Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Ethnic Assyrian POV-push

    [edit]

    I would like to report user Surayeproject3 for repeated POV-pushing and edit-warring across multiple Wikipedia articles. This user has been systematically removing the term Syriac/Aramean or replacing and pushing it with Assyrian without discussion, despite this being a highly contested issue. In addition to the persistent disruptive editing, I have noticed a concerning pattern: nearly every article that I have personally edited is shortly thereafter vandalized by Surayeproject3. While I cannot directly prove that Surayeproject3 is responsible for this vandalism, the timing and pattern are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection. I believe this warrants further investigation.

    On 20 March 2025, I issued a warning to Surayeproject3, asking him to stop edit-warring and to participate in discussions instead. However, he hasignored this warning and continue to push their own POV, violating Wikipedia’s neutrality principles.

    Examples of problematic edits by Surayeproject3 can be found in the following articles:

    Since this user continues to disrupt articles, ignores warnings, and refuses to engage in constructive discussion, I request appropriate action against Surayeproject3. A block or topic ban may be necessary, as he is using Wikipedia to promote a particular agenda in violation of the site's neutrality guidelines.

    Best regards, Kivercik (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't gotten into the weeds yet to determine whether this discussion is strictly redundant, but it's clearly at least related to the discussion about Wlaak fka User623921 above. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but there are clearly some issues here. This change to Assyrian is clearly not in line with the citation (which says Aramaic). This one says Syriac, not Assyrian. The rest of the OPs diffs are adding Assyrian categories when Assyria is not mentioned in the articles. The user says on their userpage that "My goal on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation is to increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people". Unfortunately, if you're going to follow your "goal" without actually sourcing these things, then that's a problem. Nominating an Aramean magazine for deletion, is typical. This is POV warrior behaviour, and regardless if the rest of their edits are useful, this sort of thing needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Should this be its own section then? Merging with the above conversation could make it get lost. Also, I agree that this is POV-pushing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A separate section does seem warranted after all, then. It may nevertheless still be helpful for some participants to refer to the other discussion, or at least to be aware of it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rosguill, I agree with youthat a separate section for this issue is appropriate. The persistent edit-warring, systematic removal of Syriac/Aramean, and the addition of Assyrian without proper sourcing clearly show that Surayeproject3 is pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality principles.
      As Black Kite correctly also pointed out, there are multiple instances where this user has made edits that do not align with the cited sources. Adding Assyrian categories to articles where Assyria is not even mentioned, as well as nominating an Aramean publication for deletion, demonstrates a consistent pattern of POV-pushing.
      Wikipedia has clear policies that are being violated here and the user at least violates 4 of them, namely:
      • WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view) – Surayeproject3 is making unilateral changes without neutral justification.
      • WP:OR (No original research) – The user introduces claims that are not supported by reliable sources.
      • WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive editing) – The persistent edits create conflicts and edit wars without any attempt at discussion.
      • WP:NOTADVOCATE – Wikipedia is not a platform for activism or the promotion of a particular ethnic or political perspective. The user explicitly states on their user page that their goal is to increase Assyrian visibility, which confirms their lack of neutrality.
      Given these repeated violations, a block or at the very least a topic ban on this subject seems to be the appropriate action. The pattern of recurring vandalism shortly after my edits is also suspicious and should be further investigated. Kivercik (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like I'm going to have to write another wall of text with linked diffs, but oh well. Anyways, I highly suggest that everyone involved read through the other ANI that involves this issue [8], as it contains a lot of points that are related to this discussion especially since Kivercik was indirectly involved with the content dispute portion. For much needed context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity (this is a copy+paste from above but it details basically what is involved here). The ANI dispute above noted that a solution to the issues of content regarding the dispute would be to edit other articles that discuss Assyrians/Arameans to offer better inclusion, but as of now this has not been started (I personally would like to in the near future, though). For now, let me get into the points of this new ANI.
      On March 20th and earlier today, Kivercik linked several diffs to articles where he proposes I was pushing a certain POV and causing disruption and edit-warring. As a result, I have personally went ahead and manually expanded most of (if not all of) them with new information from pre-added sources as well as new sources, while adding or modifying content to better align with them.
      Of the articles mentioned, here are the ones that I have edited.
      • The user who was the primary subject of the previous ANI, Wlaak, put most of the same diffs that Kivercik linked on March 20th, of which he linked the following articles: Gütersloh, Isa Kahraman, Syrians in Sweden, Al-Jazira (caliphal province), Syria, Place name changes in Turkey, Haberli, İdil, Öğündük, İdil, Ethnic groups in Europe, Örebro school shooting, Shamoun Hanne Haydo, Ignatius Aphrem II, Södertälje mafia, and the naming of Sayfo/Assyrian genocide. I have went over my reasoning for all these articles and my edits on them in detail above, so please be sure to read through it and potentially consider looking through the diffs too (though I understand it may be a lot). Please note that I may not have reviewed all of the articles to expand them or change/add content.
      • I'm honestly at a loss for words that a disambiguation page is being used in an argument like this, but I'll address it here. I admit that previously, I made an edit on the WCA disambiguation page that had the Assyrian name, however I recently defaulted back on this and removed it while adding more entries to the page. The user Wlaak created a disruption over the inclusion of the label "Syriac", since it was included in the name of the organization and what I can infer to be his arguments that Syriac corresponds to Aramean. However, I earlier today added the organization to the WCAS (disambiguation) page which includes this label, so this should serve as a firm compromise.
      • Typically, articles on villages in southeastern Turkey that have a history with the Syriac churches are categorized under "Historic Assyrian communities in Turkey", and I did the same on Düzgeçit, Midyat. However, after reviewing the available sources on the village, I could find no mention of Assyrians/Syriacs, just Mhallami and population data. Seeing this, I have removed the category from the page.
      • In the article Midyat Guest House, the edits I made were renaming the page to add capitalization, and adding Assyrian categories. I expanded this article as well but there aren't many available sources for it; though the article mentioned an Aramean family with the last name Shabo, none of the sources directly used the Aramean label, only one with "Suryani/Suryaniler". This was also a point of contention in the previous ANI, but the word can be used to mean both Assyrian and Syriac, so I have included both labels in the article and have kept the categories.
      • For the article Deq (tattoo), I added the Assyrian culture category and WikiProject Assyria assessment since the article mentioned Syriacs (noting above that "Syriac people" redirects to the Assyrian people article). After Kivercik's post, I went ahead and expanded the article with content from the existing sources and new sources, and in relation to this dispute, I mostly found only "Suryani/Suryaniler". However, please note that this source [9] has a quote reading "Siverek lost its importance while Turkish ethnic groups and Suryani (Assyrian) people left the area", which affirms the connection between the two labels.
      • I have not reviewed the article for Mike Josef, but I did not initially see the "Aramaic Christian" label in the source linked for his ethnicity so this was an oversight on my part. I will look for more sources regarding him and edit the article soon.
      Kivercik is making the claim that I am systematically replacing Syriac/Aramean with Assyrian without discussion. On none of these articles were there any history of editing that could be considered edit-warring; according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, examples of such involve tenditious editing and inability to satisfy verifiability, engage in consensus building, or take note of community input. However, the edits that Kivercik linked did not engage in any form of disruptive editing or Wikipedia:Edit warring aside from the WCA (disambiguation) from Wlaak's end. Kivercik is also stating that I am vandalizing the articles that he edits shortly after; however, looking through Wikipedia:Vandalism, there is no form of vandalism that I can correlate with my edits that would allow them to be classified as such. Instead, these were one-off instances of editing, and on most of these articles linked above, having the new sources and information added shows limited to no presence of the Aramean label, while Assyrian and Syriac are more frequent. Additionally, though he claims this to be a highly contested issue and I have refused to engage in discussions, Kivercik has never attempted to create discussions on the talk pages surrounding the content of these articles to affirm a consensus that could be agreed upon in their writing, instead just jumping straight into the talk page posts and ANI. I have been involved with discussions and negotiations regarding the content of these articles with the other user above, which can be seen on some of their talk pages (though I blanked the talk page for WCA (disambiguation) recently). Kivercik's claims of continuous edit warring are inaccurate, and my recent edits now fall more in line with the issue of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:OR by adding new sources and content (both primary and secondary).
      It's also important to mention that Kivercik isn't exactly innocent in his own path of editing as he has previously been the point of concern in some instances. Allow me to detail:
      • Many times now Kivercik has appeared to employ the use of large language models/AI when drafting responses or blocks of text regarding articles in talk pages or elsewhere. This can be seen on his talk page [10], in several replies on the talk page for Arameans [11][12][13][14][15], and in his above replies. In a previous sockpuppet investigation against Kivercik (which by the way, he was investigated for being a sockpuppet), he also seemed to exhibit these AI tendencies, which I noted in the linked post [16]. It's clear that the use of AI is not allowed on the site, yet Kivercik has continuously appeared to have used it in his comments.
      • Kivercik is primarily accusing me of having an Assyrian POV, however who is to say that he doesn't have his own POV for an Aramean identity? He has already previously advocated for a separate article discussing Aramean identity, not to mention he edits on the Dutch Wikipedia using the Aramean label [17]. His account is still fairly new, but he had a gap in editing between January on the article for Salwan Momika until March 17th, when he started to contribute on the talk page for Arameans to support the argument for a separate article. The argument that Kivercik has his own inherent POV cannot be discredited in this discussion when it is apparent from his previous editing history.
      • Above I mentioned that Kivercik was investigated for sockpuppetry, but I added my points because I had reason to investigate potential meatpuppetry as well, which can be seen on the respective link. Most recently, Wlaak created a draft for an Aramean people article, of which the second edit was a reinsertion by Kivercik of a previous fork that was made by several blocked accounts [18][19][20]. The sock investigation also notes several edits on other articles which Kivercik restored that were previously made by blocked accounts, which not only bolsters the argument of a POV, but also shows a level of disruptive editing as well.
      Before I conclude, this discussion is certainly linked to the above with the other user (Wlaak) since it is about the same topic. Therefore, I invite other users who have participated in that discussion (@Shmayo @Robert McClenon @Mugsalot @Asilvering) to voice their opinions about the conduct and content issues present. It is only my intention to contribute positively to Wikipedia as I have done up to the present. This may unfortunately be a point of contention for a while, but Kivercik is prematurely accusing me and overexaggerating allegations of edit-warring, POV pushing, and violating other Wikipedia guidelines while neglecting recent developments in relation to this topic and having a POV of his own.
      By the way @Black Kite, I messaged one of the admins of the previous discussion privately on Discord with some concerns I had about the ANI case, and I figured I should message you about it as well since you're an admin and it is relevant to the discussion. I noticed on your talk page that you have email open, mind if I send you everything? Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TL;DR Kivercik is accusing me of POV-editing, edit warring and vandalism when the edit history of the articles he links, as well as the sources I've included from editing them, not only show no signs of editing struggles but also affirm my previous edits by including new and reliable sources. Reviewing the pages for Wikipedia's guidelines that he linked also don't seem to affirm any of the points that he's made. Kivercik claims that I am replacing "Syriac/Aramean" with "Assyrian" systematically without discussion, but this hasn't been the case with other users and Kivercik himself hasn't previously made any attempts to engage in such discussions. Kivercik's actions on Wikipedia are also suspicious on their own right, including a potential use of AI, his own POV for an Aramean identity, and restoring edits that were previously made by blocked accounts Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kivercik care to say anything on the AI accusation? I don't see any correlated use of AI, but they should advocate on that. However, Surayeproject3, why didn't you take action to the six points you made in your essay about checking the sources thoroughly before adding the categories/changing the races? Surely you'd know by now this is a very contentious subject that you're editing. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surayeproject3, this is ridiculously long, I don't think editors are going to spend the time to read this long, long statement. Maybe you didn't have to address every single aspect of this dispute in one statement. Maybe hat most of this and offer a concise version of the most important points? Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: They did: diff - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought that was a continuation, I didn't recognize it as a summary. But by the time I got to the end of the statement, I was just skimming. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its quite funny actually that I'm being accused of using AI. Nah, this is 100% human rambling, no robots involved. But hey, if anything sounds too polished, I’ll take it as a compliment I think :) Kivercik (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, @Rosguill, this DRV came up in the other ANI thread and is a pretty succinct look at the general problem, if you need one. -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    previous ANI got closed to centralize the discussion and instructed us to see this one instead, so i'll go ahead and just paste in what i wrote of Surayeprojec3, which would fit in this dispute also, where he is accused of edit-warring and POV-pushing
    speaking of "no-consensus" and edit-warring and POV-push, Surayeproject3 changed these without reaching consensus (substitute "you" to Surayeproject3):
    • Midyat Guest House, a newly created article where you only changed the Aramean name to Assyrian, seems as you also tried to get "Assyrian/Syriac" in, and by your logic, that consensus was only reached in one article, now you are spreading it to other. [21]
    • again Midyat Guest House, you tried applying Assyrian culture category, with no consensus or mention of Assyrian. [22]
    • on Düzgeçit, Midyat you added Historic Assyrian communities in Iraq. [23]
    • same done for Yünlüce, Lice. [24]
    for dialects, you put in a infobox about a people... for languages... with no consensus.
    doesn't stop there, you also did so on Churches!
    i could keep going and bring up more example where you've put changed the article, not corrected what's stated about sources but you get my points with the examples of the languages and Churches, the difference between us here is that i am only correcting what is stated on the article in contrast to the source, while you are literally inputting a Assyrian POV infobox on all articles, UNRELATED articles, a language? a Church? they've been stable for years, and you're now injecting a Assyrian infobox on them all? even though some have explicitly said they are not Assyrian, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church, see source. Wlaak (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticed that I was tagged above. Edits such as this [43] (example of linked diff here) is not POV pushing, in my opinion. I find it strange that users involved in the previous ANI discussion would continue to link to the article "Arameans" when referring to the modern group. The modern group with many alternative names - Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc. - is currently described in this article. Shmayo (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you are probably referring to me, I'd like you to see the edits I've made on the villages, all are linked to "Assyrian people", it was a one time mistake from my part, which has now been corrected and not been continued for my past dozen edits.
    @Black Kite @Conyo14, sorry for the ping, but I'd also want to refer to my latests inputs in the dispute I am involved in above this one, Surayeproject3 has on numerous articles about language and Churches put a infobox linked to Assyrians. he has also fought me on the issue Black Kite raised, pushing a race on a people that is not supported/contradict the sources and is now using me correcting this issue as a argument for "disruptive editing". I am kind of new to WikiPedia, but from my perspective and short experience here, I think this is without a doubt edit-warring and POV pushing.
    Sorry for involving myself and pinging you guys, but I came to see that Shmayo was talking about me so I thought I had to come and share my input of this. Wlaak (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was not. See the link in my comment. Shmayo (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked to the ANI which I was involved in and I can only think of myself as having previously linked to Arameans. My apologies if you did not refer to me. Wlaak (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Aspersions by Kivercik against Surayeproject3

    [edit]

    User:Kivercik has made at least two loosely related allegations against User:Surayeproject3. The first is POV-pushing, and Surayeproject3 appears to be substantiating that case with an 1800-word reply which they correctly note is a wall of text. They have helped to make that case. However, the second issue is :

    In addition to the persistent disruptive editing, I have noticed a concerning pattern: nearly every article that I have personally edited is shortly thereafter vandalized by Surayeproject3. While I cannot directly prove that Surayeproject3 is responsible for this vandalism, the timing and pattern are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection. I believe this warrants further investigation.

    They have not provided diffs, and I spent considerable time reviewing the history to see if I could infer what they are referring to, and I was unable to see any evidence of vandalism. Maybe I didn't spend long enough, but maybe I shouldn't have to spend hours searching. Kivercik is casting aspersions. Either they should provide diffs, or they should acknowledge that they were throwing spaghetti at a wall and strike the aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify the situation, prior to March 20th, I had already posted a warning on Surayeproject3's user talk page, here, including the relevant diffs to highlight my concerns regarding the edits I observed. After March 20th, I provided additional diffs following the warning, some of which I have already posted here on the ANI page, please take a look at them again.
    • [44]
    • [45]
    • [46]
    • [47]
    • [48]
    • [49] (On the 3th of April, Surayeproject3 removes a just edited page by me referring to the people (as stated in the source) as Syriacs, only two days later Surayeproject3 removes the Syriac term once again and replaces it with Assyrian)
    • [50] (Once again removed Aramean and replaced it with Assyrian/Syriac and removed Aramean architecture and replaced it with Turkish architecture YESTERDAY 4th of April)
    I believe it is crucial that immediate sanctions be applied to address Surayeproject3's editing behavior in order to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia’s guidelines! Kivercik (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, sort of, User:Kivercik. Apparently my question wasn't clear, although I thought it was. I said that you, User:Kivercik, had identified at least two loosely related problems. The first is that Surayeproject3 is pushing POV, such as by changing 'Aramean' to 'Assyrian' in an almost robotic fashion. I agree, and they replied to you with a long rant rather than reasoned disagreement. I didn't think that I was asking you for diffs about the POV-pushing, but you have provided more of them. The second problem was that you said that the articles that you edit are then being vandalized, and that you think that Surayeproject3 is involved in the vandalism. I looked for evidence of that pattern, both before I started this subthread, and after you replied. I don't see what you are reporting. Maybe you are describing their changing of 'Aramean' to 'Assyrian' as vandalism. If so, it is not vandalism, and that characterization is an aspersion. The changing of the ethnic description is POV warring, not vandalism. Do you have evidence, even circumstantial evidence, or are you throwing spaghetti at the wall? Throwing spaghetti at a wall is wasteful. Pasta should be eaten, not played with. Small children do both at the same time. You are not a small child. You have made a serious allegation against Surayeproject3 that goes beyond the POV-warring that we know about. Support it, or wipe the walls. Vandalism is a serious claim to be made seriously, not thrown out in passing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My report mainly concerns the systematic removal of terms such as 'Syriac' or 'Aramean' in official sources, which are then replaced with 'Assyrian'. In addition, I’ve indeed noticed another pattern, namely: nearly every page I have personally edited is shortly thereafter edited, often in a disruptive or biased manner (by removal of Syriac/Aramean and replacing it by Assyrian) by the user Surayeproject3. That is why I specifically stated that I’ve observed a pattern of targeted interference, as I stated in my report the timing and pattern (of Surayeproject3 his edits) are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection.
    My impression came from a pattern I thought I was seeing, such as [51], [52], [53] and [54]. These are all pages that he had never edited before, but suddenly began editing only after I did, as can be clearly seen in the page history. So yes both of the two things have to do with eachother.
    Lastly, my intention wasn’t to make baseless accusations, but to voice a concern that seemed to be escalating, thankyou. Kivercik (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kivercik, that is not vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: WP:NOTVAND. And making unfounded accuations of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I may have used the wrong term, I'm new to Wikipedia so still eager to learn more. Thanks for providing the WP:Vandal link it's clear to me now. I am referring to disruptive editing in this case, which is going on for several months now looking at Surayeproject3 his user contributions. Kivercik (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kivercik - Being new to Wikipedia does not excuse sloppy use of the term vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Contrapositively, if you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism, then you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism. It is especially a problem to use an edit summary stating that you are reverting vandalism when there is no vandalism because edit summaries cannot be reverted except by admins. Review what is and is not vandalism while you are waiting to resume editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon I'd like to defend myself on your first point. While yes, me writing a long response may be annoying, it shouldn't be taken as evidence or confirmation of POV warring. Kivercik made claims that I felt would be hard to address in several responses because that would inevitably clutter the discussion, so I addressed them in one response. Please take at least a little bit of time to read over it as I address many parts of my editing there.
    Kivercik is linking an AfD for Bahro Suryoyo as a means to assert me having a POV, but this is not the first time I've started an AfD. I've started them on other Assyrian articles, including Jacob David [55], Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party [56], Assyrian Medical Society [57], and a page called Radya Caldaya [58] just to name a few. The fact that I requested a deletion for Bahro Suryoyo is based on my reasoning on the AfD itself, and is just a coincidence based on timing (editing this post response, if you look at the page for AfD itself you'll see that it previously had an AfD years ago in 2008, so this isn't the first time a potential deletion was brought up)
    By the way, two of the articles were ones I edited after the ANI posting to include more sources and information, Deq (tattoo) and Midyat Guest House. The sources added in relation to Assyrians mostly used "Suryaniler", and one for the former even used the Assyrian label in relation to that, see these diffs [59] [60]. Almost all of them did not even mention Assyrians at all. For Midyat Guest House, Aramean architecture is not an established category. Kivercik blanked the whole of my edits under the guise of "Ethnic POV-vandalism" yesterday, even though they were reliable sources [61] [62]. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, @Kivercik, @Wlaak: please immediately cease changing between Assyrian, Syriac, Chaldean, and/or Aramean, on any articles, anywhere, without talk page discussion beforehand. This is obviously all part of one much larger edit war across many, many articles, and any further undiscussed changes of this nature will receive a block for edit-warring. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks Wlaak (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, thanks for the input. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Just as a notice, I recently reverted the article Midyat Guest House to edits I had made earlier this month. The name of the community was previously Aramean but in my edits I wrote Assyrian/Syriac, and I just now left a talk page post that talked about restoring the edits.
    I just want to know if I'm in the clear since it expands the article and adds more sources, and the source doesn't outright mention either label (it only mentions the Turkish word Suryaniler). To be honest, I feel like you weren't clear with how exactly this dispute on names should be navigated until a consensus on the ANI or the larger content is achieved, so any words of advice or policy would be helpful. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, @Wlaak, thanks for your patience with this. It doesn't look to me like this ANI thread is headed to admin action of any kind right now, so I think you should take up @Robert McClenon's offer of dispute resolution and try to work the broader question out there. Please continue to be respectful of each other and avoid edit-warring, but since the initial disruption appears to have stopped, I'm happy to rescind my any further undiscussed changes of this nature will receive a block for edit-warring warning. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. yes, i will make sure not to substitute Assyrian for Syriac or Aramean without going to discussion first, even if sources state otherwise. this has been a long process, has taught me a few things. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the people involved, excuse me if this is premature, but I am not confident that you have learned that much from recent Wikipedia experiences. Taking into account your recent edits at Syriac Orthodox Church [63] [64], as well as the talk page discussions linked here, there are still evidently hints of a POV by prioritizing information about the Aramean arguments instead of the Assyrian ones. This was close to violating the 3RR rule for edit warring, and other editors involved in the discussion have not had a chance to make their statements to establish a full consensus on edits despite being listed for a peer review. Other concerns of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking were also introduced, and the talk page lists that the discussion involves contentious topics.
    I am urgently suggesting that consensus related to the suggested avenues is first achieved from this point forward before making edits of this nature. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed learned from this. I did not remove any Assyrian mention of the article, I expanded identity part, in the identity section of the article. I included your feedback since you brought to light a neutrality position held by Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.
    However, it do seem as you were the one pushing a POV, as seen in this edit. You had to add "whose birth name was Sanharib after the Assyrian king", after his formal name as a Patriarch in the article?
    You also removed this part: "the Arameans are the Syriacs. He stated that anyone who makes a distinction between them is mistaken. According to him", which is the central point of the "Name and Identity" subsection.
    you did not remove the part about the Aramaic language, but only the part about the Aramean people, despite the source explicitly says: "The Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself, and the Arameans are the Syrians themselves. Whoever has made a distinction between them has erred."
    I did not make a edit of such kind (other than the one reverted, which I complied with) until you already introduced the Patriarchs stance on identities, despite not having consensus, yet you urge others to have consensus, for expanding something you introduced... without consensus? Wlaak (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Content, not contributors, both of you. Please discuss this at DRV or on the relevant talk pages. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I'm just pointing it out, apologies if it was premature. It's kind of hard to word exactly what I want to say at this point, but since this is already contentious as it is, maybe it is better to pursue the suggested avenues first before making content changes on a separate article. As has been shown with this dispute, the content and conduct are inherently related with each other, and noting Shmayo's recent comment on Wlaak's indef block on the Swedish Wikipedia, it appears he was blocked there for enacting similar changes on articles without broader consensus. I have already made mention of what consensus applies to and is considered on the talk page for the SOC [65], I'm not sure what I could be missing that hinders my argument or the article discussion. The content needs to be balanced to fit both perspectives, and I'm not confident that they do right now even after the previous discussions here and on the talk page. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate, we could go in circles all day, I've linked the version you edited, where you pushed the Assyrian king name on the article, and the deletion of the Aramean identity part, which was the central/key point of the subsection, despite source supporting it.
    You said it yourself in the talk page that it was great improvements, from that comment, I just put back the Aramean identity part which you deleted and removed the POV Assyrian king mention.
    What is POV by me? And what is underrepresented? I did not delete anything Assyrian, and I mentioned the former neutrality you gave feedback on, at this point it just feels as you are attacking the identity, not the content.
    We could discuss further on the more appropriate page, Syriac Orthodox Church. Wlaak (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I'm just adding my concerns here in case it is involved with the ANI. Seems that there's been a reply on the SOC article, so we can take it back there and discuss from this point moving forward (though I will be off-wiki for a few hours). Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unarchived the ANI since it was never properly closed and I wanted to make a note of recent developments. It appears that on the same page for the Syriac Orthodox Church, Wlaak has continued to revert changes that more than one editor disagrees on despite attempts to reach proper consensus procedures and emphasis on maintaining neutral discussions through the talk page [66]. See below:
    Removed content for talk page discussion - [67][68]
    Reverted edits shortly after - [69][70]
    A DRN or RfC was suggested, but the disputes on that page tie back to this ANI and the naming dispute and I don't think either would be effective at solving this problem initially. Clearly, however, this is disruptive editing on the part of Wlaak in establishing a consensus for the page. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not reverted what more than one person agreed on. Please re-check. We agreed on the quote; it was deleted. You yourself were satisfied with the improvements I made, writing: "Thank you, it looks much better. I made small edits to condense the information to flow more easily, as well as to note his birth name and to fix the year when he wrote his book (it was 1932, but the correct year was 1983)."
    Another editor wrote: "The section would be better without the quote," which was implemented. Thus, I wrote:
    "Done. According to feedback, included the Holy Synod part, in which Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas presided over, and so for every Patriarch, presiding over the Holy Synod."
    We were then moving on to the next paragraph:
    "Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with 'Although the church is not ethnically exclusive...' needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."
    The initial feedback was:
    - The Synod statement should be highlighted.
    - I don't think that the latest contributions, including the quotation, are a good addition to the section, based on the above.
    Both these points were fixed. The quote was removed, the Holy Synod statement was highlighted and written about, and other smaller corrections were made, such as fixing "formally declared" and the author's name.
    Secondary sources have also been implemented, and more are to come.
    You keep unarchiving this ANI, despite agreeing with the changes on the talk page.
    Nobody in the talk page agreed on deleting nearly everything on the section, including you, who was in favor of it.
    At this point, you are just trying to find any ground, no matter how shallow, to have me blocked on it feels, and it is not appreciated! Wlaak (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a mischaracterization of why I have unarchived the ANI. I was satisfied with one of these edits, which were then challenged and discussed by another editor. They reverted the whole text of your edits in hopes of proposing various changes to the content prior to re-adding or rewriting them into the article, and you reverted them both back almost immediately after. The other editor pointed out you were stating your own opinions on the topic despite them trying to reach consensus, and from thereafter suggested filing RfC or DRN on your edits. Being on a goose chase to try and get you blocked as fast as possible is not neutral and unwarranted behavior, and it is not what I have been doing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We had already built the section prior to the other editor reverting, you published the quote. You were also satisfied. He then came and reverted, with no consensus. And what was my own opinion? It is ungrounded for.
    You've been unarchiving this thread 2 or 3 times now, for matters relevant to the talk pages. Every feedback was implemented, after having been done, everything was removed. It is uncalled for and no reason to have been done! Wlaak (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question About Unarchiving

    [edit]

    User:Surayeproject3 - Can you please state concisely why you have unarchived this thread? What sanction or administrative action are you asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have unarchived the ANI because of Wlaak's recent patterns of editing on the page for the Syriac Orthodox Church. Despite third parties and myself being involved in the discussion and emphasizing talk page discussion before making any edits, Wlaak has continually reverted his version and ignored this point. These persistent revisions are beginning to become disruptive to both the article and the talk page discussion, and this aligns with the other recent concerns of Wlaak's editing within the past month.
    Above I have mentioned these points about the SOC in more detail starting with "For the people involved, excuse me if this is premature...". Seeing as how there are still these concerns inherently tied to the content of the naming dispute (which has not received consensus yet) and Wlaak's conduct, I'm asking for a reconsideration of a topic ban applied to his account from "the Levant, broadly construed", or potentially a block if admins deem it necessary. Wlaak has shown some positive signs of change since the ANI was initially filed, but their edits on the SOC article align with their previous editing patterns. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our edits were already made, based on discussion, you put in the quote even. Why are you twisting stuff towards me? I've reverted the edits made by one party that joined the article after we had already established the content, in which you were satisfied with. However, since this one party joined, you have taken back your stance and turned on me for reverting his removal of nearly 90% of the section.
    I would very much like to ask for a topic back on Surayeproject3, for constantly disrupting the development of the encyclopedia, he's been unarchiving this thread numerous of times in hopes of having me blocked, disrupting the progression and time of parties involved as well as being just as guilty towards the disrupt he's caused on numerous of articles in which other parties have pointed out previously, (this thread is about that), as he is accusing me for.
    My edits on the Syriac Orthodox Church article have been in alignment with all feedback given, any person is involved to review the talk page and my edits on the article.
    The party you sided with (despite initially agreeing with the content) is another Assyrian WikiPedian, there are two Assyrian WikiPedian's trying to get rid of me and delete the Aramean mentioning of the article, despite three consecutive Patriarchates stating the same regarding the ethnic identity of the Church, namely being Aramean.
    For reference, the following is said about the Patriarchate in correlation to the Holy Synod, in the article itself:
    "The supreme head of the Syriac Orthodox Church is titled the Patriarch of Antioch, in reference to his titular pretense to one of the five patriarchates of the Pentarchy of Byzantine Christianity. He possesses apostolic succession through Saint Peter, according to sacred tradition. Considered the "father of fathers", he must be an ordained bishop. He is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."
    This would justify the including of the three consecutive Patriarchates statements of the identity of the Church.
    Yesterday you wrote about including the Assyrian name on the article, with this statement from you it feels as you just want the Assyrian name to prevail in the article, in which I have no issues with. My response to you was that we had already included what we can about it:
    "Ignatius Aphrem I had previously been openly supportive of the Assyrian and Chaldean identities, representing the Assyro-Chaldean delegation of the Paris Peace Conference, but following the Simele massacre, he began to adopt an anti-Assyrian stance that influenced the rest of the church's adherents."
    "In recent works, Assyrian-American historian Sargon Donabed has pointed out that parishes in the US were originally using Assyrian designations in their official English names, also noting that in some cases those designations were later changed to Syrian and then to Syriac, while three parishes still continue to use Assyrian designations." However, you then told me to add more about the Assyrian name in which I asked you to show me, include it, I am not in opposition of adding things, however, you have still not replied to the comment: "Please find the statement of Mor Ignatius Aphrem II's stance on neutrality, I am not in opposition of adding anything, improve the section instead of deleting everything we've built so far."
    All this unarchiving you've been doing have absorbed much of editors time, and unfortunately I feel as you've got a issue with the identity, not the content, I am therefore suggesting a topic-ban on Surayeproject3. Wlaak (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only unarchived this ANI once, and it was yesterday. This discussion is not about the content of the article, please stop discussing and pasting it here. This is about conduct, which I have raised concerns about today.
    I unarchived the ANI to raise previously discussed concerns about disruptive behavior regarding a contentious topic, where proper discussion was emphasized on the talk page by more than one editor. Opinions on content are subject to change. Wlaak seems to be engaging in retaliatory behavior by repeating the exact same claims relating to the content dispute of the original article (WP:FORUMSHOP), making an accusation of wanting to reduce an identity discussion based on my and another editor's identity as Assyrians, and calling for the exact same admin action applied to myself. To me, this appears in line with WP:UNCIVIL and is not helping in achieving a consensus on either content or conduct. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have unarchived a ANI a previous time too, although I am not sure it was exactly this one, just goes to show how you've unarchived previous ANI's with me included and having been archived again, its disruptive.
    I am pasting it here due to you throwing accusations here, which is proven to not be the case if one were to check the talk page.
    Of course they are subject to change, but change in one day and to a extant to unarchive a ANI is doubtful. I am not throwing accusations, I am stating what I feel, hence I wrote "I feel...". See it from my perspective, two Assyrian's ganging up on one editor trying to remove the Aramean mentioning.
    WP:UNCIVIL writes: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict."
    I don't see how it was a attack, rude or disrespectful nor aggressive to state what I felt.
    Yes, I will call for the same action as you have put to me, since it seems as this won't be the last time you will be doing this, filing ANI's, unarchiving ANI's, following my edits, removing Aramean related content etc. It is not something I am calling for in "revenge", but rather realization.
    Anyways, I have included what was said in the talk page above, and how your statements in this ANI is not evident in the talk page. Wlaak (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should one of these editors, User:Surayeproject3 and User:Wlaak, be topic-banned from "the Levant, broadly construed" for six months, or should they both be topic-banned? (Interaction bans are too difficult to enforce.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I cannot see any fault from my part on this matter (about the Syriac Orthodox Churcharticle). A "experience" argument will probably be held against me again at one point, however, optimal choice would be a topic-ban on both of us if any, as one or the other will resume doing their edits and inevitably end up in a situation like this again, whether it be me, Wlaak, or Surayeproject3. It is also the most WP:NPOV. Wlaak (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one suggesting DRN or RfC at Syriac Orthodox Church, but will not proceed until this case is closed. In my opinion, Wlaak's edits were disruptive. Shmayo (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion of the entire section had not reached consensus, you had only written two things in the discussion, first being the feedback that had been implemented, the second was you justifying deleting the section. Disruptive. Wlaak (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't have to answer everything with the same argument over and over. Shmayo (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on Conduct and Content

    [edit]

    I have spent more time than I would like to have spent reviewing the diffs in these posts, and maybe more time than is useful, but this appears to be a conflict that may continue to appear and continue to be archived without action several times. It is also dragging on, currently toward the top of WP:ANI, and getting nowhere. So here are my observations in which I will try to identify the content issues so that maybe the content issue can be resolved with or without action on conduct.

    The content issue has to do with whether there is a distinct ethnic group in modern times who are called Arameans. This has been discussed inconclusively. Any such discussion will be inconclusive unless a consensus process is used to obtain consensus. Two processes that have been considered have been a split discussion, or the development of a draft on Draft:Aramean people, which can then be accepted, and can then be subject to a deletion discussion by editors who question the notability of the existence of the group. I will add that, at this point, I strongly recommend the draft approach rather than the split. That is because the inclusion of new material in the article to be split may itself result in more conflict when the community is largely divided. The edits to add another topic to an article in order to split it might be reverted, which would just make more edit wars.

    I see at least two conduct issues that are almost mirror images. User:Kivercik has made a solid case that User:Surayeproject3 is following their edits and reverting them. It is clear that Surayeproject3 is doing this in order to improve the encyclopedia; but it is also clear that it is not improving the encyclopedia. They are aggressively pushing a point of view. Their edits are interfering with finding a rough consensus and so are disruptive. However, Kivercik has made an unpleasant situation worse by Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" the content dispute. Surayeproject3's edits are disruptive, but they are not vandalism, and saying that they are vandalism is distracting from the real problem.

    It isn't obvious to me what a solution is to this combined content and conduct dispute. We need to resolve the underlying content dispute with a consensus process to find rough consensus. An interaction ban would be difficult to enforce. Topic bans will keep two editors out of solving the problem, but will also keep two editors out of worsening the problem. Do we give each of them a last warning, and proceed with a draft followed by a deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @Robert McClenon, @Asilvering did give us all a warning a few minutes ago, we are not allowed to change the name of the people of any related topic without a discussion first.
    I would like to point out that this is not really a dispute over ethnic distinction but rather two distinct people/group of people/identities with different historical claims, continuity, traditions, name etc. I must say that I agree with your proposition for Draft:Aramean people, it has been started. However, I came to realize, if this was to be accepted, would it not be deleted in a deletion discussion immediately after? Since we have Arameans and Aram (region), I'm trying to get to the point that these articles have to be merged or possibly renamed to from Arameans to "History of the Aramean people". Would a accepted Draft:Aramean people not immediately be deleted if that is not fixed first? Wlaak (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wlaak wrote: I would like to point out that this is not really a dispute over ethnic distinction but rather two distinct people/group of people/identities with different historical claims, continuity, traditions, name etc. I am not sure that I understand whether there is a difference. I said that the issue is whether there is a distinct ethnic group, by which I meant a distinct group of people with different traditions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha okay, yes, to name a few examples, those identifying as Arameans do not celebrate their New Year, Akitu, Arameans don't hold their wedding traditions either, Arameans have different patriotic music such as Ishok Yakub, Arameans etc. Although, genetically they share similarities, see for example Zazas and Kurds as comparison. Wlaak (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    [edit]
    NOT IMPOSED
    No consensus for imposting a topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alright. There's way too much going on here. This topic area has been small-c contentious for more than two decades (see eg this DRV from 11 years ago), and is probably overdue for being declared a WP:CTOP. The underlying dispute is clearly political, clearly ethnic, and clearly not going to be decided at ANI or even WP:DRN. It will take experienced editors working together in good faith to get anywhere. At ANI right now we have one experienced editor, Surayeproject3, being accused of various infractions, including pov-pushing and vandalism, by very inexperienced editors, Wlaak (formerly User623921) and Kivercik. Neither are yet even extended-confirmed. Both have clearly joined in order to edit in this topic area. They are absolutely not equipped to make a breakthrough in a two-decade-old content dispute.

    Accordingly, and out of sympathy for the difficulty that new editors experience when they jump into contentious issues as their first edits on Wikipedia, I'd like to propose a somewhat unusual "no fault" TBAN from "the Levant, broadly construed" for Wlaak and Kivercik, appealable in six months and every six months thereafter. The intent here is that they can demonstrate an ability to edit collaboratively and gain experience outside of the topic area that is causing problems. I say "no fault" in order to take no official position on the edits themselves; ie, this is just a statement of You Are Not Tall Enough For This Ride. -- asilvering (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. To the involved: this may not seem very kind, but the alternative, as I see it, involves blocks, which will stay in your block log forever. A TBAN is in some ways more serious, but once it's over, you can leave it in the past. To other admins: perhaps this is my terrible "trying to save people from themselves" habit rearing its head where it shouldn't and making everything more complicated than it needs to be, in which case, I accept my shortcomings, and you should feel free to block as necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ...well, so much for avoiding blocks. That's Kivercik out for 24hrs for edit-warring on Deq (tattoo), after being warned above and after being asked in an edit summary to take the issue to the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – I am genuinely surprised by this proposal. With all due respect to the proposer, I believe it completely mischaracterizes the situation and unintentionally protects the wrong party.
    Let’s be clear: the editor in question, User:Surayeproject3, has only been active since 25 March 2024. Despite this, they have already engaged in extensive, highly charged editing on articles related to Syriac, Assyrian, and Aramean identity, often in a way that flattens distinctions and aggressively pushes for a singular "Assyrian" narrative. This has included repeated edit-warring, page ownership behavior, and blanket reverts of any nuanced or alternative views.
    Even more concerning is the infobox on their userpage, which explicitly states:

    "This user opposes sectarianism in the Assyrian community and wishes for a unified Suraye."

    While seemingly noble, this statement is ideologically loaded. It reflects a very specific, nationalist vision, namely, to unite all Arameans/Syriacs/Chaldeans under the "Assyrian" label. This is not neutral. This is not encyclopedic. This is a personal political vision, and it has no place on Wikipedia.
    Yet somehow, instead of addressing this disruptive behavior, this proposal suggests banning me and User:Wlaak, both of whom have simply attempted to maintain balance and policy-based accuracy in a highly sensitive topic area.
    Yes, I am a new user. But being new does not mean being wrong. I’ve been working hard to respect WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. It is frankly astonishing that my attempts at constructive editing are being treated as a reason for restriction, while the user engaging in ideologically motivated editing is framed as the experienced party.
    With respect, a "no-fault" TBAN would send entirely the wrong message here. It would suggest that new editors are automatically at fault for challenging the actions of someone, even if that someone is just as new, but more aligned with the status quo. That is unfair, unproductive, and a disservice to Wikipedia’s core principles. Kivercik (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking your edits at Deq (tattoo) into consideration, it is clear that you do not "respect" UNDUE. Semsûrî (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits I have made were submitted with several different sources provided. You can't just revert it without discussion on the talking page, which I asked you to do so. Thankyou Kivercik (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kivercik, I think the concern isn't that you're trying to ignore policies. Rather, Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and you might not have had the chance to absorb the oft-byzantine policies and guidelines. That's why edit counts were brought up; Surayeproject3 may have started editing within the last two years (n.b.: their earliest edits are 4 Feb 2024, not 25 March 2024) but they have over 5,000 edits. That's an order of magnitude more than you. It's reasonable to suggest that they may have a better grasp of policies due to their extra experience editing. The "no fault" T-Ban would let you get that experience in an area where it's easier to learn. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am new to WikiPedia, that is correct, but stating that I only joined in order to be involved in this topic should in that case also apply to Surayeproject3, if anyone, who's literally stating in his profile that he is on here for this purpose.
    You've already given us a warning, all of us. Both me and Surayeproject3 can be accused of POV-pushing, however, only one of us is pushing a preferable name. I do not see how correcting statements contradicting references sources is wrong, however, out of respect for the warning and the guidelines, I am willing to follow.
    As @Robert McClenon stated, the best option would most likely be creating a Aramean people page, which then can be subject for AfD, which could use some help from more experienced editors involved in this matter, I can go ahead and ask them on their talk pages if they'd be down to help out. But issuing a topic ban for only me and Kivercik seems unjust, as all three of us is doing wrong, not just me and Kivercik.
    For the record, Surayeproject3 is not that experienced, he joined WikiPedia last year and has been a participant in numerous disputes and accusations.
    Warning has been taken for all of us three, I hope all of us can respect it from now on, if not, a block would make sense. Wlaak (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Having been personally involved with this dispute, I can't underestimate just how annoying and stressful it has been to deal with several content disputes, two ANIs, and one DRN in just the last month alone. This is getting to be ridiculous. What I want to take away from this is genuine steps towards solving this issue via any of the suggested avenues, research from reliable sources, and input from neutral or well-versed (on this topic) editors. Both User:Kivercik and User:Wlaak have their pre-established opinions on this and have edited on this topic without experience in Wikipedia policy or editing for longer than a month at least. I understand what is being said in regards to me having a POV in editing and will apply that consensus in the future, but I can't even begin to imagine how many more articles I'm going to expand and edit, only to see diffs that are solely changing the name of the people, and then deal with talk page disputes over and over and over again because that is battleground editing.
    Noting everything previously discussed, I am greatly lacking in confidence of both Kivercik and Wlaak to handle this issue until a consensus is achieved. Kivercik has already been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Wlaak has previously edit warred. Wlaak has also been blocked before on the Swedish Wikipedia as I've mentioned previously, and in talk page disputes, if they don't receive a reply for more than 24 hours they take that as being a final consensus and edit the page the way they want anyways. Both have so far accused me of various infractions against Wikipedia's policies that are unfounded and/or while they're at the same carrying out those infractions themselves. I understand that I am just as much under scrutiny as anyone else involved, but in a dispute that has been present on the website since its founding, both Kivercik and Wlaak have not edited or participated in ways that offer viable, long-lasting solutions. I am in support whether a block or a topic ban is chosen. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you mentioned me, I was unblocked after having understood the policies of WikiPedia, and yes, I was told by admins that if not a response for a 24h, implement changes and await a response and take it from there. Wlaak (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Furkanberk52

    [edit]

    Furkanberk52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Editing pattern suggests they are trolling and POV-pushing Armenian genocide denial, with them calling properly sourced info by experts in the field of the Armenian genocide "biased" or not "objective". ([71][72][73]). A topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan seems fitting. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed- topic ban may be best here. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    experts in the field, hmm. Does expert in the field only mean 1 man or men who's names end with yan/ian? These towards are literally "biased" and one sided.
    This is like in newton-modern pyhsics arguement, only using newton's sources.
    You are writing, you are playing, then who will counters it? asperagasmanchini (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments for @Furkanberk52:
    1. Your signature is confusing, as I see no connection between "asperagasmanchini" and your username. It would be nice to fix that. I believe it has slowed down responses to this issue, as people are having trouble seeing the connection between your post and the original complaint.
    2. Why do you refer to Armenians that way (by surname ending)? Seems a bit off-putting to me. Please answer.
    3. The references you objected to (as linked above) do not seem to be from Armenians, so you putting down Armenian sources seems to be a non sequitur in this discussion.
    4. If all Armenians and people of Armenian heritage (with those last names) are "literally biased" does that mean that all Turkish people and people of Turkish heritage are also "literally biased" and using them for denial of the Armenian information is worthless? Please answer.
    5. If you object to a source as non-reliable, please also post objective evidence that it is unreliable. Otherwise, your objection could be seen as frivolous.
    Thank you in advance for your reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of this. @Furkanberk52 if you want to check whether a source is reliable, please see WP:RSP for a list of sources generally seen as reliable by the Wikipedia community. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 23:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Furkanberk52 has not edited since the 13th. Their pattern historically is to sporadically edit, so this is not too unusual. However, given the general trend in the ban discussions, I have preemptively blocked them from Article space and Article talk space, and invited them to participate here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    [edit]

    The editors below are proposing a topic ban. To formalize this for anyone else who wishes to comment/!vote, I believe the following summarizes their wishes. If not, please reply and clarify: Proposal Topic ban from Armenia, broadly construed. This includes the Armenian genocide, the Armenian people, and persons of Armenian descent. This discussion must stay open for at least 24 hours per WP:CBAN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC) This discussion will stay open as long as the community ban discussion does. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

    • Support ban This is not a constructive editor. Suggesting that a source is reliable or not based on the ethnicity of the author is frankly racist. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe Then, [name removed as per WP:OUTING], there is a lot of racism going on Wikipedia, as prolific Turkish scholars like Yusuf Halaçoğlu are judged based on their ethnicity. Taner Akçam, on the other hand, is funded by Dashnak supported Zoryan Institute and has ties to the terrorist organization PKK. Kiisamyu (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban. There has to be some other sort of policy violation for this as well. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • support TBAN at minimum: obvious POV-pushing and anti-Armenian rhetoric - invoking last name suffixes as evidence of unreliability is problematic to say the least ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban at least. The user with the two confusing names seems to be editing in a crudely nationalistic way. The thing about "men who's names end with yan/ian" above is deplorable, and makes me ready to support an indefinite block as an alternative. Taner Akçam is recognized as a "leading international authority" on the Armenian genocide, per Wikipedia's well-sourced article about him. To then write, as Furkanberk52 did on Talk:Armenian genocide, that "[Akçam] is anti-Turk and funding by EU. I'd suggest another sources, it can be from USA genocide researches" and to fall silent when asked for sources, speaks volumes.[74] User:LunaEclipse has given further pretty striking examples. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
      @Bishonen Taner Akçam is an operative of German Intelligence Agency BND and is funded by the Hamburg Institute for Social Studies. Source Kiisamyu (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan but would prefer CBAN. Using two usernames to edit is definitely not on, nor is calling Taner Akçam anti-Turk. That's also a BLP violation. The edits linked are unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Oppose Wikipedia is controlled by lunatic leftists and globalists. They want to smear Turkish history under the guise of encyclopedia building. This thread is just as deceitful as the imperialist lie of Armenian genocide.
    Kiisamyu (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A brand new account that has found their way to this conversation to not only defend OP but spew weird conspiracy theories. I'm sure this will end well. — Czello (music) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i wonder who it possibly could be ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it was Wallis sabiti who may be Zenzyyx. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban

    [edit]

    For the reasons I give in my post above I'm proposing this alternative. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Open for at least 72 hours according to WP:CBAN unless outcome is obvious after 24 hours with limited opposition. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing Generation Z page "start year" edit war and ongoing vandalism

    [edit]

    There is ongoing vandalism to the header of Generation Z where the start year is mentioned. There are conflicting sources that do not see eye to eye on the start year of Generation Z which is causing problematic editing in the article and arguments on the Talk:Generation_Z page. I've tried to reach out to other participating users in the article to find a new consensus and nobody has spoken up. A consensus had been reached in August 2024 - Talk:Generation Z/Archive 6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012".

    It is also noted that many of the header edits include information that is already located within the article Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range which seemingly goes against Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight?

    Zillennial (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Zillennial, can you tell me what you mean by "header"? I'm not sure what area this is in a standard Wikipedia article. There is the lede (or lead) paragraph which serves as an introduction and there is a graphic in the infobox with different generations. Do you mean either of those aspect of the article? Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Liz
    I'm referring to the lead paragraph in the introduction. Consensus had been reached in August 2024 to keep the it as Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012. Most members of Generation Z are the children of Generation X, younger Baby boomers and older Millennials.. This serves as a neutral point of view without WP:UNDUE.
    If you look at the Talk:Generation_Z page the two users who have been changing this lede constantly are now accusing anyone who reverts the article as being a sockpuppet, breaking Wikipedia:Ownership of content rules, and saying that a 2024 consensus was done by sockpuppets. They are also quoting years old sources to back their point of views up (which are already mentioned in the Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range part of the article.
    Zillennial (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz.
    I would like to add more context here. The user @Zillennial keep revert the edit which he is the one who start edit war. The passage that I would like to add is for the context “…specifically 1995 by some academic“ which correlated with the beginning of the sentence as “ Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years…”. I’ve provided multiple academic resources for the change.
    "There may be some slight variations in the definitions of a specific "generation", but the following list generally reflects the standard years ascribed to each: The Greatest Generation – born 1901-1924. The Silent Generation – born 1925-1945. The Baby Boomer Generation – born 1946-1964. Generation X – born 1965-1979. Millennials – born 1980-1994. Generation Z – born 1995-2012. Gen Alpha – born 2013 – 2025." from University of Southern California [75].
    "Students classified as Generation Z were born between 1995 and 2000." from Generation Z Goes to College by Corey Seemiller and Meghan GracePublished by Jossey-Bass. Reviewed by Re’Shanda Grace-Bridges, Director of New Student Programs at University of Dayton [76].
    "Generation Z. These are the people born between 1995 and 2010. This is the generation which is the newest generation to enter the workforce. They are the most technologically adept generation and are highly connected to the social media web. These concepts had their origin in the Western context. Gen Z: An Emerging Phenomenon by Gopal P. Mahapatra M, Naureen Bhullar, and Priyansha Gupta from The NHRD Network Journal is the official publication of the National HRD Network. The aim of the journal is to compile and publish the research and professional views and experiences of reputed HR professionals, line professionals, CEOs, researchers and academicians in different specialised areas within the field of human resource development. [77]
    While @Zillennial and some IP user keeps saying about consensus which myself and another user @karpertem cannot find. Some user even agree that adding is appropriate because the sources included. @EvergreenFir.
    Here I suggests that @Zillennial is violating Wikipedia guidelines by acting as Wikipedia:Ownership of content which keep reverting any edit that not fit there narrative. You can also see that the user has been ignored all the change.
    Lastly, I would like to point out that what we are doing here is provided most contextual knowledge for certain subject not a place to express personal opinion. Gandtha (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gandtha,
    Nobody here is wanting to start an edit war. The Generation Z page has already had this issue for years now regarding the years. I'm personally fine with you adding the USC source into the Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range section and think it would be fine as an addition. However- the other sources that you have been linking are not relevant. One is 8 years old, and the other gives conflicting information as the years overlap (1980-1995 and then 1995-2010). Both are not cited consistently by researchers OR popular media which the lede suggests.
    @EvergreenFir also never agreed to anything. All they added into a talk page discussion was this Talk:Generation_Z#c-EvergreenFir-20250415192500-2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744-20250415184100 which isn't part of the conversation. Zillennial (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gandtha: This isn't the place to discuss content issue but if you have sources why haven't you tried modifying the body? From what I can tell, all you've done is mess around with the lead. AFAICT, no one has stopped you adding anything to the body, you just never tried. But the lead is never the first place to edit unless the lead say something not supported by the body. You always need to modify the body and the only modify the lead if it's appropriate after you've fixed the body. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I correct by what you meant, I can explore the head after I added the body then? Gandtha (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, so if you want to make a change to starting/ending years, you should first change in the body (the "Date and age range" section, in this case) by adding a sourced reference to your preferred years. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Liz. I wanted to point out that another administrator ,@Nil Einne, had confirmed that there was a consensus to the 1997-2012 date range back in August, although it was a weak one and that they recommended for a new discussion. This can be seen in the Generation Z talk page. Both @Nil Einne and @Danbloch had already stated multiple times that a discussion must be made before any new edits are made, which @Gandtha is choosing to ignore. The comments from Nil Einne and Dan Bloch are still located in the talk page, yet Gandtha claims that they don't exist. Dan Bloch had already explained the problems that the new edits had, which can be seen in the talk page. Gandtha has chosen to say that both my IP address and @Zillennial are sockpuppet accounts with no basis. I myself haven't made a single edit to the page, and had stuck to the Talk Page discussion of Gen Z. The entire conversation and debates are all found in the Generation Z talk pages incluing @Nil Einne's comments on the matter. 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, also wanted to say that I haven't made a single edit to the Generation Z article itself, and had stuck with my IP address to only converse in the Talk page. As for the edits that Gandtha, Kapartem, and others had tried to add, Dan Bloch and Nil Einne had explained that many of the articles were either outdated or simply were generic articles that only reflect the views of the authors themselves rather than being a company-wide definition for the organizations. Some of the articles even conflict with each other. In the Generation Z talk page, Kapartem talks about adding in pop culture articles about celebrities, and even mentioning Google AI and the Google search engine as a source, when Nil Einne commented that the Google search engine is NOT a source. I myself have commented that the most important sources are those based on actual demographic research rather than pop culture sites and simple marketing articles that barely mention anything of substance about Gen Z. The new edits are only adding sources simply because they start with the year 1995 and nothing else! This entire disbute is available on the Gen Z Talk Page. 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, @Liz. As I was reading the Talks page, I noticed that the last comment made by @Gandtha on the Gen Z discussion Talk Page quotes something that @Danbloch specifically had said in one of the talk page topics discussing about the August consensus as well as the consensus about not adding any new edits until further discussion and agreement in the talk page, specifically the quote: "set in stone". This flat out tells me that @Gandtha was 100% fully aware of the discussions made by Dan Bloch, @Nil Einne, @Zillennial and I in the past. @Gandtha is playing ignorance and is pretending that none of this exists. Gandtha completely knows about the August consensus because the quote "set in stone" is in the same post that has both Dan Bloch and Nil Einnes' discussion about the August consensus! 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, both Dan Bloch and Nil Einnes's discussions are found the topic "Edit warring" that was created 10 days ago. Dan Bloch's quote "set in stone" is found here, which is what @Gandtha quotes in his last comment. 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I remarked when this previously came up, there was a very weak consensus for something like the version which only mentions 1997 along with rougher ranges so it seems fair to take this as a starting point. It's also reasonable to take it as the WP:STATUSQUO. This doesn't mean that it cannot change however it does mean that ultimately since we don't want dumb edit warring, since there remains dispute it should stay until a new consensus is formed. The way to establish a new consensus would be by talking and agreeing to something new rather than by accusing each other of whatever evils. I've left more comments on the article talk but frankly I'm unconvinced you're going to be able achieve a new consensus on your own so getting some outside help is likely a good idea perhaps either DRN or an RfC. (And RfC was also suggested by someone else last time.) However it also seems that editors are getting ahead of themselves by modifying the lead with new sources without touching the body. And finally, if you were going to start an RfC please make sure you discuss it first. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STATUSQUO is Wikipedia:Reverting#Avoid reverting during discussion. I recommend reading it. Many editors discover that it does not say what they thought it said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good advice from NE and WAID. I've watchlisted the article and will not look kindly on continued edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User who disagrees with my views is trying to now "recruit" others to gang up on me.

    [edit]

    @Gandtha is a user who disagrees with my opinions on the Generation Z article. There is a dispute over the lead paragraph where they have consistently cited outdated sources and then tried to pin my page reverts as break Wikipedia rules. Now on the talk page they are trying to recruit other users to gang up on me as a whole hoard to act like a large number of editors are on their side.

    Talk:Generation_Z#c-Gandtha-20250418064600-Yeshu972-20250217162800

    Talk:Generation Z#c-Gandtha-20250418064500-Kapartem-20250416080800

    Talk:Generation Z#c-Gandtha-20250418064300-Jellowd2-20250418003100

    Zillennial (talk) Zillennial (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just asking other Wikipedian to defend their side. Now it's recruiting? Like you conspire with IP user? Whatever I would not waste more time on this anymore .. Gandtha (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called WP:CANVASSING and it's not allowed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Please consider this a warning, Gandtha. If you're serious about avoiding this dispute moving forward, that might be for the best. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tamilcontent1 and Film Box Office numbers

    [edit]

    User:Tamilcontent1, I believe has some serious WP:CIR issues and does not seem to get the point. They have repeatedly restored their preferred version of content despite there being no consensus.

    On 15 February 2025, they added multiple unreliable sources to the article Annaatthe and claimed that the film was a box office flop with a worldwide gross of only ₹169 crore. This edit was reverted by User:Arjayay on 18 February 2025.

    • Once again on 19 February 2025, re-added the same claims, this time citing a different source while removing the existing one. I reverted the edit, as it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to present lower figures by swapping sources. Throughout this, they used misleading edit summaries and failed to engage in proper discussion, repeatedly reverting back to their version.
    • On 23 March 2025, they did the same again in Lingaa, citing an unreliable source as if it were reliable. I opened a discussion at WP:RSN to request a source evaluation. The general consensus appeared to be to look for a more appropriate source for that content. User:Tamlicontent1 did not participate in the discussion.
    • In what seems to be a desperate attempt, they then resorted to WP:SOCKING, creating an account named User:Tamilan CSK to restore the same content. They were eventually blocked for socking by User:Izno.
    • On 4 April 2025, User:Tamilcontent1 left a warning on my talk page, saying Snap out of your fan mindset and accept criticism from reliable sources!!!. It can not be stopped.. Then on 7 April 2025, they followed up with a similar message , Another thing is very intriguing to me: There are thousands of authors in Wikipedia. Why are you so obsessed with me? Is it because the article concerned is of a movie star and you have that fan mindset? Please read fully before reverting and avoid disruptive editing. - I have rarely edited box office figures of Indian film related articles and I had not edited Annaatthe prior to this incident.

    Their current stance is that a single source, published three years after the film's release, reporting ₹140 crore should be taken as definitive. They ignore multiple other reliable sources that state the film grossed over ₹200 crore. They do not seem to understand WP:ECREE nor do they acknowledge alternative viewpoints. It seems that their intent is to deliberately lower the reported box office collections of both Annaatthe and Lingaa. As this has now turned into a slow edit war, I am bringing this to ANI to request that User:Tamilcontent1 be topic banned from editing India/Indian film related articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template edit incorrectly creating error cat with 25000+ entries needs reverting

    [edit]

    Please see Help talk:Citation Style 1#ISBN / Date incompatibility. An edit to the template or module populates Category:CS1 errors: ISBN date, but many of the entries are incorrect, including errors on featured articles and the like (see the help talk discussion for examples). The editor who inserted the code has responded to some remarks, but doesn't seem inclined to engage with the fundamentals or to reverse the change. It's not the first time they caused tens or hundreds of thousands of articles to be in an "error" cat without good reason, but that more fundamental issue can wait: reverting the change is more urgent. Fram (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree that the change to the template behavior should be reverted immediately. The editor that introduced the problem seems to have good intentions (using the citation template software to automatically identify and flag cites that have inconsistent data, namely ISBN vs publication date). But that sort of change has vast ramifications and should be discussed, tested, and evaluated first. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#isbn and pre-isbn publication dates and Help talk:Citation Style 1#module suite update 12–13 April 2025. The result may not have been exactly what was desired, but it's flagrantly false to say this wasn't discussed or tested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those discussions show the level of consensus that should have been required for this in the first place, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be but this isn't a situation were one editor introduced a change without discussion, testing or evaluation as suggested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits to revert are the April 12 edits to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers. I came extremely close to pushing the button myself here and only didn't because I'm not in the mood to jump into another ugly fight. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my technical area but I'm thinking you would need to revert all the changes from Help talk:Citation Style 1#module suite update 12–13 April 2025, unless they can be reverted piecemeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes of this sort often can't, but looking at the code it looks to me like this one can. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery there's a single line change to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration that would, at least, hide the error message until such time as any discussion about whether this is an error or not is resolved. Nthep (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an admin. If you want to make that edit, then do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've made the change here. All this does is hide the error message, it doesn't revert the functionality of working out if there is an ISBN/ date compatibility issue. It will take some time for the job queue to take care of them all and anyone who has css modified to show hidden errors will still see them, but it should remove it from view for the casual reader. Nthep (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated on the linked discussion, I support reverting this change. The longer it is left in place the more likely it is to cause unintentional damage by gnomes "fixing" the error by using reprint dates instead of original publication dates of sources. But when we have a choice of citing an original publication or an unrevised reprint, we should always cite the original, because its publication date is useful in providing context to the readers about how up-to-date the reference might be. The alternative, removing the ISBN of a reprint, is also not a helpful response. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, yet another situation for the millionth time of "let's get a "consensus" of 5 or less people on an obscure talk page for something that will affect thousands of articles, rather than having the discussion on the relevant Village Pump page". Honestly think we should just delete the talk pages of these various policy articles and force people to use the Village Pump. SilverserenC 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk pages are useful to have, but I can't say I disagree about forcing consensus for changes at VP. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren and Asilvering: I don't think "an obscure talk page" is accurate because Help talk:CS1 is the talk page for all major citation templates. Via redirect it is the talk page for {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{citation}}, and so on. Nearly every citation template with transclusions above a thousand is either one of the templates sharing that talk page or a wrapper template based on one of them. It has 514 page watchers.
    How would discussions be presented on the village pump? Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) have 7 times[78] the watcher count of Help talk:CS1. Although a small increase from 514 watchers, they might be a broader range of editors. However, it would be a mistake to try and make any of the village pump pages into the talk page for all major templates for multiple reasons. First, this could derail the current usage of the village pump by flooding it with highly technical or specific template discussions. Second, maintaining widely used templates would become more difficult. For example, say someone asks which templates accept "volume", "issue", and "page" parameters and why. Right now, one could search the talk archives for "volume issue page parameters" and find the archive with the relevant discussions that give the rationale and consensus. This would be much less feasible if citation, infobox, and so on templates had all of their talk pages redirected to a village pump board.
    Updates to Module:Citation/CS1 are implemented and announced in batches or "suites". This update, for example, was announced at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#module_suite_update_12–13_April_2025 with links to relevant discussions on April 6. The changes were implemented on April 13. Is there a desire to have these announcements linked at the Village Pump boards, and if so how? Would a {{Please see}} template be enough?
    Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone with the correct rights willing to do this? It all reminds me too much of the hyphenated parameters debacle of 2011, where an attempt to make a million-plus bot edits based on a similar backwater discussion was halted by an RFC[79], only to then need an acrimonious CfD to get rid of the "maintenance" category for the same million+ categories for something that didn't need maintenance[80], which finally, one month later, got implemented[81]. I hope this one can move a bit faster. Fram (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a good reason that the editor who made the change is not being identified here in this discussion? At least link to the template so that the edit itself can be looked at. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Pppery did provide a link. It was a module, not a template. And the editor was User:Trappist the monk. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a change here to hide the error message. I haven't rolled back the edits to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers that added the test. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the error message, but leaving the error category in place, has the disadvantage that it becomes very difficult to find which reference in an article is generating the error category in case one wishes to rewrite that reference to avoid it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, but if anyone is that interested in emptying the cwtegiry then they can always switch on seeing the error message per Help:CS1 errors#Error and maintenance messages. Nthep (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In case this situation is not bad enough, User:Citation bot is still actively adding ISBNs to pre-1965 books and triggering this error message on more articles. In fact it is restoring the ISBNs to book references from which the ISBN was deliberately removed (in order to stop this error message from happening), causing it to happen again. Given this behavior it seems likely to me that many of the thousands of errors reported by this change were because of old bot edits erronously adding these ISBNs, only now discovered to be erroneous. It also seems likely that efforts to fix these errors by removing the bad ISBNs are likely to be reverted by the bots until the bots are stopped from adding them back. See Special:Diff/1286969547 and User talk:Citation bot#Adds isbn for book with publication year before 1965. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    But many of these ISBNs are not erroneous at all. And the category is now at 33000 articles instead of 25000... The issue with the one you highlight [82] is not Citation Bot, but the URL which links to the 1980 edition (with the ISBN)[83], so not the 1958 original edition nor the 2014 edition added in the "reprint" information. Fram (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: I am looking at your citation for the John Riordan book in Factorial. There's a couple corrections you can and should make to the way you are formatting your citation that will not only make the data match exactly the book where you got the the content; fixing your formatting will also prevent Citation Bot from making incorrect assumptions as to which edition you are citing.
    The main thing you need to do differently is to code both the original publication date and the publication date of the reprint. You can get the data from the url or from the copyright page of the actual book if you have a print copy. Your coding for your citation is | year = 1980 | orig-year = 1958 | isbn = 0-691-08262-6. I discovered that the ref toolbar plugged in some incorrect information into the citation when I asked it to generate a cite from the url. So in the future please check what it generates and make corrections if necessary. I've added the corrected version of this particular example to Factorial. (re-ping David Eppstein and add signature) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the helpful advice telling me to do what I had already done. The original publication date and publication date of the reprint were both there. I had previously separated out the publication date of the reprint to material after the citation template because the template does not make it possible to give separate publisher and series metadata for original publications and reprints. So except for a gbooks courtesy link (which I have now also moved) everything in the actual citation template was for the original publication. Your edit to the article broke this by claiming that the reprint had a 1958 publication date. I do not want to cite the reprint. I want to cite the original publication. It is usually a mistake to cite a reprint. The original publication citation gives more information about the provenance of the information to readers, and often makes it easier to find free online copies for works that have gone out of copyright. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you visit the url and scroll to the copyright page at the beginning of the book, you will see that the edition displayed was published in 1980 and the ISBN is 0-691-08262-6. So your courtesy link is not pointing to the 2014 edition. If you look at the article revision before your revert you will see the original publication date in square brackets and the reprint's publication date in round brackets. If you want to talk about this further we should do so elsewhere. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR issue (not resolved yet)

    [edit]

    Hello. I'm re-submitting a report I previously filed which went unaddressed. The editor in question continues to engage in disruptive editing and edit warring across Iraq-related articles, despite concerns about their editing being raised multiple times. Their edits are filled with awkward phrasing, spelling errors, and poor grammar, creating big messes that require repeated cleanup by other editors.[84][85][86] They have also shown a disregard for Wikipedia policies such as WP:SIZERULE.

    In their most recent edit to Saddam Hussein today (while continuing to edit war), they have introduced numerous errors such as "synagoagues," "endrosed," "On other hands," "the decree did not take in-effect," "foriegn ministers," "on the day of Jewish festival of Sukkot," "Being refrained from sensitive politics, allowed Assyrians to preserve," "citing a proof by Saddam himself." They show no indication of ever stopping or even attempting to improve, and their long-term editing pattern is clearly harming multiple articles. I would greatly appreciate administrator input. Skitash (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kharbaan Ghaltaan @Abo Yemen Your input would be kindly appreciated. Skitash (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Appears indeed to be problematic. But have you also tried ANEW? Borgenland (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. That edit summary alone reeks of WP:OWN. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I don't think ANEW would be the most appropriate noticeboard here, as the editor is engaging in slow edit warring without violating WP:3RR. They also embed poor quality edits within larger edits as they've done here (e.g. "neighoring" and "Arif's rule was considered as peaceful Iraq") without explicitly edit warring. Skitash (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that @KiddKrazy2 is involved here too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How? I have not engaged in any disruptive editing. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no i meant like in the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    okay now you definitely are involved 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue still only concerns Kharbaan Ghaltaan, as Skitash's complaint is against aforementioned. Also, i am still not engaged in disruptive editing. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice here, if the editor does not respond, is to propose a WP:TBAN on the articles in question. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I agree, that's a good idea. I also think a broader ban from article space should be considered (since they make the same disruptive edits to non-Iraq-related articles too[87][88]). I'd also like to note that the editor has ignored three notices to respond here,[89][90][91] and is currently continuing to add WP:FLUFF to Iraq.[92] Skitash (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it doesn't mean that what @Skitash should wipe off entire content. As he often highlight about WP:ARTICLESIZE and all, he can later rephrase the added content according to WP:ARTICLESIZE. If he is an active user in this topic, then he must handle to rephrase article as per WP:ARTICLESIZE, not to wipe off entire content Then why don't he take responsibility to fix up grammar or notify us in user page or talk page, instead of wiping off entire content. Without discussing on talk page he has wiped off entire content
    @Skitash said Adding minority officers' name to that article is meaningless Listing their names here is just as excessive. Please take a look at related articles like Gamal Abdel Nasser and Ahmed Ben Bella, neither of which have sections dedicated to diversity." But You wont find articles explicitly mentioning those leaders' relations with minorities. Egypt and Algeria are entirely Arab, with only one minority group. So overall minorities (except religion in Egypt and language in Algeria) almost don't exist in these countries. Meanwhile Iraq is ethnically and religiously diverse and is a hot topic regarding Iraq. Saddam's topic is often all about sectarianism, ethnicity and religion. Same can be seen in Josip Broz Tito and Hafez al-Assad — Hafez al-Assad#Sectarianism and Presidency of Hafez al-Assad — presidency of Hafez al-Assad#Corrective Movement And I am not listing their names like a list. I am citing few examples.
    As @Local Mandaean said: has removed a huge chunk of infomation containing context and infomation about saddam hussein and miniorites in Iraq, showcasing another side/perspective on saddams regime that not much people have been able to see due to bias in media and so on, this section of the article orginially labelled diveristy in leadership was a well sized addition, which helped give more context to the reader in the leadership ran in Iraq, unlike what the popular opinion is of complete sunni dictatorship, me, and other editors spent time writing more into this, and showing a unbias perspective which showcases that saddams regime did include more then just sunnis then what alot of media says, although one editor has continiousally deleted the section we wrote, citing it dosent go with wikipedias article length rules, although he didnt consult the talk-page for an agreement if that should be shortened, or if instead something else should be shortened. I have tried to talk it through and even rewrote it by making it smaller and trimming it, which was still deleted by @Skitash Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This block of text honestly speaks for itself. If anyone needs further evidence of the WP:CIR concerns raised, it’s right here. Skitash (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is what I said Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose we rewrite the section of the article to a more trimmed and professional standard, if you agree @Skitash il start drafting a smaller and better-worded paragraph which contains all of our infomation we wanted to be presented on saddams page. Local Mandaean (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is for addressing behavioral concerns, not content disputes. Skitash (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing that triggered this ANI entry is the content dispute. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. The issue here goes far beyond Saddam Hussein's article. Skitash (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good resolution to the dispute. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i do agree. Even I tried to trim the content. But believe me it's not possible for Saddam Hussein article to follow exact WPSIZE rules. So we can trim and short the content, but only to an extent. Many political leaders' article don't follow the WPSIZE rules exactly (ex George W. Bush, Leonid Brezhnev etc).
    I agree with @Local Mandaean, just want @Skitash reply. But pls consider my idea too. Maybe be I'm poor in expressing it but you can understand what do I mean Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local Mandaean @Skitash @KiddKrazy2 @Abo Yemen what's the final resolution??? Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    that's for an admin to decide 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PowerMan7632 is WP:NOTTHERE

    [edit]

    PowerMan7632 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. They've been here using AI chatbots to create articles (which are probably hoaxes) like Draft:Qajar-Wahhabi wars, Draft:Siege of Samail, Draft:Attack on Bandar Abbas (1809), and other stuff written on their sandbox (see its history). Speaking of their sandbox, they are creating imaginary battles taking place in... TikTok. Searching for one of the names that they've placed on the infobox ("sodi.player") on tiktok shows those accounts that make "nationalist Saudi edits" using Wikipedia infoboxes.. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially more of a WP:CIR issue. But other than the AI generated drafts, their main contributions are adding OR/Saudi POV into conflict infoboxes [93] [94] [95] Kowal2701 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? bro Me and the guys were having fun in the group chat where I experiment with different styles of battles in wiki and our videos labelled on them fictional wars. Bummer that this guy came Out of nowhere disturbing plus the articles about Qajar-Wahhabi war never been published back since I got rejected for it and if you see any realistic battles in my Sandbox I will gladly give you the sources for it🥀 PowerMan7632 (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTWEBHOST. Do not use Wikipedia in this manner. (Warning given on their talk page). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern about my content but this is just an experiment that I do in my Sandbox I love how wiki works and I contribute lot on Wikipedia pages fixing grammar putting better designs and Details I never vandalised an Article I’m new to wiki and I love experimenting with the details in the templates that you guys offer and now I’m working on project with experience as a showing me how Properly edit and I Train in my sandbox PowerMan7632 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    GreatLeader1945: refusal to discuss, whitewashing, trolling

    [edit]

    GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user refuses to discuss and edit-wars to whitewash the articles of authoritarian political figures. On Bidzina Ivanishvili, they have edit-warred in an attempt to whitewash his description as the de facto ruler of Georgia and falsely claimed to be reverting vandalism. When I and other editors repeatedly invited them to discuss on the talk page, they refused. Considering the prior blocks and ANI history, an indef may be in order. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef, absolutely not engaging in discussion. When you are asked to stop, just stop, no more changes without concrete consensus. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicdat, can you provide some diffs to support your accusations? That would be appreciated. Calm down, Ahri Boy, many of your recent comments on noticeboards have been adament about taking action against editors but don't show that you have really looked into the details of a case. ANI calls for thoughtful participation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First removal of sourced content, I invited them to discuss on the talk page, they reverted, saying that the same, heavily sourced, content is "not a fact", I reverted again, pointing out their failure to discuss on the talk page and erroneous reasoning, added a weasel-word tag on the (again sourced) wording they didn't like, falsely marking it as minor. I reverted the tag, which made no sense considering the fact that the content was sourced. Their revert stated in the edit summary: Rvv. You are removing the template without any reason or any expIanation - this consists vandalism. It HAS to be explicitly clarified in this sentence BY WHOM is he 'widely recognized'. MOS:WEASEL clearly allows that wording in the lead when backed up by sourcing. My next edit was a dummy edit explaining my reasoning. They also attempted to push the same POV on Irakli Kobakhidze by adding erroneous tags, again falsely marking the edit as minor. Again, will note that they have been blocked for falsely claiming to revert vandalism before. Clearly they have learned nothing. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh got it. I should be more careful when discussing and reevaluating contributions, the diffs are very essential to explanation. I went overboard without checking the diffs twice. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a content dispute rather than any particular wrongdoing to me. I don't see any discussion on the talk page by any party. And in fact, IMHO instead of removing the "by whom" template it would be better to clarify who exactly thinks he is the de facto ruler. I don't see mention of him in the infobox at Georgia (country) which is rather surprising if he is widely considered the de facto ruler. I suggest all parties go to the talk page and resolve the disputes there rather than bringing it to ANI, which is intended for serious intractible problems.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have started as a content dispute but the user's conduct is clearly beyond the pale. See the user talk page which is a mass of warnings including a final warning to not call edits vandalism. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuts5070 for vandalism

    [edit]

    Nuts5070 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reporting User:Nuts5070 for WP:NOTHERE. They've been given several warnings. Their edits have been reverted by several users, and they are still continuously attempting to re-add section about Grooming gangs to the British Pakistani article.[96][97][98] Also WP:SNEAKY – attempted to link article to Rochdale child sex abuse ring with the see also template under the guise of "added links".[99] When I gave them a warning, they accused me of 'covering up' grooming gangs.[100] It's quite obvious they have a bias (see this diff [101]), and they're just not here to contribute positively. They have a lot of warning on their talk page, so this may not be the only article that's of concern. نعم البدل (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's best to provide relevant links and HELP:DIFFs as evidence. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yes I've added the relevant diffs. نعم البدل (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked them to participate in this discussion but they haven't edited in the past day. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am ready to participate but to remove content that is relevant to that topic is not done. This issue has been going on for years and no one has bothered to act on it or even display the reality.
    This is not vandalism. This is as good as investigative journalism. Nuts5070 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is as good as investigative journalism. Wikipedia is not a platform for 'investigative journalism'. And yes, removing content that one particular individual considers 'relevant to [a] topic' is done all the time. Clearly not everybody considers this material appropriate, and accordingly, you need to seek consensus. So far, you have made precisely zero edits to Talk:British Pakistanis, the appropriate place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nuts5070: You're not helping your case with such statements. You sound like you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which may indicate you're WP:NOTHERE. If you don't change your attitude and behavior, you may get a WP:TOPICBAN. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Keeping aside a few things, Would you also disagree for the fact that the Rochdale link was not related? Whoever wrote the article, also mentioned grooming gangs.
    And regarding having a consensus to make it relevant, let’s keep one. If some don’t like it they can vote against. But some who agree, can vote for it. Simple as that. In addition , anyone can state that putting relevant information be considered as vandalism. Nuts5070 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions regarding article content go on article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Nuts5070 seems to to have taken my suggestion to use the article talk page as an excuse to continue inappropriate behaviour there. [102] Given this, a topic ban (at minimum) would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for 48 hours for that personal attack. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Unsure about some disruptive editor in Peru history pages

    [edit]
    Turns out they were a sockmaster, and are now blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The user in question is; @Eddu16

    Im posting because I noticed they made a lot of edits to Peruvian history articles, and at least where I went and checked the sources myself such as Battle of Uchiza (1987) they appear to be adding specific facts - eg a number of soldiers killed that never is mentioned in any of the source material. Either sneaky? Or are we dealing with a user who utalises a bot to generate some parts of the pages they are making?

    In other cases they appear to be more clearly just vandalising pages with full deletion; Operation Chameleon (Peru)

    Elsewhere, they appear very set on some facts that run counter to the source material;

    They continually add information to this infobox, that is so outrageously dubious eg they say (unsourced) 200k + killed of those who belonged to x faction, multiple sources in the Internal conflict in Peru article say on the other hand 70k total killed between the government, insurgents and civilians.

    I have tried to engage them on the talk page, on their user page, and they just don't respond. IDK what to do.

    Another user suggested in this talk page; that they would like all of Eddus edits reverted as they appear to be vandalism? I don't know enough about Peruvian history to agree or not but from what sources I have cross checked eg Battle of Uchiza and the internal conflict pages information seems to be added consistently that is not reliable or true to sources that are claimed to support it.

    LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I can second this, as I am the user mentioned in the talk page above. I left a message on the aforementioned user's talk page that better explains the situation. The edits are: disruptive (formatting issues), low-quality (spelling issues), innacurate (to the point where an edit war—or skirmish—appears to have taken place at least once) and somehow hostile at times (one edit mentions unsourced claims about Freemasonry in its summary). This user has also targeted a large number of pages, which is not great., so I hope he'll reply but I'm uncertain if he ever has. AlejandroFC (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Eddu16 as a sock of User:Exterminador de collas who was username-hard-blocked by Rosguill on May 7, 2024. Eddu16 is actually the older account. Because of the odd timing of events, I've not deleted the many pages created by Eddu16 after Exterminador's block per WP:G5, but they look like they should be, not that I know anything about Peruvian battles. Perhaps, when appropriate, they can be tagged for speedy deletion. If not, I may look at them more closely later.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that they have been linked to an account whose name is a slurred glorification of violence against Andean indigenous ethnic groups, I would treat the rest of their work with extreme prejudice. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now gone through their article contributions and converted nearly all of them to redirects to related topics, so the history is still accessible to any editor who wants to rework them. The one exception was Canto Grande massacre, which didn't have any mention anywhere on English Wikipedia despite seeming to have a decent amount of coverage on Google Scholar, so I left that one be. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 45.65.227.190 adding unsourced BLP content to multiple articles

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This IP user, User:45.65.227.190, has been repeatedly warning for adding unsourced information to multiple different articles, many of which are biographies of living persons. I would be willing to cut them slack if this were their first warning, but they have been given a final warning and are refusing to heed the ones they have received. I believe administrative action is in order, whether through a block or a very serious final warning. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked per the report at AIV. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing from Hollowww

    [edit]

    Reported editor has a battleground mentality and is engaged in edit-warring, tendentious editing and disruptive editing. They blatantly misrepresent what sources say [103], going as far as edit-warring for the inclusion of a dead king (Shapur I) who died two years before a war [104], [105], [106] while they have been told that the king died two years before. They move articles they created [107] under the pretext that their outcomes have been changed by some "Iranians". I'm ready to hear anything, but an editor who edit wars to include a dead king in an article about a war that took place two years after his death, an editor with a battleground mentality who misrepresents what sources say is not here to build an encyclopedia. Pinging other editors who have interacted with the reported user : @Kansas Bear:, @Iranian112:, @HistoryofIran:.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I confirm, see other examples of Disruptive editings from Hollowww[108][109][110][111][112]Iranian112 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As of 20 April, user:Hollowww has reverted the Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign three times,15 April20 April20 April while ignoring the on-going discussion(started 2 April). That in my opinion is reason enough for a 24hr block.
    User:Hollowww's articles are, simply put, Roman propaganda. They use primary Roman sources(some of which are used for original research(see Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273, to include dead Emperor Shapur I), simply to include the Sasanian Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also has reverted the Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273 three times 15 April 20 April 21 April Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem was that I used primary sources to create articles, and I have realized this too. In my most recent ones, such as Battle of Europos and Siege of Nisibis (197) I mainly relied on secondary sources. As of the previous articles I made, I don't know when, but I will rewrite them from scratch. Thank you all again for reporting. Hollowww (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In Islamic Central Asian and Middle Eastern war-related articles, there is a long ongoing trend of racking as many wins (I guess "points) for the favoured side, generally with poor sources. It seems Hollowww is doing the same to these articles of the Late Antiquity, without being thorough with what sources they use, just taking whatever they find on Google ebooks, instead of citing (preferably leading, there is fortunately not a lack of them) academics. If Hollowww could just do that (and communicate more rather than keep reverting with no proper edit summaries), then that would be great, but it seems this thread hasn't even caught their attention. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hollowww is still edit warring and adding poor citations as we speak. Here [113] they cite a book about a "financial crisis" in the USA that will "end" its status a superpower in an article about a battle between the Romans and Parthians in 198. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    More WP:OR, after checking Caracalla's campaigns of 214–216, I've found zero mention of any siege at Edessa from any of the sources I've checked. The article is historically inaccurate, depicting Abgar as being taken after a siege and not traveling to Rome with his son(per the sources). See here and here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Kryn, WP:CIR, WP:STONEWALL and WP:HOUND

    [edit]
    While there was merit in the original report, it did not appear to be sanction worthy and we have reached the ANI stage of policy spaghetti on a wall to see what (might) stick. There is no indication any has, and closing this before it devolves further. Randy Kryn, this isn't a warning but it's a note that it may be time to think how your actions are being perceived even if they're not how you intend them. Warren, I'm not blocking the IP but please don't post to project space if you intend to retire. It's not productive. Star Mississippi 03:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In the Skyerise RfC I asked for an WP:IBAN (diff) since they instantly showed up and made it personal (link) but I’m going to now formally request it, as well as an editing restriction for Randy on talk pages that he needs to substantiate his contributions beyond personal preference. On the surface this looks like a content dispute but it always boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, almost always "It's good and has been here a long time" as the sum total of engagement.

    I can find references to this going back to 2023 when Randy’s contributions were summarized as "I'm an experienced editor and I say keep, so the closer should supervote in my favor" and in 500 analyzed AfDs he’s not once voted delete. I repeatedly said I didn't want to raise this at ANI but Randy is still at.

    Randy went ballistic that I changed a template he liked. I froze editing the second he objected per WP:BRD but he refused to engage until I did what he demanded, essentially requiring his permission to change it. As a result he’s accused me of edit warring and vandalism. Randy's reverts broke the formatting of pages and he refused to read comments to that effect:

    • Accused me of conspiratorially engaging in WP:BRD diff
    • Randy doubling down in response diff

    Edit warring/disruptive editing accusations:

    Accusations that I'm falsifying my evidence of hounding:

    He did that a few more times, if you read the thread (e.g. diff). If it matters here’s my response to his edit war accusations: diff

    This exchange abandoning WP:BRD and with clear WP:STONEWALLING:

    He’s routinely objected to changes per WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with a refusal to discuss substance, his opinion is enough:

    • (diff, this was after the above ANI accusation of hounding/aspersions, please look at what that's in reply to)
    • Controversial, and hopefully will be kept at the present name. (that’s the entire contribution. “No.”) diff

    And he’s followed me across Wikiprojects and AfDs to lob mild insults, especially since the above Mars template issue:



    This has been ongoing well after I directly asked him if this pattern was personal (diff) since it's felt like if I edit Randy shows up to disagree. I know @Snow Rise: has raised similar concerns about his vibes-based analysis bringing heat as well. There are more diffs than these going back for a while I can grab if needed. Again, all I've wanted was an WP:IBAN here and to not be subject to Randy's assent for my edits.

    Pinging (for transparency, will notify as well) @EF5, @Valereee, and @Snow_Rise Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear about the impulse for this: After asking repeatedly for Randy to stop following me around to all corners of Wikipedia he decided to keep doing it, but explain how he follows the same pages. That's fine, and probably true, but I don't show up to his edits/contributions to... whatever he's saying at WP:NPOVN. this was apparently about this typo, per Randy. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Warren, I think you might be overestimating the extent to which I share your concerns about Randy. He and I had a minor disagreement in an ANI thread (to which both of us were respondents, not parties) about the line between divisive and non-divisive rhetoric, which ended as well as it could have: both being unable to convince the other, we dropped the discussion and walked away. I told you at the time that you came to my TP, soon thereafter, that I don't know enough about the history of the recent disputes between you two to be of much help in resolving this matter. Indeed, the main thing I seem to recall stressing more than anything in that response was that I thought it highly unlikely, based on my admittedly limited experience with Randy, that he was intentfully hounding you, as that does not seem to be his style. So it's a little confusing to me why you have invoked my name in a manner which seems to imply support for your contention that Randy is following you around.
    There are reasons why I did not respond to your multiple pings to disparate ongoing discussions you are having about Randy: I don't know the situation, and I can't really validate or refute anything you are saying in relation to the history between you two, or anyone's conduct relative thereto. There was a moment a couple of weeks ago where I felt Randy's style of commentary in a community discussion was suboptimal, and I said so. But that doesn't mean I want to join a pressure campaign to get him censured for purported conduct I really know nothing about. For all I know, your grievances could be legitimate. But you seem to want to tag me in as a prosecutorial partner, and I'm just not interested. I don't have the same level of concern, and this is not how I'd go about addressing the situation even if I did. The issue I wished to raise with Randy was particular to that discussion and transitory (and a relatively minor-ish point of decorum, in the grand scheme of things), and doesn't fold into your contest of wills with him, whomever the aggravating party actually is. That's about all I can say here of benefit to this discussion. SnowRise let's rap 17:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair, I tagged you as I’d raised it privately with you and knew you’d seen these issues as well, but I didn’t think you had a strong take. Sorry for bothering you here.
    So it's a little confusing to me why you have invoked my name in a manner which seems to imply support for your contention that Randy is following you around.
    There are some direct parallels to what I’ve raised here and the behaviour you called out there. The only reason I tagged you was you’d explicitly mentioned the history of that kind of posting at ANI, and I fully expect randy to say this is all in my head. I didn’t mean to imply you were a co-litigant, merely aware of the situation (which it appears I overestimated). Again, apologies. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all in your head. Am I a litigant? Must update my resume. Anyway, I haven't read this long accusation list as yet and time will permit this evening, but until then Warrenmck, please consider, as I replied to you at my talk page, that you may be 180 degrees wrong on this and it reads out to me as you creating a lesson for yourself on viewpoints. You are justifiably angry only because on Wikipedia we take someone's feelings on good faith (that doesn't mean they have a clue). Feel free to tell me to "Go Fuck Yourself" while realizing I have a watchlist I am trying to keep under 13,000 which covers a wide range of topics and ongoing discussions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warrenmck Do you have any diffs of Randy accusing you of vandalism after Valeree advised them of WP:NOTVAND? I also don't see any evidence provided for the WP:CIR allegation.
    Concerning the WP:FOLLOWING, it's by no means cut-and-dried, but this editor interaction report shows that often (26 out of 38 times it was less than 1 day between interactions) Warrenmck is the first to post, and Randy responds. I also note that there seems to be a pattern of Randy editing an article, not editing it for years, then responding in less than an hour when Warrenmck edits the page.
    Some examples of when Randy did not edit for some time (months at least), then edited within a day of Warrenmck's editing the page: Sojourner (rover), Bradbury Landing, Octavia E. Butler Landing, List of paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Talk:Lunar regolith, Viking 2, Curiosity (rover), Pierre-Auguste Renoir Mars rover, List of rocks on Mars and Talk:Martian regolith.
    Some counterexamples: Great ape language, Talk:Church Fathers and Universe.
    Finally, among the examples, I note that 8 out of 11 appeared to be content disputes with Warrenmck as the Bold editor, and Randy as the Revert editor. One of the counterexamples is also a content dispute, but the roles are reversed. On the talk pages included, Randy and Warrenmck appeared to be in agreement when they participated in the same discussion. (E.g., both agreeing to a proposed move.)
    I lack the experience to draw any conclusions from this, but hope it will be useful to data. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any diffs of Randy accusing you of vandalism after Valeree advised them of WP:NOTVAND?
    I’m considering the “what else do you call it” coupled with it coming after repeated requests to strike accusations given the rest. A blatantly bunk vandalism accusation off the back of a bunch of edit warring accusations enough to include, but not the bulk of the problem.
    I also don't see any evidence provided for the WP:CIR allegation.
    It's through his entire engagement. If you look at content disputes, AfDs, etc. Randy has been involved in he often edits and votes independent of any policy on Wikipedia, except for WP:IAR and his guiding essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB. For a cross section:
    In content disputes, his only arguments seem to be he often relies on a tautological "it's good" or "it's been here a long time" with no other engagement.
    • Still waiting for the original template which has existed since 2012 to be brought back to this title and the pretty good navbox moved to its own title. link
    • This is a serious discussion about a very good template which has existed since 2012 and used on many pages[...] link
    • Wow. This article has been damaged by the gallery removals. I haven't looked at the page in quite awhile, and it used to be full of interesting and informative gifs and history told in the form of still and moving images. diff
    And just general careless and inappropriate behaviour:
    • Weighing in at an AfD by responding to something that wasn't raised and admitting to not reading the article diff
    • Again weighing in with GNG when the concern was WP:OR diff
    • Telling a CBANned user they did nothing wrong and it was just mob justice diff
    • "Keep, sources say it meets GNG" (never provided sources, topic didn't meet GNG) diff
    • Keep vote ignoring the clear WP:PROMO in the sourcing while claiming those sources means it passes GNG (it didn't) diff
    • Keep per Gidonb above and this page is a nice entry in Wikipedia's overpopulation collection. The topic is of value, and sourcing seems adequate to keep it around as a page needing a couple more references. diff
    ↑ Sourcing was a youtube video and some articles that didn't mention the subject (apparently)
    There's the issues with the Drbogdan ANI, where Randy Kryn insisted
    • Strong oppose, I've personally been very happy with many of his edits, and have been alerted to news and events by running across his postings. diff
    ↑ He was reminded by @XOR'easter that the latter is a reason to follow someone on social media. The former is suspect next to the outpouring of editors who talked about dealing with years of low quality churnalism junking up articles and subsequent indef CBAN.
    There's the above Skyerise ANI, where Randy elects to ignore any and all discussion of behaviour issues and, again, jumps in and votes admitting to not having enough information to do so because he likes the editor:
    Strong Oppose, a longtime editor who is listening and replying in good faith. I don't know enough about this, so a topic ban or two may be at least discussed, but to ban from Wikipedia editing? Way to jump from one level to another. And again, as often occurs, when an editor is ANI'ed it often jumps to "ban!" and a feeding frenzy. Please close this section and "burn the witch" mentality and get back to discussing the original concern. link (emphasis added)
    Frankly, this, to me, is damning:
    Keep votes: 554 + 6 speedy (98.8%) Delete votes: 1 (0.2%)
    He as voted to delete an article once, ever. I do not believe that it's possible to arrive at this kind of statistic with a sincere read of these AfDs from a policy basis. It's clear he's skimming at best and not reading what he's replying to at worst, which per his WP:RULEOFTHUMB doesn't seem like it would be an issue to him. Couple that with the issues above at a content dispute where he demanded his preferred edit as a condition of even reading the discussion, and it's incredibly disruptive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I see. That's not what I'd call WP:CIR (unable to contribute constructively), but I see how one might describe them as disruptive editing (unwilling to contribute constructively). Also, in the future, please consider condensing, if possible; a WP:WALLOFTEXT makes it less likely your report will get its consideration. I'll also note that being wrong is not against policy.
    Finally, I'd encourage you to check some of your assumptions. You wrote, [Randy] often edits and votes independent of any policy on Wikipedia... In content disputes, his only arguments seem to be tautological "it's good" or "it's been here a long time" with no other engagement. There may be a problem, but this sweeping generalization is easily disproven by going through his contributions, such as when he cited the MOS, cited NCASTRO, and made a reasoned argument here. Your argument will be more compelling if you stick to bald facts, not hyperbolic assertions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely don’t know how to make a case like this shorter. It’s pretty useless to just link some of those diffs alone, and I can’t ask a reader to read the entire thread to divine the context. I’m not trying to be hyperbolic, either. I’ll go back through and strike hyperbolic statements. I’d already removed some before you replied, missed others, I see. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the long explanation of AfD stats, including copying them over, is completely unnecessary (everyone here can read them for themselves, and by themselves they mean nothing). What's meaningful there: 0 !votes to delete, and correct only 59% of the time. To me that looks like someone who needs to stop participating at AfD as their contributions, at best, are simply noise and at worst may prevent consensus from developing. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your AfD stats omitted the one showing Randy is in the prevailing side 70 percent of the time. And while your sample size is much smaller, you only vote delete at AFD [114] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jessintime, nearly all of those are "as nominator" and are them filing AfDs (hardly a vote). 66 percent of Warren's filings seem to be correct as well, so I wouldn't say that's a good argument. Also, Warren's only voted in/filed 24, many less than the >500 Randy's voted in/filed. — EF5 17:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no wish to defend Randy Kryn (or otherwise) but I must point out that all arguments about AfD stats are spurious. Some people choose which AFDs to comment on based on their preferred outcome, so they quite reasonably get close to 100% keeping or deleting. Some choose discussions to comment on because they disagree with the prevailing consensus, so they often choose the "wrong" outcome. Without delving into the exact reason for each comment such stats are meaningless, both here and at RfA. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad someone concisely stated this so I don't have to try and fail to do the same. Trainsandotherthings below has presented a quote from RK that further illustrates how these statistics can be (unintentionally) misleading. I also find the talk of people being correct for !voting for the action that ends up being the result of the discussion to be unhelpful, as a discussion resulting in a deletion does not suddenly mean that every keep !vote was completely devoid of merit. Nor do all deletion discussions have an explicitly or objectively "correct" outcome in the first place. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an experienced editor and I say keep, so the closer should supervote in my favor is in fact my writing from 2023, when Randy invoked an essay he personally wrote to try and sway opinion in an AfD (closed as delete). He included the risible line if a solid keep argument is present and agreed on by several long-time editors, then that argument should automatically prevail. I've noticed his behavior at AfD to be consistently poor (as in more driven by appeal to emotion and personal opinion than any sort of interpretation of policy or guidelines) and that he has a tendency for theatrics, but beyond that don't have many interactions with him and I can't speak to the rest of this report. FWIW, in the discussion linked earlier Randy said Personally I don't !vote on the majority of RfD's and other fD's because I usually agree that the page should be deleted, or it already has enough support to do without mine. Take that how you will. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am turned off by the WP:CIR claim. Saying that Randy Kryn is not competent to edit here is just about as dumb as Randy's claim that Warren is vandalizing. I'm also turned off by the weird detour into Randy's AFD stats; what does that have to do with anything? It is hard enough getting an admin to spend time figuring out what is going on, without extraneous accusations getting thrown in just in case something sticks.
    • I believe what Warren is asking for is an interaction ban. If I'm reading the diffs right, there don't seem to be a whole lot of interactions, and they don't give off a "hounding" vibe to me. People are allowed to disagree, even multiple times. Hounding is primarily based on "trying to cause you grief", not "we edit the same topics and disagree frequently". If Warren is convinced there is hounding going on, they should put together a concise list of edits where Randy seems to be doing more than disagreeing. If I've misunderstood, Warrne should clarify what exactly he wants, and why it is a reasonable request. Have some sympathy for the admins trying to real this and figure out what the hell is going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, I think that’s enough Wikipedia for me for one lifetime. I don’t think I can bring myself to care enough anymore to pretend AGF isn’t being treated as a suicide pact. Enjoy your WP:PROFRINGE guarded by power users (seriously, did any admin bother to look at the bullshit Skyerise was editing into articles and Randy was defending?), I suppose. Feel free to sanction me however you wish. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is disappointing. Per my above analysis, I think it's at least worth considering the WP:HOUNDING accusations, but this WP:FLOUNCE seems to undermine any incentive to do so. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry if this came across as a flounce. I'm not threatening to ragequit, I've legitimately locked myself out of my account. Any admin is free to indef me, I won't dispute it as I have no means to.
      This has been a huge damn waste of time. I'm done trying to present evidence only to be met with things like @Phil Bridger et al. making statemets like Without delving into the exact reason for each comment such stats are meaningless when there's an apparently ignored associated argument that Randy isn't actually reading the AfDs he's responding to, rather than an argument just around the statistics being responded to.
      The behavioural issues were so blatant that it feels hard to take the response to this ANI seriously as anything beyond forgetting entirely that much of this is about keeping garbage off an encyclopedia, rather it's all focused on an interpersonal dispute between editors. That's why I asked for an IBAN, not a ban for Randy. This ANI shouldn't even be slightly complex given Randy's willingness to say "to hell with BRD" no matter how much someone tries to civilly engage him in the process.
      Skyerise shouldn't even have a possibility entertained of a return given the mix of terrible editing and WP:OUTING. Feel free to look at the specific issues at WP:NPOVN. We shouldn't need tens of thousands of words to recognize that tltr , when you revert back to the long-term template (since 2012) I'll read your post. isn't acceptable, and that it happened with an admin present adds to the absurdity.
      Feel free to block this IP, as well. Now, time to block ANI at a DNS level and touch grass. 2001:1C00:A606:7200:2948:37FE:12A1:E0A9 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe the only accusation of Warren's close enough to the truth worthy of an answer (seriously), are my AfD stats on the side of 'Keep'. I choose which AFDs to comment on, usually from an article that shows up on my watchlist or it is included in a WikiProject listing. If I agree that an article either should be deleted or will surely be deleted I don't comment on it, and that as far as I know always end up deleted. I do not like directly participating in destroying someone's work (although I did vote to remove Abner Doubleday from the Level 5 article list). Sorry if that's abnormal here. But asserting that my comments on AfD should be ignored because I'm a Keep-only editor, as mentioned above somewhere, goes well beyond some kind of line or pale. As to you last line, to those who are trying to figure out what the hell is going on, me too but not that concerned about it, except for this AfD rebuke and call to ignore comments by inclusionists. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is going on is that an editor whose most edited page is ANI and who constantly gets into disputes/argumentsis once again dragging someone to ANI to cause more drama. I have to ask what has Warrenmck contributed to this encyclopedia besides drama and conflict? 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 206. Please don't change the focus or question to Warrenmck. Hopefully they've learned from this about points of view, what a watchlist is, and how editors edit topics in their interest areas, and will not receive any sanctions per assume good faith (I have good faith that he thinks I'm a nemesis, without considering that I have an almost-13,000 page watchlist which includes many topic areas). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is going on is that an editor whose most edited page is ANI and who constantly gets into disputes/argumentsis once again dragging someone to ANI to cause more drama
    A (I believe overwhelming, but would need to check) majority of ANIs I file end up with sanctions for those I’ve filed against, so I think that’s a weak argument from a clearly logged out user. If you look through my edit history here you’ll see dozens of edits for both typos and to remove hyperbole, which pad out my stats significantly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the IP may be right, that most of your edits are ANI? Jeez, hopefully this nonsense will end that. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that this IP user has such knowledge of a user they have never interacted with before. I find it very interesting that the IP's first edit was six hours after Skyerise was blocked and that IP's first comment on ANI was with the same person Skyerise had a lengthy dispute with. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems interesting to you because you don't understand how editing from a dynamic IP works. Most edits look like your first, or your first in a string of a few before going silent. Most IP users are lucky to get 24 hours on the same address. I get asked constantly about how I know so much for a "first" edit. I'm not the other IP editor, as a note. 74.254.224.40 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware. My apologies then. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had some trouble with Randy Kryn in the past at Vital articles. He was very passionate trying to get James Bevel listed at VA5, you can find the full discussion archived here. He just couldn't take "no" for an answer, he hounded me and others who disagreed with him both in the discussion and on our user talk pages pbp 03:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And a new contestant is heard from. If anyone starts reading this new batch of links please read them all. Will educate you about an extraordinary presence in world history that you may have never heard of. Of course I can take no for a final answer, but after a full discussion and not just a quick "He's not famous enough" from the editor who actually removed Bevel from Level 5 on that basis alone while at the same time claiming to be a student of history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh. I just now realized that this pun Randy gave on my talk page yesterday (A polite and properly named jungle for the most part, but lyons roam) is most likely an indirect attack at @Dicklyon: (see this messy talk page and this RM) masked as an admittedly clever pun (I immediately realized who it was referring to, but didn't see the seriousness till just now). Not intending to further participate due to the sheer length of discussion, but maybe this will be of help? — EF5 13:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, do you feel under attack from reading the above? Talk about feeling under attack! Next. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, clever puns meant to criticize or reference the actions of users belong at Wikipediocracy, not here. Maybe drop the "clever" part, but you hopefully get my point. — EF5 13:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being accused of taking things too far and holding grudges... So you apparently holding a grudge against Dicklyon to the point where attacks against them have entered your lexicon is well worth considering. Please take this seriously and put the carnival barker antics ("And a new contestant is heard from." "Next.") aside if only because they make you look terrible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to strongly second this observation. I've told Warren several times now that I suspected he was misinterpreting the cause for Randy's recurrent presence in his orbit, because my limited experience of the latter would seem to indicate that longterm personalization of conflicts was not his style. But I'm starting to get the sense from evidence presented here that my read may have been off in that respect, and Randy's own comments, dismissing complaints through clever-dick descriptions of other parties, are among the factors driving that re-assessment. I find that style of rhetoric, where a party repeatedly attempts to mix negative commentary on their perceived opponents with attempts at witticism, to be amongst the reddest of red flags for the possibility that there may be serious issues with a user's temperament or discussion style.
    In short, Randy, HEB is right; this is a bad look, and I'd adopt a much more dry approach to discussing conflicts and editors you've had issues with, rather than trying to score little bon mote points--because it very much makes it look like you are taking things to a personalized level, and raises the perceived likelihood that you are grinding axes and might indeed hound someone. SnowRise let's rap 18:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, good advice. As for not liking Dicklyon, again, incorrect. He's one of my favorite editors here, we've had a friendly competitor status for over ten years. He believes totally in his quest to see things lowercased that he sincerely believes need lowercasing, and if I and others can show that he's mistaken in that belief sometimes, good for us. But he's one of the editors I'd like most to meet in person and when I do I'll give him a hug and a "job well done" handshake. That I can present a minor topic-fitting pun about him during a conversation with EF5, who is becoming a pretty good veteran at casing RM's themself and who I knew might enjoy it, presents and was intended as a homage to Dicklyon rather than an attack. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The drama is enjoyable in a way, that’s all I say. Note that I was caught up in something relatively serious a few hours ago and will be taking a few-day break just to get away from it for a bit (stating here because that means I won’t respond to further comments). EF5 22:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I encountered a lot of what I would call IDHT behavior from Randy at 8-circuit model of consciousness, including edit-warring in fringe nonsense in wikivoice sourced to fringe apologia. Maybe a TBAN from "the occult", or at least some kind of 1RR restriction in that area, would be appropriate. JoelleJay (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose that. I was involved in the 8-circuit model discussion, and Randy's contrarian position ultimately led to improvements in the article. We were both at odds with each other there. More recently, Randy and I came to loggerheads at The Bootleggers article, and I was convinced he was wrong, and we got into a minor edit war, reverting each other back and forth. Randy took the opportunity to patiently explain why I was wrong and he ended up supporting his position with evidence. We may not see eye to eye or agree on everything, but his good behavior was ultimately the factor in winning me over to his side in that instance. He's just not the type to engage in some of the accusations made against him up above, and I say that from experience. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in those talk page discussions where Randy's input ended up being useful or incorporated. Most of the actual article restructuring was between you, Snow Rise, Steve Quinn, and an indeffed troll. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that particular example, Randy played the role of an authentic dissenter who helped strengthen and facilitate group decision-making. As you are likely aware, the value of a minority, dissenting opinion in a group discussion is that it forces opponents to strengthen and firm up their positions, and acts to promote better outcomes. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I'd say close this thread as generating more heat than light, but it never was generating any light in the first place, and the heat it's generating is enough to melt tungsten. So, first of all, why are we giving any weight at all to a ragequitting editor's last ANI against an editor they personally don't like? Calm down. This isn't the Salem witch trials, and we aren't accusing Randy of witchcraft. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Why don't we stop trying to settle old grievances and start building an encyclopedia? Everyone has people they don't like, but that doesn't mean we have to drag them to the happy place. Maybe Randy's sense of humor is ruffling some feathers. We have user talk pages for a reason. Just tell Randy politely to keep talk pages serious. This all could have been avoided. Say, who wants to destub some of our 2.3 million stubs? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 22:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Skyerise: Limited-time site ban proposal

    [edit]
    No third-party appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Skyerise and civility and latches onto the following part of the close: I suggest that if there needs to be further discussion, a new topic is opened, ...

    I propose replacing Skyerise's indef + revoked talk page access with a 6-months to 1-year site ban. So a limited-time site ban. The ban should be enforced with a block, and the block should expire after the duration of the ban. This way Skyerise will get the message from the community, and will be able to return to editing eventually. If this is not done and Skyerise remains indeffed and needs to go through UTRS, I think that we will lose this editor, because, well, Skyerise hasn't got what it takes to return to good standing under these circumstances. I can't be certain, but I'm close to certain. I also don't think that she would be able to effectively appeal an indefinite site ban. Skyerise obviously wants to edit, and after 6 months to a year, I expect that Skyerise will return, and we will see if there's a change. This would be a preventative community measure based on a rationale that Skyerise needs 6 months to 1 year to rethink her approach and change in certain ways. If it appears that the message was not received, that will become apparent soon enough, and Skyerise will simply be indeffed.—Alalch E. 18:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I'm not convinced an indef was ever warranted here (but I tend to have a nearly-impossible to satisfy standard for indeffing established editors), but at the same time we shouldn't accept 3rd-party ban appeals. If Skyerise wants to appeal the ban on UTRS in 6 months, she can do so. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fremrin: created hoax article

    [edit]

    User:Fremrin created the second version of Elvire Jaspers, which was speedy deleted at AfD as a hoax. No evidence could be found to support the assertion that she was a Latvian member of parliament, which would have given her a guarantee of notability as passing WP:NPOL.

    Jaspers exists, as a Dutch media businessperson. An earlier article about her was brought to AfD on 26 March 2025 and speedy deleted G7 on 2 April 2025. Fremrin created a new article, with the apparently unveriable information about her Latvian political career. They did not contribute to the discussion at AfD.

    I suggest that an editor who appears to have deliberately introduced fake information in an attempt to make an article Notable should be blocked to prevent them from damaging this precious encyclopedia. PamD 20:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a block until they acknowledge what they did and promise not to do it again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to hear Fremrin's explanation, but as they haven't edited since 11 Apr and they edit infrequently, perhaps it would be safer for the project to apply an article-space block until the issue is resolved. IMO, deliberately adding false content to an article is one of the worst wiki-offenses. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they do not respond here, I will partially block them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, sounds like a plan. Even if they don't know about this discussion, they shouldn't continue editing articlespace until it's resolved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread for 4 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Now blocked after two days with no response. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025

    [edit]

    PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs) has been told [115] to not canvass [116] the editors who apparently shares the same view as them on Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025. Now they are openly WP:VOTESTACKING to circumvent the process [117]. Heraklios 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pings have been done by the other side too [118]. WP:VOTESTACKING mentions that it applies to RFCs, AFDs and CFDs, but doesn't mention RMs. I've participated numerous RMs before, and editors have very often notified other editors though pings or other ways. Only in AFDs, have I noticed that notifying other editors is strictly prohibited, but never in RMs. PadFoot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what that guideline states. The votestacking section merely lists those as examples: such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD. The canvassing behavioral guideline clearly states Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.. Note the breadth of the definition: notifications that try to influence a discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that any decision coming from this RM will be lasting. Maniacal ! Paradoxical was supposed to leave a neutral statement/question and those opening comments have a clear POV. And, PadFoot, referring to editors with different opinions as "sides" shows a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that canvassing is as inappropriate in RMs as anywhere else; pings are acceptable only as long as editors are not notified according to their expected viewpoint on a discussion. However, RMs are not expected to begin with neutral statements like RFCs. In fact, it is expected that the editor suggesting the move will advocate for it (WP:RSPM), so there was no problem with the original request incorporating an opinion. Whether the opening statement was one that might reasonably be expected to convince those in disagreement and lead to consensus is a separate question. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yeah. I'm not sure how you could be expected to propose a move with a "neutral statement". Wanting the page to be moved is kind of the point. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They only pinged users from the previous RM that agreed with them/were friends with, which is blatant canvassing, and then have continued to do so after being warned. Surely that’s sanctionable. Couple that with the original research conducted in the previous and current RM, and gaslighty WP:SEALIONING, like trying to argue ngrams, which gave a massive lead, can’t be used to assess common name because of WP:CIRCULAR, or that Maratha Empire is somehow a WP:POVNAME despite most reputable scholars using it. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous concerns were raised about Padfoot’s OR and POV pushing (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing) by three experienced editors which archived without admin input. They raised concerns about anti-Indian bias. There is also User:PadFoot2008/Great Indian Sockwar (2022–present) which seems to be parodying historical conflicts and seems WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is also an ongoing AE case against him. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Padfoot was also warned for canvassing in a AFD discussion here Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having received that warning, Padfoot's comments above claiming that they didn't know canvassing applied to RMs now appear specious. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsjaffe, as I mentioned before, I was thus aware that canvassing applied to AfD, because of that warning. However, since RMs are not mentioned, and as I have seen that editors often ping others in RMs, I had been under the impression that canvassing was not applicable to RMs. PadFoot (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be more convincing if you hadn’t continued after being warned. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned right at the top, I had seen WP:CANVASSING before, but as I had seen editors being pinged on RMs before, I thought it wasn't for RMs, and only for AfDs. After rsjaffe cleared it up for me, I haven't pinged any more editors. PadFoot (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't only pinged the editors but have also notified them of the discussion, and failing to admit that is not helping at all. Heraklios 16:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The response by PadFoot is deceptive; they had previously done the same thing by canvassing editors for the move discussion on the same page, which is Maratha Confederacy. Most of the canvassed editors eventually voted in PadFoot's favor [119][120][121][122][123] Similarly, they also canvassed for AfDs [124] and RfCs [125], and in both cases, the canvassed users ended up supporting them. Even the Move Review process wasn't spared:

    [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] Despite being aware of WP:CANVASSING, PadFoot chose to repeat the same mistakes. They were also warned previously for unilaterally moving pages, which led to them losing their page mover rights. However, they still didn't learn and recently carried out another undiscussed move: [136] [137] This caused unnecessary exhaustion of other editors' time: [138] [139] [140] They have also cast aspersions and refused to accept consensus-driven RMs, as seen here: [141] Their comment was: all these Empire move pushes in India-related articles have been brought about by just you three in a sudden quick succession. Now they continue making these same mistakes, the only remedy remains to restrict PadFoot from moving pages and participating in mainspace talk discussions to prevent further canvassing. Heraklios 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support TB from page moves and talk mainspace: I think this is the best remedy one could suggest after witnessing repeating disruptive moves and open canvassing. Given that they were warned about these problems and still chose to repeat the same mistake, I don't think PadFoot2008 should be allowed to roam freely on talk pages and moving pages. Heraklios 17:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely ridiculous, after I was told that canvassing shouldn't be done in AfDs, I didn't notify anymore editors in any other AfDs that I did after the first one. For RMs, after rsjaffe clarified to me that notifying/pinging editors on RMs was not allowed, I have not notified any other editor since then. PadFoot (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately you're out of WP:ROPE, you knew the consequences for canvassing but disregarded it on this very report by indirectly saying "I wasn't aware of moving discussion canvassing, so it should be ruled out", you want to be warned everytime and for every type of discussions? That isn't how it works and as evident from the above diffs, you haven't only blatantly canvassed editors on RMs but also in AfDs, RfCs and even MRs. Heraklios 18:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from page moves, RfCs, RMs, and AfDs, only way to prevent further disruption. A ban from talk pages might as well be a site wide ban since being able to engage in discussion is needed to edit. Their canvassing has mostly been in these higher level discussions.
    Kowal2701 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.48.18.206

    [edit]
    Page semi-protected one week. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    82.48.18.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been IP-hopping, but seems to only be targeting this article. Dekimasu has protected it, and I believe that's the appropriate response. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: BishalNepal323

    [edit]
    Indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User @BishalNepal323 has repeatedly used AI to create pages [1] [2] [3] [4] and far far more. They have already been given a final warning [142] by @Est. 2021. Despite this, they have continued to go on with it, such as Draft:Banbasa Barrage (Mahakari or Sharda Barrage) where everything they've written is AI (submitted a day after the final warning). It is clear that this user has disregarded any warning. I have counted 15 articles of theirs moved to draftspace due to AI, and they have had 9/10 of their drafts denied. One of their articles has had a speedy deletion. They have been given at least 3 warnings now (I'm pretty sure it was more that I saw previously in edit history). Even Purnagiri Temple which is up has 100% AI text.

    The user has zero regard for Wikipedia and any sorts of warnings.

    Setergh (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LLM ridden content is usually not sanctionable. If the user is submitting the drafts through AFC reviewer then at the best it'll be declined. Publishing LLM generated articles outrightly to mainspace would have been a different case. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. I disagree with the comment above: although use of an LLM is perhaps acceptable in some situations, users are expected to take responsibility for any content that they submit. Mindlessly mass-submitting AI-generated articles without reviewing beforehand is akin to submitting a pile of trash and leaving AFC to sort out what is acceptable and what is not, and that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. They had already been warned appropriately and continued, so now they are blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block Rather than a pile of trash, it's closer to a pile of hoaxes that can fool the reviewers, as the articles can sound sensible while including false information. Dangerous to leave lying around. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mason54432 and social media election endorsements

    [edit]

    For the past month or so, this user has persistently added endorsements to the article on the upcoming Canadian election which are cited only to social media. Some examples: [143] [144] [145] [146] [147]. They have been repeatedly reverted and reminded by multiple users that citations by individuals must be cited to third party coverage of the endorsement (to demonstrate significance) and must be a clear and unambiguous endorsement (as a BLP issue), both per the endorsements guideline. They have ignored this advice and continue adding endorsements with citations only to Twitter, and restoring endorsements which were previously removed for the same reason, such as this one just a few minutes ago (which was added by an IP and reverted an hour or so before Mason54432 added it back).

    I am now proposing that Mason54432 be topic-banned from adding endorsements to this article, preferably indefinitely but at minimum until after the election on April 28 (one week from today). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From the guideline: "2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable sources, which may include the organization's own website or official social media accounts."

    At least Durham Regional Police Association and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2067 endorsements are their official social media accounts. For David Eby, the source has been changed to news article citation anyways. As for the random IP, I wasn't aware of that before adding it this is a baseless accusation assuming I have read all of edit history before adding content.

    If I am wrong just revert it there's no need to banning people from editing a specific topic as I was not edit warring or vandalizing. Mason54432 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych

    [edit]

    I'm kind of at a loss of how to proceed. Perhaps there is a better forum for this? I suppose this is a breakdown of the BRD cycle.

    I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [148], [149], [150] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

    First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[151] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [152] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[153] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [154] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [155] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

    Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [156] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [157] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [158], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

    In conclusion, I don't know how to engage with this user and need some help figuring out how to engage. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.
    he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.
    It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.
    It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .
    It's the opponent who returns [159] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby (t) (c) 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.
    On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [160][161][162] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.
    In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.
    Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.
    I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[163] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.
    I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your IP Block failed dismally old man, I'm way too tech savvy for you🤣🤣🤣. 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block attempts will fail like every other admin before you you may as well just block my entire City 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We could continue playing this game forever or we could come to a deal where my original account is unblocked, you should look at the reasons why I was blocked, it was because I opposed manyareasexperts nonsensical contribution to the BRICS article but if you don't want to unblock me then I will continue doing this for many years to come. 41.144.1.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I blocked any IPs, just some accounts. I guess a few IPs might have ended up autoblocked. Anyway, I've now put in place a couple of range blocks that might have an effect, and won't have much collateral - that might be more effective, I guess we'll see. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.
    ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.
    Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.
    All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accidentally misplaced. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    (edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise let's rap 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
      First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
      Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
      With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
      I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
      With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
      MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [164] [165] [166] [167] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
      @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
      @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.
      Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [173] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [174] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([175]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([176]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [177] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.
      Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.
      No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).
      With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.
      What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      concern with is a combative attitude
      I heard that. I would appreciate some examples of that, and how the communication could be done better. I need to learn a better more diplomatic approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Manyareasexpert You should consider some of the issues people have raised, such as: the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent", acknowledge that you brought up issues unrelated to the issues at hand, making dealing with the present issues raised more difficult and confusing, and acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence.
      Some behavior of other parties is also not great, however it's important not to get into the mindset of letting that justify substandard behavior in yourself. In general, if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation.
      There's also been a fair bit of miscommunication going on, more than people may realize (this is partially related to your level of ability in english). So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it.
      I hope you appreciate this advice. Like, I said, I think outlining where the way you've done things hasn't been great, and how you can do better in the future, would be a good idea. Tristario (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.
      I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.
      A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:
      However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.
      What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.
      Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.
      Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is valid discussion for a talk page and editors should be allowed to discuss it, without accusations of "Holocaust revisionism". I've already agreed with the questioned content removed.
      Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism?
      No, I asked [178] to check if the article contend corresponds to sources provided. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)      [reply]
      Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was).
      It's not just the Roman Shukhevych page. On a lot of articles on Ukrainian neo-Nazis (sorry, ultranationalist, far-right people and groups aligned with Nazi Germany or linked to Nazi ideology), you are there questioning sources or introducing sources that whitewash their Nazi connections:
    • Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B. On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert and then question the reliability of Le Monde. Another editor questions your motivations: if your claim is that Stepan Bandera was not Nazi collaborator, it is hardly tenable, as it was discussed here zillions of times.
    • Here you introduce a source that argues that "Slava Ukraini" is not a neo-Nazi salute "imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity" while at the same time arguing to remove statements that connect the salute with its fascist roots.
    • Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party).
    • Here you remove a Newsweek source titled "Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes" citing WP:NEWSWEEK as a reason to remove it, ignoring that it actually says "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
    • Here you argue for removing Nazi Germany as an ally of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
    • Here you start a discussion on the reliability of sources regarding the "controversies" of the 3rd Assault Brigade and when editors try to meet you half-way and address your concerns all you can say is "Perhaps...".
    And on and on...
    Your defense against allegations against you is to dig up previous disputes I and others have had with other editors and suggest that we're the problem and that we simply throw accusations around without good reason. This leads me to believe that you actually see nothing wrong with your behaviour and think that everyone else is the problem.
    Based on the evidence I laid out above, I think you are here on Wikipedia to whitewash far-right, ultranationalist, fascist (take your pick) people and groups, to remove information that links them to Nazi Germany and (neo-)Nazi ideology. For that reason you should receive a TBAN from any area where you might continue these efforts. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ... one of edits I would like to bring attention to is [179] , where the editor removes content referenced with UN, EU Council, ECHR reports, academic books, academic articles, instead adding WP:TASS, unknown "civic-nation.org" , WP:RIANOVOSTI and such, under the description of "sockpuppet account". How can I politely note that such an edit is not an improvement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic Ban

    [edit]

    This has been going on for some weeks now, and the current one vs. the world contest of wills does not seem to me to be accomplishing much at this juncture. There seems to be clear (indeed, pretty uniform, outside of ManyAreasExpert themselves) consensus that there are colourable concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism.

    These issues may very well have been resolvable short of a sanction, with proper discussion and engagement with community concerns, but I believe there is also an extremely clear consensus that MAE has themself consistently thwarted those avenues for resolution through an WP:IDHT attitude towards the concerns raised, compounded by efforts to evade scrutiny through abuse of process. Therefore, to bring this discussion around towards some sort of useful outcome rather than the unfocused castigation it is presently trending towards, I propose the following sanction:

    ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history, broadly construed

    SnowRise let's rap 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: per consensus by all respondents up until this point, up to and including Kowal2701's !vote, the original proposal has been amended to refine its focus. Additions appear in green. SnowRise let's rap 20:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MAE, for purposes of explaining the thinking behind this proposal, I'll just assume that you're correct about the assertion that most of your edits in this area are regarded as non-controversial and non-problematic by other editors of the related articles. I don't know that that is actually true, and I'm pretty sure the respondents here would not agree, but for the sake of argument let's take that truism. I believe that even if that concession were granted, consensus would still be that your tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits constitutes such a source of disruption and drain on community time and manpower (much of it from how you approach the criticisms raised and those who raise them) that allowing you to contribute in this area would still be a clear net negative. I don't think these issues can just be set aside because you are convinced your overall performance average is decent. SnowRise let's rap 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explanation, which is actually quite friendly.
    tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits
    Had to look it up, it means "fierce fighting". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MAE; I'm very gratified to hear that the observation was taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise let's rap 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN - holocaust denial and revisionism is a huge red flag for community, and the lack of real apology and willingness to address shortcomings in this thread sealed the deal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN although I'm not entirely sure about the proposed scope. "Modern European political organizations" is vague, with differing definitions of when modernity starts (and/or ends). Most of the problems on display also seem to narrowly concern Ukrainian history, or more broadly Eastern European history, rather than "European political organizations" writ large. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the battleground attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict expressed in this thread, and would thus want to consider a Jewish history scope as part of the proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I considered multiple variants of that last entry, as narrow as "Modern far-right European political organizations" and as broad as "modern political organizations". I believe the "broadly construed" probably removes any real concerns about the "when does the modern era start?" insofar as any broad definition of the modern era includes the entire period in which the Nazi party was created and rose to prominence (the 1920s and 30s) and thereafter. But I admit that leaves reasonable concerns about the scope. Having seen a lot of TBAN discussions, including those arising from editors playing at the edges of their ban, I felt it was best to prevent temptation by circumscribing all topic matter that might be reasonably connected to direct influence by Nazi ideology, and went as broad as I could without completely shutting MAE out of socio-political topics, which would be too broad in my opinion.
    All that said, I have absolutely no issues with anyone re-defining the focus of the proposal if there is even basic consensus for it. It should be changed sooner, rather than later, if it is to be changed, so as not to frustrate any eventual closure. SnowRise let's rap 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN with the wording of ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed per Rosguill. @Rosguill: does the clarification regarding the history topic work for you? {{ping|Snow Rise| @Simonm223: @Bluethricecreamman: does this tweak look alright to you?. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Snow Rise:. Curse you typo'd pings. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        works for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes this is fine as a refinement of the proposed ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I was uninvolved in the previous discussions, but as other editors have pointed out, restricting this to Eastern European political organizations post-1941 misses a big chunk of potentially problematic history. In the discussions mentioned above a prominent role is played by debates rergarding the Nazi ties of the OUN. One of our sources for that article, Per Anders Rudling's "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications", describes the group thus: Founded in 1929, the OUN was the largest and most important Ukrainian far-right organization. Explicitly totalitarian, the movement embraced the Führerprinzip, a cult of political violence, racism, and an aggressive anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of Ukrainian statehood at any price, and utilized assassination as legitimate means to this end. A typical fascist movement, the OUN cultivated close relations with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Falange, and the Croatian Ustaše. A footnote adds that Melnyk assured, in a May 2, 1939 letter to Joachim von Ribbentrop that his organization shared the Weltanschaaung [sic] of the National Socialists and Fascists, and offered to help in the ‘reorganization’ of Eastern Europe. In other words, not only did this organisation exist before 1941, but so did its racism and its ties (political and/or ideological) to Nazism, which are the core issue. With this in mind, the proposed cut-off year sounds both artificial and inadequate. Furthermore, from a more practical standpoint, this excessive tailoring of the TBAN could easily lead to future arguments over what exactly falls into the ban or how broad "broadly construed" really is, leading to more heat when what is intended is to lower the temperature, if only slightly, of a perennially hot topic. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know if it is appropriate for me to weigh in on potential sanctions, if it's not I'll strike this. But, I agree with this. I don't think the cut off year is clarifying, and I am not sure if OUN would qualify under the TBAN proposed. isa.p (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that works, although there is a far amount of redundancy among those topics. "Jewish history and Nazism" nominally covers all of it, although I know that sometimes we include extra prescriptions in order to preempt lawyering over gray areas. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's a workable solution, though it is worth noting that Nazi ideology was influencing central and eastern European groups (in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, for example) well before 1941. Still, those topics are probably covered by the rest of the wording? SnowRise let's rap 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Eastern European political organizations post-1941
      That means TB on Russia, Ukraine and related political parties and so on. A state is a political organization as well, right? Would editors please be so kind and post some disruptive diffs in the area so we can see the specifics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan with Bushranger's edits. I agree there's some redundancy in the proposed TBan range, but, other than for esthetics, I don't see any reason to fix that, and fixing while preventing loopholes may make the definition of the ban even longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN as Bushranger's proposal.
    Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NikeCage68 Disruptive Editing and no discussion or edit summaries.

    [edit]
    PBLOCKED
    Now in unblocks/edit requests queue. asilvering (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I tried to make an edit at List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers and was reverted by NikeCage68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, Talk:List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers#WADE & CHAPMAN, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page User talk:NikeCage68#List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers. Since leaving these they reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing?

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [187]
    2. [188]
    3. [189]

    I have had previous issues with the user not discussing, see [190], there response to this was by removing the request for discussion, [191], and ignoring me on Talk:List of 2024–25 Premiership Rugby transfers. I did not report this to AN/I or AN/3 then as they did no further reverts of my edits. This user also does not use edit summaries despite myself requesting them to do so. They have also previously been warned about possible Sockpuppetry. And multiple other users have requested them to engage in discussion and user edit summaries over the past years.

    I had previously posted this to WP:AN/3 but was advised it was more appropriate to post here. See [192] - SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor almost never uses talk pages, so your failure here is unsurprising. I'll pblock them from main for now, which will hopefully change the behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello asilvering and SimplyLouis27, first of all, I apologise for any misbehaviour and misunderstandings I was a part of with any regards to disruptive editing or edit warring for the last several days. The main reason is I am diagnosed with a learning disability from a young age and because of it, I have problems with communication skills with other editors. This is no lie and it is very hard to say I have a learning disability to other users online. I enjoy doing these edits .because they make me really productive. I do not understand much of the policies or guidelines when it comes to editing, I just follow the other users in how they edit. Every time an edit I done is reverted by another user for some reason, I get really annoyed because of my learning disability, so I ignore them no matter the reason whether I explained to to the user or for something else. I know it is an open policy for anyone to do edits on any page but I feel all the work I done, small or large, is all for naught. If you could unblock my account, I would appreciate that. From now on, I will be more careful and consider to other edits and be more open to communication with other editors on the edits made. Thank you for your time. NikeCage68 (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed your unblock request on your talk page. Some other admin will take action on it there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NikeCage68, I think 331dot wrote a very good decline of your unblock request and gave you a good suggestion. I'll close this thread for now and come by your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    From content dispute to vandalism

    [edit]

    User @FuzzyMagma: and I were having a content dispute about 2025 Omdurman market attack and RSF atrocities in Khartoum. User kept attributing those attacks to the RSF, despite them denied any involvement and accused the SAF instead. Both Amnesty International and the United Nations recognized that both parties are committing massacres and war crimes, with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also pointing out that Markets have frequently come under attack by both parties since the conflict began in April 2023. Despite that, the user kept removing any mention to these facts. I assumed good faith and informed him of my concerns on his talk page, from which we later moved the dispute to Talk:RSF atrocities in Khartoum. Meanwhile, things got worse. The user kept removing both the relevant content about the UN and the maintenance tags I had added to the page (without even mentioning that in his edit summaries), despite me advising him against doing that. I then warned him on his talk page too,[193] and all they did in response was vandalizing my talk page[194] (note that we can all play this game. you need to engage, as this is all a game to him) and repeatedly deleting both the content and the maintenance tags again, always without even mentioning that in his edit summaries. This doesn't look like a content dispute anymore, but more like a POV-pushing edit-war mixed with vandalism, and I'm not willing to engage into that further. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    let's breakdown this:
    I am really not sure what the editor is trying to achieve from this notice, especially when they refused to understand the context of their comment and source, quoting "we can't exclude the fact that RSF denied its involvement and accused the SAF.. I guided them to look at the War crimes during the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) (which I wrote) if they are interested in that but the RSF atrocities in Khartoum article is just about that, RSF and Khartoum.
    Can someone with some knowledge about the Sudanese Civil War please explain to them the source they are citing is irrelevant to the article ? Also they need to do some reading on MOS:ACCUSE and WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I will leave it to the community to decide. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also can I ask someone to have a look at 2025 Omdurman market attack, this editor is including the SAF as perpetrator (which I just removed) in the infobox although all reports (Aljazeera, france24, altaghyeer, BBC, Radio Dabanga, and The Guardian) are pointing to the RSF but this editor is goving the RSF denial and thier accusations of the SAF the same weight?
    I do not want to stretch Wikipedia:Competence is required, but if you don’t have knowledge about a topic, you should not really be that loud and should stop and listen. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    Blocked - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The above IP user has demonstrated a pattern of anti-trans and misogynistic editing, including the addition of transphobic slurs to article mainspace. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    doing a WP:AIV report here [195], that usually is proper forum for vandalism Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for a month. I agree with BTICM that AIV would be the spot for future situations like this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't much purpose in topic-banning an IP editor as their ip can change and enforcement is more difficult. Hard blocks are better. 206.83.103.251 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    See 1 and 2, with 2 coming after a warning. Separate from the legal threat, they're making a vague and unsupported misconduct accusation against "whoever wrote this article". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long-term abuse (gaming the Article for Creation process)

    [edit]

    82.46.25.83 has been gaming the Article for Creation process for a long time by removing the record of previous reviews (which says not to remove it) and resubmitting a draft, removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer, and repeatedly resubmitting Drafts with zero improvements. The IP address made zero efforts to ask for help.

    • [196] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [197] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [198] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [199] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [200] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [201] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [202] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [203] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [204] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [205] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)

    — YoungForever(talk) 22:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP also has a habit of repeatedly removing and restoring redirects over and over for seemingly no reason. When asked about it on their talk page, they've either silently removed the messages or provided complete non-answers. On its own it didn't strike me as enough to warrant reporting, but I think it highlights a pattern of disruptive behavior on top of YoungForever's issues.
    A few of the IP's sprees of removing and reverting. [206][207][208] Taffer😊💬(she/they) 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking this over, it appears that two actions should taken at about the same time. The IP should be blocked, and the drafts in question should be semi-protected to protect against IP hopping or the creation of throwaway accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. They've already been blocked four times before, so this one is for six months. Leaving the drafts where they are for now, partly because I don't want to bother and partly out of a morbid curiosity. If they start hopping around on other IPs ping me and I'll deal with the drafts too. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    might be worth salting the article space for those articles as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluethricecreamman wrote: might be worth salting the article space for those articles as well. Any protection of the titles in article space should be semi or ECP. I see too many titles in article space that are admin-protected due to disruption, and this makes it difficult for good-standing reviewers to review and accept good-faith drafts. Does Bluethricecreamman mean semi-protection in mainspace? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR issue with Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira

    [edit]

    Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is creating categories and redirects en masse with poor copy-paste edit summaries, such as "I decided to redirect this to the appropriate page..." despite warnings and messages on their talk page asking them to stop. A glance at their contribution history shows the dozens of new redirects for every individual Peppa Pig episode, creating within 2 hours. They have a tenuous grasp of the English language; they often respond to talk page messages with incoherent nonsense that doesn't address the original concern and change the subject. Their talk page is littered with editors asking them to stop their behavior and getting responses that play victim or don't acknowledge the actual issue (e.g. "please don't be rude," "don't make me cry", 1, 2). They don't understand that their behavior is disruptive (they keep insisting they're trying to help) and won't address anything. It's a very strong case for WP:CIR. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, s---! Are you talking about me because of my so-called exaggerations on this site?! So... Are you guys going to sue me?! Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is going to sue you. However, several people have been spending a lot of time trying to communicate with you, and have been understandably getting very frustrated. Communicating with others is a crucial part of Wikipedia, and it does not appear that you have sufficient fluency in the English language to meaningfully contribute here. There are many other Wikipedia editions, including Portuguese. You would also have a more satisfying experience editing a Wikipedia edition in a language you understand.
    (Machine translation): Ninguém vai processar você. No entanto, várias pessoas têm dedicado bastante tempo tentando se comunicar com você e, compreensivelmente, têm ficado muito frustradas. Comunicar-se com os outros é uma parte crucial da Wikipédia, e não parece que você tenha fluência suficiente na língua inglesa para contribuir de forma significativa aqui. Existem muitas outras edições da Wikipédia, incluindo a em português. Você provavelmente teria uma experiência mais satisfatória editando uma edição da Wikipédia em um idioma que você compreende. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried extensively to get through to them, without any success. I hate to block anyone who wants to edit in good faith, but at the same time, I agree there's a serious CIR issue, and I don't know what else to do. There's just too much of a language barrier. You can see it up and down their talk page. You try to tell them something, and they respond with something like "I'm having a nervous" and then continue on some random tangent. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have p-blocked them from mainspace as an interim step to encourage communication and limit disruption to the project. Star Mississippi 01:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at her Portuguese Wikipedia contributions, she has good command of the language. She is not proficient at editing, but knows wiki markup and can add a couple of bare references. She caused a lot of disturbance there too, when created many articles about children's cartoon episodes back in 2016–2017. Most were deleted and redirected. (Could it maybe be that she thinks the English Wikipedia needs such redirects?)
    She should just be very politely told to go back there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I see the problem here. Redirects from episode names to the list of episodes are...kind of what redirects are for? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{R from television episode}}, which may need to be DEFAULTSORTed, e.g. if there's a leading "A", "An" or "The". Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger issue has been that they've been quite prolific in creating redirects for things that weren't mentioned in the target at all, and its been difficult to tell if they were understanding of the problem. It's only recently that they've sort of "upgraded" to mass creating redirects that are more debatable in their usefulness - like creating The Lunch (Peppa Pig) that redirects to an episode list that says something like "The Lunch" - Peppa Pig packs a lunch and eats it." Is that a likely search term? And if it is, was that info actually helpful to the reader? Do these need to be mass created for every episode? I don't know. The problem is that its impossible to even discuss it with them.
    Anyways, a quick skim of their talk page should help you understand the variety of issues with the editor, and the constant struggle in trying to communicate anything with them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the main pain points is their edit summaries. Just scroll down this user's logs and you can see a copy-paste of "I wanted to create this category page... And so, what do you think about that?" hundreds of times, which are completely inappropriate as edit summaries. This was called out multiple times on their talk page: 1, 2, 3. Their response always something like "Oh s---! How nervous... thanks I guess" and then they go right back to doing that exact behavior. ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote a note to her explaining what she did wrong. (What I wrote may not be 100 % correct. I should have added: "The above comment may not reflect the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative corps." But anyway, I tried.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, their behavior with the edit summaries and elsewise does seem to be an issue. But the creation of the redirects themselves, at least at present, seems to me to be perfectly cromulent. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see... But I already wrote to her that the redirects and her "acting like an elephant in a china shop" were the reason she was blocked. (And her poor English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I showed her how to request an unblock. If she figures out how to use the unblock template, then you can maybe try unblocking her and see what happens. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were still right to say what you did. Even Bushranger conceded that there were other issues at play here, and I still stand by my statement that even if the recent redirects aren't seen as outright disruptive, it still isn't working out that it's impossible to hold much of discussion on them with Sarah. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and violation of 3RR in contentious topic by 2601:249:1B01:9890:9C3B:911A:B876:63EE

    [edit]
    IP BLOCKED 1 WEEK
    Gender issues warrior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2601:249:1B01:9890:9C3B:911A:B876:63EE is removing potential sources that satisfy WP:RS from the talk page of the article Samus Aran because in their opinion they are "lies" and "bullshit". All sources are linked to gender or trans issues. I have reverted them three times, and someone else has reverted them once. I can't revert them anymore without violating 3RR myself. The user was warned in an edit summary that further reversions would be reported. [209][210][211][212] Damien Linnane (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the /64 for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bananas1208

    [edit]
    BANANAS SPLIT
    Globally locked as LTA — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeatedly blanking the Pope Francis page. Please block.

    1. [[213]]

    Mikewem (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked by Joyous!. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of that user's edits look like they should be WP:REVDEL'd Kaotac (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically everything that is +1000 characters is just a page full of slurs. Kaotac (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One could say they went bananas. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But one wouldn't make such an awful pun, would one? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, I hope not! TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Violation of 'Never use another editor's signature'

    [edit]
    RESOLVED
    No, this is Patrick. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Patrick Welsh uses 'Patrick' as the name in his signature. This is my user name and signature name. He refuses to change it until confusion becomes more apparent (User talk:Patrick_Welsh#Your_signature), but I think it is inherently confusing, and preventing (further) confusion is preferable. - Patrick (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to have one or both of you customise your signature(s) to make them visually distinctive? FortunateSons (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who created the account later than the other should be the one to customise their signature, @Patrick should not have to do anything to their signature. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is breaking WP:CUSTOMSIG/P "Do not impersonate other users" as @Patrick registered their account some 8 years before the editor in question, although it doesn't seem like they're doing it in bad faith or with an agenda. @Patrick Welsh, just change your signature, it's not a big deal. Why invite sanctions on yourself over something so irrelevant? There are many ways you can still keep "Patrick" in your name by using markup: by adding icons, decorations, and so on. Right now the two signatures are identical and it is going to be confusing if you're ever in the same discussion. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think WP:SIGFORGE deals with a case like this because Patrick_Welsh is not impersonating Patrick—the problem is that they have visually identical signatures. Patrick_Welsh used a different visible signature a year ago (April 2024 example) so it seems reasonable that he should find a way to make it visually distinct. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a court of law, we don't need to prove mens rea to say the editor is breaking policy. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the perks of getting in early on a project such as Wikipedia is to "get" the preferred name. Names like user:Patrick W or user:Patrick W. are still available for a user name or signature (Patrick W looks pretty good, as an option, and you can redirect it to your Patrick Welch account). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) In fairness, it could be argued that some of the word choices in the policy are poor. 'Impersonation', by definition, is a deliberate act to deceive (whether for fun or fraud). As is 'forgery' (in the shortcut link). But that's really a discussion for another place and time.
    As you note, even accidentally and unintentionally confusing signatures are problematic. I can entirely understand the impulse to trim back one's signature to a functional minimum, and I can see how Patrick Welsh innocently and unintentionally constructed his signature. The fact that we are having this discussion indicates that Patrick's path has crossed with Patrick Welsh's, though, which means that the potential for confusion is established.
    Now that Patrick Welsh is aware of the problem, he is obliged to take steps to remedy it. He can choose to display his actual username in his signature (strongly recommended), or any other name that is not otherwise registered and which is not likely to be confused with another editor's. Since Patrick W seems reluctant to use his last name, I note that many options, including Patrick the Second (talk · contribs), Another Patrick (talk · contribs), or The other Patrick (talk · contribs), are available. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Patrick II? Or, ta da, just user:Pat (surprised 'Pat' is still available). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't, an account called Pat exists on de.wikibooks, SUL finalization in 2015 moved the local account called Pat to Pat~enwiki (talk · contribs). CutlassCiera 14:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

    I agree that Patrick Welsh should just change their signature, as Patrick has cited one instance of causing confusion. What's more worrying is Patrick Welsh doubling down and refusing to change it. Come on, it's not that big an issue, is it? Seriously, don't make anyone break out the banhammers for this, it causes more drama than it's worth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What is really worrying is that there are people who object so strongly to an editor doing something as reasonable as trying to sign with their real first name (like, say, Joe does), going as far as even mentioning banhammers. Editors have always had similar names and similar signatures (that's why we have WP:CONFUSED). It would indeed be preferable if the two editors could be more easily visually distinguished, so if one of them used bold or even white-on-black it would help, or signing with PatrickW or something like that. Even Patricktalk should be enough to not have the identical signature as the other Patrick. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree with Ritchie. Is it so difficult to change a signature when someone has said that it causes confusion? Let's just be nice to each other, rather than waste time on such a triviality. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Patrick Welsh was asked to stop abbreviating his name to "Patrick" in the first communication by Patrick; I find it totally reasonable to refuse this. The request should not be "stop using your first name" but it should be "can you try to have a signature that looks different from mine". —Kusma (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Patrick asked Patrick Welsh to stop abbreviating his name to "Patrick" in his signature, which was entirely reasonable, because it gave them identical signatures. I don't really think there's any confusion about what Patrick was asking for.
    And, for what it's worth, I would argue that it's insufficient for Patrick Walsh to only change the typeface or colour of their signature to 'look' different--because his signature would then still display a different editor's username. He needs to pick a text string that is unambiguously different from Patrick's username. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with TenOfAllTrades here. Patrick Welsh needs to not only change their signature so their signature looks different, but so it doesn't exclusively show the username of some other editor. While for better or worse, we except stuff like Joe Roe signing as Joe and JzG signing as Guy, that is only acceptable when someone visiting User:Joe or User:Guy will not end up on some other editor's user page (or likewise talk page). If Joe starts to edit here, then Joe Roe will need to change their signature and that would apply although Joe Roe has been signing like that long before Joe appeared here. If you want to use something else as your signature, you need to make sure it isn't someone else's username. If you don't do that, tough cookies if you're forced to change your signature. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also point out this is an example of why being silly just causes more trouble. If Patrick Welsh had worked with Patrick do change their signature in some way, they might have gotten away with something that while still likely to cause confusion, was enough to allay Patrick's concerns. Likewise while others of us may have remained concerned, we'd probably have let it slide. However since it's on ANI solely because of Patrick Welsh's refusal to take onboard legitimate concerns, it's quite reasonable for us to demand something more. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it's quite reasonable for us to demand something more
    That he places an emoji next to his name, to be determined by community consensus. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's like ten thousand socks, when all you need is ANI"

    I like this thread. Patrick said "I don't want people to feel like they have to be formal with me". This wish of informality caused formality. And both Patrick and Patrick have edited the Irony page, albeit more than 2 decades apart (beyond the reach of the Editor Interaction Analyser). Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wonder what would have happened if Patrick (the admin) hadn't come in so hot so quick? We'll never know. WP being the way it is, I've no doubt eventually someone will force Patrick (W) to change under threat of block, but it won't be me. TBH, if someone came to my talk page immediately acting like that, I'd have probably got my back up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this is a lot. I would like first to point out that admin User:Patrick did not even bother to tell me that someone might be waiting for a response to the ping he mistakenly received. That made it hard for me to read his demand as a good-faith request oriented towards making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Frankly, in fact, I would have expected this to boomerang. Admin Patrick created the issue, refused to drop it, and then escalated the matter here to waste your time as well as mine.

    I am also, by the way, concerned by the enthusiasm of User:TurboSuperA+ and User:Nil Einne, the latter of whom swung by my talk page to personally threaten support for an indefinite block.

    My thanks to those who took the time to express at least some sympathy. In the interest of preserving the peace, I have added a cat emoji to my signature.

    I hate to think how this situation would play out for someone with less of an edit history than me. Sheesh! Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    concerned by the enthusiasm of User:TurboSuperA+
    I never said you should be blocked. This was the "sanction" I proposed: "That he places an emoji next to his name, to be determined by community consensus." It looks like that's what you chose to do. I support your choice of emoji. TurboSuperA+(connect) 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. You posted four times here before I even had a chance to respond, and I thought you were also suggesting that you and the others here ought to decide what should go in my signature. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My "community consensus" remark was tongue-in-cheek. When I said you broke policy, it was to say that you should differentiate your username somehow rather than leave it as is (which you have done). Sorry if I came across harsh, that was not my intention. TurboSuperA+(connect) 19:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The way it would play out with most people with less of an edit history than you is that Patrick would have posted his message on the user talk page, the editor would have said "sorry, I didn't realise that that was someone's user name" and would have changed the signature without any need for anyone else to get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really want to continue arguing about this? I've already added a stupid cat emoji to my signature. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    Blocked — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    User:Dinesh Solanki 007 has made legal threats on Khodiyar: [214], [215]. Over half of the edit summary is in the Gujarati language, but the user states he will fill a First information report in the Crime Branch of the police. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Hello, I am here to report a disagreement, (i dont really understand the ANI)

    [edit]
    Consensus that this is a content dispute and as such not within the purview of WP:AN/I. (non-admin closure) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello, Admins I am Shaneapickle and I am just mediating this situation.

    So anyways, here is the situation, we have 2 users (i am trying to mediate this disagreement), Kajmer05 and MHD1234567890, MHD is claiming that Kajmer is going after kurdish nationalist pages, but when I asked him about it, he said that he did not do that,


    Here are the two talk pages i discussed with them.

    User talk:MHD1234567890#Hello, MHD1234567890

    and

    User talk:Kajmer05#Hello, I came here from MHD's page

    This has already turned into an disagreement due to MHD and Kajmer's claims against each other.

    I hope the admins will help to resolve this situation. Shaneapickle (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to intervene before this reached this page, but to no avail. Shaneapickle seems to be unwilling or unable to list even one page where this edit war is supposedly happening. I would suggest that this simply gets closed. Fram (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i did not know the correct term untill kajmer corrected me, its a dissagreement, not an edit war Shaneapickle (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dissagreement" in my eyes means this is just a content dispute and should be brought to the appropriate talk page or discussed with the disagreeing user or any of the slew of options at WP:DR before being brought to AN/I. I suggest this thread be closed unless there's a good reason to keep it open. Departure– (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 96.252.12.235

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    One month — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This IP has been making edits that do not align with consensus for music articles, including the one for Nevermind. They have received several warnings for their disruptiveness and lack of cooperation or comment, and given the amount of warnings over the last 30 days, I believe it's unlikely we'll see any real change from the user behind this IP. Carlinal (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please provide diffs? Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this IP's history, he's already caught a 2 week block in March for disruptive edits. Did not learn his lesson, it seems. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NPOV and Conduct Concerns on Homeland Party (United Kingdom) Article

    [edit]
    CONTENT DISPUTE
    Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.
    Try the article talk page first, then dispute resolution if you want to pursue this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'm raising this issue to request admin attention regarding persistent neutrality and conduct problems on the article Homeland Party (United Kingdom).

    Summary: Myself (user Ryan7856) and another editor, Teedubv5, have attempted to add neutral, sourced content to the article — including materials from The Telegraph and the Homeland Party’s official policy documents (e.g., their “Immigration & Remigration” paper, available at homelandparty.org). However, this content has repeatedly been removed, mostly by user User:Gotitbro', without proper discussion or explanation.

    Key Issues: Pejorative terms like fascist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist are used throughout the article without attribution or consistent sourcing. The article relies overwhelmingly on left-leaning or activist sources, such as Hope not Hate, Red Flare, The Ferret, and The Guardian, with almost no balancing input from neutral or mainstream publications. The party’s own platform and self-description are omitted entirely — despite being cited from official public documents. Neutral edits by Teedubv5 (backed by sources like The Telegraph) have been removed multiple times, even though they met verifiability and NPOV standards. Editor Gotitbro has shown signs of editorial gatekeeping and used dismissive language in Talk discussions, raising concerns about civility and neutrality.

    Request: We respectfully request that administrators: Review the article’s tone and sourcing for compliance with NPOV and undue weight policies. Evaluate the removal of sourced edits and whether it meets proper editorial standards. Consider a conduct review of user Gotitbro for behavior inconsistent with collaborative editing norms. Restore space for balanced discussion, including content from official sources and nonpartisan media.

    Thank you for your time and attention. — User:Ryan7856

    What's that smell? It's the smell of a LLM in use... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I love the smell of ChatGPT in the morning.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the beloved em-dash. (does it need renamed "LLM-dash"?) Ryan, I am no admin but I suggest you please read WP:LLM. While an essay, it pretty much sums up community norms regarding LLM usage on Wikipedia. — EF5 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, and meanwhile "Ryan" has edited the Homeland page precisely once, which was to try and remove the link with Patriotic Alternative, presumably not liking the link between Homeland and an openly fascist party (instead of, as Homeland are, a fascist party with a cheery face and a nice website). Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, this is a content dispute, although in this case, one that the filer isn't going to win. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Axel1382004

    [edit]
    REVERSE COPYVIO
    No admin attention currently needed here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Axel1382004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User Axel1382004 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been making new pages, often unsrouced, but repeatedly completed copyright violations despite being previously warned. The pages that I have tagged are Jurisprudence Gustav Klimt and Philosophy Gustav Klimt but their talk page also lists prior warnings for the same concern. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So it seems I didn't have the full picture with respect to the CSD tags, mea culpa. Interested editors may view the discussion about attribution on my talk page § Speedy deletion declined: Philosophy Gustav Klimt. The editor has not created any new unreferenced pages since my filing here so I doubt this matter can be considered "urgent" anymore. I hope that they have developed a better understanding of the policies from the respective warnings or would be willing to respond to their talk page messages in the future. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2603:7000:2702:425:D14C:7150:77F:AC06

    [edit]

    2603:7000:2702:425:D14C:7150:77F:AC06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The IP address that includes 2603:7000:2702:425:D14C:7150:77F:AC06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been constantly edit warring people, including myself, on Sinners, adding Li Jun Li's name to the infobox, even though the official billing block has come out, and Li is not involved in it whatsoever. Additionally, whenever the edits are reverted with proof to back up the real billing block, they keep accusing the person (including me) of having an agenda, despite having read the policy on personal attacks. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mothupikabelo258

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    WP:CIR — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It seems to me that User:Mothupikabelo258 should get a WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE block. Of their 93 edits since November 2024, only 8 are live at the moment, and 6 of these are to 3 new articles nominated for speedy deletion. They haven't contributed anything of actual value, just wasting time of new page patrollers and admins. Fram (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It would appear that the language of the now deleted Afrika Borwa ya lehono was Northern Sotho or possibly Southern Sotho, if that's any help. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Google translate figures it's Sepedi. They appear to have found that Wikipedia today, so hopefully they'll stick to it. -- asilvering (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BenjaminG234

    [edit]
    Speculation without any real evidence by an editor who said "I prefer not to engage directly with this individual" (who they have never interacted with), so they have not discussed this with the editor first, nor have they put a note about this ANI on their talk page (despite the big box at the top and my reminder in this section).
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    I would like to report the user BenjaminG234, whose contributions appear suspicious and potentially paid, seemingly in favor of French brands.

    The most revealing example can be found on the French Wikipedia, on the page about the brand Cimalp on fr.wp: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimalp&client=webapp

    On the English Wikipedia, their edits are more cautious but still appear promotional, in my opinion: Contributions on en.wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BenjaminG234

    The user was already warned by @Gheus right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BenjaminG234

    Thank you in advance for your attention and your opinion on this matter

    Best regards Wikihydro (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems more like an extremely harsh block on frwiki than any actual evidence of paid editing. They seem to have an interest in (winter) sporting brands across multiple companies, having edited Artengo and Cimalp here, and additionally Rossignol and Bollé on frwiki. The chance that all are actually paying one editor to create and edit articles for them seems very slim. That new editors apply a too promotional tone for things they are interested in is not evidence of being a paid editor but a fairly common occurence.
    I could just as easily say that your behaviour is suspicious: with only ten edits here, just one to mainspace, and none this year, you suddenly feel the need to report this editor (whom you haven't contacted about this discussion, please do so ASAP). Why? Fram (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    Thank you for sharing your point of view.
    Personally, I remain skeptical about their intentions. For example, on the Italian and German Wikipedias, their contributions (always about the same brands, of course) have been considered potentially paid.
    As for me, I don't contribute—or only very little—to Wikipedia, it's true, but I’m increasingly bothered by companies that manipulate the encyclopedia (I read it a lot).
    Since I came across a discussion on this topic on the French-speaking Discord, I thought I should report it on en.wp
    I prefer not to engage directly with this individual and trust the administrators to assess their intentions.
    Kind regards
    Wikihydro (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Popward123 - no edit summaries

    [edit]

    Despite multiple requests on their talk pages from several editors - this editor continues not use edit summaries for their edits. (Diffs of requests / reversions 1 2 3 4) It is tiresome to have to manually check diffs of their edits to see what changes they have done. I am under the impression that edit summarises are not optional (WP:FIES), and therefore query what the next step for an editor (one with over 4,000+ edits) who continues not to use edit summarises is. I hope this will strongly encourage them to consistently use edit summarises going forward. Turini2 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summaries are strongly encouraged but not required. FIES is a help page and specifically says it is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. Unless you have something else to complain about, there's nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And the lack of communication? Umpteen messages on the talk page, not one reaction… Danners430 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user doesn't talk. That is always a problem because this is a collaborative project, but to sanction them, someone has to provide diffs of disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - if we set aside the edit summaries for a minute, and give an example of some of the other problematic behaviour we've seen:
    Edit warring at Central Line (London Underground):
    • Made several edits
    • Was reverted by @Murgatroyd49
    • Popward then restores his version with the summary I put that the Central line runs from West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway in West London.
    • They are once again reverted.
    • Popward then proceeds to make a very similar edit with the summary I just added that that line runs through Central London.
    • Once again, they are reverted
    • Popward yet again attempts to make exceedingly similar edits with the summary I just added that the line runs from West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway in West London.
    • They are finally, and yet again, reverted and the edit warring stops.
    This all played out over 4 days... and the reason I bring it up is it's a recent example of this editor ignoring other editors, and just carrying on pushing their own edits.
    A quick glance at a filtered Contributions page (has mw-reverted applied) shows just how many of this user's edits have been reverted in a very short period of time. Various editors have tried to engage them on their talk page, but nothing has happened... are we to keep following them around in the knowledge that we're likely going to have to inspect each and every one of their diffs because a) it could be unhelpful, and b) is not explained? Is that not the definition of a net negative editor?
    If the user engaged with the concerns raised on their talk page instead of refusing to engage, this could change - I don't like editors being blocked any more than the next person... but if things don't change, why are we wasting our time following them around inspecting diffs? Danners430 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "strongly encouraged but not required" ≠ "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page" ? Turini2 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the Wikipedia:Consensus page ("This page documents an English Wikipedia policy") states "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page."
    In my opinion, explaining your edits is part of a core Wikipedia policy – not just guidance or a help page. Turini2 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your opinion were correct, we'd be blocking a helluva lot of editors. Consensus is in keeping with the Help page, the key word being "should" not "shall" or "must", i.e., it's a good idea. Another thing: how would you handle users who use edit summaries that don't really explain their edit? Would that satisfy policy (if there were one)?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure - there's one thing of occasionally forgetting an ES (I'm certainty guilty of that) or writing a poor quality ES – but consistently providing none at all? There's zero consequences for that? Turini2 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23, every single one of their last 50 edits was reverted, and they've only ever made 1 edit to a talk page in their entire edit history. That's more than enough for me to pblock from main, so I'll do that. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @asilvering: To be clear, the link that Danners430 provided above leads to a filtered Contributions page that has the mw-reverted tag filter applied; while 50 reverted edits in the span of less than a month is a lot, it's not as bad as every single one of their last 50 edits. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I did try to make that clear when I wrote my message - I was using the filter to show the extent of their disruptive editing. Obviously not all of it is… but when someone has that level of reversions, surely patience runs out when they’re refusing to engage? Danners430 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, thanks for pointing that out, @DrOrinScrivello. I must have forgotten I had opened that link (their contributions page is also the visited-link colour for me). I'd lift the block, but... unfortunately, in the meantime they've edited their own talk page in a way that suggests to me we're headed for an indef anyway, so I'll leave it for now and see how this plays out. @Danners430, it was probably an oversight on my part for having too many browser tabs open and clicking back to the wrong one, but if you wanted to make your original link more clear, putting "a filtered" and "page" into the hyperlink rather than just "Contributions" would have helped. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As with any such issue, it’s no one person’s fault - I’ve made the suggested adjustments above… and I’ll try and remember to do them if there’s a next time :) Danners430 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll use edit summaries from now on. Popward123 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popward123, that's good to hear, but can you also address some of the editing issues? You've gotten into edit wars with other editors over your changes. What will you do instead to avoid that happening again? -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SergeWoodzing

    [edit]

    User:SergeWoodzing and I have had a dispute for over a month, starting as a dispute over if an image should be included in an article.

    It started as a dispute on whether or not an image should be included on the Wikipedia page for One Direction; I have been rehauling it extensively since January 2025 and on the PR, a user suggested that I remove an image of the band waving at fans in Stockholm (see here for suggestion, here for image). I agreed and decided to remove it. Serge added it back, believing the removal to be a mistake, and I reverted his edit, explaining why that image in particular was removed. Serge started a discussion on the article talk page on whether or not the image should be added; I went to 3O, got 2 opinions, got one from either side. Then went to the dispute resolution board, ended up with it being closed due to a lack of comment.

    Throughout our entire interactions, I feel like Serge fails to assume good faith towards me. I decided to come here because I really don't know how to communicate further, as Serge left me this comment on my talk page which straight up baffles me.

    • "what more can I do?" - you can refain from calling me or anyone else "Dude", for starters. - Ok, I'm sorry about that; I don't add words like 'dude' in a passive aggressive way or anything, I add it to lighten the tension. It's just how I normally speak.
    • "I really don't mean to be rude or anything" mm hm - This just straight up assumes bad faith towards me. I genuinely am not trying to be rude, I've been trying to solve this dispute but nothing seems to be working.
    • When one assumes "everyone moved on" and takes advantage of that by trying - again! - to get ones own way despite discussion, one leaves onself open for justifiable criticism re: being sneaky, to say the least. - Again, this just seems like bad faith against me; I'm not trying to be sneaky, but since the dispute resolution request was closed and there was no comment for almost a month, yes, I assumed that everyone moved on. I took a break from the article in that time. I actually added the image back when I returned to the article, however, removed it again as the first comment on the FAC also brought up the issue of the image's blurriness.
    • The only thing I might claim to own is many years of extensive insight, after a few years of trial-and-error of my own, into how things are done here and how they are not. Some of your behavior, in trying to do good work, unfortunately has ended up in the latter of those two distinctions. - I'm sorry, but I'm learning everyday and don't know exactly how or how not things are done here to a tea. I also don't see how this is relevant to the issue of the image.

    Now, I'm not entirely sure if the issue is so much the image than just with me. I feel like Serge assumes bad faith towards me, seen in the message he sent me above. He also left this comment on the article talk page which is just so condescending. I'm a volunteer like you, Serge; I don't seek fights, and I know I'm not the pinnacle of wisdom. Hell, I wasn't even a year old when your account was created. I just want to move on from all of this and get a clear consensus once and for all.

    TL;DR: I believe this editor is assuming bad faith towards me and borderline harassing me. jolielover♥talk 12:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RE Serge's comment on the article talk page: I also want to add that Serge seems to doubt the article has improved overall since I started working on it, which I think is quite silly. A comparision of it before and after I started editing it shows a lot of positive changes have been made, like swapping out unreliable sources. They also snarkily suggest I've downgraded the article. I just can't get this kind of blatant bad faith towards me. jolielover♥talk 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jolielover, this is a content dispute and I see nothing in SergeWoodzing's comments that cross the line into sanctionable behavioral problems. I agree with you that the Stockholm image is mediocre. However, you have been unable to gain consensus to remove it. I suggest that you move on. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even care about the image, like I said, I added it back initially. It's just his repeated bad faith comments towards me that bothers me and his blatant refusal to communicate effectively. jolielover♥talk 17:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Cullen328 that there is nothing actionable. Also, I'd like to point out the discussions regarding this image, both at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 256#One Direction and Talk:One Direction#Stockholm image. Seeing the full discussion in context reinforces the finding of lack of inappropriate behavior by SergeWoodzing.
    I suggest dropping this, move on, and focus on improving Wikipedia. Also, assume good faith in future discussions with SergeWoodzing as you do with other editors. In any disagreement, stepping back and taking a calming break when you are upset about something aids in participating calmly in disputes. Both of you are working to improve the article; you simply have different viewpoints. And your viewpoint may not always be the 'winner' in a disagreement. That's normal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...so I'm the only one who should assume good faith, when I've been doing nothing but that to this day, only for Serge to accuse me of being rude and not actually assuming good faith, accuse me of edit warring over one (1) edit, accusing my edits as being 'sneaky' whilst outright refusing to listen to any of the explanations I have provided? I mean, Serge accused me of promoting Madame Tussauds due to one image of it being in the article, which I didn't even add, mind you. Any type of conversation I try to have with him just ends with no resolution. I'm not some master manipulator, secretly plotting and timing my edits meticulously, I'm a high school girl trying to make the Wikipedia page for my favourite boy band better (mine you, when that image in question was taken, I couldn't even speak English lol). I've tried to explain several times but Serge just can't seem to get it - for instance, I tried to explain that the previous 'image' section did not just 'disappear', but was merged onto the legacy section as many parts overlapped or were redundant. I don't know why, for instance, Serge takes me calling him dude as such a big offense - ok, i'm sorry, but English is not my first language and I thought it sounded friendly. I call my friends that. He hints at the article not being improved at all, I suggest more editors have a look to see if those of you interested and involved actually think the article overall is being improved. I stopped already at the third sentence.... I've dedicated hours to improving this article, for someone to hint that they think otherwise despite only stopping at the third sentence. I'm willing to make changes, but I need someone to actually communicate what those changes they want are. And, again, I don't think anyone owns an article, but i do think it's ridiculous given I've authored majority of it and Serge has like 4 edits, all minor.
    I don't know if this is a contributing factor to his insistence about the image (if it's still about that at this point), but he's the one who uploaded it and added it all those years ago. I also should note that despite Serge claiming I waited a month to change an item back to what I wanted, the page did not have the image for a month, I added it back since I wanted the dispute to be over with and respected Serge's opinion, only for another comment at FAC complaining about the quality of the image, so hence I removed it again. Not because I was trying to be 'sneaky'. jolielover♥talk 18:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jolielover, you are now being argumentative, which is not a good look. I suggest that you stop now. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding by Leechjoel9 in a contentious topic

    [edit]

    User:Leechjoel9 has been consistently monitoring my edits and reverting whatever edits on the Eritrea article [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222], among on other articles that I've made since September 2024, a brief look at his edit history all but confirms it. Now that he noticed I planned to retire he seems to have decided to strike, and deleted a large chunk of my work from various Eritrean related pages. Most notably, he consistently accuses me of being a sockpuppet, I believed this is out of revenge for a previous dispute we had in September 2023 which led to both of us getting blocked (me for 42 hours and him for around a month if I recall), during this period he has opened several SP investigations to get me banned [223] [224]. I think that he is too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think his history of blocks and behavior above show that he is not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, he needs to be prevented from constantly deleting large sections of my work for no apparent reason. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting edits on the grounds that you're a sockpuppet is obviously out of line. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Socialwave597, has Leechjoel9 gone on a similar reverting spree of your edits before? I didn't notice it in a quick skim. I don't mean edit wars in general, but the kind of thing that appears to be happening now, where after a time a bunch of your edits are all reverted at once. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering He went on a similar revert rampage as early as May 2024[225][226]. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leechjoel9 please explain your conduct. Gommeh (T/C) 19:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor doing mass creation of articles with AI

    [edit]

    Eurspar is a new editor who began producing articles last month. Since then, they have created 27 articles (two of which I have draftified). These articles largely pertain to atrocities, particularly Nazi actions, or medieval battles. Some are clearly written using AI, with characteristic formatting and verbiage evident on Vladivostok uprisings, German–Polish War (1007–1013), and Honchyi Brid Massacre. Especially concerning from a CIR perspective is the draftified Eastern Orthodoxy in Nazi Germany, which is not about the supposed subject of the article and was illustrated with an image of an Orthodox Jew. I would encourage draftifying the other AI-written articles and possibly imposing a mainspace block until the editor has demonstrated competency within draft submissions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any acknowledgement on their end of their problematic page, but I do see this at Special:Diff/1287033831 - Pages getting banned without any reason, Well done mods. There's also Special:Diff/1286822096, adding a link to Fascist at the top of their userpage, which could be argued as worthy of WP:HID or WP:No Nazis if it's anything but a formatting test. I think they should at least be blocked from making new articles until they respond here. Definitely feeling a few notes of trolling here. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hadn't noticed the Fascist thing—thanks for catching that. That strikes me as almost certainly an attempt to troll rather than an earnest self-description, given the content of their edits. Still indicates disruptive tendencies, of course. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some are machine translations (like the biographies), others AI. The four listed above did not correspond with human-written articles on other Wikis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed, "German–Polish War (1007–1013)"" (redirected by you) is different from "pl:Wojna polsko-niemiecka (1007–1013)". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and "Draft:Honchyi Brid Massacre" is different from "uk:Трагедія села Гончий Брід". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The line between machine translation and AI is becoming more and more blurry by the day. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at "Draft:Eastern Orthodoxy in Nazi Germany".
    I don't think a book titled "The Nazi State and the New Religion" authored by Friedrich Wilhelm even exists. (And "Friedrich Wilhelm" doesn't look believable.) I have actually found a book titled "The Nazi State and the New Religion", but it is written by Richard Bessel.
    And this one doesn't seem to exist → Laqueur, Walter (1999). The Church and the Nazis. Penguin.
    So, yes, this page was almost surely written by AI and should be just deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1287083135"