins such as  (these include arguably legitimate blanking of own talk page but reflect ignorance of the messages): "fuck off" to Drmies"lol go away""fuck off""fuck off""fuck off""fuck off"

Currently engaged in a silly dispute over whether Aztec, New Mexico, apparently legally classified as a city, should be called a town. Refuses to see that inserting user's own opinion on this is OR, cites other Wikipedia articles as sources for it being called a town. (alters citation to US census describing it as a city)"empty threats"

Due to long history of problems, disrespect for admins and other users and Wikipedia processes, I am asking for an indefinite block at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My edits to the first few things that are linked were to remove him supposedly being a fan of a type of music, how does this fit any "topic ban" of any kind? If I am not mistaken that was a past problem of genres being sourced directly on music articles. What I edited above were not music articles. If something (indirectly) runs into the broad category of a music genre I am in violation somehow? I only removed stuff about music that supposedly motivated a school shooter, which is completely different.
 * Also my "silly edit war" about a small town in New Mexico was 2 reverts and I stopped doing it and took it to the talk page??? What?
 * Never told Drmies to fuck off.... That thread was started by an IP address and I was already brought into scolding about that anyway
 * Everything else you linked was 8 years ago or. Seriously. 8 or 9 years ago. Do you have any better ammo? Are you seriously this mad because of a small dispute on a article about a town that i stopped involving myself in immediately after? So you bring up ancient stuff (and in some cases inproperly address me for some of these things of stuff I didnt actually do). Ever since I took a break and came back I have been very careful with the way I engage and try to improve pages. If I accidentally run into the theme of music indirectly concerning an article then I'm not sure how that's invadable. Music is very commonly connected to a lot of things. I have never edit warred with anyone about music genres for a very long time Second Skin (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : 7 edits this year. It's literally an article about a music genre. This could get into WP:COMPETENCE if you don't see how an article about a music genre violates a topic ban on all pages and discussions related to music genres. The history is not all years ago some of it is recent, and it's necessary to show the pattern. You don't give a damn what people say to you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as this one and others since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. Second Skin (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to understand that Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres requires you not to make any edits to articles about music genres, it is probably a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Not to mention the other edits related to music genres I showed above. As to "fuck off", how are we to know whom you were addressing with "fuck off" as the last person to comment in what you removed appears to have been Drmies - maybe part of why you were told to stop having discussions in edit summaries, which you did not stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? - Short answer is No. Here is where it explicity states: If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. What made you think that Witch house (genre) and Horrorcore were not music genres? Why didn't you ask an admin as advised?<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 07:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well?" No, you cannot.  If you have a logged, community-endorsed TBAN that was not given a set expiration and has not been appealed, you are proscribed from making  any  edits to articles which fall within the scope of that ban, as is clearly the case here.  Honestly, I'm finding myself in alignment with DIY's analysis of your responses: if you're telling us that that after at least 11 years on this project, you do not understand such basic truisms about community sanctions that have been applied to you, you are either feigning ignorance or there very likely is a basic competency/literacy with baseline community guidelines concern here.  Nor is that the only issue with your conduct that DIY has diffed here.  First off, you are not allowed to tell anyone to "fuck off" here, admin or IP.  Nor does your argument that DIY is fixating on old behaviours from a much younger and less put-together person track, because some of the instances are from within the last six months.   I'll be blunt with you: I'm not sure you can avoid a block at this point--your violation of the ban has been so blatant, and your inability to address the issue so complete.  The community understandably takes a dim view of having tried to apply a tailored approach to keeping a user on the project and away from their problem areas, only to have those restrictions utterly disregarded.  But if you want to minimize the duration or scope of any further sanctions, you will at a minimum need to stop trying to obviate (and arguably obfuscating) concerns regarding your ban evasion.  Your effort to cast the concerns raised by the OP of this thread as invalid, exaggerated, or representative of some sort of obsession by DIY do not hold up to scrutiny of even just the diffs already linked above. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a useful observation, Nil Einne, and I agree with both the main thrust of your point and the caveats. That said, the core issue of the TBAN violations themselves remains, and I do have lingering concerns about the discussion style/respect for WP:CIV, even if we decide to AGF that the worst PAs will not repeat. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging everyone involved in the ANI that resulted in a TBAN other than those already pinged:    (omitting Tazmin because I believe they don't wish notices about admin-related things)                    —DIYeditor (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , it is pretty simple: First, you were topic banned from music genres. Then, you made several edits pertaining to music genres. Ergo, you overtly violated your topic ban. Trying to wriggle your way out is not going to work. Recommendation: Admit your violation and promise to never repeat it. Keep your promise. Frankly, about 95% of the editing about "music genres" is unproductive bullshit of zero value to readers. Why not edit the encyclopedia productively instead? Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that I've been pinged to this discussion, I do concour that the above doesn't give me confidence that Second Skin truly understands topic ban and that it alone is sufficient to prevent disruption. Although I'd wait for any further specific sanction discussions before weighing in on those. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As Cullen already said, [User:Second Skin]], it's simple. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Doug Weller  talk 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. @Second Skin Cullen has given you an off ramp. I suggest you take it. Acknowledge your mistakes, and please give us unequivocal assurances that you will respect the topic ban and be civil in your interactions with other editors going forward. I will simply add that this is likely to be the last stop on this particular train before it goes to a block. You obviously have the capacity and desire to be a productive member of the community. Let's not drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur with others above. This is a clear cut violation of the topic ban and is not tolerable. That's a lot of voices saying it's a topic ban violation. I'm going to place a final warning on Second Skin's talk page, and hopefully make it unequivocal. Indeed, this is the last stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with all stated here. -- A Rose Wolf  16:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As do I.   Ravenswing     18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary Indef
Proposal: Second Skin is to be indefinitely blocked until such time as they make an unblock request which satisfies the reviewing admin as to the fact that Second Skin acknowledges and understands the previous breaches of their topic ban and commits to avoiding the topic area they are meant to be proscribed from. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support/Nom: It's impossible to know whether or not the lack of response here, since the community made it's perspective on these violations of the TBAN known, is a case of ANI flu or not. On the other hand, I don't think it matters.  All we have from this user so far is a lot of IDHT on the violations, and then complete radio silence as soon as it became clear that the unanimous community response was that the violations were quite obvious and flagrant--after which the community gave Second Skin an entirely easy and convenient out, that merely requires them to make a minimalistic statement of acknowledgment and acceptance of what their TBAN requires of them, going forward.  Until we have that kind of basic commitment that Second Skin understands and will abide by their existing sanctions this time around, I don't think we can be confident that this user will not be further disruptive in the area in question.  Of course, ideally, Second Skin will respond before this resolution passes and obviate the need for it to be applied. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support You guys are more patient than I am. This user seems to me to be at the far end of not liking rules and not liking to be told what to do. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support I believe they need some kind of block.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support After blatantly violating the topic ban and being combative when discussing the ban, this is absolutely appropriate. Editing is inappropriate until a reviewing admin has a good faith belief that their conduct will improve. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per pretty blatant violation of their topic ban and seeming refusal to accept how they did so. The   Kip  (contribs) 06:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Didn't we see this back in October? Honestly, I just don't get the people for whom the reaction to a TBAN or a block of any length is anything other than (a) sit down, stop squawking, and follow the rules; or (b) just walk away from Wikipedia for good, if doing (a) is intolerable.  I have never had a block, ban or anything of the sort, but if I had, I'd wrap my head around the premise that following the rules is not optional.   Ravenswing      06:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Usually when someone flagrantly disregards a topic ban and shows no sign they can/will abide by it and/or starts causing similar issues in other topic areas, the remedy is an indef. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor adds unsourced content to JP writing system articles
, and  have repeatedly added unsourced content to the Kana and Small Kana Extension articles: are just a few of the edits those IPs have done. You can see the history of the articles for more examples. Communicating with this person is impossible because they never use talk pages. I got the two articles protected at RfPP and this user just waited the protection out and kept doing the same edits. Nickps (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * (Comment) All of the edits seems to have been reverted. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor is still . Nickps (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See also  . Nickps (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now semiprotected Kana, Small Kana Extension and Katakana for two months each. If you see the problem spreading to more articles consider reporting at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Zo world and WP:NPOV
The editor has been around for a year or so, and only edits in relation to tribes in the Indian state of Nagaland; particularly, anything relating to the Kuki people. I initially spotted this when they kept inflating the number of speakers at Thadou language over a period of months, despite being reverted and asked to provide sources numerous times by various different editors (as seen in the page history: ), but their contribution history reveals a consistent pattern of adding unsourced claims, inflating the prominence of some tribes over others, or removing sourced claims (    - there are many, many other examples like this in their contribution history). They've been asked to stop numerous times on their talkpage by several editors, but haven't responded to any of them, so I've had no choice but to report them here. As a side point, they've also started marking all of their edits as minor since around June 2023, which I suspect is an attempt to hide what they're doing from other users. Theknightwho (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While their "minor edits" deception and their manipulation of content are reprehensible, their complete failure to communicate shows they have no desire to collaborate and are therefore WP:NOTHERE. Block needed. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree this is another WP:NOTHERE user. Block them.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that blocking is the only option left. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Xo world for for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Edit summaries like, shows that the editor has a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core content policy of Verifiability. It is inappropriate for Xo world to instruct other editors to go searching for reliable sources. Instead, it is their obligation to find those sources, format them properly as references, and add them to the articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of bigotry
User:Dalremnei joined in 2021 but had no edits until 2023, and then only produced a handful of edits outside their own page and CSS. Today, they show up on Talk:September 11 attacks to dispute the inclusion of "Islamist" in the article, something supported by multiple reliable sources over the years.

When Dalremnei failed to get support for removing this term, they began repeatedly claiming this was due to established editors "ideologically" defending the status quo, then accused editors of bias and {bigotry.

Bigots love to hide behind the justification of just being "logical" and "looking at the facts" and I should be able to call that out. 

Well, I knew this would happen as soon as someone tried to drag this issue into the talk page. You win, established editors. You get to comfortably ignore opposing views because the mainstream media affirms all of yours. I tried to make a compromise edit that addressed this edit but oh, that's not good enough... wiki editors demand absolute ideological compliance. 

But it seems impossible to get this edit done in a way that satisfies "the rules". Every time I reverted the page it was reverted back, and then I was accused of edit-warring. If you aren't part of the elite editor clique your views mean nothing. 

Your point just seems to be "well the mainstream media agrees with our bias so it's actually neutral to perpetuate it". I'm sure you can understand why I strongly disagree with that. 

Ah, the "show me the evidence" game, where subtle bigotry is never actually proof of bigotry and the goal posts are always shifted to excuse it. Classic. 

Editor was warned multiple times about WP:NPA both on the Talk page discussion and on their own Talk page, but that last diff was the final straw. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * NOTHERE'd for RGW/personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Now fooling around with the block notice and continuing with talkpage polemics.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TPA revoked. Star   Mississippi  02:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing with a POV
I suspect @Yasarhossain07 of editing with a POV. I went through the user's edits from this year (largely excluding talk page edits), listing all 40 below for completeness. I believe there is a clear, overt bias and lack of neutrality in their edits. Prior to all of these edits, the user already had a history of personal attacks, during the discussion of which, others were already suspicious of Yasarhossain07 pushing a POV. If this is too much information, please let me know and I can curate this list.


 * 1) Removed sourced content from Volga Tatars about the reduction of Tatar language studies in Russian public school, saying, "The article cited was misquoted" and that the content was not supported by the source. This is incorrect. It is supported by the source. In large, header-sized font:
 * 2) Added unsourced material about living people in Rauf & Faik, changing the origin of the duo from Azerbaijan to Russia, on the basis that their lyrics are in Russian and therefore they cannot be Azerbaijani:
 * 3) Removed content from a biography of a living person, Anna Asti, insisting the person is only Russian, per the fact that she has a Russian last name and ignoring that she was born in Ukrainian SSR:
 * 4) Inexplicably removed  from Paratrooper content about Soviet Airborne Forces:
 * 5) Added unsourced material to a biography of a living person, Aras Agalarov, again insisting the person is Russian, this time on the grounds that they live in Russia:
 * 6) Added unsourced material (personal commentary) to a biography of a living person, Gerhard Schröder:  and
 * 7) The changes were reverted, and someone made a post on Yasarhossain07's talk page explaining Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, to which Yasarhossain07 responded, "How is it neutral? It doesn’t feel like a serious article when you smear the former Chancellor of Germany. This article has a serious Ukrainian bias," and then made a personal attack against the user: "A key board warrior is calling one of the greatest German leaders who helped Germany reunify a Russian puppet. Wikipedia is losing it’s credibility because of keyboard warriors having too much power." User talk:Yasarhossain07
 * 8) Removed sources and content regarding money laundering and fraud in Sheremetyevo International Airport, with a disingenuous edit summary saying the content was vandalism and unrelated to the topic:
 * 9) Added unsourced material to a biography of a living person, Arman Tsarukyan, again claiming they are Russian:
 * 10) Removed content from Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest regarding a song that was sung in both Ukrainian and Russian, insisting it was only in Russian. This is not factual, and naturally, the song is also immortalized in all its bilingual glory on YouTube:
 * 11) Removed infobox content from Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia regarding the dispute on her succession. The user claimed it's unsourced and that the Russian Orthodoxy Church is the final authority, therefore there are no disputes. There are, of course, disputes, and they are discussed in the article's body with citations provided (and here's another):
 * 12) Similar issue as above, but in House of Romanov (however, the information was unsourced this time):  and
 * 13) Removed sourced content from Baltic Fleet regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, claiming, contrary to the references, "No official report or confirmation about the involvement of Baltic fleet in any possible way in the war in Ukraine."
 * 14) Unexplained removal of sources and content from United Russia regarding pro-Putin bias and inconsistency in the party's ideologies, replacing it with "[the party] still remains the most popular party in Russia."
 * 15) Removed content from Conservatism in Russia based on justifications that appear to be original research and personal opinion:, , and
 * 16) Unexplained removal of sourced content from Pulkovo Airport regarding a Ukrainian attack on a Russian oil refinery:
 * 17) Unexplained removal of sourced content from Great Stand on the Ugra River:
 * 18) Repeatedly adding unsourced content to BRICS, insisting Saudi Arabia had joined the organization, though they hadn't:, , and
 * 19) The user eventually declared Wikipedia "the number one source of misinformation" and added outdated, incorrect sources as plaintext into the body:
 * 20) Added unsourced material to a biography of a living person, Farkhad Akhmedov, again claiming they are Russian:  and
 * 21) Removed sourced content from Azerbaijan–Russia relations about discrimination against Azerbaijani people in Russia (phrasing could be improved, but the source was a Russian journalist and political scientist):
 * 22) Added unsourced material to a biography of a living person, Sergei Skripal, claiming, "He is of Ukrainian decent." (A former Russian spy who acted as a double agent for the UK and was later convicted of high treason):
 * 23) Calling the Chechen National Army a 'terrorist' unit without supporting sources (units fight alongside Ukraine in Russia's invasion)
 * 24) Removed sourced content from Shamil Basayev regarding possible FSB responsibility in the person's death, claiming 'conspiracy theories' (the FSB themselves claimed responsibility):
 * 25) Removed sourced content from Alabuga Special Economic Zone regarding Russian drone development, justifying the removal with their own speculation or original research (or both):  and

Skipped describing the following eight edits, as they appeared reasonable or could reasonably be mistakes, but provided them for completeness:, , , , , , ,.

Thank you for any insights or responses. –  Primium  (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia has been completely trashed with fake news and misinformation. It’s a liberal left wing profits info war outlet like Elon Musk has already said. And it’s worse when it comes to Russia and India. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Yasarhossain07 Please hear me out. It's absolutely true that Wikipedia is biased, and, in my experience, often exhibits a notable Russophobic bias. If you want to do something about that, simply making the changes you feel are appropriate is not enough.
 * You must learn more about Wikipedia's policies, like WP:TERRORISM, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and then you have to work within them and reference them in your critiques.
 * If you read those policies, and others, carefully, and come to truly understand them (and the ongoing & historical debates about them), you might be able to do something constructive to address bias on Wikipedia.
 * If you don't study & apply those policies, I'm afraid that you will probably be banned soon. I don't want to see that happen, so I hope you consider what I have said. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia has been completely trashed with fake news and misinformation. It’s a liberal left wing profits info war outlet like Elon Musk has already said.
 * This, sir, is what some of us call "digging your own grave." You're not exactly allaying Primium's POV concerns, and building a NOTHERE case against yourself. The   Kip  (contribs) 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TheKip is quite correct. Your statement above shows quite clearly that you find it difficult to be neutral about these issues. I would advise you to stay away from these articles, otherwise you could be blocked from editing altogether. Deb (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors regularly contribute in areas where they have a very obvious identifiable POV. The existence of a POV is not the issue here, IMO. Given that our treatment of Russia topics is widely acknowledged to exhibit anti-Russian bias, someone with a nominally pro-Russian POV would add diversity to the project and help counter systemic bias. If Wikipedia had a systemic anti-POC bias, we wouldn’t discourage POC or anti-racists from editing topics about race, just because they have a POV, would we?
 * The problem that led to this ANI thread is the complete lack of application of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, especially NOR and V. I hope this user will read my previous comment and seriously consider it, before it is too late. If they don’t express any interest in becoming a more rigorous editor, they will probably be banned, and that will probably be for the best. Hopefully they can turn things around and agree, sincerely, to do the necessary work to become a more thoughtful contributor. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Shamin Basaev’s killing has been clearly orchestrated by the FSB. Rest of it is unproven conspiracy theory. Chechen National army has committed multiple acts of terror in North Cacauss after losing the war against Russia so it’s a terrorist group. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unproven claim about Iran copying German design. Germany would’ve produced those drones and Ukraine would be using them against Russia. I think Wikipedia has a bias against Russia. How can Iran copy something from Germany without Germany ever making that product on their own? Speculative untouched gossip lowers the quality of articles. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Yasarhossain07, English Wikipedia is seen and written by a lot of people from the US, UK, and other country that has relatively bad relations with Russia. (ex. Japan, SK, etc...) It's pretty obvious how it's inevitable to have Wikipedia biased, especially with the international law breaking Russia has done since 21th century. Although you are welcome to fix the biased opinion to a more neutral point of view, that doesn't mean you get to ignore all policies, or that you get to rewrite it from your point of view. (You can remove statements that are unreferenced, however.) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The country that has violated most international laws are US and Israel. Russia only intervened after Ukraine kept bombing the separatist areas in Donbass. No one should blame them for trying to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine. It’s not like US invasion of Serbia, Libya or Iraq. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe there are two issues at play here. One is that the user indeed is trying to right perceived great wrongs and, to put it quite simply, I don't think there are many quicker ways to prove you're NOTHERE than quoting Elon Musk. His comments here and his disregard for the rules make it clear that a block is in order.
 * The other issue is that the user is not always wrong, and OP is misrepresenting some of his edits. For example, the user did not claim that Arman Tsarukyan was Russian, but that he was both Armenian and Russian, which he is. The situation with Farkhad Akhmedov is very similar. In fact, in both cases their Russian citizenship has been noted in the past, but was later removed. The same can be said of Agalarov (ethnic Azeri but Russian citizen) and Rauf & Faik.
 * He also has a point regarding Schröder. OP (rightly) raises BLP concerns, but I would argue that the main problem is that the first thing we are saying in wikivoice on that article is that Schröder is a lobbyist. Really? I would not replace it woth statesman, nor would I add that bit about it being normal for former chancellors to go work in the private sector (a truism if there ever was one), but seriously, former leader of a major party in Germany, long political career, 7 years as chancellor and the first thing in the lead, the thing that stands out, is that he is a lobbyist? I know it is fashionable to dunk on Schröder today, and to an extent he has earned it, but this is absurd.
 * TL;DR the reported editor has shown that he deserves a block, but some of his complaints have merit, ans it might be worth checking out what can be fixed. Ostalgia (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest Yasarhossain07 changed their nationalities to only Russian (except for Anna Asti, which I specified above). My concern was that it was further unreferenced additions, even if true, to these articles about living people. Those small changes in isolation wouldn't really appear contentious or problematic to me, but in the context of the whole, I think they contribute to a larger pattern of behaviour. As for Schröder, I don't know anything about the topic, but a separate user undid Yasarhossain07's actions and called it 'personal commentary.' Sorry, I should have made these clearer in my initial post. –  Primium  (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone responds with personal attacks and rants about how right Elon Musk is about Wikipedia when someone points out issues with their obvious policy violating POV editing, they probably do not have the temparament to edit Wikipedia constructively. I support a block or ban from contentious topics, since there seems to be no sign of desire to improve. TylerBurden (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that our treatment of Russia topics is widely acknowledged to exhibit anti-Russian bias, can I ask for reference on this "widely acknowledged" fact? There might be a anti-Russian tone in articles about the war in Ukraine but this is a sweeping statement presented as fact by several editors and I would like there to be some verification of a widespread bias they and others appear to perceive, in general, about articles on "Russian topics". I think that comments like these can't be made without being challenged or they can be seen to be accepted by others as true. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bingo! It also implies that the bias is "editorial bias", something we do not allow. Editors are supposed to leave their biases at the door while editing, but they are also supposed to document what RS say, including the biases found in those RS. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, and most RS are in English, it would be natural to expect that English, primarily Western, sources, would tend to view Russia and its aggression in a negative light, and therefore our articles on such topics will naturally document that POV. This is just the "nature of the beast" for ALL different versions of Wikipedia. They will all display different, and even opposing, biases. Don't blame editors for that situation. In fact, if editors try to disguise, hide, or whitewash those POV and biases out of content, they are in violation of our NPOV policy. It is only "editorial" biases we keep out of content. Otherwise, sources and content are not required to be "neutral". -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By "widely acknowledged", I was mainly referring to the fact that multiple editors here, at this thread, have acknowledged it. I've also seen it acknowledged elsewhere at other venues. I'm happy to talk about anti-Russian bias with you, and you're free to ping me at my talk page if you want to have a deeper back-and-forth about that, but doing a deep-dive on that subject here at ANI may run afoul of WP:NOTFORUM.
 * The user in question here is undeniably problematic and flirting with a ban, but he also has potential to be a good contributor, from what I see, and I'm trying to encourage him to quickly move in a more constructive, policy and source-based direction before it is too late.
 * The main reason I said what I said about Russian bias is to sympathize with him, so he is more open to what I have said about learning PAG. - he is not crazy or delusional to think that anti-Russia bias is a problem - he's just not going about addressing it in the right way. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This might not be an appropriate discussion to have in this discussion but saying things like he is not crazy or delusional to think that anti-Russia bias is a problem without any verification or reference that a bias exists is misleading. This is your personal opinion, no more than less than that of any editor who might disagree with you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion, sure. I'm not sure how it would be "misleading", unless you take the opposite view, namely, that it is crazy or delusional to think that there is systemic bias that affects articles about Russia. I assume you do take that view, otherwise you would not have taken the time to respond to my comment to @Yasarhossain07 and call it out for being misleading. That's obviously a-okay - we both have our opinions - and it's certainly a topic worthy of further discussion, but probably not here.
 * It looks like this all comes down to whether or not YasarHossain issues a statement and publicly commits to carefully and soberly studying Wikipedia's PAG, earnestly trying to apply them to his edits, and accepting constructive criticism from others. If he does issue such a statement, I think he should stay. If he does not, he obviously needs to go. But I'm not even an admin, so it's not up to me - I'm going to disengage from this thread and let things play out. I've made my point to Yasar, and I hope he takes it seriously before the banhammer inevitably falls. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what my view is, I haven't expressed it. All I said was that you shouldn't make sweeping asseertions of anti-Russian bias on Wikipedia as if this is commonly known without providing some verification that this is true. My protest is against unsupported generalizations about the state of Wikipedia, not whether or not the platform is pro-Russian or anti-Russian. You stated your opinion as if it was a widely known fact and I questioned that, that's all I was trying to point out. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not left wing, and I have a great time around here. Generally speaking, liberals are not left wing, but right wing moderates. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd also add, though, that it's critical for the far-right that the simplicity of the property rights typology be poorly understood. But it is in fact quite simple. On the left: Communists (public ownership with little to no private), Social-Democrats (public ownership with some private). And on the right: Reform Liberals (private ownership with some public), Classical Liberals, aka 'Conservatives' in the US (private ownership with little to no public). Or at least so it goes wrt doctrine. But the reason, I suspect, the far-right wishes to obscure this is because they largely fall on the centre, but will always gravitate as right as possible in terms of sympathy (and conversely antipathy the more left one goes), due to greater prevalence of traditional systems of oppression, repression, suppression, etc., and other forms of stratification from when Kings ruled. Because for the far-right, bigotry is paramount. //Tangent over! El_C 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Guys, please remember this this is not a forum. –  Primium  (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Guys-this! Erm, probably a good call. ;) El_C 03:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the usual process for a situation like this? Are we waiting for something to happen? Is there something else I'm supposed to do? –  Primium  (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it seems no admin sees this as urgently requiring intervention. Yasarhossain07 was corrected by several people above, if they resume this editing you can update this post or make a new one (if this one gets archived). Until then, we hope they change their ways. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. –  Primium  (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism and/or general low quality editing from Shera mc official‎
This doesn't seem explicit enough for WP:AIV, but user @Shera mc official‎ has been making edits to Wikipedia for a while that seem to be a mix of Tamil history fringe or football fandom.


 * Editing the correct information out of the Serie A article to put Inter Milan in instead: diff


 * Editing the Sumerian language article to state Tamil is older: diff


 * Changing the actual winner of this league to Bengaluru FC: diff (and since I had to look this up too, source)


 * Same thing here

They've been warned for their edits twice now: diff diff

Working back from February there's 19 edits and almost every single one has needed to be reverted or rolled back for being flat out not true. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Two years of persistent disruptive editing and vandalism by IP user
is the current IP that this editor, geolocated to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, who has for at least two years been persistently vandalizing the list/disambiguation page Airi. I have left messages on their talk page consistently asking them to stop. I have asked that the page be protected (wasn't granted). User was permanently banned on several occasions but since it is an IP, they just spring back up. User removes references, categories, reverts edits, leaves bizarre claims in edit summary, or no edit summary. I have repeatedly asked the editor to stop, asked why why they persisted, and left warnings on their talk pages. I never receive engagement from them on their talk page(s). The user is convinced (or, has to be trolling at this point) that there are literally no women named Airi in Estonia, despite the references, the name having an official name day in Estonia, at least 13 women with the name to be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles on Estonian Wikipedia. The IP user has had warnings from other users for other disruptive editing as well over the years. This is very frustrating. ExRat (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I've protected that page for two weeks. I know that won't stop them permanently but it will give some immediate relief. I have tried to communicate with IP editors who make problematic edits but jump from IP address to IP address and I agree it is frustrating and just about impossible. I doubt that they even know there is a User talk page associated with an IP address and may not even be aware when their IP address changes. This isn't a long-term solution to the problem but I rarely ever have done a range block and am afraid of collateral damage (I don't want to take out all of Southern Florida). If an admin with more experience in that area wants to take that on, feel free. From examining two of their IP addresses, it seems like a lot of their other edits have been reverted while others were accepted so this primarily seems like a strange fixation on this page. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Liz. I appreciate your help. ExRat (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about collateral, but the /64 has been blocked multiple times, the last one for 3 months, which expired on the 18th: Special:Log/block.
 * On the day they were blocked they had pretty similar summaries to what they have now, and they restarted editing about 1 hour after their range's block ran out...
 * All of that to say, I'm unconvinced that they don't know they have user talk pages, or at least that they didn't know they were blocked for 3 months. – 2804:F1...50:8276 (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't want to assume it's safe to block either way, but it's worth noting that the 3 people who blocked that range are checkusers, so presumably they already evaluated that whatever possible collateral would happen (if any) is worth stopping the disruption (for those block lengths) - though I'm pretty sure a lot of admins just block the /64, because that is often assigned to a single router/location, before it changes. – 2804:F1...50:8276 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

clear use of multiple accounts by user:Quavvalos
user:Quavvalos recently made a user page with the text saying "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 4 ACCOUNTS IN ONE DAY Your anti evasione system is ridiculous!!!🤣🤣🤣". this doesn't get any more obvious. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * also check out user:Quovalos, which due to the similar name and user:Quavvalos responding to a teahouse comment made by quovalos about block evasion might be an account under the same person. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and user:Quaavalos who is doing the same Gaismagorm (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * okay Quaavalos and quovalos have been blocked but not quavvalos Gaismagorm (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * okay Quavvalos has now been blocked. so situation has been solved. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre. This troll has been disrupting the Teahouse and the help desk all day. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * okay, well good luck to y'all with dealing with them Gaismagorm (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I also mentioned them on the sockuppet investigation, just letting ya know Gaismagorm (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Just Step Sideways, what should be done with the amount of troll sections created in the Teahouse? Someone even went ahead and requested protection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd assume you'd just delete them as vandalism. Do not ever respond or attempt to engage in discussion once it's clear it's a sock of this guy. Air on White (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to tell responders to watch out for new accounts with Italian usernames in the meantime... Especially if they are from itwiki. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's generally good practise to just revert off any threads which are clearly being created to disrupt help fora with no further comment. Eventually they get bored/annoyed and back off (for a time). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

PredictIt and Better Business Bureau
I believe the same user, under many different IPs, has been adding the same information about PredictIt's supposed F rating from Better Business Bureau for years due to a long-standing grudge against the company.

The first edit was this one on January 6, 2021 by. This later edit included a section called "FBI Sting Operation", which matches this BBB review from November 13, 2019 about how the customer was apparently interrogated by the FBI for three hours.

There have been many subsequent IP edits readding the BBB section whenever it is removed:


 * Special:Diff/1006697046 on February 14, 2021 by
 * Special:Diff/1007205109 on February 17, 2021 by
 * Special:Diff/1007474153 on February 18, 2021 by
 * Special:Diff/1018238613 on April 16, 2021 by
 * Special:Diff/1038441075 on August 12, 2021 by
 * Special:Diff/1194088505 on January 7, 2024 by
 * Special:Diff/1194206705 on January 7, 2024 by
 * Special:Diff/1206999398 on February 13, 2024 by
 * Special:Diff/1226190129 on May 29, 2024 by

I think these edits are from one person because all the IPs geolocate to the same place: Chicago, Illinois. As this user frequently changes IPs, even within the span of a day, I haven't warned this user apart from leaving ANI-notice since they probably will not see it.

What's typically done in a situation like this, where reverts are spread out over months and years and made by different IPs? --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: take it to WP:RFPP. Ostalgia (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RFPP seems the right venue as mentioned above. Broc (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to note has been active and pushing the same edits to PredictIt since August 2021. They have a habit of waiting a few weeks to come back and try and force the same edit. There are other IPs in that time frame making good faith edits. So a block rather than page protection seems more appropriate. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into this. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2600:1700:1e20:7a10::/64 blocked from the pages PredictIt and Talk:PredictIt. The article has also been protected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The history of chair is once again being raided
The history of chairs has been raided for the past three months, removing information about chairs in sub-Saharan Africa. It stopped for a week. Now it's being raided again. I changed it back this time, but I don't want to be banned for doing it too many times..It is done by sock accounts editing their talk pages to get the 10 edit mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Developed it entirely (talk • contribs) 14:15, May 29, 2024 (UTC)
 * May need to be changed to Extended Confirmed protection. I just blocked a bizarre sleeper sock account from last year that just blatantly gamed to get autoconfirmed just to disrupt the article. So there are likely other sleepers out there. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * it's being posted all over 4chan and 9gag encouraging users to go and remove the part about chairs in sub-Saharan Africa. Developed it entirely (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can post proof if you want Developed it entirely (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No need, I think people are aware after last month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre thing to start an edit war/socking/meatpuppetry encouragement over. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 socks in 9 days (since semi-protection). Annoying but manageable, IMHO.  Although if another admin thinks differently I'll defer to them, no strong opinion on this. And if newly confirmed accounts show up more often, then if I see it I'll EC it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * People were getting banned for like a week or two and most of the bans are up now also it's being spammed over the internet and imageboards. I think it's going to get worse if I'm being honest. Developed it entirely (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated the protection to extended confirmed, until August--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, have not read all the discussion carefully. If consensus develops it is an overkill pls reduce back to semi, perfectly fine with me. Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you also do something about the sock account who gamed to get autoconfirmed just to vandalism the article? Developed it entirely (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean User:Ms. Dangelo Rohan? If so they're already indeffed from before Canterbury Tail replied Special:BlockList/User:Ms. Dangelo Rohan, so what more is there to do? If you're thinking a CU, well WP:SPI is thataway but I'm not convinced it's beneficial here. From what you've outlined fair chance that most of these are just a bunch of different people. I sort of expect at least one CU has already assessed whether it's worthwhile anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh i didn't know he got banned but thank you for your help and time even if it's just a reply. You guys have begin really helpful! Developed it entirely (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing
Is it reasonable for one editor to assert in the edit summary of a revert of a good-faith edit by another, that the reverted editor had lied?

The timeline: Note: I have rarely raised issues here, and would normally raise this type of issue on an editor's talkpage, but a recent attempt to do that on a similar subject with this same editor was met with a blanking and with the posting to my talkpage of a misrepresentation of what I was doing and a 'ban' from ever posting again on their talkpage.
 * 1) I restored, verbatim, the second part of a sentence which had been deleted as unsourced by Cambial Yellowing as I thought I had found that it was supported in the cited sources. I found mention of "jurisdiction" further down the sources, so assumed, rightly or wrongly, that it had been missed there by Cambial Yellowing, and the edit summary given by them for the original deletion was quite cryptic anyway.
 * 2) Cambial Yellowing then reverted my edit with the snarky summary: none of the sources claim the reason no action was taken is *because of* "as" the fact tax is not under jurisdiction. please do not lie about the content of sources, add unsourced content to a biography of a living person, nor edit war to restore unsourced content to an article and posted a threatening and unnecessarily inflammatory 'warning' on my talkpage which clearly demonstrated their total failure to assume good faith.

Thanks for any advice or brickbats. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see now, I note the specific word that is unsourced in the text: "as" (in context, with the sense of "because"). Not only is it not "cryptic", I indicate precisely what is unsourced, and I put it after the word "unsourced". The presence of the word "jurisdiction" in the source has no bearing on this unsourced material about the reason for discontinuation. Nowhere do the sources indicate anything remotely close to this being the reason. The edit summary DeFacto seeks to impugn as "snarky" simply reports the fact - no sources support DeFacto's content (and no source comes close) - and requests, please, that DeFacto not repeatedly add unsourced content to BLP articles in future, nor claim that two specific sources say something they do not, which wastes editor time. (n.b. that's the standard warning template for unsourced content; level 3 was used because 1. you added it a second time despite the fact it was unsourced being pointed out 2. you have many edits to your name and ought to know better 3. this is a BLP.)
 * As DeFacto wishes to discuss what he claims is a failure to assume good faith, it's appropriate to raise DeFacto's quite explicit accusations of bad faith on article talk. Firstly an accusation of editing for the purpose of "", and later the same day an accusation that collapsing a sockpuppet of a blocked user is "" – an evidence-free, and groundless, claim of disruptive editing to make a point. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment the content dispute is at . There is some discussion on the talk page. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking over User talk:DeFacto, it's clear that this dispute between two editors has been going on since early May. If this is going to be resolved, it's important for uninvolved editors to know that this animosity has been lasting for weeks and is not just due to an recent exchange of misunderstood edit summaries. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 07:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

False accusations of meatpuppetry and violation of WP:ASPERSIONS
Has made a number of false accusations on this AfD by falsely claiming that I am an Indian editor who has had no previous interaction with this article or any other Sri Lankan article, contrary to the fact that I edited a number of Sri Lankan articles before.

Obi2canibe does not stop there but goes ahead to cast WP:ASPERSIONS by speculating nationalities of experienced editors as "Indians" (as if it is something bad, see WP:NONAZIS) and further demeans them as "meatpuppets" by saying "Same with his Indian friends CharlesWain, Orientls, Lorstaking, Pravega and Raymond3023. The only argument these meatpuppets can make for deleting the article is that it didn't happen."

I asked Obi2canibe to remove these personal attacks, however, he has clearly ignored it and went ahead to edit the AfD without removing/striking the offensive comments. Ratnahastin  (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While this doesn't excuse anyone else's behavior, you should not be calling (even blocked) editors rabid in that same AfD (see Gravedancing). Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you take a look into this report? Thanks. Ratnahastin  (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User talk:Obi2canibe. I'll drop a note at the AfD as well. El_C 01:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Kindly also take a look at this comment by a user who never edited any AfD before but wants to claim existence of "off-wiki coordination" by "North Indian users" after citing a totally irrelevant diff from 2017 together with the false claim that I and other "delete" supporters have "no prior editing in Sri Lankan topic", just like Obi2canibe was doing. Ratnahastin  (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ratnahastin: You are required to notify users when you start a discussion involving them here, this counts too. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:A43F:E4B1:D650:8276 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ratnahastin, what a bad faith move. Instead of notifying me that you took exception to it, you come directly here to get me sanctioned without once again notifying me? It was my mistake as a relatively new user to involve people's nationalities (which I've now corrected) but I wanted to bring it to admins' attention a suspicious activity that was going on. Also, I didn't accuse any user in particular of "off-wiki coordination" but suggested that admins look into POTENTIAL case of it.---Petextrodon (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C, dear admin, am I allowed to report the user JohnWiki159 under this same report for falsely accusing me of "working as a group" with the now banned sockpuppets "to keep their point of view in the article", when in fact I had publicly challenged one of the puppet masters for reverting my edit?---Petextrodon (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are editing for more than 1.4 years as such you are not a new user. As far as I can see, there is clearly no "POTENTIAL case" of off-wiki coordination on other side because it involves experienced editors frequently editing for a long time. With your false accusations, you are not only assuming bad faith but also poisoning the well by citing a totally irrelevant diff from 2017 as basis and using same personal attacks as Obi2canibe. Can you tell your reasons why you are doing that? Ratnahastin  (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ratnahastin 2017 diff was not in reference to you but two other editors who voted. I had intended to mention you in reference to taking the same stance as other India topic editors but admittedly I worded it poorly. I do consider myself a relatively new user since each day I'm learning a new policy. I thought it important to mention nationality as that figures into potential sockpuppet or meatpuppet investigation, but after reading that admin's warning I will be more careful.Petextrodon (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose you just did [report], Petextrodon...? I think it's best for disputants of either side in the dispute to refrain from making any un-evidenced statements that groups those editors together — unless there is real and actionable proof of prohibited influence, such as by way of WP:CANVASSING and WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT. Thanks. HTH. El_C 03:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * El_C User Obi2canibe is a leading contributor in Sri Lankan articles and has edited  from 2007 that is 17 years without a block with 54000 edits and further he has not received  contentious article warning.Feel you should WP:AGF at the first instance for a long term contributor and 1 week is excessive for the first time.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For a minor offence sure. For such xenophobic attacks frankly they should be glad they aren't indeffed. Frankly contentious topics doesn't even come in to it although the fact it is a contentious topic does mean an indef topic ban should definitely be considered the next time there's any similar nonsense if a site ban/indef isn't the result. If I saw a fellow Kiwi or fellow Malaysia talking about how someone is an Aussie or Indonesian who had never edited articles on New Zealand or Malaysia before; or about someone and their Australian/Indonesian friends, I'd fully support telling them to GTFO of Wikipedia, no matter what their good contributions or that there isn't a contentious topic covering New Zealand or Malaysia directly. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne if I happened to be Tamil and I saw someone WP:GASLIGHT and write Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide" in an AFD nomination I certainly wouldn't be very happy about it. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TarnishedPath, there are ways to express that without repeatedly attacking other editors on an ethno-national basis. Which is not a thing that will be tolerated. Pharaoh of the Wizards, they are free to submit a normal unblock request as this was a regular admin action, not a WP:CTOP one (otherwise it'd be logged). Anyway, Nil is right and his views reflect my own. Also, AGF is not a shield or cure-all, certainly not for the paradox of tolerance, so on its flip-side there is WP:PACT. El_C 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C, I agree that the blocked editor should not have gone off the deep end and engaged in racial attacks, however I can understand why someone might be very unhappy about what was written. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There should be some sort of discussion of OPs genocide denial as found in their nomination at Special:Diff/1225378532 where they wrote Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". This is in my opinion is a form of hate speech to WP:GASLIGHT over the mass targeted killings of an ethnic minority. OP ironically raised WP:NOHATE as a weapon towards the other editor, however this equally applies to their conduct. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is not hate speech or genocide denial, and you need to tone down that rhetoric. It is a matter of legit debate whether to define it as such or not. While I think that AfD's opening is poor in a number of ways, you can't be that incendiary, also by extension to everyone on the delete camp. So I'm formally warning you, though am not logging it, to stop. Btw, my sense is that it probably should be defined as a genocide, but that's neither here nor there as my role here precludes me from weighing in on that. El_C 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C advice taken. As far as I can tell the only reason that it's not recognised as a genocide by a lot of powerful nations is because of their desire to maintain good relationships with certain neighbour countries. There is a lot of reliable academic sources which calls it a genocide and often without attribution. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong to say "not recognised as a genocide by a lot of powerful nations", because not a single country recognizes this "genocide". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps I should have expanded my statement then. When a lot of nations have dubious human-rights records it's no great suprise that they might not recognise human-rights abuses by others lest it also shine a light on themselves. Additionaly other nations might priortise good relations with other nations over the human rights of people elsewhere. Most importantly though there is plenty of WP:RS that say that what happened to the Tamil people was genocide. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * El_C You have warned me here on ethno-national personalization .... but I meant "India" and 'Indian" to indicate unusual geographical grouping for the deletion of Tamil genocide which is very contentious. Ratnahastin quoted irrelevant similarity with WP:NONAZIS as, "experienced editors as "Indians" (as if it is something bad, see WP:NONAZIS)". Obi2canibe meant like me only to indicate unusual geographical grouping for the deletion of Tamil genocide. Ratnahastin and other editors are only trying something similar to Holocaust denial by denying when there are enough books discuss on Tamil genocide. Others should not think of your neutrality on which basis Ratnahastin pinged you when there are hundreds of other administrators and on which basis you blocked an experienced editor Obi2canibe for one week without giving prior warning in this sensitive topic while not even warning Ratnahastin for calling (even blocked) editors rabid in the AfD (violating Gravedancing).Lustead (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lustead, if you invoke Holocaust denial again, I will block you with immediate effect. And while I find your questioning my neutrality with no basis to be... questionable, you can't now turn your The nominator also an Indian editor, you too an Indian Editor [etc.] at the AfD into unusual geographical grouping here, which is also problematic without actionable proof of wrongdoing. Anyway, a warning was not something I felt was warranted, seeing as 's ethno-national targeting was most egregious. Final warning to tone it down considerably.
 * You also risk a Sri Lanka topic ban (WP:TBAN) under the WP:CT/SL sanctions regime if you're found to not be willing or able to conduct yourself with due moderation. A sanction that I increasingly lean on imposing. This of course doesn't mean that I think the opposing side conducted themselves optimally (far from it), but I already addressed that. Finally, their AfD opening that mentions rabid sock puppets — it was written prior to my block, so what gravedancing are you talking about? It might be best you take a breather from this topic and dispute, if you find it difficult to engage it dispassionately. Please give that serious consideration, because you are at the edge presently. There's no better time for you to take a step back as now. El_C 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996 ,Bishonen User Obi2canibe is a leading contributor in Sri Lankan articles and has edited  from 2007 that is 17 years without a block with 54000 edits.There no CIR with him and this is the first time that he has been blocked.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Obi2canibe posted an unblock request which was declined by NinjaRobotPirate, but nevertheless, I found that unblock request to be very concerning. As Nil Einne noted that Obi2canibe should "be glad they aren't indeffed", it has no effect on Obi2canibe since he has used his unblock request to double down with the disruptive behavior that got him blocked in the first place. This is a case of WP:CIR and should be dealt accordingly. I note that Obi2canibe was already aware of both WP:ARBIPA and WP:CT/SL throughout this period. Kindly check this out. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:CIR? Why are you stating that they are aware of WP:ARBIPA when this is not about India, Pakistan or Afghanistan? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ARBIPA is "broadly constructed", and this article could very reasonably be considered part of it, even if it wasn't part of CT/SL. CMD (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As you note CT/SL exists. It is its own discrete contentious topic area. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, CT/SL is also "broadly constructed", not discrete. CMD (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Topic bans are broadly construed. Topic areas can be descete. We're not discussing someone attempting to nibble around the edges of a topic ban here. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 06:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are both, per WP:ARBIPA and WP:CT/SL, "broadly construed", and furthermore all CTs are by default broadly construed. I'm not sure why you're nibbling around this technicality you are trying to create, there is nothing in WP:CTOP saying CTs can't overlap, and indeed some very obviously overlap. CMD (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that they can't overlap. However in this circumstance do you think there is an overlap? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 08:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a near-duplicate of a previous comment you posted in this thread at 05:50, 28 May 2024 - is there any reason why you have reposted it again, pinging a different administrator this time? Daniel (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was only replying to Abhishek and Bishonen as Abhisek had pinged her.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * CIR accusation against User:Obi2canibe, the major contributor to the Sri Lankan Civil War related articles, might lead to silencing him for indefinitely and will create a major imbalance on still unresolved ethnic crisis on Wikipedia related articles and will eventually impact on real world geopolitical issues. I think we are heading towards ArbCom intervention and pinging one time administrator and ArbCom member (though he is not active now) who significantly contributed resolving Sri Lankan Civil War related articles issues between 2007 - 2009 when he was an administrator. I am also pinging other active ArbCom members,, , , , , , , ,  and .Lustead (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what pinging Arbs does? For me, it's bad practice for Arbs to weigh in substantively on disputes at AN/ANI that ultimately come before them and when it does come before ArbCom it's going to need to be based on the evidence presented there. ArbCom recently designated Sri Lanka as a contentious topic so it would not surprise me if there was work on the editor side needed. I also wouldn't be surprised if the community could ultimately handle that side of things without ArbCom. I'd encourage anyone thinking about requesting arbcom intervention to read the introduction and filing a case parts of the close but not yet finished guide to ArbCom for parties for both why ArbCom may not be needed and for how to do it "right" if ArbCom is needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Briefly : editors of lengthy tenure can still display WP:CIR (sometimes to a damaging degree). Like, for example, pinging every active arbitrator to an ANI thread. If anything, this thread is proof as to why my attention was well warranted in this instance. El_C 08:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Periyavacharanam
Is ranting in all caps and calling another editor "racist", here:. Skyerise (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * They seem to have a hard time understanding that we use WP:RS, and don't limit ourselves to traditional views on religious matters. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support WP:NOTHERE block. Ratnahastin  (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User adding hoax flags to article
October 2022‎ user added the hoax flag Uzbek Khanate Flag.svg to List of Uzbek flags. After i (rightfully) removed it |he added it back again with explanation four days ago --Trade (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Non admin comment: The source of the flag being uploaded is from a series of books, apparently, just to skip content dispute concerns. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The description of the image stated that it was fictional so i assumed that was the case. Not an expert on vexillology Trade (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused you said a series of books, but linked to a website for user generated fictional nations. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have deleted all the early flags as at best unsourced and at worst entirely fictitious. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested I misread the site re: the top left image of books. "NationStates by Max Barry" with images of books, coupled with the context and me mostly looking at flags, resulted in me missing the greater context of that site. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries on mobile the nature of the site is much more obvious. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice to get a response from Superior6296. It's impossible to know whether or not this was deliberately done--Trade (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I partially blocked Superior6296 from the article, template, and draft namespaces. Communication is required here, and the many flag-related editing issues—including those mentioned here and those addressed at their user talk page—have been unanswered. I share Trade's interest in some response from S6296. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Donnond7 repeatedly violating BLP rules, despite multiple warnings
is a single-purpose account posting about an arrest and car accident and attaching it to relatives' pages and company pages. See, for example Special:Diff/1226519991 and Special:Diff/1225168766. Every single contribution by this editor has been reverted, spanning about 20 days the account has been active.

User has been extensively warned and has engaged in the discussion. Warnings include this one by that is very detailed.— <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD behaviour
is behaving problematically around an AFD discussion at Articles for deletion/Meritt North. First they tried to repeatedly strip the AFD template from the article; even after I posted to their user talk page to advise them that they aren't allowed to do that, and have to leave the template on the page until the discussion has run its course, they simply reverted my post back off their talk page and continued to revert war over the template, forcing me to temporarily sprot the page. Now they're just trying to WP:BLUDGEON the AFD itself with long, long screeds of text and lists of primary sourcing — with this, in which they tried to give each individual paragraph in their screed the full == == headline treatment to the point that I had to do an WP:AWB edit on it to strip that because the page had so many headlines in it, being the most egregious example.

But since I was the initiator of the discussion, I'm obviously not the appropriate person to decide if any consequences are warranted since I'm directly "involved". Could somebody look into this and determine if any warnings or other repercussions are needed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I collapsed the most prominent TL;DR screed on the AfD debate shortly before giving my Delete argument. A request to remove the prot at RFPP/D by Mooresklm2016 got declined by Favonian, citing the AfD template removals. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have p-blocked them from the AfD and article to allow consensus to be reached. Should the article be retained, block adjustment can be handled by a reviewing admin. Star   Mississippi  13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After responding productively editor has now decided I'm the problem. If someone who isn't Involved would like to remind them again of NPA, that might be helpful. Star   Mississippi  16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And the IDHT is very strong with this one, to the point I'm thinking high conflict-of-interest. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They've basically admitted to being the subject of the article on its talk page ("my biography"). Schazjmd   (talk)  18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could just be that they're very possessive of the article and see it as belonging to them. –  Primium  (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Um yeah, I don't think so. The full quote: :Tantor Media (one of the top audiobook production companies in existence and they only take on the best of the best. They have my biography, demo, and everything published Schazjmd   (talk)  18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's definitely PAID if not an autobiography, I misfiled Sockpuppet investigations/Mooresklm2016 but I also think there's some hijinks going on with Randy Brooks (gospel musician) which was what led me to UPE. Star   Mississippi  18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

UPE
When trying to find a version of Randy Brooks to revert back to without infringing text, I found this which is indicative of an assignment. I'm Involved so won't take action on the account, but suggest it be looked at a little harder for UPE. Star  Mississippi  18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * and the intersection with User:Mooresklm2016/sandbox/billtest is clear. For any reviewing admin, recommend extending block rather than lifting.  Star   Mississippi  18:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Bill Brooks (voice actor) is another case. Orange sticker (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * without a doubt, I think we're looking at a UPE farm besides this being an autobiography. Added to SPI Star   Mississippi  12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * resolved as unfortunately expected (thanks @Girth Summit) Sockpuppet investigations/Ofus Star   Mississippi  13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

OCMForever adding POV content
OCMForever has repeatedly added and re-added promotional and non-neutral content to Rutgers Graduate School of Education. They have been warned about this three times on their talk page and had the problem explained to them, but have continued to add the content past a final warning. They have also ignored requests to disclose or refute a conflict of interest with the school. Despite attempts to explain to OCMForever that their inclusions aren't appropriate there is no evidence that they are willing to stop. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeffed as a promotion only account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Helloidonthaveaname
New-ish user who persistently makes disruptive edits, including: They were warned multiple times on their talk page, yet continued with this behavior.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Creating another account similar to 's old username, and giving themself a barnstar with that account.
 * Multiple drafts that are copy-pasted from articles, such as Draft:Sea, Draft:Almen Mohandas, Draft:Korikov, and Draft:88 tuition. (most now deleted or redirected)
 * Removing others' profiles from Adopt-a-user and replacing them with their own.
 * Possibly gaming the system (around half of their edits are to their own userspace)


 * I've blocked them as not here to build an encyclopaedia. Secretlondon (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, was the same person. I'm going to upgrade to a CU block.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow... Thanks.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Pathuma 3553 at Sam's Chicken
I could take this to WP:COIN or WP:3RRN (or even WP:SPI); so many problems that I think this is the best venue for resolution.

Pathuma 3553 (and prior editor and likely sock ) have been repeatedly editing the Sam's Chicken article, adding promotional language. In this particular edit, the edit summary read We wan [sic] to updated content with our new informations indicating that Pathuma is associated with the company. This most recent edit gives an example of the type of promotion being pushed. WP:3RR may not be exactly in effect as the edits have occurred over more than 24 hours, but the editor has been warned and re-warned about their problematic editing, with no evidence of any desire to engage in discussion on the matter. I recommend, at the very least, a topic block preventing this user from further editing this page. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked Pathuma 3553. In January, Pathum 1990 uploaded a copyright violation to Commons, which I have tagged. Their other upload is not a readily apparent copyright violation. If that account (or a new account apparently socking) becomes active again, let us know. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to say, the article does kinda suck. The history section is not a history of the company at all, just a short list of negative incidents. Not that that excuses spamming the article. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did my best to clean it up. Still sucks, though. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was this request from an IP editor at WT:AFD to have the article deleted. If "still sucks" is the best we can do with available sources, might AFD be the proper route? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is. A nomination for deletion whose rationale is, word-for-word, the entire indented part of that editor's request is in order. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 20:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:GeorgeCrawford
First of all, I believe that (GC) is a sleeper account of  (HU), which last edited on February 24, while GC became active just over 90 days after HU's block and last edit. This is why I don't want to waste further time engaging with them. GC is displaying the same political POV as HU, making large-scale changes to pages from the onset. If they have enough time to cause disruption across multiple pages, that does not mean that we have enough time to counter their disruption as well. However, I really don't have the time to fight with them across multiple pages, which is why admin intervention is required at this time. The following are just the tip of the iceberg.

<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Examples of disruptive editing:
 * 1) They are adding specific cases to the article, but neither the Arab News source nor the VOA source mentions that these cases were influenced by ISI. It is their assumption, POV, OR, or whatever we want to call it. I removed the disputed parts with a self-descriptive summary, but they reinstated them.
 * 2) They added the same content to this BLP with no sources mentioning the subject by name, a serious BLP violation. I reverted it, but they restored the content.
 * 3) They removed content providing a counter-narrative by one of the alleged parties from this article, violating WP:NPOV. I countered them here as well, but they restored their preferred version.
 * 4) There are multiple issues with this, but anyone can look at this insertion: Khan bought an apartment in London using his cricket money. He sold that apartment to purchase property in Bani Gala, Islamabad. Initially on the outskirts, this property has significantly appreciated in value and is now worth about a billion Pakistani rupees. He inherited a house in the heart of Lahore, valued at approximately 30 crore Pakistani rupees. Imran owns about 170 acres of agricultural land, contributing to his assets and income. How does the source corroborate the content? It is obviously their own opinion masked with a source that does not support the content. They were countered but did not heed.


 * Don't try to act like your name. You have history of abusive behaviour on wikipedia.
 * This is my only account and i've been active since many years.
 * Refuting your claims as follows:
 * 1. ISI name is mentioned in Letter and is even mentioned in title of following Aljazeera article
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/27/judges-vs-spies-pakistans-jurists-accuse-intel-agency-isi-of-intimidation
 * 2. As Nadeem Anjum is head of ISI, adding context of above issue will add to knowledge of readers.
 * 3. The language was extremely biased which is not suitable for wikipedia. You defending this shows your biased political motives.
 * 4. All details of Imran khan has been taken from the his public record uploaded on insaf.pk and the reports he submitted to court. This is cited by article mentioning same details. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where in the specific cases/verdicts you are adding does it mention that those verdicts were influenced by ISI or Nadeem Anjum?
 * Ditto.
 * How is the language biased in this statement: During a news conference on 16 February, PML-N leaders Ataullah Tarar and Maryam Aurangzeb contended that the PTI had fabricated counterfeit Form-45s, which they claim were being circulated on social media as screenshots. The PTI, they claimed, refused to provide these forms to the ECP, citing their alleged fraudulent nature.? It is exactly as per the source. You cannot just remove sourced content and claim it was biased.
 * Insaf.pk is a primary source for Imran Khan, as he is the head of PTI which owns the website. Also, you agree that the Dawn source you added for the story about his houses does not support that story, and the story is just made up by you but masked with the Dawn source to mislead people.


 * As Aljazeera quotes
 * "The cases of alleged intimidation and coercion by the judges in “politically consequential” cases relate to those against the main opposition leader and jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan."
 * The cases mentioned under the section were described as "Few months prior to these allegations". It didn't say that they are related to letter. these were added to provide context.
 * however these can be removed as it has already been detailed on the main page of IHC Judges letter
 * Moreover, the letter directly related to ISI and should be kept on those pages GeorgeCrawford (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 20:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4. The details submitted to court regarding the county cricket career are mentioned in following dawn's article
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/1347116
 * The content of article can be further verified in several interviews of Imran Khan. However the article detailing the report submitted to Court is enough evidence to keep the details on Wikipedia.
 * You can dispute the language, but can't abuse the revert feature of wikipedia.
 * You reported the incident to administrator page and started an abusive mass reverting of the revisions without indulging in talks/discussion and presenting false claims over no sources (of ISI). GeorgeCrawford (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How does this support this: Khan bought an apartment in London using his cricket money. He sold that apartment to purchase property in Bani Gala, Islamabad. Initially on the outskirts, this property has significantly appreciated in value and is now worth about a billion Pakistani rupees. He inherited a house in the heart of Lahore, valued at approximately 30 crore Pakistani rupees. Imran owns about 170 acres of agricultural land, contributing to his assets and income.? I had no choice but to report you to ANI because your disruption affected multiple articles. Nobody had time to verify all the content you were adding, but the few I checked had serious discrepancies. This needed to be brought to the admins' attention because if I stopped scrutinizing your edits, the pages would end up with a POV not supported by sources, which is not good for the project overall. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 20:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the source
 * https://tribune.com.pk/story/1416964/imran-apprises-sc-money-trail-purchase-bani-gala-residence
 * However, it is very detailed and I agree the story of how the flats/house were bought is unnecessary to be added.
 * Moreover, it was addition of valuable context (not disruption) added to a couple (not many) of articles.
 * Don't feel overwhelmed. There are many wiki editors other than you to verify and talk. e.g. @saqib did a good work and we agreed to revise the edits made by me. It is necessary that we keep collaborative attitude towards each other, not get offended by someone making edit to articles you watch. The articles are not your property. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I never claimed they are my property, but as a regular editor, I feel obligated to correct problematic editing. I see you have started to address the parts I identified, but do you really think I should check all the thousands of bytes you added and identify every problematic part? Why don’t you review it yourself, remove the content you added, take it offline, and double-check each source to ensure the content and wording you added are truly supported by the sources? By the way, some of the section headings you added have very biased wording as well. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 21:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I'll be careful in future. Hope to collaborate in future.
 * Keep up the good work :)
 * I'll revise all content including headlines to ensure unbiased language. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns on all issues and revised the edits. Please indulge in talks before rushing to use the reverts and admin reports.
 * Also, again don't feel overwhelmed. We apreciate your positive contribution to wikipedia. There are many wiki editors like you ensuring the legitimacy of information. We should keep a constructive and collaborative attitude to achieve this goal. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You were not very constructive or collaborative until I reported you to ANI; instead, you were very combative. After I pointed out issues with your edits, you reverted me on multiple pages in a confrontational manner. I was working on improving an article, with my last edit there being 16 hours ago, I had to stop contributing there to deal with your disruption. We all have our limits as human beings. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The only disruption is rushy and mass misuse of reverts by you without disputing the information in talks and discussions. You never gave me opportunity to be construtive and collaborative as you also misused the admin report against me.
 * I'll again advise you to act collaborative and don't get offensive.
 * Lastly, please move your concerns to relevant talk pages and don't spam the admin report talks. A friendly advise; learn to coexist, and you not a sheriff here. Your bullying attitude, easily offended and trying to ban wiki editors with no reason is not helping wikipedia. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have demonstrated with several examples, there are significant problems with your edits—they do not align with the sources. After I reverted your changes and provided reasons, you restored your problematic revisions. If it were just an occasional issue, I would have been happy to discuss it with you, but knowingly adding false information is disruptive, especially across multiple pages at the speed you were doing it. As you promised in your previous comment, you need to remove all of what you added, carefully examine the content to ensure it matches the sources, and then re-add it accurately. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 03:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is just your opinion. You disputed a few words in large chunk of information and nuked the whole revision because it doesn't align with your biased views.
 * An example of your misuse of revert
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Shehbaz_Sharif_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1226420686
 * It can be clearly seen that page is full vague, unnecessary and ambigious information which was addressed. But you reverted it because you are offended by me for no reason and have indulged into revert war. Your reasoning is clearly your personal opinion and doesn't go make sense.
 * I again iterate to avoid this bullying behaviour and taking disagreements personally. Probably start with renaming yourself. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) Here is another example of BLP violation, you added section heading "Role in the 1977 coup and entry into Politics" and started the section with Nawaz Sharif's entry into politics and his role in the 1977 coup are pivotal aspects of his political career., where does the source state, Nawaz Sharif had a direct role in 1977 coup?
 * 2) You also added this content, sourcing it to Amazon store: Imran Khan has authored several books, contributing to his income through book sales and royalties. He has worked as a cricket commentator and consultant, adding to his professional earnings. Imran has appeared in numerous advertisements, further boosting his income.. Where does the source provide all this information? <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please move your concerns to relevant talk pages and don't spam the admin report talks.
 * Be respectful and reasonable. GeorgeCrawford (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to stop your disruptive editing and ensure your content aligns with the sources. No one has the time to guide you through every issue on multiple articles. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 03:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

UPE AlbertMcIntosh
Newish user registers earlier this month, makes the mandatory ten edits, and creates two drafts on related businesses, Draft:Eucalyptus (healthcare company) and Draft:Pilot (healthcare company). I'm thinking there's a reason for that. But I've issued every paid-editing warning in the book, and they just carry on regardless. Could we have at least a short block, please, to get their attention? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits
Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor is falsifying sources


This IP editor is changing the author, date/issue number, and pages of reviews from a specific magazine in 4 articles, replacing them with wrong ones. I have full scans for 3 of these reviews (I even presented one on their talk page) and enough evidence to say the fourth one is also wrong. I warned them, I tried talking with them, none of it had any effect, they just return next day and manually revert it. And now they menacingly put the name of whoever they're reverting in the edit summary (so far it's me and another editor who reverted them yesterday). <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:5px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"> AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've been doing the 'mention the name/IP address of the person they're reverting' thing for a while now - most of the contribs of the /23 range look like the same person going back a while now. I'm going to block that range from article space to see whether they can be persuaded to explain what they're doing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! IP ranges confuse me, so I wasn't sure which one to choose so it's not too large. Looking at the contributions on /23, it appears to be new behavior from a known LTA. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:5px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px"> AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Months of WP:HOUNDING by User:Let'srun
Since December 2023, User:Let'srun has been consistently WP:HOUNDING me by following me around and opposing me at various different places, including some extremely obvious examples coupled with some personal attacks, incivility, and general disruption towards football articles in the areas I work. I have been extremely patient in dealing with this user, trying to minimise contact, etc., but he has not stopped, and as such I feel I have no choice but to send this to ANI. Below, I have listed extensive instances of hounding and harassment directed towards me by this user. To make things a little easier to read in the "Complete – chronological" section, I have left some more minor evidences in small font, some moderate evidences in normal font, whereas more obvious examples are in bold font. I have also copied some evidences from the section to a "Major evidences" section.


 * To start, I found it peculiar that his first contributions were attempts to mass delete articles; see.
 * First interaction seems to be me commenting at an AFD of his (August 2023): - nothing unusual.
 * September 2023: I assisted in saving an article he nom'ed for deletion:
 * Started nominating football stuff in October with.
 * Saved another Dec. 6:.
 * Saved an article he nom'ed for deletion on Dec. 11:.


 * Note that much of this comes from emails with other users from the past (who similarly believed the behaviour was disruptive); as such, a few of the links may be out of date, but can still be found by looking through contributions lists.


 * Right after (two minutes) he responds at the Boston College-Virginia Tech AFD (mentioned in above section), disagreeing with my provided sources for GNG, he bizarrely draftifies an AFC submission I accepted for having "too few sources" when it had three and significant coverage.
 * December 16: he votes "redirect" at an article I substantially expanded; ultimately kept:.
 * Five minutes later: does the same at a different discussion involving me that I voted keep (eventually kept):.
 * December 18: I make a comment at one his AFDs (Darroll DeLaPorte), could be considered inclusion-leaning: . Excluding two minutes later, his very next actions are to tag two of my creations in two minutes, both Italians for the 1926 Hartford Blues whom I created in consecutive months, for missing significant coverage, one of whom (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Segretta&diff=prev&oldid=1190596820) that was incorrect.
 * Five minutes after replying to me at the DeLaPorte discussion, he nominates an article created by me for deletion, which was kept.
 * I save another article he nom'ed for deletion December 21:.
 * Seven minutes after it is kept, he mass tags for significant coverage 28 articles.
 * December 21: creates a merger article from my work without attribution . (Not that I really care that much about it, but I've seen others get upset about it before.)
 * Mass sigcov tags 23 articles on December 22, then eight more on Dec. 24 (not that its necessarily wrong, but he has access to sources and knows how to find them, so it'd be just about as easy for him to do that).
 * On December 26, I reverted "refimprove" tags on List of current CFL players added by Andrevan; one day later, tags are interestingly re-introduced by Let'srun; reverts by me with explanation are repeatedly either reverted by him with no explanation or explanations that didn't make sense: . Something similar happened with the XFL and USFL lists; but he later brought them to AFD and they were deleted, so I can't view the history.
 * January 1, 2024, very oddly comes across Art Whizin, an article kept at AFD over a week earlier, where I had commented, and adds maintenance tags:.
 * January 2, there was discussion over whether to have a notability tag on an article just kept at AFD; I make a comment and include a source and Let'srun somehow finds my comment and finds a reason to discount it:.
 * Eight minutes after I rebut his argument there, he ludicrously TAGBOMBs - including for notability - (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Let%27srun&target=Let%27srun&dir=prev&offset=20231227013618&limit=500) several NFL players that he could have easily found GNG-coverage for. Each reverted soon by two different editors (incl. myself); see   and.
 * Shortly after, nominates a 30 game NFL player for deletion; article kept after my efforts: Articles_for_deletion/Vivian_Hultman.
 * A little bit later, oddly adds and removes categories to a 1895 Tufts football article ; not created by me but I did other Tufts articles; odd.
 * Later that day, votes against me at an AFD; noting that he "never agree[s] with the constant [other stuff exists] arguments by BF".
 * After noting his disagreement with a comment I made at the 30-game NFL player AFD, his next two actions are to nominate for deletion to articles created by me - both of which I created in a two-day span . I do not see how he could have found those besides looking at my userpage.
 * 15:24 January 4: votes "redirect" at a AFD I was involved in:.
 * Soon after, I revert some of the ridiculous notability taggings mentioned earlier - his first actions after that, seven more silly notability taggings (six reverted):.
 * Then I added a sigcov source to Bill Gutterson, Ellery White already had one (two of the articles tagged by him) - he continually re-adds the tags, then inserts some more maintenance tags, on account of the non-existent requirement that "enough sources to satisfy GNG need to be IN the article". Ultimately reverted (notability tags are not allowed to be re-added...).
 * When I add sources to another one - Shorty Barr - (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BeanieFan11&target=BeanieFan11&dir=prev&offset=20240101220745&limit=500) - his first edit, aside from one in his userspace, is another ludicrous notability tagging, which he easily could have found sources to demonstrate GNG for (Jim MacMurdo).
 * January 11: nominates two season articles created by me for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Let%27srun&target=Let%27srun&dir=prev&offset=20231227013618&limit=500), starting a series of SIX consecutive unrelated nominations for deletion of season articles created by me ( other non-football ones mixed in between - ).
 * Early Jan. 12, another AFD of an article by me: Articles for deletion/1897 South Dakota State Jackrabbits football team. Two more on Jan. 16 (1892 Biddle/Livingstone).
 * The sixth (1901 Wilmington Conf. Acad.) on Jan. 19. Here's where it gets interesting: I comment "This is at least the ninth time you've nominated for deletion an article written by me in a month. Its starting to feel excessive." He leaves me a message asking me to "withdraw my personal attack". I said it felt like a totally reasonable comment, especially since it was six straight and he was averaging one per three days of mine.
 * Jan. 20, PRODs notable 1916 Tusculum Pioneers football team - interesting how he found it, since he mainly focused on 1870s-1900s seasons, and it was related to an article I wrote (Tusculum Pioneers football, 1901–1910).
 * Later on Jan. 20, tags for notability four clearly notable articles (Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Marshall Edwards, Joe Rowe) in FOUR MINUTES which were all created directly after each other by me as some of my earliest work . He had said, in the talk page discussion, that he was not targeting my articles. That seems pretty clearly targeting. Also worth noting - the MINUTE after I reverted one of the taggings for being clearly notable - he has two more plainly ridiculous notability taggings for obviously notable NFL players ( - Ty Coon / Buster Mitchell). Five minutes after I revert the notability tag for Mitchell, he slaps on a bunch of other maintenance tags and makes me do the work, even when I linked sources in my revert edit summary .
 * Jan. 22: opposes my good faith efforts to draftify some of the AFD nominations so I could work on them later - he repeatedly opposes them - I don't get why one would do so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1881_Georgetown_football_team and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1892_Western_Maryland_Green_Terror_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1198089209).
 * Right after, replies on my talk page (in response to me saying it was not a personal attack to point out his AFD statistics): "It comes with the inherent accusation that I am targeting your articles for deletion, which I am not." I respond by asking how he found the four (Swanson et al.) and the Tusculum season, he responds by avoiding the Swanson question, and saying "Using categories created for the respective teams, and the early college football seasons...For the last time, I ask you to strike that comment." Do you know what he does next? Tags for notability not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN articles relating to my work for notability (South Dakota, Columbian, Lewisburg - ).
 * I question how he found them in rapid succession, and ask "And even if that's all random, I still ask: what about Edwards, Swanson, Robinson and Rowe". His response completely avoids the question : "I'm confused, were you formally MisterCake? That is who created the Lewisburg articles I tagged." (One season after the 1883 Lewisburg football team – 1887 Bucknell football team – an article I created.)
 * I point that out, and again ask about Swanson; he replies "I already answered that above. Categories...." I point out that several of them had absolutely ZERO categories in common, ask again, and he gives the confusing non-answer "Because there are ways to switch queries beyond who created the article?" WHICH he follows by voting "delete" at an AFD I voted keep and three minutes later doing similar for another AFD .
 * I leave two comments: the first "I'm finding your response difficult to understand; but the only place these articles (Swanson, Edwards) are connected are at my userpage, where they are listed next to each other. There are no "categories" that connect them; considering the thousands of NFL stubs, how could your "queries" come across only mine?" and "How about this: why don't you tell me, exactly, how you came across these articles (Swanson, Edwards, Robinson, Rowe), and we can end this discussion?" He avoids answering for a bit, adds another pathetic-and-now-reverted notability tag to a clearly notable NFL player and finally responds with a non-answer to the first one (ignoring the second - ) - "They don't. You just picked 4 articles that I have tagged which were created by you through searching multiple categories of NFL teams (and you have hundreds of articles). I don't have any issue with the vast majority of your articles, just because I maybe disagree with 1-2% of your creations (if that) does not mean I am single-handedly targeting them." Five minutes later, another AFD comment in opposition to me .
 * I respond "You're avoiding the question; tell me exactly how you found those four completely unrelated articles in a span of four minutes ... answer the question: tell me, exactly, how you came across Swanson, Edwards, Robinson and Rowe in four minutes." He says that "I'll repeat myself: searching multiple categories of NFL teams." I tell him how absurd and unlikely that is; I am certain he just looked from the start of my userpage creations list to target: "OK - so in four minutes, you randomly searched Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players, completely randomly came across, out of over 200 others, Marshall Edwards which I happened to create, found it to tag for notability; one minute later, randomly searched Category:Los Angeles Rams players, containing over 1,000, and randomly choose to tag for notability Pete Swanson, the article I created right after Edwards; then one minute later randomly searched Category:St. Louis Rams players, a category of over 800, randomly found Joe Rowe, which I coincidentally created right after Swanson; and then one minute later, searched Category:Denver Broncos players, a category of ~1,600, and randomly found to tag for notability Frank Robinson, whom I also coincidentally happened to create right around the time of Rowe? If so, that is the most amazing coincidence I have heard of in my life". Never responded.
 * Soon after, I make a comment referencing him and then within minutes, he nominates a category created by me for deletion.


 * At the 1881 Georgetown discussion (mentioned above, where he opposed my draftification efforts), he repeatedly stated that I was advocating to keep it when I just stated to draftify so I could create a merger target - I straightforwardly tell him that I am not advocating to keep it - he replies with a massive failure of WP:AGF, straight out calling me a liar with ill intent : "You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace." (interesting how he considers pointing out basic facts - i.e. that he nominated nine of my articles for deletion in a month - as personal attacks, whereas this...isn't?)
 * Then, to prove him wrong, I simply start the merger target in mainspace (Georgetown football, 1874-1889) - now, in the past when others have done similar Let'srun has been supportive of this, even doing one himself on the Delaware State Hornets (which, actually, was a direct copy of my work without attribution) - however, within minutes of me finishing the Georgetown article, he starts by removing relevant content twice and then nominating it for deletion; the discussion has an overwhelming consensus to keep. (Also, interesting that, when I pointed out that he had done the same for arguably less notable groupings in DelState, he removed it from his userpage).
 * More silly notability taggings on Jan. 29, this time on NBA players, which have been reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Let%27srun&target=Let%27srun&offset=&limit=500 - Noble Jorgensen, Harry Zeller, some others)
 * User:Cbl62 had sent him a message about "over-personalizing" at AFD, probably referring to the Georgetown discussion - on Jan. 31 Let'srun states that "Looking to the future, I will work to be better". His next edits are to nominate for deletion an article where he had a dispute with me (List of CFL players, which was a clear keep).
 * He also has repeatedly nominatied for deletion college football categories, knowing that I've opposed them before as its part of the standard categorisation scheme; User:Jweiss11 noted at one "Let'srun, these nominations are, frankly, a waste of time."


 * Feb. 1: as only AFD vote of the hour, votes at a discussion I was involved in.
 * Feb 5: more silly notability taggings for NBA players
 * Feb 6: No vote for 17 days after the start of the this AFD - within three days of me voting, opposition from Let'srun (consensus was in favour of my argument).
 * Feb 6: more opposition to me at AFD (consensus was in favour of my argument)
 * Feb. 7: finds another discussion I was involved at as the only edit in a 20-hour span, making sure to note what he considered problems in my comment
 * Feb. 9: two minutes before replying to my rebuttal at the second Feb. 6 AFD, critiques my comment at an AFD with SNOW keep consensus
 * Feb. 11: finds another of my AFD comments to critique - article kept
 * Feb. 11: yet again AFDs one of my works
 * Feb. 14: his first comment after refusing to answer a polite request on how many categories he planned on nominating for deletion, somehow finds the RM for USFL Draft and opposes me.
 * Feb. 16: votes rapidly in succession, without any other AFD contributions at two completely different AFDs I was involved in, supporting me weakly at Lubomir Pistek while opposing me at Radoslav Holubek (AFDs). I ask him "May I ask, how did you find both this and [Pistek], your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me?" Doesn't respond there, but makes sure to start voting at other discussions within three minutes, and also responds to another polite college football talk request regarding his CFD noms by saying Why are you singling me out? I immediately responded regarding how it seemed he was actually singling me out while later pinging him asking on the topic; he never responded.
 * Feb. 20: Only vote in a few days, "delete" at an AFD I found sources for.
 * Feb. 21: first edits after a polite request regarding how many CFD nominations he intended on making - to which he never responded - he mass nominates more categories for deletion.
 * Feb. 21: I had opened a close review for the NFL Draft discussion on Feb. 16 but stopped commenting afterwards; after a ping, I returned with one edit to the page on February 21. Very shortly afterwards, Let'srun opposed my close review with some bizarre comments about "forum shopping" that have since been criticised by a number of editors.
 * Feb. 24: as his first AFD comments in awhile, Let'srun votes against me rapidly in short succession both here and here without any other AFD comments. I politely asked he found the discussion with a ping - he immediately voted at another AFD while refusing to answer my question. I asked again with another ping; he again refused to answer how he found the discussion.
 * More following me around later that day, having never responded to any of my repeated questions about how he came across to oppose me at the discussions he did.


 * By this point, I was already extremely close to sending Let'srun here, but decided to be patient and give another chance, and he left me alone for a time. That is, until I rescued the New Britain Mules, an article he sent to AFD, in mid-April. The day after I made an expansion that convinced a "delete" !voter to switch to "keep", Let'srun critiqued one of my comments at Articles for deletion/Max Wirth (cyclist).
 * May 2: he opposes me again at an AFD I voted keep, and the article was kept:.
 * I help rescue another article he nom'ed for deletion on May 2:.
 * Two days later: he re-nominates for deletion an article I had helped get kept just two months prior. Right after, he nominates for deletion another page created by me:.
 * May 6: the same day I provide sources to rescue Rome Chambers from AFD, Let'srun adds a maintenance tag to the article, and soon after that, !votes at two AFDs involving me in six minutes.
 * May 7: comments at two more AFDs in a row involving me (I had de-PRODed them): /.
 * May 10: votes delete at an AFD which I suggested looking for sources.
 * May 11: votes, including twice against me, at three AFDs involving me in a row: /  / .
 * May 12: closed an AFD for an article I helped rescue: (hadn't seen him close AFDs before).
 * Later on May 12: minutes after responding to me at an AFD (where he refused to answer a query on how he found the article, given that it was related to me from months back), he !votes at two more AFDs involving me in a row ( / ) before returning to the discussion.
 * May 17: critiques one of my comments at another AFD and does the same with another AFD.
 * More following me around on May 19, May 21 (May 21 again, opposing me at another AFD).


 * Right after (two minutes) he responds at the Boston College-Virginia Tech AFD (mentioned in above section), disagreeing with my provided sources for GNG, he bizarrely draftifies an AFC submission I accepted for having "too few sources" when it had three and significant coverage.
 * On December 26, I reverted "refimprove" tags on List of current CFL players added by Andrevan; one day later, tags are interestingly re-introduced by Let'srun; reverts by me with explanation are repeatedly either reverted by him with no explanation or explanations that didn't make sense: . Something similar happened with the XFL and USFL lists; but he later brought them to AFD and they were deleted, so I can't view the history.
 * January 11: nominates two season articles created by me for deletion, starting a series of SIX consecutive unrelated nominations for deletion of season articles created by me ( other non-football ones mixed in between - ).
 * The sixth (1901 Wilmington Conf. Acad.) on Jan. 19. Here's where it gets interesting: I comment "This is at least the ninth time you've nominated for deletion an article written by me in a month. Its starting to feel excessive." He leaves me a message asking me to "withdraw my personal attack". I said it felt like a totally reasonable comment, especially since it was six straight and he was averaging one per three days of mine.
 * Later on Jan. 20, tags for notability four clearly notable articles (Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Marshall Edwards, Joe Rowe) in FOUR MINUTES which were all created directly after each other by me as some of my earliest work . He had said, in the talk page discussion, that he was not targeting my articles. That seems pretty clearly targeting. Also worth noting - the MINUTE after I reverted one of the taggings for being clearly notable - he has two more plainly ridiculous notability taggings for obviously notable NFL players ( - Ty Coon / Buster Mitchell). Five minutes after I revert the notability tag for Mitchell, he slaps on a bunch of other maintenance tags.
 * Right after, replies on my talk page (in response to me saying it was not a personal attack to point out his AFD statistics): "It comes with the inherent accusation that I am targeting your articles for deletion, which I am not." I respond by asking how he found the four (Swanson et al.) and a college season, he responds by avoiding the Swanson question, and saying "Using categories created for the respective teams, and the early college football seasons...For the last time, I ask you to strike that comment." Do you know what he does next? Tags for notability not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN articles relating to my work for notability (South Dakota, Columbian, Lewisburg - ).
 * I question how he found them in rapid succession, and ask "And even if that's all random, I still ask: what about Edwards, Swanson, Robinson and Rowe". His response completely avoids the question : "I'm confused, were you formally MisterCake? That is who created the Lewisburg articles I tagged." (One season after the 1883 Lewisburg football team – 1887 Bucknell football team – an article I created.)
 * I point that out, and again ask about Swanson; he replies "I already answered that above. Categories...." I point out that several of them had absolutely ZERO categories in common, ask again, and he gives the confusing non-answer "Because there are ways to switch queries beyond who created the article?" WHICH he follows by voting "delete" at an AFD I voted keep and three minutes later doing similar for another AFD.
 * I leave two comments: the first "I'm finding your response difficult to understand; but the only place these articles (Swanson, Edwards) are connected are at my userpage, where they are listed next to each other. There are no "categories" that connect them; considering the thousands of NFL stubs, how could your "queries" come across only mine?" and "How about this: why don't you tell me, exactly, how you came across these articles (Swanson, Edwards, Robinson, Rowe), and we can end this discussion?" He avoids answering for a bit, adds another pathetic-and-now-reverted notability tag to a clearly notable NFL player and finally responds with a non-answer to the first one (ignoring the second - ) - "They don't. You just picked 4 articles that I have tagged which were created by you through searching multiple categories of NFL teams (and you have hundreds of articles). I don't have any issue with the vast majority of your articles, just because I maybe disagree with 1-2% of your creations (if that) does not mean I am single-handedly targeting them." Five minutes later, another AFD comment in opposition to me .
 * I respond "You're avoiding the question; tell me exactly how you found those four completely unrelated articles in a span of four minutes." He says that "I'll repeat myself: searching multiple categories of NFL teams." I tell him how absurd and unlikely that is; I am certain he just looked from the start of my userpage creations list to target: "OK - so in four minutes, you randomly searched Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players, completely randomly came across, out of over 200 others, Marshall Edwards which I happened to create, found it to tag for notability; one minute later, randomly searched Category:Los Angeles Rams players, containing over 1,000, and randomly choose to tag for notability Pete Swanson, the article I created right after Edwards; then one minute later randomly searched Category:St. Louis Rams players, a category of over 800, randomly found Joe Rowe, which I coincidentally created right after Swanson; and then one minute later, searched Category:Denver Broncos players, a category of ~1,600, and randomly found to tag for notability Frank Robinson, whom I also coincidentally happened to create right around the time of Rowe? If so, that is the most amazing coincidence I have heard of in my life" . Never responded.
 * At the 1881 Georgetown discussion (mentioned above, where he opposed my draftification efforts), he repeatedly stated that I was advocating to keep it when I just stated to draftify so I could create a merger target - I straightforwardly tell him that I am not advocating to keep it - he replies with a massive failure of WP:AGF, straight out calling me a liar with ill intent : "You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace."
 * Then, to prove him wrong, I simply start the merger target in mainspace (Georgetown football, 1874-1889) - now, in the past when others have done similar Let'srun has been supportive of this, even doing one himself on the Delaware State Hornets - however, within minutes of me finishing the Georgetown article, he starts by removing relevant content twice and then nominating it for deletion; the discussion has an overwhelming consensus to keep.
 * User:Cbl62 had sent him a message about "over-personalizing" at AFD, probably referring to the Georgetown discussion - on Jan. 31 Let'srun states that "Looking to the future, I will work to be better". His next edits are to nominate for deletion an article where he had a dispute with me (List of CFL players, which was a clear keep).
 * Feb. 16: votes rapidly in succession, without any other AFD contributions at two completely different AFDs I was involved in, supporting me weakly at Lubomir Pistek while opposing me at Radoslav Holubek (AFDs). I ask him "May I ask, how did you find both this and [Pistek], your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me?" Doesn't respond there, but then responds to a polite college football talk request regarding his CFD noms by saying Why are you singling me out? I immediately responded regarding how it seemed he was actually singling me out while later pinging him asking on the topic; he never responded.
 * May 4: he re-nominates for deletion an article I had helped get kept just two months prior. Right after, he nominates for deletion another page created by me:.
 * May 11: votes, including twice against me, at three AFDs involving me in a row: /  /.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is quite a lot to respond to here, so let me try my best here. I have nothing personal against any user here, including BeanieFan11. Rather, if I disagree with any user or believe additional context is needed somewhere, I look to say it and the reasons as for such. Perhaps I could be better about giving supporting evidence at times, and if others consider my behaviour to be disruptive, I am open to hearing why they think so. Let me start with the first bullet point. I edited under a IP before creating an account (which I noted when I was taken to ANI last year, apologies for not finding that post but I will continue to look for it). The first interaction I had with Beanie (or at least that I can find) actually was in July of 2023 when they commented (or critiqued, however you wish to view it) on my AfD for Eugene Petramale, which closed as delete.[]. I have also done some closing of AfD's going back to last year, see this as an example of a AfD not involving BeanieFan11. []. And for the sake of transparency, one in which BeanieFan11 voted in [] which I nominated and then closed myself as I was persuaded by the evidence provided.
 * Over 80% of my votes at AfD have closed as 'matches' and the vast majority of my nominations and votes (over 1200) are on articles which were not significantly edited or created by BeanieFan11. When nominating articles, including by BeanieFan11, I have looked to be open to ATDs, which is seen in my nomination statements. I also admit that some of my nominations were later shown to have suitable sources deserving that article to be kept and when that happens I look to refine my BEFORE. I am not sure about the CfD's but I would guess it is a similar match percentage, and other voters who commonly are at CfD have agreed with my nominations in that area, like at [][][] and I have only disagreed with those users in that area that a WikiProject is the best venue for widespread policy to be discussed.
 * I don't label myself as an inclusionist or deletionist. I look at the available sourcing and follow the guidelines. I don't always agree with other voters but I respect their intentions and believe in WP:GOODFAITH.
 * Looking at the evidence provided here, I apologise for the conduct at the 1881 Georgetown discussion which was out of line and had unacceptable language, along with the lack of attribution on that combined season article (I wish you had brought that in particular to my attention earlier). I have not intended to hound anyone (honestly it is the first time I've ever seen that cited so I am only reading it now for the first time) and note that we edit in some of the same areas frequently due to common interests. I look at the deletion sorting for sportspeople and sports frequently and often vote in those discussions, several of which BeanieFan has already commented in or does so after myself. I have previously tagged articles sometimes in bulk after having added them to my watchlist but have stopped that practice.
 * If there is something I didn't cover, please let me know. Let&#39;srun (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I find the evidence completely unpersuasive. The last three diffs (Special:Permalink/1224980664, Special:Permalink/1225004175, and Special:Permalink/1224641854) are ordinary AFD participation in the topic area of sports, not WP:HOUNDING.  Some of the earlier diffs are less civil and more personal, but are stale.  If there is a short (WP:THREE) argument that a TBAN or IBAN is necessary, make it; a collection of ordinary interactions is not that. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a case for action now. Too many of the diffs (in the "shorter" version) are complaining about AFDs such as Special:Permalink/1195055730 (which I think is the "South Dakota" reference mentioned).  An insistence on keeping stand-alone articles like that, at all costs, is largely what got  banned.  The diffs presented from the past 3 months are still completely innocuous; if "an editor occasionally disagrees with me at AFD" is causing BeanieFan distress, BeanieFan is the editor who needs to disengage from the project.  I'm not going to say there was definitely no "hounding" in December/January, but it has stopped and there is no cause for administrative action now.  This is a collaborative project and one cannot demand to be the only editor on sports articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Walsh90210. This looks a lot more like common areas of interest where the two editors disagree often. Describing this diff as "he opposes me again at an AFD I voted keep, and the article was kept" as an example of hounding is particularly illustrative. Let'srun did not oppose Beaniefan11, they supported the deletion of the article based on valid policy arguments that other editors also provided. Beaniefan11 weakly supported keeping the article. Describing the article as being "kept" (and all that seeks to imply about Let'srun's motivations) is misleading, the deletion nomination was closed as "no consensus". BoldGnome (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor interaction tool tells the same story: The more I look at these interactions, the more innocent they become, and the more concerning this report becomes. It's just innocent content dispute after innocent content dispute after innocent content dispute. Most of the time Let'srun and Beaniefan don't even interact in any way. Assuming good faith regarding the filing of this report, I'd be more concerned about the "users of the past" fuelling these concerns via email. BoldGnome (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't been impressed with Let'srun's various AfD nominations. His pre-AFD research is non-existent which is how he can nominate and tag 10+ articles per day. When given more sources for various nominated articles, he usually disqualifies the new sources or just stops replying. It turns the nomination process into a game that frustrates and annoys serious editors and makes clashes with people like Beanie inevitable. I think Let'srun's nominations privileges should be limited or restricted and it's clear that at some points in time he was likely targeting Beanie.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I have already explained my tagging above (no worries if you missed it), and have no plans to continue tagging in that manner again due to its lack of effectiveness, I haven't nominated "10+ articles per day" to AfD once this year and don't plan on doing so going forward - []. I know you have had issues with my nominations before and took action to address them at that time []. I will look to do so again here if at all possible. I look to be respectful in discussing the sources provided in any discussion that I take part in and do not intend to play any type of game here. Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My thoughts here's largely align with KatoKungLee's. In recent months, Let'srun has nominated a large number of categories for merging, many related to the topic of college football. He's continued to nominate lesser-populated categories with the same rationale as other nominations that have failed, again and again in a one-off manner, disregarding the value of parallelism in the category tree and failing to appreciate that many of these smaller categories relate to topics that are under active development. And he's not been responsive to rapid growth of such categories during the course of time that his nominations are open. What's most troubling is that Let'srun has been unwilling to engage meaningfully and collaborate with editors focused on college football and find a more pragmatic and stable approach to managing categories; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 26. His behaviour is indeed frustrating and annoying and I've described it in the past as time-wasting and obstructive. I've considered opening up an ANI notice myself about this. I don't think I can dig through everything that BeanieFan11 has assembled here, but the second AFD of Asim Munir (cricketer) in two months is not good. I think some sort of formal admonishment with a temporary of limiting of XfD privileges is in order here. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned to you there, I am completely willing to talk about those activities, just not at a WikiProject as it is not a suitable forum to discuss widespread policy and not all of my nominations in that area are related to college football. Let&#39;srun (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're willing to talk about everything? Then how did you find Asim Munir, which you previously had no interest in but decided to re-nominate for deletion just two months after I helped get it kept? Why did you refuse on a number of occasions in February polite requests as to how you found multiple completely unrelated AFDs where you !voted against me in order? And how did you find to tag for notability the completely unrelated Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Joe Rowe and Marshall Edwards – all created by me in that order – in four minutes, while every time you replied regarding that on my talk page, you either tagged for notability seven more articles relating to my work or !voted against me at completely unrelated AFDs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I was replying to Jweiss11 referring to the nomination of categories he was talking about, but I'm willing to answer your questions to the best of my ability as well. I didn't think that not being involved in a previous AfD meant I can't re-nominate that same article to AfD again, I've done so several times and nobody has ever called me on it so far as I'm aware, you can see my AfD statistics to see exactly how many. The first Asim Munir AfD closed as "no consensus", not "keep", so I'm a bit confused why you would say "I helped get it kept". I found it through searching another cricketer (I don't remember the name unfortunately) and not finding the sources needed for it to meet the notability guidelines, which is why I nominated it. I vote in many AfD's relating to sportspeople and sports and also nominate articles in these areas frequently as I am interested in improving the project there. I explained my tagging upthread but I was looking at my watchlist, I don't remember how I added the particular examples you referenced or when that occurred. I can promise you that I have no plans to mass-tag any articles in the future or add maintenance tags at all to articles, sports related or otherwise. I respect your contributions to this project immensely and believe in WP:GOODFAITH. Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The rapid tagging in order looks more targeted than could reasonably be explained by general activity in the area, but from what Let'srun has said I definitely can see how the AfD !voting could happen. I watch the sportsperson delsort and frequently add AfDs to my watchlist as they come up, and then revisit them once I see someone has !voted keep for reasons with which I might disagree. Since I start from the bottom of my watchlist it's pretty common for my participation to follow directly behind someone else who is methodically going through the delsort, and in the order that they !voted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To an extent – that could make sense. But when its five minutes after saying "I'm not targeting you" – without other AFD contributions? Multiple times? And if that's truly the case, why would Let'srun refuse to answer questions of how he found discussions on about four other occasions? And why would his first action after one of those requests be to oppose me at an area he'd never previously shown any interest (AFAIK) – capitalization? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue was related to the NFL draft, which I have an interest in (along with the NFL as a whole, as seen through my edit history). Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let'srun !voted to redirect a subject a full week after you had left a comment at the AfD and a full week after its third and final relist. Four minutes later he !voted at another AfD (that you had not participated in) that was also at the 7-day mark. Doesn't it make more sense that he was just looking at the AfDs that were due for closure at the bottom of the delsort? JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If some editors just can't see the evidence to support claims of egregious personal hounding and instead need to pivot to accusations of broad "AfD disruption", maybe comments of the latter flavor can go in a separate section. This would have the additional convenience of allowing us to examine AfD naughtiness in all its forms and to voice opinions like "a group of disaffected editors constantly disguising ILIKEIT arguments and deprecated guidelines as IAR !votes is not good" or "asserting AfD noms perform terrible BEFORE searches because they don't exhaustively search every non-English offline newspaper that could possibly have covered the subject, when per our guidelines there is explicitly no expectation any coverage exists for this subject, is not good". JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I realise I have probably formatted this poorly resulting in a difficult-to-read wall of text. As such, I re-organised the report and copied the more major and questionable actions to a new section. I don't think actions such as tagging for notability four completely unrelated football articles created by me in that order in a four-minute span, or then tagging seven articles in a row relating to me for notability just when the prior action had been questioned, or voting "delete" at AFDs I had voted "keep" minutes after each response to me at another discussion, or nominating nine football articles written by me for deletion in a month, with no others in between for the final 6/9, are "ordinary interactions". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't examined all of BeanieFan11's examples but with previous disputes about hounding, it's important to look at the totality of diffs, not just one or two isolated incidents. As a regular closer of AFDs, it's not uncommon to find two editors who repeatedly butt heads over AFDs in a particular subject area. And it's also not rare for editors to go on a deletion binge of overnominating articles they find, flooding the daily log with many nominations of a similar kind which is frustrating to our regular AFD participants who want to handle each article discussion individually and carefully. Editors going on a nomination spree is a consistent problem we see periodically at AFDLand. I'm not making any judgment here as I've stated I haven't examined all of the diffs but this scenario seems very familiar to those editors who spend time reviewing AFD discussions. I hope this dispute can be resolved so as to retain both editors as they generally do good work. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just commenting to prevent archiving, as I think this could use a bit more discussion before being auto-archived. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey man im josh, perhaps you want to offer your thoughts on the matter? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Long-term sporadic abuse from one IP address
User contributions for 69.127.244.66

In January, added "accurately and truthfully" to the Don Imus article where it said "He was fired by CBS Radio in April 2007 after accurately and truthfully describing the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos".

In May, added "(which they were)" to the same article where it said "describing the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"(which they were)."

Comments left at Talk:Don Imus (like "Suck it up Nancy and deal with it") are also offensive.

This is a cable internet customer who has been disrupting since last October. Obviously not here to contribute in a good way. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How would you know he’s a cable internet customer did you lookup his ip address is that itself not a violation of tos? AitMazigh (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, trying finding out someone's IP address using illicit means is a violation. Looking up a publicly displayed IP address is absolutely fine since that's public information voluntarily revealed when you edit logged out. I mean, sheesh, there are multiple links to look up this information on every contributions history of an IP user. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CoffeeCrumbs is right, there are about 1342 websites where you can paste an IP address and get the URL of the provider returned to you. If I knew how to use Linux I could probably do it myself with a ping command or something like that. The URL is optonline.net, which is a cable internet service. The length of time between edits to the Imus article, and the somewhat-racist nature of many of the talk page posts and edits to articles, makes it obvious that this is the same guy the whole time at this IP. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this edit from this IP: "He referred to them as nappy headed hos because he was making a truthful observation. They were nappy headed hos, so he was only pointing out the obvious.  Sorry to those who were thin skinned and offended, but the truth sometimes hurts. "  Please block this IP. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah they can enjoy the weekend off Wikipedia. Blocked 72 hours for disruption. Will obviously increase future blocks if needed RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of 72 hours: the edits are from January 24 and 15 May, and it seems likely that all edits from that IP (going back to October 2023) are the same person, so either it's stale and not worth blocking about or the block should be for a month or more. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked
User:Abdulmalek majeed was blocked as a promotion-only account and has returned to continue self-promotion on their talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Y Done. It was actually User:Abdulmalek majeed. v/r - TP 02:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But look! Look at the first message! TornadoLGS said it was User:Abdulmalek majeed! No mistake here that I can see. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 02:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ribosome786
This editor is entirely disruptive as visible from the dozens of recent warnings from his talk page.

He has now tried multiple times to create an article as well as submitting a draft of the same despite the topic already existing at Muhammad ibn al-Qasim. He is not listening to anybody.

I believe a WP: NOTHERE block is warranted now. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * He is writing about the son of the target, who has the same name? His other work looks okay. Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case, their talk page is full of warnings, they've also engaged in copyright violations at aswell using vile ethno-religious personal attacks in their edit summaries , their conduct proves that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia  Ratnahastin  (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Pigay at Talk:Alexander the Great
In their couple dozen edits, they have so far failed to respect the time of other editors or show any willingness to understand what others are saying to them on the most rudimentary level. They have been nothing but rude while insisting every other editor is oblivious to their pet definition of who knows how many different words and concepts. One could easily just assume they are trolling, and maybe I should've given up earlier. In any case, they seem like they are going to continue being disruptive at Talk:Alexander the Great on a daily basis until something is done. Remsense 诉  18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you have tried a welcome and a WP:NOTFORUM warning first? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my intuition was too harsh, but it seemed to me that their signals of "please show me proof of this being Wikipedia's notion of consensus" followed immediately by both "I do not care to read about Wikipedia's notion of consensus" and "I refuse to believe the people summarizing what Wikipedia's notion of consensus is" (my interpretation, not direct quotation) excluded the possibility that they would like to be welcomed to the community. WP:NOTFORUM doesn't really apply here. Remsense  诉  03:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Remsense, I'm going to join with the other respondents thus far in saying that this looks to me, after a fairly exhaustive review of the involved threads on the talk page, to be mostly a content dispute--and for what it's worth, that was my assessment from earlier today before there were responses here. Yes, Pigay is starting to indulge in some IDHT, but initially they seemed to be making sincere efforts to understand the relevant policies and at a minimum they are trying to work with sourcing rather than original research--they just don't understand all of the nuances of our (let's be fair, not always entirely intuitive) procedures.  My main observation working through the previous discussion is that there was a lot of missed opportunity to onboard them to better understand the particulars of WP:V and WP:WEIGHT, which are concepts they seem more than ready to accept, even if they've yet to fully internalize the specifics. Now of course, neither you nor any other one editor has a responsibility for educating them (and the longer the conversation has proceeded, the more insistent Pigay has become, in a way where I can see how it might to start to grate on your patience), but in a purely pragmatic/best-practice sense, I think you could have saved them and yourself a lot of trouble with a little more patience in explaining some things more thoroughly--or if you weren't willing to do so, pointing them to some basic newbie resources (i.e. relevant policies and fora) early on.  Again, my sense is that this is a user who could adjust with a little more help.  They are a getting a bit ahead of themselves in trying to supplement actual policy with their idea of the best way of doing things, but they aren't currently edit warring, nor would I say they have crossed the threshold into WP:TEND or WP:DISRUPT quite yet--and I don't think they would have come as close as they have now except that there was a little bit of WP:BITE at the outset. Indeed, while I don't know which of you and the other experienced editors on that article have been there for two weeks or ten years, but what I can say for sure is that the issue of shared cultural identity between the Macedonian and the Greek peoples is to be expected, given both historical and contemporary factors. In fact, if the human race were to somehow survive until near the heat death of the universe, I would not be surprised if at least two out of the last one hundred human beings were still regularly invested in arguing about whether or not Macedonia was really a part of Greece and which Aegean-adjacent peoples were properly called 'Greek' and 'Macedonian'.  By which statement I meant to stress that anyone who wants to contribute in this area should be prepared to regularly demonstrate some patience on such matters and be prepared to guide opinionated newcomers through the sources, relevant policies, and existing consensus. Provided said newcomers don't come in super hot and disruptive--which in my opinion, this one did not. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 05:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your insight, and I think you're right. I'll close this for now. Remsense  诉  05:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * At this point, other than being a time sink and not understanding Wikipedia policies, they haven't done anything wrong and it's just a content dispute. @Pigay - Patience is wearing thin and you can be blocked for being disruptive.  WP:V states that sources must be verifiable - it does not state verification must be easy or in the form of an online resource.  If you want to verify the source, you can find your local library.  And "nearly unanimous" is consensus.  This is your only warning from an admin on this topic.--v/r - TP 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User:JR NaveenLakshman
It's clear from their edits thus far that this account is only here to promote themselves. I've deleted their Commons upload (multiple speedy criteria apply) and I think their talk page and sandbox here should get wiped, and possibly the account be blocked, as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked (and spam deleted). For future reference, these reports should go to WP:AIV. – bradv  04:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/Stalker involved in harassment etc back again
The vandal who I've reported numerous times before is back again, this time under the name. Again the edit summaries are uncivil enough to warrant revdel. If some passing soul could block and revdel, I would be grateful. And to think, I had my rollback ability removed because I called this person a vandal, which was and is the least of their many shortcomings... - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. I deleted the offensive ones, but left the "pillock" and "plonker" ones as it just makes them look childish anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The whole thing is rather childish, but such are the ways of some. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, that guy again? Jeez. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Maria-Ana Tupan
Admin intervention is required here. The user (with a clear COI) has been making disruptive edits on the article's talk page, despite being warned multiple times on their talk page. Also see the COIN discussion.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user has committed to not editing the article directly. What's the problem?--v/r - TP 12:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TParis their comments on the talk page after their proposed changes were denied for being promotional. (see the diffs above) This isn't the first time they've done something like this, see their complaint at AN a month ago.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User:StopTheV4dals


SPA determined to restore an old revision of Safa Khulusi containing a lot of OR and fringe. 

Was warned by two different admins that they would be blocked on further reverting. 

Desisted for a while, but now came back to partially revert again to their preferred revision. 

Between the username, the bad faith accusations, and the continued edit warring, the user seems effectively WP:NOTHERE. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging and . Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup. Their last edit, which I reverted, was to restore a whole chunk of WP:OR/off-topic content, with an edit summary that basically amounted to an assertion that the existence of one section with a maintenance template is sufficient grounds to justify adding more of the same. Nothing they have posted on the talk page even approximates a sincere attempt to discuss anything. Nothing but stonewalling and baseless accusations. WP:NOTHERE would certainly seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * INDEFfed. Not Here/RGW/SPA, etc. Star   Mississippi  01:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I dropped the ball there! Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC).
 * Nah, they had two weeks to improve after your warning. They had no interest in doing so. Star   Mississippi  13:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspect closing of RFC
See. Reason: he closed his own RfC, some of those who voted are newbies or WP:SPAs. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm dealing with this, give me a few minutes. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, while made 210 edits, most of them are tied to Steaua (either FCSB or CSA Steaua). That is, including articles about people who played for these teams or trained them. tgeorgescu (talk)  17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have the article on a watchlist, unlike the other accounts that have hardly edited at all.  Anyway, I've pblocked Gunnlaugson from FCSB and the TP, I've ECP protected FCSB, unclosed the RfC, and tagged all the dubious accounts. A checkuser might find those accounts interesting, there's certainly evidence that they're co-ordinated.  The long history of dubious editing on this and related articles may be relevant. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for blocked user


See. Contents are Arabic-language spam for a beauty shop they are promoting. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Chronic and long term edit warring at Jyotirlinga
The page Jyotirlinga has been the subject of an edit war for months now, primarily between IP users or registered users with fewer than 50 edits whose edit histories exclusively or almost exclusively consist of edits to this page. Can an administrator apply some sort of edit protection here? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically, you'd take this to WP:RFPP. I've taken a look anyway though, and these edits are weeks apart at a time.  Normal editing can deal with the issue, page protection isn't needed.--v/r - TP 01:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TParis the page has very few eyes on it (and by eyes I mean those of competent Wikipedia users who have enough domain expertise to detect what is actually unproductive editing). Can you explain according to what metric you feel that "normal editing can deal with the issue"? Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By the "users edits are weeks apart" metric. This isn't a hot edit war requiring admin intervention.--v/r - TP 00:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

user:Slaefwjops consistently removing content
user:Slaefwjops has been consistently removing cited content from the Roh Soh-yeong page with their only reasoning being that Roh is a good person. They keep on just shouting in all caps in their summary, and in general are acting quite disruptive. Gaismagorm (talk)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done. Given indefinite, they are a single purpose account.--v/r - TP 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

IP vandalizing talk page with rude comments after being blocked
The IP was blocked for writing rude comments on many talk pages. However, they have continued on their own talk page, removing the block notice and adding a rude comment on the one warning they received. Although this was only one thing, it's clear that they will likely continue, so talk page access should be revoked for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstatefive (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Already done. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 02:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is something weird going on at Articles for Deletion?
Just noticed that an AfD I had open has been closed 3-4 times, only to be reverted, by accounts that, when I look, are blocked for vandalism. Do we have a weird sockpuppet situation going on? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ...a link to the AFD in question would be helpful. GiantSnowman 17:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an LTA making the rounds, just report to AIV on sight. Pahunkat (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not much more to do except keep playing Whac-A-Mole and move on.  --<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk  17:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Adam might be referring to Articles for deletion/List of Fantastic Beasts characters. A newly-created account named seemed to be mass-closing AfDs as No Consensus. Wizzrobe61 has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism by User:Jauerback.  EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye. That AfD has been closed by: User:Wizzrobe61, User:Wany314, User:WikiWiz31, User:Wizzrobe610,  User:Weiorea, User:Mouser30, and User:Mouser29 in the last 2 days. It's becoming a noticable trend.  Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is an LTA. Admins are aware, but there's not really a whole lot we can do to stop it. Just revert, block, ignore. —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Ignoring from now. I guess I don't do a lot of AfDs. Kind of presumed it was new. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We could adopt a practice of automatically semiprotecting AfDs, or semiprotecting at the first sign of shenanigans. These discussions need not be as accessible as article editing. BD2412  T 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the goal of this disruptor is to harm Wikipedia by preventing most users from commenting on AfDs, they will have done their job perfectly if we do this. Air on White (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the sock connection, see Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been correctly warned using, at 18:23, 29 September 2017, and has persisted in this area. Please will an uninvolved admin investigate their edit history since that warning, and consider what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You need to provide some evidence before throwing any allegation. Admins are requested to dismiss the matter altogether. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. An admin isn't going to "investigate" an editor based on no evidence at all other than the issuing of the DS/CT warning seven years ago. The edit notices when you file something at AN/I clearly say that you should "provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors". I suggest either providing such evidence or withdrawing the accusations, otherwise this will reflect more poorly on you than on the editor you're asking about.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * do you mean this WP:ARBIPA alert? I couldn't find any evidence that they ever recived a (WP:GS/CRYPTO) alert. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Victor Schmidt, @Mfarazbaig @Amakuru My apologies. I was not careful enough and did not read things correctly.  This may be closed as "nothing to see here" 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

IP POV and rudeness
I came across this vandalism on North London derby by User:2A00:1858:1054:848B:203D:82EF:416A:9C17. I reverted it but looking at his contributions, I came across this rude message he posted on 's talkpage. I think it, along with his edit descriptions, that he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia and just wants to push a WP:POV for his favourite football club.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also appears to have similarity to this IP in the context of the comments he is referring to.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference the IP addresses are all part of, which has already been blocked twice for the same issue. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the range for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Said user partakes in edit wars by reverting files when it's not necessary, please do look into this. Vanguardsofthesupporters (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There might be some good hand/bad hand socking going on here. Multiple accounts with barely any edits suddenly show up and start arguing over the flag.      and  should all be scrutinized.--v/r - TP 10:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * what about Pineconefoxowlyipman SonicXMasako2 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki Hounding
Over the past few weeks, I have been subjected to numerous off-wiki attacks, primarily on my LinkedIn profile. It's been pretty unsettling to say the least. Today, openly confessed that they have obtained some off-wiki evidence about me. They referenced a news story (I'm open to sharing it privately) that discusses my real-life identities and profession, which strongly suggests that they're actively stalking/hounding me off-wiki. What's troubling is that @Libraa2019 was also actively involved in a WP:ANI report against me last month where I was attacked by now blocked UPE editors and. I believe @Libraa2019 is stalking me off-wiki, and potentially behind recent attacks on my LinkedIn, due to my active involvement in nominating articles - created by UPEs and sock farms -  for deletion. Their frustrations in AfD discussions seem linked to these incidents. Additionally, while they are hounding me off-wiki, they are also accusing me of having a COI with a startup whose article I created. --— Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 20:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (Puts clerking hat on) - The only group of editors who have the ability to discuss/handle evidence "privately" are the Arbitration Committee. Best contact them directly. Amortias (T)(C) 20:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saqib is accusing me of something which i have not done. The reason i mentioned about off-wiki (did'nt shared that site) is because since last few weeks i was gathering evidences to report him, He is contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any evidence [] & nominating my creations despite of meeting notability criteria . He even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" , he accused me of socking on commons without any evidence, initiated AFD's by calling me UPE  , all of my creations are nominated by him with similar statements & i am unable to understand his behaviour as many editors have told him that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts , , ,  but he objected all of them. Its natural any one can get frustrated & start gathering evidences to prove that the one calling other editor UPE is may be UPE himself (although not calling him UPE but trying to prove my point that why i wrote "Saqib mentioned his creation off-wiki"). The accusations regarding my involvement in linkedin attacks are false and i would like to see evidences (or he should share evidences to admins regarding my involvement in those attacks) if he thinks so. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone block 2A04:4A43:4FCF:D943:D89A:4387:EBF1:C398 please?
– disruptive editing across multiple articles. Doesn't respond to notices and warnings, often repeating edits that have been reverted. A 24h block should do it, hopefully. Thanks, — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done by Drimes. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

IP editor confessing to harassment on behalf of a registered user
An IP editor, 2A02:8084:F1BE:C780:C1C9:AFE1:C54C:17C1, just to confessed to harassment on behalf of toward  with this edit. No idea if this is really Bluebird207.

I'm not sure why I was tagged in that post but, since I'm aware of it, passing this along to ANI... - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not an urgent matter, please retract this, waste of everyone's time - the people pinged by the IP, if they're interested, can do something about it with absolutely no need for ANI's input. If you're not willing to get involved with it, and honestly I'm not willing to even read that IP's message that is bigger than a lot of articles, then I don't see why ANI should be willing to either. – 2804:F1...BD:4D (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to retract this if or an admin requests I do so. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am unsure of what can and should be done. It's been an intermittent but insistent campaign of harassment directed at me over a decade-old grudge for a truthful comment I made that this person didn't like. I have felt no need to apologize for stating the truth back then, and other than this comment, I have not dignified this person's actions with any sort of response. They've retired from editing at their account, and they've been using VPNs to edit from IP addresses all over the world. If they were only targeting me, I'd just continue to ignore the pings and posts, but they've been pinging dozens of other editors with no connection to the original issue. Because of the harassment of others, something should be done, if only symbolically to impart the message that this behavior is inappropriate and needs to stop.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Imzadi1979, I'm sorry that you were treated like that and you handled it like a champ. I left a note for them which may not altogether satisfy you--it may well be that another admin comes by and blocks the account, and that would be fine with me. I appreciate the work you've done here and that you keep doing here, despite all that nonsense. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's also the fact that only a checkuser (and with VPNs that's a big maybe) or someone very familiar with the behaviour of the user would even be able to know if they're not just joejobing to get an older target of theirs (or whatever other reason), who apparently left Wikipedia over 5 years ago, blocked.
 * After all, why not just log in to their account to confess? – 2804:F1...BD:4D (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious as to who the mobiles 2A02. & 2804, are. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, on Bluebird207's talk page 2A02 wrote This is Bluebird207, posting at an IP address. Deor (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a mobile IP, if you would like to see my other contributions look at my /40 or /32 range, besides a handful of reverted edits to animated movie articles(I think), all others were mine. – 2804:F1...BD:4D (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hold up, : should the technical feasibility of a temporary block/range block (or blocks) for 2A02 and other affected ranges not be discussed first? The IP is either an editor tenaciously continuing a many-years-long campaign of harassment and disruption, driven by a truly astounding level of obsession to extract an apology they think they are due for a decade-old comment that was testy at worst....or else they are someone joe-jobing in an attempt to sell that story.  Maybe I'm missing some technical background here though: have they been IP hopping fast and constantly? <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Snow Rise, of course it's feasible to block that range, and I think a bunch of the IPs/ranges (like this) are already blocked. I think I probably blocked some of them. There's almost a dozen admins among the list that they pinged and so I figured that that page already will get plenty of admin attention. And blocking their range--we can always do that if they start trolling from that one, but it's clear that the previous blocks just haven't done a lot to stop them. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see: thanks for the indulgence and the extra context. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 03:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page protection: Talk:Donald_Trump
This is insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=162410466

It's one thing to have a politician's page protected, that makes sense. However, when a page is protected, the talk page is necessarily the only place that members of community and the public can weigh in or suggest edits.

An alt-right editor protecting the page, claiming falsely that there is "disruption," should not be allowed. 98.198.62.167 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is the 23rd time the page has had to be protected because of disruption, and it's only for three days. There's only so much fuckwittery that can be tolerated, especially on a BLP. Dunno where you get the "alt-right" stuff from. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. The reason the talk page is protected is because of people who may (and probably have, considering it was protected) post comments that would violate WP:NOTFORUM or otherwise be unconstructive.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the OP for three months, given their repeated personal attacks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @ScottishFinnishRadish has now been accused by three individuals in the last month of antisemitism, supporting a genocide, and now being alt-right lmao. All were baseless, obviously.
 * The life of a good admin, I suppose. The   Kip  (contribs) 03:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Become an admin they said! It'll be fun, they said! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At least you don't edit under your real name (unless you really are the root vegetable you claim to be, I guess?). I have to be somewhat careful which editorial quagmires I put my name to. Too late to change now but definitely would not advise. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like to imagine that the last part of SFR's name is meant to imply that he is so rad that it might as well be considered a fundamental aspect of his make-up. As in "I'm Scott-ish, Finn-ish, and Rad-ish." <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 03:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just remember that if vandals insult you, especially for completely opposite reasons, it means you're doing a good job.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a block review
Administrators%27_noticeboard; perhaps this was in the wrong place initially. Seems pointless to rehash everything here. If an admin would be kind enough to review, assess, and close, it would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ by @User:TParis. <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  10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Spammer


Could someone block this user. Since their account was created, they have been exclusively spamming. Even when I warned them not to, they still done it anyways. OhHaiMark (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They haven't edited since yesterday. If they resume spamming, reporting them to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now globally locked. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Popera
I'm here because I really don't see where else to go, so please don't shout at me when pointing me in a direction I missed. Popera is a long-standing redirect to Operatic pop. Two days ago, hijacked it with an article about the 'Popere' (also spelled 'Popera'), a clan in India.

This is a less than ideal way of going about things, so I reverted and dropped them the standard uw-hijack with its links to how to go about proposing a new article. They reverted me, I reverted them back with an edit summary asking them to read their talk page, and that was that.

They've come back on a different IP today,, and reverted me once more.

The thing is, I suspect the article they've created has merit. If I'm right about that, it should be at Popere, and Popera should either be a disambig or remain a redirect to Operatic pop (perhaps with a hatnote on that article).

If that is correct, it needs someone to split the history currently at Popera, moving the hijacking to Popere and leaving the non-hijacked redirect where it is. Is that even possible? If it is, it's obviously beyond my skill and what I can achieve as an IP editor anyway. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but I don't think the sources at that version verify the statement The Popere, or Popera is a clan of Koli caste found in the Indian state of Maharashtra. At best, they mention a few people with the surname Popere (for example, Rahibai Soma Popere) and then a single, possibly academic source mentions a mythological king named Popera. Does the existence of a surname automatically mean that a clan or caste by that name exists? (I ask that in good faith. I don't have the background to know.) There's nothing at List of Koli states and clans, for example. Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No idea – I know as much about the subject as you do! If the hijacked version has no merit, then this thread is moot, other than... can a couple of people watchlist the redirect so I don't accidentally go over 3RR if the person hijacking it keeps jumping IPs to rehijack it again? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good call. It's on my watchlist now, and I don't mind requesting protection if they keep hijacking it. But I'm also not an admin so the more watchlists it's on, the better. Woodroar (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Or-Shalem
keeps removing sourced information from the article Moroccanoil (see recent history of the page and Talk:Moroccanoil) on the basis that it is disputed while they are the only one who disputed it and refuses to bring evidence of their claims. To sum up:
 * 1) the user proposed a deletion of the article on the basis that the creator was acting in bad faith;
 * 2) the user accepted that the page is worth keeping but at the condition that the company is not referred to as Israeli, giving the rationale that several countries are involved;
 * 3) once I edited the page to provide clearer referencing, the user refused to acknowledge that at least five sources call the company Israeli and no other available source calls it any other nationality;
 * 4) the users threatened not to read the sources if I did not stand by their own conditions of refraining from editing the article;
 * 5) all along the user accused other users of their own misbehavior. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on anything else, but I'll point out (and notify) AitMazigh, who created an account and within 2 minutes posted a personal attack(diff) in the discussion.
 * – 2804:F14:8085:6201:60D0:5E55:B29D:8875 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're the one defending the article and edit warring and you were the first to accuse me of bad faith editing and posted on my user talk page accusing me of being a disgruntled Israeli trying to hide something. I offered to discuss with you in the talk page, but you refuse to engage with me there, essentially claiming your opinion is absolute and correct. I have asked you multiple times to stop warring and to try to come up with a compromise with me, but you are only responding by repeatedly claiming that the sources say it is an "Israeli company," despite me reminding you that these sources aren't suitable for Wikipedia for the most part and that not all the sources agree with this claim. I have pointed out that calling this an "Israeli company" can be interpreted in different ways, and isn't entirely an objective statement, and argued that while the company can be traced to Israel with enough research, it isn't obviously clear and that there are other countries involved, yes. I pointed out that just because something is sourced doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for wikipedia standards, and when you stated that it is normal for an article to lead with a company's nationality, I responded that not all of them do and for instance Waze, which is also from Israel doesn't, because it is owned by Google. There's some nuance missing here, and I think you're being overly defensive of the article and not allowing other users to contribute. Or-Shalem (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not only did you remove FIVE legitimate sources that state that it’s an Israeli company you also moved down unrelated sources which have nothing to do with your original grievances and instead criticize the company in question. Seems to me that you’re an individual who works for this company and you’re deliberately trying to alter the page in a disingenuous way. AitMazigh (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) User blocked as a sockpuppet by Yamla. The   Kip  (contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't work for the company (again I'm being accused of something I am not... I think IP above me may be on to something). The sources were speculating that it is an Israeli company. It has not been confirmed by the company themselves that they operate as "an Israeli company." Once again, I repeat that jist because there is a source for something doesn't make it wikipedia appropriate, nor absolute. I'm using nuance to determine that the company should not be called "Israeli" in the opener and I explained that saying the company was founded by Israelis and partially operates in Jerusalem is the objective and indisputable way to go about this. But you are being extremely defensive about an issue I am trying work out with you, diplomatically. Or-Shalem (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This article should probably fall under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Palestine lol, this is one individual deleting sources and altering pages to suit his narrative. AitMazigh (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) User blocked as a sockpuppet by Yamla. The   Kip  (contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. The issue is mainly with an editor refusing to stand by the sources and claiming a clearly sourced nationality should be changed based on consensus. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an article about an Israeli company most of which deals with I/P controversies. The editor isn't EC confirmed, my point is that they probably shouldn't be editing the article at all. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well you see, that's kind of the dispute - whether it should be considered an Israeli company or not. Also nonsense that all articles involving Israel belong in the I-P conflict. Plenty of them don't. You just want to gatekeep Israeli articles. At this rate, considering how many changes I am getting from this article, I'll be extended confirmed very shortly. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Other than the header there are two subsections to this article, one details criticism by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and the other fall out from Eurovision 2024. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And both of those sections hang on whether this is an Israeli company or not. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your getting at? What is your point?
 * The whole controversy with this company is that it is debatable whether it is Israeli or not. That is why calling it "Israeli" in the opener is fitting a certain narrative. The company has not publicly refuted the allegations that they are Israeli, not have they confirmed it. Fact of the matter is they are HQed in NYC. They were founded by an Israeli couple while they were in Montreal. Some of the manufacturing is done in Jerusalem. This is what we have that is objective and factual.
 * Using this as a basis to call the company itself "Israeli"," which is what the sources Ivan used justified their allegation of it being so did, is itself dubious and debatable this is why there needs to be a discussion before calling it such. The article needs to be neutral until then. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you point, it's about whether the company is Israeli or not. The company has received criticism, that criticism comes from it being perceived as an Israeli company. I'm not saying it is or it isn't (I stay away from editing in the subject area), only that that criticism should fail under ARBPIA restrictions. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No you and your "friend" are the ones trying to suit a narrative. I don't see how removing subjective and interpretive "Israeli company" from the lead, but keeping "founded by Israelis" or "founded in Israel" in the opener is suiting a narrative. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, parts of the Moroccanoil article fall under the WP:ARBPIA restrictions. M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI: Instructions on how and when to invoke ARBPIA in a case like this are described at WP:A/I/PIA. – 2804:F1...9D:8875 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to block me from the article because my change doesn't fit your narrative, i'll be extended confirmed very shortly. I can guarantee that this will not be approved to fit under ARBPIA, all things considered. Or-Shalem (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What matters is that right now, not only you're not EC, but you also violated the 3R policy multiple times. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In light of a certain attitude shown by the user here and on their talk page, I’ll list WP:GAME as possible additonal disruptive behavior. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 23:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how editing an article about a hair care product company, whether or not it is "Israeli", falls under the intended remit of WP:ARBIPA. The company might be the target of activists because of its perceived or real ownership but that, in itself, doesn't mean that the company is involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict and the attempt to stretch the 500/30 guidline for WP:ARBIPA articles to cover a consumer product company is, I believe, disingenuous. This is a content dispute, not one that requires intervention due to Arbitration concerns. This is just another messy incident of editors disagreeing about article content and having to work out a conseensus among them. That's what I see here but I will also defer to admins who work more closely in the AE area. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my opening post, the user has acted assuming the editors’ bad faith from the very beginning, and has refused to bring sources to support his claims when all the ones provided are clear about how the company should be defined. It has to do with their behavior before being a content dispute. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 07:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And to add on, they have even rephrased the content of some sources to pretend they aren’t straightforward – I’m referring to these:, from which the user claimed the company was founded “when they were in Montreal” and not “in Montreal”, refusing to acklowledge the clear content. See their talk page per above. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 07:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying or even suggesting that the company is somehow involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but there's no denying that parts of the article relate to the conflict (this is no different than the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 article). M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The connection between the cosmetics company and the Israel-Palestine conflict is tenuous at best and the sources being used to make that connection are questionable as well. An Israeli company sponsoring the Eurovision Song Contest doesn't make them involved, and this is an overzealous use of the 500/30 guideline, in my opinion.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding "the attempt to stretch the 500/30 guidline for WP:ARBIPA articles to cover a consumer product company is, I believe, disingenuous", it may be, but intent doesn't matter. Content within scope of the topic area is covered by the restrictions. I see the article has a template because some of the current content is clearly within scope of the topic area. The WP:ARBECR restrictions only apply to that content and related talk page discussions/edit requests within scope of the topic area. If that content doesn't survive for whatever reason (sourcing doesn't look great) the restrictions will no longer be relevant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument is that this is not in the scope of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It would be a hell of a stretch to include this company in that geopolitical conflict, simply by fact of it being Israeli (or not). Including this company would, in effect, be stating that every company that is based in or has strong ties to Israel falls under ARBIPA, which seems incredibly out of proportion. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User vandalizing other user page
User:JamesBNE vandalized my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:InfinityAtom&oldid=1201184302 InfinityAtom (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why are you reporting a blanking that happened in January and that the user undid ~1 minute later? – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:C53A:6712:B999:B28F (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I'm allowed to guess what this is about: Please do not use this board to troll your friends. – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:C53A:6712:B999:B28F (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparent script kiddie skewing views on an article
This isn't urgent per se, but it's a chronic issue happening over many months. this Village pump post covers all the details. While this isn't a huge problem, the accumulating fake views of Neatsville, Kentucky are skewing our statistics and rankings. I am thus inquiring as to whether this access to Wikipedia can be blocked. Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 22:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I just looked at Pageviews analysis and the article has 2,266,354 pageviews for this year so far.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 23:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Normal administrators (wiki admins) have no control over this, unless you can find something to protect, delete, or block from editing. Action will require someone involved with the Wikimedia network operations, via WP:VPT or ultimately WP:PHAB. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I will report to PHAB as a security issue. I already have a VP post (although in Misc rather than Tech). Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 06:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Rywrhdfuwy34jhewryr
please block him. inapropriate username. modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. WP:UPOL states that confusing or extremely lengthy usernames [...] are highly discouraged but are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. It was also inappropriate to tag his userpage as an attack page. In fact, I'd say your own userpage is much more inflammatory... Spicy (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with you. v/r - TP 10:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have already been indeffed on 3 other wikis, if I were you I would tread carefully. Northern Moonlight  14:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Unchecked vandalism in 2024 Indian general election
Been waiting for requests for page protection for half a day while such blatant crap such as this by prolific vandals such as  were allowed to be made repeatedly. Borgenland (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack
Blatant personal attack by :. Super  Ψ   Dro  15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There was no attack. He was the first to start attacking people because the article was not in line with his private vision and its changes were illegal and not agreed upon in the discussion, he was the first to threaten me and resent me for restoring the legal version of the article. He should stop illegal editing and arbitrariness.Bortak42 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Worth noting you've already been blocked over this . And also that you are editing WP:RUSUKR articles while not being an extended-confirmed user, which I just realized. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Get the fuck away from me and take care of yourself forest grandpa. I'm telling you once again. Come on. Bortak42 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ..."forest grandpa"? XD Super   Ψ   Dro  16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you picking on me, overhang horse? Bortak42 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Omg this is fierce Zanahary (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: I highly suspect this edit was made (edit conflict style) as this “be civil” note was being sent on their talk page. Two minutes after making that message linked too above by Super Dromaeosaurus, Bortak42 deleted the personal attack part. I think both editors (Bortak42 and Super Dromaeosaurus) are too involved in the discussion/article they edit warred over to see the bigger picture and both seem to be missing contextual clues from each other. This AN/I was really a “jumping the gun” moment, and reporter failed to even see or indicate the comment was changed to remove the PA two minutes after being made. Since we are here though, maybe a formal edit warring warn for both editors (one being reported and WP:BOOMERANG for reporter) on edit warring would be helpful. See the edit history linked too above. Long, multi-day edit war with no formal discussions taking place until today, with even Super Dromaeosaurus saying they did not do formal processes, after being alerted to being involved in an edit war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No boomerang to me. I am who has actually started a discussion in the first place. I did notice the personal attack was removed. The personal attack is a different issue from the content dispute and edit war. By the way go ahead and revert my merge if you wish. At least there is now a discussion. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So based on what you just acknowledged, you saw the personal attack be removed and then went ahead and decided to AN/I report? Yeah no, you need a boomerang “reminder” honestly or at least need to be reminded to take a step back from Wikipedia. You reported someone after seeing them remove the mistake. In fact, you made a “final warning” to Bortak42 two minutes after edit warring to merge the article again. In fact, that “final warning” was your first communication to Bortak42 since 22 May. You are jumping the gun multiple times. I do support a formal boomerang edit warring warn for you and one for Bortak42 after seeing the edit history between you too. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have striken out the final warning, given I did not follow formal procedure either. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Get away from me and put your mouth down already. Romanian dirty guy. You started first. I deleted it and you're still complaining. Give yourself some hay. End of discussion Bortak42 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not an admin, but can we please do something about this blatant personal attack? DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 already indeffed them. Disregard DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is gonna stick with me Zanahary (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There is massive edit-warring on this page, seemingly slightly more so by SD. The personal attack was by B, but was withdrawn. I would suggest either double warning, or none. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is either a double or nothing situation. Both editors are guilty of continuing this edit warring and both are overall jumping the gun with a personal attack and ignorance AN/I report to show for it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They have now added more personal attacks above. I suggest that a block is in order here.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bortak42 needs a second block for personal attacks, perhaps they'll get the point after a longer block (first was 72 hours). Schazjmd   (talk)  16:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed Bortak42 for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Romanian dirty guy' is beyond the pale - I concur that an indef is warranted. Having said that, I was rather enjoying the weird insults at the top of this thread. 'Forest grandpa' and 'overhang horse' are gems. Can you just connect two random nouns and use them as an insult these days? I hate all those waterfall cornflakes editing my favorite article... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Overhang horse" sounds more like a compliment, assuming the recipient is male. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Literal translations of an insult, without cultural context! Fun! Secretlondon (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, there is something in the water today. There should be instructions at the top of the page on how not to get yourself immediately banned while a consensus seems to be emerging that you shouldn't be. I suggest calling it WP:FORESTGRANDPA. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Forest grandpa' is a literal translation of the Polish idiom 'leśny dziadek' and is referring to someone as a 'fossil', Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about overhang horse? Super   Ψ   Dro  21:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The only guesses I have for that are https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%84_(rze%C5%BAba_Davida_%C4%8Cernego) or a horse ornament for a Christmas tree — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 02:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Give yourself some hay is pretty specialist... I guess if the horse is overhung he soon works up an appetite :)  ——Serial Number 54129  12:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Normanosborn1's spam
All of 's contributions appear to be spam links to sitemile.com, consistently out of scope. They are placed as references, but they are not connected to the previous statement. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's too soon to take this matter here to ANI. The user has only been given a level-1 spam warning so far, and appears to have stopped the activity. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A report to WP:AIV as a promotion only or spam account may have been more appropriate had they continued. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Neverrainy
Without providing any reason or justification for doing so, the user 'Neverrainy' went through all the pages for each series of 'The Great British Sewing Bee', removing data relating to the TV ratings for each series. They simply deleted the information, without stating why. As the TV ratings were in an established format that had existed for many years without any negative comment or reaction and as no justification for the edits by 'Neverrainy' were given, I reinstated the deleted data. The reinstated data had been sourced and verified and the source references were included in the reinstated data. Almost instantly, 'Neverrainy' posted a threat on my talk page, warning me that I had added unsourced, unverified data to these articles. A dishonest, intimidating act. 'Neverrainy' then reverted the reinstatements, again providing no justification or comment as to why. I posted a similar warning to 'Neverrainy's' talk page, which was immediately removed. This editor clearly wants to engage in an edit war and is using wikipedia as a battleground to have articles written only in their preferred style, regardless of the value and interest of the data they keep removing without providing any justification. Just for comparison, the TV ratings for 'Strictly Come Dancing' are logged and recorded for each series article page in the same manner as 'Sewing Bee', something apparently 'Neverrainy' doesn't object to. I am requesting the deleted data is reinstated and 'Neverrainy' is asked to stop the edit war and to leave the historic pages that exist in an accepted format, alone. MWEditorial (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, MWEditorial, you need to provide diffs/edits to indicate examples of the disruption you are describing. Don't expect other editors to search for them. And I hope you notified the other editor of this discussion as indicated at the top of this page and edit notice. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've notified the other user of this discussion.
 * Have you made an effort to discuss why these changes were made by the other user? Apart from the templating I can't see any efforts to discuss this on the talk pages? The changes aren't major, they are minor visual changes, so maybe it's best to Assume Good Faith, discuss it, and match what is on other WP pages for similar series? Mdann52 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Neverrainy' provides no commentary in their edits. They simply delete and then delete again, after posting threats, when their unexplained deletions are reinstated. I think that was made clear. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_British_Sewing_Bee_series_10&action=history MWEditorial (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @MWEditorial While I agree they probably should have contacted you with more than a templated warning before reverting each of your edits that had the same apparent issue of being a "messy" format, it doesn't change the fact that you have decided to go to the dramaboards without even attempting to fulfil the minimum we expect from complainants that feel they have no other choice but to resort to it: no constructive comments, providing of evidence or even following instructions such as to notify an editor they're talking about. I will say that you'd be far better off withdrawing this complaint and attempting to make an actual effort to discuss with Neverrainy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 05:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @MWEditorial: As discussed above you have failed to notify of discussion, even though the red notice on top of this page clearly requires you to do so. In fact, you have not even attempted to discuss your concerns with them at all, so it will be very difficult for admins to entertain any sort of sanctions for them; in fact, you might find yourself the subject of sanctions instead. Remember, ANI is a last resort; if there's any method for you to work out your concerns with the user in question, we expect you to take the initiative and do so first before filing a complaint here. In addition, even if you still want to proceed with the complaint anyway, you must provide evidence in the form of diffs and why you think they are sanction-worthy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 05:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I posted to 'Neverrainy's' talk page and they deleted the comment instantly, before reinstating all of their edits, without explanation or discussion. Just as 'Neverrainy' provides no commentary for any of their deletions and post threats when the unexplained deletions are reinstated, refusing to engage. Thank you for threatening me for simply trying to stop an aggressive editor in their edit war. If they object so strongly to the 'minor edits' being in these pages, they would delete them everywhere they exist - I gave the example of the other instances where they are accepted. I shan't ask for help again. Good luck! MWEditorial (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @MWEditorial This certainly was not an attempt to discuss your concerns with them; it was just an attempt to "no u" them by copying and pasting their use of Template:Uw-unsourced2 at their talk page. A better way to do so would be to calmly ask for a more detailed explanation as to why they reverted. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 05:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, looking at this diff it seems Neverrainy didn't delete anything, only update the figures and improve the formatting? Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Block needed of block-evading "MARCELIUS MARTIROSIANAS" vandal
Can an administrator please block User:85.254.97.149? They are evading the recent block placed on their previous IP address 193.219.130.166. They're a long-term vandal who makes bizarre edits to articles and Talk pages including the text "MARCELIUS MARTIROSIANAS." They've been at it for several years between their many blocks. I've recently asked for an edit filter be created to potentially address this but since they've begun editing articles - typically, they mostly edit Talk pages - a block of their new IP address also seems warranted. (Note that I'm not notifying this blatant vandal about this ANI post per WP:RBI.) ElKevbo (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Improper RFC close at DYK.
I'm not sure what to do about this. But the on-going RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know was closed twice without discussion and without a proper neutral summary of the RFC. User closed it the first time, with a note it could be re-opened. I re-opened it with an additional question and then closed it a second time soon after. I would like the RFC to continue, but am ok if it is closed if a proper thorough and neutral summary is done. My main concern is that the lengthy discussion was not given a proper close. The closer should at least articulate the wide community division on this topic in the close and make it clear there is no clear community consensus in support of or against negative hooks at DYK and that it is clearly is controversial topic that needs to be addressed further. There was some lengthy conversation with two wide divisions and that needs to be summarized in the close. Preferably I would like a non-DYK participant to close this RFC when it happens.4meter4 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the close is improper, and you've not articulated any reason it's improper. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:CLOSE information page seems to indicate an expectation that closers be uninvolved editors. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Narutolovehinata5 appear to have commented in the thread that they closed (direct diffs of these comments aren't possible because of getting caught up in a span of edits that was oversighted, but the comments can be seen by keyword searching their usernames on WP:DYKT).The same information page recommends that most contentious discussions benefit from a formal closing statement, and that closers undertake to assess consensus to the best of their abilities, which OP is saying did not happen in the closes because there wasn't a formal assessment of the state of consensus (why there is or isn't a consensus and what that consensus or non-consensus is). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , see the standard "involved" definition at WP:NACINV. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4meter4's contention is that my close and Narutolovehinata5's were not lengthy enough to summarise the discussion. Now, I am no stranger to providing lengthy closes should there be a need. However, for this RfC, any close would just say "this was a point of discussion, for which there was no resolution whatsoever" over and over again. I saw no reason to match the needless bureaucracy of the RfC's structure with an interminably lengthy close. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe a proper close would 1.) highlight the wide community division on this issue. 2) Affirm that there is not wide community support for the current practice at DYK based on that division (meaning the use of negative hooks on BLPs is currently permissible at DYK but controversial in the community at large) 3) Conclude that there needs to be further discussion to reach a meeting of the minds as a community 4) Place an RFC note at DYK indicating the wide division and contention on this topic with a caution to tred carefully based on about half the people saying we shouldn't be using negative hooks at all on BLPS at DYK. There should be some sort of community note highlighting the lack of broad community support for the use of negative hooks on BLPs in the WP:DYKBLP section based on the input at this RFC. In short, an RFC close with no summarizing record or concluding message to the wikipedia community is not ok with me. 4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Remember to notify AirshipJungleman29 at User talk:AirshipJungleman29 (Narutolovehinata5 appears to be notified.
 * Diffs:
 * AirshipJungleman29 closing the discussion
 * Narutolovehinata5 closing the discussion
 * Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ Sorry had some internet connectivity problems (solved now) which prevented me from adding AirshipJungleman29's notification. I would place it. but AirshipJungleman29 has already commented here.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can empathize with the view that a lot of people volunteered a bunch of time to discuss something complicated and a close that basically just says "this specific RfC has gone nowhere" fails to do justice to the perspectives offered. Since the outcome of the closure isn't in dispute, Narutolovehinata5, you could save a bunch more people a bunch more time disputing the close by just going and adding another paragraph summarizing the perspectives before concluding that there's no consensus. (although I'll say it's not clear to me this needed to be closed early, despite the fact that I agree a consensus doesn't seem likely, both due to the complicated format and subject of the rfc) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and modified my closing statement to include a brief summary of the discussion, although feedback on wording is appreciated. While I did comment on the discussion, I wasn't a major participant and didn't vote in any of the questions so I thought closing the discussion was safe on my end. Regardless, it could also be argued this was an IAR case since it was clear anyway that no consensus was ever going to emerge from the RfC and discussion had already died down by that point. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 23:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple commenters had suggested that the RfC be halted, and 4meter4 had indicated that they might do so. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk page
Could someone yank talk page access for the blocked please? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, SFR! :-) 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious socks are obvious
Anyone care to spare me a cumbersome trip to SPI and do something about who is messing childishly with Madagascar women's national football team? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Plus
 * just created. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And
 * also just in. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * too. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And . 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * + . 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * + . 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * too. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And . 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * + . 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * + . 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've done the easy part and semi-protected the article for a week. But I'm going to be pulled away from WP in less than 5 min, so someone else is going to have to indef all the socks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ok i was able to do half but gotta run Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, along with . GiantSnowman 18:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all four of you! ⭐️ 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! I pulled their IP address ranges and was able to squash a few more accounts that weren't blocked yet. Let me know if any more of these accounts start causing shenanigans again and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I created an SPI that's now moot thanks to your quick work, Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Toxicv4lor. Given there's a backlog at SPI, would you mind deleting it (or preventing it from being listed or whatever) to not add to that backlog? (Deleting is fine, I'm not precious about it existing! G7 would cover it, I believe.) Thanks again! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It'll get cleared from the SPI list automatically after its status is changed to be 'closed'.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Extremely rare Madagascar vandalism Zanahary (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Sideshow Bob persistent vandalism on Constantine Bodin page
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs on recent edit warring's:


 * 1) []- you can add another 100 sources, it won't make them reliable and your edit wrong and unnecessary.
 * 2) []
 * 3) []- rv biased intro, maliciously based on dubious sources
 * 4) []
 * 5) []


 * Previous examples:


 * 1) [] - rv eternal nationalist bullshit


 * The last one is just an example of Side show Bob`s behaviour over the years, constantly insulting and putting nationalistic slurs in their edit summaries, examples [],[], [],[], [], [], [] etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [], Side show Bob does not participate on talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sideshow_Bob&diff=prev&oldid=1227399794

Comments:

This is going on for several years now, Sideshow Bob continues to vandalise different Wikipedia pages, using WP:battlefield words and excuses on edit summaries to remove reliable sources without any valid explanations on talk pages i.e the last disruptive edits on Constantine Bodin where that they removed J.A. Fine [] [] and  Christopher Deliso [] with an excuse that those are tourist guides [], besides  that Sideshow Bob used my talk page to leave comments like this [], or the similar aggressive narrative on their tp [], which is clear example of WP:aspersions and obvious case of WP:nothere, not understanding what WP:RS is, breaking the rules of Balkan contagious topic issued by Wiki admins, not using tp for their argumentation, breaking of 3RR rule etc. Theonewithreason (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please tell me how saying Duklja was the most powerful Serbian principality is due anywhere but Duklja.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That information stand there for few years now, also this has absolutely nothing to do with wp:undue since the imoprtance of Dioclea as being most important Serbian state at that time was very well explained by Fine on page 206.[], also even on Duklja article that is mentioned, but what is more important is the editors behaviour, if you think that they can just remove sourced material sorely on WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then you are wrong. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I happened on this like yesterday, and it's one of those times where I don't know anything about a subject and just want to help out. But for what it's worth, I just don't see how it matters on Constantine Bodin's page - as I said, it's already on the page for the state, so it's probably redundant on the ruler's article.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not redundant for Constantine Bodin page since Dioclea was at its peak during his reign, that is even described in Dioclea lede, yet it appears you are missing the point. There are certain rules on wikipedia when it comes to removal of sourced material. Which this editor is purposely breaking. Theonewithreason (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to waste time with this n-th attempt of well organised group of Serbian nationalist disruptive POV-pushers to discredit me for attempting to introduce a bit of NPOV into the parallel ultranationalist reality they have created on Serbian and English Wikipedia, where everything Montenegro-related has to be somehow labelled as Serbian. This guy has an agenda, and it is not improving the encyclopedic knowledge, quite the opposite. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 06:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

P.s. The sources listed at the end of the article are quite a good laugh as well if you look at them. 90% them is from Serbian authors belonging to organisations such SANU, pushing the nationalist agenda used on here to impersonate neutral and objective information. This guy is trying to prove that a medieval state had a national identity, seven centuries before the French Revolution, and I am a vandal here. This is a joke, and not a very good one. Sideshow Bob 06:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, this article has been subject to a slow back-and-forth editing dispute (dare I say "edit war") over the last week between Theonewithreason and Sideshow Bob. The article is now fully protected so that this ongoing disruption will stop and in hopes that you both will discuss the matter on the article's talk page. No communication between the two regarding the article or any attempts to work things out has occurred at all. The only direct interactions between the two I found were here and on this section of Sideshow Bob's user talk page where Theonewithreason incorrectly warns Sideshow Bob about adding original research to the article (which did not happen - while it's technically possible for someone to engage in the addition of original research to an article by removing content and/or reverting an editor's modification to an article, either by reverting original research back or using OR to justify content removal, this obviously doesn't apply here).


 * Theonewithreason has also incorrectly stated that Sideshow Bob's reverts constitute vandalism. This very situation is listed as an example on Wikipedia's vandalism policy page here saying that this isn't vandalism (and I agree that it is not). Sideshow Bob has repeatedly accused Theonewithreason of being a "Serbian nationalist disruptive POV-pusher" as well as someone with a "anti-Montenegrin agenda" both here as well as on their own user talk page and Theonewithreason's user talk page - none of these accusations provided any evidence supporting this, which is considered to be casting aspersions (diff 1, permalink 1, diff 2, permalink 2, diff 3, permalink 3, diff 4, permalink 4).


 * This behavior by Sideshow Bob, on top of the disruption and ongoing edit warring on Constantine Bodin by both users involved here, need to stop immediately. Take this issue to the article's talk page (Theonewithreason has started a discussion there on June 4 that Sideshow Bob has yet to respond to), work things out, and come to a consensus. You don't have to solve every problem; just start by finding things that you two do agree about regarding the two revisions, write a change request that reflects this agreement, and start from there. Trying to have a collaborative discussion and come to some agreement, even if it's tiny - is much better than what you two have been doing on the article over the last week, I can assure you of that one... ;-)


 * If any disruption continues on this (or any other article) between the two of you, or if Sideshow Bob continues to make accusations without supporting evidence, the next logical step to putting a stop to, and correcting the disruptive behavior is to apply and enforce blocks or other sanctions.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)

User:Tarih-ül Mümin persistent unsourced edits
Editor has been warned many times, via their talk page or in edit summaries of reverts, about unsourced edits and other disruptive behaviour. Nearly all their edits have been reverted (not counting those I've reverted myself). They have not responded on any talk page. Since a final warning received on 1 June, they have continued: (fictional or incorrect flags added),  (unsourced numbers added),  (unsourced change to "result"). Some of the edits are also misleading, either in their edit summaries (e.g. no "source" cited in this or this) or by adding citations that seemingly do not verify the content (e.g. ). Courtesy ping to, who I believe has dealt with many of their edits so far. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the report, R Prazeres. I fail to see how Tarih-ül Mümin is a net positive to this site, a lot of their additions are either unsourced (eg ) or have severe WP:VER issues, often ending up being non-WP:RS . They have been reverted by several established editors now. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Has never edited a talk page, including their own. P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor to start responding to concerns. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Imachillguyman
A newish contributor, who seems intent on engaging in a slow-motion edit war in articles regarding Osteopathy, and in particular to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. The contributor has been notified of Wikipedia's contentious topics rules with regard to pseudoscience and fringe science, has been warned multiple times, and blocked once (for 48 hours) with regard to their editing, but even after the block they still persist in attempting to impose their own personal opinions into articles, without consensus, and with no attempt at discussion. At minimum, I would suggest that an article-space block is required until they show signs of acknowledging the need to comply with Wikipedia policy, and to work collaboratively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let discuss this issue. Sorry, English not good. Not fst langauge. Imachillguyman (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why not contribute to a wiki where you can communicate proficiently? .Town...Shouter...Pro (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Practice makes perfect Imachillguyman (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Imachillguyman We aren't denying that's not good advice; but perhaps it's better that you first contribute to a Wikipedia project whose language is one you're fluent in; and then come back to edit the English Wikipedia when you feel more confident. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 05:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The user I'm replying to, .Town...Shouter...Pro, added 10 thousand bytes worth of invisible characters to the archive header template of this page when they made this reply...
 * Anyone else find that suspicious? – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:C033:1C2F:5D84:A79C (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right. First time I saw that. So weird.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Their first edits were 2 large deletions, reverted now, with edit summaries citing, with a link, BLP policy. I've asked them about earlier accounts as they clearly are not new. Doug Weller  talk 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And they've been blocked as a sock of Raxythecat. Imachillguyman blocked indefinitely as NOT HERE.  Doug Weller  talk 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump
A old contributor, who seems intent on engaging in a slow-motion edit war in articles regarding Osteopathy, and in particular to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. Editor is taking an all or non stance on whether OMM is an pseduoscience, despite proof shown in the talk page by other editors that not ALL of OMM is a pseduo-practice. Imachillguy (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sleeper account, registered seven years ago, makes its first English Wikipedia edit, after making a few Chinese and Commons edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sleeper sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did the puppeteer forget whether he was using his left hand or his right hand? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... were their zhwiki and Commons edits deleted? Because I can't see them. In any case, I'd assume they simply forgot the password to their older account.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Imachillguyman signed the original post as Imachillguy for some reason.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I should think the reason may have been they thought signing as Imachillguy would magically turn the edit into an edit by Imachillguy. I remember I had that notion myself when I was new and had some socks... (No, of course I didn't have socks! Who said that?) Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC).


 * Blocked. I've indeffed Imachillguyman for persistent disruptive editing plus this silly retaliatory report against reporter per above. WP:NOTHERE. Also blocked their sleeper sock Imachillguy. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

Stubbornness of user AutisticAndrew and not being collaborative.


See his talk page with edits reverted. This user is not collaborative at all after explaining what the practice should be for certain articles (see my contributions indeed). I've enough of his stubbornness. Looks like I'm dealing with a kid. Island92 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into this fully, but why did you revert to restore the editor's removal of your message on their talk page? Daniel (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You also haven't notified AutisticAndrew about opening this thread, as you are required to do (this is outlined both in the big red box at the top of this page, as well as the giant yellow box in this pages' editnotice). Daniel (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He reverted. I did not want to make it read for others. Simply as that. Island92 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He reverted what, sorry? I do not understand your comment. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the "block" massage because it is not the first time he has been stubborn on some edits because he thinks must be his way/how he likes it. And he reverted my "warning". Island92 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He is perfectly allowed to remove your warning, and it is inappropriate for you to readd it (WP:REMOVED). Given you are unable to block editors yourself, writing a message entitled "Block" with the content "You are risking a block from editing. I've warned you." (entire content of message) is pretty inappropriate, in my opinion. We can communicate better than that.
 * Further, slowly diving into this, this edit, which you reverted as vandalism ("rvv"), is clearly not vandalism? Daniel (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The further I dive into this, the worse it is. I sincerely hope the original poster has no relation to and . Both the original poster and AutisticAndrew have been wide-scaled edit-warring over the past couple of days, despite barely making use of article talk pages, and both are lucky they aren't blocked right now. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If only this user would be less stubborn... maybe. There are certain practice in some articles. See history page of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup as an example. Island92 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is hardly an answer to my questions and concerns. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - I've notified of this discussion, which you have failed to do even after it being pointed out to you.
 * You're both edit warring on that article, neither of you have attempted to go to the talk page, and you've continued since opening this thread, so I don't think all the blame can be attributed to one party. I'd remind you of WP:BOOMERANG before you go much further. I would advise you at least start the talk thread rather than continuing to revert war. Mdann52 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this morning I left AutisticAndrew a message on his talk page about edit-warring in 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and noting that while I think it's pretty clear he's violated 3RR, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment before I seek administrator intervention. Guess we'll see what he does in response. Given that I'm not asking for intervention here, I don't understand the policy to require me to notify him—I understand that to be Island92's responsibility (and it appears Mdann52 has rendered that issue moot anyway for the moment). I simply wanted to mention that I left the message there before I was aware that this discussion existed and I don't intend to do anything about it unless the problem persists. 1995hoo (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * And see history page of 2023–24 UEFA Champions League where he kept insisting on removing "in London" just because everyone knows where Wembley is. Now the page is protected for the edit warring. This user should not behave as a kid here. Island92 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you kept edit-warring to restore it, without discussing it, which makes you equally as bad as AutisticAndrew. Please immediately stop describing people as "behaving as a kid". Daniel (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the impression he gave to me, to be a kid. Every Champions League page includes city name. That has not to be different. It's logical understanding. "Everyone knows where Wembley is doesn't make any sense at all". Island92 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He keps insisting. See history page of 2023–24 UEFA Champions League and talk page. Island92 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * removed a personal attack you leveled against them. I've warned you on your Talk page. You really need to clean up your act.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for that. Island92 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * please can you find a solution against this user who keeps insisting on reverting my edit? See history page of 2023–24 UEFA Champions League and its talk page. How much do I have to still deal with it?--Island92 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DR. Get a third opinion or start an WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This SPI AutisticAndrew created is relevant to this discussion. --<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 14:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * AutisticAndrew alleged (with evidence) that a new account was a sock of Island92. A CheckUser found that the new account was indeed a sock but not of Island92.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * AutisticAndrew has been reverting at Sara Ramirez, an article about a non-binary actor, to use the word "actress" (diffs: 1, 2). AA has not used edit summaries while reverting. Previously, AA used the pronoun "he" to refer to non-binary singer Nemo, and reverted twice, without explanation again (diffs: 3, 4, 5). I can't tell if AA is intolerant of non-binary people or just unaware of their mistakes, but the lack of communication and willingness to edit war are problems either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another revert at Sara Ramirez. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They've now breached 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked AutisticAndrew for 24 hours for edit warring as described here. DanCherek (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User deletes talk
The user SelfStudier keeps deleting talk points without any valid reply.

This is in the following talk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Palestine#The_name_Palestine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.152.54 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP users are not allowed to participate in discussions about the Arab-Israeli conflict outside of specific edit requests. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * IP has also failed to notify Selfstudier about this discussion, which they are clearly instructed to do in a big red notice at the top of this page. Bgsu98   (Talk)  18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * IP, this article is a contentious topic, and is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction, meaning that unregistered users and users with new accounts are not permitted to edit, including making comments on talk pages. You can visit the links here for more detailed information. could have done a better job of explaining that when they removed your comments, but they were correct to remove them. There is also a notice at the top of the talk page describing these restrictions. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have explained to this editor by edit summary, at their talk page and at my talk page. Also see Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive356 "As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed." If you have a suggestion how this should be explained to an editor, I would be most interested to see that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

94.255.152.53 and illegal drugs
added illegal drugs related contents to different articles, without enough reference and seemed to be highly likely disruptive. For example, adding sleeping drink to Drink et, al. -Lemonaka  08:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you use my Talk page?
 * "For example, adding sleeping drink to Drink et, al." -- the section "Sleep_drinks" already existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drink&oldid=1226068026#Sleep_drinks -- you owe me an apolygo. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should be an admin. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "added illegal drugs related contents to different articles, without enough reference" -- please give relevant examples instead of just saying it. I added legal drugs to illegal drug articles too. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess you are referring to List_of_drinks? These entries do not need references, because they are all articles about psychoactive drinks, so it's self-explanatory. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Re Why didn't [they] use my Talk page?, probably because that's proven ineffective so far. Your talk page has: It's clear that addressing things on your talk page will not be effective. All these problems are distributed across the nine months you've been editing. So it's not like you've been learning from feedback to improve your editing. And defending against each individual tree in the forest of problematic editing isn't going to set us in the direction of improving things, either. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 23 CS1 Error notifications spanning nine months
 * 2 separate notices of copyright violation
 * 9 cautions about adding unsourced material from 8 different editors; 1 caution about synthesis / original research
 * 11 cautions from 9 different editors re non-constructive / disruptive / vandalous editing
 * numerous other discussions questioning the nature of your edits, especially the mass changes across a broad swath of articles, and overlinking
 * Among the above are 5 "level 3" warnings and 5 "final" warnings

I won't address this editor directly anymore, as they asked me not to when they removed my advice on proper handling of talk page threads. I address the general readership instead: Even after all this, I didn't place another warning on their page, per above, but just now, I again reverted content added without sourcing. I would have gone directly to WP:AIV at this point had this thread not been started. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I won't deny that receiving so many warnings has been tiring. Editing with an IP address instead of an account can make it harder to keep track of past discussions, and I've encountered a few warnings in the past that seemed like misunderstandings. However, I understand now that this wasn't the way to handle the situation.

Moving forward, I completely agree that using talk pages for communication is the best approach. Willondon, you're welcome to use my talk page for any future concerns about my edits.

I see there's been a lot of back-and-forth about my recent edits to the drinks articles. I apologize that I didn't take the warnings from other editors more seriously.

Looking back, I understand that the repeated edits and lack of sourcing caused disruption. I'm committed to following Wikipedia's policies for verifiable sources and using talk pages for communication.

While I appreciate the effort to improve Wikipedia, I've decided to step away from editing for the foreseeable future. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to discuss these issues. I wish you all the best in your future editing endeavors. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that response. So many talk page warnings is not good, but the fact that you have not been blocked yet is an indication to me that the community has seen value in the many improvements you did make. Each disimprovement creates a burden on others to correct it, which is routine in a collaborative effort, but if the cost of oversight outweighs the benefit, it can't stand. Taking a break is best. I would be pleased to see you rejoin in the future as a member of the editing community here. You always were, but you seemed to rebuff feedback, as if you didn't think you were. A different approach could benefit all of us. Sincerely,  signed, Willondon (talk)  23:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here on Wikipedia?
What the heck happened to the infobox person templates on almost every single Wikipedia article right now? Why are there some red errors on them messing up the articles and that template? What caused all of this to happen? Is this some sort of a glitch or something like that? Who is going to fix all of this right now? How can we fix all of that right now? Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlahWestGuy2024 (talk • contribs) 11:33, June 8, 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to an example affected article. I just pulled up a random person to compare (Tom Gleisner), and found that his infobox was unaffected. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 11:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Here! Let me give you an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Wait a minute! What about the red-linked "ambassador to"'s on the U.S. President articles and stuff like that? Also, how did you guys just fix the marriage infobox template sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlahWestGuy2024 (talk • contribs)


 * It looks like there's a Lua error somewhere in Template:Infobox officeholder. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:995D:42D0:B13A:6744 (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh good! Now they're all fixed for good! Finally! But anyways, how did all of that happen all of a sudden by the way? I just wanna know! I'm very curious here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlahWestGuy2024 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems to be resolved for now. Keep it one place; I suggest those who are curious follow the discussion at WP:VPT (or at User talk:Nick, Template talk:Infobox officeholder or Template talk:Both, or one of the other places). With thanks to those reporting.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User:51.6.6.215 hates the word "British"
User:51.6.6.215 hates the word "British" and keeps removing it haphazardly from articles:

[diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

Also ham-fistedly changing "about" tags[diff] and citation titles[diff] in their quest to nuke the word "British".

Left a note on their talk page about not arbitrarily change MOS:NATIONALITY/labels from "British" to "English" and they deleted it with "Bollox and anti English! ". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That's definitely a LTA. I know someone's been doing this for a while now on a bunch of British people's articles, but I can't remember if there was a name associated with them.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This IP has been engaging in disruptive ethnonationalist nonsense for about six weeks and so I have blocked the IP for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is (I don't know why their account wasn't blocked).
 * They've been at this for over a year from a range of IPs, e.g., , , , ...
 * We could probably do with an edit filter. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

IP nationality warring


This IP was recently blocked over nationality warring over the descriptions "British," "English," "Welsh," and "Scottish." They are back again. Please block. Air on White (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Which IP was recently blocked? There are no logged blocks for that IP. – 2804:F1...AE:B631 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the user talk page. They have never been blocked before, but have resumed their nationality warring after a break. They have been warned multiple times. Air on White (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems related to the above. I've merged the two.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Saba Natsv persistent addition of unsourced content
User:Saba Natsv is continuing to add unsourced content: despite being warned multiple times not to do so:, also didn't attempt to address the concerns in the talk page, in an apparent case of WP:IDHT.

Also accused other editors of being "trolls" after his edits got reverted:, and even attempted to make use of a misleading edit summary:.

Mr. Komori (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User:BloodSkullzRock and Party of Women
Requesting some help here. When I first noticed and  edit warring at the edit history of Party of Women over an "anti-transgender" labeling, I warned both here. They seem to stop, but BloodSkullzRock created their userpage, which denies trans and non-binary gender identity. I responded by placing a contentious topic notice on their talk page. They said that they were a member of the party, and when I cautioned that it might be a COI, they made a response that appears to assert that Apricotjam and other "TRAs" had also a COI, and defend their position as "immutable biological facts". This might be battleground behavior and I think some admin eyes might be needed on the party article. I might not respond further as I am in a rush. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * hi thanks for requesting help, i've stopped reverting edits but would like to assist in any admin or whatever coming in to fix up the article and prevent vandalism. i suspected that both BloodSkullzRock and Ghanima are party members hence their edits and refusal to acknowledge critical sources. I would welcome any process which allows this article to be protected from bias and accurately descriptive of the party's ideology and context. Apricotjam (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed BloodSkullzRock. The article is a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ghanimah has popped up and resumed pretty much identical behaviour. Can someone take a look? Mdann52 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ghanimah has stopped for now, although an IP 2A02:6B68:A43F:0:B580:AF35:DF08:BAFD has now joined the fray. Also Trout to myself for breaking 3rr as I have just noticed I made 5 reverts within half hour. If an admin wants to block me for breaking 3rr feel free . Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Jjj1238 persistent vandalism on Maxime Grousset page
The user Jjj1238 is constantly vandalizing Maxime Grousset's page to include non-notable information, namely that his sister participated in Miss France 2024. 2001:861:4801:2670:35B9:6015:67FD:D88C (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all, you need to notify @Jjj1238 when bringing them here, I have done that for you here. Second of all, he is not 'vandalizing' the page, but rather is reverting a contentious removal of information, and hasn't crossed 3RR and has only carried out 2 reverts so far. You are engaged in a edit war, and I advise you go to talk page and give your case to why content should be removed there. Otherwise, you will be blocked for breaking 3RR. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fantastic Mr. Fox. I have already warned this IP about their disruptive editing and was planning on reporting them if they continued removing content. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 16:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since October last year has tried to enforce the same edit (or something  very similar) 9 times, 15 October, 13 December (3 times), 17 December, 26 May, today (3 times). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the sister isn't a notable person by Wikipedia's standards, why does this content need to be included? It's fair to assume that the person removing the content is potentally a member of the family. I feel like a decent argument could be made to exclude the content. Daniel (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure is that it is good to add blue links (notable people) for relatives to a bio. However, mentioning relatives because we can is bad. What reliable source describes how the sister has influenced the subject of the article, Maxime Grousset? What reliable source has commented on how the accomplishments of the sister are related to those of the subject? Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on no reply in past 48+ hours, I am going to remove the sentence from the article per WP:BLPRESTORE and start a talk page discussion to establish consensus either way, per Johnuniq and my comments above. I'll copy both John and my comments across to start the conversation. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats




(These appear to be the same user)

This user has been a bit disruptive all morning - first there's clear WP:COI issues (see their talk page for details), and also a refusal to understand the concept of sourcing information. However, they appear to have made a legal threat here. This comes after this comment for which I notified them of WP:NLT. I assume these are the same user, as it's a bit odd their only edits are continuing the discussion on NewPolitician's talk page. Given this latest comment came after my warning NLT, I believe it to be a clear legal threat. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 13:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This dispute arose because I corrected some important omissions in Wikipedia and someone deleted my corrections. The omissions were of the 26 candidates for one particular political party in the upcoming general election. Omitting them made Wikipedia partial and inaccurste. Correcting them improved Wikipedia. It seems that the deletions were done without even the most rudimentary of checks. My persistent requests for advice about dispute resolution went unanswwered, and I was unable to find any address other than that of Wikipedia's legal team. so I emailed them about it. Their automatic reply is that they would reply. Of course I am a courteous fellow, so I informed my interlocutors of this. As a result of these interactions, Wikipedia has lost quality. A simple way to correct this matter would be to restore my contributions. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia maintains quality by demanding appropriate independent sources, and by restricting editors with clear-cut conflicts of interest from editing in their own self-interest. You aren't helping us to do that/  Acroterion   (talk)   14:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am the number because I am using the Wikipedia-supplied opportunity of replying without being logged in. I am doing that because I am away from my desk whete I keep my list of passwords. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They are the same user because someone objected to my first username and I was given by Wikipedia the option of changing it, which I did. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (uninvolved non-admin comment) All you have been asked for is a source. Your refusal to provide a source is why your edits are being reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Plenty of Wikipedia entries don't have a source. Lots have "citation needed" and even statements at the top.
 * 2. Deleting someone's contribution without even rudimentary checks is (or ought to be) a no no, especially when it is easy to do.
 * 3. Omitting all candidates for one party amounts to political bias, whether intended or not, and that is what the original writer on Wikipedia did.
 * 4. My contributions improved Wikipedia, the people who deleted or omitted them did the opposite. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comments above, Wikipedia isn't a platform for electioneering by candidates.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not been electioneering on Wikipedia. I have been correcting Wikipedia's omissions, which give the appearance of political bias! Someone else did that, not me. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A candidate for office has been adding information, unsupported by independent articles, to Wikipedia articles. If not electioneering proper, it falls within Wikipedia's definitions of spam and blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The name of a candidate and party in a general election is neither spam nor advertising. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The existence of unsourced content does not justify the addition of more unsourced content; see WP:LITTER.
 * I am truly in awe how resistant you are to providing sources that support your claims. I can only assume that some of your party's candidates haven't actually made it onto their ballots, given that every election we get small parties trying to boost their publicity in this way. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Before someone deleted my entries in the lists of candidates, there was a simple audit trail in Wikipedia itself.
 * The entries consisted of the candidate name followed by (Rejoin EU). A user who clicks on tbat will be taken to a Wikioefia page that lists all 26 candidates and cites a reference which contsins the announcement of our leader of their names and constitiencies.
 * And even the text containing the citation has now been altered by someone who has not bothered to check that the people ate indeed official candidates now! 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you acknowledge that there is not now, nor has there ever been, any independent source to verify that those candidates are on the ballot? —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggezt you look at the citations in those lists. Virtually none satisfy your requirements 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your acknowledgment that you have been adding unsourced information to articles. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What I actually indicated was that there was an audit trail to a source, and followable in a couple of clicks. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is not independent. QED. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The person(s) who made the original lists of candidates didn't include 26 from my party, and didn't correct the omissions when the official lists wete published by the various councils running the election. I suggest you go after that person and get them to correct their lists. I really have better things to do than help you do that and have my help rejected and be insulted at the same time. 78.146.47.237 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Named user INDEFfed until they withdraw the legal threat, IP blocked for a week for blatant WP:LOUTSOCK and the legal thread. Time can be adjusted if named editor withdraws, but logging out to continue the battle is disruptive. Star   Mississippi  14:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Sckintleeb is NOTHERE
User:Sckintleeb They posted this (& other, similar messages) in response to a Teahouse question about PD signatures. Could an admin deal with this? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don’t see what the problem is? Sckintleeb (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m having some trouble copying and pasting the correct things from my clipboard, so I hope the right links are being put in, like this one. Sckintleeb (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't click on the link. This user must be banned immediately. Pecopteris (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Daniel (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel I've removed the link, may want to revdel its addition in the first place. The   Kip  (contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for that, Daniel (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like this revision was missed. Tollens (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Xenophobic comments in South African elections
Extremely concerned by 's WP:SHOUTING, WP:WHATABOUTISM and WP:OWN statements bordering on xenophobia regarding issues raised about them over 2024 South African general election. I understand that they have been warned over possible WP:AN/3 violations but I believe their response to such concerns merits a report of its own.

For reference, see:

Borgenland (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Hm...not sure it's exactly Xenophobia, more like they seem to think they are speaking for all of South Africa and that SA's opinions on the matter are what counts. I've warned them at their talk to stop shouting at people and to assume good faith. I've also protected the various election pages for a couple of days to see if we can get them to the article talks. This feels clearly disruptive, but I'm not sure it's not just newbiness and frustration in a well-intentioned editor, so I kind of hate to block from article space altogether. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I retain my judgement on their use of the f-word in what I cited as proof of offending editor's xenophobia but I appreciate your action still and will be holding off unless they reoffend. Now that this alert has been raised on a more collective level, I hope they do learn from this incident. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, where'd I miss the f-word? Valereee (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant the foreigner word on their talk page (see first example), not the standard cuss. Borgenland (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * hahahahaha Valereee (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think you missed putting protection on the 2024 election page, which was the starting point of their edit warring. Borgenland (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem like it was actively being disrupted? I'm about to go offline, no objection to anyone else protecting it too if I missed that! Valereee (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They were first reported in the article's talk page for WP:SHOUTING on two separate occasions. Then another editor also called them out in the page for the foreigner thing. Borgenland (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Offending editor responded to concerns raised by making this openly menacing WP:NPA comment: . Borgenland (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems to be yet another editor upset at not always getting their own way. I blame the parents. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I blocked Dylan Fourie indefinitely. After that kind of comment (and a history of edit warring), I think we need an unblock request that shows understanding of our policies.  If there's an epiphany, I have no problem with someone unblocking them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Wilkja19
This user makes unexplained, unsourced changes to articles, and falsely mark them as minor. They have never responded to any messages. There are dozens of "final warnings" on their talk page. It is very clear that only a block is going to stop them editing harmfully. Adding "final warnings" to their talk page every week or two and doing nothing when they ignore them is causing real harm to large numbers of articles. 185.201.63.252 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @185.201.63.252 you must give diff's showcasing the behaviour you are accusing them of. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Follow the link above that says "contribs". You will find 5,520 examples there. 185.201.63.252 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Has never edited a talk page, including their own. P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor to start discussing. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , the OP is very likely to be community-banned user WP:LTA/BKFIP. BKFIP has made it their "mission" to get wilkja19 blocked; search the ANI archives. You'll also notice they removed a note at the talk of wilkja's talk page explaining that this might be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue and they aren't "refusing" to answer messages. I don't know if that's still true (someone with an iOS device will need to check that the WMF really did fix this), but removing it before posting here, and not even mentioning it, was clearly disingenuous.  Regardless of the merits of this block, it creates a dangerous precedent where, if you're a banned user with a grudge, you can just try over and over and over, creating endless ANI threads, until one sticks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely BKFIP. I'll be blocking the range shortly as they are already blocked on User:185.201.63.253.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Suffusion of Yellow, I hope this person will be motivated to figure out how to communicate. Not communicating is a problem. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocking someone in response to a request from a community-banned LTAs is a bigger problem, no? Again, don't just look at this one case, and think of the precedent. In any case, I'm not sure how your block message is going to help them find their talk page. I'm not sure if they even can read the block message. Can you (or anyone) please block  with autoblock disabled, for 48 hours? I've dragged out an ancient iPad, and want to see just what they see. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. DanCherek (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, while user talk notifications are still basically broken, at least it looks like block notifications are fixed. I got the standard Mediawiki:Blockedtext notification when I tried to edit, which does include a link to my talk page. Of course, we sill don't know if Wilkja19 is using an up-to-date app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From personal experience (on mobile), I am pinged when someone tags me or when someone blocks me. Anything else (including replying) require me to click on notifications to see. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you using the mobile web interface? Wilkja19 is using the iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hijack this, but regardless of if the OP is an LTA: If you look at the reported user's logs you will see that they created another account in 2019, which has been indefinitely blocked since May of 2020 for disruptive editing - I do not see an explanation for that account anywhere, so is that not just block evasion? – (user who usually edits as this /32, currently 143.208.239.37 (talk)) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That account was blocked in 2020. Back then, iOS users were in a total black hole. No talk pages alerts at all, no block messages. If suddenly you're unable to edit and don't know why, is it really "block evasion" to continue with another account? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it obviously is block evasion. You don't get to evade blocks just because you prefer to use one particular means of accessing Wikipedia. You are going to absurd lengths to defend this user. When you talk about "Blocking someone in response to a request from a community-banned LTAs", you are misreading the situation. The user has been blocked because of long term severe problems with their editing; those problems exist no matter who posted here. If problematic editor 1 reports problematic editor 2, do you think to yourself, "hm, must defend problematic editor 2, they must be a valuable editor if problematic editor 1 has reported them"? If you do, then I think you are seriously misguided. The obvious thing to do is to deal with both problematic editors as necessary, not to aggressively defend one of them because of the other one. 94.125.145.150 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Going from 2nd edit to ANI and then removing 'best known for' from an article ? Evidently a WP:DUCK of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an open proxy, now blocked.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That IP may be BKFIP, but they're right on the merits here. Block evasion is, and has always been, a strict liability offense. And even back in 2020 the IOS app did tell people that they had been blocked from editing. Wikipedia has never had an exclusionary rule applied to evidence of misbehavior in any other circumstance so we shouldn't invent one now. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  19:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I edit on the mobile web interface. They may differ slightly, but generally speaking I counter the lack of notification alerts by simply checking the notifications tab after logging in. @Wilkja19 needs to take the initiative to do so as well, rather than be under the illusion that he can edit Wikipedia in single player mode and not engage with others because he isn't prompted to do so.
 * Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They're completely unrelated, and based on brief testing, the "notifications tab" only shows up on the app's homepage, and it's very easy to miss. If you're willing to test the iOS app, great! But please don't make assumptions about software you've never used. And "not engaging with others unless prompted to do so" is how many people edit Wikipedia. It's the WMF's responsibility to make sure they know we're prompting them, and years on, they're still failing in that responsibility. If a block of Wilkja19 is necessary, it's a necessary evil and we shouldn't be throwing around phrases like "refusing" and "single-player mode" like we know it's their fault. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SoY, I agree that WMF should be putting a priority on fixing this. This person has had six years and 5000 edits and (skimming here) 17 complaints at their talk to figure this out. It sucks that the only solution is to block from article space and hope that'll prompt them to finally discover there are things besides articles. Happy to try to remember to use "Apparently hasn't discovered talk pages yet" for future similar situations. If you look, you'll see that I immediately appended "No objection to any other admin lifting this block once we've got this editor discussing" to the block notification, which is what I generally do in this situation. The block is not meant to be punitive. It's meant to encourage them to investigate. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you mind at least updating the block reason to include a link to their talk page? Something like "People are trying to talk to you! Please visit  your user talk page  and respond to the concerns raised there." or words to that effect. (Note: Fixed typo after Valereee responded) In order to read the block notice (on the talk page), they have to find it first. One more link won't hurt. If it's not parsed properly, or doesn't show at all, oh well, at least we tried. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done so. The link doesn't work, so I added the link Valereee (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happened there. You put a new message on their talk page, which isn't needed if they've already found it. I'm talking about the block reason at Special:Block, because it should (in theory) be shown to them every time they try to edit. If there's a big fat link there, maybe they'll click it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The new message on their talk was because I updated the block to change the block reason. I didn't suppress the new message, so it posted. What are you asking me to look for at Special:Block? Valereee (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The block reason is, currently, Revising block reason to help user find their user talk. – 2804:F1...BC:74E2 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, IP. Twinkle seems to be a little unclear on this. There are two place that are asking me for info. One asks me for "block reasons" and the other asks me for "Reason (for block log)" Valereee (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed the block summary. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Rahio1234 harassment on my user page and general lack of competence
Rahio1234 committed harassment on my user page by blanking it followed by reverting his changes, this is on top of numerous other issues he's done in the past including repeatedly deleting WP:Sandbox pages while people are working on it, putting random templates on people's drafts or nominating them for deletion while they're still being worked on, and having a general poor command of English that makes it difficult to explain to him why he can't go around using Twinkle everywhere. They now say they are "Retired" but I'm worried when they may suddenly come back and resume this behavior.

See:

Ergzay (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blanking and revert:
 * Repeated reverts of my testing at WP:Sandbox:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Buster_Bubbles_(Arcade)
 * User talk:Shadestar474
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive483
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive481
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive482


 * Pinging @Bbb23 who was recently involved in this and @Robert McClenon who requested to be notified. Ergzay (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't exactly request to be notified, but I did say that I would be watching for a report about User:Rahio1234, after User:Ergzay reported User:Rahio1234 at WP:ANEW when they really should have been reported here. I don't know whether Rahio1234 is trying to act like a troll or is acting like a troll out of a lack of competence.  I originally became involved because Rahio1234 nominated Draft:Buster_Bubbles_(Arcade) for deletion for lack of notability, and I asked why they were reviewing drafts.  Ergzay tried to reply to my question in the MFD discussion, and was reverted.  I was asking why they had nominated the draft for deletion, because at MFD we get good faith but clueless nominations of drafts for deletion for lack of notability, and I wonder whether better instructions for reviewers are needed so that they will not waste their time and those of the MFD regulars by nominating drafts for deletion for lack of notability.  Drafts are not checked for notability, because the originator may be looking for sources.  Anyway, now that Rahio1234 blanked Ergzay's user page and unblanked it, which is either stupid or malicious, my conclusion is that User:Rahio1234 should be indefinitely blocked.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit warring, lack of competence, trolling. Either way, retirement enforced via block. Star   Mississippi  14:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They made one of the stupider unblock requests that I have seen, which was quickly denied for obvious reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They made one of the stupider unblock requests that I have seen, which was quickly denied for obvious reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Mason.Jones and United States
Please see User talk:Alexanderkowal, Talk:United States, Talk:United States, User talk:Mason.Jones, and User talk:Mason.Jones. I should've involved admins much earlier, I've not been involved in anything like this before. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Also Talk:United States, I just feel like I'm being bullied and obstructed by a senior editor who feels like they own the page Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If anyone's acting like they own the page, it's you, who went from proposing a change to the lede to an RFC after one reply and less than a day, and then spent the RFC bludgeoning the conversation, before then deciding that you were going to close the RFC. Then you instantly open up another one, with next to no additional discussion prior to one, and provide a confusing laundry list of options -- all proposed by you -- and are again participating in a discussion that is basically you again bludgeoning the conversation. This isn't Kowalipedia. I think you're pretty close to a page block here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, the rfc was closed in its infancy because I'd handled it badly and bludgeoned conversation, which I accept. I started a new one and gave a list of options based off of the responses I've got, which have been incredibly constructive and useful. It is clear I'm editing in good faith. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're handing the new one equally poorly. It's not your personal discussion. Some of your behavior beyond the bludgeoning n the new RFC is extremely inappropriate. In one place, you decide to dispute @SMcClandlish's choice from this mad buffet, suggesting a different option than they chose. In another, you decide that Option 6 is a more appropriate choice for @Avgeekamfot so that "[you] don't miss [their] vote," implying that you also plan to inappropriately evaluate consensus and close the RFC when the time comes.
 * This is getting to the point at which an administrator needs to be involved. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a ridiculous narrative to push. I think you’re wrong. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you won't respond indirectly, I'll ask directly: Do you intend to be the one who closes this RFC and evaluates the consensus? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I shouldn’t be Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You suppose correctly. Bgsu98   (Talk)  22:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, all people had to tell me was, you need to step back and allow wider discussion to happen, that’s all I needed to hear Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The accusatory tone has not been constructive. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being explicit though Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

racist POV pushing user
This racist rant and calling for mass deportations "I HATE THEM!". Obviously WP:NOTHERE.<span id="Ser!:1717838062256:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind, an admin blocked them before I could even put the ANI notification tag on their page. Disregard. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is probably worth removing the racist rants from their talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, and a few other comments elsewhere as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TPA revoked and revdel'd edit @Rhasidat Adeleke.(admins only) No hate speech, including in unblock requests. El_C 10:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should be allowed to post unblock requests and told that if they are unblocked, they will only be able to work on Wikiproject Nigeria articles. Sometimes I think being blocked is too easy. I mean, come on, listen to Rhasidat Adeleke's Irish accent. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Latecomer here so I couldn't see the redacted crap. But should their username also have to be revised given that it is an obviously POV slogan? I last saw that phrase in 2023 Dublin riot. Borgenland (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All their posts have been redacted and the snakes will return to Ireland before they're unblocked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A person named 'Ireland Is Full' and a horse (not named Jesus) walk into the Paradox of tolerance bar... It writes itself! El_C 19:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Late to respond but yeah, can confirm as an Irish person that the whole “Ireland is full” myth is a slogan used universally by far-right agitators over here. Popped up mainly during the aforementioned riots, has sadly persisted. And re the wonderful Rhasidat, I can tell you all of Ireland’s very proud of her. A gold medal in Europe for little old us? Incredible. Anyway, the user’s been banished so feel free to shut this down as ye may wish, just wanted to chip in. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been in that bar. Left because I was intolerant of the effect of horse manure on Irish Whiskey -- among other things. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Saad Arshad Butt blanking talk sections after many warnings, not communicating
Initially changed content at List of Pakistanis by net worth before editors pointed out that they were plainly (but maybe unintentionally) misrepresenting the sources. Page got protected pending the outcome of a discussion. When another editor went to the user's talk page to explain the error, the user removed the section from the article talk page. After it was reverted they removed the discussions again and I warned them. They CANHEAR as they remove all warnings from their talk page. Several minutes after they removed my warning from their talk page, an IP (obviously the same person) blanked the discussions yet again. To date they have not engaged with any communication attempt. ~ Adam ( talk · contribs ) 07:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Their edits are non-useful in general and they have clearly used an IP to edit-war on that talk page. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

PLAYGMAN
is claiming on Teahouse and Reference and other forums to be representative of Mr Beast. Which if that is true, they haven't complied with request to use paid. But recent TH post seems more scammy than anything. In either case they are WP:NOTHERE. D'n'B-t -- 15:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * sorry i will not do that again PLAYGMAN (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have still not made the mandatory paid editing disclosure.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * how to do that and what the heck is this 'paid editing' i am very much confused😢 PLAYGMAN (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are three messages explaining that on your talk page. Again, you can disclose paid editing by using the paid template.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Raúl Quintana Tarufetti and Svartner
The user previously blocked by disruptive edits to the article Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, has returned to making edits that completely disregard the scope of WP:FOOTBALL to impose WP:POV, insisting on duplicating matches counted in the full-international list as unofficial, to validate his point that these matches, which are listed, are not official (see  and ).

I've already reverted his edits twice and explained why they were wrong, but he indefinitely insists on his point. I create this incident notice to avoid another edit war. Svartner (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The user makes disruptives edits to the articles related to Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, making edits that completely disregard the scope of WP:FOOTBALL to impose WP:POV, insisting in not seeing a lot of sources (by FIFA, AFA, Rsssf.com, Elo Ratings, TyC Sports, El Gráfico) of matches counted as official (many of them) and unofficial (many of them) in the full-international list, to validate his point that these matches, which are listed, are not official or official, depending if they "beneficiate" to Brazil or not. (see  and ). I´ve tried a lot of times to discuss with this user, but he refuses... He only sees what it´s convenient to Brazil. For example, he uses the Rsssf.com and Elo Ratings sources to "prove" the 1922, 1923, and 2 matches of 1968 (won by Brazil) were "official", but when these 2 same sources say the 1920 and 1956 matches (won by Argentina) are official, he doesn´t see that and says they were not official (?)  ... For what he likes they are right sources, but for what he doensn´t like they are not. And I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?


 * The naked truth is that those 6 matches are unofficial according to FIFA. This user disrespects the FIFA´s source I gave with the complete list of official matches and I do not see these 6 matches in the FIFA´s source with the complete list of games; no 1920, no 1922, no 1923, no 1956, no 1968 (two games)!!! There is notihing in football more official than FIFA, and this source and many others says clarely that 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956, and the two matches of 1968 were unofficial!!! Look, the source from FIFA: FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. This FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, 2 ties and 1 suspended match. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches" So I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?


 * Moreover, there are also a source of AFA (Argentina FA) with the complete list of official matches: Asociación del fútbol argentino official´s page. “Historial de los enfrentamientos entre las selecciones de Argentina y Brasil”. November 19, 2023. The AFA´s source is from 11-13-2023. After that date, they played 1 time, won 1-0 by Argentina. I do not see those 6 matches either... And I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?


 * There is also a El Gráfico magazine source with the complete list of games: and I do not see those 6 matches... And I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV? It seems all of these sources are not valuable for him. Look, from Rsssf.com, about the two 1968 matches: List of Argentina UNOFFICIAL matches and the match of 1956 ... The only sources he accepts are the one that "beneficiates" Brazil!


 * I've already reverted his edits and explained why they were wrong, but he indefinitely insists on his point. I create this incident notice to avoid another edit war. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * PD: I tried to discuss lot of times and he refused . I also took this issue to the Football Wikiproyect but nobody came to participate. . I can´t do anything else... I think the most important and official source in football that we can have is FIFA... No other site or association can be above FIFA, and the only source of FIFA that have the complete list of matches is the one I put above  I repeat: To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches". And you will see there aren´t the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and 1968 games. I ask you: am I the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?  End for me. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)(talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No comment on what this is about, but could you stop using that amount of boldface? It doesn't make it at all easier (and certainly not more inviting) to read. Please use words, not typography, for emphasis. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok I will take off the boldface. But please read all the arguments and go to the point. Please. Thanks. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of your arguments are content-related, which we do not settle here. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem is exactly this, these points explained by him have already been debated on talk page, but he refuses to accept the point of anyone who is contrary to the arguments presented. To avoid this situation, I had recently redone some of the controversial content (in this case, the list of matches between Argentina and Brazil) with more than 190 different sources, but it does not seem possible to reach a point of agreement through dialogue. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who is ultimately right and wrong, the behaviour of Raul is hugely problematic with aggressive and threatening behaviour, inaccurate edit summaries, blanket revision and reversions, and a complete expression of WP:OWN. Very close to WP:NOTHERE Koncorde (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I´am not problematic and I´am not "aggresive". The problem is when a user tries to confuse or to see only one version of things, trying to favor his convenience. This is double standard, and it´s serious... Many many many media see wikipedia to publicate articles or make reports, and when there is a wrong information here we have to correct. Moreover, if I have lot of sources (official of FIFA) that endorse what I´am posing, and the other user do not want to see them, and I try to discuss to reach a solve or an agreement and the only thing I recive are complaints, It´s not my problem... I will not remain silent when there are injusticies. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can point at multiple instances where you have made accusations of vandalism, threatened to have people blocked, described someones behaviour as obstructive, repeatedly called peoples editing motives into question etc. Even here your hyperbolic "injustices" is plain nonsense. This isn't a crusade. It's a discussion about whether or not 6 games are shown on a particular page of the internet and you have been pretty diabolical. I was actually quite warm to your need for support / feedback on WP:FOOTBALL until I saw how you conducted yourself and realised why you cannot get a simple consensus, and have instead railroaded another user with threats, edit warring, and spurious accusations of bad faith editing. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bite: the problem is that the content of those articles is the problem... I was accused by Svartner of being "disruptive" and to try to to impose WP:POV. The user Svartner only want to see sources that beneficiates his country. I went to the Wikiproject Football (the correct place to discuss this) and nobody came to say anything! I discussed with him a lot in the talk page, but he had no responses for what I said when I proposed a solution. For expample: the same sources he uses to say there would be a few matches apparently official that won Brazil, this sources (THE SAME:rsssf.com, 11v11, Eloratings) ALSO say there are a few matches won by Argentina that would be official too, but HE do not count those matches (won by Argentina) because he wants; simple...Those disputed games won by Brazil, yes, they are right for him, but when THE SAME sources he uses for those games say that the disputed matches won by Argentina are correct he says "nooooo, unofficial"... As I said: the naked truth is that FIFA (the MAJOR official football organisation in the world) do not consider NONE of those 6 matches as "Class A matches". This source "kills" everything. Meanwhile FIFA doesn´t show a new article with the complete list of games, the most neutral and valuable source we have here is FIFA´s one FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. This FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, and 2 ties. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches". I will try to take the issue again to the Wikiprojet Football...


 * And Svartner, I don´t agree with the sandbox you made: . First of all, this sandbox does not include the 1956 match won by Argentina, because according to Elo ratings and Rsssf.com (sources you "love") it was official, , . You see there don´t you??? And second, I do not agree in taking off the notes that are in the article about matches of 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 (it must be included), and the 2 of 1968 (played against Guanabara and Minas State´s selections, as it was demonstrated.


 * The problem or point isn´t the amount of sources. The point is the quality and the neutrality of the sources. I can put you more than 100 sources (of Argentina´s media) if you want. That´s not the point... You only want to count the things only with the brazilian version, and it´s not correct. But as you saw, I put the 3 versions in the article. I proposed in the talk and you didn´t answer . --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is your behavior, that's the only thing we're dealing with here. None of the rest of what you posted matters. You need to dial back the rhetoric. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. So look at the behaviour of Svartner too. I´am accusing him too here. The topic calls "Raúl Quintana Tarufetti and Svartner". Do not forget it ;-) --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Now it's gotten to the point where he removes referenced information simply because he doesn't like it. . Tiresome. Svartner (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The one who removes referenced information is you Look  Elo Ratings:Brazil, Argentina 3 Brazil 1. Oct. 6 1920. and  Elo Ratings:Argentina, Argentina 3 Brazil 1. Oct. 6 1920. And you did it several times, erasing incluing FIFA´s sources in lot of articles...  . And I can follow... --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any source, I had even created a note including the FIFA source that you presented, which is still the first time that the divergence in editions took place (see ). What happens is simply your imposition of WP:POV, if you look with some honesty, you will see as I stated earlier, that even the 1920 match that is not favored or recognized by the Brazilian side was counted every time. You presented sources in Spanish that in fact have alternative counts, and I demonstrated with several other sources, including image recording, that the claims that it was not Brazil national team in 1968 were unfounded. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes you reverted information well referenced as I proved above. The article was fortunately neutralized by me, adding lot of enlightening note, beacuse you didn´t want to change anything, trying to show a head to head totally neutral in favour of Brazil, disrespecting a lot of sources I gave that said the opposite. Your bahavior was (and is) WP:POV, not mine! You are the one who don´t accept the same sources you use to "prove" a few matches were "official", but when the same sources you use (exactly the same) say that the 2 matches won by Argentina are official too, you rule them out... For you, when the same sources say "Brazil won, it´s an official game" are excelent, but when the same sources say: "Argentina won, these matches are official" they are bad, and those matches don´t count... Jajaja. Very, very very strange behavior yours... THIS is WP:POV. What you did and do is WP:POV right now. You should have a bit of intellectual honesty...
 * And another thing: a lot of sources in spanish I gave have the full list of matches. The 2013 FIFA´s source (in english) has the full list of matches. You only give an Elo Ratings source and a Rsssf.com with the list of matches, but "magically" you do not want to count 2 matches won by Argentina that both are recognised in both pages (at least Elo Ratings count the 2 games). Moreover, you do not want to see the rsssf.com soruce that clarely says the 2 1968 games were Argentina against 2 provincial selections and not Brazil. Rsssf.com says it in the article of Argentina National team UNOFFICIAL results. Can you read? I "traslate" to you to portuguese, perhaps you don´t understand: "Seleção Nacional da Argentina. Jogos não oficiais. Detalhe dos jogos" ... And if you go and click in 1968 you will see it clarely says in english (I will translate to portuguese): "Argentina vs. Combinado do Rio de Janeiro" and "Argentina vs. Seleção de Minas Gerais". End. What you are doing is WP:POV. End. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:LeftistPhilip
This editor has made just 171 edits, yet their talk page is full of warnings about adding personal commentary, and removing content without explanation.

Today, LeftistPhilip:
 * Removed the European Parliament's resolution to condemn Hamas.
 * Added unsourced and irrelevant political commentary to Hurricane Matthew.
 * Added unsourced political commentary to 2016 Colombian peace agreement referendum.

My impression is that LeftistPhilip is here to make a point, rather than build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears they were warned of the sanctions in effect regarding ARBPIA, but not in the standard CTOP template, nor were they warned of the WP:XC restrictions - I find that odd, and I'll go ahead and do it.
 * Either way, with <500 edits, any contribs in the ARBPIA area beyond edit requests should be auto-reverted. The   Kip  (contribs) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them indefinitely as they have never responded on their talk page, only used an article talk page once and that was to close and edit request as no, and some obvious pov vandalism. As always, indefinitely does not necessarily mean forever. Doug Weller  talk 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Fastcar4924539 and BLP violations, unsourced edits
continues to despite multiple notices about the relevant verification policies add either entirely unsourced material, or unreliable references such as Tik Tok to BLP articles. This mostly seems to happen on articles about eastern European models, which as far as I know is also under contentious topics.

I'm not sure how many articles this has been occuring on, since I do not have time to go through their 250+ edits, but a good example of the policy violations is their editing on Vlada Roslyakova.

A few diffs to illustrate: Adding ″acting career″ section, no sources. claims of the person being an ambassador for fashion designer etc, unsourced and picked up by BLP filter, more unsourced fashion claims

The editor has been reverted several times by other editors when adding unsourced content, but has a habit of edit warring to restore their content. In this diff, they restored content cited by a Tik Tok source after being given a final warning on their talk page.

Since their fellow editors do not seem to be getting through to them, I am asking that an administrator steps in and has a look, there is also likely BLP violations that should be removed from other articles. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I literally sourced them once you told me i didnt source, stop making a big deal about it. Fastcar4924539 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fastcar4924539 You "literally" restored the Tik Tok reference, I also see you made this edit just a few days ago, using Instagram as a reference, and adding more entirely unsourced content. This well after I told you about it, so it seems you simply don't care, hence why we are here. TylerBurden (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * first of all, i added TWO refrences, one from tiktok and one from another...... u could have easily just removed the source... you need to worry about other things instead of wikipedia! Fastcar4924539 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TikTok is not a reliable source; see WP:RS. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fastcar4924539 And you need to not personalize your comments, WP:NPA, yet another policy violation plain in view on WP:AN/I. TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Persistent policy violations by Mumbai0618


This user has been getting warnings for years, as evidenced by their talk page, about violations of the verifiability and no original research policies caused by their additions of unsourced, poorly sourced, or otherwise inappropriate additions to articles. I left them a final warning earlier today after they made these edits. They then made this edit a few hours later, displaying all of the problems I and others have repeatedly warned them about. This user is becoming disruptive, and administrative intervention may be required to resolve the issue. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page
Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite final warning. —Bruce1eetalk 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reblocked with TPA disabled. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Ro9908 violates copyrights and does not heed warnings
Multiple pages created by this user have been deleted as copyright violations, and after those deletions and warnings sent to them, they created yet another copyright violation at Breadcrumbs Fried in Love, and then contested deletion saying This page should not be speedily deleted because (This is real book you can search on google about this book and author), but as no one has said that the book does not exist and what is said is that the content violates copyrights, and the user does not address the copyright side of things at all, this means that the user has not read and/or understood the warnings about copyright, meaning that they will cause copyright violations again, which should be preventatively addressed by implementing a suitable block. —Alalch E. 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them indefinitely, until such time that they respond and show they understand the issues with their edits. —Ingenuity (t • c) 11:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Content hiding on Talk:Donald Trump
is using the hidden archive template on Talk:Donald Trump to hide content posted by unregistered users like myself for arbitrary reasons like "unproductive discussion." This is censorship and discriminatory against anonymous editors. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm probably involved (I've commented in the discussion, though not surrounding the posts in question), but I agree with the hatting of the comments in question. This IP has engaged in personal attacks towards others commenting in reply to them, and has accused anyone opposed of being a POV pusher (in more words). They have not been contributing with respect to WP policies and when confronted with policies/guidelines have continued their "analogies" (very loose use of that term) and haven't engaged in discussion of the issues at hand. Recommend a boomerang p-block of the IP from participating in the talkpage in question due to their inability to contribute constructively. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The talk page has already been protected, from the looks of it; an IP's also run to WP:RPP/D requesting it be lifted. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 22:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To note for transparency, I attempted to notify Liliana on the IP's behalf, but reverted as had done so before me (though it did not give me an edit conflict). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am speed GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.&#124;My Contribs.) 22:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is patently untrue, and if you really feel it is, then request admin intervention. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are aware you're on a noticeboard administrators frequent, right? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have notified them on your behalf. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.&#124;My Contribs.) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Please note that I am unable to notify the user of this ANI because their talk page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:41 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ...on an article in one of the intractible-ethnopolitical-hellhole contentious topic areas (Post-1992 American politics) where there is far less tolerance for tangents and unproductive discussions than normal. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If any editor has the power to hide content they deem tangential and unproductive, that's a big problem. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, intractible ethnopolitical hellhole contentious topic area. There is less tolerance for tangential/unproductive discussion in such topic areas, such as calling those who disagree with you names and accusing people of censorship simply because you don't like their arguments; that looks like cause enough to warrant protection of the talk page and collapsing of those discussions. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you should request that an admin do that if you feel that's what I'm doing and you feel it's warranted. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting here opens you up to administrator scrutiny without any further requests. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever commented on something like this before, but the close seems to clearly be in line with Talk page guidelines. It's a discussion that is going and has been going nowhere, something that generated a lot of arguing and not a lot of (if at all) discussion that actually helps people decide what to do. The only thing, a nitpick, that is maybe going against the guideline here is using hidden archive top/bottom instead of collapse top/bottom. Clearly you need to change your approach, lest you fall into being disruptive. – (user in the /32, currently 2804:F1...2F:147F (talk)) 23:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I forgot which template it was. I tried close top/bottom, which wasn't the one, then searched for hat, which led me to that one.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel removal is warranted, request it. Otherwise you're just stifling dissent with intimidation. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where have I mentioned removal, at all? – 2804:F14:80E0:5601:D81E:D95A:C82F:147F (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You took out "and get removed from the discussion entirely" just now. You know there's an edit history, right? 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, I misread what you said as removing your comments from the discussion (when I was implying you would be blocked, if you became disruptive).
 * Well, in any case I recommend you read everything else I said - here you are reporting someone for apparently doing something that we have guidelines for, a guideline I cited - if you don't think that was following the guideline, then please address how, as so far this report seems completely without merit. – 2804:F14:80E0:5601:D81E:D95A:C82F:147F (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While you're trying to stifle criticism with hyperbolic aspersions-casting and personal attacks. In a topic area where such behaviour generally warrants Arbitration enforcement blocks. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you really feel that's what I'm doing, why don't you request an enforcement block? 66.69.214.204 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Lectonar did you a solid and protected the page so you'd stop digging yourself a hole, which you then decided to do anyway by coming here and screaming "censorship" in response to a section of thread you heavily commented on being collapsed and the page protected to stop you casting aspersions. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I love it when the police, in this case the tone police, say they're doing you a favor to excuse their authoritarian behavior. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is akin to arguing "I did not kill that man" when you're holding the knife still buried in that man's chest. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 00:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just bizarre. That doesn't follow at all. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If there was ever an article talk page that was deserving of permanent semi-protection, it is Talk:Donald Trump. IP users have long been a timesink there, and an WP:IAR invocation would go a long ways towards fixing it. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP users have the same rights as every other editor. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP users have the same rights as every other editor... and if you were an experienced user, I would've still collapsed it.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you know that 66.69.214.204 isn't an experienced user? 216.126.35.174 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Experienced or not, I would've done the same thing.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that this discussion is now mirroring Talk:Donald Trump itself. People like me come along and point out absurdity, and people like this editor respond with "Oh yeah? Well 🖕." 66.69.214.204 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're putting words in my mouth. I do think the situation on Talk:Donald Trump has become absurd myself. But there's ways to say it that aren't skirting the line between fine and WP:NPA.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What words? You haven't said anything other than "Yepper, I did what they said I did and I'd do it again." 66.69.214.204 (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Hoidekr Prague
is a obvious duck of, blocked in 2018; also is , blocked in 2013; and also (not blocked yet). The duck is about the same topic: he's a director of a theater of Praga and persists his crosswiki campaign from 2009!. The master faces a crosswiki issue (in Wikimedia Commons and his home wiki). Because the master and the socks are created in a wide span of time, the checkuser tools are inefficent at this point. Taichi (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Consistent copyright violations by User:Octo2k
With four separate incidents resulting in copyright warnings or speedy deletion nominations of articles due to copyright violations over the past two years visible on their talk page, Octo2k has added multiple new copyright violations to Wikipedia in the past week. Clearly, the warnings aren't working in their current form. (After filing this ANI, I will work on fixing the second copyvio and then request a revdel; I have already filed a revdel request for the first copyvio.) Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  04:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know more about New Multiple copyright violation. If i have made mistakes in editing Wikipedia then i apologise.
 * Thank you. Octo2k (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot copy text from almost anywhere to Wikipedia. You have done this several times, including two times in the past week (on Karan Bhushan Singh and Amol Kale, in the linked diffs above). This is a copyright violation, and it is a legal concern for Wikipedia. You must write any text you add to Wikipedia in your own words, or you will get blocked from editing after enough incidents. Whether that point has already occurred isn't up to me, it's up to whatever admin makes the decision. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  05:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for informing me. Next time i will not do this thing. I may have got warning before but i didn't checked the notification and Email. Octo2k (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Stalking
IP 216.45.53.162 seems to be stalking my edits. I worked involuntarily in tandem with them for a bit to improve a couple of articles but I warned them twice on their talk page about stalking and it continues now into new edits. Tkaras1 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tkaras1, maybe you could give us an example of what you think feels like stalking to you? Valereee (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Joan Regan, Tibor Hollo, and Lively Laddie. Tkaras1 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So I think what you're saying is that the IP is showing up at articles you're editing and also editing them. Not reverting or otherwise changing your edits -- this edit doesn't look like it's more than collaboration -- but it's making you feel uncomfortable to keep seeing them over and over again when it doesn't appear to be coincidental. Valereee (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kinda, yeah. The Lively Laddie edit cannot be coincidence. Thus, the IP is following. Tkaras1 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm...I was going to say this is a brand new editor, editing for an hour and a half, may simply be looking for what to edit next and aren't sure how to find it. But this is interesting. Let's see if they come in here to discuss. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I warned them twice on their talk page. Tkaras1 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23, User:JeffSpaceman – tagging you both as you were the last users to deal with this nuisance. The above 216.45.53.162, as well as 216.45.53.159 are quite clearly Wiki's most prominent banned vandal, User:Dopenguins. Can we please get a ban on those IPs, as well as the range quite preferably? This is a weekly occurrence at this rate, and I'm getting frustrated at the fact that administrators on here cannot do more. Would like to hear some suggestions about what more can be done if anyone else is reading this and has suggestions. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, you can add 216.45.53.180, 216.45.53.179, 216.45.53.160, and 216.45.53.174 to that list as well – also all Dopenguins. --Jkaharper (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Special:contributions/216.45.53.128/26 blocked for six months, not for the first time, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * – has already returned as here. This is why I’m asking administrators to do more. This troll has no life and is relentless. --Jkaharper (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked by . JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I changed the IP rangeblock to a hardblock (it's a proxy anyway). If it causes issues we can always review it. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI : Vandal but different IP range. Tkaras1 (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Completely_Random_Guy keeps removing content from the Republican Party article whose addition has explicit talk page consensus
User Completely_Random_Guy keeps removing content from the GOP article which has explicit talk page consensus. See here and here. The addition of this content was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox? the result of a talk page discussion], which I clarified with the editor who closed the discussion to avoid a misunderstanding. The reverts are also close to one another, though not within 24h (with the article being on 1RR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I can justify myself to the Admin noticeboard, the disagreement here is over placing a position on the party, not the act of doing it (which I agreed with myself) but how it is being done. First a position was added with sources, then another user changed that position, then another user reversed that change, then a user removed all sources and placed a citation tag. I'm probably missing some. I simply removed the position altogether because no one can agree on what to place or how to place it. There was a consensus on adding a position, but thats about it, there doesn't seem to be agreement on what that position should be or anything more. Completely Random Guy (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources were there before the discussion stated, as the addition was based on the recent addition of a position to the article infobox. During the discussion, no editor brought up a lack of sourcing as an argument.
 * The consensus is explicitly to add "right -wing" as a position. That is what the closing editor stated, and that is what I clarified (see link to discussion on the talk page of the closer above). There is no ambiguity here. Cortador (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to do so, if there are reliable sources. None of the sources given backed up the claim, and in the discussion I started to find such sources, none have been given. As it stands right now, it’s effectively a defective consensus - users want to add something, but do not have sources to back up that claim. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 11:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The closer has now confirmed that the consensus is not that the sources support it (the closing statement was at best not fully clear on that point). Cortador is headed into WP:IDHT territory for mis-reading the close and (as several have mentioned in discussion) the importance of WP:BURDEN to implement what the consensus does support. It's a NAC, but as admin I agree with closer in not seeing consensus for the specific sources. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that there is explicit consensus to add a position to the article, and that the position is right-wing? Cortador (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That consensus to add is dependent upon there being sources for the statement, and the discussion did not discuss any of the sources at the time. Therefore it is not valid to use this consensuss to add it with those sources if there is a strong dispute over whether the sources support it. Last chance for those details to sink in. I recommend you not keep making your same argument, but instead go find sources. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources already existed at the time of the discussion because the question was based on a previous, sourced addition.The addition is opposed by editors who argued against it in the discussion in a case of I Just Don't Like It. Cortador (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did inform Completely Random Guy about this report as required, and did warn them both times they removed the content. The have since removed all of that from their talk page. Cortador (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

David Fuchs and donald trump talk page closure penitential bias
Recently he closed the talk on the Donald Trump talk page claiming there is no consensus to include that he is a felon I believe that he closed it due to political bias he has towards him I believe that the closure was wrong and it should be reopened donald trump is infact a felon https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0 Onlygoodvibez (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * David explained his reasoning very clearly in the closing statement, at the top of the RfC. He even explicitly states That Trump has been convicted is not in dispute. Please read the statement very carefully as it explains what the RfC was actually about. You should not accuse other users of political bias; see WP:AGF. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, great, looks like I won a bet. (For legal reasons, this is a joke.) For what it's worth, you failed to notify, which you are required to do. But I did it for you anyways.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

IP 78.128.221.5 – personal attack
This IP address commits disruptive editing in violation of MOS. The IP does not communicate via Edit summary, nor does he respond to the warning on his Talk page, instead he repeatedly reverts and makes personal attack on my Talk page. FromCzech (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I put the attack through Google Translate, and yeah, that IP needs blocked ASAP.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP now blocked for 60 hours by User:Acroterion. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/96.59.79.27
Repeatedly states belief that Wikipedia is politically funded. I’ll add more information later when I get onto laptop. Rusty4321 talk contribs 14:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP should have just been reported to WP:AIV; all of their mainspace edits have been blp violations on Julie Inman Grant. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31-hrs by User:Acroterion. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Declared manager of the UK pop group Steps


Someone from Vietnam has been editing pages related to Steps (pop group) with an IP address and also a username; the latter claims to be the group's manager. These edits are primarily promotional, based on primary sources. The IPs and the usernames insist on adding a large section listing "revisited" music videos, completely unreferenced. I think we should block some folks or protect some pages. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding another IP who continued edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like they are engaging in WP:LOUTSOCKing to try and avoid scrutiny on the accounts here. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  13:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please Indef them immediately for offences against music, good taste and civilization generally.  ——Serial Number 54129  13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The page that has been most targeted by these accounts and IP addresses, Steps discography, has been semi-protected for two weeks by User:BusterD after a request at WP:RfPP/I.
 * I asked the IP editor on their talk page if they are Steptacular12 / Convert12 or not, and they seem to deny such claims, although it remains unknown whether this is a truthful answer or if there's deception in play here. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Big update: they are now back, under the User:Steptacular account, publishing the same edits as before. Looks like they gamed auto-confirmed permission (ex. 1, 2, 3) to continue disrupting the now semi-protected article. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Based purely on the overt WP:GAMING to upgrade multiple accounts to bypass semi-protection; I've upgraded protection level to extended-confirmed on both the group page and the discography so the articles themselves may be investigated and the socking may be reported. Once the SPI is up, we might relax the protection. This is not exactly the first time we've dealt with this sort of thing. BusterD (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why I thank you nice folks for following up on the protection, btw. BusterD (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have filed an SPI report accordingly: Sockpuppet investigations/Steptacular12. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)